Posted on 07/28/2017 7:46:48 PM PDT by springwater13
The evidence that has emerged from this meeting strongly suggests that this was not an effort to establish a secure back channel for collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign but an influence operation with one simple objective: to undermine the presidential election.
Sophisticated Russian intelligence tradecraft that was meant to be kept secret would not have permitted such an insecure opening gambit for establishing continuing communication with the Trump campaign. They would not have used something as insecure as email, or relied on liaison cutouts who could so easily be traced to the Kremlin. Instead, the Russians who attended the meeting had obvious Kremlin ties, including Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Moscow lawyer who has done work on behalf of the F.S.B.; Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist who served in the Soviet military; and Mr. Agalarov, whose father is a real estate titan close to Mr. Putin.
I can’t say how news of the meeting broke, but once it did, Mr. Putin achieved one of his goals: throwing the American government into greater turmoil amid the frenzied media coverage, escalating F.B.I. and congressional investigations and intensified political conflict. And with the revelation that Russia was behind the meddling, Mr. Putin achieved another objective: to allow Russia, despite its economic and military inferiority, to claim that it could rival the United States on the global playing field. He could do all this while denying, with a wink and a nod, any involvement.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I’ve never heard anything but whining about RT and the existence of the internet this whole time anyway.
So then we can stop the special council? Apparently there is no need for it.
After nine months of searching, Trump’s enemies haven’t uncovered a single shred of evidence the Russians changed votes from Hillary in his favor.
All of they have are a pile of baseless assertions they laughably call “evidence.” Its a fallacy called “begging the question” since the conclusion is the same as the premise.
Then again, this never was about Russia. This is about the legitimacy of Trump’s win and the Deep State’s inability to accept him as President.
What hasn’t died is “collusion” as cover for illegal surveillance of your political enemies. Using intel agencies to do the dirty work, and using quasi-legal surveillance as cover for other more directly illegal surveillance.
What hasn’t been admitted yet is that Obama (and the people he fronts for) always have the goods on his rivals. Phones are tapped, sealed records unsealed, firewalls breached, whatever it takes. It is his MO from the very beginning. Congressmen, journalists, rival politicians, it doesn’t matter, he has them investigated and surveilled. Some kind of legal veneer can be applied later, or you use people at arms length who can be denied, or you simply deny all knowledge even though they are on your payroll.
Of course not. Deep State operative Mueller must keep digging until he finds some fake dirt to launch a coup d’état over.
RCC: Russian Clinton Conspiracy
“Daniel Hoffman, a former chief of station for the C.I.A., worked for over 30 years for the United States government in Russia, Europe, the Middle East and South Asia.”: The opinion piece sounds like an effort to concede there was no collusion while still diverting attention away from the Democrats’ connection to Fusion GPS.
My theory all along has been this: the Russians, like almost everyone else, expected Hitlery to win. Their efforts were to weaken Hitlery before the election as much as possible in order to weaken her status in office.
So Trump and the Russians both targeted Hitlery. No collusion just a common enemy.
To the degree the Russians also engaged in ways to denigrate Trump, like that hooker dossier, I would say it was just a bit of distraction.... they hit on Trump a little bit just to cover their bases...but he was NEVER “supposed” to win.
“No conclusive proof has yet emerged that the Kremlin arranged this meeting”
I like how they slip in these no proof deals. I wonder if the nyt is trying to get ahead of something coming down the road that is not good for the dimoKKKRATS?
NYT is running for the reputation lifeboats. I think they finally realize this whole thing is going to explode and a lot of Democrats are headed toward the unemployment line if they don’t wind up in jail.
Perhaps the other question to ask here....did the US collude in the 2011 Russian legislature election? The general evidence is ‘yes’.
Friday night dump by the NYT?
Ping for future reference
I never thought I'd see the day. In fact, there was a time not long ago that Democrats in this country would have found even the idea of having a dozen U.S. intelligence agencies repulsive.
There is plenty of need for investigations. Only it's the democrats who need to be investigated.
Bwahahahaa-hahaha... that's cuz Pootie Poot wasn't a U.S. Secretary of State or the World's Smartest Woman TM!
1. The Russians never meddled in any election.
2. They simply dealt with U.S. political campaigns the same way they've been doing it for years.
3. Hillary Clinton, the Democrats, a bunch of establishment Republicans, and their media flacks fabricated a story out of thin air about "Russian interference in the election."
4. The U.S. government is paralyzed by a story that is completely false, and was a construct of a bunch of @ssholes in Washington.
5. Therefore (somehow), the Russians successfully undermined the public trust in the U.S. election system.
WTF? Is this guy really blaming the Russians for all of the stupidity we've seen in Washington over the last seven months? LMAO.
I wonder if this story was leaked to the NYT by someone on the special counsel? Also you will notice it is a Friday night dump where it will do the least damage.
The SlimNYT has always been colluding with the CPUSA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.