The following comes from the Wall Street Journal:
Learning that hacker “Guccifer 2.0” had tapped into a Democratic committee that helps House candidates, [Florida Republican political operative Aaron] Nevins wrote to the hacker to say: “Feel free to send any Florida based information.”
Ten days later, Mr. Nevins received 2.5 gigabytes of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee documents, some of which he posted on a blog called HelloFLA.com that he ran using a pseudonym.
Soon after, the hacker sent a link to the blog article to Roger Stone, a longtime informal adviser to then-candidate Donald Trump, along with Mr. Nevins’ analysis of the hacked data.
Now before we all go absolutely nuts, let’s remember that Guccifer 2.0 did not represent (him)self as a composite personality of Russian intelligence officers. In fact, the people who created Guccifer 2.0 attempted, awkwardly and unconvincingly, to deny that they were anything other than a solo Romanian hacker.
On June 21, 2016, in an interview with Vice “Guccifer 2.0” stated that he is Romanian. On June 30, 2016 and January 12, 2017, “Guccifer 2.0” stated that he is not Russian. However, despite stating that he was unable to read or understand Russian, metadata of emails sent from Guccifer 2.0 to The Hill showed that a Russian-language-only VPN was used. When pressed to use the Romanian language in an interview with Motherboard via online chat, “he used such clunky grammar and terminology that experts believed he was using an online translator.”
The Democrats asked the Republicans not to exploit the information that had been hacked from their databases and emails but the Republicans couldn’t resist. Yet, that doesn’t mean that they understood the true origin of the information they had received.
What’s proven here is that the Russians shared information with Republican operatives with the purpose of assisting them in winning the presidential campaign. What’s not proven is that the Republicans who received this information and exploited it were witting participants in a Russian influence campaign. At least initially, the recipients would not necessarily have had any special knowledge about the true nature of Guccifer 2.0. As Mr. Nevins states, “If your interests align, never shut any doors in politics.” Even to this day he claims he’s not totally convinced that the Russians were his source, and while that may be self-serving in the present it is more plausible when we go back to how it all began.
“I just threw an arrow in the dark,” Mr. Nevins said in an interview, adding he set up a Dropbox account so whoever was using the Guccifer 2.0 name could send large amounts of material. Later, going through what the hacker sent as someone who “actually knows what some of these documents mean,” the GOP consultant said he “realized it was a lot more than even Guccifer knew that he had.”
…DCCC documents sent to Mr. Nevins analyzed specific Florida districts, showing how many people were dependable Democratic voters, how many were likely Democratic voters but needed a nudge, how many were frequent voters but not committed, and how many were core Republican voters—the kind of data strategists use in planning ad buys and other tactics…
…In hopes of a scoop, he said, he reached out to Guccifer 2.0 on Aug. 12 after seeing a newspaper article about a hack of the DCCC. The hacker using the Guccifer 2.0 name had invited journalists to send questions via Twitter direct messages, which Mr. Nevins did.
Seeing that some of what Guccifer 2.0 had was months old, Mr. Nevins advised the hacker that releasing fresher documents would have a lot more impact.
More impressed after studying the voter-turnout models, Mr. Nevins told the hacker, “Basically if this was a war, this is the map to where all the troops are deployed.”
At another point, he told the hacker, “This is probably worth millions of dollars.”
“Hmmm,” Guccifer 2.0 responded. “ok u owe me a million :)”
Democrats, Mr. Nevins wrote, “spent millions probably to figure out who these people are that are conducive to their message and now it’s exposed for the other side.”
This is most definitely collusion or cooperation, but it isn’t the kind of witting collusion that people are rightly so concerned about. However, let’s look into how Roger Stone fits into this timeline. Remember, Mr. Nevins contacted Guccifer 2.0 on August 12th to ask for more recent information.
8/8/16 | Stone tweets that he had recently had dinner with Nigel Farage (since Brexit vote) | link |
8/8/16 | The Smoking Gun dates Stone’s “I actually have communicated with Assange” speech to this day, not the 10th | link |
8/8/16 | Politico dates Stone’s “I actually have communicated with Assange” speech to this day, not the 10th | link |
8/10/16 | Stone tells a local Republican Party group in Florida “I’ve actually communicated with Julian Assange.” | link |
8/12/16 | Stone believes Assange has emails deleted by Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills | link |
8/12/16 | Guccifer 2.0 tweets “@RogerJStoneJr thanks that u believe in the real #Guccifer2.” | link |
8/12/16 | Guccifer 2.0 releases the cellphone numbers and email addresses of almost all of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, | link |
8/12/16 | ThreatConnect announces that DC Leaks appears to be linked to Russian intelligence services. | link |
8/13/16 | Stone tweets that Guccifer 2.0 is a “hero.” | link |
8/14/16 | Stone engages in direct messages with DNC hacker Guccifer 2.0 | link |
8/14/16 | The New York Times shows that $12.7 million in cash was earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned Party of Regions. | link |
8/15/16 | Stone tells World Net Daily he communicated with Assange and forthcoming material will be related to the Clinton Foundation. | link |
8/16/16 | Stone tells Alex Jones he has “backchannel communications” with Assange who has “political dynamite” on the Clintons. | link |
8/17/16 | Bannon and Conway promoted | link |
8/18/16 | Stone says in interview on C-SPAN he’s in touch with Assange “through an intermediary—somebody who is a mutual friend.” | link |
8/19/16 | Manafort resigns | link |
8/21/16 | Stone claims he was hacked after speaking with Assange. | link |
8/21/16 | Stone says on The Blaze radio that he had “communicated” with Assange through a “mutual acquaintance.” | link |
8/21/16 | Stone tweets that “it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel.” Stone later says his tweet was about Podesta’s business dealings. | link |
8/21/16 | Stone denies Guccifer 2.0 is connected to the Russians on local Maryland radio. | link |
To me, that timeline is a blazing five-alarm fire and I’m sure the FBI has been rooting around in that two-week span very aggressively. What did Roger Stone actually understand in real time? Who was his “mutual acquaintance” with Julian Assange? Did he really not know that the Guccifer 2.0 he was interacting with on Twitter and getting information from through Mr. Nevins was also the source of Assange’s dirt on John Podesta and the DCLeaks information? Why do all these threads intersect with Stone on or about August 12th?
You want to know what also happened on August 12th? DCLeaks released “roughly 300 emails from Republican targets, including the 2016 campaign staff of Arizona Senator John McCain [and] South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham” who were both vociferous opponents of Donald Trump. It shouldn’t shock you that McCain became a source for Christopher Steele’s “dodgy dossier” or that Graham is using his subcommittee chair on Judiciary to hound Trump. They know they were targeted right along with the Democrats.
Mr. Nevins was probably no more than an overeager warrior in the presidential race who saw an opportunity to gain an advantage. We don’t have to approve of what he did to acknowledge that it probably wasn’t criminal. But Roger Stone is another matter. I’m not willing to concede that he was similarly unwitting. As far as I am concerned, he has a lot of explaining to do about who he was talking to and who he thought he was talking to.
And let’s not forget that Trump asked the Russians to do more hacking. So, when they obliged it really shouldn’t have been such a mystery about who was behind it.
Boman…
As you say, “Now before we all go absolutely nuts, let’s remember that Guccifer 2.0 did not represent (him)self as a composite personality of Russian intelligence officers.” Or so we are told.
Told by whom?
By the Wall Street Journal???!!!
Talk about going absolutely nuts!!!
I can’t read the link because I refuse to pay them to lie to me, but…who is the owner of that rag, again? Who? Say it a little louder, please. Who? Rupert Murdoch? Oh. Nevermind. Thank you so much!!! You might as well reference Breitbart while you’re at it.
We are lost in a sea of possible lies, surrounded by nothing but “informed conjecture.”. No “proofs,” whatsoever. Nary a one. All conjecture.
We are told that “In fact, the people who created Guccifer 2.0 attempted, awkwardly and unconvincingly, to deny that they were anything other than a solo Romanian hacker,” and later that:
Yet every time we turn around, we are reminded of the amazing abilities of these Russian spies. Is it not possible that someone…someone who wanted people to think that this was a Russian plot…faked being Romanian and purposely used such “…clunky grammar and terminology that experts believed he was using an online translator?”
Duh.
That’s just Spook 101.
And what kinds of “experts” were these unnamed entities who decided…or didn’t decide, I am no longer sure of anything…that Guccifer 2 was (or wasn’t) whatever he, she, them or it claimed to be?
Were they anything like the ones who were (possibly but not certainly) “duped” by the Iraqi spy nicknamed “Curveball” into believing that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled loads of WMDs as the neocons ramped up their Shock and Awe plans for the oil lands? Their Blood For Oil War?
Speaking of “shock”…is it any shock that a spooky sleazebag like Stone is somehow involved in all of this? What’s the bet that he slips out of it unscathed, just as he has with all the rest of the triple-handed spook sleaze he has handed out since his time slip-sliding around with the Nixon/anti-Nixon spooks almost 50 years ago.
From Roy Cohn to Roger Stone in a little more than 60 years.
Maybe I am wrong about the inevitability of evolution.
Sigh.
Later…
AG
See original:
What does this prove regarding what I said?
We are all in the dark here except the various perpetrators, and even they are at least partially in the dark regarding the other perpetrators.
Spy vs. Spy.
Only they were cartoons.
Nobody died; nobody got hurt.
AG
You have to be deliberately stupid at this point to reach for such straws. Or worse, you just want to throw sand in everyone’s eyes for some reason I won’t speculate about.
I seriously cannot waste another moment of my life arguing about whether the Russians were behind the hacks.
Not stupid, that implies a lack of agency. Obstinate works better in this case, I think.
“Agenda-driven” is another likely explanation for some of the unwillingness of Frog Ponders to inhabit the reality-based universe on this subject.
In this community member’s case, the Russian government’s worldview is illiberal and Arthur Gilroy’s worldview is illiberal. It’s hardly necessary to connect dots here.
It is not that I “want to throw sand is everyone’s eyes,” Booman. There’s a sandstorm going on in the media as it is. We really don’t need any more sand.
Nor am I trying to say that it is impossible that Russia was “behind the hacks.” At this point I really do not know who or what is or was hacking whom, and anyone who thinks that they do know who is not privy to top-secret information is fooling themselves. All we have is a massive media blitz…still to this day lacking any provable evidence whatsoever as far as the public is concerned…that is quite plainly being sponsored by forces within the government of the United Sates that are hostile to Donald Trump and all that he is trying to do. When push finally does come to shove, maybe we will find out what he is trying to do, and maybe it’s sell the U.S. government to the Russians.
Or maybe it’s not. Maybe he really is simply trying to realign the position of the U.S. in the world. He’s not very good at it if he is…after all, he’s an amateur in with a bunch of pros who have been making a good living at empire building for at least half a century…but reigniting the cold war (or worse) with Russia is a damned risky way to go about getting rid of Trump.
Meanwhile, I find it next to impossible to believe that so many “progressives” are lining up behind the intelligence forces that have quite plainly been behind every major anti-progressive move in the United States for 50+ years.
Suddenly the purveyors of so many lies, so many coups, so many useless wars and truly evil domestic actions are the good guys!!!???
When did they get the new white hats?
And who’s selling us the image?
What was it..about four years ago that the Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, boldly and barefacedly lied to the Senate about the massive NSA surveillance operation being waged on the American people? An operation that is still in full swing? All the little leftinesses threw up their hands and said “Oh!!! Awful!!!” Until of course their Peace President did nothing whatsoever concrete about it and Clapper remained in office. You think that things have changed or at Intelligence Central since then? Give me a break!!!
So you go on with your lockstep RussiaGate support. Maybe it will work and maybe it won’t. We’ll see. But at least be honest enough to admit that you are choosing to ally yourself with the most negative influences in American history over the past 50+ years as yet another “lesser of two evils” choice.
And look where that sort of tactic has gotten us!!!
Look carefully.
Do not put your trust in career liars.
It never ends well.
Ever.
AG
AG — Doncha know that only liberals and Russians have the computer tech skills to pull off spearphising, systems hacks, and leaks and pass along the documents to Wikileaks. As no respectable liberal would have engaged in hurting the DP and/or HRC and the ‘deplorables’ are too dumb and tech-illiterate* to do it. Thus, it can only mean that the ‘deplorables’ colluded with and outsourced the dirty deed to Putin-Russia.
*It was different a dozen years ago. That’s when Democrats claimed the election was stolen by a GOP computer genius.
seriously
.
LOL
This guy nails it
.
“…Bernie Sanders, a leftist rather than a liberal, was one of the first to incoherently assign the presidential loss to the failure of “identity politics,” failing to recognize that Donald Trump is the most powerful practitioner of identity politics in the world.”
Yes, this is true.
So basically Trump’s identity politics kicked the hell out of the Dem’s identity politics. That doesn’t sound like Sanders statement was incoherent to me.
Did it “kick the hell” out of Hillary’s “identity politics”? Clinton won three million more votes and Trump required the unprecedented intervention of both the Justice Department and the Russian Federation and its surrogates to eke out razor-thin wins in multiple States.
I’ll be damned if the Democratic Party is going to abandon civil rights.
I’ll let this guy it explain it – he’s much better than I am:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2017/5/2/10456/91080
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2017/4/23/111350/431
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2017/4/17/114259/800
Also:
239-193
52-48
I did not mention abandoning civil rights.
I truly don’t understand how the Democratic Party could abandon identity politics while still defending civil rights.
During the Presidential election campaign, particularly during the DNC Convention and the general election campaign, when Clinton and Dems highlighted the Black Lives Matter movement, voter suppression of minorities, the situations in Flint and Standing Rock, and the Trump campaign’s incredible hostility to women, Mexicans and Muslims, I was aware there would be some voters who would be turned off by these campaign accents.
I knew this, but supported it anyway, because it was the right and necessary thing for my Party to do.
Help me understand how the Party which is the only viable electoral option for our movement can defend those who badly need defending in this society while avoiding engaging in what you seem to claim is a losing strategy.
Its time for Arthur to read some books when he’s not practicing tuba. How about the easy-reading The Plot to Hack America by my neighbor Malcolm Nance (we don’t know each other). The book is dated and Malcolm himself is only just catching up to the true nature of the conspiracy. But it gives a great intro to the nature of the Russian hacking we are talking about.
For all the worthless trolling that Art does, he should have enough time to read it. (Or perhaps he’s one of the thousands of paid trolls that the Kremlin hired?)
“[W]hen he’s not practicing tuba” — wait, Arthur is a fellow tuba player? I have about the same reaction to that news that I do to Steve Bannon also being a fan of Strauss and Howe’s “The Fourth Turning” — one can’t pick one’s fellow fans. That written, I now know how to respond to him instead of posting recipes; post videos of tuba performances. I have just the one for tonight, which is the opening night for “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales.”
A.G. can enjoy that one. As for me, I’d rather watch and listen to Hans Zimmer and Tina Guo in concert.
Sending Roger Stone to the slammer would be a great public service.
Did Motherboard outline the argument for Guccifer 2.0 not being Romanian? Who has the further evidence that it was a collective identity for Russian agents? “Russian hacks operate that way” goes only part way there. It’s just like the motive-means-opportunity analysis of the “let it happen” or “made it happen” 9/11 conspiracy theories. Yes, but was that what occurred in this specific case? Bring charges and face a jury.
C’mon, Tarheel. This is like you asking me right before the finals about something I covered on the first day of class.
If you don’t know how Guccifer was exposed immediately as a Russian and not a Romanian, then you haven’t been paying even the smallest amount of attention to one of the key aspects of this case.
This is the part that scares me the most, assuming that Russia was able to obtain this kind of information, in theory they could use the names/information of the least likely Democratic voters to obtain absentee ballots and vote on their behalf (in favor of Trump).
I admit, I don’t know the mechanics of getting absentee ballots. I assume its very difficult (or else both parties would be doing this for years) but that it varies from state-to-state. So if you can take 100,000 unlikely Democratic voters in say WI, MI, and PA and submit absentee ballots on their behalf then you may have enough to win a national election.
Of course, it was a confluence of factors that lead to this presidential outcome, but as I’ve shared before, Unhackthevote.com has uncovered strange anomalies where precincts had greater than 100% turnout. It’s possible that this kind of activity could help tip the scales.
If this type of election fraud was used, then who is to stop them from doing it in all elections?
All the more reason for us to just skip the Civil War as quickly as possible and split the country in two as quickly/easily as we can. The right is being militarized by bringing batons, shields, and hardhats to rallies and using violent language/imagery, meanwhile we knit hats.
I’m extremely interested in hearing fladem’s response to this story.
Also, too, any other Frog Ponders who live in Florida or know Florida politics.
Yeah, except the “more than 100% voted” claim has been debunked a thousand times. You apparently have never worked an election, or for an elections board.
But try that “100,000 absentee ballot” trick and see how it goes.
One warning, though: Most jails serve green bologna sandwiches for lunch. And jello.
So you might want to rethink things.
So what could this be?
1. The VAN updated with the results of Democratic Voter contacts.
The VAN is a list of registered voters, their party, their race and their voting history (did they vote, not who they voted for). By itself this is all public information that the GOP already has.
The VAN is updated with the results of campaign contacts (Canvassing, phoning) which tell which way a voter is leaning.
Ironically, the book Shattered documents that the Clinton people actually didn’t care about this information. The results of the contacts were not read in Brooklyn.
Timing matters here. If it is as of September 1 it really isn’t of much use. If it was 10 days out it might be, but most campaigns don’t place a look of stock in the results of campaign contacts. Because voters lie, and campaign workers lie.
2. Predictions using the VAN and associated census data. This gets into analytics, which the Clinton campaign greatly believed in. If the analytics were divulged it would be useful, but the Clinton campaign owned the analytics, not the DCCC.
Ironically, the Clinton analytics were terrible and one of the reasons she lost. Access to those would actually hurt the GOP campaigns.
3. Consultant strategic analysis – it might be this as well. Useful tangentially, but not decisive.
I know people won’t like to hear this, but there isn’t a huge amount of super secret information on campaigns. Most of it is pretty predictable. Probably the most sensitive information is pre-debate strategy, and that definitely would matter.
In fact 2016 stands for the proposition that the idea campaigns have access to some hidden view of the electorate no one else does is completely wrong.
As for this:
Conspiracy theory nonsense.
Russian Ambassador Told Moscow That Kushner Wanted Secret Communications Channel With Kremlin
It’s almost as if there’s a pattern of behavior from Trump and his people.
Looking forward to the responses from the Kremlin defenders at the ol’ Pond. I hope these peculiar people can offer an explanation for Trump’s incredibly destructive treatment of NATO and its leaders and extreme servility to the Russian Federation all the way from the campaign straight thru to this week. Is it some sort of wild coincidence that at this week’s NATO meeting Trump did exactly what Putin would have liked him to do in his wildest dreams?
LOL.
They just want more evidence:
Exclusive: Trump son-in-law had undisclosed contacts with Russian envoy – sources
“…FBI investigators are examining whether Russians suggested to Kushner or other Trump aides that relaxing economic sanctions would allow Russian banks to offer financing to people with ties to Trump, said the current U.S. law enforcement official…”.
Kushner is seeking financing for his real estate projects, and his sister was recently caught by reporters selling $500K investments in Kushner properties to Chinese investors in exchange for U.S. visas and eventual citizenship. She specifically mentioned that Jared and Donald and their U.S. government leadership in her PowerPoints to those investors.
How many of these meetings has Kushner Companies held with Russians and other shady characters laundering their money thru Russian banks?
I’ll try.
There shouldn’t even be a NATO. It’s a cold war relic. All it does is fuel justified Russia fear of encirclement.
If there has to be a NATO, it shouldn’t be led by the US, since this turns the ‘alliance’ into a tool of the US imperialist hegemon.
Trump is, perhaps unwittingly, the first US president to realize this, and is taking steps — praiseworthy steps — to diminish NATO’s corrosive effects on world peace.
Trump, uniquely, realizes that we need to embrace Russia, not intimidate it. Russian cooperation is badly needed on a number of issues of importance to progressives, whether it’s ME security, the Iran deal, climate, and — this is the big one — keeping Mrs. Clinton out of the White House.
Will that do?
Well, the punchline made me laugh.
Poor, misunderstood Russia. Trump’s electoral win and performance in office cause us to understand that Putin is the real victim of the psychological operations campaign here.
See, one can believe a lot of those things and still manage to have a level-headed view of what’s happening and not have a weird knee-jerk mechanism response to defend Russian aggression and imperialism.
But like the issue of Syria, we can see the difference between ideaologues and people who are actually anti-imperialist and anti-war. The pro-Putin and pro-Assad people don’t mind imperialism at all. First and foremost, is The Narrative anti-America? If not, then it cannot be true by default.
From the WaPo story linked above by seabe:
“…Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team.”
From Roger Ebert’s review of “The Falcon And The Snowman”:
“…These two young men have one basic problem. They are amateurs…even though the Russians are happy to have the secrets that are for sale, there is the definite sense in some scenes that the key Russian contact agent, played by David Suchet, is almost offended by the sloppy way (Sean Penn’s character) deals in espionage. The only thing Penn seems really serious about is the money.”
Finally, the first shoe drops. The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested all Trump campaign communications back to 2015. That means that some Republicans had to agree.
What is interesting about the Jared Kushner revelation is:
(1) The Trump team wanted not to be monitored by US intelligence; that might be a legitimate position under other situations. The intelligence community does reflect a strong independent ideological position and special interests.
(2) The Trump Team was getting Russian intelligence service help indirectly in preventing monitoring by US intelligence. That is a quid. What was the quo?
(3) There is a hot line already established between the WHite House and Kremlin to discuss critical situations. These dealings were (1) by a transition team, (2) outside the scope of a foreign policy or national security conversation, and (3) not bringing Trump and Putin into direct communications. Who were these secret communications to be between?
The shoe is the growing Republican interest in the appearance of getting the facts. It took Watergate two years to get to this point. By that time Spiro Agnew was gone in an unrelated scandal from his days as county executive. What investigations are going on into Pence’s shenanigans? Who is the Republican most likely to play the Gerald Ford role in easing Trump out? Who is the least worst Republican at the moment?
MUST CREDIT BREITBART NEWS: Exclusive precreation of Kushner and Flynn at Russian Embassy, May 28th, 2017:
OK, so it doesn’t nail it. There’s a scene of Sean Penn’s character dealing hilariously naively with a Russian official which would have been much better, but I couldn’t find the clip on the Internet tubes.
Heh,
Well!
Both Chris Boyce and Dalton Lee were very close friends of mine in High School….Daulton in particular (Chris transferred to a different school after a scandal dealing with the football team, but we still hung out frequently). I even got a visit at work from the FBI after their arrests.
Lots more to the story, but I’ve already said too much.
.
There aren’t many negative adjectives that don’t apply to Stone. But one big one is LIAR.
Timelines can be illuminating but not when they’re truncated and exclusively focused on one (possible) player in a large story. Truncated and selective to support the narrative that the writer wants to be true is faulty analysis. Nor is it acceptable to include after the fact modifications, embellishments, etc. that a ‘player’ issues which generally are nothing but excuses for why his/her original statement was wrong.
On 3/22/17 – Marci Wheeler presented a timeline that was good enough for the point she was making, but there are serious errors in it. As there has been with the other timelines of the Podesta and DNC emails that I’ve seen. In addition to that there has been some egregious misreporting of what has been said in real time and repeated. For example, what Assange said on June 12, 2016 in a TV interview. NYMag broke that one down.
Remember the 47% Romney video?
It was recorded mid-May 2012 and not until mid-September was David Corn able to pull it together into a solid report. He couldn’t have done that if 1) the full recording hadn’t been supplied to him and 2) the person responsible for the recording declined to communicate directly with him.
LOL
It’s like a caricature of an analysis. Almost like something Trump would say.
.
Her keyboard is sopping wet from the sweat coming from her palms and brow. Tough times for a credulous or duplicitous Kremlin defender.
The preposterous argument I particularly laugh at these days is that if you’re angry at the Russian government’s successful propagandizing of the American people to help elect Trump and Republican Congressional majorities, you’re a tool of the intelligence communities which want to drive us into World War III.
I mean, rhetoric doesn’t get more insultingly stupid than that.
It’s the recommending your own diaries with sock puppet accounts that I love.
The moral arbiters stay completely silent when it’s one of their own.
.
Did you know Dennis Kucinich is a Fox News contributor now? I flicked over there tonight to get a peek at Bizarroworld News, and Kucinich was over there decrying the press’ feeding frenzy over the Trump/Russia investigation.
I was shocked, but not surprised.
no, I did not know that.
But right now I’m not surprised by anything. It’s become obvious to me that the Russians have managed to place more than a few agents within the WH, the president has something very wrong with him, and republican candidates are openly punching out journalists.
So a democrat with no future becoming a Putin shill for cash is not a great surprise.
.
Wow, you’re at the point of contesting Marci Wheeler’s timeline. Sad!, as they say.
The whole point is to distract, and change the subject. Then call the conversation a about the Russians a distraction.
“Both side do it, but the Democrats are worse”.
.
LIAR isn’t an adjective, it’s a noun.