Okay, then. Given that a couple Café denizens had mentioned them, I swear I’d really tried to do some due diligence even though all of this seems a snooze-fest to me, as does most of the ‘Profiteering from Russian oligarchs’, etc. As in: ain’t it bidness as usual? Zo…I read Marcy Wheeler on Democracy Now’s ‘Trump White House in Crisis as Emails Confirm Campaign Embraced Russian Effort to Defeat Clinton’. Wait, no; I actually got soooo cross-eyed-blurry-eyed that I’d never finished (Manafort, Kushner, Kremlin-connected attorney, and a cha cha cha.)
But when I’d peeked in consortium news yesterday and had spied ‘Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump’, Robert Parry, consortium news, July 10, 2017, something rang a bell, of course.
“Yes, I realize that the editors of The New York Times long ago cast aside any journalistic professionalism to become charter members of the #Resistance against Donald Trump. But the latest frenzy over a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer who was dangling the possibility of information about the Democrats receiving money from Russians represents one of the more remarkable moments of the entire Russia-gate hysteria.
Essentially, Trump’s oldest son is being accused of taking a meeting with a foreign national who claimed to have knowledge of potentially illegal activities by Trump’s Democratic rivals, although the promised information apparently turned out to be a dud.
Yet, on Monday, the Times led its newspaper with a story about this meeting – and commentators on MSNBC and elsewhere are labeling Trump Jr. a criminal if not a traitor for hearing out this lawyer.
Yet, no one seems to remember that Hillary Clinton supporters paid large sums of money, reportedly about $1 million, to have ex-British spy Christopher Steele use his Russian connections to dig up dirt on Trump inside Russia, resulting in a salacious dossier that Clinton backers eagerly hawked to the news media.
Also, the two events – Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russian lawyer and the Clinton camp’s commissioning of Steele’s Russia dossier – both occurred in June 2016, so you might have thought it would be a journalistic imperative to incorporate a reference or two to the dossier.”
Now Parry (remember that Consortium News was on the Prop side of the Prop or Not list) gives more similar historical examples: HW Bush getting dirt on Bubba C. (’passport-gate’ & Prague), Rs talking to South Vietnamese to tank LBJ’s peace talks, similarly communicating with Iranian officials to queer Carter’s Iranian hostage negotiations (very evil), and more. Sure, he spells out the Steele Dossier in all its gory yellow glory later on…
“Since he was not able to go to Russia himself, Steele based his reports mostly on multiple hearsay from anonymous Russians who claim to have heard some information from their government contacts before passing it on to Steele’s associates who then gave it to Steele who compiled this mix of rumors and alleged inside dope into ‘raw’ intelligence reports.” ha ha, but ya can’t un-ring even a proven bullshit bell, can ya?
“Trump Jr. said Russian lawyer Natalie Veselnitskaya “stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”
According to Trump Jr.’s account, Veselnitskaya then turned the conversation to President Vladimir Putin’s cancellation of an adoption program which had sent Russian children to American parents, a move he took in reaction to the so-called Magnitsky Act, a 2012 punitive law passed by the U.S. Congress in retaliation for the 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky in a Russian jail.”
‘With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC’s opposition to the Magnitsky bill to a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow.’ (heh.)
Under Parry’s Only One Side Heard, relates some historical narrative on a documentary film “…entitled “The Magnitsky Act. Behind the Scenes,” was essentially blocked for distribution in the West, with the European Parliament pulling the plug on its planned premiere in Brussels shortly before it was scheduled for showing.
When the documentary got a single showing at the Newseum in Washington, a Washington Post editorial branded the documentary Russian “agit-prop.”
The Post sought to discredit the filmmaker, Andrei Nekrasov, without addressing his avalanche of documented examples of Browder’s misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov of using “facts highly selectively” and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin’s “campaign to discredit Mr. Browder and the Magnitsky Act.” Sorry, but I didn’t seem to take all that in, either.
But, wondering if Marcy Wheeler of holographic memory fame had thunk of the Steele Dossier, I went back to the transcript and found that she had, right at the end, and good on her.
“You referenced my comments before the email came out. And I raised this question about what the difference is between meeting with a lawyer—and at that point, we knew she was a lawyer with a bunch of oligarch clients, we did not know that she was introduced to Don Jr. as somebody with the Russian government—and as the—as a Hillary surrogate, so somebody, you know, degrees separate from Hillary, a Hillary surrogate paying Christopher Steele to pay Russian entities, including people in the Kremlin, for dirt on Trump. And I think that’s a fair question.
We now have a lot more evidence that, A, Don Jr. knew that this was—or was at least informed that this was tied to a Russian government effort, and we know that it was tied to this kind of quid pro quo, which was never the case for this Steele dossier, which is where the Peegate, the pee tape, is supposed to have come from. But, I mean, underlying it, our politics has become such that both sides spend a lot of money and a lot of effort to find dirt on their opponents. Where that, I think, crosses a new line—and Don Jr. pretends to be naïve: “Well, you know, this happens all the time”—where it crosses a line is when the dirt is being dealt in the context of things like policy changes on sanctions reliefs.”
If it did; I’m agnostic, as I haven’t really been read in on that, but do we know she was representing the Russian gov, even as a prosecutor?
But hoho, haha, heehee: ‘Trump-Russia dominates headlines, but there’s more evidence of collusion between Democrats & Ukraine’, Bryan MacDonald, RT ‘agitprop’, July 14
I’ll try to break it down in brief although his opening gambit on T, jr.’s idiocy, media coverage, especially on she-mailer Natalia Veselnitskaya is a great read, but I digress:
“There is another thing which makes this endless Trump-Russia delirium even more dubious. And that’s how the US establishment will leap on any connection, no matter how vague, concerning the President’s team and Russians, but ignores dealings between the Democratic Party and Ukraine. The elephant in the room which has been almost completely ignored, and was amazingly not even mentioned when Petro Poroshenko visited Washington last month.
The real world
Let’s be clear, Ukraine feared a Trump presidency. Because, on the campaign trail, the candidate had openly suggested recognizing Russia’s reabsorption of Crimea and spoke of the Donbass crisis as a problem for Europe, not America. As a result, Kiev bet the house on Hillary Clinton. And lost.
As Politico reported in January: “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.”
Now, this is pretty explosive stuff. A credible American news organization is reporting how a foreign government directly interfered in the US election. But the popular press didn’t pursue the story. Presumably, because its runs counter to the established narrative.
“A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort, and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation,” the piece continued. “The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia.”
And here was the zinger: “Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.”
Later, Politico focused on the activities of Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American activist, who admitted acting as a link between Ukraine’s Washington Embassy and the Democratic National Committee. And also how Sergei Leshchenko, elected in 2014 as an MP for Poroshenko’s party, had offered ledgers purportedly showing connections between Trump and Manafort before urging “Ukrainian and American law enforcement to aggressively investigate Manafort.” Incidentally, Manafort has always been especially appalled at attempts to link his work to Russia, saying “all my efforts were focused on helping Ukraine move into Europe and the West.” [long snip with more, plus other examples of the US ‘interfering’ in other nations elections (nowhere near the exhaustive lists we’ve seen).
“In Ukraine, the interruptions have had even more serious consequences. By the admission of Victoria Nuland, a member of the Obama administration, Washington spent over $5 billion on influence projects in the country. The first “regime change” operation came in 2004 and was known as the “Orange Revolution.” And in 2013, US politicians and officials, such as John McCain and Nuland herself, turned up in Kiev to encourage the Maidan movement, in which the US ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt was prominent.
That led to the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government, which divided the country and caused the separation of Crimea and a civil war in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. And it also contributed to an economic collapse which has seen the average Ukrainian salary fall to around $200 a month and led to unprecedented levels of emigration.”
Now MacDonald doesn’t mention a lot of the history of say, Monsanto buying large swathes of ag land in Ukraine, Joe Biden’s son Hunter being appointed head legal counsel to Ukraine’s largest private gas producer, Burisma.
“The appointment comes just weeks after Vice President Biden visited Ukraine’s capital to show support for the country in its fight against Russia’s annexation of Crimea and troublemaking in Ukraine’s east. He also warned of the dangers of government corruption.
“Russia already regards the U.S. as meddling in Ukrainian affairs, so this news won’t change that perception,” said Steven Pifer, a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and a director of the Brookings Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative. “Russia may, however, use it for propaganda purposes.
In late April, when the vice president made an official trip to Ukraine, Burisma appointed one of Hunter’s business partners, Devon Archer, to its board, according to the Moscow Times, an English-language Russian news service. Archer is a wealthy investor and Democratic campaign fundraiser with long ties to secretary of state John Kerry.”
Just bidness as usual, see? No quid pro quo. Evah. ‘No conflicts of interest’ says the White House. Shucks, ma; even Michael Sheerer at Time called horse hockey on that nonsense back in 2014. Back then, it was White, not Red.
Hooray on the above! Yanukovych’s failure to love it in 2014…meant he had to go, the poor schmuck. Hello, Vickie, Yats, and neo-Nazis!
@KyivPost ‘Poroshenko convinces EU no anti-corruption court needed’ | KyivPost http://buff.ly/2uYSfir
Kinda makes you wonder what all this is replacing that should be in the news, doesn’t it? (wsws.org suggests a few items.) Wsws.org also narrates the now ‘fevered pitch’ of Washington political warfare.)