Comey is likely even more complicit in getting Trump elected,
At the time, Trump was outraged that Hillary was not indicted, even though Comey said a crime had been committed.
Trump has a 'legitimate' reason to hide his conversations because of this?
Whether you consider it a 'legitimate' reason or not, certainly a very good reason.
This is ridiculous. I stated that after Trump did such they should have been on alert.
So you are indeed saying that Lavrov should have turned down the opportunity of a (semi) private meeting with Trump? Because of the fear that Democratic Party hacks would think such a meeting was inappropriate?
I'm sure that RT would have let Putin or Lavrov on to let them say that they "think something is rotten in Denmark".
They're supposed to go on RT and say that they're worried that Trump is being disingenuously too friendly to Russia? And caution that they think Trump is only doing this because he wants to provide ammunition for Russia's enemies in the US?
Here's the problem. Assuming that Putin and Lavrov aren't omniscient, they have to consider two possible scenarios. (1) Trump is sincerely trying to work with Russia, however ineptly; or (2) he's disingenuously trying to undermine Russian-US relations.
If Putin & Lavrov publicly accuse Trump of scenario (2), and in fact scenario (1) is correct, then they've just completely undermined Trump's efforts. Whereas if (2) is correct, and they say so, they've accomplished absolutely nothing. That is, aside from presenting the appearance of being paranoid conspiracy theorists trying to undermine their best friend in the US.
Putin doesn't have the American translator's notes, or are you saying he does have them?
I thought you were complaining that Trump used only a Russian translator?
They should have told the dipshit not to be so obvious as to walk into the front door of their facility.
According to
this report, this is more or less what happened. The Russians didn't want Kushner coming to their embassy. The initial meeting where the Russians discussed a possible back channel with Kushner occurred at Trump Tower, and became public knowledge when the Russians' internal dialog was intercepted by US intelligence officers who leaked to the press. So it seems that there were reasonable attempts at operational security all around.
I have to admit that I have been late to the Omidyar et al. party regarding such as the Snowden business. It seems that the Putineskas, by appearances at least, are too, considering that Omidyar's and Snowden's common connections to Booz Allen et al. have been known for some time.
Omidyar's connection to Booz Allen Hamilton is hardly the same thing as Snowden's. Snowden allegedly hired on to Booz Allen for the specific purpose of obtaining documents to leak. Omidyar is a business partner of Booz Allen, and would have been strongly motivated to prevent the release of the documents.
Has Snowden been called into the Kremlin or the GRU headquarters to inquire about these connections? Likely, they didn't need to IMO.
What are you implying that the "putineskas" would learn about Snowden's Booz Allen connection, if they asked?
What is incoherent, or the least bit suspicious, about the view that Snowden made a serious mistake by trusting his bounty of documents to Glenn Greenwald?
I didn't realize until just now, what a small role Wikileaks played in the Snowden document release.
That is, if I am to take your word that they are such little innocent lambs.
I'm not sure who you're referring to as "they", except that I guess you think everyone involved is spooky.
Why is it that you refer to enemies of the shepherds as "lambs"? That is, a particularly helpless type of little sheep?
What about us: would you describe us Postflavians as "little innocent lambs", bleating helplessly as we await our fate?
If I had been aware of the above links, I would be howling long before that the operators of the Russiagate psy-op would insist upon a cleaner appearing vehicle, such as Wikileaks, to launder this data, as opposed to the Snowden data.
I can't parse this. Who, according to your current analysis, were the operators of the Russiagate psy-op?
Are you saying that you think the DNC emails are completely fake, and that DNC officials never conspired to favor Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders? That is, you believe that Clinton won the Democratic nomination fair and square in 2016?
Why are you saying that the data needed to be "laundered"? The Mueller Report narrative is that Wikileaks "laundered" away the Russian provenance of the data, but they're admitting that the data itself is valid.
Inasmuch as Wikileaks was the apparent source of the data, I don't understand why you say the operators of the Russiagate psy-op would want a cleaner appearing vehicle. The Intercept is not a cleaner appearing vehicle, although perhaps Snowden thought so.
What I'm writing here is clearly insane, but it's the best I can do in response to what you wrote, so don't complain that I'm seeming crazy. I just can't make head or tails of your comments, so I'm asking questions and hoping perhaps clarity will emerge.
