I don't agree. You claim that Comey's actions tilted the election results in favor of Trump and against Clinton. But other observers (including Trump himself) felt that in fact Comey's actions benefited the Democrats, by raising the issue of Clinton's emails and then dismissing as a matter of no importance. In statements since then, Comey has made it very clear that he personally prefers Democrats, and that he has quit the Republican Party.[Comey] Irrelevant.
As I told you, apparently that's eventually what happened after the Kushner request for a back channel. But, remember that Putin (IMO) has limited ability to control what Trump says and does. Also, to some extent the Russians benefit from Trump's cooperation, whether inept or not. So perhaps they would feel some reserve about giving advice to Trump. Especially advice about how to be a better spy for them?? Knowing that every communication could be intercepted by the NSA?If (1) was the case, the Putineskas could simply tell Trump to slow his roll and stop appearing so inept.
I get my daily news from Information Clearing House, WSWS, and various blogs. Usually works well enough, but sometimes I miss trivialities like this. Bygones.I watch the news Jerry. There were two translators, and only Putin has any translator's notes. Putin understands English in any case.
Going back to the beginning, you said:
So I think you're saying now that Putin still has his translator's notes, and that Trump confiscated the American translator's notes? I can only assume that Trump confiscated the notes to prevent them being leaked to the press, which gets back to my earlier view that this was an obviously useful strategy on his part.Confiscates the translator's notes
Of course. One of the key functions of the MSM is to publish self-serving and pro-government leaks from anonymous government sources. In this case I see no reason to doubt that some self-serving anonymous government source leaked the information, exactly as the MSM source is dutifully reporting it. As to whether the events described in the leak actually took place exactly as described, I am open to further information.Quoting from the MSM now?
No, she made a pathetic attempt to smear Snowden. This is all too typical of Sibel Edmonds: she has recently made similar scurrilious attacks on Vanessa Beeley and James Corbett. And back in the early days of 9-11 truth, she was a strong LIHOP advocate, and smeared everyone in the MIHOP camp.Sibel Edmonds destroys Snowden.
Some have reached the conclusion that Edmonds works for Turkish intelligence. I don't know about that, but on the other hand she's not on my list of most trusted sources.
Edmonds' attack on Snowden starts at about 11:45 in the video and continues to 15:35. Her complaints are:
(1) Snowden lived in Hawaii, which is also Omidyar's base of operations.
(2) When Snowden went fleeing to avoid prosecution, he went to Hong Kong, rather than to Ecuador or some other South American sanctuary.
(3) Edmonds sent Snowden a nosy questionnaire to find out if he was a real whistleblower, and to invite him to join her whistleblowers' organization if he made the grade. Snowden declined to answer the nosy questionnaire.
In answer to this attack, I say:
(1) Snowden was in Hawaii to take a job with Booz Allen Hamilton, where he intended to obtain classified documents for publication. Where else would he go?
(2) Hong Kong turned out to be a sub-optimal but credible choice. Snowden was able to stave off getting extradited to the US, long enough to get on another plane. Russia may have also been a sub-optimal choice, but then Ecuador hasn't worked out so well for Assange in the long run, either. Edmonds' question presumes that Snowden has some omniscient capacity to find an ideal asylum location, and also that his opinion must be the same as her own (also omniscient) thoughts about the matter.
(3) Edmonds is so full of herself, that she can't imagine why Snowden wouldn't answer her intrusive questionnaire. Seems obvious to me why he didn't.
It's worth noting that Edmonds' attack on Snowden fell completely flat with Webb, who wanted none of it.
Yes, at least Mueller's position is coherent & intelligible. Whereas I (still) can't understand what you think happened. I gather you think it was ultimately a psy-op run by the "shepherds" (whoever they are), but the details of how you think this happened remain obscure & mysterious to me.OK, so you can figure out what Mueller means by "laundered", but not what I mean?
I think we're in agreement that Wikileaks has far more credibility that The Intercept, both as a legitimate source for leaked government documents, and as a legitimate partner for insiders who want to leak information. Although neither The Intercept nor Wikileaks has a perfect record for protecting their sources, at least Wikileaks appears to be making a sincere effort, and they succeed from time to time.
Because it seems to me you are claiming some sort of unique understanding of the Russians' true interests, and that your dissatisfaction somehow proves their ineptness. Why they should have the same opinion as you, about their own best interests, is beyond me.Why are you concerned about my satisfaction, or worse that they, the Putineskas, could achieve such, or desire to satisfy me?
Why do you presume to psychoanalyze me, and ascribe my beliefs to some sheepish desire to find a sense of belonging? You can't bring yourself to consider the possibility that the wider zeitgeist is sometimes correct?I understand that you want to belong to a wider zeitgeist system of belief.
The "wider zeitgeist" you're referring to, is also highly alienated from the mainstream.
Umm... this is already my personal website? It was supposed to be a cooperative (joint) endeavor, and intended to showcase some of your creative ideas. But I'm the publisher and administrator.No, I do not want a web site. Maybe you should get yourself your own personal website?
Another alternative (which I've suggested) is for you to prepare some sort of summary statement, and then I could prepare a comprehensive response, and then agree to disagree.
We could take the whole conversation to email. When we're working together, I think a dialog might be interesting to readers. Whereas when we're bickering, it's a lot less edifying.
Or we could just work together on some topic we (mostly) agree on.