Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Ukraine War

Talking to some one about Putin who had spent time in Russia the other day, he said most didn't like or trust Putin, knew he was a criminal etc but wouldn't get rid of him because they could end up with some one worst, a very Slavic view of the world.
 

It’s time to confront the Trump-Putin network​


A stunning number of Trump’s closest associates had deep ties to the Kremlin. The significance of this cannot be overstated

Of course the most striking role of the Russian government in the 2016 US election was its many, many ties with the Trump campaign, including with Trump himself, who spent the campaign and the four years of his presidency groveling before Putin, denying the reality of Russian interference, and changing first the Republican platform and then US policy to serve Putin’s agendas. This included cutting support for Ukraine against Russia out of the Republican platform when he won the primary, considerable animosity toward Nato, and ultimately trying to blackmail Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in 2019 by withholding military aid while demanding he offer confirmation of a Russian conspiracy theory blaming Ukraine rather than Russia for 2016 election interference.



 

It’s time to confront the Trump-Putin network​


A stunning number of Trump’s closest associates had deep ties to the Kremlin. The significance of this cannot be overstated

Of course the most striking role of the Russian government in the 2016 US election was its many, many ties with the Trump campaign, including with Trump himself, who spent the campaign and the four years of his presidency groveling before Putin, denying the reality of Russian interference, and changing first the Republican platform and then US policy to serve Putin’s agendas. This included cutting support for Ukraine against Russia out of the Republican platform when he won the primary, considerable animosity toward Nato, and ultimately trying to blackmail Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in 2019 by withholding military aid while demanding he offer confirmation of a Russian conspiracy theory blaming Ukraine rather than Russia for 2016 election interference.




And Trump has always admired Putins toughness and political genius. I understand that next to moi Putin represented the worlds next greatest most stable genius.:)
_____________________________________________________________________
That story is a very powerful analysis of just how deep Russia was into US politics and in particular Trumps administration. Worth realising as we see just some of the consequences of Donald Trumps political machinations.
 
The other side of the war

Interesting story on the ABC on how the breakway separatist state view the situation. Some excellent historical background as well. These were the regions that original USSR had seen millions of Russians to when Stalin had attempted to starve the Ukraine population during the 1930's

 

It’s time to confront the Trump-Putin network​


A stunning number of Trump’s closest associates had deep ties to the Kremlin. The significance of this cannot be overstated

Of course the most striking role of the Russian government in the 2016 US election was its many, many ties with the Trump campaign, including with Trump himself, who spent the campaign and the four years of his presidency groveling before Putin, denying the reality of Russian interference, and changing first the Republican platform and then US policy to serve Putin’s agendas. This included cutting support for Ukraine against Russia out of the Republican platform when he won the primary, considerable animosity toward Nato, and ultimately trying to blackmail Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in 2019 by withholding military aid while demanding he offer confirmation of a Russian conspiracy theory blaming Ukraine rather than Russia for 2016 election interference.



This is probably one of the largest mound of sht I've ever read. Who wrote this steaming pile?
Oh it's the "Guardian" carry on.
 
This is probably one of the largest mound of sht I've ever read. Who wrote this steaming pile?
Oh it's the "Guardian" carry on.
Of course Moxjo. As usual totally incapable of engaging with the facts. Just follows "The Great Leaders" directions and declares its fake news.

Just for everyones interest I'll post the story. You'll notice a lot of URL's there that will take people back to the various crims and shonks who were the Putin Russian connection.

Just in case we conveniently forget.
 

It’s time to confront the Trump-Putin network

Rebecca Solnit
Rebecca_Solnit.png


A stunning number of Trump’s closest associates had deep ties to the Kremlin. The significance of this cannot be overstated

4000.jpg

‘The most striking role of the Russian government in the 2016 US election was its many, many ties with the Trump campaign.’

Photograph: Joe Marino/UPI/Rex/Shutterstock
Wed 2 Mar 2022 06.22 EST
Last modified on Wed 2 Mar 2022 17.48 EST

In 2014, the Putin regime invaded Ukraine’s Crimea. In 2016, the same regime invaded the United States. The former took place as a conventional military operation; the latter was a spectacular case of cyberwarfare, including disinformation that it was happening at all and promulgation of a lot of talking points still devoutly repeated by many. It was a vast social-media influencing project that took many forms as it sought to sow discord and confusion, even attempting to dissuade Black voters from voting.

Additionally, Russian intelligence targeted voter rolls in all 50 states, which is not thought to have had consequences, but demonstrated the reach and ambition of online interference. This weekend, British investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr said on Twitter, “We failed to acknowledge Russia had staged a military attack on the West. We called it ‘meddling.’ We used words like ‘interference.’ It wasn’t. It was warfare. We’ve been under military attack for eight years now.”

As she notes, Putin’s minions were not only directing their attention to the United States, and included pro-Brexit efforts and support for France’s far-right racist National Front party. The US interference – you could call it cyberwarfare, or informational invasion – took many forms. Stunningly, a number of left-wing news sources and pundits devoted themselves to denying the reality of the intervention and calling those who were hostile to the Putin regime cold-war red-scare right-wingers, as if contemporary Russia was a glorious socialist republic rather than a country ruled by a dictatorial ex-KGB agent with a record of murdering journalists, imprisoning dissenters, embezzling tens of billions and leading a global neofascist white supremacist revival. In discrediting the news stories and attacking critics of the Russian government, they provided crucial cover for Trump.

In her 2019 testimony to House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, former National Security Agency staffer Fiona Hill declared, “Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified. The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart; truth is questioned; our highly professional expert career Foreign Service is being undermined. US support for Ukraine, which continues to face armed aggression, is being politicized. President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter US foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and economic dominance.”

The assertions of interference were compelling all along. On 7 October 2016, US intelligence agencies released a bombshell press release declaring “The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.” In one of the weirdest days in US political history, the Access Hollywood tape of Trump boasting about sexually assaulting women was released half an hour later, and half an hour after that, “WikiLeaks began tweeting links to emails hacked from the personal account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.” WikiLeaks is thought to have gotten its material from the Russian intelligence agency GRU; longtime Republican operative and Trump ally Roger Stone appears to have been a liaison between WikiLeaks and the Trump team.

On 30 October 2016, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reidput out a furious letter to then-FBI director James Comey, charging “it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government – a foreign interest hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity.” He demanded, unsuccessfully, that Comey publicize this information. On 31 October, Obama contacted called Putin on the nuclear risk reductions hotline to demand he stop this interference, but the public didn’t know about this until after Trump had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.

Of course the most striking role of the Russian government in the 2016 US election was its many, many ties with the Trump campaign, including with Trump himself, who spent the campaign and the four years of his presidency groveling before Putin, denying the reality of Russian interference, and changing first the Republican platform and then US policy to serve Putin’s agendas. This included cutting support for Ukraine against Russia out of the Republican platform when he won the primary, considerable animosity toward Nato, and ultimately trying to blackmail Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in 2019 by withholding military aid while demanding he offer confirmation of a Russian conspiracy theory blaming Ukraine rather than Russia for 2016 election interference.

A stunning number of Trump’s closest associates had deep ties to the Russian government. They included Paul Manafort, who during his years in Ukraine worked to build Russian influence there and served as a consultant to the Kremlin-backed Ukrainian president who was driven out of the country – and into Russia by popular protest in 2014 (the Russian line is that this was an illegitimate coup and thus a justification for invasion is still widely repeated). Manafort was, during his time in the campaign, sharing data with Russian intelligence agent Konstantin V Kilimnik, while campaign advisor Jeff Sessions was sharing information with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Manafort, Donald Trump Jr and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner held an illegal meeting in Trump Tower with a Kremlin-linked lawyer on 9 June 2016, where they were promised damaging material on the Clinton campaign.

After being seated next to Putin while being paid to speak at a dinner celebrating RT, Russia’s news propaganda outlet, Michael Flynn briefly became Trump’s national security advisor. He was soon was fired for lying to White House officials and later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. Jared Kushner allegedly directed him to make those contacts and as the Washington Post reported in May 2017, “Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring.” The Guardian reported the same year that “Donald Trump Jr has been forced to release damning emails that reveal he eagerly embraced what he was told was a Russian government attempt to damage Hillary Clinton’s election campaign.”

What’s striking in retrospect is that all of this was made possible by corruption and amorality inside the United States. It was Silicon Valley’s mercenary amorality that created weapons and vulnerabilities and sat by pocketing the profit as they were exploited to destructive ends. It was corrupt Americans – from Manafort to Trump himself – that gave Putin his influence. It was international players such as WikiLeaks and Cambridge Analytica that helped. It was corruption of media outlets such as Fox News that continued – in Tucker Carlson’s case until last week’s invasion of Ukraine caught up with him – to defend Putin and spread disinformation.

The Republican party met its new leader by matching his corruption, and by covering up his crimes and protecting him from consequences, including two impeachments. The second impeachment was for a violent invasion of Congress, not by a foreign power, but by right-wingers inflamed by lies instigated by Trump and amplified by many in the party. They have become willing collaborators in an attempt to sabotage free and fair elections, the rule of law, and truth itself.

 

It’s time to confront the Trump-Putin network

Rebecca Solnit
View attachment 138512

A stunning number of Trump’s closest associates had deep ties to the Kremlin. The significance of this cannot be overstated

View attachment 138513
‘The most striking role of the Russian government in the 2016 US election was its many, many ties with the Trump campaign.’

Photograph: Joe Marino/UPI/Rex/Shutterstock
Wed 2 Mar 2022 06.22 EST
Last modified on Wed 2 Mar 2022 17.48 EST

In 2014, the Putin regime invaded Ukraine’s Crimea. In 2016, the same regime invaded the United States. The former took place as a conventional military operation; the latter was a spectacular case of cyberwarfare, including disinformation that it was happening at all and promulgation of a lot of talking points still devoutly repeated by many. It was a vast social-media influencing project that took many forms as it sought to sow discord and confusion, even attempting to dissuade Black voters from voting.

Additionally, Russian intelligence targeted voter rolls in all 50 states, which is not thought to have had consequences, but demonstrated the reach and ambition of online interference. This weekend, British investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr said on Twitter, “We failed to acknowledge Russia had staged a military attack on the West. We called it ‘meddling.’ We used words like ‘interference.’ It wasn’t. It was warfare. We’ve been under military attack for eight years now.”

As she notes, Putin’s minions were not only directing their attention to the United States, and included pro-Brexit efforts and support for France’s far-right racist National Front party. The US interference – you could call it cyberwarfare, or informational invasion – took many forms. Stunningly, a number of left-wing news sources and pundits devoted themselves to denying the reality of the intervention and calling those who were hostile to the Putin regime cold-war red-scare right-wingers, as if contemporary Russia was a glorious socialist republic rather than a country ruled by a dictatorial ex-KGB agent with a record of murdering journalists, imprisoning dissenters, embezzling tens of billions and leading a global neofascist white supremacist revival. In discrediting the news stories and attacking critics of the Russian government, they provided crucial cover for Trump.

In her 2019 testimony to House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, former National Security Agency staffer Fiona Hill declared, “Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified. The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart; truth is questioned; our highly professional expert career Foreign Service is being undermined. US support for Ukraine, which continues to face armed aggression, is being politicized. President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter US foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and economic dominance.”

The assertions of interference were compelling all along. On 7 October 2016, US intelligence agencies released a bombshell press release declaring “The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.” In one of the weirdest days in US political history, the Access Hollywood tape of Trump boasting about sexually assaulting women was released half an hour later, and half an hour after that, “WikiLeaks began tweeting links to emails hacked from the personal account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.” WikiLeaks is thought to have gotten its material from the Russian intelligence agency GRU; longtime Republican operative and Trump ally Roger Stone appears to have been a liaison between WikiLeaks and the Trump team.

On 30 October 2016, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reidput out a furious letter to then-FBI director James Comey, charging “it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government – a foreign interest hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity.” He demanded, unsuccessfully, that Comey publicize this information. On 31 October, Obama contacted called Putin on the nuclear risk reductions hotline to demand he stop this interference, but the public didn’t know about this until after Trump had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.

Of course the most striking role of the Russian government in the 2016 US election was its many, many ties with the Trump campaign, including with Trump himself, who spent the campaign and the four years of his presidency groveling before Putin, denying the reality of Russian interference, and changing first the Republican platform and then US policy to serve Putin’s agendas. This included cutting support for Ukraine against Russia out of the Republican platform when he won the primary, considerable animosity toward Nato, and ultimately trying to blackmail Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in 2019 by withholding military aid while demanding he offer confirmation of a Russian conspiracy theory blaming Ukraine rather than Russia for 2016 election interference.

A stunning number of Trump’s closest associates had deep ties to the Russian government. They included Paul Manafort, who during his years in Ukraine worked to build Russian influence there and served as a consultant to the Kremlin-backed Ukrainian president who was driven out of the country – and into Russia by popular protest in 2014 (the Russian line is that this was an illegitimate coup and thus a justification for invasion is still widely repeated). Manafort was, during his time in the campaign, sharing data with Russian intelligence agent Konstantin V Kilimnik, while campaign advisor Jeff Sessions was sharing information with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Manafort, Donald Trump Jr and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner held an illegal meeting in Trump Tower with a Kremlin-linked lawyer on 9 June 2016, where they were promised damaging material on the Clinton campaign.

After being seated next to Putin while being paid to speak at a dinner celebrating RT, Russia’s news propaganda outlet, Michael Flynn briefly became Trump’s national security advisor. He was soon was fired for lying to White House officials and later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. Jared Kushner allegedly directed him to make those contacts and as the Washington Post reported in May 2017, “Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring.” The Guardian reported the same year that “Donald Trump Jr has been forced to release damning emails that reveal he eagerly embraced what he was told was a Russian government attempt to damage Hillary Clinton’s election campaign.”

What’s striking in retrospect is that all of this was made possible by corruption and amorality inside the United States. It was Silicon Valley’s mercenary amorality that created weapons and vulnerabilities and sat by pocketing the profit as they were exploited to destructive ends. It was corrupt Americans – from Manafort to Trump himself – that gave Putin his influence. It was international players such as WikiLeaks and Cambridge Analytica that helped. It was corruption of media outlets such as Fox News that continued – in Tucker Carlson’s case until last week’s invasion of Ukraine caught up with him – to defend Putin and spread disinformation.

The Republican party met its new leader by matching his corruption, and by covering up his crimes and protecting him from consequences, including two impeachments. The second impeachment was for a violent invasion of Congress, not by a foreign power, but by right-wingers inflamed by lies instigated by Trump and amplified by many in the party. They have become willing collaborators in an attempt to sabotage free and fair elections, the rule of law, and truth itself.

Well, I spent an hour or so going through the above gaurdian article.
Unfortunately, a lot of the links provided are behind a paywall, so unless you are a subscriber to the WP or NYT, you cannot read them.
The Final Hill depositon contains says
Hill learned that an NSC staff member who did not work on Ukraine and for her may have been providing Ukraine-related information to President Trump that Dr. Hill was not made aware of.
Nothing that could be actually used as proof, just that she "learned". We don't know who or what supplied that learning.
Reading the rest of the deposition, if you took Nunnes testimony at face value, it suggests that it was the Democrats who were tricked by the Russians.
I would not take his word for it any more than I would take the word of an unnamed source for Hill's testimony.
As for the rest of it, there is no smoking gun, no proof, only allegations.
The so called contact between Kushner and the Russians according to the guardian came from the Russian Ambassador.
The Guardian raves on about Russian interference, but never stopped to think that this revelation by the Russian Ambassador may be a just another but of Russian game playing?
And at the end of it all, despite Mueller spending two years investigating the so called links with Trump and Russia, what did we get.
One charge of Michael Flynn lying to Authorities.
And years after the event, we see the so called Russian dossier was not only a fake, but evidence has emerged that the who fake dossier was paid for by the Democrats.
One has to be so wary of so many of these articles articles, both from the far left, the far right and the middle.
Allegations, third hand reports, "unnamed insiders" etc. are euphemisms for raising red flags.
Whatever Trumps many faults were, being in cahoots with Russia was not one of them, at least not based on the flimsy evidence the article puts up.
Mick
 
Well, I spent an hour or so going through the above gaurdian article.
Unfortunately, a lot of the links provided are behind a paywall, so unless you are a subscriber to the WP or NYT, you cannot read them.
The Final Hill depositon contains says

Nothing that could be actually used as proof, just that she "learned". We don't know who or what supplied that learning.
Reading the rest of the deposition, if you took Nunnes testimony at face value, it suggests that it was the Democrats who were tricked by the Russians.
I would not take his word for it any more than I would take the word of an unnamed source for Hill's testimony.
As for the rest of it, there is no smoking gun, no proof, only allegations.
The so called contact between Kushner and the Russians according to the guardian came from the Russian Ambassador.
The Guardian raves on about Russian interference, but never stopped to think that this revelation by the Russian Ambassador may be a just another but of Russian game playing?
And at the end of it all, despite Mueller spending two years investigating the so called links with Trump and Russia, what did we get.
One charge of Michael Flynn lying to Authorities.
And years after the event, we see the so called Russian dossier was not only a fake, but evidence has emerged that the who fake dossier was paid for by the Democrats.
One has to be so wary of so many of these articles articles, both from the far left, the far right and the middle.
Allegations, third hand reports, "unnamed insiders" etc. are euphemisms for raising red flags.
Whatever Trumps many faults were, being in cahoots with Russia was not one of them, at least not based on the flimsy evidence the article puts up.
Mick

I'm glad you took the trouble of going to the sources of how the Russians interfered with the US Elections and the role of the Trump administration in these efforts.

One of these links was a transcript of the testimony of the David Holmes and Fiona Hill to the House Intelligence Committee. When you read through the transcript it is crystal clear how much pressure Trump was attempting to put on the Ukraine government to investigate any possible allegations that could undermine Joe Bidens son. There is much more as well.

The link seemed to work for me. You can get a limited number of free stories so perhaps download it and check it out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...testimony-front-house-intelligence-committee/
 
Again on the links which demonstrated just how involved Russia was in creating lies and conflict in the US before the 2016 election.
US intelligence uncovered scores of fake Facebook and Internet accounts created by a Russian " troll" farm. One of the highlights of their success was setting a super strong fake Right wing Texas secessionist group , then a militant Islamic support group and then creating a series of protests between the groups !

A sprawling Russian disinformation campaign aimed at influencing the 2016 elections found success with social media accounts promoting the idea of Texas secession, according to a report commissioned by the U.S. Senate that was released Monday.

When it came to stirring up social divisions and exerting political influence, two accounts about the Lone Star State proved especially effective: a “Heart of Texas” Facebook page and a @rebeltexas account on Instagram.

In at least one case, Heart of Texas’ vitriolic posts resulted in dueling protests outside a Houston mosque during the 2016 election cycle.

As the page announced a rally on May 21, 2016 outside the Islamic Da'wah Center to “Stop Islamification of Texas,” a separate Russian-sponsored group, United Muslims of America, advertised a “Save Islamic Knowledge” rally for the same place and time. Interactions between the two groups eventually escalated into confrontation and verbal attacks.

That Russian groups were behind both protests came to light in late 2017, when federal lawmakers released a cache of information about the extent Russian operatives made use of Facebook during the 2016 presidential campaign.

 
I'm glad you took the trouble of going to the sources of how the Russians interfered with the US Elections and the role of the Trump administration in these efforts.

One of these links was a transcript of the testimony of the David Holmes and Fiona Hill to the House Intelligence Committee. When you read through the transcript it is crystal clear how much pressure Trump was attempting to put on the Ukraine government to investigate any possible allegations that could undermine Joe Bidens son. There is much more as well.

The link seemed to work for me. You can get a limited number of free stories so perhaps download it and check it out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...testimony-front-house-intelligence-committee/
As I said, I read the original deposition from Hill and Holmes, but it provided no proof other than her hearing that that someone "may" be providing info to the Russians.
However, I also read the rest of the document which provided a transcript of the depositon by Nunnes.
I have no idea if you read that far, but as I said, it takes a very different tack.
But in the end, none of the depositions provide any proof from either side.
Everybody reads into these things what they want to read.
Mick
 
Again on the links which demonstrated just how involved Russia was in creating lies and conflict in the US before the 2016 election.
US intelligence uncovered scores of fake Facebook and Internet accounts created by a Russian " troll" farm. One of the highlights of their success was setting a super strong fake Right wing Texas secessionist group , then a militant Islamic support group and then creating a series of protests between the groups !

A sprawling Russian disinformation campaign aimed at influencing the 2016 elections found success with social media accounts promoting the idea of Texas secession, according to a report commissioned by the U.S. Senate that was released Monday.

When it came to stirring up social divisions and exerting political influence, two accounts about the Lone Star State proved especially effective: a “Heart of Texas” Facebook page and a @rebeltexas account on Instagram.

In at least one case, Heart of Texas’ vitriolic posts resulted in dueling protests outside a Houston mosque during the 2016 election cycle.

As the page announced a rally on May 21, 2016 outside the Islamic Da'wah Center to “Stop Islamification of Texas,” a separate Russian-sponsored group, United Muslims of America, advertised a “Save Islamic Knowledge” rally for the same place and time. Interactions between the two groups eventually escalated into confrontation and verbal attacks.

That Russian groups were behind both protests came to light in late 2017, when federal lawmakers released a cache of information about the extent Russian operatives made use of Facebook during the 2016 presidential campaign.

This along with the first part of the original article you mentioned, where Russian interference was mentioned, which I suspect is correct,
has nothing to do with Trump, other than the article saying it came to light when the feds released a cache of information during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The fact that it was put in an article saying we need to investigate Russian and trump links, tells more about the sleight of hand of so called independent journalists.
Mick
 

It’s time to confront the Trump-Putin network

Rebecca Solnit
View attachment 138512

A stunning number of Trump’s closest associates had deep ties to the Kremlin. The significance of this cannot be overstated

View attachment 138513
‘The most striking role of the Russian government in the 2016 US election was its many, many ties with the Trump campaign.’

Photograph: Joe Marino/UPI/Rex/Shutterstock
Wed 2 Mar 2022 06.22 EST
Last modified on Wed 2 Mar 2022 17.48 EST

In 2014, the Putin regime invaded Ukraine’s Crimea. In 2016, the same regime invaded the United States. The former took place as a conventional military operation; the latter was a spectacular case of cyberwarfare, including disinformation that it was happening at all and promulgation of a lot of talking points still devoutly repeated by many. It was a vast social-media influencing project that took many forms as it sought to sow discord and confusion, even attempting to dissuade Black voters from voting.

Additionally, Russian intelligence targeted voter rolls in all 50 states, which is not thought to have had consequences, but demonstrated the reach and ambition of online interference. This weekend, British investigative journalist Carole Cadwalladr said on Twitter, “We failed to acknowledge Russia had staged a military attack on the West. We called it ‘meddling.’ We used words like ‘interference.’ It wasn’t. It was warfare. We’ve been under military attack for eight years now.”

As she notes, Putin’s minions were not only directing their attention to the United States, and included pro-Brexit efforts and support for France’s far-right racist National Front party. The US interference – you could call it cyberwarfare, or informational invasion – took many forms. Stunningly, a number of left-wing news sources and pundits devoted themselves to denying the reality of the intervention and calling those who were hostile to the Putin regime cold-war red-scare right-wingers, as if contemporary Russia was a glorious socialist republic rather than a country ruled by a dictatorial ex-KGB agent with a record of murdering journalists, imprisoning dissenters, embezzling tens of billions and leading a global neofascist white supremacist revival. In discrediting the news stories and attacking critics of the Russian government, they provided crucial cover for Trump.

In her 2019 testimony to House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, former National Security Agency staffer Fiona Hill declared, “Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified. The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart; truth is questioned; our highly professional expert career Foreign Service is being undermined. US support for Ukraine, which continues to face armed aggression, is being politicized. President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter US foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and economic dominance.”

The assertions of interference were compelling all along. On 7 October 2016, US intelligence agencies released a bombshell press release declaring “The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.” In one of the weirdest days in US political history, the Access Hollywood tape of Trump boasting about sexually assaulting women was released half an hour later, and half an hour after that, “WikiLeaks began tweeting links to emails hacked from the personal account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.” WikiLeaks is thought to have gotten its material from the Russian intelligence agency GRU; longtime Republican operative and Trump ally Roger Stone appears to have been a liaison between WikiLeaks and the Trump team.

On 30 October 2016, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reidput out a furious letter to then-FBI director James Comey, charging “it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government – a foreign interest hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity.” He demanded, unsuccessfully, that Comey publicize this information. On 31 October, Obama contacted called Putin on the nuclear risk reductions hotline to demand he stop this interference, but the public didn’t know about this until after Trump had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.

Of course the most striking role of the Russian government in the 2016 US election was its many, many ties with the Trump campaign, including with Trump himself, who spent the campaign and the four years of his presidency groveling before Putin, denying the reality of Russian interference, and changing first the Republican platform and then US policy to serve Putin’s agendas. This included cutting support for Ukraine against Russia out of the Republican platform when he won the primary, considerable animosity toward Nato, and ultimately trying to blackmail Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in 2019 by withholding military aid while demanding he offer confirmation of a Russian conspiracy theory blaming Ukraine rather than Russia for 2016 election interference.

A stunning number of Trump’s closest associates had deep ties to the Russian government. They included Paul Manafort, who during his years in Ukraine worked to build Russian influence there and served as a consultant to the Kremlin-backed Ukrainian president who was driven out of the country – and into Russia by popular protest in 2014 (the Russian line is that this was an illegitimate coup and thus a justification for invasion is still widely repeated). Manafort was, during his time in the campaign, sharing data with Russian intelligence agent Konstantin V Kilimnik, while campaign advisor Jeff Sessions was sharing information with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Manafort, Donald Trump Jr and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner held an illegal meeting in Trump Tower with a Kremlin-linked lawyer on 9 June 2016, where they were promised damaging material on the Clinton campaign.

After being seated next to Putin while being paid to speak at a dinner celebrating RT, Russia’s news propaganda outlet, Michael Flynn briefly became Trump’s national security advisor. He was soon was fired for lying to White House officials and later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian ambassador. Jared Kushner allegedly directed him to make those contacts and as the Washington Post reported in May 2017, “Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring.” The Guardian reported the same year that “Donald Trump Jr has been forced to release damning emails that reveal he eagerly embraced what he was told was a Russian government attempt to damage Hillary Clinton’s election campaign.”

What’s striking in retrospect is that all of this was made possible by corruption and amorality inside the United States. It was Silicon Valley’s mercenary amorality that created weapons and vulnerabilities and sat by pocketing the profit as they were exploited to destructive ends. It was corrupt Americans – from Manafort to Trump himself – that gave Putin his influence. It was international players such as WikiLeaks and Cambridge Analytica that helped. It was corruption of media outlets such as Fox News that continued – in Tucker Carlson’s case until last week’s invasion of Ukraine caught up with him – to defend Putin and spread disinformation.

The Republican party met its new leader by matching his corruption, and by covering up his crimes and protecting him from consequences, including two impeachments. The second impeachment was for a violent invasion of Congress, not by a foreign power, but by right-wingers inflamed by lies instigated by Trump and amplified by many in the party. They have become willing collaborators in an attempt to sabotage free and fair elections, the rule of law, and truth itself.

There is no proof. It's all just long shots and guilty by association.
 
As I said, I read the original deposition from Hill and Holmes, but it provided no proof other than her hearing that that someone "may" be providing info to the Russians.
However, I also read the rest of the document which provided a transcript of the depositon by Nunnes.
I have no idea if you read that far, but as I said, it takes a very different tack.
But in the end, none of the depositions provide any proof from either side.
Everybody reads into these things what they want to read.
Mick

Hmm. Couple of points Mick
1) Nunnes only role in the hearing was to categorically deny that the Trump administration had ever done anything wrong in any way and that the entire situation a cooked up load of Democrat lies. So that's what he had to say.

2) The statements and questioning of David Holme and Fiona Hill are of two long term career diplomats. They have served under US administtrations from the mid 80's. They saw, heard and detailed the efforts of Trumps staff to use US-Ukranian diplomatic relations as a lever to undermine Joe Biden. The same Trump staff were also determined to support Russian attempts to pin 2016 electoral interference on Ukraine rather than Russia.

The critical point of the Senate inquiry was whether Donald Trump had attempted to cajole/persuade/force the new Ukraine President into announcing inquiries into Biden as a condition for receiving US support. On the way to this conversation there are a series of interventions by Guilani and others to make the career diplomats acquiesce to this effort.

There are 109 pages of testimony and questioning. The statements by the career diplomats of what had transpired as well as Trumps appointed ambassador all come to the same conclusion. Trump was determined to use international diplomacy to attack his political rival.
This was the point of the inquiry.

If, as you stated, you read through even a large part of the testimony I cannot understand how you missed all of this evidence.

In the coming days, Congress will determine what response is appropriate. If the president abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, if he sought to condition, coerce, extort or bribe a vulnerable ally into conducting investigations to aid his re-election campaign and did so by withholding official acts -- a White House meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid -- it will be up -- it will be for us to decide whether those acts are compatible with the Office of the Presidency.
 
Hmm. Couple of points Mick
1) Nunnes only role in the hearing was to categorically deny that the Trump administration had ever done anything wrong in any way and that the entire situation a cooked up load of Democrat lies. So that's what he had to say.

2) The statements and questioning of David Holme and Fiona Hill are of two long term career diplomats. They have served under US administtrations from the mid 80's. They saw, heard and detailed the efforts of Trumps staff to use US-Ukranian diplomatic relations as a lever to undermine Joe Biden. The same Trump staff were also determined to support Russian attempts to pin 2016 electoral interference on Ukraine rather than Russia.

The critical point of the Senate inquiry was whether Donald Trump had attempted to cajole/persuade/force the new Ukraine President into announcing inquiries into Biden as a condition for receiving US support. On the way to this conversation there are a series of interventions by Guilani and others to make the career diplomats acquiesce to this effort.

There are 109 pages of testimony and questioning. The statements by the career diplomats of what had transpired as well as Trumps appointed ambassador all come to the same conclusion. Trump was determined to use international diplomacy to attack his political rival.
This was the point of the inquiry.

If, as you stated, you read through even a large part of the testimony I cannot understand how you missed all of this evidence.

In the coming days, Congress will determine what response is appropriate. If the president abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, if he sought to condition, coerce, extort or bribe a vulnerable ally into conducting investigations to aid his re-election campaign and did so by withholding official acts -- a White House meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid -- it will be up -- it will be for us to decide whether those acts are compatible with the Office of the Presidency.
You're about 0 out of a thousand so far. And still reaching.
 
Top