Cereal discussion for super serial Spikers
Stephen Cohen is an American scholar and professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University. His academic work concentrates on modern Russian history since the Bolshevik Revolution and the country's relationship with the United States.
No votes yet
Comments
(Member)
Is it still called Russiagate? I thought they concluded that russia did indeed meddle in the elections and help candidate Trump.
(Old Spike)
'They' also concluded Iraq had WMDs & Saddam's troops were throwing babies from their incubators.
Whether the Russian govt did anything substantial to influence the 2016 election isn't really important to this video though. The host believes they did while the guest believes (as I do) that they didn't.
The media & a large part of the US security establishment has a vested interest in spreading 'red scare' disinfo.
(Member)
Good stuff about Iraq, but not sure what this has to do about this particular case. Also the US intel agencies told the Bush admin that they had no evidence of WMD's. So, yeah.
The report provides conclusive evidence tying Russia to meddling in the election. So what do you mean by Russiagate? Are you one of the Seth Rich conspiracy people? It was specifically debunked in the report, too, by the way. Was another bullshit claim by the compromised russian shill Assange. Surely you have a better argument than "russophobia".
(Old Spike)
Not sure why you're hung up on the word Russiagate. It's just a word that fits. It was the same clowns who pushed the Iraq WMD story - Mueller was head of FBI & testified before Congress to bolster that claim.
The report doesn't do what you say it does. It does not provide conclusive evidence that Russia meddled in the election in any substantial way & it doesn't debunk the Seth Rich claim. It's impossible for the FBI to conclusively prove how the emails were exciltrated since they never handled the DNC servers or mention any secret NSA evidence as proof.
What the report does is paint a narrative tht Russia meddled in the election. Just as the FBI under ueller endorsed the narrative that Iraq had WMDs .... there were people who called bullshit on that too & were shunned from the media as has been the case with Russiagate.
(Member)
Are you a broken record? What does the non-sequiter about Mueller being the head of FBI and this report have to do with anything? This is false equivilance and it was down to Blair and Powell, who pushed the US into Iraq. Regurtitating this whackjob talking point, just shines light on your gullibility. And the fact that you watch RT non-ironically. You do, don't you?
You didn't even read the report, huh? The Seth Rich bullshit was directly mentioned in it (created by ratfucker Assange to cover for his overlord russians), as was the russian hacking of the DNC servers. Based on evidence and facts upon which the ruskies were indicted. Not esoteric arguments like RUSSOPHOBIA. Good one, though.
You seem mixed up and left out to dry. I doubt you know the difference between faith and fact, belief and evidence. People like you are easily misled by charlatans, conmen and whackjob shills like taibbi, mate or greenwald. Hence, we have a person like Trump in the white house.
(Old Spike)
Mueller was wrong on Iraq WMDs & the Anthrax case, that's the connection. Blair & Powell are not intel agents.
I've read the part of the report that you claim debunks Seth Rich as the leaker [link], it does nothing of the sort. All it does is repeat the BS about how the FBI says the leaks happened. It's a narrative, just like the Iraq WMD was a narrative. It's not proven at all. They don't even try to show a chain of custody. It's quite laughable that people believe it, all things considered.
Re: Seth Rich - I know you desparately want this strawman but my argument is not that he's the leaker of Podesta's emails. I don't care about the other stuff that was hacked & haven't looked into it in much detail becuase it's inconsequential.
Your assertion that the "russian hacking of the DNC servers. Based on evidence and facts " is bogus. The FBI never laid hands on the servers. They relied on analysis by Crowdstrike, a private company in the employ of the DNC & with a history of getting things wrong.
There are many experts who argue that there's no way to know for sure who exfil'ed the Podesta emails, it would be easy for an advanced outfit to make it look like it was a Russian hack, and that a private company like Crowdstrike are way out of their depth in assessing the evidence.
You seem triggered. What's your regular account on Spiked & why are you hiding?
(Member)
All your arguments have no basis whatsoever. Not only crowdstrike checked the e-mails, there are actually several firms that did so. Wrong again. Mueller provided no false evidence and the anthrax case was bolstered by the media. Wrong again. I bet you were pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy not long ago, but now the goal posts have been moved. Pathetic cultist.
(Old Spike)
Crowdstrike are the only company who handled the data. A couple of other companies concurred with their conclusion based on the pattern Crowdstrike says they identified, one that all 3 companies had already concluded is Russian. The Crowdstrike reporting is a couple of vague blog posts that rely heavily on their legitemacy as a company - a company who's previously made a massive mistake by falsely attributing alleged hacking to Russia.
The way you phrase it as "checked the emails" and the substance of what you said shows you have no clue what you're talking about. And yet you seem so sure of your opinion that you insult anyone who disagrees.... ironically you label THEM as cultists.
Mueller spent 5 years chasing the wrong guy for the Anthrax letters. It was such a collossal fuck up the government had to compensate him with millions of $.
You're desparate to drag Seth Rich into the conversation, what's your obsession with him?
FYI the goalposts haven't moved anywhere. I've posted loads of things about Russiagate on this site going back over a year & my stance hasn't changed. Since the Mueller report is out a lot of people finally agree that Trump didn't collude but the shitty part is that the "Russia hacked Podesta's emails" is taken as a given. Both claims are bogus.
(Member)
So your argument comes down to russophobia. Good one. A narrative the Kremlin is pushing for years now and the dimwits of the internet eat it all up. Mind you this time it is not the administration, but the intelligence agencies concluding that it was the russians. So your whataboutism falls even flatter. When are you going to mention (((Soros))) and the deep state?
Collusion was never a point of investigation, which is written in the report itself. There was evidence of conspiracy, but not enough to charge him with, as most witnesses stonewalled the investigation and there were at least 10 instances of obstruction of justice mentioned in the report.
(Old Spike)
Collusion was never a point of investigation
Sure. And you tell other people they move goalposts. In fact pretty much everything you've said is mere projection.
(Member)
On page 2 — page 2!! — of the report, Mueller explains they didn’t investigate “collusion,” but instead investigated “conspiracy” and “coordination,” a point I’ve been making for years. But HILLARY!!!!11!!!
Tell me more about how Mueller was the FBI director during the time the Bush admin fabricated the evidence to justify the Iraq war and tell me more about how Crowdstrike has a bad case of russophobia (along with three private cybersecurity firms and the intel services of the US).
(Old Spike)
Collusion is a casual word for conspiracy/coordination, your point is moot. And it is not supported by any evidence in the report.
(Member)
It's not the same thing. The references to “collusion” in the Mueller Report fall, generally, into two categories. A legal discussion explaining why Mueller was not investigating “collusion.” And a catalogue of the instances where Trump and his surrogates denied that he was guilty of that non-crime.. You were gaslit by an overweight orange life long con-man. Congrats.
It did not exonorate him either and it could have, as it is allowed by DOJ policy. There is plenty of evidence of it, but not enough to reach a conclusion with confidence. It's cute you highlighted the cherry picked quote of trumps fixer barr.
This is where you go back to Crowdstrike, russophobia and Mueller as FBI director.
(Old Spike)
"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."
This is your "evidence" of conspiracy/coordination (collusion)?
I've not claimed anywhere that Trump was exonerated because that's just a strawman. Exonerated from what exactly? From being a conman? A liar? What idiot would say these things are not true?
(Member)
Go read the report. Your lazy ass, just has everything regurgitated to you by modern day Walter Duranty types. Also, coming back to your non-sequitur Crowdstrike statements. If their mistakes have been found out in the past, in a month of so on average, would that not mean that they would have been easily sniffed out by the three private firms that checked them 3 years down the line? Oh oh, I know the answer. Conspiracy, whatabout FBI Mueller, DEEP STATE, russophobia.
(Old Spike)
would that not mean that they would have been easily sniffed out by the three private firms that checked them 3 years down the line?
No. Crowdstrike is the only organisation that has access to the DNC servers. Other orgs can only look at Crowdstrike's conclusion.
Go read the report
I've read the relative parts to the allegation that the GRU exfiltrated the Podesta emails. It's a DoJ fantasy. The NSA's "moderate confidence" in their conclusion should be a red flag, regardless of what you think of Trump or Republicans.