Featured Post

Hiroshima: A Real Decision

My great retirement-from-retirement plan not having worked out, I was idly surfing the net reading about the apparent and "surprising&...

Saturday, February 3, 2018

One More Time on Russian Collusion: Putin Got a Bad Deal?

OK, OK, I know I've written a lot about the silly Trump-Putin collusion story (here, here, and here, for example). I had sworn I would write no more about it, but, alas . . . I was listening to the radio while driving around Durham, and some Democratic hack was discussing THE MEMO, and he was spitting out what is apparently a new Demo talking point, to wit, the memo does not dispute the "mountains," yes, folks, "mountains" of evidence that show "collusion" between Trump's campaign and Putin's Russia.

Where these "mountains" are, one does not know, or, at least, this humble blogger does not. I would respectfully ask the Dems to point us to these "mountains." But, meanwhile, we move on . . .

Let's say, that, indeed, there are "mountains of evidence" showing collusion (however defined) between Trump and Putin to get Trump elected President of the USA. Let's say that Trump and Putin were on the phone every night like giddy high school girls "colluding" away. Let's say that Putin funded the whole Trump campaign; that he KNEW all the polls and pundits were wrong and that Trump would win; that he had a magic crystal ball that told him that Trump's long-shot campaign at the White House would succeed. Grant all that, OK?

We still face the issues I raised back on December 10, 2016,
But did Putin want Trump to win? Why? Not clear to me. Yes, Trump has made favorable nosies about seeking an alliance with Russia against Islamist terror, but he also has promised--and I believe he will keep that promise--to revitalize our military and industry and promote American energy independence, including, of course, fracking and other fossil fuel development in the USA--a devastating prospect for Russia's oil-based economy. The power balance will swing back to the US in a way it would not had Hillary and her cohorts taken power.
What did Putin get with a Trump victory? He got as I predicted back in 2014, when I discussed the issue of sanctions on Russia,
I previously wrote what we need to do in the long-run is to avoid creating the environment that allows situations such as the one we now see in Ukraine from arising. Instead of announcing sanctions that won't work, we should do something for ourselves that will immunize us from the lawless behavior of petty tyrants. 
Frack. Yes, frack. 
Get US oil and gas production going full scale. The US government should announce an end to restrictions on fracking on federal lands, and an end to the absurd restrictions on maritime drilling. We should also announce our intention to become Europe's biggest supplier of natural gas. Just the announcement will drop the price of oil and gas and shave tens of billions off the oil- and gas-dependent Russian economy and hit the Russian government budget. It will, as I have written repeatedly, kick off a new wave of prosperity in the USA. 
As long as we continue with self-destructive policies such as limiting our ability to achieve energy independence, we will limit our ability to respond to actions of petty tyrants.
Trump did exactly that, just as he had promised during the campaign. The result is a Russian economy, still heavily dependent on oil and gas, in a serious downward spiral, with pressure put on the Russian military budget. He's got a President in the USA who has announced a renewal and expansion of our nuclear forces in keeping with the renewal and expansion of our conventional forces. He has gotten a US President who has re-established strong Israel-US ties while at the same time maintaining strong ties with key Muslim players such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. He has a President who is defeating ISIS, containing the Iranians, and arming the Ukrainians.  And on and on . . . fill in the rest.

Seems that Putin got a pretty bad deal.

76 comments:

  1. Democrats have to assume Putin is really stupid. After all, they said the memo would violate national security. Then it came out and they said it was a "nothing burger."
    See how that works ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Seems that Putin got a pretty bad deal": that's what they want you to think.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "nothing burger." That phrase sets my teeth to grinding. The business about Trump taking on the FBI and that he will pay for that! Ahem, lets just say that talk is infuriating. Nixon went down because the republicans had some integrity, and stopped backing him. The media, and democrats response to the clear misconduct of the administrative state has genuinely shocked me.
    Can anyone point to one lefty that has expressed concern that our version of the secret police are spying on a duly elected president? I'm convinced we are heading to shooting war. Hope Trump is gathering his military close. Maybe i'm a bit hysterical, but truly i have been jolted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then you may be interested in this...http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2018/01/this-civil-war-my-south-carolina-tea.html

      Delete
    2. I don't know why those words spaced like that.

      Delete
    3. I think you can put anchors in here
      http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2018/01/this-civil-war-my-south-carolina-tea.html

      Just write it as

      <a>http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2018/01/this-civil-war-my-south-carolina-tea.html</a>

      Now off to check out your link.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    4. so to embed that link:
      <a href="http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2018/01/this-civil-war-my-south-carolina-tea.html">http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2018/01/this-civil-war-my-south-carolina-tea.html</a>

      ya know what.. if I see these things hanging around, I'll try to just anon-submit the link in clickable form.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  4. There's a psychological defense mechanism called "projection." This is at the bottom of almost all Democrat accusations, as it "projects" what they themselves are doing onto others who are innocent of the accusation.

    As you point out, Putin had no reason to be pro-Trump; on the other hand, he had every reason to be delighted if Pay-for-Play Hillary had been elected, as he'd already done some very profitable business with her and her husband, which got Putin 20% of US uranium reserves. The Clinton machine got $145M plus another $500,000 to Bill "for a speech." Nice work if you can get it!

    So there was collusion all right, lots of it; it just didn't involve Trump. The collusion was with the DNC, the Clintons and the Obama administration, and its purpose was 1/prevent the election of Donald J. Trump, and if that failed- 2/sabotage of Trump's presidency so that he is unsuccessful and hopefully removed.

    Remember what Hillary said? "If that f-ing bastard wins, we'll all be hanging from nooses!" That would be a delightful end to this fascinating drama, and justice would be done!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You left out the word Fascist. I heard a newsperson talking about how we can't have Trump be above the law. Hillary is the one that seems to be untouchable.

      Delete
    2. Good point!

      But haven't you got the memo from the Left? It says that all collectivists, whether they're called Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Leninist, Nazi or Fascist- are to be referred to as "far-Right."

      So you see, Fascists- even though they're Socialists at heart and are as totalitarian as all the other collectivists- are supposed to be right-wing; just ask your local Antifa goon (but try not to get too close, they do lash out.)

      Therefore, Hillary can't be a Fascist; the definition has been changed. Only Trump can be, even though that's pretty laughable to anyone who looks at his actual policies! (It's no surprise that history is no longer taught in our "educational" institutions, sigh.)

      Delete
  5. Putin spends a few bucks and gets one year plus of chaos in the US political system. I would say he must be very pleased. Now we are stuck with Progressives that just seem to love chasing their tails.
    It is an interesting battle to see which Progressive is the most insane. Right now I see a dead heat between Pelosi and Waters.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, I have another perspective on this matter. I really believe that Putin preferred Trump to Hillary and many of us Europeans did so as well because we needed/need a new US foreign policy , we don´t need more tensions in our region, we have other very serious problems to handle. Hillary didn´t make it because she is a miserable, bad, corrupt , uncharismatic politician with bad politics and Russia helped to disclose some of the hidden facts about her and her dealings. That is not collusion, that is to do the world a great service. However, Putin didn´t "get" the Trump he saw in the campaign because the war mongering neocons still dictate very much of the foreign politics.That is definitely my impression. President Trump has to fight a titanic fight to get rid of these people and the first step, as I see it, is that memo.I am glad that Trump is a man of tough fibre, the sort of guy that can do it.
    By the way, as a European I cannot see why the US and Russia cannot compete about the energy contracts with Europe. Why should one part have monopoly ? Fair competition would be excellent for us living in the cold North with expensive energy bills.
    Swedish lady

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The endless assaults of the Progressives may be what's driven Trump into the arms of the neocons.

      Delete
    2. We're trying:

      http://www.gasinfocus.com/en/indicator/existing-and-planned-lng-terminals/

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/business/energy-environment/liquified-natural-gas-world-markets.html

      Delete
    3. As ColoComment says Swedish Lady, "We're trying":

      (There's many reasons Trump IS aware of one of which

      https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/04/f34/MHAC_Recommendations_to_Secretary.pdf

      opening up the additional fields makes more sense than many US citizens yet realize.)

      JK

      Delete
    4. Fossil fuels are still the most economic and efficient source of energy for most purposes. With all respect, you might consider what priorities your government seems to be following when you reference expensive energy bills. Social virtue signaling has its own, additional, cost.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-phases-out-fossil-fuels-in-attempt-to-run-completely-off-renewable-energy-a7047306.html

      Delete
    5. ColoComment, well, we have a very "virtuous" Socialist/Green Party government right now. But I have nothing against those windparks, solar panels etc, I think it is fine to develop this technology.
      Looking at the chart in the Independent article I notice how little renewable energy Germany and France use. Germany relies heavily on Russian gas while France have many, many nuclear reactors. Too many, I think.I often wonder how Japan manages now when they, after the disaster, decided to shut down all their nuclear reactors. What will their alternative be ?
      Swedish lady

      Delete
  7. oh! oh! oh! I know this one! Call on me! Call on me!
    Putin got his way because he got someone elected that progressives hate *so* much, that the country will melt down and no longer be a global strategic threat. It's a masterstroke of collusion!

    But seriously, the only motivation I've *ever* seen ascribed to the non-existent claims of 'collusion' is Putin having a personal animus towards Hillary.

    There can be no evidence without an allegation. At this point, nobody is even alleging that Trump was involved in the DNC hack in any way. At one point, a progressive CNN/NBC hack tried to say that the Trump campaign was informed of the hack before the public, but even the rest of the liberals couldn't paper over the complete farce, so the narrative didn't stick.

    At this point, there aren't even any allegations. Without allegations, evidence doesn't make any sense. "I've got evidence proving it!" Proving what? "I don't know.. but I've got the evidence to prove it!"

    Sadly, this is standard operating procedure for progressives. I suspect it's because they're driven by their own personal anger at their circumstances in life, not logic.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  8. Something just occurred to me and I'd enjoy anybody's thoughts.

    There's been of course all the shouting about, "The Russians interfered in our elections!" but then, and the *authorities* all seem to agree that, "not a single vote can be proven to have been swayed by the Russians" so

    Would it not be more precise to say, possibly that, "The Russians may have interfered in the campaigns"?

    If that interfering in the campaigns is true and, it is also true that no votes were changed then doesn't it follow that, speaking precisely, all this crap we're being inundated with is Much ado about nothing?

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Note to Self.

      Always always bear in mind Mencken's Dictum:

      "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

      Apologies all - the request for thoughts is moot.

      Delete
  9. The problem has always been the quid pro quo. Republicans and other non-democratic party sorts assume that Putin wanted to improve Russia's position. But it all makes sense if you assume instead that what he really wanted was to be guest host on "The Apprentice."

    Just ask San Fran Nan if she'd want that exposure! Or Sen. Durban! So of course someone like Putin would jump at the chance.

    Green Bear
    (Now to get my tongue out of my cheek ....)

    ReplyDelete
  10. The notion in the past two posts, and their responses, of the FBI being some bastion of liberal loyalty, to the point of trying to subvert a conservative president, strikes me as so disconnected from reality that there is no point in rebutting it. You don't really need to go further than Comey's October 2016 public statement to see how ridiculous that is.

    Of course, this is on a site where a statement like "which got Putin 20% of US uranium reserves" goes unrebutted, a statement of both ignorance and hyper-partisanship. If you believe this quote, I suppose conforming to reality is not an issue for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No point in rebutting" means you can't.

      Delete
    2. When the FBI, an agency supposedly part of the executive, and subject to the authority of the President, is making public statements counter to those of the President, there is a problem.
      Now if these people with these opinions resigned, and took on their civilian mantles, and weren't dropping classified material, they'd be free to issue public statements contrary to those of the President.

      At the very least, regardless of where people fall on the facts and interpretation of said facts, if this is not insubordination, I don't know what is. Yes, it's possible they exercised an exploit whereby the agency wasn't expressly forbidden from issuing such a notice, but even then, they're knowingly working at odds to the intent of the executive.

      That's a problem... and there have been problems... at *least* since the run-up to 9/11... if I were in the white house, I'd probably take the FBI's org chart, draw a horizontal line across the middle of it, and fire everybody above that line.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    3. DiploMad, "there is no point in rebutting it" means that I understand the effects of confirmation bias and the backfire effect well enough to know that evidence means nothing against the weight of people's emotional responses.

      reader #1482, if the State department, or the Interior department, or the the HUD department, or any similar department were making statements counter to the President, I would agree with you. For example, if Dr. Ben Carson were to suddenly come out against Trump's positions on, say, funding for certain housing projects, even if I agreed with Dr. Carson, I would also agree that President Trump should be able to remove him.

      However, the FBI (and in many ways, the DoJ generally), is by design supposed to be more independent, and less directly answerable to the President.

      Delete
    4. Is that Constitutional? Or design-by-bureaucratic growth?
      Certainly congress can pass laws, but I don't think they can pass laws making the FBI, CIA, NSA, state, or any other department independent of the President.
      I know such a strategy was directly attempted with the CFPB, but I'm very concerned about creating organizations within the government which are even *intended* to be independent of politics. To me, it's the ultimate in indecent proposals to suggest that the results of elections need to be managed or mitigated by bodies appointed by previous administrations and legislatures.

      The Constitution *does* provide for a body that is intended to be politically independent. It provides this with the best assurances available even today: life time appointments to the bench in the judicial branch. Well... except FISC perhaps! (Or maybe they were truly duped!) :)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    5. One B.,

      I don't know where you got the impression that the DOJ and FBI are supposed to be independent of the Administration and the President. It certainly isn't in the way the Constitution structures the division of powers, for that document CLEARLY aligns those agencies under the President. Hence, any inference that they are "independent" is merely a manufactured deep-state mirage.

      That is, they were totally subservient to the Obama and Clinton Administrations, but somehow the rules changed because a non-Democrat got elected?

      Not buying it.

      Green Bear

      Delete
    6. One Brow,
      On policy, executive departments answer to the president, end of story. On matters defined by law, they follow the law. FBI appears to be doing neither. FBI used 'salacious and unverified' (FBI's words) information provided by the Democrats, without which there would be no investigation (FBI's words) plus lies of omission to FISA Court to justify a wiretap of Trump's campaign. The FBI put itself at the service of a party, instead of the country.

      Delete
    7. In an almost-textbook example of the biases that make a genuine conversation based on evidence unlikely, three separate commentators input the phrase "more independent, and less directly answerable" and produce the output of "independent". I would argue "more independent, and less directly answerable" does not only apply to the FBI, but a few other agencies, for example, the Federal Reserve. Yes, they answer to the President, but there is an expectation and a tradition that the President does not use them for his agenda nor interfere directly in their activities.

      reader #1482, unless we dismiss the entirety of the bureaucracy every time a new President takes over, there will be management by people appointed by the previous administration. In fact, for better or worse, each of the previous four Presidents, shortly before leaving office, has converted positions from those that are appointed to those that are continuing.

      Green Bear, while your reference to "deep-state mirage" is amusing, I don’t recall making any claim that the FBI is more independent under Trump that under Clinton, Obama, or any other President. I am curious, though. If you believe Comey was completely subservient to Obama and that he followed Obama’s directions only and showed no independence, why did he send the 2016-OCT-28 letter to Congress on Clinton’s emails? Do you think Obama ordered that? Did you think that back in 2016, or only after you started hearing about a "deep state"?

      FBI used 'salacious and unverified' (FBI's words) information provided by the Democrats, without which there would be no investigation (FBI's words) plus lies of omission to FISA Court to justify a wiretap of Trump's campaign. The FBI put itself at the service of a party, instead of the country.

      Doctor Weasel, can you provide a direct quote where the FBI said this, or are you relying on the memo supplied by Devin Nunes and approved for release on a party-line vote? If the latter, do you really believe there is no political spin put into this memo?

      Some information in the Steele dossier was salacious and unverified. Some information in the Steele dossier was used to get the FISA warrant. What I don’t see is evidence that the salacious and unverified parts, or even just unverified parts, were also the parts used to justify the warrant. Do you have any?

      Delete
    8. I dunno... unless it were very specifically phrased as a report stating: things a, b and c are true, but d, e, and f are not, I can't see how a court would justify anything based upon a document that includes, d, e, or f, regardless of a, b or c. I mean, that low of a bar is just an invitation for ongoing abuse. This isn't "see whether this guy is the the thief", this is "ok.. wiretap an opposing presidential campaign in the middle of the race", which (I think obviously), should only be done with *ridiculously* good information. Can we agree on that one?

      I'm not going to agree on the assertion of long-standing informal/hand-shake agreements regarding the semi-independence of the FBI (among other agencies). Well, I can agree with you that it's the claim, but if they really wanted that semi-independence, they'd keep their organization from interfering in politics. While their machinations might not be clear to people (especially me), I have little doubt the FBI had *a* role in the 2016 elections. That tells me that the FBI is no better than the NSA: basically a massive leak of material which it's *supposed* to safeguard.

      You know what I'd give a lot of money to have answered? Exactly *what* classified unarchived documents did Sandy Berger remove and destroy from the national archives? Boy does that episode bother me... it's straight out of some ridiculous caper movie. It's just bait.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    9. (and by tapping the campaign, I mean they got full tapping authorization for Page, which would also allow them to intercept all of his involvement with the campaign... something that absolutely shouldn't be done without rock solid evidence... not "I know this british guy... and I had him feed his story to three news outlets.. so I actually have four citations for my book report now!")

      Delete
    10. and dismissing the bureaucracy "above half the depth in the org chart" isn't something I'd propose for all agencies... I'm just referring to a couple that have been dramatically ineffective or perhaps counterproductive.
      ... a security agency that let's a contractor run a bot through their network to collect *so* many of their computer warfare advantages...
      ... another security agency that lets a grunt soldier download the entire top secret state department cable log ...
      ... both security agencies losing huge tranches of data even *after* the former breaches...
      ... office of personnel management losing *intimate* data gathered in assessing trustworthiness of even nuclear weapons developers... the kind of data that will quickly provide extortion points for our enemies ...
      ... a department handing guns to foreign criminals and getting their *own* people killed with said guns... I'm certain if I saw this in a movie plot device, I would've howled at just how impossible and stupid the concept was.... yet it happened.

      and of course.. 9/11.

      there is a role for existing bureaucrats in newly reformed agencies... as consultants whose opinions will be heard and cautiously dismissed... because... heck.. it's *possible* that they were doing *some* things right amid this clandestine cluster...disaster, and I wouldn't want to toss the baby out with the bathwater... but there's an immense deal of evidence showing that the org chart probably needs to be inverted.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    11. If the Steele memo is the sole source of information, I agree that none of it should be regarded as verified. However, it's certainly possible to verify some parts of any document and not other parts through further investigation.

      Every bureaucracy I've ever been in, public or private, has had moments of ineffectiveness and/or counterproductivity, but some are more dramatic than others.

      At the time the FBI was getting the warrant on Page (October 2016), he had already left the Trump campaign.

      Wikipedia has the official version of what Berger removed (copies of a report by Clarke on the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism activities). Who knows if that is accurate.

      Delete
    12. One Brow?

      https://spectator.org/worse-than-watergate/

      Delete
    13. Anonymous, the American Spectator concludes, without grounds, that a verification that was "in its infancy" in September means there had been no verification at all (the phrases do not mean the same thing), had made no progress by the time the warrant was sought in October, and was being used to target a Presidential by being filed against a person who was no longer a part of that campaign.

      You are free to believe the spin of a memo that was already spin to begin with. We all have to decide what we will swallow.

      Honestly, I'm not sure whether to be gladdened or amused that the contingent in this country that historically has supported extending the reach of law enforcement is suddenly all worried about law enforcement overstepping its bounds.

      Delete
    14. I'm ends-justifies on this one, so if they get Trump on violations relevant to russian 'collusion' (whenever they decide what that's supposed to be), then this will have been a good call on the part of the FBI. If Steele and Steele/FBI/DOJ sock puppets are the sole source for that FISA warrant, but they caught real illegal activity with the snooping, then I'll assume they had some solid evidence that wasn't presented to the court and it paid off.

      But ... then... if... it... doesn't... and all we get is Flynn, Manafort, and post-campaign or decade old charges unrelated to any 'collusion (still undefined)', then it's going to be very very ugly.

      Same goes for the left... who have for so long been all about "freedom of the leaks!"... *UNTIL* the leak hurts the candidate they "want but hate"... It's just amazing that nobody cares about the duplicity of the DNC, but cares only about from whence the material originated, while for the tapping of the Trump campaign (still characterizing until dates and names are fully settled), they only care about the output, not the means.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    15. One Brow, this is actually incorrect, or at the very best, extremely misleading:
      "At the time the FBI was getting the warrant on Page (October 2016), he had already left the Trump campaign."

      The FISA warrant allowed for the collection of past communications, it was not simply a 'go forward' wiretap authorization.

      -reader #1482

      Delete
    16. reader #1482,

      IO tried and could not find the text of the FISA warrant on Carter Page. How did you come by the information that is included previous communications as well as current ones?

      Delete
  11. Let's see. You have mentioned Raleigh and Durham. So you are somewhere in the Research Triangle. My guess is Cary?

    Unabrow, as a previous comment suggested ... you are projecting your pretzel logic and unicorn fantasy onto us realists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm guessing are referring to me, although he is really having some spelling trouble. If so, coupld you be more specific about what I have typed that is pretzel logic and unicorn fantasy?

      Delete
  12. Why might Putin have preferred Hillary? After all she had made plenty of warmongering noise about Russia. One extra answer might be simply that the Russians know very well how cheap she is to buy. They also, in all probability, have plenty of material to blackmail her with.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why would Putin not want the Hildabeast to win? After all, he already bought her with the uranium deal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You think Putin bought nine separate federal agencies?

      Delete
    2. One Brow you said yourself on another post, paraphrasing, "That isn't the way Washington DC works nowadays."

      You notice the comment I left above at 8:02 AM? The pdf?

      JK

      Delete
    3. JK,

      My comment about "nine separate federal agencies" referred to the number of agencies whose approval was required for the Uranium One deal. So, when someone claims Putin needed to buy Clinton's approval at State (assuming she was even involved as more than a rubber-stamp to begin with), they also are making a similar claim about eight other agencies that Clinton did not head.

      Additional funding for methane hydrate may or may not prove fruitful, and its extraction may or may not be as efficient as, e.g., solar; I have no objection to it per se and no reason to support/oppose it.

      Delete
    4. My suspicion is that this went the way of "pre-9/11 middle east policy". At the time, there are high power groups who want something to happen, and barring some obvious and transparent reason why *not* to do it, what's the harm in going with the flow? iirc... we were having a 'reset' after Bush's dismal looking into Mr. Putins 'soul'. So there was a lot of financial incentive, and little in the way of people looking out for the end results. Sounds like a rubber stamp to me. Imagine people objecting to it... what would they gain?

      But like pre-9/11 middle east policy, suddenly something goes wrong. HRC makes her run... people start looking at things... that "why not" moment comes under scrutiny.

      Just my guess, things were quite lax under Osama (whup.. Obama)... I'm not sure they're less lax under Trump... probably more kinda crazy with the constant distraction. :)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    5. Oh OBie Wan Keynoby,

      "they also are making a similar claim about eight other agencies that Clinton did not head."

      But those agencies do have seats at the table? All gather at one place from time to time?

      Don't know about you OBie Wan but when I was in grade school we used to pass notes - probably texts nowadays but I can't be sure.

      JK

      Delete
    6. Putin did not need to "buy" every federal agency. Throughout the government, I know, I was in that government, the assumption all during the Obama years was that Hillary would be the next President. You see that belief in the infamous Strozk texts to his mistress in the DOJ. There is little doubt that the Russians had bought into that narrative, e.g., they paid Bill huge speaking fees, they donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. The SecState is the senior cabinet secretary; added to that was, as noted, the unquestioned assumption that Hillary would be President, the already Obama controlled bureaucracy was not going to alienate her and not give her what she wanted. The fix was in . . . or so they thought.

      Delete
    7. DiploMad, are you saying that Clinton rammed a deal through CFIUS, based on the Russians directly investing/bribing millions of dollars in this, to mine a metal that had decreasing profitability in a country that produced a less than 3% of the world supply, and under conditions that 1) would not allow them to export the metal and 2) is among the more restrictive bureaucratically?

      Well, I guess you never said the Russians were smart.

      Delete
    8. She "rammed" a deal through in exchange for millions of dollars.

      Delete
    9. Yes, you are saying the Russians paid millions of dollars to barely break even mining uranium. I don't know why the Russians would do that. I suppose you think they like to throw money away.

      Delete
    10. They paid millions to exert control and in fluency over the next president of the USA, Hillary. That's not throwing their money away . . . or so they thought.

      Delete
    11. They paid millions to influence Hillary Clinton as President (as opposed to for the sake of the Uranium One deal?), and then three years later jeopardized that investment by waging a sustained media campaign against Clinton? I suppose countries change their minds from time to time.

      Delete
    12. I highly doubt the russians thought Clinton was going to lose, and as for the 'sustained media campaign', you must be referring to that $100k facebook ad buy? The one that made me almost pee myself laughing?
      I keep looking for what the *allegations* are in this cloudy collusion business.
      I mean.. I'm missing the 'extended' part... I think Putin doesn't like Hillary or her husband, but still expected her to be potus, like everybody... including Nate Silver, who at least admits he was personally biased into making big mistakes.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    13. reader #1482,

      No, I am not referring to a single $100K as purchase, but a sustained campaign of using bots and proxies to create and spread false news stories. Also, I don't recall referencing any sort of collusion in the process. There are many reasons for PUtin to want to interfere with our elections besides collusion. It's curious that many people in here don't seem to realize they are two different aspects of the story, and the interference can be real if if the collusion is not.

      Throwing in Nate Silver was a curious digression. I mean, he acknowledged his methodology was biased during the primary process, and that he corrected for it later. Also (you may have forgotten), his website gave Trump by far the highest probability of winning the general election, roughly 33% in the days leading up to it. So, he was moderately successful in correcting his former bias.

      Delete
  14. This is an assessment of the Uranium One story by a member of President (GW) Bush's administration, for those interested:

    https://lawfareblog.com/unpacking-uranium-one-hype-and-law

    reader #1482, he compares Unranium One to a prior gold mining transaction that was rejected. More lax on uranium than gold? Perhaps.

    JK, he describes an environment where everyone has a seat at the table. Make of it what you will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "an environment where everyone has a seat at the table."

      Yes OBie Wan, that I at least was aware. "Appropriately enough" I suppose the first instance I remembered from my ninth grade high school History class being from the years 1829 through 1831.

      Knowing how keen on, you are timewise.

      JK

      Delete
    2. JK,

      If you already knew all the agencies had a seat at the table, why ask?

      Delete
    3. OBie Wan, that'd be your's from 5, 2018 at 10:04 AM.

      JK

      Delete
    4. JK,

      Yes, after which you posted a question that you know the answer to, apparently.

      Delete
    5. most likely, said gold mining, stipulating the argument, realized their mistake, which is why the clinton foundation was paid off *ahead* of the U1 deal?
      I don't know this... could be wrong... could be entirely above board.. just... so many shady deals around the clintons... yeah.. they could all be 'the vast right wing conspiracy' against the phormer philanderer in chief.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
  15. Sorry if this has already been posted, but it would seem that Carter Page was an FBI UCE (Under-Cover Employee, who was acting as such when he made contact with a known agent who was subsequently prosecuted based on the material and evidence obtained from those meetings. Then, this same contact with the Russians was used to obtain the FISA Title I surveillance authority, but I guess the court was not informed that he was, in fact, acting on behalf of the FBI at the time.

    Fascinating read: https://theconservativetreehouse.com...urt-hes-a-spy/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Eh One Brow?

    Recall your assertion of January 31, 2018 at 1:38 PM wherein you pointed out a prediction issued by the EIA January 5th, 2017 "couldn't have been affected by Trump" (because, as I interpret your assertion, that woulda necessitated time travel)?

    Well guess what One Brow:

    "The EIA increased its estimates for global production and demand in 2018. Output is seen at 100.43 million barrels a day, up from 100.34 million previously, with demand at 100.23 million, compared with 100.11 million. For 2019, world supply is seen at 102.17 million and demand at 101.95 million. EIA bases the need for adjustment on changes in the regulatory protocols."

    https://www.eia.gov/

    Looks to me One Brow that, as something for doggone sure prompted the EIA to up its "set in stone prediction" President Trump may well indeed do time travel.

    Whodathunkit?!!!

    JK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JK,

      You're using a 2018 document to claim Trump deserves credit as the reason a projection made by the EIA in January 2017 was accurate? That strikes me as the sort of pretzel logic I have been accused of in here.

      Delete
  17. And from Rigzone dot com One Brow,

    "The EIA painted a rosy picture for crude in its 2018 annual forecast released Tuesday. The agency projects that continued shale development and low demand will transform the U.S. into a net energy exporter by 2022 and a net petroleum exporter by 2029. Crude output growth will be driven by Texas’s Permian Basin, with gains in the Dakotas and Rocky Mountain region. Meanwhile, production in Gulf Coast region will flatten out after 2025, as drilling in the Eagle Ford becomes less productive."

    (The Permian incidentally, extends into Oklahoma's extant production fields JK.

    Too, partly owing to One Brow I'd included in my comments two posts back that, because the "foreign oil" as One Brow "helpfully pointed out" was of a very heavy grade that, that foreign oil would require refinery capability such as that located around Eldorado Kansas - I think now might be an opportune time to elucidate further on the "hows & whys" there's so many refining assets already there:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Dorado,_Kansas

    And here's a primer on why Wiki isn't perhaps always the best go-to-reference - has to do with spelling (sometimes)

    http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/7/05_strat.html

    JK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JK,

      Are you saying Trump's administration's policies are having an effect on our 2018 energy economy? I don't see how it could be argued otherwise.

      Delete
  18. "Recall your assertion of January 31, 2018 at 1:38 PM" Oh OBie Wan Keynoby as in, verbatim?

    You did OBie Wan go back and check? "Pretzel logic"?

    I made that "accusation" OBie Wan, you jest surely?

    JK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JK,

      Had I intended to imply you accused me of pretzel logic, I would have gone with the active 'you accused me of' rather than the passive "I have been accused of". I always aim to be straight-forward in these matters.

      Delete
    2. One Brow,

      "I always aim to be straight-forward in these matters."

      You're not perhaps using iron sights? Or a cheapie scope?

      Might wanna get thee hither to a reputable FFL Obie Wan. Jes' sayin' - maybe check Angie's List?

      JK

      Delete
  19. Ummm ... perhaps OBie Wan looking back I can see that somebody may have a case (but I'll change the word) for "suggesting" Pretzel Logic.

    "This prediction was made Jan. 5, 2017. Which of Trump's actions resulted in that prediction? An order signed on Jan. 24 would not have traveled backward in time to a web page three weeks earlier. Being a net energy exporter is a fine thing, however, I don't see anything Trump did that contributed to that status. How did Trump change policy on the Keystone pipeline two weeks before he was inaugurated, and do you understand Keystone carries foreign oil into the US? At best, it's contributions could only be neutral in terms import/export ratio. While I don't venerate competition (before you protest, you did capitalize the word). ... You could just set up a competitor. You don't believe in competition?."

    OBie Wan you're not perhaps conflating your argument here with one (or more) arguments you've presented to the FISA Court?

    JK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "One Brow February 7, 2018 at 4:20 PM

      JK,

      You're using a 2018 document to claim Trump deserves credit as the reason a projection made by the EIA in January 2017 was accurate? That strikes me as the sort of pretzel logic I have been accused of in here."

      Well yes I suppose I am One Brow.

      JK

      Delete
    2. And it "strikes" me likewise One Brow.

      JK

      Delete