From Russia (to Biden) With Love

Source: The Wall Street Journal (behind paywall).

“Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Oregon’s Ron Wyden on Wednesday accused a GOP colleague of essentially working as a Kremlin operative. They called Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson’s work a ‘disgrace,’ claimed his committee was funneling ‘Russian disinformation,’ and introduced a resolution demanding he cease. The only thing missing from this spectacle was the supporting cast: James Comey, John Brennan and Peter Strzok.

“The catalyst for these surreal claims: Mr. Johnson will soon release the findings of his investigation into the Biden family’s dealings with Ukraine.”

I didn’t know, or had forgotten, the Senate was investigating Joe Biden’s record with Ukraine. I’m looking forward to the report.

39 thoughts on “From Russia (to Biden) With Love

  1. Considering the the source for most of Johnson’s information IS from Russian controlled operatives in Ukraine, the charges by Schumer are accurate.

    You may have forgotten that Giuliani’s contacts are the source and even he has stepped away from his contacts, playing the I don’t know the guy card.

    The Senate committee led by Johnson is doing Trump’s bidding and when it comes up as the BS we right minded, non-conspiracy following, citizens know it to be, you may not be so happy when the report comes out. Or more likely, NOT comes out because there is nothing there.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Considering the the source for most of Johnson’s information IS from Russian controlled operatives in Ukraine, the charges by Schumer are accurate.”

      I didn’t quote it, but the article addresses this spurious claim:

      “Specifically, [Democrats] said Mr. Johnson and Mr. Grassley were receiving information from two Ukrainians compromised by the Kremlin. This is a fabrication, as Messrs. Johnson and Grassley have stated publicly, repeatedly and definitively that they’ve never received information from either of the men in question. Mr. Johnson said his probe is focused on ‘documents and officials from U.S. government agencies,’ as well as a ‘U.S. Democrat-linked lobbying firm’ that had ties to Burisma.

      “It turned out Democrats and the media were relying on the claims of the two Ukrainians themselves that they sent info to Republicans. Put another way, Mr. Schumer and the Washington Post were using two men they accuse of spreading Russian disinformation to spread disinformation about the GOP. Vladimir Putin couldn’t ask for better helpmates.”


      1. Yeah, they didn’t get it directly from Kremlin compromised Ukrainians. They got it from Giuliani and his little minions. Most under indictment now and Giuliani is defending his attempts by saying he really doesn’t know them.


      1. Sorry, Don. But Russia was in before China on this one. THey started in ’16.

        But hey, you and Putin got what you wanted. And now you are just fine with it happening all over again.

        Constitution and democratic principles apparently are not important enough for Libertarians to give a damn.


        1. Every single investigation has concluded that the Russian’s primary goal was to polarize the election so that whoever won would not be able to govern effectively, so it is YOU and Putin who got what they wanted.


          1. Maybe you know something that the “deep state” doesn’t? Their conclusion was that the Russian goal was to help Trump win. Polarizing the American electorate was NOT the goal – it was the method employed to get what they wanted. Of course, anything that weakens us whether it be a clown in the Oval Office or Americans disunited is a win for them.

            And, now, the “deep state” is at it again with Trump appointed FBI Director Wray publicly stating that Russia is meddling in THIS election with the same goal as last time – to help Trump win.


            Liked by 1 person

          2. “Maybe you know something that the “deep state” doesn’t? Their conclusion was that the Russian goal was to help Trump win. ”


            Every one I read about stated a preference for Trump winning but a primary goal of polarizing the electorate.

            In any case, opposing a war monger like Hillary, who had sought to put US and Russian warplanes in the same airspace, would make sense from the Russian perspective. They love their children too.


          3. Cite? Really? Is your memory failing?

            Ok. Again, I will play along.

            On January 6, 2017 the Director of National Intelligence issued a report on the findings of ALL of the various security agencies on the subject of Russian interference.

            Click to access ICA_2017_01.pdf

            From the executive summary of that assessment . . .

            “We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
            election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
            unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence
            in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.”

            And now, as cited above, the FBI with its Trump-appointed Director is saying the same thing – Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the same goal – Help Trump win.

            Your mud-slinging at Clinton is really kind of pitiful but then you support Putin doing his Sudetenland thing against neighboring countries even as he is putting bounties on the heads of American soldiers, murdering his opponents and trying to screw up our elections. The Obama/Clinton’s stance of strong opposition to this murderous dictator was entirely appropriate. And it is the reason Putin worked hard to get his little MiniMe into the White House.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “From the executive summary of that assessment…”

            You should read your own source more thoroughly. At the beginning of the first paragraph under Key Judgements it states: “Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order…”


          5. Mr. Roberts, if you are making a point it is very well hidden.

            Of course the Soviets – and now Putin – have sought to undermine our country and our government for a very long time. In 2016 that took the form of supporting Trump and coordinating their efforts with his campaign staff (see the Senate Intelligence Committee report).

            Tabor denied that helping Trump was their goal and offered a factually inaccurate claim that such was the finding of every investigation. The DNI report I cited made it clear that he was wrong on both counts.

            This is very typical form of discussion with the remaining Trump supporters. I offer a well-established and widely known FACT and now have to spend the effort to “remind” people of what they already know. Sad.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. When a quote begins with “We also assess” it’s kind of a tip off that what follows is out of context.

            The paragraph immediately above state Putin’s first goal was to undermine faith in the electoral process.

            And again, Clinton’s warmongering and brinkmanship certainly gave the Russians adequate reason to not want her reckless finger on the nuclear button.


          7. The paragraph above which you refer to …

            “We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
            presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
            denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
            Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
            have high confidence in these judgments.”

            You asked for a cite to support my simple statement of the truth and to refute your – let’s say – inaccurate one. I provided it. And now you are doing what? Trying to spin away the obvious overarching conclusion by cherry-picking terms from complex sentences? The goal of Putin’s election meddling was to hurt Clinton and help Trump and THAT was the finding of “every single investigation.”

            This discussion started with an “alternative fact” that you found useful to make a rhetorical jab – also based on the falsehood that the inability of Trump to govern effectively is not his fault.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. RE: “The DNI report I cited made it clear that he was wrong on both counts.”

            Nope. Dr. Tabor is correct according to your own source. You misrepresent a subordinate detail as the main finding.


          9. I stated the simple truth . . .
            “Their conclusion was that the Russian goal was to help Trump win.”
            Of course, Putin’s overall purpose was to harm this country and boy oh boy did it work.

            The “cite” requested was provided and it is clear.

            Tabor got wrapped up in what he thought was a cute jab but to make it work he had to fudge this essential finding of multiple investigations – including the recent report by the GOP-led Senate committee – and make a categorical claim that is – at best – playing with words.

            There is nothing more to say, except as always, evidence seems to mean very little in Trump circles.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. How very Stalinist of Dear Leader – Using the apparatus of the state to “investigate” political opponents.

    How many of these “investigations” have you expressed your eagerness for only to be disappointed when reality raised its ugly head? Quite a few if memory serves.

    By the way, did you see where John Durham’s second in command, Assistant United States Attorney Nora Dannehy, has resigned from the DOJ apparently in disgust how that “investigation” – which you also have expressed eagerness for – has been subject to political meddling.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “How very Stalinist of Dear Leader – Using the apparatus of the state to ‘investigate’ political opponents.”

      How very predictable. The Senate is not part of the Executive. TDS doesn’t apply.


      1. RE: “this ‘investigation’ IS at the behest of and on behalf of Dear Leader.”

        I think you are guessing, or making questionable inferences. Do you have a cite to prove that Sen. Johnson undertook the investigation solely at the “behest of and on behalf” of the president?


          1. RE: “Senator Ron Johnson playing the part of a Trump and Russian stooge is well-known to people who are paying attention.”

            LIke I said: Questionable inferences. You got nothing.


    2. Using the apparatus of the state to investigate political opponents is exactly what Obama, Clinton and Democrats did with Trump and haven’t stopped harassing him since. To top it off, your boys Schumer and Shi** couldn’t produce anything against Trump. All typical lies, sensationalism and disinformation from lefty babies masquerading as “law” makers. Despicable trash….


      1. Actually, the Trump campaign attracted the interest of the various national security organizations because of their many and close contacts with agents of the Russian government. But even so, President Obama was very scrupulous to keep the fact of those investigations confidential until after the election. The fact of those many close contacts has been confirmed by the Republican led Senate Intelligence committee.

        In short, your rant and apparent drooling anger is based on a mountain of misinformation. You should maybe direct your anger at the con man who constantly lies to you and who is grateful for the Coronavirus because now at least he will not have to shake the hands of those “disgusting” people who come to his rallies.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Disgusting

            I was quoting what Dear Leader said. HE is the one who referred to “disgusting people” that he was happy not to have to shake hands with at his rallies. It was all over the news. Try to keep up.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Again, to the host : If you are really determined to keep the tone of this forum civil you ought to remove people who constantly engage in the egregious personal attacks on other posters that seem to be all the bobr and nivlac have to offer. I know controlling the “contributions” of people like these is not easy, but again, I ask, what ideas, evidence or analysis do they bring to the table that is worth lowering the level of this forum as they do?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Mr. Murphy is correct. The two folks in question have never offered anything but baseless attacks and nothing coherent to the discussion.

    We can agree to disagree, but they are not living up to the ideal of “disagreeing without being disagreeable”. I too have been guilty of it, but I usually back up the attack of the opinion with facts and cites. These two gentlemen don’t.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m glad you manned up and admitted that you’re as guilty as anybody else. Murphy is as well but obviously has thinner skin than you. As I’ve told you before, I did not vote for President Trump and you replied that I was a Trumpist. because I don’t criticize and condemn him. So I disagree with you and I’m a Trumpist. Murphy calls folks that attend his rally’s disgusting. I know a couple folks that have attended his rallies and don’t appreciate him saying they are disgusting. But true to form, you guys can dish it out but if someone responds in kind you start calling for them to be banished. How very grown up of you.


      1. Disgusting? Again?

        I have already tried to straighten you out on that. I put “disgusting” in quotes in that post because I was quoting someone. That someone is none other than Donald Trump who has been reported to have said that about the people he was expected to shake hands with before coronavirus set in. My use of Trump’s word “disgusting” was irony.

        Here is the lifelong Republican and top Pence aide on the Coronavirus Task Force, Ms. Olivia Troye, expressing her dismay that Trump would say that about his supporters . . .

        Her revelation is at about 1:10 of the video.


      2. “Murphy is as well but obviously has thinner skin than you”

        Uh, no. I have never stooped to the kind of empty, personal and irrelevant name calling that seems to float your boat and that of bobr. Maybe you feel that I do because you take my strong criticism of Trump personally? If you do, that is your problem – not mine.

        My skin is not thin. But, a few months ago we had a brouhaha about the “tone” of this forum and I do not want to see it repeated. The sort of personal attacks that some people amuse themselves with brings the tone down. It should stop. And if it doesn’t, the people who post that way do not need to be here.


        1. Well sir, you’re obviously not truthful. You think that you feel the need to straighten me out….please, go float your crap somewhere else. If you think that what has been argued about you is the same as what you were spewing a couple months ago…..well, that’s laughable. In your mind your word is as pure as the driven snow but in reality it is just another wad of snow that has been tinged yellow. The personal attacks that you reference from a couple months ago are the attacks that you perpetrated and now are attempting to deflect with the I’m so innocent narrative. It’s a weak argument. Grow up.


          1. LOL!

            I guess you can’t help yourself. I suggest again that the host – if he wants a better tone – cut off the personal invective as an acceptable “contribution” to the forum.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s