Secret CIA source claims Russia rigged 2016 election


Roger Stone: “Attempted murder? I mean really, what is that? Do they give Nobel Prizes for attempted chemistry?”


This is actually a common misconception that I saw recently repeated on CNN this week during the Cohen probe. The GOP platform on Russia was not weakened at the convention; in fact it got stronger. What happened is that a single delegate sought to amend the platform to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia. This would be a change from Obama’s policy (which was to provide only defensive weapons.) The Trump delegate in the room kept some of the amendment, but eliminated the addition of the lethal defensive weapons because it was inconsistent with Trump’s policy of seeking better relations with Russia. Trump has since provided lethal weapons to Ukraine regardless, because platforms are nonbinding.

There is more information here on what happened at the convention and how certain misinformation spread from a Washington Post opinion piece into a FISA application.


Sorry, you’re going to have to do better than source that with a Washington Examiner opinion piece.


Joins 20 min ago, immediately posts to P&R and as a bonus includes a link to a RW media outlet to support his argument. Who could it be now?!


This objection is strange because the origins of the entire story are also in an opinion piece, linked here. The headline being its main problem as York points out. The facts are not even in dispute, but the headline did the damage.


It comes down to: “Do you believe Paul Manafort’s denials, or the great evidence stacked against them that suggests otherwise?”

If you’re a neo-fascist brownshirt, I suppose you’ve picked your horse in this race.


I’m starting to suspect that many of you aren’t as interested in making America great again as our new poster HoraceMann225 is.

I can’t think of one reason why Manafort would lie about this.


You guys are crazy. I saw an article on Breitbart that completely debunked the whole thing. And Hannity spent 5.3 hours exhaustively describing how Clinton literally handed over the keys to the White House to her Russian handlers back in February.


The Politifact article does not dispute anything in the York piece. The Washington Post piece is also factually accurate except for the headline. The facts are not in dispute. The problem is the headline in the Washington Post opinion piece is misleading.
Maybe I am not being clear so I will try again. Read the Examiner piece and The Post piece. They are saying the same thing at a factual level except for the headline. But the latter gives a slant to the issue, which leads to misconceptions.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This community seems nice. And I wonder why I stopped lurking!


If you’ve been lurking you’ll know why a random new poster linking RW media out of the blue has a received an unwelcoming response.


Then just read the post’s piece. The facts are not really in dispute. It also shows that a single delegate proposed an amendment to the platform that would have escalated significantly from Obama’s ukraine policy, which Trump people rejected.


I think you’re assuming that saying that Obama’s policy was the same would appeal to many of us, when really there are lots of people who disagreed with it.


No I am not assuming that at all and I do not have any real opinion on the issue. I am saying that if you read the post’s story, it says one single delegate tried to make the platform much tougher on Ukraine by supplying lethal weapons. That would potentially escalate the conflict because Obama was not doing that at the time, and opposed doing it. And trump had publicly called for better relations with Russia.

Unfortunately the false narrative because of the terrible headline from the post’s piece is that Trump changed the platform himself. When really they rejected a amendment to the existing platform from one delegate.


6 posts in an hour. Yeah, we’ve seen this before…


Well, no. According to your own source, an amendment was actually adopted, just one with weaker language than the one that was proposed. That weaker language was provided by the Trump team, because they opposed the commitment to stronger action against Russian intervention in Ukraine.

Now, you’re quibbling with the headline takeaway, but your own takeaway is wrong. And for some reason, you think Trump prevented tough Republican platform stance on Ukraine is substantially different than Trump weakens Republican platform stance on Ukraine. I can’t really see why, but you go, you.


Whoa. Hold on there, sparky.

This is what’s being discussed, including the claims in Byron York’s editorial for the Examiner:

  1. The original draft Ukraine plank, according to the Examiner. “had strong language on Russia, and in particular on Russian aggression in Ukraine.” How do we know this? Well, err, the original draft plank, according to the Examiner editorial, “has never been released publicly, but an insider shared the relevant passages with me.” So our only knowledge of the original draft plank is secondhand evidence, probably from Team Trump. In an editorial. In the Washington Examiner. By Byron York. Consider the source.
  2. At the convention, delegate Diana Denman proposes a stronger plank, one that contains specific mention of supplying weapons to Ukraine, as well as a preamble supporting Ukraine (which York dismisses as “throat-clearing.”)
  3. Trump aide Trump aide J.D. Gordon, on behalf of the Trump campaign, gets the preamble and the language about weapons taken out (instead the final plank promises “appropriate” aid - which of course could mean no aid at all, if you don’t believe it’s appropriate.)
  4. Denman says Gordon told her he had talked to Trump personally about the changes to the plank, (and apparently said the same to Congress last year.) Gordon, on the other hand, says he didn’t talk to Trump personally - but that he implemented the change because:

“Trump said on the campaign trail that he didn’t want World War III over Ukraine. And he wanted better relations with Russia,” Gordon said. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that arming Ukraine isn’t consistent with those two positions.”

So: there’s no dispute about points 2 and 3. In point 4 there’s no agreement about whether Trump knew personally about the specifics of Denman’s language - but there’s also no dispute that the Trump campaign “wanted better relations with Russia.*” Point 1 - Byron York’s assertion that the original draft plank was plenty tough on Russia to start with - is unknowable without an actual reliable source for that draft plank.

But here’s what’s undeniable: the Trump campaign’s only change to the 2016 Republican platform was to request softer language in the Ukraine plank. And in the words of the Trump representative responsible for the change, it’s because Trump “wanted better relations with Russia.”

(… though I did screw up by saying the plank was about Crimea, not Ukraine!)

*Even if Gordon didn’t talk to Trump at the convention, it may not matter. As a hypothetical, suppose Trump did have a quid pro quo with Russia over the platform. Then it doesn’t matter much from a legal standpoint whether Trump or his reps told Gordon to keep the language within certain parameters in advance of the convention, or while it was going on.


I am not saying you are wrong to think this should not be investigated further. The FISA application into carter page literally copied and pasted from the Washington post piece. I felt your post suggested something that did not happen (it conjured images of trump demanding a radical change to a platform when he/his people demanded a change to an amendment to the platform from one delegate) and think your most recent post clears it all up.

And When you initially asserted that Trump had “demanded” the Ukraine plank be softened, you said it was a “smoking gun.” And it seems like you are acknowledging now you are not totally sure what the original plank was. He demanded an amendment to the plank by a single delegate be softened because it was a escalation that Obama had not done yet, and it contradicted his Russia reset policies.

PS- I Think the difference in "Trump guts platform’ and “Trump kills an amendment” is big because one means that trump went out of his way to kill the platform. When what really happened is he killed an amendment that one delegate went out of her way to propose.


I have that deja vu feeling again.