Friday, July 14, 2017

This is What Collusion Looks lIke

In 1984 Ted Kennedy had a friend approach the Kremlin offering to change American policy towards Russia if they helped his election against Ronald Reagan.

Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”
Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”

Rest of the story here:

On June 17, 1972, White House "Plumbers" burgled the DNC HQ in the Watergate complex looking for evidence of collusion between the DNC and the Russians.
They were 12 years too early.

That's what Collusion looks like.


  1. As time goes on, the past is exposed, and those so willing to hide the past are exposed. May the legacies of those like Ted Kennedy show they were traitors, besides being evil, and selfish.

    1. Gotta hang it on 'em.
      Just saw Free State of Jones finally.
      Loved it. The Dems weren't called Dems, but the good guys were called Republicans.

  2. How about the verified evidence of clinton and podesta working with Russia during the campaign. One reason I hate republican congress clowns. Come on guys and gals. The pieces don't assemble themselves.

    1. Trying to announce yhat is like shouting into a gale of "TRUMP JR.! HACKED ELECTION! TREASON! COLLUSION!"

  3. Dems held to different (no) standard. Maybe because communists can't collude with communists?

  4. By all means, investigate the Clintons, Podesta and Lynch......but no amount of "whataboutism" alleviates the facts around this - latest - episode.

    An adversarial foreign regime attempted (or was successful?) to influence our elections, and the Trump campaign colluded with them, by virtue of meeting with their agents under that pretended.

    That's collision. Period. The apologist and defence of such merely lowers the bar for when a Democrat does something similar.

    1. Stupid spell check.....,although 'collision' is probably apt as well.

    2. Of course, given the context, I know what you meant.
      This is not whataboutism.
      This is compare and contrast.
      I mentioned it on the radio today.
      Collusion is what happened between the DNC and the Ukraine, The DNC and the USSR.
      Quid pro quo, tit for tat, you do this, I'll do that.
      Meeting and listening for dirt is not collusion in any form.
      Words have meaning.

    3. They do indeed. The definition of collusion is not quid pro quo. Don jr's meeting, meets the textbook definition.

    4. What is collusion? definition and meaning -
      Improper secret agreement between two or more entities, to defraud or deprive others of their property or rightful share, or to otherwise indulge in a forbidden, illegal, or illegitimate activity.

    5. Yep, that's one definition, fairly similar to the others. Is gaining information from a foreign adversary, who is trying to influence our elections, not at least illegitimate?

      Surely you don't condone this sort of behaviour?

    6. I don't condone Trump Sr's tweets. That doesn't make them actionable, treasonous, espionage.
      Neither does Don Jr's meeting with Boris and Natasha.
      The left (the media and Dems) is trying to make this activity punishable by death.

      When you say a foreign adversary, let's remember that they are a rival, not an enemy (as in "at war with").
      Illegitimate implies illegal at worst.
      1. not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.
      What if RT had published some information openly that would discredit Clinton, would that have been illegitimate to use? Assuming they published it to influence our election?

      I totally understand trying to be fair and impartial in judging behavior.
      This Don Jr stuff only feeds into a left/media frenzy to dislodge Trump Sr from 1600. Nothing more.

    7. You seem more concerned with the Lefts antics and arguments, than the ethical nature of the activities at hand.

      Public domain information- not collision. But then RT wouldn't have any leverage either.

      Russia is absolutely an adversary, who unlike others, has actually waged asymmetric and cyber war against western nations (including us) and physical war on Georgia, Ukraine and Syrian rebels. They are not our friend.

      We set our standards differently......fair enough.

  5. Ethics... Dems can't even spell it...

  6. Seems we could make some progress if President Bankruptcy released his tax returns like any other president and we could get an idea how extensively the Russian oligarchs have been using him to launder money.

    Work from there and maybe we find out why there are so many Russian sycophants on the Whit House staff.

    1. President Bankruptcy?
      I thought it was President Collusion.
      Glad to see you check in, hadn't seen you around.

    2. There's certainly enough circumstantial evidence, beyond the facts I keep harping on, that would warrant investigation....were the occupant of 1600 Penn to have a different party affiliation.