Guess Who Came to Dinner With Flynn and Putin

[HAB911]

It was a (red) star-studded affair, the December 2015 dinner celebrating the 10th birthday of Russian TV network RT. At a luxe Moscow hotel, President Vladimir Putin and a host of Russian luminaries toasted a state-backed news channel that U.S. intelligence calls a Kremlin mouthpiece.

And next to Putin at the head table, in the seat of honor, was an American. Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who would later become Donald Trump's national security adviser, was already advising Trump's presidential campaign when he was paid $45,000 to speak at the gala.

"It is not coincidence that Flynn was placed next to President Putin," said Michael McFaul, U.S. ambassador in Moscow from 2012 to 2014 and now an NBC News analyst. "Flynn was considered a close Trump adviser. Why else would they want him there?"

Flynn's Moscow jaunt, like his oddly timed phone chats with the Russian ambassador, has been well reported. But who else came to dinner on Dec. 10, 2015? An NBC News review of video and photos from the RT gala shows a healthy serving of ex-spies, cronies and oligarchs, with a side of friendly journalists and another American.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/guess-who-came-dinner-flynn-putin-n742696?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

[Greybnk48]

1. Traitors at the table with no fear.

How can this be?

[Wounded Bear]

2. Birds of a feather flock together...

[karynnj]

3. The Republicans themselves funded Nader in 2000 and 2004

It is no surprise that the Russians/Trump would try a similar tack of helping a candidate on the "left" to pull votes from the Democrat.

What is stunning is how the Russians simply copied the same tactics that the Republicans and their well funded PACs. To that, they added hacking the Democrats rather than just making lies up. The main difference is that a hostile foreign country was doing this for the Republicans. However, the fact that they used hacked documents - rather than outright made up lies - was new.

Taking internal comments, send between people who knew each other well and had a HUGE base of agreement - intended to be private was devastating. Trump could claim they were "true" and no one ever argued that they were not real. However, given what they were, they are taken out of context. By this, I do not mean this in the same sense as when a sentence is taken out of a written paragraph, but ignoring that had any of these Democrats wanted to speak to the issue publicly to a broader audience, they would have qualified the comments.

I have to admit that as they came out, I read them -- and was reassured that they really did not show anything that should have been a problem. What I ignored was that each one was a news story, and none showed HRC at her best or even her "average". These stories could not - for the most part - be responded to. (ie How do you deal with Neera Tanden saying something like whoever made the decision on the email responses early on should be shot? I got exactly what she was writing to Podesta and it was a reaction that many on DU had. Yet, there is no way the Clinton team could have touched that account without making it worse.) The release of what was said to have been one of the GS speeches was likely the worst leak -- even though if you look at what she said in 2013 in public of TPP, it was consistent. Again, arguing that simply emphasizes that Clinton made a 180 on this issue.

So, what do we take from this:
1) I would argue that the Russian action proves the possibility and the likelihood that foreign countries would try to influence our elections. Maybe we can call this globalization - just as there is globalization of crime as well as globalization of economies. I would argue that - just as with international crime - one thing we need to do is to have transparency on where the money is coming form. Do we know that all the PACs, which thanks to Citizen's United, do not have to disclose their donors, have not received laundered money form either foreign countries or criminals?

2) In 2016, it was not just money that was an issue, but foreign actions - ie the hacking. I think the response to add sanctions was probably the right response to prevent it in the future -- but only if the sanctions were strong enough, hurt enough and stay in place long enough -- even when "their" candidate won.

[gopiscrap]

4. the whole gop is a pile of shit

and it's stench is reeking throughout our nation and choking the free air we breathe

[Doreen]

5. That's what we call taking out the EPA.

[Gothmog]

6. A vote for Jill Stein was a vote for trump and Putin

[NCTraveler]

7. Amazing how ignorant so many are. Flat out morons.

Jill Stein - Trump surrogate and fleeced Americans for a recount sold as more than it was. A true fraud.

She is the biggest reason people will not even consider the election as tainted. It was verified by the "left&quot Stein). Piece of shit.

[Orrex]

8. Yes, and I still know progressives who support her

Lots of them on Facebook. A conspicuous number, in fact.

Hmm...

[Ezior]

9. Just checked the German Willy Wimmer Wikipedia page

I didn't know this guy. And it turns out, he is exactly what you would expect him to be after sitting there, next to Putin, Stein and Flynn.

He's an author for right-wing populist / alt right magazine Compact and showed up on RT, Sputnik, Iranian broadcaster IRIB, and the German somewhat tamer equivalent of Infowars (KOPP Verlag). He complained about the USA foreign policy related to Ukraine. He's afraid of Muslims and blacks pouring into Europe from Africa and Asia.

So… yeah. I'm glad he's no longer in the Bundestag and his own party CDU apparently attempts to avoid him at all costs.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. Membership has it's privileges

All sarcasm aside it's about time someone in the mainstream media reported this.