I've tried to piece together a timeline of potentially related events related to the sale of a Russian oil company that shed some light on why allegations of collusion between Trump, his staff and Russian officials, have been taken seriously enough to be investigated. Some of the original sources in Russian have been translated via Google Translate.
September 23, 2016
Yahoo news reports:
"U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials — including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president, according to multiple sources who have been briefed on the issue"(1).
That businessman was Carter Page.
A dossier compiled by former MI6 operative Christopher Steele, alleges:
". . . [Russian state-owned oil company] Rosneft President was so keen to lift personal and corporate western sanctions imposed on the company, that he offered [Carter] PAGE/TRUMP's associates the brokerage of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft in return. PAGE had expressed interest and confirmed that were TRUMP elected US president, then sanctions on Russia would be lifted"(2).
December 7 2016
"Russia said on Wednesday it sold a stake in oil giant Rosneft (ROSN.MM) for 10.5 billion euros ($11.3 billion) to Qatar and commodities trader Glencore (GLEN.L) . . . The deal, to acquire a 19.5 percent stake in Rosneft from the Russian state, suggests the lure of taking a share in one of the world's biggest oil companies outweighs the risks that come with Western sanctions imposed on Russia over the conflict in Ukraine"(3).
December 8 2016
Donald Trump wins the US presidential election.
December 12 2016
Russian Tass news agency reports:
"Former adviser to the election headquarters of President-elect Donald Trump, Managing Partner of Global Energy Capital LLC Carter Page met with top managers of the company "Rosneft" during his visit to Moscow, but not with [President of Rosneft] Igor Sechin.(4)"
December 26 2016
Moscow Times reports:
"A top executive from Russia's state-controlled oil company, Rosneft, has been found dead in central Moscow . . . Oleg Erovinkin, Rosneft President Igor Sechin's chief of staff, was discovered in the back seat of a company Lexus by his driver, who alerted the emergency services . . . the cause of death has not yet been determined. Officials from the Federal Security Service (FSB) have opened an investigation"(5)(6)
Oleg Erovinkin was right hand man to president of Rosneft. He was also an FSB general. It would later be alleged that Erovinkin was the source who leaked information about Rosneft's contact with the Trump campaign to Christopher Steele, who included it in the dossier(7)(8).
December 29 2016
The Washington Post later reports that on this date:
"[Michael] Flynn speaks by phone with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, and discusses the sanctions and suggests the possibility of sanctions relief once Trump is president. The call is monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies"(9).
January 25 2017
"More than a month after Russia announced one of its biggest privatizations since the 1990s, selling a 19.5 percent stake in its giant oil company Rosneft, it still isn't possible to determine from public records the full identities of those who bought it. . . important facts about the deal either have not been disclosed, cannot be determined solely from public records, or appear to contradict the straightforward official account of the stake being split 50/50 by Glencore and the Qataris"(10).
February 2 2017
CBS News reports:
"The Trump administration appeared to loosen U.S. sanctions Thursday that the Obama administration had imposed against Russia in response to its cyberattacks in the 2016 presidential election. The Treasury Department published a license that authorizes certain transactions between U.S. companies and the FSB, Russia’s security service and for the importation, distribution or use of “certain information technology products in the Russian Federation.” Such transactions had been prohibited under Obama administration sanctions imposed on Russia in late December."(11)
Is there a link between the Trump administration's loosening of sanctions against Russia, and the mystery surrounding who the beneficiary of those shares in Rosneft is? I don't know. But the intelligence community thinks there is sufficient cause for concern to warrant investigating. I find it difficult to disagree.
(1) https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel-of … 46002.html
(2) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … tions.html
(3) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russi … SKBN13W2QG
(4)(Russian language) http://tass.ru/ekonomika/3866013
(5)(Russian language) https://life.ru/t/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0 … _v_moskvie
(6) https://themoscowtimes.com/news/top-ros … scow-56649
(7) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01 … ald-trump/
(8) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ex- … 25e4904a24
(9) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac … -timeline/
(10) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russi … SKBN1582OH
(11) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/worl … ussia.html
What is this obsession about Russia since the election???
Don't we have more pressing threats from around the world?
Who is driving these stories and innuendos?
Why do I feel like we are being distracted?
I think the biggest threat to our republic is the undermining of a new Presidency.
The intelligence leaks...
The hostile media willing to allow fake news to drive the agenda.
We need term limits to clean out the swamp in DC.
Jackclee , You have to understand 1960s liberal thinkers to truly understand the ties . When the left runs out of true political ammo , they slide right into the "boogey- man "phase of thought process , That and the "attack everything " and pray-hope something sticks .
They got nothing at all left - no house , no congress , no president and especially no political talent .
"down the road" .They banked on Bernie , settled on Hilary and threw in the clowns Stein , Warren and Johnson when they were sliding down the chute of ethical and moral bankruptcy .
Now lets re-invent "the big bad wolf "
The New Social-Democrats are just NOW truly realizing that they didn't just lose this election - They lost the manipulation and agenda of "sea -change " for he next twenty or thirty years , feel bad for them yet ?
17 intelligence agencies(!) concluded that Russia committed espionage in an attempt to influence the general election in favor of a particular candidate.
If that's not enough reason for you to be concerned then:
The FBI and CIA intercepted communications between Russians who discussed contacts with people affiliated with Trump. The contacts were of sufficient concern that those agencies deemed it necessary to further investigate.
If that's not enough reason for you to be concerned then:
A well-respected intelligence officer from the British Secret Intelligence Service (aka MI6) compiled a dossier that alleges Donald Trump has been compromised by an adversarial foreign state (Russia), and that there was collusion between Trump campaign staff and the Russian security service (aka the FSB).
Christopher Steele is so well-regarded in the intelligence community, and deemed to be such a reliable source of information, the FBI were going to pay him to continue gathering intelligence before the story broke:
"Steele provided crucial help in the FBI's investigation of corruption in FIFA, the international soccer body. He is also known to the CIA, and former officers told NBC News that he was considered a reputable and competent intelligence officer"(1).
If that's not enough reason for you to be concerned then:
The security services of several allies gathered intelligence that indicated collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians. They were so concerned about it, they passed it on to the CIA:
"American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence"(2).
If that's not enough reason for you to be concerned then:
The National Security Advisor was found to be compromised by the Russians. Not alleged to be. But found in fact to be compromised, i.e. in a position where the Russians could blackmail him.
If that's not enough reason for you to be concerned then:
Literally weeks after Michael Flynn was forced to resign, and Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation into Russian hacking, a cache of classified CIA documents was leaked by Wikileaks, who also leaked information from the hacked DNC servers. The intelligence community has stated they have "high confidence" that Russian intelligence was responsible for obtaining the information from the DNC servers.
I believe this, and the information in the OP, is more than sufficient to warrant concern. I also believe it is sufficient information to consider any suggestion that this is merely "fake news" from a hostile press, absurd and unreasonable.
(1) http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sen … er-n728371
(2) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/p … cking.html
"17 intelligence agencies(!) concluded that Russia committed espionage in an attempt to influence the general election in favor of a particular candidate."
And did they also conclude that this was the first time in history that such an evil deed was done? Or that it was business as usual for both Russia and the US?
"A well-respected intelligence officer from the British Secret Intelligence Service (aka MI6) compiled a dossier that alleges Donald Trump has been compromised by an adversarial foreign state (Russia), and that there was collusion between Trump campaign staff and the Russian security service (aka the FSB). "
Really? What I read was the the British officer concluded that Trump had business contacts in Russia. Not that he had been "compromised"; that term was the instantly grabbed by Trumpaphobes in order to spread groundless fears. Much like the "collusion", which was no more or less than ordinary conversations between diplomats.
Of course, the conspiracy theorists love it all - there is a conspiracy behind every bush if you believe them.
"And did they also conclude that this was the first time in history that such an evil deed was done? Or that it was business as usual for both Russia and the US?"
I suspect this was intended to be a "business as usual" response to the Panama Papers leak which was suspected to be the work of the CIA and intended to embarrass the Russian regime. But it was a massive over-escalation. Sources quoted by Christopher Steele reported that Putin was initially angry because he thought the FSB had gone too far, and he was concerned about the fallout. So yes, this is a remarkable operation by Russia against the US that is without precedent (as far as we know).
"Really? What I read was the the British officer concluded that Trump had business contacts in Russia. Not that he had been "compromised"; that term was the instantly grabbed by Trumpaphobes in order to spread groundless fears. Much like the "collusion", which was no more or less than ordinary conversations between diplomats".
Then you read wrong. The dossier reports that the FSB had gathered "Kompromat" on Trump. That term is known within the intelligence community. It means material gathered by the FSB, NVG (Russia's foreign intelligence) or GRU (Russia's military intelligence) that can be used to blackmail a subject. A source in the report (source B) said that compromising material had been gathered on Trump, mainly from his "unorthodox behaviour" during visits to Russia "over the years".
"Of course, the conspiracy theorists love it all - there is a conspiracy behind every bush if you believe them."
When contact between presidential campaign staff and a foreign power is of such concern that the AIVD (Dutch security service) feels the need to pass on it's intelligence, I think we can safely assume that the contact was not deemed to be "ordinary conversation". Unless you would have us believe that 17 US intelligence agencies and the security services of several allied countries, are all in cahoots in an effort to get Trump, I think it is reasonable to be concerned by these reports.
"So yes, this is a remarkable operation by Russia against the US that is without precedent"
And you can believe that as you wish. Personally, it would be astounding (and disappointing) to find that US intelligence has not attempted to influence actions in foreign countries, and any reasonable person is going to assume they will do the same.
"Unless you would have us believe that 17 US intelligence agencies and the security services of several allied countries, are all in cahoots in an effort to get Trump"
Judging by the comments from foreign countries, that is exactly what I think. That more than a few countries are out to "get Trump". Of course, those comments are coming through the media and are suspect in themselves, but speaking with foreign citizens I believe the fear factor is just as great there as the libs have whipped up in the states.
It's remarkable for Russia to act so directly against the US. The superpowers do not usually provoke each other so blatantly, for obvious reasons.
US intelligence has definately conducted similar operations against other countries, so the fact that Russia ran a similar operation so blatantly against the US is serious. Even more serious, is the alleged collusion between Trump and/ or his campaign, and an adversarial state.
You're sounding as unreasonable as Sean Spicer. He quoted a Fox news commentator, Andrew Napolitano, who said GCHQ (UK equivalent to the NSA) was responsible for "wiretapping" Trump. This caused that agency to take the very unusual step of issuing a public statement:
"Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wiretapping' against the then president-elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored"(1)
A statement like this is extremely rare.
The White House has since apologized to the UK, and given assurance that those claims "won't be repeated".(2)
There's no getting away from this. There are reasons to believe Trump and his campaign may have colluded with Russian intelligence and state officials. Did they? We don't know for sure. Until an official investigation is completed and published (or more likely leaked), we can only piece together the fragments of information available from various sources. That gives an incomplete picture, so it's right to resist making drawing conclusions. However, it's unreasonable to suggest the issue is not gravely serious, or that the information currently available should not be of concern, or that it can be dismissed as a worldwide media-intelligence-community conspiracy.
(2) http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/17/polit … ap-denial/
Don: Trump has stood by his lie, as a person incapable of admitting when he's wrong. The fact that he clearly and falsely accused a former sitting President of a felony such as wire tapping is phones is horrific. Now, they're trying to backpedal, using grammar school semantics such as "wire tapping" is just another term for "general surveillance." (Like this piece of furniture I'm sitting on with a seat, a back and arm rests is actually a table and not a chair.) Now, Spicer quotes a Fox News report (is he kidding???), accusing Obama of using Britain Intelligence to perform illegal surveillance. Trump is headed for impeachment far sooner than we realized. Thankfully, the rest of the world knows that he is held in disdain on the part of most of Americans, and 70% of all registered voters never voted for him in the first place.
Hello Genna East, Your 'This chair is really a table' was a cute bit of sarcasm .But I am inclined to be a bit more charitable.
I am not quite on-board with this "wiretapping" accusation being the obvious fabrication it seems to be - even when it appears it would be so easy for him to provide his proof; our Nixon saga prompts my hesitance. But I can see someone of Pres. Trump's perspective as meaning just what his Press Secretary explained. I can see "wiretapping" to be meant to describe any of our numerous surveillance capabilities.
And then along came your hook. I think you spoiled a valid personal observation, (opinion?), with your effort to include an untrue and extremely misleading 'fact. to empower your perspective;
"... 70% of all registered voters never voted for him in the first place."
I am sure you know how misleading that is, and if you check your math you will discover that it was only 57% "... of all registered voters [that] never voted for him in the first place."
Hmm... your intent is clear, even if your fact is wrong.
By the apparent logic of your 'fact', here is another True fact;
"... 55% of all registered voters never voted for [Hillary] in the first place.
Would you be comfortable with that declaration as an explanation for Hillary's loss?
I respectfully disagree, GA. Wiretapping is wiretapping. Trump is bouncing all over the place with his claims, which he misinterpreted from what news reports were out there. (He is now involving British Intel based on a pundit comment -- not one made by a journalist -- on Fox News, .) My statement should have stated eligible voters, meaning those who are either registered to vote or those who are eligible but have not registered. That was my oversight. That number is pretty high, and is approx. 70%.
Speaking of eligible voters you are closer, it would be 73% that did not vote for Pres. Trump. By the same token, (eligible voters), it could be said that 72% did not vote for Hillary.
Do you really think that 1% difference carries enough weight to make the negative point you wanted? How would you respond to an anti-Hillary post that touted the fact that 72% of eligible voters never voted for the woman?
As for the rest, about Pres. Trump's "wiretapping" accusation, I noted my skepticism too. I just didn't see any profit, (but I did see a downside), in twisting the blade.
Hi GA. I posted this on another thread in terms of the 70%. And that is whenever Trump or his surrogates state, "America wanted Trump for their president." (or) that "The majority of Americans made their choice for Trump," when it just isn't true. In terms of "twisting the blade," I think that Mr. Trump would do well to cease twisting the blades with his Tweets and public comments to the world. Have a great weekend. :-)
Hello again Genna East,
I can give you an Amen! to your thought on Pres. Trump's Tweets.
You have a good weekend too.
Here are Trump's Tweets on wiretapping in a single paragraph:
"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election! How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"
I think " . . . President Obama was tapping my phones in October . . ." (notice the lack of quotes around "tapping") is pretty unambiguous.
Hi Don, I see a strong indication that your attention has been successfully redirected - as I think may have been the purpose of the original "Wiretapping" tweet, away from more important considerations.
I think that last couple of day's "Press Room" announcements, and Pres. Trump's comments, have tossed in the towel on the validity of his claims. It's all Fox News' fault now - even if it was a misconception of facts'. So the "wiretap" issue is done. Pres. Trump dumped it on judge Nepolianto(sp?), so let's move on folks, nothing to see here.
I am not in the 'Sessions committed criminal perjury' camp, but I am slowly sliding into the 'it was a diversion to save Sessions' camp.
What do you think?
I think you're right. The White House, and some people on this forum, are deploying Weapons of Mass Distraction, but I think it's important to challenge those who apparently can't tell the difference between someone making an allegation, and someone stating something as fact. Not doing so only serves top normalize Trump's behaviour.
"US intelligence has definately conducted similar operations against other countries, so the fact that Russia ran a similar operation so blatantly against the US is serious."
Did you read your own statement? "We did it and that's why it's so serious that Russia did it, too!".
"Even more serious, is the alleged collusion between Trump and/ or his campaign"
Likewise - "Somebody made unsupported allegations and that they did so makes them very serious!".
"There are reasons to believe Trump and his campaign may have colluded with Russian intelligence and state officials. Did they? We don't know for sure."
Of course they may have colluded. So may have Clinton. Or YOU - perhaps you colluded and affected the election. But until we DO know for sure it remains an allegation only - no different than Trumps allegation of wire tapping, yet somehow that one is not serious. Odd, don't you think?
I already clarified it's not the type of operation, but the fact Russia acted so directly and blatantly against the US, which is remarkable. Likewise it's not the fact that US intelligence has engaged in such operations itself (which just shows they are effective) but the fact that Russia feels sufficiently emboldened to run such an operation directly against the US, that is remarkable, and worrying. We can only speculate as to why Russia feels so emboldened.
The allegation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is not "unsupported". Several facts support the allegation, but not conclusively. That's why I said:
"Until an official investigation is completed and published (or more likely leaked), we can only piece together the fragments of information available from various sources. That gives an incomplete picture, so it's right to resist drawing conclusions".
So is my claim the same as Trump's claim about wiretapping? Let's see. Here are Trump's statements on wiretapping:
"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election! How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"(emphasis added)(1)
First, Trump didn't make an allegation. He stated his claim as a fact (twice).
Second, he offered no evidence to support something he has stated as a fact (and still has not).
So please explain exactly how an allegation of collusion between Trump and Russia, accompanied by a statement advising against drawing conclusions, is the same as Trump stating, as a matter of fact, that Obama tapped his phones.
(1) http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline … d=46198888
I still think that you're taking the fact they got caught and turning it into "blatant". I just really, really doubt that it isn't something they, and we, have been doing for years.
As far as the wiretapping, you have for days stated that it didn't happen, and you've done it with zero evidence. That you don't have evidence he DID get tapped it is NOT evidence he did not, and you have to know that. Right or wrong, the fact remains that you made the claim before you could possibly prove, even circumstantially, that it was true. Which is exactly what Trump did; make a claim that he could not support (or at least, that he did not support).
"As far as the wiretapping, you have for days stated that it didn't happen"
I think you have me confused with someone else. I haven't stated that once. If you think I have, please point out exactly where.
The wiretapping is irrelevant to the issue at hand though, which is the allegation that Trump and/ or his campaign staff colluded with Russia.
James Comey and Adm. Mike Rogers (NSA Director) appear at the House Intelligence Committee tomorrow. Will be interesting to hear whether there is an ongoing FBI investigation into the matter. I suspect the Republicans will try to focus on questions about "leaks" though.
I wonder what the protocol is for investigating a sitting president, and members of his administration, for collusion with an adversarial state. I imagine it would present all sorts of operational challenges, for obvious reasons.
Perhaps I did, and if so I certainly apologize. I've discussed it before in these forums, but not a single person could ever give evidence there wasn't a tap installed. Again, I apologize if it wasn't you.
Russia: "colluded" is a pretty strong word. But "allegation" isn't: we see those every day, and one out of a thousand has anything to back it up. Bear in mind that talking to an ambassador at a meeting is not "colluding" about anything at all although that's the obvious choice of words for anyone wanting dirt to throw.
Not a problem. Difficult to keep track of so many discussions sometimes.
Well there are different grades of evidence. At one end of the scale you have a meeting the Russian ambassador, which is not necessarily evidence of collusion at all. At the other, there are reported intercepts between Russian intelligence officers discussing their contact with Trump staff, which is definitely evidence of contact, but the nature of that contact is not publicly known at this time.
However, there is also direct evidence of deception about the nature of contact between Trump staff and Russian state officials (we know Michael Flynn lied when he said he did not discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador, because the FBI recorded the conversation).
So an independent investigation is important to get to the bottom of all this. We need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion, and direct evidence of deception, indicates that there is direct evidence of collusion.
My concern is that Comey is too partisan (his Clinton letter days before the election was a shocking breach of protocol). If there was compelling evidence that warranted further investigation he could not conceivably fail to act on it, but that doesn't mean he can't drag his feet and make decisions that are not in the best interests of the investigation.
April 19, 2016 ExxonMobil Starts Production at Julia Oil Field in the Gulf of Mexico
http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-releas … ulf-mexico
December2,2016 Russia's Rosneft, Exxon drop plans for Gulf of Mexico oil development: Ifax
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russi … SKBN13R1NT
Lack of Prospects cited but the timelines are fishy as hell because they were already in production. Then Tillerson pops up a little while later. Everything is a little too cozy.
Thanks for those. I wish I could add to the OP.
Exxon, the company run by the Rex Tillerson (who also happens to be secretary of state) is due to make big gains if sanctions are lifted:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/exxon-mo … -thaw.html
This NYTimes article lays it out clearly
Tony Podesta, democrat lobbyist, represented Sberbank, Russia's largest bank. Got paid $170K. He was the brother of Hillary's Jon Podesta. Yeah. That Podesta. In fact, that firm got more than $24 million....a lot from foreign govts. Remember Obama saying on tape to Putin that after the election, he would have more "flexibility."? Of course Putin stole crimea under obama's watch..and what happened? Nothing. They are cleaning our clocks in syria. They shot a jetliner down. And where was obama? Not to mention hillary's reset button lunacy. Of course tons of democrat members of congress also met with the russian ambassador....even Claire McCaskill got caught lying. Can we let this Russian nonsense die? And I wish people would stop saying that russia hacked our election. They did no such thing. They hacked Podesta's email account. And they also hacked the CIA UNDER OBAMA's WATCH! Oh, but then china stole millions of personal info as well...and nary a whimper.
Oh yeah? Well, his name isn't Trump. So there. Trump bad. Everybody else good. Commit that to memory.
Yes because the threat to national security of "Tony Podesta" allegedly colluding with a Russian bank is the same as the threat posed by the president of the US, his national security advisor and his campaign staff colluding with the Russian state officials. Someone better redirect the FBI's efforts at once!
Don W: Excellent work. This should be put on breaking news on all the new outlets.
Stephenteacher: Tell your president to stop making false claims about Obama wire tapping, his birther movement and illegal voting and then it will die. As long as he makes false claims without any evidence to support them and demands investigations as well, they will never die. That's the way he wants it. He wants them to stay open issues and he will never apologize for any of it.
If I accuse my wife of having an affair without any evidence and then have her investigated to prove that she has, when does the investigation end? That's what the republican congress does and now Trump. When is enough, enough? He is wasting tax payers time and money for what? To distract from the real issue which is collusion by Trump and his cohorts, including the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions.
"When is enough, enough? "
Perhaps when we quit hearing that the Russians affected the election in Trumps favor? Maybe when we don't hear that Trump is banning Muslims from entering the country? When the reports that he is targeting long time illegal residents for deportation?
Or just when the silly reports that Trump and his cohorts are colluding with Russians to harm America?
Wiilderness:: Paul Manafort had to step down as Trump's campaign manager because he was paid 12 million by the pro-Russian government of Ukraine. Michael Flynn steps down because of collusion with a Russian Ambassador. Jeff Sessions being investigated for same thing. The FBI CIA, NSA, and Wikileaks are all investigating Trump and his people for collusion with Russia.
The problem is Trump ordered the investigation without any evidence to support the wiretapping and now Lindsey Graham and John McCain want their own investigation of Trump's accusations. What if they find nothing, what then? Without any evidence to support his allegations, it is almost a sure bet they will find nothing other than a cover up for Jeff Sessions.
They are not doing it to harm America. They are doing it for their own selfish gains. it's follow the money as it always is.
Proof, please, that Trump had no evidence? Something beyond "Well, he didn't produce any to the public so that is proof there isn't any"?
"What if they find nothing, what then?"
Then it will end as the Clinton server fiasco did, and IMO it won't matter if there is proof positive just as it didn't in the Clinton crimes.
"They are doing it for their own selfish gains."
Proof, please? While it's undoubtedly fun to make claims you can't support (shades of Trump!), it isn't worth any more when you do it than it does when Trump does it. So how about proving that the claim of wiretapping is resulting in personal gain?
Wilderness: Did he have any proof of Obama being born in Kenya? Did he have any proof of Illegal voting. If he had proof of Obama wire tapping him, what good does it do to not come forward/ Why can't he just produce the evidence instead of making claims that he can' t prove? This is his modus operandi when he wants to attack or cover something up. Until he comes forward with evidence, I can support my claim, just like he can. Do you see the game he is playing? He has ordered a full blown investigation that is just going to send congress and the FBI down a rabbit hole.
By the way, the Clinton server fiasco would not have ended according to Jason Chaffetz who chaired the investigation. He said if Clinton were to become president, he had enough material to continue to investigate her for as long as she was in office. Why is it that Clinton is guilty until proven innocent, but Trump is innocent until proven guilty?
Here is what really started the whole wire tapping fiasco. Mark Levin picked this up, distorted the facts to make it look like wire tapping and then passed it on to Breitbart, who passed it on to Steve Bannon who gave it to Trump. There is no evidence to back up his claim. It was all a distortion of the truth to get the heat off of him and Jeff Sessions.
https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi- … to-russia/
"Did he have any proof of Obama being born in Kenya? Did he have any proof of Illegal voting. "
No and I don't know. Do you?
"Why can't he just produce the evidence instead of making claims that he can' t prove?"
I know I've answered this at least a half dozen times on these forums in the last week or so, but I'll do it again. I don't know why, but if it were me I wouldn't bother as the haters won't believe anything offered.
"Do you see the game he is playing?"
No, but I see the one you're playing. As you complain there is no evidence while at the same time decrying that an investigation is being done - it's pretty obvious, isn't it?
"Why is it that Clinton is guilty until proven innocent"
What a foolish statement - Clinton was guilty after being proven guilty. Only idiots claimed otherwise.
"but Trump is innocent until proven guilty?"
Because that is the basis of our justice system, and only idiots claim guilt without having proof.
"Here is what really started the whole wire tapping fiasco. Mark Levin picked this up, distorted the facts to make it look like wire tapping and then passed it on to Breitbart, who passed it on to Steve Bannon who gave it to Trump."
So Trump does have a reason to think he was wire tapped. His campaign really was "tapped", whether data or phone lines. Why the insistence it wasn't, then?
Wilderness: No I don't have proof of Obama being born in Kenya, but Obama has proof on his birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii that is accepted by the authorities. Now if you don't accept that, then your doubt can go on forever in your mind, because in your mind he is guilty until proven innocent Do you get my point? Trump is the opposite. He has no official evidence and you presume he is innocent without any official evidence to prove one way or the other. Obama has his birth certificate, what does Trump have? Trump had nothing but an unofficial article written by a British journalist. Read this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac … 132f9ac164
"you presume he is innocent without any official evidence to prove one way or the other."
Uhh...that is the basis of our justice system, is it not? Except for Trump, of course, for he is guilty of every possible malfeasance that anyone could accuse him of, isn't he?
(The question of "do you" referred to proof of illegal voting, not to Obama's birth certificate.)
What is the supporting evidence of Illegal voting that Trump has? Again, it is an accusation without evidence to support it. That's why he ordered an investigation. More than likely, they will find nothing, just like all his other allegations without evidence, they become open issues for the public and a form of propaganda that is never ending, just like Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. It never left the public's ears for years, even though she was found not guilty.. The republican congress didn't want us to forget that she was accused of causing the deaths of four Americans, because it was part of the propaganda to discredit her for running for president.
It is the same as if I accused my wife of having an affair without any supporting evidence and then had her investigated to try to prove her guilt, and posted it on face book everyday, so the pubic would never forget it.
Why is your leftist shallow politics essentially the likes of a gorilla throwing excrement at the circus goers bars of the circus ,-NEWSFLASH You have lost your Clinton Mafia , your anointed queen is dead , your reign of crime is done - .All there is left in your political pockets after the Clinton Foundation rode through the kingdom raping ,pillaging and self inflicted ruination is the empty Armani suit standing in the dark corner of defeat ............time to put on the grown up pants and Get over it !
And the leftist whiners still think anyone cares about your opinions .
This would be comical if it weren't so sad. "What is the evidence? We will have an investigation to find the evidence"
Does it not occur to you that that's exactly what we do in every case? That's why cops investigate crimes - to find evidence they don't currently have - and that's why we investigate illegal voting. Really, PP, this just should not be that difficult to figure out, and you even answer your own question!
But more than likely the evidence will be found and nothing will be done, just like the server issue. Playing the political game is far more important, isn't it?
Yep - this is exactly the same as if you accused your wife of (let's change it to spousal abuse, something illegal) and the cops come...and investigate! In the case of abuse, they will even take action before the investigation, but if you maintain the accusation there will be an investigation.
And finally, you keep saying there is no evidence, but what you really mean is you don't have any evidence. You haven't the foggiest notion of what evidence Trump or anyone else has or has provided to the FBI - should that not be a reason to quit saying there isn't any?
Don: This info should be posted as a hub so it is archived here on HP. New hubbers keep asking for help with their hubs. This is how hubbers improve: do the work. Well done.
I hate to admit it but such ideological warring is a constant in US politics , the method of "outrage ' is the only ideological difference . " Follow the money " is more of the same that was said about Clinton-ology , Obama politics , on and on - worthy of a Hub ? Only in that your outrage is all just as phony as any .
Follow the money = more" fake news "until proven guilty .
No Kathleen, it is far short of a hub to be archived. It is an interesting and well presented perspective,. but it falls well short of a piece that should be archived for Internet searches.
I hope you understand that is not a ding on Don's efforts, but just a point of clarification.
I couldn't argue with you on those points. It's just nice to see writing where some real effort has been made to verify what the writer is saying. There is a shortage of that effort these days.
Wilderness: Oh you of so much faith. We shall see. I hope you aren't disappointed. But there has to be a crime committed not someones accusation based on someones unofficial article. Former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden said there is no body of evidence to support Trump's claims.
Read this from Michael Hayden six days ago. Of course I don't have any evidence, but at least I'm doing the research and analysis. It is not just my opinion. But I don't see you coming forth with anything but your opinion and argument and blind faith in man who has shown his scurrilous character many times.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/201 … -says.html
"But there has to be a crime committed not someones accusation based on someones unofficial article."
For a conviction, yes. But you seem to be of the opinion that there must be a crime, with clearly delineated and discovered evidence, before there can be an investigation. And obviously false claim, as finding evidence is what an investigation is for.
"But I don't see you coming forth with anything but your opinion and argument and blind faith in man who has shown his scurrilous character many times."
Probably because to question your assumptions makes you conclude that I support Trump and everything he does or says. But I haven't even addressed Trumps claims; only your assertion that because there is no clear evidence, in your hands, means there cannot be an investigation to find that evidence. A rather ridiculous assertion but one you seem firm on, presumably because you also claim that everything Trump says is a lie and would purely hate to find he isn't.
When are you going to understand, they are not my assertions, they are Trump's assertions without a body of evidence to support them according to Michael Hayden. Don't you think the former head of the CIA and NSA would know that when he was in charge when this supposedly took place? McCain and Graham are asking for Trump to provide his evidence to put up or shut up.
"A rather ridiculous assertion but one you seem firm on, presumably because you also claim that everything Trump says is a lie and would purely hate to find he isn't."
No you have that wrong, according to Trump he doesn't lie. He uses what he calls truthful hyperbole (from Art of the Deal). He exaggerates the truth. If he is trying to sell something or someone, he exaggerates it in a positive direction with lots of adjectives. If he is trying to attack someone or something, he exaggerates it in a negative direction with lots of negative adjectives to the threshold of lying, if he can get away with it, then he lies.
But he said this in Art of the Deal. "You can only con people to a certain point, then you have to produce the goods." He is a master con artist and uses distraction when he is under attack and that is what this is really about. He is trying to distract the public from the Jeff Sessions investigation. However accusing a former president of the United States of wiretapping is a serious allegation if it is not true. And it undermines the credibility of this country as seen by other countries. Also there is a conspiracy about Obama choosing to live in the D.C. area so that he and his staff can undermine the Trump administration...give me a break.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow … 58e0d9fb0f
"When are you going to understand, they are not my assertions, they are Trump's assertions without a body of evidence to support them according to Michael Hayden."
I don't see Trump asserting that everything he says is a lie - that is yours.
I don't see Trump asserting that there is no evidence of illegal voting - that is yours.
I don't see Trump asserting that there cannot be an investigation into something without already having proof of it - that is yours.
All of these are your assertions, not Trumps. And they are the very assertions I'm questioning...because they are either simply wrong or are being made without proof. The exact thing you are accusing Trump of doing.
"No you have that wrong" <that you claim everything Trump says is a lie>
Really? And yet that's what this whole sub-thread is about - your unsubstantiated assertions that Trump lies. That and the quaint notion that investigations are never made until there is already proof in hand. You even exaggerate it all in a negative direction, just as you cry that he does.
"However accusing a former president of the United States of wiretapping is a serious allegation if it is not true."
Perhaps you should wait for the results of the investigation then, instead of instantly claiming it isn't true because Trump always lies. Instead of doing what you complain Trump does, in other words.
How it happens that the people making unsubstantiated claims without evidence can possibly complain that Trump does it is beyond me. Some kind of inability, I guess, to observe their own words and how they sound compared to the hated, evil, lying president that never tells the truth.
Peoplepower; I am so impressed with your posts, logic and arguments. (And Don's as well.) It is refreshing to read common-sense commentary that is presented with fair and unbiased viewpoints. Well done. I notice that a couple of responses to your posts encompass the tedious pivot-deflect; the politician's dodge. It's a gimmick that's been pretty much overused and only when someone broaches a question or an argument the respondent finds too tough to answer. Not to mention the tiresome old lashing out of "the left versus the right."
"I don't see Trump asserting that everything he says is a lie - that is yours.
I don't see Trump asserting that there is no evidence of illegal voting - that is yours.
I don't see Trump asserting that there cannot be an investigation into something without already having proof of it - that is yours."
Just because you don't see it, does not make it false on my part. We live in separate realities.
I never said everything he says is a lie. I said he lies. Do you deny that he has never lied? Just check Politifact or Fact Checker.org. They are far too numerous to list here.
Do you deny that he ordered an investigation on illegal voting without any evidence?
Do you deny that he started the birther movement without presenting any evidence other than when questioned his answer was it was a secret?
Do you deny that when asked about his tax returns, he said he could not release them because they were in an audit, but yet the IRS said he could release them?
You still don't get it. Who have I ordered an investigation against? Trump has ordered an investigation without out any evidence. That is the difference. I have not ordered an investigation on Trump. I'm only stating what others have stated who are more knowledgeable than you and me.. McCain and Graham have ordered an investigation against Trump. All you have done is criticize and try to compare me to Trump and state that he should be given more time to come forward. You haven't provided any substance other than I'm like him in this regard. Time will tell very soon as to whether he has valid evidence or not...and if he doesn't then his false accusations can become very serious. You better hope I'm wrong.
Just Another Phony outrage of the Phony left !
You have to be intentionally mis-reading everything I say. Unless you can prove that Trump said his statement about illegals is a lie? That the words "I lied about illegal voting" came out of his mouth?
"Do you deny that he ordered an investigation on illegal voting without any evidence?"
Here we go again, for I didn't say he told the truth about illegal voting. I merely said that you don't know if he did or not, but are willing to claim he did, without knowing if it is true or not. Unless you can prove that there is no illegal voting?
"Do you deny that he started the birther movement without presenting any evidence other than when questioned his answer was it was a secret?"
Yes. Unless you want to go back years and years. Nothing he has said recently "started the birther movement".
"Trump has ordered an investigation without out any evidence. "
And yet again: you haven't a clue if he has evidence or not, but are quite willing to claim he does not. Can you prove your own statement, or are you as bad as you say Trump is?
"All you have done is criticize and try to compare me to Trump and state that he should be given more time to come forward."
You're right...because you are doing exactly what you say Trump is doing. You have produced no evidence he lied about illegal voting. You have produced no evidence he lied about wire taps. Yet in both cases you make the statement that he did lie, without producing evidence. How is that any different than Trump saying things without giving you the evidence?
Hello peoplepower73, Is there a reason you addressed this to me?
Genna East: Thank you. I'm going to try one more time and see if I can get through to him. I reply to this not only for him, but for others that think like him.
Wilderness: What part of a British Journalist writing an article that doesn't even make a reference to Obama and wiring taping don't you understand? What part of Mark Levin broadcasting this on his radio show and giving it to Breirbart news and then Brietbart giving it to Steve Bannon, then Bannon giving it to Trump and Trump using it as evidence that Obama wiretapped his phones at Trump towers don't you understand?
They are using false information to accuse Obama of wiretapping when there is nothing in the article to support that. If this were presented in a court of law, the judge would not admit the article as evidence because it would mislead the court, because it has nothing to do with the charges lodged against Obama.
This is why Trump is not coming forward but leaving it as an open issue to never be solved, just like his other open accusations that are never solved. It is a propaganda technique that is used to transfer the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused and for the world to be constantly aware of it. If I accuse you of a crime that you didn't commit, but provide no evidence, am I lying? The burden of proof is now on you to prove otherwise. You are guilty of my lie until you can prove I lied.
Further, they are using this as a distraction to take the focus of off Jeff sessions for possible collusion with the Russians...and it is working. When is the last time in the news have you heard about Jeff Sessions and the Russians? Now do you get it?
I agree. If anything, members of Trump's campaign were picked up on the backend of communications under surveillance. And by that I mean the Russians were under surveillance-- not Trump Tower. If they picked up a conversation from a Russian source they had under surveillance, out to someone else, that is how they knew. I suspect this is what happened with Flynn. If anyone thinks former President Obama would order an illegal wiretap on Donald Trump, they just aren't thinking. Trump lies so often, it's become the new de rigueur. We've come to expect this with much of what he says. Professional fact checkers estimated he lied approximately 70% of the time on the campaign trail. That's quite a record. I don't see much change since he took over the Oval Office.
"They are using false information to accuse Obama of wiretapping when there is nothing in the article to support that."
Ah! Then Trump does have evidence (the same evidence the then president had that there were WMD's in Iraq, plus possible other sources you aren't aware of). "Mark Levin... giving it to Breirbart news and then Brietbart giving it to Steve Bannon, then Bannon giving it to Trump." So why are you saying he lied? Because he relied on what you believe (BELIEVE!, not know) to be false reports? That's a pretty convenient definition of "lying" isn't it - allows you to determine anyone and everyone in the country is a pathological liar because they believe something that isn't true. Except yourself of course - you KNOW it is false AND that there is no other evidence because...because...because you want it to be so, I guess.
"If I accuse you of a crime that you didn't commit, but provide no evidence, am I lying?"
If you have evidence you believe to be true ( "Mark Levin... giving it to Breirbart news and then Brietbart giving it to Steve Bannon, then Bannon giving it to Trump.") then no, you are not lying. But (and pay attention here) it is your opinion that determines whether it is a mistake or a lie - not some third party. Just as you don't get to call Trump a liar for believing false information, neither could I call you one for doing the same thing.
"We've come to expect this with much of what he says. "
That's the rub, isn't it? YOU expect a lie, and thus are quite confidant in declaring anything you don't like to be one. You don't even need evidence, any more than you say Trump does.
("Further, they are using this as a distraction to take the focus of off Jeff sessions for possible collusion with the Russians" - I'm sure you have secret recordings of conversations proving this, and will now produce those recordings, right?)
("If they picked up a conversation from a Russian source they had under surveillance, out to someone else, that is how they knew. ". And of course you have recordings showing that the tap was on another source instead of Trump, his campaign or even the building, and you will now produce that rock solid proof.)
You have lots and lots of opinions (Trumpaphobes usually do), but somehow you aren't supporting any of those opinions with evidence. The same thing you accuse Trump of doing...
Trumpahobe? Lol! No, I know far too much about the man. His behavior while on the campaign trail and as POTUS pretty much substantiates/demonstrates what a number of us already knew about him. The intelligence community has already confirmed their surveillance of Russian sources in a number of ways. I don't know how to make the facts or logic any simpler. Peoplepower has already done this, and quite well. And by the way, if you cannot concur that Trump is a flagrant/serial liar, it won't make any difference once it has been substantiated, formally and on the record, that Obama never ordered the illegal wiretapping. You will believe whatever it is that you want to believe -- much like the birthers still believe that our former President was born in Kenya and is an Arab. Nuff said. Have a good day. :-)
Except PP isn't making "logical" assertions - opinions based on fact and evidence - he is giving opinions without a shred of evidence to support them and calling them facts. The only support he has is his general (poor) opinion of President Trump as a whole and that's worthless in the field of logic.
I agree that Trump is not in the habit of speaking only truth; that he has a habit of exaggerating and of trying to spin what he is saying. Which has absolutely nothing to do with PP performing the same kind of action while complaining that Trump lies.
"You will believe whatever it is that you want to believe"
Much as you will, I suspect. Or do you already have proof there was no wire tap to support that it will one day be formally substantiated? Truly, there seems to be a massive misunderstanding of the difference between opinion and known, proven fact with both you AND PP.
Sorry GA. That reply should have been addressed to Wilderness. My apologies.
Whew! That's a relief. I was afraid I had broken the Martini Rule, and couldn't find my way back to where the break happened.
Wilderness: Here is the article that was written by Louise Mensch the journalist. I have posted this for you many times, but apparently, you do not comprehend what your are reading. This is exhibit A for the evidence that was passed on to Trump. It is not my opinion. I have proved that by the links I have provided. I defy you to find any reference to Obama and wire tapping in the article. Take off your rose colored glasses and judge it objectively.
https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi- … to-russia/
This just released. And there it is the execution of the "walkback" when Trump is actually cornered, he doesn't mean what he says. That is all part of the game and it worked perfectly because he took the heat of off Sessions and he gets away clean for lying about Obama. And many people who are not aware of the news, will continue to believe forever that Obama wire tapped Trump's phones. It's the perfect propaganda ploy. I don't think he will ever learn that his words as president have serious consequences. I rest my case. I knew this is how it would turn out.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/ … retapping/
But you still haven't supported your claim that Trump has no evidence; that he consciously lied about the wire tapping. Or that he lied about illegal voting. Or now that he is using it as a propaganda play (that it fits the bill isn't proof that it happened that way, which I'm sure you know).
Instead you keep making the same claims, over and over, without ever providing the proof, just as Trump has done. So how about providing some? You made the claim, prove it is correct; prove that Trump consciously lied about wire tapping him (not just a link to evidence of a different tap), prove that there was no illegal voting. Prove that the wire tapping claim was designed and implemented to divert attention - not that it did just that, but that it was intended to do that, which is what your claim is.
You're right - I, too, knew this is how it would turn out. A complete, 100% refusal to support any claim made, while continuing to make them. Personally, I highly doubt that Obama ordered a wire tap of Trump, but at least I'm not silly enough to claim that I KNOW it didn't happen, or that Trump concocted the story to divert attention from Sessions. Because there is exactly zero proof of either statement and I understand that I should not give statements of "fact" that I cannot prove.
Wilderness: .I never said I know it didn't happen. I said Trump's evidence had no bearing on Obama wire tapping his phone at Trump Tower. Do you hear anything about Session anymore? Why was this wiretapping accusation brought up right in the middle of Session's investigation? Do you deny that it diverted attention from the investigation? It's over anyway Trump supporters will continue to believe Trump and think that Obama did the wire tapping. Obama gets demonized and Trump and Sessions get off the hook.
You are becoming an exercise in futility and this is reaching the point of diminishing return. I'm through. Have a great day.
You purposefully want to be soooo offended as to Trumps money and communication ties with the Russians ?
And , At the same time totally ignore Hilary's love triangle with bank accounts , election collusion and political cartels with the same People ?
You simply cannot spell Hypocrite can you .
Peoplepower: Trump recently provided his own proof that his statements were totally false. The WH is now backpedaling on Trump's original tweets he made while in Florida, without anyone nearby to provide the usual muzzle and leash. We knew it was only a matter of time. Spicer said. "The President used the word wiretaps in quotes to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities." Lol.
I tried to think of an analogy but it's hard to imitate Trump's gobbledygook. This is best I could come up with: "I didn't mean to say that the moon rises in the east and sets in the east -- I meant the sun. Oh...the sun sets in the west? Well, okay, I meant that too. The media misunderstood." He thinks we all have double digit IQ's and couldn't possible conceive that "wire-tapping phones" means exactly that.
What a fraudulent infant Donald is. I wonder how long it will be before they have to walk back "surveillance and other activities." Could wiretapping microwaves be next? And I wonder how much longer Spicer will allow himself to be humiliated.
The incredibly liberal infiltrated U.S. government Intel, and DOJ agencies that once operated on fairly neutral tendencies no longer are or do , Pretty simple . Anyone that doesn't see the residual mess of Obama Admin. "Alinsky-ism ' operating within the once fairly trusted US government is ....well , blind to say the least.
I think its Sooo regrettable that people have to suffer such in accepting the reality that the " popular vote " just doesn't elect like it should . After all ,There must be something broken with it , Truthfully , It has to be a conservative conspiracy . I mean if the popularity of the popular vote worked in their favor when by the electoral states elected Obama , Why didn't it work for Hilary .........?
Still can't get over it huh ?
by Mike Russo 6 years ago
Isn't interesting at the same time Jeff Sessions has said that he talked to Russia, Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping him? And Trump has no evidence to support his claims. I believe this is another one of Trump's distractions to take the heat off of him and Jeff Sessions for...
by Scott Belford 3 days ago
All of the available evidence seems to say so.Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest...
by Susie Lehto 5 years ago
"The tables have turned and what was once the media’s favorite message — President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election — has now grown silent.Apparently, it’s Bill and Hillary Clinton who’ve been doing the behind-scenes and suspicious dealings with Russia all along. Oh, and...
by Readmikenow 2 days ago
I guess in this situation I do have a bias. I'm Ukrainian. I have relatives in Ukraine. I've been to Ukraine more than once. I have a bias, but I may also have a bit more insight into the situation.Russa invaded Ukraine in 2014. The propaganda will say it was Ukrainian...
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...Why is this not headline news?
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
Isn't it interesting that Trump and his supporters say their is no evidence about collusion with the Russians? Therefore, all of these investigations are "Witch Hunts." However, Mike Pence said that even though their commission on voter fraud has not found any evidence of...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|