Useful Idiots: Climate Deniers “Unwitting” Agents of Russian Influence

May 19, 2017


Best defense you can make for someone who is both one of DC’s dumbest climate deniers, and apparently for years, an “unwitting” agent of Russian influence.

As the Russiagate disaster plays out, it will become clear that Russia’s aim has been to remove US sanctions and clear the way for unlimited exploitation of huge hydrocarbon resources that are the foundation of Russia’s sagging economy, and the source of Vladimir Putin, and his circle’s, staggering wealth.
That’s what this is about. That’s what it’s always been about.

New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. warned a Republican congressman in 2012 that Russian spies were trying to recruit him, officials said, an example of how aggressively Russian agents have tried to influence Washington politics.

The congressman, Dana Rohrabacher of California, has been known for years as one of Moscow’s biggest defenders in Washington and as a vocal opponent of American economic sanctions against Russia. He claims to have lost a drunken arm-wrestling match with the current Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, in the 1990s. He is one of President Trump’s staunchest allies on Capitol Hill.


As a newly appointed special counsel investigates connections between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, the warning to Mr. Rohrabacher shows that the F.B.I. has for years viewed Russian spies, sometimes posing as diplomats, as having a hand in Washington.

Mr. Rohrabacher was drawn into the maelstrom this week when The Washington Post reported on an audio recording of Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House majority leader, saying last year, “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump.” Mr. McCarthy said on Wednesday that he had made a joke that landed poorly.

But the F.B.I. has taken seriously the possibility that Russian spies would target American politicians. In a secure room at the Capitol, an F.B.I. agent told Mr. Rohrabacher in 2012 that Russian spies were trying to recruit him as an “agent of influence” — someone the Russian government might be able to use to steer Washington policy-making, former officials said

Mr. Rohrabacher said in a telephone interview on Thursday that the meeting had focused on his contact with one member of the Russian Foreign Ministry, whom he recalled meeting on a trip to Moscow. “They were telling me he had something to do with some kind of Russian intelligence,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. He recalled the F.B.I. agent saying that Moscow “looked at me as someone who could be influenced.”

Law enforcement officials did not think that Mr. Rohrabacher was actively working with Russian intelligence, officials said, rather that he was being targeted as an unwitting player in a Russian effort to gain access in Washington, according to one former American official. The official said there was no evidence that Mr. Rohrabacher was ever paid by the Russians.

Also at the meeting were Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, and according to one former official, Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Democrat of Maryland. Mr. Rogers and Mr. Ruppersberger were the senior members of the House Intelligence Committee. In a brief telephone interview, Mr. Ruppersberger said that he recalled a meeting with Mr. Rogers and Mr. Rohrabacher, but did not remember that an F.B.I. agent was present. “Mike and I reminded Dana that Russia is our adversary,” he said.

As for Mr. McCarthy’s remark, even if only a quip, it showed that Republican leaders were aware enough of Mr. Trump’s Russian ties six months before Election Day to joke about them. WikiLeaks had not yet begun to publish hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee or Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman. And many of the revelations about Mr. Trump’s associates and their Russian meetings had not yet been revealed.

Video evidence here supports Mr. Rohrabacher’s “unwitting” defense.

Meanwhile, cartoonist and climate denier Scott Adams goes from mere tool  to full blown useful idiot.

Scott Adam’s Blog:

I saw this quote on today: “The episode is the latest woe for Trump, whose administration is engulfed in a series of scandals linked to Russia.”

A “series of scandals linked to Russia”? Would it be equally accurate to characterize it as a series of stories manufactured by the media, none of which have been confirmed to be a big deal?

Today’s headline news is that an alleged Comey memo indicates President Trump tried to obstruct justice in the Flynn investigation by saying to Comey in a private meeting, “I hope you can let this go.”

Key word = hope

How did the New York Times characterize Trump’s expression of hope?


Do you see Trump asking Comey to end the Flynn investigation in the quote “I hope you can let this go”?

All I see in that sentence is “duh.” Obviously Trump HOPED his friend and advisor Flynn would be okay. Did it need to be said? Was there some confusion on this point with Comey? Did Comey enter the meeting thinking maybe President Trump wanted to see his friend and advisor Flynn get eaten by the system?

I’m no lawyer, but I can’t see any judge or jury in the United States prosecuting someone for expressing a hope that the future turns out well for his friend.

Watch the headlines and pundits today transmogrify “hope” into “asked to end the Flynn investigation.”

That isn’t news.

That is an assassination.

17 Responses to “Useful Idiots: Climate Deniers “Unwitting” Agents of Russian Influence”

  1. Sir Charles Says:

    There’s a lot what Tramp hoped for. E.g. the Russians hacking Hillary’s emails…

    An economy built almost solely on fossil fuel exports is neither sustainable nor good for the planet.

    => Climate Action Tracker: Russian Federation

  2. ubrew12 Says:

    Adams: “Trump HOPED his friend… Flynn would be okay” Trump didn’t say that either. He hoped for Comey to take a particular action regarding an active investigation. Comey properly interpreted it as a veiled threat. That threat was carried out a few weeks later. Adams wants us to take Trumps comment to Comey out of context: in which Trump has been acting to prevent any investigation into his campaigns connection to Russia.
    Adams: “I can’t see any judge… prosecuting someone for expressing a hope…”. A ‘hope’, no. A ‘threat’, maybe.

  3. Sir Charles Says:

    CIA Whistleblower John Kiriakou: We Should Be Considering Impeachment If Trump Obstructed FBI Probe

    • And whatever you do, never, ever, ever, never, EVER, never let it enter your mind that it was Bernie’s primary to win if the Clinton machine hadn’t set up the system for him to lose. Don’t even think that. Perish the thought. Bernie – you remember him? The guy who couldn’t afford to buy a private email server, the guy not even connected with Benghazi, who had no Goldman-Sachs friends, who wasn’t feeling faint once after formal appearance events, who’s spouse wasn’t impeached, who would have gone hammer and tongs harder against the global warming issue. THAT guy. Surely you don’t doubt he also could have won against Trump, do you?

        • So, all of those things which drew so many to Bernie and away from Hillary, which may very well have kept them from voting in November in a system rigged against Bernie …… are a concoction of the Russians?

          You guys just keep right on with the Russian conspiracy angle, I’m perfectly ok with it. Back the Hillary 2020 idea as well, it’s a grand idea. Look how well it almost worked already and would have worked better without those pesky Bernie zealots.

      • Lionel Smith Says:

        Take note useful idiot Cook, this is one that you cannot hoax away:

        Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts

        • Take note, Smith, that permafrost melts, and no well informed skeptic of CAGW denies climate change happens. It is all a matter of whether what little warming we’ve seen over the last 150 years is caused primarily by human activity or not. Crow about this seed storage place all you want, all it indicates is some poor building design that wouldn’t have made the news if somebody had done it right in the first place to keep out flooding rainwater. How’s the temp trend doing at that place, by the way?

          • “Well informed skeptic of CAGW?” Isn’t that kinda like “jumbo shrimp” or “plastic glasses”?

            The global-average warming over the past 150 years isn’t just “a little”. It has been enough to have very significant global impacts.

            And as far as whether human activity is responsible for the warming, that question was asked and answered *decades* ago. Here’s what Scripps Institution of Oceanography professor (and keeper of the Keeling Curve) Ralph Keeling had to say on the matter: “The climate change debate has been over for decades.” (

          • Lionel Smith Says:

            Take note, Smith, that permafrost melts, and no well informed skeptic of CAGW denies climate change happens. It is all a matter of whether what little warming we’ve seen over the last 150 years is caused primarily by human activity or not.

            Bloviators like you need to understand that the human signal in the warming trend has been recognised for over twenty years – its called attribution. Also 100% or more of the warming is human in origin because humans have also pushed up particulates and other cooling species into the atmosphere. This was a point that Santer got right at that November 2010 Committee hearing when he put Michaels in his place. The same hearing where Alley crashed Rohrabacher’s clown car.

            Cook, you are nothing but a useful idiot for the criminals highlighted in this book:

            Horsemen of the Apocalypse: The Men Who Are Destroying Life on Earth—And What it Means for Our Children. I doubt you have any of those latter else you would not be doing what you do.

          • Torsten Says:

            Russell, that’s an interesting choice of chart to display. Can you tell us what it means to you?

          • “well informed skeptic of CAGW” Oxy moron?

        • J4Zonian Says:

          I had 2 comments, one that no matter what you say, the denying delayalists can and will always deny and confuse the issue. If their argument were disproven by the fact that the sky is blue, they would insist it was not (although some would say it was red, some would say green, some that the problem was our lyin’ eyes… )

          I see Russell’s taken care of that.

          The other is that I was horrified to find long term seed storage, whose only use will be if some disaster hits, is in plastic in the cold. While the damage of BPA, phthalates and other endocrine disruptors in almost all plastics is clear when they’re exposed to heat, it’s also a danger when they’re frozen. Oops. I’ve often thought of the Svalberd storage as the wrong approach and kind of a waste; that growing the seeds is a better way to preserve them, but came to the conclusion of “heck, why not use both? No skin off our nutmegs…” Now I know why. I hope they have the sense to go with metal lined with glass on the inside, maybe plastic on the outside, each layer capable of storing independently and water and air-proofly, if they plan on continuing this thing there or elsewhere.

  4. Sir Charles Says:

    “you’re NOT so BRIGHT are you” Jake Tapper DESTROYS trump 5/17/2017 james comey, mike flynn

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: 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

%d bloggers like this: