Confessions of an author’s serial meetings with Russians

By Larry Hamlin

With all the focus these days by the mainstream media on exposing Americans that have had undisclosed meetings with Russians a little clearing of the air seems to be in order.

A number of recent essays here, here, here and here at Watts Up With That have addressed the ridiculously costly, monstrously bureaucratic and globally irrelevant greenhouse gas reduction climate alarmist campaign of California Governor Brown and Senate Leader Kevin de Leon.

It turns out that the author of these essays has in fact had meetings with Russians that were previously undisclosed. The first such meetings took place in 1990 when Gorbachev was in power. The most recent meetings occurred in 2014 when Putin was in power. These 1990 and 2014 meetings with Russians included family members of the author as well.


These meetings occurred in both St. Petersburg and in Moscow and included meeting sites in trains, subways, buses, boats, many national historic sites, museums, parks, hotels, restaurants, stores and even in Moscow’s Red Square.

Despite these previously undisclosed and what some mainstream media types may see as damning revelations of meetings with Russians the author maintains that the following energy and climate “facts” remain steadfast and unwavering:

First, the U.S. has at its disposal an extensive armada of free energy market cost effective and readily available resources that well position our country to be a winner both now and in the future in global competition while providing enhanced environmental benefits which have already reduced and stabilized U.S. emissions for the long term.




Second, California’s claim that its state’s greenhouse gas reduction program is vital to global efforts to address climate change and that renewable energy is a preferred energy resource is overwhelming flawed because the emissions goals (SB 32) are globally trivial (only about 0.4% of global emissions) and achieved by mandating use of high cost unreliable renewable energy that the EU has proven drive energy costs through the roof.



Third, California’s claim that China is “leading” the fight against climate change in partnership with our state is totally absurd and erroneous because China, as reported by the New York Times, is planning on building over 700 new coal plants in the next tens years which is a crucial fact unaddressed and ignored by both Governor Brown and Senate Leader Kevin de Leon.


In view of the above items Governor Brown’s claim that the “existence of humanity” rests on the state’s legislature extending his cap and tax law is delusional.


Notwithstanding the revelations of previously undisclosed meetings with Russians by the author these “facts” remain intact.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 18, 2017 6:31 am

Russians….that our reactionary friends who used to befriend and take bribes from Russians are now pretending to be up in arms over meetings is rather pathetic.
As to the delusional climate kooks, thanks for pointing out the complete lack of reality in their self-absorbed fantasies about saving the world.
Even cheap sci-fi plots strive to put together more credible story lines.

Reply to  hunter
July 18, 2017 7:04 am

There is a definable difference between science fiction and fantasy. Do you believe in magic?

Reply to  ThomasJK
July 18, 2017 8:19 am

Well, our warmist friends expect us to believe in the magical powers of CO2 to deliver floods and droughts, blizzards and winters without snow, and even steer rainstorms to arrive at NYC exactly at high tide. That certainly is nearer to magic than science.

Reply to  ThomasJK
July 18, 2017 2:38 pm

Meteorology – Horoscopes with numbers.
Certainly when trying to deliver a ‘long-term’ forecast for the British Isles.
Anything over about 36 hours needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Anyone claiming accuracy out to five days is a charlatan.
Anyone claiming accuracy out to thirty days is a either a fraudster or a certifiable lunatic – if they say anything more than “On average . . . . . . . .”
I am sure that, for many parts of the world, longer term forecasts are reasonable.
Atacama Desert – next week – dry. Next month – dry.
And similar.
But this offshore archipelago doesn’t do r e l i a b l e longer term [over three days, for sure] forecasts.
Some are right – indeed.
But more right than by chance? Possibly a few more – but out to four days at best. Spring and Autumn – probably less than four days . . .
After that, the stochastic variation [the butterflies flapping their wings, and similar] will render the whole thing utterly moot.
In the UK, the Met Office – and many independent forecasters – recalculate forecasts every six hours.
And there is a reason for that.
Yesterday they said today was to be hot.
Today has been very warm – with isolated thunderstorms. Similar, but no9 cigar.
[Am I allowed to use such a socially unacceptable metaphor in 2017? /SARC].
Auto – always prepared for sun and rain.
I live and work in London. I have to be!

Reply to  ThomasJK
July 18, 2017 3:03 pm

I have met Russians, too.
Loading motor spirit in Novorossiysk in 1973.
The Arrival formalities were as expected in a country where Brezhnev was thought of as a ‘progressive’ leader [compared with Kosygin, or the Foreign Minister, Gromyko, at least: like saying someone is less publicity seeking than Richard Branson, I suppose].
.We had to bring all our foreign currency to be tabulated and recorded before we could commence cargo work.
Well, we did.
Then, our Second Engineer – ‘Bilko’ – nick-named for his astonishing similarity to the Sergeant of that name in the US TV Sitcom (look it up; enjoy it!), came down to the Saloon, where a particularly hard-faced Russian Deputy Commissar was making hard going of our Pounds, Swedish Kronor, Iranian Riyals, etc.
‘Bilko’ [Alan something, I think, Darwent/Derwint, maybe – IIRC] had been at sea since the early Fifties, at least. May be – probably? – longer. He had sailed in many trades, and he had kept all the small change with which he had left each country he had visited [fifty? Maybe many more!].
He brought his treasure chest down, about ten inches by eight by six; it was almost full, and plainly quite heavy.
He handed it over to the Commissar, saying ‘I don’t know exactly what I have here’.
She stirred through the coins.
Evidently not sighting even two from the same country, she pushed it back to Bilko, and said, ‘Notes only!’. One up to Bilko!!
Later discharging something or other in Odessa in 1984 (I think) – although they were mostly Ukrainians.
And again with a Russian ship manager in London.
Many sought to do the best for the owner.
So, I guess, the yellow press will come after me!

Reply to  hunter
July 18, 2017 8:20 am

… our reactionary friends who used to befriend and take bribes from Russians …

Precisely who are you talking about? Is there any evidence that they, whoever they are, have quit that behaviour?

Reply to  commieBob
July 18, 2017 1:11 pm


Reply to  hunter
July 18, 2017 8:37 am

I’ve yet to figure out what the problem is…..someone met with someone from a different country?….so what?
…and all this coming from a political party that was in power when they were caught tapping other countries phones, hacking their emails…and paying bribes

Reply to  Latitude
July 18, 2017 8:29 pm

yes, I agree. Then they fail to acknowledge the fragile cease fire arranged by Putin and Trump in Syria.
Cannot be figured out because the issue is total fabrication in the absence of a real issue.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Latitude
July 19, 2017 4:00 am

“I’ve yet to figure out what the problem is…”
I also don’t know how the pretended influence on the voter is intended to work. One opinion I saw was by setting up fake news. But to do that no one else is needed. The only thing I see that may be influential to the outcome are non-fake news.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Latitude
July 19, 2017 9:46 am

And arbitrarily murdering citizens without trial via drone strikes!

George Tetley
Reply to  Latitude
July 20, 2017 4:44 am

You forgot !!! Whatever happened to the clintons ????????

Reply to  hunter
July 18, 2017 8:47 am

Every country with a vested interest in seeing one candidate in a foreign election win will try to influence that election, either overtly or covertly and as far as I know, no country has laws that prevent it from trying to influence foreign elections to their own benefit. Despite the holier than thou attitude expressed by those who are harping on the adoption meeting that was arraigned under false pretences, I would be willing to bet that every one of them would have taken the same meeting, left in a few minutes and the memory of the details of that meeting would have been discarded as irrelevant. The only real difference between conservatives and liberals is that the conservatives would have vetted any information received before using it against their opponent.
The hypocrisy here is matched by the hypocrisy surrounding CAGW and that surrounding all progressive talking points. This is just the way that they must behave and the rampant hypocrisy shows that the policies they want to impose on others are unsupportable with logic and unacceptable to be imposed on themselves.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 9:22 am

exactly…..biggest difference is Liberals will band together no matter what…they even have prizes and awards for being liberal
Republicans are all over the place with just as many RINOs as conservatives….
…there are very few DINOs….and the few will still even toe the party line
Republicans are their own worst enemy

Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 1:49 pm

Such ignorance! Campaign contribution include anything of value received by a campaign (except personal volunteered time), not just cash. HRC’s email would certainly be something of value to the Trump campaign. One can debate how the law ought to be applied in this particular case, where nothing of value appears to have been obtained. On the other hand, the FBI investigation into Russian influence included information from the CIA and NSA, which wouldn’t have been monitoring a meeting in New York. If this meeting is related to a Russian national effort at all, there presumably is much more to the story than one meeting.
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
The following groups and individuals are considered “foreign nationals” and are, therefore, subject to the prohibition:
Foreign governments;
Foreign political parties;
Foreign corporations;
Foreign associations;
Foreign partnerships;
Individuals with foreign citizenship; and
Immigrants who do not have a “green card
As noted earlier, the Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, “knowingly” means that a person:
Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;
Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national;
Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.
11 CFR 110.20(a)(4)(i), (ii) and (iii).

Reply to  Frank
July 18, 2017 2:55 pm

What would you consider the shenanigans of the Clinton campaign colluding with Ukraine for getting opposition research on Trump?
There’s no law about listening to what someone has to say regarding opposition research against an opponent. In fact, no matter the source, it should be listened to, especially if it uncovers a crime as it was falsely claimed to do, moreover; opposition research is deemed to have no monetary value. In this case, Trump Jr said he was seeing if he could confirm rumors about the Clinton campaign that he heard from other sources. Keep in mind that at the time of the meeting, Trump was not even assured the Republican nomination.
Of course, as I said, any such information would have to be corroborated and potentially referred to law enforcement. Had Trump not won, he would surely have passed on any opposition research they had on Clinton to the eventual nominee.

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 3:08 pm

Co2isnotevil says: ” moreover; opposition research is deemed to have no monetary value.”

Then explain why Republicans running against Trump in the primaries PAID FOR opposition research from Fusion GPS (which later pushed the Christopher Steele report)

Reply to  Luis Anastasia
July 18, 2017 3:21 pm

That sounds like it removed value from the campaign, thus they received negative monetary gain. Also, it was the Democrats who hired Fusion GPS to fabricate the Steele dossier in the first place. Any Republicans using Fusion GPS for opposition research clearly didn’t research the firm, which has a highly public pro-Hillary, pro-left, anti-right, anti-Trump stance. Also consider that the left considered Trump to be the most vulnerable opponent and wanted Hillary to run against him. Talk about a lapse in judgement …

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 3:47 pm

” Also, it was the Democrats who hired Fusion GPS to fabricate the Steele dossier in the first place.”

NOPE, you are wrong on that.

Reply to  Luis Anastasia
July 18, 2017 4:05 pm

You should know better than to rely on wikipedia when it comes to anything that’s politically controversial.
So while there are reports that it was initially funded by a Republican, they remain anonymous except as to their purported affiliation with the never Trump movement whose interest evaporated once Trump one. But what is well known is the political leanings of that organization and its strong affiliation with Democratic politics.

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 4:36 pm

Co2isnotevil, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Your own posts prove beyond doubt that opposition research has monetary value!!!!!!!!

(doesn’t really matter who pays for it, the fact that it has to be PAID FOR proves it’s value.)

Reply to  Luis Anastasia
July 18, 2017 5:19 pm

“(doesn’t really matter who pays for it, the fact that it has to be PAID FOR proves it’s value.)”
No, all it proves is that someone paid for it.
You don’t actually understand the concept of value, do you?
Like all your sort, you know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 4:43 pm

What is politically controversial about someone paying for opposition research?

Reply to  Luis Anastasia
July 18, 2017 5:00 pm

Nothing is wrong with paying for opposition research and this is my point. Even if there turned out to be reasonable intelligence on Clinton, what Trump did was still not a crime or even the least bit nefarious. Campaign finance law specifically targets monetary donations, not the dissemination of information, whether paid for or not.

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 4:46 pm

PS co2isnotevil, it’s a matter of public record (as per FEC disclosure rules) of the date and amount of the payment to Fusion GPS.

Reply to  Luis Anastasia
July 18, 2017 5:11 pm

So, some anonymous donor who claimed to be a Republican initially paid for opposition research on Trump. How you infer that this was ‘the Republicans’ is bizarre. Producing the fake dossier didn’t get rolling until Democratic donors took over the funding.
Something that does violate campaign finance law is influence peddling, whether direct or via indirect means. For example, the Clinton Foundation, and the seeker of influence doesn’t even need to be foreigner, although the large number of foreign donations that went in to the Clinton Foundation are troublesome and all of these are on the record as well.

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 5:08 pm

Co2isnotevil said: ” opposition research is deemed to have no monetary value”

Co2isnotevil said: “Nothing is wrong with paying for opposition research”
So, according to you there is nothing wrong with paying for something that has no monetary value?

Reply to  Luis Anastasia
July 18, 2017 5:11 pm

As PT Barnum is attributed to have said, there’s a sucker born every minute. I don’t really care what people waste their own money one, I only case when they waste my money.

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 5:17 pm

aCo2isnotevil says: “How you infer that this was ‘the Republicans’ is bizarre.”

No inference required. It’s a matter of public record from the FEC disbursement records of Republican primary candidates.

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 5:20 pm

Co2isnotevil says: ” there’s a sucker born every minute”


Donald Jr. got suckered into a meeting that makes him criminally liable for violating the campaign finance laws about accepting something of value from a foreign entity.

Reply to  Luis Anastasia
July 18, 2017 5:43 pm

There’s no criminal liability here since there’s no violation of campaign finance law. Nothing of value was exchanged and whether it would have been paid for or not, it would still be perfectly legal, although the discussion doesn’t seem to have gotten far enough to talk about payment. It wouldn’t even surprise me if she was paid by Fusion GPS for exaggerated and/or completely false information regarding the Trump meeting being collected as opposition research on behalf of the never Trump donor and this was what inspired going full bore on the bogus dossier once the never Trump donor bailed. The timing and connections are all there, although it could just be a coincidence …
If anything, Trump Jr. could have been doing a great service for our intelligence agencies. The false pretences were an opportunity to acquire intelligence gathered by a Russian intelligence agency. If any of the information turned out to be true, it would go a long way towards revealing sources and methods, which is something intelligence agencies fervently guard. If it was bogus and they elevated it to Obama’s FBI or Justice Department, they would look foolish for crying wolf, discriminating against a Russian and/or wasting law enforcement resources. There’s no law about using false pretences to get a meeting and they should have done a better job of vetting her, even though that was the purpose of the meeting in the first place.

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 5:50 pm

Co2isnotevil says: “Nothing of value was exchanged ”

I hope the investigators call to testify to that, because as of right now, nobody knows what went down in that meeting.
Tell me, where do you get your “inside” information about what transpired during this “meeting?”

Reply to  Luis Anastasia
July 18, 2017 6:36 pm

What meeting? It appears that it only took
about five minutes to know she was bogus after which the meeting ended. I would call this a successful vetting and a lot more cost effective then spending thousands on investigators to check her out, especially when there was already an introduction by someone they had done business with in the past.
Didn’t the Russian lawyer claim ignorance about the false pretences? Perhaps they were added by the intermediary who over promised what he could deliver and needed to spice it up to get her the meeting. That does sound like the way Hollywood works …

Luis Anastasia
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 5:54 pm

Co2isnotevil says: “Trump Jr. could have been doing a great service…”

But then, if we didn’t find out about this “meeting” Junior could easily have been blackmailed as to it having happened.

Reply to  Luis Anastasia
July 18, 2017 6:27 pm

Obviously any attempts at black mail wouldn’t have worked. The first thing he did when it arose was to release the email chain related to the meeting. I’ll bet he didn’t even remember it among the thousands of meetings he must have had relative to the campaign. He probably had to go back and look at the email chain himself in order to remember what the meeting was about. At least he didn’t delete the emails …
BTW, you didn’t comment on whether the way that the Clinton Foundation was used to peddle influence was also a violation of campaign finance law. I actually think it’s more a violation of Federal racketeering laws. Is it just a coincidence that donations to the Clinton foundation, especially those from foreign sources, have dropped precipitously since she lost the election?

Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 18, 2017 6:40 pm

Full text of DJT Jr. released email
3 June 2016
Rob Goldstone to Trump Jr
Emin [Agalarov, a Russian pop star represented by Goldstone] just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras [a Moscow-based developer who tried to partner with Trump in a hotel project] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona [presumably Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime executive assistant], but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
The rest of the email chain is included for completeness below. “Crown Prosecutor of Russia” sounds to me like a government official and “official documents and information” sounds to me like an initiative from some part of the Russian government. As it turned out, the meeting didn’t involve an official of the Russian government or valuable information, but DJT Jr. intended to meet one and receive valuable information. (I don’t claim to understand how a prosecutor or defense attorney would present this information to a jury; the circumstance are complicated.)
Trump Jr to Goldstone
Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
6 June 2016
Goldstone to Trump Jr
Let me know when you are free to talk with Emin by phone about this Hillary info – you had mentioned early this week so wanted to try to schedule a time and day. Best to you and your family.
Trump Jr to Goldstone
Rob could we speak now?
Goldstone to Trump Jr
Let me track him down in Moscow. What number he could call?
Trump Jr to Goldstone
My cell.
Goldstone to Trump Jr
He’s on stage in Moscow but should be off within 20 minutes so I am sure can call.
Trump Jr to Goldstone
Rob thanks for the help.
7 June 2016
Goldstone to Trump Jr
Hope all is well. Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and the Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday. I believe you are aware of the meeting – and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you? I assume it would be at your office.
Trump Jr to Goldstone
How about 3 at our offices? Thanks Rob appreciate you helping set it up.
Goldstone to Trump Jr
Perfect … I won’t sit in on the meeting, but will bring them at 3pm and introduce you etc. I will send the names of the two people meeting with you for security when I have them later today.
Trump Jr to Goldstone
Great. It will likely be Paul Manafort (campaign boss) my brother in law [Jared Kushner] and me. 725 Fifth Ave 25th floor.
8 June 2016
Goldstone to Trump Jr
Good morning. Would it be possible to move tomorrow meeting to 4pm as the Russian attorney is in court until 3 I was just informed.
Trump Jr to Goldstone
Yes Rob I could do that unless they wanted to do 3 today instead … just let me know and I’ll lock it in either way.
Goldstone to Trump Jr
They can’t do today as she hasn’t landed from Moscow. 4pm is great tomorrow.
Trump Jr then forwards the entire exchange to Manafort and Kushner under the subject heading “FW: Russia – Clinton – private and confidential”
Trump Jr to Manafort and Kushner
Meeting got moved to 4 tomorrow at my offices.

Reply to  Frank
July 18, 2017 7:02 pm

Crown prosecutor is just another name for a District Attorney.
How about this for a scenario. The Hollywood agent met with the Russian Lawyer, who knew his connection to Trump, and in order to sleep with her, he promised to arrange a meeting between her and Trump. Knowing that the Trump organization has no influence over what she was concerned about, he added the Russian pop star connection to the ‘Crown prosecutor’ to fulfil the promise he made in exchange for sex. This certainly fits the stereotype of a Hollywood agent …

Reply to  Frank
July 18, 2017 7:25 pm

It’s interesting that there’s no linkage in the email thread between the Russian attorney and the info Emin claimed to have. Only that Emin requested that they meet with the lawyer and it appears that Emin was interested in the same adoption issue that the Russian lawyer wanted to discuss. It sounds like Emin made it all up in order to get the meeting, as that was what must have been discussed in the phone call. Well, in any event it only seemed to take Trump Jr. about 5 minutes to figure out it was all a scam.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 19, 2017 9:03 am

Releasing the info was an attempt at blackmail and it didn’t succeed.
BTW, I’m more concerned about the things we do know about, for example, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton’s private email server, the media leaking debate questions to her, whitewater and the list goes on.
At least Trump has demonstrated a level of ethical behavior not seen in politics for a very long time. This seems to be why the left is so bent out of shape largely because ethical behavior is not in their wheelhouse.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 19, 2017 9:04 am

Indur Goklany,
It’s a matter of hypocrisy, where the use of the Clinton Foundation for influence peddling is an actual crime, while what Trump Jr. did was neither immoral or illegal.
Clinton’s use of a private email server violated the federal records keeping act and endangered national security, again, both of which are crimes.
This is exactly on topic as a demonstration of the abject hypocrisy exhibited by those who do not like Trump.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 19, 2017 9:23 pm

Anyone notice that the Translator for the Russian “Lawyer” , was employed and connected to the Hillary Clinton group??? How do we know what was said “WAS” , WHAT WAS SAID”???

Reply to  hunter
July 18, 2017 7:23 pm

….that our reactionary friends who used to befriend”

I’m continually confused by the “connotative” use of the word “reactionary.” I’m left wondering if it is a deliberately ironical – if muddled – usage!

SYNONYMS: right-wing, conservative, rightist, ultra-conservative; blimpish, diehard; traditionalist, conventional, traditional, old-fashioned, unprogressive; ANTONYMS radical, progressive.

July 18, 2017 6:35 am

Perhaps readers can help me out. Apparently in error, I have received a very large and weighty package marked “rubles, lots of” addressed to “Gov Brown” with a short note that says “Many thanks from your buddy Vlad”. If anyone can help me locate this rightful recipient I would be very appreciative.

Murphy Slaw
July 18, 2017 7:09 am

I love Cali but hate the politics.

July 18, 2017 7:14 am

I think loony-tune Brown has been having clandestine meetings w/the CHINESE!!!!!!

July 18, 2017 7:18 am

All good and well, but did the Russians give you Gov. Brown’s deleted emails proving he colluded with the Chinese?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  TonyL
July 18, 2017 7:54 am

Two point:
1) If you remember, the Climate Gate emails were first released on a Russian server and no one has yet determined who released them.
2) The DEA/CIA (I don’t remember which one wrote it) bible of computer hacking was leaked and contained not only the procedures used but also how to cover your tracks and how to make your hack look like it came from another country.
I would love to know how 17 (later updated to only 4) intelligence agencies determined that the Russian government hacked the Democrats.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Joe Crawford
July 18, 2017 9:21 am

odd also is the fact that NONE of those agencies have had access to the severs and the only evaluation was done by a private firm on the payroll of the DNC …
it doesn’t take a CIA/DIA/NSA analyst to claim that Russia tries to effect our elections … they have done so for decades and even at the request of some Democrats (Ted Kennedy for example) …

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Joe Crawford
July 18, 2017 9:42 am

I would guess that the only actual way to be certain (i.e., 100%) that a Russian had hacked the DNC would be if you had his cubical mate or his boss on the payroll and were sure he had not been turned. Anything else is just conjecture with estimated probabilities.

July 18, 2017 7:20 am

Hillary may rue the day she and the Left decided to try to use Russian collusion of Trump and Putin as a means to undermine Trump and deflect blame from Hillary and the Left’s loss of the presidential election.
It turns out Hillary has had more interactions with this latest female Russian lobbyist that attended a meeting with Donald Trump Jr., than has Trump Jr.
Trump Jr. has not been paid any money by Russians, but Hillary and Bill Clinton have been paid tens of millions by Russians and Russian-connected businesses in return for selling Russia 20 percent of U.S. uranium. Hillary, as Secretary of State, had to sign off on the deal, and after she did, her Clinton Foundation recieved tens of millions of dollars in donation from people connected to this deal, and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000.00 for one speech he gave in Russia. Nice payday if you can get it.
I think there is a pretty good chance all this is going to come out in the open one of these days, and Hillary and the Democrats are going to be looking really bad. Collusion with the Russians for money, and collusion with the government of Ukraine in an effort to smear the Trump campaign. Lots of collusion going on, but it’s not coming from the Trump side, it is coming from Hillary and the Democrats.
Susan Rice is testifying today in front of the U.S. Senate. It should have been made a public hearing. I want to hear this serial liar trying to defend her lies.
There are lots of political things cooking today, and most of them are bad for the Democrats.

Reply to  TA
July 18, 2017 7:35 am

The democrats invariably project what they routinely do onto republicans.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
July 18, 2017 8:02 am

That seems to SOP (i.e., Standard Operating Procedure) in politics today. Accuse your opponent before he has a chance to accuse you. I agree with you in that the Democrats seem to have taken this to the limit the last year or so.

Michael darby
Reply to  TA
July 18, 2017 7:53 am

“Hillary, as Secretary of State, had to sign off on the deal.”
That is not true. CFIUS has nine members, none of which has veto power. CFIUS cannot veto the transaction, only the POTUS can. All CFIUS can do is advise the president.
Also keep in mind, that ownership of the uranium doesn’t mean possession. The NRC currently has not licensed UH1 to export uranium from the USA.

Michael Darby
Reply to  Michael darby
July 18, 2017 8:45 am

Hello Michael Darby. This is Michael Darby in Perth, Western Australia. My email address is Please correspond.

Reply to  Michael darby
July 18, 2017 7:53 pm

This is an attempt at entrapment! Decent patriotic Americans do not correspond with people from other countries.

Reply to  TA
July 18, 2017 8:54 am

I have to correct you on several charges
Hannity keeps repeating the same false claims.
I can’t stand Hillary,
believe she is a congenital liar, a lesbian, and a crook.
Not that there is anything wrong with being a lesbian.
The Clinton Foundation was a massive charity fraud – donors were
pressured to hire Bill for very expensive speeches and the charity
paid for his private jet travel and 5-star accommodations and meals.
The IRS says it’s not a tax free charity when you are also using it for conducting
a taxable business (the many highly paid speeches and “consulting” work for Bill and Hillary).
The Clinton’s earned over $250 million in the 15 years after being “dead broke”,
mainly from making short but expensive speeches — neither are good public speakers
and Hillary is so bad I imagine the doors had to be locked to keep the audience there.
… but let’s get the Uranium One facts right:
Russia’s nuclear agency Rosatom purchased a 51% stake of Unranium One.
The transfer of ownership required the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.
Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson.
CFIUS members evaluate the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president.
By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.
Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez said he represented the State Dept. on CFIUS, and said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.
Despite a transfer of ownership, the uranium must remain in the U.S.
It can not be exported, and must remain under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Uranium One does not hold an NRC export license, so no uranium produced in the US may be exported.
Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors,
$131.3 million came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder.
But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007,
three years before the Russia deal
and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.
Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:
His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan;
$250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control;
as well as $600,000 in 2011
and $500,000 in 2012.
Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton.
Hillary Clinton did not play a pivotal role in Uranium One, and may not have played any role at all.
Not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012.
The Clinton Foundation admitted this and pledged to correct it.
The large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company, while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public.
The multi-million sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which does not reveal its individual donors.
Of course something smells here … it always does when the Clintons are involved
… but let’s not exaggerate what is known.

Reply to  Richard Greene
July 18, 2017 5:45 pm

Thanks for that detailed explanation, Richard.

Reply to  TA
July 18, 2017 1:58 pm

And HRC lost the election partially because of the taint of corruption that has followed the Clintons for decades. Trump won, partially because he promised to drain the swamp.
Do you apply different ethical standards to politicians you favor? Do two wrongs make a right?

Reply to  TA
July 18, 2017 6:01 pm

Donations to the Clinton foundation equate to payment to the Clintons? You don’t know what you are talking about!
Meanwhile after though guy Schwartzenegger California went way left. Don’t be surprised if after tough guy Trump the nation does the same.

Reply to  TA
July 20, 2017 7:16 am

TA July 18, 2017 at 7:20 am
Trump Jr. has not been paid any money by Russians, but Hillary and Bill Clinton have been paid tens of millions by Russians and Russian-connected businesses in return for selling Russia 20 percent of U.S. uranium.

No, the donations received were from the Canadian owners of the uranium mining company.
Hillary, as Secretary of State, had to sign off on the deal,
No she didn’t, the State Dept was one of nine government agencies that had to sign off on it and in fact Clinton didn’t do so it was signed by an assistant secretary of state, Jose Fernandez, who was the regular member of that committee.
and after she did, her Clinton Foundation recieved tens of millions of dollars in donation from people connected to this deal,
The donations were made several years before this deal and before Clinton was secretary of state. The reason the deal was made by the Russians was to acquire Kazakh uranium mines, the US mines were of no use to them because they don’t have permission to export the uranium from the US. The US produces very little uranium and is a major importer of uranium ( 90% of the uranium used by US commercial nuclear reactors is imported).

July 18, 2017 7:24 am

You traitorous bastage!! This revelation renders every word you say about everything completely false and obviously funded by people who eat babies.
*snarkety snark snark*

LOL in Oregon
July 18, 2017 7:28 am

You must remember, Gov. Brown is one of the little tykes during WW II!
His priorities are:
…no toys, save the world, no toys, don’t get hurt, no doctors, no toys, me! me! me! etc
like a “good little tyke” he is “saving the world! (but don’t get hurt)”

July 18, 2017 7:39 am

NASA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration it is not only regularly meeting Russians but it is actively collaborating with Russians in the space experiments, including taking regular rides in the Russian space vehicles for a number of years.
Should we now blame Russians for subverting and corrupting NASA – GISS temperature data to show the ‘unprecedented’ global warming, and consequently for all the political decisions based on those data, nor only in the US but around the globe.
Some mass media would like to think that Vladimir Putin is omnipotent, I doubt that he is, on the other hand I could be wrong.

Mark from the Midwest
July 18, 2017 7:43 am

I met with the Russians once,
2002, Salt Lake City, return flight through Minneapolis.
1) They were very disappointed by the Russian Teams performance at the SLC Games, (code for “we was robbed’),
2) But thought the people of Salt Lake were wonderful hosts, (“American Conservatives, maybe we can work with them to take down the Chinese?”).
3) They invited me to visit their homeland, (code for, “let’s collude on projects of mutual benefit),
4) They were not looking forward to their long TransAtlantic flight home, (again, code for Airlines are evil, we must wrest control from the horrid capitalists and return them to their rightful owners, the people”).
It was a productive and pleasant encounter.

July 18, 2017 7:49 am

You should check out Scott Adam’s (of Dilbert fame) vid titled
“Is CNN’s Don Lemon guilty of treason?” (for his Russian collusion’s)…

John in LdB
July 18, 2017 7:52 am

Seriously? I have to confess too. Four years ago I met with many Russians regarding technical matters and spent some time with a Russian ex pat stumbling through the residential streets on Moscow looking for food and shelter in the Canadian Embassy. CSIS knows all about it I’m pretty sure.
I don’t think those events change the climate facts either.

July 18, 2017 8:10 am

I too have to confess that I had undisclosed meetings with Russians at Moscow airport in 1989.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
July 18, 2017 8:28 am

You too? I was there also in 1989. Probably the same Russians.
I also bought one of those Russian rabbit-fur hats while there. I think that shows my pro-Russian bias.

john harmsworth
Reply to  JonasM
July 19, 2017 11:50 am

The hat is definitely bugged! You are revealing state secrets every where you go!

Aaron Watters
July 18, 2017 8:38 am

I guess signalling interest in damaging foreign intelligence does not constitute “collusion”: . The real question is did they collaborate in the well documented Russian campaign of flooding social media with disinformation to undermine the democratic system.
Trump may be right about CAGW, but it’s pure coincidence that opposing CAGW resonates with the campaign to dismantle all government influence in society.

Reply to  Aaron Watters
July 18, 2017 5:59 pm

If the Russians had a disinformation campaign going on to influence the election, I never noticed it. I doubt very many people noticed it. I doubt it changed one vote.
The social media effort was run out of a warehouse and the Russians hired kids off the street to man the troll boths in the warehouse, and one of the Russian trolls said nobody ever paid any attention to the stuff they put out on the internet.
The keep talking about Russian influence, but where was it? Social media? Don’t make me laugh. RT television? Don’t make me laugh. Nobody watches RT. I don’t think I have ever even stumbled across it much less actually actively listened to anything they had to say. I’m betting most Amerians were just like me.
The only possible influence the Russians could have had was making the Podesta/DNC emails public, which could have had an effect on the election, but there is no evidence the Russians were the ones who released this information.
Nobody can show any influence on our elections from Russia. The Democrats assume it’s there, just like the CAGW crowd assumes CO2 is overheating the Earth. Assumptions are not necessarily true.
The real influence on our elections, and the real harm done to the American electoral system is from the lies of the Democrats pushing this false narrative of collusion between Trump and Russia. Russians must be gleeful watching the Democrats tearing up the U.S. system, doing the Russian’s work for them of underming the U.S. Talk about collusion!
Radical Liberalism is alive and well in the United States, and will destroy us if we don’t stop them.

Reply to  TA
July 18, 2017 6:55 pm

It’s great that you know more than our intelligence professionals.

Reply to  TA
July 18, 2017 8:51 pm

Unfortunately our intelligence officials did not check out the DNC computer, they allowed a third party picked by the DNC to look at it. Doesn’t sound like proper investigation to me, maybe the AG prevented a proper investigation.
Finally it was common knowledge that the DNC computer was not secure and many others hacked into it. The FBI need to explain how they know the e mail release was by the Russians, especially given the actual source of the leak indicates otherwise.
The AG made sure there was not a proper investigation of Hillary’s e mails and Comey complied with a contorted presentation to the Congress

Joz Jonlin
July 18, 2017 8:49 am

Since we’re clearing the air, I have to admit that I’ve also had meetings with Russians, both in the United States and in various locations around Russia. I hope this doesn’t hurt my bid for the next presidential election.

Reply to  Joz Jonlin
July 18, 2017 6:05 pm

“I hope this doesn’t hurt my bid for the next presidential election.”
It depends on whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. If you are a Democrat, no problem, if you are a Republican, you are going to jail for talking to Russians.

July 18, 2017 8:59 am

My grandparents came from Russia.
Does that make me a Russian-American?
Or American-Russian?
I have not colluded with any politician.
I wouldn’t want to be in the same room as a politician.

July 18, 2017 9:02 am

“California’s claim that its state’s greenhouse gas reduction program is vital to global efforts to address climate change is flawed because the emissions reductions are globally trivial”
Yes. Also no empirical evidence to relate warming to emissions.

john harmsworth
Reply to  chaamjamal
July 19, 2017 12:08 pm


July 18, 2017 9:53 am

Back in the late 70’s I made several business trips to hard core communist East European countries.
Excitingly, on my first day I was followed by a series of shady characters and during the evening a spy was watching me from an appropriately private table in the restaurant.
Alas! They obviously quickly realised my supreme unimportance as by the next day all surveillance had stopped…

Reply to  climatereason
July 20, 2017 7:33 am

Back then when I was visiting Moscow my colleague and I discussed changing our flight reservation home, this took place in my hotel room. Having decided to do so we went down to the travel office on the mezzanine floor of the hotel, as we walked across to the desk the clerk said “you want to change your reservation, right?”
I recall the observation at restaurants too, as well as phone calls being listened to.

Clyde Spencer
July 18, 2017 9:56 am

I think that a definition of “treason” that most people would agree with would be as follows: A purposeful act that is intended, or could reasonably be expected, to seriously harm the country the traitorous person has sworn allegiance to. Most commonly, it is during a time of war, or active hostilities, when the hostile nation is given intelligence or material assistance to allow it to prevail in a conflict.
Now, Trump Jr did not offer the Russian lawyer any intelligence, nor even assist in acquiring part ownership in a Uranium mine. While the lawyer is indisputably Russian, it has not been established that she was working for, or even had close ties with the Russian government. If she had, why would the Obama DOJ have given her special permission to be in the country? So, why would any sane person consider a conversation to be treason, just because the conversation occurred with a Russian citizen?
Lastly, there is the question of just what Trump Jr was attempting to acquire. If it was information on what Hillary’s favorite color is, or how much she actually weighs, it would have been of no consequence in the election. Rather, it would have to have been something that would have either disqualified her (a crime more serious than having classified intelligence on her unsecure server), or so repulsed the electorate that even her female Democratic supporters would have abandoned her [Actually, I can’t think of what that might be, short of (maybe) evidence to support the rumors about murders. None of her avid supporters seemed to be concerned about her documented lying]. In any event, it seems most probable that the implications are that there was some alleged heinous crime for which there was documented evidence. Now, had it been true, and JR had been given the proof, would he not have been doing the country a service by letting the electorate know? Would any right-thinking person really want a known criminal to be the head of the country? A basic assumption about a democracy is that the electorate needs to have all the facts to make the decisions necessary to continue the “more perfect union.” I think that whoever hacked the DNC, and demonstrated the shabby treatment of Sanders by Hillary supporters, deserves a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. If we can’t depend on the MSM to do its job, then maybe we’ll just have to depend on the Russians to provide us with the tools for a transparent government.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 18, 2017 10:34 am

Perhaps junior wanted to find out if Hillary was arranging to sell Alaska back to the Russians. Since Alaska has little to offer except huge quantities of gas and oil, which to Democrats are anathema, on the other hand she would have needed billions to comply with Paris accord, selling Alaska to Putin looked as a good all around proposition for all the parties involved; so to speak ‘win-win-win’ situation, well you can work it out. /sarc

Reply to  vukcevic
July 18, 2017 8:56 pm

Thanks, gave me a chuckle. If they donated more to the foundation they could have got Alaska thrown in with the Uranium deal!!

john harmsworth
Reply to  vukcevic
July 19, 2017 12:13 pm

That is both hilarious and logically consistent. It can’t be true because Democrat policy is only hilarious!

July 18, 2017 11:55 am

What is the point of this article? The fact that a private citizen met with Russians over what I assume was private business doesn’t mean much on its face. Is someone trying to conflate this with Trumpites meeting with Russians to allegedly influence the 2016 election. Just who is saying these things? And so what?
Why are we being bothered by this? Somebody help me out.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  scraft1
July 18, 2017 12:24 pm

You ought to come out of your cave more often. Democrats are talking about impeaching Trump, throwing around words like “collusion” and “treason.”

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 18, 2017 5:50 pm

Clyde Spencer. OK, but you don’t think that a presidential candidate, and several of his functionaries, meeting with Russians under suspicious circumstances presents a slightly different picture than a blogger meeting with Russians over a business matter?
L. Hamlin obviously thinks that his presumably innocent meeting is somehow equivalent, thus the fact that Trump is being severely criticised is unfair.
So, Clyde, do you see the difference, or you think, like a lot of people here, that Trump’s extended flirtation with Vladimir Putin is perfectly OK?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 18, 2017 9:04 pm

What is suspicious about meeting with a Russian Lawyer that AG Loretta made special arrangements to allow entry in to the USA. Is she willing to let spies in?
Remember Obama knew about the hacking into the DNC computers very early and did absolutely ZERO when he was sure Clinton would win.
Sounds like gross negligence or dereliction of duty to me.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 19, 2017 9:26 am

It wasn’t a “presidential candidate,” it was his son, apparently acting on his own, with good intentions.
Just exactly what do you mean by “suspicious circumstances?” That sounds very nefarious. Apparently the lawyer offered information about Hillary that should have been of interest to every American, not just the Trump campaign. The meeting was attended by several other people, so it wasn’t even really secret.
I think that the world would be better off if a more conciliatory working relationship could be established with Russia. Treating someone like an enemy will result in them acting like an enemy. At one point in time both Germany and Japan were enemies in a shooting war. We have moved beyond that, to everyone’s benefit. “Trust but verify” was a good starting point. We need to make additional efforts to establish mutual respect and work out a way that both the US and Russia can benefit from turning down the paranoia. It doesn’t help when democrats will clutch at any straw to discredit Trump, and in so doing risk bringing the Cold War back. If democrats had a brain, they would be dangerous. As it is, they are more like lemmings.

Non Nomen
July 18, 2017 12:59 pm

Better the climate. Talk with Russians. Be a cosmopolitan, not a Democrat.

July 18, 2017 1:50 pm

True story. Had to take a lie detector test for a 3 letter acronym government agency to get a visitor badge to avoid the repeated paperwork I caused.
I’m in the single, almost dental chair in an otherwise empty white 2 level conference room that has a big mirror on the second level, all hooked up, and get asked if I know any foreign nationals. to which I start a 5 minute ramble about the Russian I knew at NASA, actually him and his twin, both worked at NASA, and came to the US when they were 10, but he might be a foreign national, but I’m not sure…….
They gave me the badge anyways.

July 18, 2017 5:35 pm

The reason why “The Russians” are helping and funding green groups has nothing to do with their belief in global warming/climate change. Indeed their scientists were early predictors of the current solar grand minimum. The real reason is money. Oil and Gas exports to Western Europe provide 63% of Russia’s foreign income and they have oodles of it to export for many decades to come. So how can Russians improve the value of their exports? Firstly, fund green useful idiots to race around demonizing coal and secondly push power prices in Europe as high as possible by getting the same useful idiots to encourage solar and wind power so that Russian gas can provide stable base-load power at premium prices. Unfortunately fracking wasn’t on the radar when this strategy was adopted. But when fracking became a threat naturally Russia tried to influence the fracking debate. Hence there should be a long hard look at who was influencing the Democrats on their anti-fracking stance.
It is all about money!!!

john harmsworth
Reply to  Brent Walker
July 19, 2017 12:42 pm

This is exactly right! The Russians don’t pull these contrary positions out of their rear ends. They have hard national interest reasons, flavoured with the interests of Putin and his cabal of economic co-conspirators. He knows that Communism is a failure as an economic model so he needs a Capitalist system to create wealth for him and his countrymen. China is the same. In neither case are the leaders prepared to give up power but they have to improve standards of living or their corrupt rule is prone to overthrow! By supporting a relatively small group of oligarchs from whom he demands support and obedience, Putin is able to give the country some of the benefits of Capitalist growth while maintaining complete control within the nominal guise of a democracy.
He’s a snake. But he’s a brilliant and rational snake! You just have to understand his motives.

July 18, 2017 9:41 pm

I look at those emails to Don Junior and shake my head, the tasty morsel bait offer and the words conveniently put into that email..”This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump – helped along by Aras and Emin” and it is well known that all emails can be read by curious intelligence people that sentence seems like a classic set up, possibly by any of a number of agencies and or interested parties. It should have rung alarm bells to experienced political operators – almost a Badger style offer with a hook. Innocuous enough in a friendly email but when read in retrospect or hindsight can be construed in many ways.
So for me a classic setup left to smoulder and then be used by whoever crafted the terminology, and the fact that no such information was given at the meeting shows the bait was effective and the furore in the media and “Intelligence” leakers also confirms how effective that sentence is, facts don’t matter it is the inferences that can be generated.
As regards the Russian lawyer it is reported here that she was denied entry and later had to appeal to your authorities to allow her into the United States – all of this would have been documented by the O’Bama administration and that would be the documents I would be seeking as an investigator. If she was a Russian plant or known operative as the democrats insist, then surely they would have had the FBI or Homeland Security alerted to monitor her movements and contacts and any mention of key words in the email surface at the time. Now I suggest that if any intelligence operators were aware of that approach to the Trump by way of Trump Junior then surely an official warning to the Trump organisation should have been given as to her suspect background, that is unless the duty bound were involved in setting up some entrapment or smoking gun scenario.
This is just the musings of an old investigator with an Australian rather than US background, I used to teach investigators to follow their instincts and gut feelings, and in this case the gut feeling screams setup.
Now in the theme of the article I must say that I have probably met a few Russians, many Americans and British Law enforcement officers, Politico’s from China, Indonesia and many others a who knows what else that I cannot remember at this stage of my life, and my son has extensively travelled the world including most countries, the Ukraine, Russia and China. But neither of us has any direct stake in your politics or any wish to influence. Though I did observe your Past President intervening to try and influence the French Election the ensure that Le Pen was NOT elected! Your media seemed happy with that intervention.
Interesting discussion.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  KenB
July 19, 2017 9:04 am

I have to ask a question (that the democrats won’t): Why would an alleged ‘operative’ offer to provide information that she didn’t have? Was it a setup to do exactly the opposite of what the democrats are speculating was the intent? That is, was it a case of dangling bait to later ensnare Trump’s son? Perhaps it was an attempt to get leverage to later blackmail the Trump administration. However, by JR releasing everything, he effectively nullified that potential leverage.

john harmsworth
Reply to  KenB
July 19, 2017 12:53 pm

It seems to me to be a poor ploy by the Russians to target Hillary when she was well ahead of Trump in the polls. The smart play for the Russians would have been to have something on both candidates and this is the way Putin’s people would have learned it in the KGB. The “lost” Hillary e-mails will probably tell this story. I don’t believe the Russians would have missed any chance to get next to the top Democrats. They are much, much smarter than that. They play for advantage EVERYWHERE!

July 19, 2017 12:50 am

Just meeting with Russians: peanuts? in 2016 the DNC put their cyber security fully in the hands of Dmitri Alperovitch, an ex-pat with grudges against Russia
The result is well known: “Russia” was blamed to have hacked DNC by that private individual and believed on his word by the FBI etc. Next “Russia” is blamed for anything – soon Climate Change -in the all out war against unexpectedly chosen president Donald Trump by the Establishment.
“China” or Xi would have made some sense for CC at least; but that area is fully off the hook for them.

July 20, 2017 12:40 am

“Notwithstanding the revelations of previously undisclosed meetings with Russians by the author these “facts” remain intact.”
You might even say that they are “inconvenient facts”.

Verified by MonsterInsights