« Open thread for the usual post shooting chaos. | Main | This is not a billboard. »

15 February 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Twisted Genius


Reference your comment at #33 about "what crime is collusion and what crime is meeting with Russians?"

While collusion is not a crime, the criminal equivalent is conspiracy. Possible charges include:
conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
conspiracy against the United States
conspiracy to launder money and failing to file reports of foreign bank accounts
conspiracy to defraud the United States by coordinating with Russia
Then there is the old bugaboo of obstruction of justice. This could also become a RICO case. And if the Trump campaign really did accept Russian assistance, there's possible violations of election laws. You know how Federal prosecutors like to pile on the charges. Of course Trump and associates could still come out of this totally clean.

Meeting with Russians is certainly not a crime. Nor is doing business with Russians. I never understood why Trump and those around him kept denying they had any dealings with Russians or simple meetings when they obviously did. That just looked like they were trying to hide something and opened them up to being caught lying to law enforcement. For someone who claimed he could shoot someone dead in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose his supporters, I can't see why Trump would deny his legitimate, albeit possibly shady at times, Russian dealings.

Sid Finster

Why would Putin choose a sockpuppet with as much obvious, public baggage as Trump? The man has so many public scandals as to be unblackmailable.

Instead, you'd choose a candidate who looks too good to be true.

Moreover, a Russian puppetmaster with even minimal intelligence would not let his puppet call for peace and better relations with Russia while on the campaign trail.

Why give ammunition to the conspiracy theorists? Instead, he'd offer standard-issue neocon tough guy chickenhawk talk.

iowa steve

And rather than ponder the real reasons Hillary lost the votes of lifelong democrats in the upper Midwest, Russiagate has handed the dem establishment the lifeline of being able to blame the election results on the Russians.

The value of that lifeline is short-term. In the long-run, as the public loses interest in Russiagate and little evidence of "collusion" is produced, and failing to offer any policy proposals other than more Clintonism, the dems will continue to lose elections.

On a related note, some dems are now claiming that Russiabots have infested social media with tweets and posts about the Florida school shooting "in order to sow division". I'm breathless.


Cui Bono?

Hostility towards Russia has been a propaganda push for a long time. I recall how disgusting the British press was with Olympic coverage at Sochi. (The British press pushed anti-german hate for 20 years prior to WW1) Or a chance meeting with a "think tank" guy tied to the New American Century stuff. No reasoning, no honor, no facts. Just hate and power worship.

We have a number of politically active, elected descendants from former Soviet controlled states now serving as front pieces for the pro-war, and winnable nuclear war crowd playing out old grudges and hatreds imported from Eastern Europe.

The facts are that the entire Russia did it theme soared across all propaganda channels at once and reached near hysteria levels , that we have a group since the 90's pushing winnable nuclear war and American domination of the world, that we have been moving anti-missile batteries and military units to Russia's borders as a part of moving Nato ever eastward.

It makes it far more likely this was all planned to promote support for a new cold war agenda and as a prelude to a war.

The Twisted Genius


Reference your several comments about Nuland's five billion dollars over ten years subversion campaign in the Ukraine. I share your outrage over that whole thing. It's disgusting. We organized and trained right wing nut jobs and outright nazis in the art of street fighting and how to overthrow a government. And Nuland worked directly for Clinton. Putin would have been negligent in not trying to at least weaken a possible Clinton Presidency. Compared to what we did in Ukraine, Putin's influence operation is as pure as the driven snow. And yet you and many others insist Putin is just that negligent.

David Habakkuk


In response to #26.

As so often, I completely agree with you. A few points may be worth adding in to the debate.

With regard to the January 2017 ‘Intelligence Community Assessment’, I would recommend to anyone seriously interested in evaluating the evidence a post entitled ‘Fact and Comment’ put up the time by Professor Paul Robinson of Ottawa.

(See https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/fact-and-comment/ .)

Its author was a contemporary, at Eton and Oxford, of our embarrassment of a Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson. But while Johnson went into a London media ‘bubble’, Robinson joined the Army, and spent five years in Army Intelligence. So, having explained how the document looks to a competent intelligence professional, he concludes by remarking that none of what he says proves the claims are false, simply that ‘the assessments are not supported by the information which the report provides.’

There are however larger issues here, to which remarks made by Ambassador Chas Freeman in his recent speech ‘The United States and China: Game of Superpowers’ are relevant:

‘China seeks affirmation by foreigners of its self-image as a virtuous society, but, for the most part, Chinese are indifferent to how we non-Chinese govern ourselves. By contrast, Americans are convinced that only constitutional democracy on the U.S. model can confer legitimacy, that other systems of government are inherently unjust, and that it is therefore appropriate to insist on their reform or overthrow. This difference manifests itself in US-China interaction both internationally and bilaterally.’

(See http://chasfreeman.net/the-united-states-and-china-game-of-superpowers/ .)

When Paul Robinson returned to academic life, he chose a thesis subject apparently totally irrelevant to the present day – what had become of the defeated White Army in exile. One of the consequences was that acquired a very good understanding of the complexities of the politics of anti-communist Russians.

As he brought out in a 2004 article which was headlined ‘Putin’s Might is White’ in ‘The Spectator’ – it was then edited by Boris Johnson – some of the leading thinkers of the emigration, such as Ivan Ilyin and Petr Struve, had no principled hostility to ‘constitutional democracy.’

(See http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/10th-january-2004/18/putins-might-is-white .)

What they thought was that so many of their educated compatriots, convinced that the Tsarist system was ‘inherently unjust’ had insisted on its ‘reform or overthrow’, without thinking through what were the actual possibilities of the situation, given the legacies of Russian history. And in so doing, they had unleashed a measureless catastrophe:

‘Both men [Robinson wrote] understood that the intelligentsia’s obsession with liberating the people was unleashing forces which would eventually destroy all liberty in Russia. Only an authoritarian government, they decided, could protect individual freedoms in the absence of a political culture that accepted basic ideas such as property rights. A society whose people understood legal rights and duties could successfully govern itself. One that did not must be ruled by a powerful individual, who would educate the people in its legal consciousness until such time as it was fit for self-rule.’

So, ironically, the irrelevant subject that Robinson had chosen turned out very relevant. In the 2004 article, he described Putin as a ‘typical Soviet radish – red on the outside and white at the core.’ As he was pointing out, in the arguments that had been going on beneath the surface as the bankruptcy of Marxist-Leninist ideology became clearly apparent, it was not at all unnatural that, as it were, a ‘grandchild of the Revolution’ could come to see some of its opponents as vindicated, and look to them for guidance.

Likewise, Putin had come to agree with figures like Struve and Ilyin, and also the religious philosophers Nikolai Struve and Vladimir Solovyov, that the characteristic hostility of the ‘intelligentsia’ to religion, and determination to uproot the traditional beliefs of Russian society, had been a disaster.

Just as Russians have abandoned a messianic universalism, the West has decided to embrace it: we have become ‘neo-Bolshevik.’ As no lessons whatsoever were learnt from the failure of the ‘liberal’ project in Russia after 1989, the United States and Britain have gone on spreading chaos: witness Irag, Libya, Syria.

As ‘plantman’ noted, the first of the ‘key judgements’ in the ‘Intelligence Community Assessment’ is that:

‘Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.’

This is a projection onto Putin of a hostility to the ‘liberal-democratic order’ which is based on a total inability to understand the ideological tradition from which he comes. He is no more hostile to liberalism as such than Struve or Ilyin. His hostility, which has been consistent, is to any kind of messianic universalism which refuses to examine the concrete possibilities of actual situations. And he is right.

Over the years, I have found it a useful ‘rule of thumb’ that if people involved with ‘covert intelligence’ make claims about other societies whose politics, culture and history they have made no serious attempt to understand, and clearly hold absurd ideological convictions, then it is very unwise to take what they say they know from secret sources on trust.

A further point about the kind of universalistic projects embraced by the contemporary West is that often – as with the projects once embraced by Marxist-Leninists – one has reason to suspect that the ostensible idealistic agendas veil less savoury ones.

Moreover, those involved not uncommonly come to believe that, because their virtue is self-evident, they cannot be expected to be bound by any kind of moral scruples. As with the Bolsheviks, the end of the road, by no means always but quite commonly, is rascality pure and simple.

Among the many people involved in ‘Russiagate’, two seem to merit comment in this regard. As you say, to advance John Brennan as a credible source is ‘to taint the story irredeemably.’ It may be worth supplying some supporting evidence, in particularly because it bears upon another key figure, the former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan.

Over the past few years, I have spent a good deal of time following up leads which originally arose out of a memorandum sent to Obama on 6 September 2013 by the ‘Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Group’ entitled ‘Is Syria a Trap?’

(See https://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/obama-warned-on-syrian-intel/ .)

It opened:

‘We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this.’

According to CIA officers working on the issue, the group reported, ‘CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public and perhaps even you.’

(See https://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/obama-warned-on-syrian-intel/ .)

As to Hannigan, he was appointed in 2007 to the newly created post of Security Adviser to the Prime Minister. In March 2010, he moved to the FCO as Director General, Defence and Intelligence, before being appointed to head GCHQ in April 2014. As was made clear on his appointment, he had been a member of the Joint Intelligence Committee ‘for many years.’

(See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/appointment-of-the-new-director-of-gchq .)

It seemed overwhelming probable that, if the claims in the VIPS memorandum were correct, and British intelligence officials knew that Assad was not to blame, when on 29 August 2013 the JIC provided David Cameron with a document to take to Parliament alleging that his responsibility for Ghouta was a ‘slam dunk’ – although they did not use the phrase – they must have been lying.

It turned out, as I explained on SST back in April last year, that there was a very strong ‘prima facie case’ that they were in fact lying – in so doing, committing ‘contempt of Parliament’, a very serious offence in the British system. If so, Hannigan must have been involved up to the hilt.

(See http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/04/sentence-first-verdict-afterwards-a-revision-by-david-habakkuk-14-april-2017.html .)

From the testimony of Glenn Simpson to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, it has also been clear that Semyon Mogilevich and the ‘Solntsevskaya Bratva’ have been central to the ‘information operations’ against Trump.

As I have made clear in two posts on SST, and a large number of comments, these were earlier employed in ‘information operations’ which were central to the projects of ‘régime change’ in Ukraine and Russia. These involved, among other things, the use of a mixture of accurate information and pure fabrication to implicate the FSB and Putin in attempting to supply a ‘suitcase nuke’ to Al Qaeda.

(See http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/01/david-hakkuk-on-sir-robert-owens-inquiry.html ; http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/02/habakkuk-on-longtime-sources.html .)

When the ‘covert operations’ contests ran out of control, Steele clearly played a major role in orchestrating a cover-up of what was happened by making total bogus accusations against two Russians, Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun, and also the FSB and Putin, of responsibility for the deliberate murder of Alexander Litvinenko with polonium. Again, it would seem Hannigan must have been involved up to the hilt.

For reasons I have given in the posts, I think it extremely likely that elements in American intelligence were intimately involved with Steele both in the original ‘régime change’ projects and the cover-up.

Accordingly, I fully agree that nobody can take claims by Brennan as credible and expect to be regarded as credible himself. And when I discover that a ‘twerp’, formerly employed at GCHQ, whose consultancy turns out never to have traded, has proclaimed that the name and patronymic of Dzerzinky in the metadata of a document implicate the GRU, I do not think the most plausible explanation is that this was a ‘rather shoddy Guccifer 2.0’ improvisation on the part of that organisation.

It seems to me rather more likely that we are dealing with people who have been impelled to subvert the constitutional order, in part because they have a lot to lose by having an outsider coming in, who might conceivably expose what they have done.

Eric Newhill

Clueless Joe #19

Just one problem with your theory is that it isn't the Russians sowing chaos. It's our own politicians and bureaucrats. Now, you could say that our own politicians and bureaucrats have stupidly played into the Russian plot. However, I think that if that is your response then you'd have to show that "Russiagate" is an anomaly in US politics. However, it isn't an anomaly. TTG himself has listed out (elsewhere on this thread) a wide range of homegrown multi-year investigations that have achieved chaos and distrust in our polity (e.g. Benghazi, Whitewater, birtherism). Russiagate seem to me to be a continuation of a domestically evolved phenomenon.

Then there are all the "resistance" and protest groups funded by Soros and internal leftist organizations, all the leftist blogs masquerading as "news" and far right blogs doing the same. Perhaps worse are the mainstream media outlets busy with propagating division, fear and loathing. It was Clinton that paid for the Steele dossier.

Russian influence, if it exists, seems to me to be a mere drop in an ocean of political polarization.

Murali Penumarth

With all due respect your insights I still find it difficult I could believe Brennan who lied to the Congress about surveyliance programs to spy on Americans which the dutifully elected members of the congress bought it whole heartedly only to be negated by the revelations of Snowden. By the way our great patriotic Congress never called Brennan on the carpet on this issue, not even a slap on the wrist.
Now the ICA was not an interdepartmental memo but a memo produced by hand picked intelligence operatives who might have an axe to grind regarding Russia/Trump, is not a reliable document in my opinion.
When you have weaponized intelligence, FBI, DOJ we have serious problems in this republic. I hope we can get to the bottom of this to cleanse this body politic be it Obama or Trump.

Mark Logan

TTG, Clueless Joe,

Re: Russian motivation

Not trying to be argumentative with this, merely proposing and alternate theory. I hold the one presented as quite plausible.

My own theory is the Russians had two agendas, the base running op of presenting themselves as a liberal bastion, following the old Soviet pattern of cultivating "useful idiots", only now they mostly sought to gain industrial secrets and Eric Snowdens.

The more recent agenda was, in my own WAG: "Anybody but Hillary". Her behavior during the Ukraine civil war, fostering revolution, Newland, McFarland, et al? Putin had good reasons to not want eight years of that idiocy. He also appeared to support Bernie early on.

These two running agendas, a sense of being able to influence US public opinion and a very strong desire to have Hillary as anything other than POTUS, resulted in a rash actions which I strongly suspect Putin regrets. He sought better relations with the West, not worse, and having his nose caught in the monkey house that is US politics seems to be panning out as highly counterproductive. Russophobia now prevails, and the few voices of reason are being drowned.

On the other hand, Putin may not regret it due to the tactical necessity of keeping the US from doing something stupid in Syria. Perhaps this is a "speculation too far" , so I am done.



"And yet you and many others insist Putin is just that negligent." -- I do not understand what this phrase means. Mine point is (following the informed reports of the well-known experts like the honorable Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) that Russiagate is Intelgate. Whatever the scope of Russian influences (is it greater than Israel’s, the UK's, and Ukrainian influences?) it fades next to is the effect of incompetence and, most important, the brazen anti-constitutional activities of the CIA, DOJ, and the FBI, which bosses have decided to take sides and to meddle very pro-actively into political process in the US.
Like many others, I cannot wait to see the result of a reinvestigation of the DNC server scandal, as well as the results of investigation of Awan affair.
As for a collusion with foreign powers, who can rival Bushes and Clintons, whether in their dealings with Saudis or with Russians? Don't’ remember any fuss about Clinton’s collusion with Russians when Bill was grabbing $500.000 from for a single speech in Moscow and Clinton Foundations was accepting $145.000.000 in donations after the Uranium One deal. In my humble opinion, the deal was directly related to the national security.

David Habakkuk

In response to ~57.

Apologies for bad proofreading. I wrote 'Nikolai Struve', when I meant 'Nikolai Berdyaev.' The work that Putin recommended to regional governors in 2014, which is - misleadingly - entitled 'The Philosophy of Inequality', represents Berdyaev's most grief-stricken, and unequivocally hostile, response to the Revolution. (When it was published in Berlin in 1923, Berdyaev made it clear he thought the work unbalanced.)

Likewise, I wrote 'Dzerzinsky', rather than 'Dzherzinsky.'

Dr. Puck

Of all the posts on SST dealing with the election, Russians, Trump and HRC, this one captures the spirit--as I read it--of 9/11 trutherism. How so? It sketches a narrative of a perfect crime.

As any worthy conspiracy narrative should have it: 'all the essential details and cast of characters are well-known by a small cognitively adept group of 'independent researchers' and truth-tellers. The only thing left is for one of the 'boring' alternative narratives to rule the day. This result itself demonstrates the depth of and dastardly nature of the conspiracy. The perfection inheres to the built in infinitesimal odds that this ends with Brennan et al on the hook.

Still, Ockham's razor; plus, the mention of Blumenthal provides a nice dash!

Dr. Puck

13 Russians charged by Robert Mueller over US 2016 election tampering


No connection to Trump's campaign in indictment. No reason this is necessarily the last such indictment.



You left out a key part of the article:

"They are accused of spreading derogatory information about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, denigrating Republican candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio -- and supporting Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders ...."

A disgruntled Bernie supporter attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and many other members of Congress. I hope they can connect those dots.

Reading the indictment really helps determine just what "derogatory information" is actually illegal.

"in order to avoid detection Defendants and their co-conspirators deleted and destroyed data, including emails...."
That sure sounds familiar. How's Huma Abedin doing now-a-days, haven't heard much from her. Wonder if she has a sore throat from singing like a canary yet. Can't wait for the other foreign agencies to be investigated. See my last commen to TTG above.

FB Ali

David, I am glad you agree with my position (Comment #56). Especially pertinent is your comment: "... we are dealing with people who have been impelled to subvert the constitutional order...".

It is obvious to any objective and unbiased observer that both the US and British intelligence organizations have, for some time, been operating outside their charters (in the vernacular, it could be said they'd 'gone rogue').

Instead of working against hostile foreign countries, they have been targetting their own government agencies and individuals. (Because some persons in their top echelons became convinced that hostile foreigners had penetrated these ruling structures).

Nothing can weaken a country as much as such beliefs and actions. Opponents of the West must be amazed at their good fortune, while its friends can only look on in amazement and chagrin as the West's intelligence apparatus tears itself apart.

Good soldier that he is, TTG can't imagine that this debacle is self-inflicted, and wasn't deliberately caused by hostile quarters.

Eric Newhill

Dr Puck,
Great news! So now we can indict all those Mexican nationals (illegals, DACAs) for saying bad stuff about Trump and trying to influence US politics and elections. Can't wait....or is it that Mueller is getting desperate. Something about grand juries and ham sandwiches seems relevant here.


Charges by Mueller. Well, well, well. The charges describe an organization similar in size and function to one I concluded must exist according to an analysis of meme generation I did for a client about two years ago. This was before the election and related to immigration issues in Europe. I've described the techniques outlined by the indictment several times here, including the whole fake personas thing, so I won't rehash them.

So what's next. The Russians have planned for this a long time. Within 24 hours, I'd guess you will see unprecedented bot activity (these are automatically placed comments in threads on stories). I just noticed that within minutes of the appearance of a stub on Yahoo, there were 60K comments. My guess is that there is already a body of well developed arguments and memes designed to discredit Mueller, defend Trump, and point to a conspiracy against Russia. Within 24 hours, these arguments will be fed to unwitting people across the Internet. They will fill news stories and opinion pieces on outlets ranging from Southfront to Breitbart and eventually make their way to the evening portion of Fox News. The goal will be to undermine faith in Mueller and continue to divide American civil society. The entire campaign was planned long ago and will move swiftly to counter today's headlines. At least for some people.

Murali Penumarth

Eric Newhill, you must be one of those deplorables to dishonour the dreamers and other undocumented workers without whose contributions our economy will come to a halt according to the MSM , Dems and Rino's. Too bad you are still stuck in that backward thinking mode, I truly feel sorry for you and at times for myself for entertaining such thoughts.


Your entire comment depends on "trust us, we know things you don't."

Never mind that those things defy reason or that they are coming from people with zero intellectual integrity and a history of lying to the US public.

The "trust us" ship has sailed and it ain't coming back to port.

Your hand waving about electorates being susceptible to influence is what is completely laughable and desperate. Of course they are - by forces within their own nations. But national electorates the size of the US are not susceptible to influence by much smaller nations or by tactics like hacking voting registration offices or spreading Pokemon.

The Russian electorate knows that the US can't influence its elections except by spending massive amounts of money to NGOs or sending CIA agents in to post to Facebook accounts which are then blamed on the Russians. As I said, they understand this better than you do.

At the end of the day, there has been ZERO non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence provided that Russia either hacked the DNC or that it engaged in any significant "propaganda" efforts which had any effect on the US election or had any actual intention of doing so. ZERO.


".. it is apolitical."
It is not.
"He does not claim collusion"
-- He claims a decisive Russian "meddling" into the US elections, while whitewashing (intentionally or not) the anti-Constitutional malfeasances of the CIA, FBI, and DOJ “deciders."


Thanks for the link to "Fact and Comment" by Professor Paul Robinson. That was a good read, similar to Scott Ritter's take down.

This is the difference between TTG and me. He reads "we assess" as stating truth. I read it as "we guess". Based on the Iraq war intelligence, my reading is probably more correct.

The only exception to this is the 2007 NIE on Iran which seems to have avoided at least some partisanship as a result of having royally screwed the pooch on Iraq (although the alleged DIA assessment, that Iran never had more than a "feasibility study" on nukes and that only because Iran was afraid Saddam had a program, never made it into the NIE.)


"The goal will be to undermine faith in Mueller and continue to divide American civil society."
Please tell us more about Mueller's impeccable credentials: http://www.newsweek.com/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-aides-criticize-722670
Are you sure that the politicized DOJ, CIA, and FBI have nothing to do with the ongoing scandal? How about the national debt ($20 trillions), the scandalous state of national healthcare system, the ruinous illegal wars and interventions abroad, the irritation with the Wall Street malfeasances? Add to that the special influence of Israel-firsters. Still believing that if not the "undermining" Russians, the US would be a harmonious, prosperous society?


"My guess is that there is already a body of well developed arguments and memes designed to discredit Mueller, defend Trump, and point to a conspiracy against Russia. "

Shepherd... yes, that's what "the political opposition" to Russiagate does and has been doing for some time. That is what the various conservative blogs and news sites are already doing and will continue to do. Conservative Tree House, for example, as they are often referenced here, has been saying just those sorts of things for some time. How will anything the Russians might add on this theme even be noticed in particular.

If Russians are buying ads that promote one party in the US over another, or one policy point over another, how would any person distinguish those from the gazillions of political ads for one thing or another they already see. Or if they are sending paid commenters, that's also means nothing. I first noticed paid commenters in the numerous political blogs I followed during the 2008 election. I would see identical comments sprinkled over numerous blogs in a short period of time clearly attempting to influence readers. Both parties were doing it and I think individual election campaigns as well.

That's one of several reasons I think this whole "Russia influenced the election" meme is full of shit. OK, so Russia did it's normal spying and hacking as all major powers do, and attempted to fuck with the US political system as multiple other countries and orgs have no doubt tried to do. So what that they were buying political ads and also sending paid commenters to try and influence thinking. That's the name of the game and it's already being done to a much greater extant by existing US factions.

Please note, I'm not saying that Russia did not try to influence the US election in any way. What I'm saying is, there's already plenty of polarization and incivility and power games going on regardless of other country's attempts to influence the US. As it is, US political campaigns and their propaganda/public relations companies have a hard enough time figuring out how to influence voters when they scatter their wares around the internet.

The most profound influence the Russians seem to have had is turning the Democratic party into the bigger pro-intelligence/spying and pro-war party. They have very cleverly made the US political system look like it's falling apart and run by the Keystone Cops... oops, it already was doing that. Maybe their goal is to get the US to overspend on our military budget to in the long run weaken US financial power? I can see China liking that plan.


Russians will "...continue to divide American civil society."
In case you missed this: " During the last 17 years, real average weekly earnings of the core work force --- men 25 years and over---have not increased by a single dime (they're actually down from $407 to $406 per week in constant 1982 dollars). Even as the Fed's balance sheet has soared by 10X and the value of household financial assets has nearly tripled since the year 1997, therefore, worker paychecks have been dead in the water." https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/swan-song-central-bankers-part-3-goldilocks-economy-delusion


1) It's Edward Snowden, not "Eric." - Precision Nazi

2) Putin undoubtedly didn't like Clinton. But that's a far cry from suggesting that he "had to" run some sort of completely hopeless operation to get Trump elected, when absolutely no one except a few rebels in the media had any idea that Trump could actually win.

While Trump announced his candidacy back in 2015, absolutely no one took it seriously. We are to assume that Putin immediately ordered the GRU to hack the DNC - to do what, exactly? Find emails that incriminate the DNC in backing Clinton over Sanders? Before that actually happened?

Which puts the theory into the improbable category.

Not to mention that even if you buy all this, there are three problems:

1) Wikileaks and Assange and Craig Murray, who have no reason to lie about it, have directly refuted the notion that Russia gave Wikileaks the DNC emails. Wikileaks does not care who gives them data as long as its valid data. They have zero reason to not admit they got it from Russia if they did. The only people who care about "Wikileaks colluding with Russia" are Wikileaks' critics.

2) There is ZERO evidence that the DNC emails were exfiltrated from the DNC and given to Russians of any stripe (unless you count "Guccifer 2.0" which has problems of its own.) CrowdStrike never established any exfiltration of emails.

3) Sy Hersh has explicitly fingered murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich as the leaker (or one of them).

Am I supposed to believe Clapper, Brennan, Morell, et all - a cabal of liars - over the three gentlemen just cited who are not known to be liars?

Also just found two articles (one of which I didn't know I already had) which make for interesting reading on the alleged DNC hack:

Email Dates in the Wikileaks DNC Archive

Dumbstruck - How CrowdStrike Conned America on the Hack of the DNC
by Scott Ritter

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad