Russiagate or a wild goose chase?
Russiagate or a wild goose chase?

Preface: I'm a lifelong liberal. I cold not conceive of voting Reublican. But in 2018, the Democrats are not something you can reward with a vote.

It does no good to criticize the other party, why aren't the Democrats begging for how they can improve? Because that would mean they'd have to stop lying a the very least. The synthetic reality behind the beltway is exactly what Adam Curtis talked about in _Hypernormalization_ and what Barlow mentioned exactly in his Declaration: that politicians will no longer be able to make up problems only they can solve.

By 2017 formerly reputable sources such at The Atlantic magazine were offering the opinion that there was zero uncertainty that the Russians had fiddled with the US election and caused Donald Trump to become president ands that their loss at the polls, like the loss of Gore in 2002, was caused not by not having enough votes but because it was somebody else fault.

Always thinking it's always solidify else fault is at best, in an adult and if it seems to happen all the rie, assumption of a breakdown of rational thinking, nobody's perfect, it can be somebody else fault 100% of the time. But perhaps it's true. The difference between it being delusional and sign of unhealthy thinking and something being the actual truth is of course: evidence.

This idea seems to be nearly lost on The Atlantic, nearly after the first accusations flew that the russians are something an by gosh we have incontrovertible evidence such evidnce has been forgotten about instead of being produced in court or in a special hearing on the matter.

In June 2017, The Atlantic offered up this idea:

"It’s not seriously disputed by anyone in a position of authority in the U.S. government—apart from the president himself—that Donald Trump holds his high office in considerable part because a foreign spy agency helped place him there. So now what?"

That's not true though. Democrats believe this, because Democrats made it up. Nobody else believes it. The undecideds want to see evidence, which is not forthcoming and soon this nonsense will have it's first birthday.

Honest question - gave me a number of years you'll let this go without evidence Mr. McCarthy before we finally label is as the manufactured crisis it really is?

If the answer is eight, then the Democrats are just just as guilty as they claim - and rightly so - that the Republicans were of obstructing the president with nonese.

I'm not a right leaning person by any means and do not say this in support of anything other than the sake of truth. People keep asserting this idea the Russians interfered with the US elections yet form Snowden on down the idea that you could even could possibly have evidnce is something nobody that knows about this stuff would say. Your "position of *political* authority is meaningless here - the people that operate the routers the ones that leak from inside the NSA, CIA and FBI matter and they think you're a nutter to think this evidnce could even exist at all, let alone remain secret.

Get off it, in a paper world this crap works. Not here.


US influences on foreign elections

"If you want to see what the other guy is up to, see what he says about you".

As of Feb 2018 allegations the "Russians" "hacked" the DNC and influenced the election are still unproven. The influence of the US over other countries elections however is proven.

Former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton

The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate

Zerohedge ran an article with the title "HuffPo Yanks Article On Russiagate Hysteria By Award Winning Journalist Joe Lauria – So Here It Is" on Nov 17, 2017 so I saved a copy here.

"They're Russians, trust me, would highly paid DNC security consultant lie?"

The Russians are trolling! The Russians are trolling!

If you believe the narrative being pushed on American media in 2018 then Russian social media activists posted so much and such deceptive words that American voted wrong because of it. Nobody has ever been able to produce a single one of these alleged postings and it's difficult to imagine where they ever got this idea from.

Other than the fact the US military is known to have been doing this since 2011.

No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists

Trump’s own Russian ties were the subject of intense media coverage of an unverified opposition-research report purportedly prepared by an ex-British spy, who remains in hiding. It seems no enterprising reporter has tried to find him.

In pushing its Manchurian-candidate-Trump narrative, the media fail to mention the much deeper ties of Democratic lobbyists to Russia. Don’t worry, the media seems to say: Even though they are representing Russia, the lobbyists are good upstanding citizens, not like the Trump people. They can be trusted with such delicate matters.

That’s not all: The busy Podesta Group also represented Uranium One, a uranium company acquired by the Russian government which received approval from Hillary Clinton’s State Department to mine for uranium in the U.S. and gave Russia twenty percent control of US uranium. The New York Times reported Uranium One’s chairman, Frank Guistra, made significant donations to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for one speech from a Russian investment bank that has “links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” Notably, Frank Giustra, the Clinton Foundation’s largest and most controversial donor, does not appear anywhere in Clinton’s “non-private” emails. It is possible that the emails of such key donors were automatically scrubbed to protect the Clinton Foundation.

FBI reviewed Flynn’s calls with Russian ambassador but found nothing illicit

The FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn — national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump — but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government, U.S. officials said.

CIA orders for the French 2012 Election

UK bans trade with Russia then has to buy Russian gas when snow hits hard.

"Global warming"

No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists

"In pushing its Manchurian-candidate-Trump narrative, the media fail to mention the much deeper ties of Democratic lobbyists to Russia. Don’t worry, the media seems to say: Even though they are representing Russia, the lobbyists are good upstanding citizens, not like the Trump people. They can be trusted with such delicate matters."

Biden was wrong: Intel agencies find no evidence of ‘Russian meddling’ in Italian polls

One might say "but this is RT of course they say that". Ok, let's assume they're lying, where is the evidence?

They found nothing.

Beginning in July 2016, eleven minutes after Clinton's email showed up on Wikipedia the DNC announced "they had hard evidence the Russians hacked the DNC causing Clinton to lose the election" (because: germ waraare, funding ISIS) and an investigation followed this conclusuon. Mueller convened a committee to look into this and after 18 months was not able to prove the claim true desut ethe claim of prior "ahrd evidence". Like Theresa May's mystruous Russian poison and a rise idoe not actually exist.

"Two weeks ago, Mueller dropped a multi-part indictment against 13 Russian citizens connected with a so-called troll farm. The indictment alleges the group bought Facebook and Twitter ads, planned small rallies, and otherwise “meddled” in the U.S. election. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made clear there was no allegation in the indictment that any American, including on the Trump campaign, “was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity.”

‘Tradecraft failings’: CIA’s conclusion that Putin interfered in election to help Trump was flawed
Agency violated standards for analyzing intelligence products

"U.S. intelligence agencies’ far-reaching conclusion that Vladimir Putin interfered in the 2016 presidential election to specifically help Donald Trump was flawed by “tradecraft failings,” says a House report.

The conclusion was written by the CIA then under the direction of Obama loyalist John O. Brennan.

The report said the CIA’s Putin-Trump analysis violated standards for analyzing intelligence products and noted that one guideline is to “be independent of political considerations.”

It said the CIA’s draft section on Mr. Putin’s intentions lacked vigorous internal debate because it was restricted to an “unusually constrained review” by other agencies.

The findings are contained in the Republican majority report of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigation into 2016 Russian election meddling."

Something About This Russia Story Stinks
Nearly a decade and a half after the Iraq-WMD faceplant, the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment

"The Post eventually distanced itself from the story, saying it "does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings." This was a very strange thing to say in a statement that isn't an outright retraction. The idea that it's OK to publish an allegation when you yourself are not confident in what your source is saying is a major departure from what was previously thought to be the norm in a paper like the Post.

There have been other excesses. An interview with Julian Assange by an Italian newspaper has been bastardized in Western re-writes, with papers like The Guardian crediting Assange with "praise" of Trump and seemingly flattering comments about Russia that are not supported by the actual text. (The Guardian has now "amended" a number of the passages in the report in question)."