KremlinGate

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

"The attempt to blame the electoral insurgencies in the United States' two ruling parties on Russian interference, rather than massive social inequality - the worst in the industrialized world - is a desperate ploy.

Did that social inequality begin in 2016?

Or else why was it not a factor before that?

I do think social inequality played a role in convicing certain low-income swing-state voters to switch to the GOP this time around. And the reason they didn't do it before was that no GOP candidate had hit upon the idea of making factory-closures(and allied issues) an aspect of his platform(likely because they knew it wasn't anywhere close to a keepable promise). Trump managed to successfully portray himself as something other than a typical Republican.

But apart from that, no. The lifelong Republican voters who went for Trump this time around were almost certainly not motivated by concern for inequality, at least not in any way that progressives would recognize.

A third group, swing voter concerned about Hillary's supposed lack of ethics, might have been influenced by the possibly Russia-hacked leaks.

Putin, and his minions, and Trump, and his minions, trying desperately to cover their tracks.  Why doesn't Fox and RT just merge.  They could rename the combo, FART.

JKR wrote:

NDPP wrote:

 **'Zero Evidence' That Russia Hacked DNC says NSA Whistleblower (and vid - MUST WATCH)**

It will be interesting to see what NDPP comes up with if the legal investigations provide more evidence and indictments against Trump and his supporters.

Well, I think if you went into the debate emotionally commited to the idea that there could not possibly have been any collusion, you'll say that Mueller and company are all a bunch of shills for the corporate and/or the globalist elite(depending whether you're more on the Counterpunch or the Infowars end of the spectrum), and so of course his indictments are all just the biggest hoax since the Gulf Of Tonkin or the moon landing(again, depending).

Personally, I'd call myself a "soft collusionist" on this. I think Trump himself believed that Russia was trying to influence the campaign, and that he was happy for this alleged intervention, and trying to encourage more of it, possibly through legally questionable means. Whether or not that proves that Russia actually hacked e-mails, or took him up on his offers of co-operation, I don't know.

I do know that if there was no evidence of Russian involvement, the CIA must REALLY hate Trump, to undermine his presidency by making up collusion-stories out of thin air. That would be a pretty unprecedencted degree of animosity between the intelligence community and the White House(no, I don't subscribe to CIA Kennedy asassination theories). Almost as big an issue as real Trump-Russia collusion would be.

Disguised Russian agents on Twitter rushed to deflect scandalous news about Donald Trump just before last year’s presidential election while straining to refocus criticism on the mainstream media and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, according to an Associated Press analysis of since-deleted accounts.

Tweets by Russia-backed accounts such as “America_1st_” and “BatonRougeVoice” on Oct. 7, 2016, actively pivoted away from news of an audio recording in which Trump made crude comments about groping women, and instead touted damaging emails hacked from Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta.

. . . .

Within an hour of the Post’s story, WikiLeaks unleashed its own bombshell about hacked email from Podesta’s account, a release the Russian accounts had been foreshadowing for days.

https://apnews.com/fc9ab2b0bbc34f11bc10714100318ae1

VOTD says :  "I do know that if there was no evidence of Russian involvement, the CIA must REALLY hate Trump, to undermine his presidency by making up collusion-stories out of thin air. That would be a pretty unprecedencted degree of animosity between the intelligence community and the White House(no, I don't subscribe to CIA Kennedy asassination theories). "

It is pretty clear the CIA (or more broadly the American security establishment) didn't want Trump as a candidate.   Recall the former heads of several intelligence agencies speaking out against him and writing op-eds before the election.  The two primary reasons were his desire for rapproachment with Russia and his open questioning of the purpose and usefulness of NATO.   Also his realpolitik statements on the use of American power ("We've killed children too" ) undermined the benevolent global cop/spreader of democracy narrative that is so instrumental to keeping liberals onboard for the next war.  

And we saw how that played out -- he was sat down by some generals and told he must respond to Syria "using" chemical weapons, and he did.   One could see this as him flip-flopping, or one could see this as Trump finding out who actually makes the foreign policy decisions.

And here we are a year later, discussing in other threads the possibility of NATO going to war with Russia.   

That the military/intelligence community in the US has undermined Trump's presidency on these issues, with unprecedented amounts of leaks and the various continuing investigations and survellience of his campaign team and advisors is not in doubt.   If that's a good thing depends on which team you are on.   But if you are on team "open democracy", then you are losing either way.  

RE: Trump and Russia collusion - I don't think there was collusion that rose to the level of criminality by any impartial standard, but I suppose there could be.   And I imagine the same charges could be brought against any number of other candidates and current politicians, especially Clinton.  

VOTD:   The Carter analogy is interesting, thanks for the link.   I should clarify -- I don't think the investigation is entirely fabricated, just hyped up.    Turn over enough rocks and I think you'd find the same dirt on most politicians in the US, especially Presidential candidates, I think, and the issue for some Trump supporters is that the investigation is not wide enough, and should include the DNC/Hillary's actions with foreign powers.   Trump has talked about this directly as well.  

I guess for me the best case senario to come out of the investigation would be the DNC and Republicans tear each other apart fighting over it and a whole lot of dirty laundry spills on the floor for everyone to see.

Ah, yes, the FBI and CIA, tireless seekers of truth.   But seeing as everyone knows, why wait for the proof?  

Old McCarthyism In New Bottle

https://www.liberationnews.org/old-mccarthyism-new-bottle/

"The anti-Russia witch-hunt is reactionary and has its roots in the Democratic Party although it is a bipartisan affair involving the Republican Party as well.

The witch hunt will not end unless people stand up to it. Those who hope to keep their heads down and ride it out are doing a disservice not only to themselves but the entire progressive movement. 

The agenda of the promoters of 'Russiagate' has been made clear: heighten an unbelievably dangerous confrontation with Russia abroad, and suppress movements for justice and equality at home."

US Brands RT A 'Foreign Agent': A Chilling Move Against Free Speech

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/11/pers-n11.html

"The US government's motivations are entirely political, bound up with the effort to present all opposition within the United States as the product of the actions of Russia. In its reporting, whatever its reasons may be, RT provides a platform for voices critical of the policy of the American government. The fact that RT is being targeted because of its political position sets an ominous precedent..."