Posts Tagged ‘Aaron Maté’

WikiLeaks-Assange-Russia-NOT-Source - Copy

 

40 rebuttals to the media’s smears of Julian Assange – by someone who was actually there.

 

By their lies, you will know them.

 

maxresdefault (1)

 

 

 

“smugnorant”

WikiLeaks-Assange-Russia-NOT-Source - Copy

 

Assange is caught up in these games. The government claims “Guccifer 2” was:

  1. A Russian intelligence person
  2. The supplier of the Clinton emails

Both these claims look like nonsense. Guccifer 2 was a fraud created to frame Assange. It’s long and it’s tiresome.

Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims

 

 

More important, as Raffi Khatchadourian has reported for The New Yorker, the documents Guccifer 2.0 released directly were nowhere near the quality of the material published by WikiLeaks. For example, on June 18, Guccifer 2.0 released documents that it claimed were from the DNC, “but which were almost surely not,” Khatchadourian notes. Neither was the material Guccifer 2.0 teased as a “dossier on Hillary Clinton from DNC.” The material Guccifer 2.0 initially promoted in June also contained easily discoverable Russian metadata. The computer that created it was configured for the Russian language, and the username was “Felix Dzerzhinsky,” the Bolshevik-era founder of the first Soviet secret police.

WikiLeaks only made contact with Guccifer 2.0 after the latter publicly invited journalists “to send me their questions via Twitter Direct Messages.” And, more problematic given the central role the report assigned to Guccifer 2.0, there is no direct evidence that WikiLeaks actually released anything that Guccifer 2.0 provided. In a 2017 interview, Assange said he “didn’t publish” any material from that source because much of it had been published elsewhere and because “we didn’t have the resources to independently verify.”

..

Assange also made public offers to testify before Congress. The Mueller report makes no mention of these overtures, though it does cite and dismiss “media reports” that “Assange told a U.S. congressman that the DNC hack was an ‘inside job,’ and purported to have ‘physical proof’ that Russians did not give materials to Assange.”

Mueller does not explain why he included Assange’s comments as reported by media outlets in his report but decided not to speak with Assange directly, or ask to see his “physical proof,” during a two-year investigation.

1000209212.jpg.0.jpg

The non-stop, self-serving gloating of people I generally agree with: Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Maté, Michael Tracey, et al. is unprofessional and distasteful. They are wallowing in Maddow and FoxNews territory now.

Russiagate is a grey area, not black and white, and I do not believe we have the full story. Just recall all the redactions. By focusing on other people’s “conspiracy theories” the self-imposed limits of these journalists are not centered on what actually happened, but merely on gamesmanship: proving somebody else’s claim wrong. That is always distracting and a dead end, perhaps a complete waste of time for all concerned.

Greenwald’s latest makes this bold claim, its headline:

“Robert Mueller Did Not Merely Reject the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theories. He Obliterated Them.”

But, by the article’s conclusion Greenwald equivocates a bit:

One can debate whether it’s unethical for a presidential campaign to have dirt about its opponent released by a foreign government, [YES: LET’S DEBATE THAT] though anyone who wants to argue that has to reconcile that with the fact that the DNC had a contractor working with the Ukrainian government to help Hillary Clinton win by feeding them dirt on Trump and Manafort, as well as a paid operative named Christopher Steele (remember him?) working with Russian officials to get dirt on Trump.

Yeah. It’s ALL unethical. Lock them all up. How did Democratic Party crimes make Republican Party crimes suddenly legitimate? That is the slippy slope to hell.

Greenwald also makes a few sloppy assumptions. He accepts as Gospel:

1. “Russia” hacked the DNC server. Our own NSA whistleblowers determined that impossible based on the forensic evidence. Mueller continues to push this discredited claim undermining his own credibility.

2. That Robert Mueller was objective and had no interest in protecting Trump despite being a “conservative Republican,” as well as helping to cover up the 9/11 attacks.

Greenwald et al. should know full well that only cover-up artists get appointed to “investigate” the crimes of high officials in this country. It is a 100% certainty, going back at least to the Warren Commission. Also see: Iran/Contra. The full truth is seldom revealed about anything that could undermine confidence in the American system.

There may have been a Russian “hack” of John Podesta’s email account, a phishing scam, but then again I have seen zero evidence to date that “Russia” means the GOVERNMENT of Russia, with any evidence linking that government to the crime which would stand up in an actual court. That’s the problem with this trial by media: the “facts” are never established, challenged, buttressed; they just languish in a sea of half-truths and drivel. Whether any given set of Russian hackers are loyal to Vladimir Putin or to the almighty dollar is an open question.

We still swim in a swirling grey area.

We do know that the super-genius Second Son of Trump, Eric, admitted in 2014:

“We have all the funding we need out of Russia.”

Do you?

Donald Trump Jr. himself famously said in 2008 that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Would this Russian money appear on Trump’s secret tax returns? Did Robert Mueller ever get a look at those returns? Did he ever follow up on this money trail at all?

Just yesterday, in Greenwald’s own publication, I read quite a bit about Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and his own set of Russian connections.

During the campaign, Manafort stayed in touch with these contacts through Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime employee who previously ran Manafort’s office in Kiev. The FBI assessed that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence, the report says.

Manafort also met with Kilmnik in the United States twice during the campaign and gave him campaign-related information. [Why?] And Kilmnnik passed on a message from Yanukovych, who was in exile in Russia, about a peace plan that would have allowed Russia to control eastern Ukraine.

After Trump won the election, Kilimnik wrote to Manafort that the plan would need U.S. support and that it could use a “very minor wink” from Trump.

That’s a quid pro quo.

If that doesn’t constitute some greyness, Glenn, then I don’t know what to tell you. Things are not so cut and dry as some would like to pretend.

5ac3a15adda4c8c47e8b45a9.jpg

 

On every significant metric, it is difficult to square the data with the dramatic conclusions that have been drawn.
New Studies Show Pundits Are Wrong About Russian Social-Media Involvement in US Politics

It’s telling that those who are so certain Russian social-media posts affected the 2016 election never cite the posts that they think actually helped achieve that end.

…It was mostly unrelated to the 2016 election; microscopic in reach, engagement, and spending; and juvenile or absurd in its content. This leads to the inescapable conclusion, as the New Knowledge study acknowledges, that “the operation’s focus on elections was merely a small subset” of its activity.

They even tried the absurd argument that the number of black voters declined in 2016, and so that proves: Russians!!!

Nothing to do with not having a black presidential candidate, and instead being force-fed a heinous war criminal who once called black teenagers “Super-Predators?”

Hillary Clinton has jumped the shark. And she should be left in the tank.