Difference between revisions of "Russiagate"
(Unstub) |
(The Russiagate debacle) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
|date=2 January 2020 | |date=2 January 2020 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | =="Big nothing burger | + | |
| − | [[Van Jones]] termed it | + | =='No collusion!'== |
| + | {{QB|The first conclusions to emerge from [[Robert Mueller]]’s report will prove discomfiting to the centrist, Clinton-affiliated wing of the [[Democratic Party]], which blamed [[Hillary Clinton]]’s 2016 election defeat on a Russian plot. They will also be a serious affront to most in the US media, which has for two years made ‘Russiagate’ its biggest story. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Donald Trump]], it seems, has been emboldened by the report. Throughout his presidency he has repeated, like an automaton: ‘No collusion!’ Attorney general [[William Barr]]’s summary of the document suggests that he was right: ‘The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’ All the Trump officials who have already been convicted were charged with other crimes: tax fraud, making false statements to a congressional committee, etc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Democrats on the left could also find strength in Mueller’s verdict. Now, their party may have to abandon the narrative and breathless tone of a bad spy novel, and devote its energy to the issues facing American society. This is its best hope if it wants to beat Trump at the end of next year.<ref>''[https://mondediplo.com/2019/03/18russiagate "The Russiagate debacle"]''</ref>}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | =='Big nothing burger'== | ||
| + | [[Van Jones]] termed it a 'big nothing burger'. | ||
{{YouTubeVideo | {{YouTubeVideo | ||
|code=4kh3ngzbUeA | |code=4kh3ngzbUeA | ||
|align=left | |align=left | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | [[Matt Taibbi]] wrote in March 2019 that ''It's official: Russiagate is this generation's [[Iraq/WMD|WMD]]''.{{QB|The biggest thing this affair has uncovered so far is [[Donald Trump]] paying off a porn star. That’s a hell of a long way from what this business was supposedly about at the beginning, and shame on any reporter who tries to pretend this isn’t so. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The story hyped from the start was espionage: a secret relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian spooks who’d helped him win the election. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The betrayal narrative was not reported as metaphor. It was not “Trump likes the Russians so much, he might as well be a spy for them.” It was literal spying, treason, and election-fixing – crimes so severe, former NSA employee John Schindler told reporters, Trump “will die in jail.” | ||
| − | [[ | + | In the early months of this scandal, the ''[[New York Times]]'' said Trump’s campaign had “repeated contacts” with Russian intelligence; the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' told us our spy agencies were withholding intelligence from the new President out of fear he was compromised; news leaked out our spy chiefs had even told other countries like [[Israel]] not to share their intel with us, because the [[Russia]]ns might have “leverages of pressure” on [[Donald Trump|Trump]].<ref>''[https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million "It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD"]''</ref>}} |
{{SMWDocs}} | {{SMWDocs}} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 10:47, 9 July 2020
 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Date | November 2019 - 2019 |
| Interest of | 7th floor group, Father Andrew, Naz Durakoğlu, Fazze, Mark Hackard, Avril Haines, Stefan Halper, Deborah Haynes, Aaron Maté, George Papadopoulos, Joy Reid |
Russiagate was a string of supposed revelations about Russia which amounted to "a never-ending, minute-to-minute factor in American news coverage."[1]
“The similarities between Watergate and Russiagate are huge when you look at the shadow op that was conducted against Nixon by the Deep State. We now know this, thanks to FOIA requests made by Geoff Shepard which the DOJ has finally complied with.
The Watergate investigative team appointed by the DOJ was remarkably similar to the Mueller team. Special prosecutor Archibald Cox named his personal friend, a guy named James Vorenberg, to appoint the entire staff of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. Vorenberg appointed 70 colleagues to the team. All were Ivy League grads and every single one of them had been fired and replaced when the Nixon administration came into office in 1969. Sounds very similar to the Clinton donors who padded Mueller’s team, doesn’t it?
Vorenberg bragged in his first press conference that the team wasn’t just going to investigate Watergate. They were going to probe everything that Nixon had done during his first five years in office. Where have we heard that before?”
'admin' (2 January 2020) [2]
Contents
'No collusion!'
The first conclusions to emerge from Robert Mueller’s report will prove discomfiting to the centrist, Clinton-affiliated wing of the Democratic Party, which blamed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election defeat on a Russian plot. They will also be a serious affront to most in the US media, which has for two years made ‘Russiagate’ its biggest story.
Donald Trump, it seems, has been emboldened by the report. Throughout his presidency he has repeated, like an automaton: ‘No collusion!’ Attorney general William Barr’s summary of the document suggests that he was right: ‘The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’ All the Trump officials who have already been convicted were charged with other crimes: tax fraud, making false statements to a congressional committee, etc.
Democrats on the left could also find strength in Mueller’s verdict. Now, their party may have to abandon the narrative and breathless tone of a bad spy novel, and devote its energy to the issues facing American society. This is its best hope if it wants to beat Trump at the end of next year.[3]
'Big nothing burger'
Van Jones termed it a 'big nothing burger'.
Matt Taibbi wrote in March 2019 that It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD.
The biggest thing this affair has uncovered so far is Donald Trump paying off a porn star. That’s a hell of a long way from what this business was supposedly about at the beginning, and shame on any reporter who tries to pretend this isn’t so.
The story hyped from the start was espionage: a secret relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian spooks who’d helped him win the election.
The betrayal narrative was not reported as metaphor. It was not “Trump likes the Russians so much, he might as well be a spy for them.” It was literal spying, treason, and election-fixing – crimes so severe, former NSA employee John Schindler told reporters, Trump “will die in jail.”
In the early months of this scandal, the New York Times said Trump’s campaign had “repeated contacts” with Russian intelligence; the Wall Street Journal told us our spy agencies were withholding intelligence from the new President out of fear he was compromised; news leaked out our spy chiefs had even told other countries like Israel not to share their intel with us, because the Russians might have “leverages of pressure” on Trump.[4]
Related Quotations
| Page | Quote | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corporate media/Mendacity | “More and more we are seeing narratives about cyber-threats being used to advance reports of “attacks” and “acts of war” being perpetrated which, as far as the public is concerned, consist of nothing other than the authoritative assertions of confident-sounding media pundits. There was a recent NBC exclusive which was co-authored by Ken Dilanian, who is an actual, literal CIA asset, about the threat of hackers working for the Iranian government. The alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections is now routinely compared to Pearl Harbor and 9/11, despite no hard, verifiable evidence that that interference even took place ever being presented to the public.” | Caitlin Johnstone | 11 August 2018 |
| Charles Schumer | “"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in response to the president-elect challenging allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
"So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this," Schumer added. "What do you think the intelligence community will do if they were motivated to," Maddow wondered. "I don’t know, but from what I am told intelligence officials are very upset with how [Trump] has treated them and talked about them," Schumer replied. "Do we think he has an agenda to try to dismantle parts of the intelligence community? I mean this form of taunting hostility," she said. "Let me tell you. Whether you’re a super liberal Democrat or a very conservative Republican, you should be against dismantling the intelligence community," Schumer noted.” | Charles Schumer | 2017 |
Related Documents
Rating
