Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 12, 2019

Russiagate Is Finished

For more than two years U.S. politicians, the media and some bloggers hyped a conspiracy theory. They claimed that Russia had somehow colluded with the Trump campaign to get him elected.

An obviously fake 'Dirty Dossier' about Trump, commissioned by the Clinton campaign, was presented as evidence. Regular business contacts between Trump flunkies and people in Ukraine or Russia were claimed to be proof for nefarious deals. A Russian click-bait company was accused of manipulating the U.S. electorate by posting puppy pictures and crazy memes on social media. Huge investigations were launched. Every rumor or irrelevant detail coming from them was declared to be - finally - the evidence that would put Trump into the slammer. Every month the walls were closing in on Trump.

At the same time the very real Trump actions that hurt Russia were ignored.

Finally the conspiracy theory has run out of steam. Russiagate is finished:

After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.
...
Democrats and other Trump opponents have long believed that special counsel Robert Mueller and Congressional investigators would unearth new and more explosive evidence of Trump campaign coordination with Russians. Mueller may yet do so, although Justice Department and Congressional sources say they believe that he, too, is close to wrapping up his investigation.

Nothing, zero, nada was found to support the conspiracy theory. The Trump campaign did not collude with Russia. A few flunkies were indicted for unrelated tax issues and for lying to the investigators about some minor details. But nothing at all supports the dramatic claims of collusion made since the beginning of the affair.

In a recent statement House leader Nancy Pelosi was reduced to accuse Trump campaign officials of doing their job:

“The indictment of Roger Stone makes clear that there was a deliberate, coordinated attempt by top Trump campaign officials to influence the 2016 election and subvert the will of the American people. ...

No one called her out for spouting such nonsense.

Russiagate created a lot of damage.

The alleged Russian influence campaign that never happened was used to install censorship on social media. It was used to undermine the election of progressive Democrats. The weapon salesmen used it to push for more NATO aggression against Russia. Maria Butina, an innocent Russian woman interested in good relation with the United States, was held in solitary confinement (recommended) until she signed a paper which claims that she was involved in a conspiracy.

In a just world the people who for more then two years hyped the conspiracy theory and caused so much damage would be pushed out of their public positions. Unfortunately that is not going to happen. They will jump onto the next conspiracy train and continue from there.

Posted by b on February 12, 2019 at 18:38 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

the reason the seth rich story is relevant, is as jr says - the focus remains on russia / wikileaks instead... it goes with the ongoing hate russia meme, which @86 kiza describes quite well here - "Russiagate is Idiocracy piggy-backing on decades and literally billions of dollars of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda"...

the bigger question for me is this.. is it possible for people to get beyond thinking others are going to screw them and get to a point where we recognize ourselves in others in a more loving way? can we think and live for the best in others instead? maybe this is the challenge for the world at present.. russiagate is the fear mongering approach... this reminds me of the 'course in miracles' ideology, lol..

Posted by: james | Feb 13 2019 17:40 utc | 101

James @99 an obvious reason why he was killed would be that the 'muggers'
who 'took nothing' were looking for the drive, couldn't find it and attempted
"to beat the information" as to its location, out of him, went too far, killed him
and ran away.
The problem with JR's theory that it was all a set up is that the emails gave a boost
to Bernie Sanders, pretty well the last person The Establishment wanted to benefit
from Hillary's embarrassment. There was no need to this to be so. there were plenty of
other options in terms of emails to leak.
Sometimes 'a cigar is just a cigar' and this is one of them: the wonder, as Jen points
out @70(?) is that there were not more revelations/leaks about the extraordinary crudity
of the DNC campaign to fix the primaries.

Posted by: bevin | Feb 13 2019 17:42 utc | 102

james:

is it possible for people to get beyond thinking others are going to screw them

Ordinary people are not in the drivers seat. That's the core problem. Those with money and/or power are paranoid and believe that they will be screwed if they don't control outcomes.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 13 2019 17:51 utc | 103

I dare say, over and finished!

Perhaps some of you will find this here amusing. It's from "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" (British 80's comedy).

"That's completely over. Finished. Done with. Over and finished with. Done over with, finished. Over, you understand? Finished over with. Done."

My thoughts exactly.

Posted by: Scotch Bingeington | Feb 13 2019 17:58 utc | 104

bevin:

... the emails gave a boost to Bernie Sanders, pretty well the last person The Establishment wanted to benefit from Hillary's embarrassment.

1) The story of DNC-Hillary collusion against Sanders had already broken in March 2016

2) Hillary had already wrapped up the nomination by the time that the DNC emails were published which only provided juicy details of the collusion (which was already known).

3) What the publication of the DNC emails did was help Trump, not Sanders.

4) Hillary further alienated Sanders supporters by:

>> bringing Debra Wasserman-Shultz into her campaign (almost as a reward)

>> choosing Tim Kaine as her VP running mate (Kaine is a conservative Democrat)

Why would Hillary have made things worse for herself if she had really wanted to win????

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 13 2019 18:11 utc | 105

Caitlin Johnstone muses about Russiagate's real target--anti-interventionists:

"..., you will always see Russia on the same US foreign policy page as anti-interventionists like Tulsi Gabbard, because Russia, like so many other nations, opposes US interventionism. To treat this as some sort of shocking conspiracy instead of obvious and mundane is journalistic malpractice. There are many, many very good reasons to oppose the war agendas of the US-centralized empire, none of which have anything to do with having any loyalty to or sympathies for the Russian government.

"But we will continue to see this tactic used again and again and again against any and all opposition to US-led interventionism for as long as the Russiagate psyop maintains its grip upon western consciousness. And make no mistake, these smears have everything to do with anti-interventionism and nothing to do with Russia. There will never, ever be an antiwar voice who the political/media class and their centrist followers espouse as good and valid; they’ll never say “Ahh, finally, someone who hates war and also isn’t aligned with Russia! We can get behind this one!” That will never, ever happen, because it is the opposition to war and interventionism itself which is being rejected, and in the McCarthyite environment of Russia hysteria, tarring it as 'Russian' simply makes a practical excuse for that rejection." [My Emphasis]

I recall the many anti-Vietnam War marches being accused of being Communist influenced, just as were the organizers of the global anti-Iraq War marches were; so, I would agree with Caitlin's hypotheses, which is one reason why I believe it's imperative to ground the entire motivation against intervention in Constitutional Law--that all calls for intervention, sanctions and such are Unconstitutional, thus illegal and an essentially treasonous action. Will the Treasonous Interventionists try to smear the 1945 Senate as being pro-Communist or the UN Charter somehow being a Communist Plot when it was a direct outgrowth of the Atlantic Charter inked between FDR and Churchill? Well, no lie's too big for BigLie Media; so, they'll likely stoop to that or worse--maybe they'll go after the Framer who wrote the Supremacy Clause!

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 13 2019 18:16 utc | 106

I've noticed a trend. Those who support the claim that the U.S. is behind the coup in Venezuela (counter the "official" narrative), also support the claim that Russia did NOT interfere with the 2016 election. Both positions are the same positions held by Russia.

Probably just a coincidence.

Posted by: JR | Feb 13 2019 18:30 utc | 107

OT--

Sometimes we need to be reminded you're never too old to make a difference: On this day 106 years ago, "82-year-old labour activist Mother Jones was arrested in West Virginia for supporting a coal miners strike. Convicted in a military court she was sentenced to 20 years in #prison. Pardoned after serving 85 days."

I bet Mother Jones never lamented Oh woes me like we see so many express here and elsewhere in an attempt to convince others that "resistance is futile."

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 13 2019 18:48 utc | 108

follow-up to @105

April 2016
----------
Sanders Campaign Accuses Clinton and DNC of Violating Campaign Finance Rules

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ campaign is accusing his rival Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Convention (DNC) of “serious apparent violations of campaign finance laws” by improperly allocating money obtained through joint fundraising.

In a statement released Monday, the Sanders’ campaign wrote that the joint fundraising committee Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) is being “exploited” to solely benefit Clinton’s campaign for president.

. . .

This accusation is in addition to the lawsuit the Sanders campaign filed in March against the DNC over access to voter data files.


August 2016
-----------
Leaked DNC Emails Confirm Anti-Sanders Conspiracy
The release by Wikileaks of a trove of emails from high-ranking Democratic Party officials has confirmed what many Americans – both progressive and conservative – have suspected throughout this election cycle: that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) actively conspired against Bernie Sanders in an attempt to ensure the nomination for Hillary Clinton.

... the question that really must be asked is: why Hillary Clinton? What is it about this woman that unites nearly the entirety of the political, financial, socio-cultural, and military establishment? Is it really just hatred of Donald Trump? Or is there something more insidious, something that makes Hillary the irresistible flame of belligerence and exceptionalism to which the corporate-imperialist moths are slavishly attracted?

For months the sentinels of the liberal media fortress derided all allegations of a DNC conspiracy against Bernie Sanders and the millions of Americans who #FeelTheBern, caricaturing these accusations as no different from the Illuminati-Freemason-Rothschild-Lizard People.... And with each new article the level of condescension and derision seemed to increase to the point where Sanders’ supporters had been transformed into the embarrassingly clichéd tinfoil-hat wearers of Alex Jones land.


Leaked emails confirmed the allegations from the Sanders campaign dating from March 2016. And the collusion alienated Sanders supporters (and others) by clarifying Hillary's corrupt, pro-establishment pedigree. Hillary didn't make ANY attempt to defuse that bomb. She only made it worse.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 13 2019 19:04 utc | 109

@107 JR; I know right? Such a curious trend... just like how those in the 60s who were in favor of civil rights, and against the war in Vietnam, and against bombing in Cambodia and Laos, were taking the same position as... the USSR! Oh my goodness JR, you've opened my mind, it turns out Russians have been manipulating us all along! Now I know to support the democratic transition in Venezuela, and donate money to Mueller!

Thank you for opening my eyes

Posted by: George Lane | Feb 13 2019 19:06 utc | 110

JR @107

I've noticed a trend too. Neo-McCarthists smear anyone that is critical of establishment policy and goals as a Russian sympathizer.

Not just a coincidence.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 13 2019 19:10 utc | 111

George Lane @110

LOL!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 13 2019 19:10 utc | 112

one word: CFRmedia.com

Posted by: Tom | Feb 13 2019 19:14 utc | 113

@102 bevin.. that is possible as well - first part.. i suppose jackrabbit has the chronology down in response to the rest of your post..

@110 george lane - lol as well!! i think the usa supports the claim they are behind a coup in venezuala.. they are telling everyone that guaido is the president of venezuala.. what else does one call that.. jesus.. lets blame russia for the past 50 years of cia actions bringing usa foreign policy to south america... oh and the cia just might have had a hand in the torturing at abu graib and the list is long... perhaps even the cia-fbi are running the usa at this point... is that a russian conspiracy idea that i am entertaining? lolol!.. next thing ya know i will be told i am a russian bot..

Posted by: james | Feb 13 2019 19:39 utc | 114

Some junior retard doesn't seem to understand the fundamental key to controlling capitalist style elections: Money.

Or financial and narrative-control resources, but most people understand that as "money".

This is deliberately built into what the old traditional left used to call "bourgeois democracy". He with the most money and control over the narrative du jour (that is, corporate mass media) almost always wins. This design allows capitalists to make sure candidates they have vetted maintain control over the state. Real grassroots movements can overpower this political gate keeping, but such movements must be big and tend to burn out quickly so the business elites can often regain control over the state in subsequent elections if they play the game right. It takes mountains of independent organizing and mass public involvement to outweigh large amounts of cash. This organizing and involvement does upset the capitalist game plan sometimes, as we've seen with Chavez in Venezuela, AMLO in Mexico, Lula in Brazil, etc; nevertheless, it is still generally part of the design of "bourgeois democracy" that money is required to determine election outcomes. One's proportion of the money invested in the elections usually directly equates to the proportion of political influence one ends up with. As a result the $4700 in Google ads purchased by Russians who may or may not have been associated with the Russian government earned them a statistically insignificant; effectively zero, influence in America's multi billion dollar elections. On the other hand, the scores of $millions that America invests in Venezuela's elections represents by far the largest expenditure on Venezuela's elections, thus the influence America has over Venezuela's elections is immense. Of course, this doesn't take into consideration the impact on elections of the "Make the economy scream!" aspects of America's regime change recipe.

So that's a lot of words that some idiot who is brain damaged enough to still think the Russians hacked America's elections to bother reading. The short version is that to equate a few thousand dollars in clickbait ads bought by some Russians that might be vaguely and distantly related to America's elections with the many $millions that the US government specifically targets Venezuela's elections with is stupid and anyone who tries to do so is a moron with no respect for anyone else's intelligence.

Posted by: William Gruff | Feb 13 2019 19:42 utc | 115

@84 pantaraxia.. i had a hard time trying to understand what was being said in that interview.. i stopped listening as i couldn't hear it properly. is it possible to summarize briefly what semour hersh said in that? thanks..

@115 william gruff... thanks for taking the time to state all that. it is obvious to many, but not all apparently..

meanwhile, i see pl has an article up on what we are talking about with regard to the dem e mails - not hacked.. WHY THE DNC WAS NOT HACKED BY THE RUSSIANS by Binney and Johnson

Posted by: james | Feb 13 2019 19:51 utc | 116

That is odd - an insult in response to my linking to a Craig Murray link.
Posted by: spudski | Feb 13, 2019 11:31:36 AM | 96

Nitwit was a response to your use of 2 unnecessarily long strings
of underline(?) characters in your #91 which spread the page margins.
I knew your comment was the culprit because it's between two of mine
and the margins were OK after my #89 and not OK when my #93 appeared.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Feb 13 2019 19:59 utc | 117

@117

"Nitwit was a response to your use of 2 unnecessarily long strings."

Hopefully that did not affect anyone else - no one else mentioned it. I apologize to anyone else harmed unintentionally by my "unnecessarily long strings" - at least I wasn't intentionally rude.

Posted by: spudski | Feb 13 2019 20:48 utc | 118

PS @117

@98, a long-time poster thought someone was impersonating you:

"@ 97 spudski... someone is faking hoarsewhisperer?? weird either way...

Posted by: spudski | Feb 13 2019 20:59 utc | 119

reply to James 64
Thank you for liking them!

reply to Horsewhisperer 75
".. It's too soon to say whether he's 'winning' or not but the ratbags he's flushed out into the open, so far, aren't exactly covering themselves with glory..."
On the "ratbags" as they control the media and the message that goes out to their captive citizens I doubt they care how a few clear eyed people perceive them, they are in it for themselves alone.
As for Trump, at this point I think the definition of "winning" has been lost in a haze of WTF. WHAT is he doing in Venezuela, in Iraq, plus the tax benefits for the middle class and poor appear to be moot this year and the wall budget apparently contain a vast array of highly suspicious biometrics ID cards, drones and the like. I think if his intentions were good and they may be still he is having a Gulliver moment, tied down by very small people with a hell of a lot of rope. On the other hand he could well have played us all for fools, things are such a mess I really can't tell.


Posted by: frances | Feb 13 2019 21:29 utc | 120

Jack Rabbit, James, Spudski, Bevin & others:

Seth Rich was shot in the back at 4:20 am while walking through a neighbourhood (that had been plagued by robberies) after leaving a bar.

His family then employed an investigator (with Republican connections) who later went off the rails alleging that the Russian government had some involvement in Rich's death so he was dumped. The family then was entangled with a former homicide detective who, on finding a link between Seth Rich and Wikileaks, cooked up a conspiracy story with FOX News reporters (who put the detective in contact with the Rich family under false pretences in the first place) suggesting that Seth Rich had been responsible for the massive DNC email leak.
http://fortune.com/2018/03/14/seth-rich-dnc-fox-news-murder-lawsuit/

At the very least, until a proper investigation of Seth Rich's murder is done, we should stop jumping to conclusions that he had anything to do with the DNC email leaks until actual evidence appears that he was indeed a whistle-blower or was the sole whistle-blower. As I said earlier in the comment thread, Rich was dead before Craig Murray received the USB stick containing the leaked emails in Washington DC.

That the investigator found a link between Rich and Wikileaks will only count for something if he says under oath in a court of law that the link did indeed exist and he didn't make it up.

Posted by: Jen | Feb 13 2019 23:24 utc | 121

"Why would Hillary have made things worse for herself if she had really wanted to win????" asks Jackrabbit.

Because she is arrogant, badly advised and she was convinced that she would win. She was very happy to be running against Trump whose candidacy, she thought, as did most of her advisors and almost the entire punditry, sealed her victory. Making it unnecessary for her to compromise with Sanders.
She was a true believer in the triangulation strategy the first rule of which is "anyone on the left has to vote Democrat because they have nowhere else to go." None of the DNC deep thinkers could believe for a second that any Bernie supporters would vote for Trump. And they were certain that by demonising Trump even those inclined to be abstentionists would vote for Hillary.
The idea that Hillary wanted to lose is, frankly, demented. Nor did her backers want her to lose. That was not the plan.
As to the emails, thank you for putting the timeline in proper perspective. You take far too formalistic a view of the situation at the Democratic Convention which took place after the email release underlined all the evidence that the DNC had been cheating.
As the Convention began, though the ex officio delegates had declared themselves to be Clinton supporters, surprising nobody, the atmosphere was alive with the knowledge that Sanders had been cheated. And that had the primaries merely been counted properly he would have had a plurality of elected delegates. He had been cheated from Iowa onwards. The Massachussetts primary was a disgrace. The New York primary was marred by the fact that, after sanders won almost every upstate county, 20,000 votes were lost in Brooklyn. In California none of the provisional ballots, as I recall, was counted.
Had there been any other candidate but Trump the Democratic Convention might very well have insisted either that Clinton withdraw or that her VP and Platform should be left in Sanders' hands.
Again, the factor which prevented the Democrats from acting rationally and prompted them to engage in electoral suicide, was the iron clad conviction that Trump could not win. A conviction so strongly held that neither Clinton nor any popular surrogate bothered to campaign in the old industrial states in the mid-west that were solid party bastions. As a result tens of thousands of people stayed home because they could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton.
Your theory, that Clinton threw the game, denies the working people in Michigan, Wisconsin etc any agency. People can be persuaded to vote for reformers and on occasion have done so. They are not fools and they are not often misled into voting for candidates that they sense are opposed to their interests.
The writing was on the wall, for Democrats, as early as Iowa and Nevada where only cheating could keep Clinton close to Sanders. It wasn't that he was so attractive either but that she was so unattractive. That never changed.

Posted by: bevin | Feb 13 2019 23:40 utc | 122

@122 bevin

Lets not forget the not insignificant fact that Hillary was holding what she thought was an ace-in-the-hole strong enough to derail Trump's campaign. This was the pussygate tape conveniently supplied by the pres(?) of nbc and held until its release would cause maximal damage - 1 month before the election. In any 'normal' election the pussygate tape would be expected damage, if not fatally cripple, any politician's campaign. Hillary and her advisors probably thought the release of this tape, 1 month before the election, would blow Trump's campaign out of the water leaving him no time to recover.

Posted by: pantaraxia | Feb 14 2019 0:59 utc | 123

one more time -
@84 pantaraxia.. i had a hard time trying to understand what was being said in that interview.. i stopped listening as i couldn't hear it properly. is it possible to summarize briefly what semour hersh said in that? thanks..

@121 jen.. i agree.. no need to jump to any conclusions, but the fact that the ""DNC never provided the FBI access to its servers in order for qualified FBI technicians to conduct a thorough forensic examination"" says a lot... these are the folks who have been complaining about being hacked! they are happy with a mueller investigation though, lol..

i don't think it is stretching it to say that russia and wikileaks gets framed the way the cia/fbi and etc like it with no access to the DNC servers... that looks like the plan..

Posted by: james | Feb 14 2019 2:40 utc | 124

re Seth Rich
Seth was not killed on the spot as a poster earlier stated, he was alive and taken to the hospital where he was fully expected to recover.

Then according to a hospital resident govt officials arrived, prevented access to Seth and by morning he was dead.

these three links come at the story each with additional pieces of info related to the post by a hospital intern:

https://www.spartareport.com/2017/05/surgery-resident-claims-seth-rich-was-kept-from-proper-care-while-in-the-hospital-by-leo/

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/seth-rich-public-incident-report-actual-document-answers-my-questions-except-one/

Assange/Wikileaks posted a reward for information leading to his cause of death, comments made by Assange do appear to imply that Seth was their source, not the one that gave them the stick, but the source of the stick.

Posted by: frances | Feb 14 2019 2:46 utc | 125

re Seth Rich; follow on to my 125 post

Sorry, this is the third link referenced in my post above:

https://www.intellihub.com/d-c-surgeon-who-operated-on-seth-rich-the-dnc-staffer-was-alive-and-well-after-surgery-before-a-group-of-leos-showed-up-to-the-icu/

Posted by: frances | Feb 14 2019 2:48 utc | 126

Seems like grounds for a class action fraud suit on the basis of bilking media consumers out of their money with faulty "news" products. Do we get refunds if we subscribed to the Guardian, the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or paid for a BBC license?

Posted by: Anne Jaclard | Feb 14 2019 3:56 utc | 127

Watch this bizzare interview with Seth Rich's Parents and brother. The first comment (by Serf Derb) as of today:

WTF? Watch this video many times. Something stinks. The first few seconds in, the brother is cracking up and trying not to laugh. He does this throughout the whole video. 30 seconds in, the dad says the police called him and stated that Seth was alive when they arrived and MAYBE stable when Seth got to the hospital. No, no, no, no, no. A cop would not say he was MAYBE stable. You are either stable or, you are not. 40 seconds in, the mom starts to talk and just as the camera is panning left towards mom, dad is actually mouthing her lines. He knows what she is about to say. One minute 3 seconds in, the mother says something off script? The dad subtly moves his right arm and taps her on the back and then he quickly takes over her conversation. WALLS COVERED WITH DISNEY AND MOM, HOLDING A GD PANDA! C'mon people.

I encourage you to read other comments and watch other videos of the parents.

As Jen mentions @21, the family hired an investigator(s) but those "investigators" had their own agenda or seemed to be compromised. The family then sued/threatened to sue anyone that proposed "conspiracy theories" about their son. This indicates an unwillingness to consider the implications of his possible role as DNC leaker, which is strange - most families would want to do everything possible to find out what happened.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

My best guess: "Seth Rich" was a cover name for a intel operative who leaked DNC emails to Assange and his "death" was the end of this operative's assignment.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 14 2019 4:24 utc | 128

bevin, pantaraxia

I don’t have a smoking gun. I only have a logical argument for why Trump’s selection (not election) makes sense.

Firstly, I should say that you are responding to only part of the argument I’ve made. The missing parts are:

The nature of US “democracy”
USA money-based electoral system is designed to prevent a populist “outsider” from becoming President. To become President requires large sums of money to get your message out (which only membership in one of the two Parties can provide); and minimum popularity (based on polls) in order to participate in nationally-televised Presidential debates.

This fact has already been driven home by Obama’s election. He was supposed to be a “populist” of the left. But he betrayed his based and failed to deliver on his campaign promises by: bailing out banks, engaging in covert wars and droning; remaining in Afghanistan (and he wanted to remain in Iraq also); making Bush tax cuts permanent; and more.

The motivation for the Deep State to want a nationalist
USA hubris and greed caused USA to treat Russia as a defeated enemy albeit one that had yet to fully capitulate. Putin (apparently) played on this perception of weakness as he build Russian armed forces.

When Obama sought to bomb Syria, in a bid to replicate the Libyan regime-change model, Russia refused to allow it. This conflict was ultimately resolved peacefully because of Kerry’s inadvertent suggestion that Assad could avoid bombing if he gave up his chemical weapons. But Russia’s newfound resistance was apparent. This resistance led the Obama Administration to: 1) support the rise of ISIS (neocon doubling down); and move forward on Ukrainian regime-change to punish Russia and also sideline them in the next go-round in Syria. It was a “smart” strategy that back-fired spectacularly.

A year later, Russia had prevailed in Ukraine (leaving the West with the burden of the poor, non-strategic parts) and Kissinger penned an Op-Ed calling for a strong Western response with a re-invigorated USA – that was the precursor to MAGA.

The failure to make real peace with Russia was compounded by assisting China’s “peaceful rise”. Russia had the military and energy resources complemented China’s economic might. The combination of the two shattered USA dreams of global hegemony. The angst was palpable.

Hillary does not fit the bill as a “nationalist”.
She has too much globalist establishment baggage, she is too connected with the left (even though it is mostly empty rhetoric), and she is perceived as too willing to use military force. She doesn’t have the respect of ordinary soldiers and it would be difficult if not impossible for her to win that respect.

Trump’s time in office;
If Trump was really in a “war” against the Hillary-loving Deep State, then why has he nominated so many Deep State minions to high office?

I mean, we are supposed to believe that the Deep State went to bat for Hillary and Trump was “at war” with them, but Trump:

> refused to prosecute Hillary;

> allowed Comey to remain at FBI (he could've fired him immediately as part of "changing administration"), then fired him in a way that prompted naming of a special prosecutor (Mueller);

> took actions that betrayed his non-interventionalist campaign promises but caused neocons to cheer like bombing Syria TWICE (each time based on false flags).

And, he has brought Deep State operatives into his Administration:
> VP Pence (McCain’s buddy);

> Pompeo;

> Haspel (Brennan’s gal at CIA);

> William Barr (Mueller’s pal);

> Jared Kushner (family friend of Netanyahu, and besties with MbS);

> John Bolton (dyed-in-the-wool neocon);

> Abrams (another neocon);

Other psyops
We have seen a slew of psyops in recent years. They are made possible by the Deep State’s control of media. White Helmets; Skripal; MH-17 investigation; anti-BDS ops; and, of course the “Russian influence” investigation.

IMO the “Russian influence” investigation has less factual basis than my speculation that Hillary threw the race to Trump.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

And now I’ll address your points.

[Hillary] … was very happy to be running against Trump . . . unnecessary for her to compromise with Sanders.
Hillary was in trouble from January 2016 when the FBI reported that she HAD INDEED sent highly classified email from her home server. This was made crystal clear when Bloomberg held a news conference to say that he would enter the race to prevent Sanders or Trump from winning the Presidency.

triangulation strategy . . . "anyone on the left has to vote Democrat because they have nowhere else to go."
Progressive’s disappointment with Obama and deep anger towards Hillary was well known.

The idea that Hillary wanted to lose is, frankly, demented.
You are assuming that it was Hillary’s choice. I’m saying, that if Hillary had really wanted to WIN (and thereby achieve her long-term goal of being the first women President), she would’ve done whatever she could to ensure a victory. She wouldn’t have left anything to chance.

Even the Clintons must bow to the Deep State consensus of what is best for the country (was they define it). Only a few, such as Clintons, McCain, Kissinger, Bush Sr. have the standing to weigh-in on such important strategic matters.

far too formalistic a view of the situation at the Democratic Convention . . . Had there been any other candidate but Trump
I reject that charge. Sanders caved to Hillary as he said he would. And partisan hatreds are stoked no matter who the candidates are – the emotional engagement is how the establishment duopoly cements its control.

iron clad conviction that Trump could not win. A conviction so strongly held that neither Clinton nor any popular surrogate bothered to campaign in the old industrial states in the mid-west
WRONG!! The book Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign describes how Bill Clinton had urged Hillary to campaign in those states. She refused to do so.

And Hillary’s had already experienced how difficult it would be to beat Trump when Trump turned the tables on Hillary after the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting. Hillary attempted to use her experience in office and concern for gay rights to make Trump look unready and uncaring but Trump turned it around on her saying (among other things) that there are no gay rights in Saudi Arabia.

Also, seasoned campaign managers and politicians know that “inevitability” is the kiss of death. Hillary and her husband Bill are too smart and knowledgeable to have allowed such a perception to develop.

denies the working people in Michigan, Wisconsin etc any agency.
This is a bogus accusation in an electoral system that is known to be rigged via money, districting, and election tampering (as you actually note in relation to Sanders).

People can be persuaded to vote for reformers and on occasion have done so.
Well, this truism doesn’t really add anything.

. . . as early as Iowa and Nevada where only cheating could keep Clinton close to Sanders.
This betrays the rather naive belief that Sanders wanted to win. He was a sheepdog for Hillary. He said right from the start that he would support the Democratic nominee, and he did so - despite DNC-Hillary collusion. Furthermore, he was urged to form a Movement for change and refused to do so.

And Sander’s Jewish background makes him a poor choice for President from the perspective of the Deep State. Can you imagine the uproar when a President Sanders: moves the USA embassy to Jerusalem? Cuts humanitarian funding to Palestinians? and/or initiates a war with Iran?

pussygate tape
That tape failed – and would be expected to fail – because of Hillary’s role in covering up Bill’s indiscretions.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 14 2019 4:49 utc | 129

@32 The Hang Nail
Yes hacking emails is a crime, but there's no proof Hillary's emails were hacked. Julian Assange always said the emails were leaked by an internal source and thats what the metadata and all available forensic evidence seems to suggest as well.

Posted by: Jason | Feb 14 2019 6:35 utc | 130

Incredible how one Maria BUTINA still exists in the mad world.
The right naiveness in the wrong place in the wrong time. I wonder how this lady from another planet will feel after she discovers that all her previous faith in human goodness was flatly and brutally less than a wind blow.

Posted by: augusto | Feb 14 2019 12:08 utc | 131

So the Senate report closes the case? Shouldn't we see what the House committee and DOJ come up with?

Posted by: Charles Watkins | Feb 14 2019 16:25 utc | 132

Adding to @129

>> CIA/MI6 involvement
The use of British companies during the election is as suspicious as it is extraordinary. Steele is an ex-MI6 officer. We now know that Facebook gave MANY companies access to facebook data, not just Cambridge Analytica - so why didn't the campaign work with a US company? And from the Integrity Initiative we found out that a likely MI6 operative was active in the Sanders campaign.

We know the CIA uses MI6 for US domestic operations.

Along with CIA/MI6 involvement we see that Trumps (supposed) "pro-Russian" stance during the campaign allowed for a narrative that would ultimately snare Assange/Wikileaks and Michael Flynn.


>> Hillary's health problems
In August 2016 rumors of Hillary's health problems suddenly swirled. They reached a crescendo when Hillary was dragged into a van after attending 9-11 ceremonies at the World Trade Center.

Strangely, Hillary appeared a couple of hours later, the picture of health. And she didn't suffer any further problems during the race. WTF?

The best way that I can explain this is that Hillary's campaign advisors devised a strategy of using illness as a means of finessing concerns about Hillary as President. They hoped that people would vote for Hillary with the expectation that she would not serve out her term and Tim Kaine would become President.

But she wouldn't play along! (Why not?!?!) By the time voters when to the polls, no one was thinking that a vote for Hillary was really a vote for Tim Kaine. In fact, I can't even recall Hillary and Tim Kaine campaigning together. They could have done so in the the three crucial mid-western states that Hillary lost!?!?

Note: It was also on 9-11 when she called Trump supporters irredemable "deplorables".

Someone will argue that Hillary's ego prevented her from pursing this means of voting-getting. But Hillary *did* participate in the health ruse and a large part of her campaign was focused on collecting votes against Trump, not voting *for* Hillary. So why not push that further - especially KNOWING, as they certainly did, that 3 mid-Western states could decide the election?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 14 2019 17:18 utc | 133

A new Jimmy Dore video on the topic: NBC News: No Evidence Of Trump Russia Conspiracy. It's one of those Dore videos that are just awesome. Guaranteed to improve your mood.

Posted by: S | Feb 15 2019 4:35 utc | 134

Hoarsewhisperer "My money says he'll pull his own rabbit out of the hat for 2020;"

I suspect the rabbit will be measured in terms of TNT equivalent.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Feb 15 2019 4:52 utc | 135

Well, I looked back at what occurred and found that:

- it was Hillary herself that kicked off the health rumors by reporting (out of the blue) that her doctor had given her a clean bill of health;

- the rumors were pushed by alt-right/alt-media and to me they seem to be deliberately trying to raise unwarranted questions about of Hillary's health, an example is looping video to make her look like she was having a seizure;

- the rumors grew until MSM took notice in late August - Kaine denied the rumors before the 9-11 event;

- I don't recall Hillary personally denying the speculation that she might have parkinsen's and/or other medical problems but Tim Kaine did;

- Hillary's explanation for having been helped into the van on 9-11 may is that she had been diagnosed with bacterial pneumona; she took 3 days off after 9-11 causing her to miss a scheduled tour of the mid-West with Tim Kaine;

- the person that took the video of Hillary being helped into the van has always been suspicious to me - he said he is an eastern European former firefighter with a photography hobby - MSM was completely uninterested in his background, which was strange given that he had got unflattering video of their favored candidate.


How to make sense of all this?

IMO the rumors of health problems could have helped Hillary by giving progressive Democrats and moderate Republicans a reason to vote for the Democratic Party President: that she would not serve out her term. Just because lefty/progressive voters "have no where else to go" doesn't mean they will VOTE for you. But Hillary dispelled those rumors by appearing soon after her 9-11 van incident (pretending not to know why the media had camped outside her place) looking very healthy and relaxed, and also by her later performance in debates. And she mucked up Kaine's appeal to mid-Western moderates by her "deplorables" comment.

Tim Kaine is a political Centrist that grew up in the mid-West. He's also fluent in Spanish. He visited a few states in the mid-West (Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania) and also campaigned in Florida, North Carolina, and his home state of Virginia. I can't recall anything memorable about his campaigning.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 15 2019 15:11 utc | 136

One of the relatively unbiased editorialists at the NYT rather agrees with B., especially after the Cohen testimony:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/opinion/sunday/michael-cohen-steele-dossier.html

Posted by: fx | Mar 3 2019 12:36 utc | 137

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.