There’s one thing you can count on when the first of two scheduled trials involving former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort gets underway this week in a federal courtroom in Alexandria, Va. No, it’s not that Manafort, who faces 18 felony counts of financial fraud and tax evasion, will be convicted. When it comes to jury trials, convictions are never a sure thing.
Had the deregulators never been empowered to eviscerate the budgets of many critical regulatory governmental agencies, we never would have had to suffer the likes of Trump nor his corrupt cabinet. What we are witnessing is the result of a long game started decades ago and yes, it was wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
" the grand jury indictment filed by Mueller on July 13 against 12 Russian intelligence operatives, which lays out in painstaking detail exactly how the Democratic emails were hacked."
The indictment outlines a theory without in any sense proving it to be true. Of that there is no evidence, Nor is there ever likely to be unless, as happened in the Magnitsky case, one of those Russians charged comes to the United States and defends his honour.
This case is one full of very suspicious omissions on the part of Mueller, who incidentally has a long track record for sharp dealings in the prosecutorial department in service to the state. The first is that the DNC computers said to have been hacked have never been inspected by either Mueller’s enormously expensive ‘team’ or the FBI. Why would that be?
Then there is the curious omission to interview several persons, including Craig Murray and Julian Assange, who are on record as being ready to attest to the fact that Wikkileaks did not receive any information from a hack, but that it received a thumb drive which according to expert analysis must have been the means whereby the ‘leak’ occurred.
As to Manafort it is tempting to suspect -and this is, perhaps, no more than a symptom of my derangement- that his original offense was to have worked against the Maidan uprising in Ukraine, which has, understandably earned him the ire of the Bandera-Nazis who were behind the bloody coup and remain the power behind the regime in Kiev.
The anger of the fascists is understandable, what is not is the enormous investment, intellectual and emotional, that people like Bull Blum, have made in the extravagant and improbable conspiracy theory that attributes the result of the 2016 Election to the alleged and in any case picayune, interventions of entirely marginal forces. We know that such people are working for MI6 though one doubts that they are getting paid for it.
Bill Binney has proven that it could not have been a “hack”. The speed that the data was downloaded makes it impossible, it could only be done on site. According to Binney, those speeds were the same as a thumb drive, the most likely devise used.
Always follow the money, especially with these yahoos. financial malfeasance rather than election meddling probably.
I think more Mueller derangement Syndrome is suffered by Maddow, the DNC, most HRC supporters, and the MSP. Still not seeing how the Russians literally got trumpee elected.
Just saw a FB post by a “ liberal” dem friend showing the Jill Stein votes v. the number of votes by which HRC lost in three states- think they were three rust belly states that voted Obama before. Thus blaming her loss on less than 300,000 voters who couldn’t stomach voting for trumpee or HRC. We are to assume Stein was in the Russian pocket, which some dem loonies allege.
Read Greg Palast. trumpee probably won due to good ole American local grown voter suppression.
My suspicion is that Blum does not work for MI6, but that he’s weak on the attribution thing (hard to believe I admit that a guy this smart is behind me on this score). I’ve listened to the arguments…it’s still basically Greenwald’s take versus the Plowshares’ guy’s take [the latter a brilliant dude BTW]. No matter how convinced they are…or they sound…they DO NOT afaics get into the techics of how it’s provable it was GRU. Over and over it’s the same thing…so and so authorities have no doubt, etc. Those experts over there. It’s a big circle. Let’s say it was GRU…I don’t envy them trying to prove it to all of America. Like I’ve said before it would take a whole course…Attribution 101. Or it would take a series of about 10 Frontlines. This goes for the source of the phishing links in the emails, or if the hackers got beyond the phishing links in the emails…but if any hackers altered vote numbers, they have not told us. They deny it.
Yesterday I had forgotten the name JOE CIRINCIONE when I replied to Bevin here. Cirincione had sort of debated Greenwald on Democracy Now regarding the recent summit.
I wouldn’t call it M.D.Syndrome. That’s just me.
I would say, on the contrary, a number of factions out there have a fear about going back to the technicalities of attribution (some kind of phobia?). Greenwald did it briefly here (link), but at least he did it. Citing so and so has also come to the Russiagate-truther position does not say beans about the technicalities of attribution. If Blum or anyone else want to convince us, all they have to do is go over these matters. IIRC all the “dirty Russian money” phenomena were gone over by David Cay Johnstone over a year ago. There was David Fahrenthold writing stuff as well.
I remember reading an article, over a year ago, about an intelligence leak claiming that the CIA had developed the ability to fake as if a hack had been committed from anywhere in the world. I’m not saying that I believe this is the origin of the Russian hacking, but I wouldn’t put it past Brennan’s CIA.