Hosana! We are so fortunate to have a towering intellect such as Matt to cobble together a Grand Unified Theory out of such drivel. He tells us it’s all very complicated. Presumably only he can make sense out of it. A modern day Einstein.
Matt, congratulations, you may soon get the Presidential Medal of Freedom for selflessly distracting attention from the Ghislaine Maxwell story who just today was transferred to a low security prison after a private 6 hour meeting with Trump’s ex personal attorney and current DOJ # 2 (wrap your mind around that for a moment). It’s not only that you have helped repackage a nothing burger of an old story, it’s the enthusiasm with which you do it.
If you believe the Ghislaine Maxwell story requires priority in terms of reporting, perhaps you should write it up. There are many of us who are interested to know how 1) The DOJ could cite thousands of video's of children being molested and abused, only to retract that and say "There's nothing to see here, folks."
2) How it is that a jury could convict Ghislaine Maxwell for her role in finding minors for Jeffrey Epstein's criminal capers when there is now no evidence that any minors were harmed?
3) What happened to "the list", which certainly DOES exist since we know Prince Andrew, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and many more powerful and/or influential individuals were exposed as "guests". Their names were not just plucked out of the air.
There’s a lot of good reporting on the subject, though everything indicates a sweetheart deal is in the offing and we won’t get full transparency. But when will we finally learn Trump’s m.o. as a master of chaos creating vile memes either directly or through his base— Obama is from Kenya, pizzagate, dog eating migrants, and, yes, Russiagate (which he helped foment)? When it comes to Epstein, Trump was one of those tossing gasoline on the rumors, just like he was riling up his base on J6, which makes it all too fitting that it’s biting him in the ass now.
Sure, Taibbi wants to report on old documents from the GOP-led Durham investigation and treat it as the second-coming of Watergate, that’s his prerogative, but let’s not be naive about the timing.
I lived through Watergate. What has occurred with the Russia matter is far worse.
I'm no fan of Donald Trump but it sounds like you want reporting on the Epstein matter because you are upset about the illumination of potential criminal misconduct by people aligned on the Left, and think Matt should spend more time examining Trump. Trump's behavior, as it pertains to a variety of things could be characterized as "gross misconduct" if one is being kind. At this point it's more of an expectation than a news story. Honestly, I've been Trumped to death and am quite happy for a break.
The media could discuss the timing of events surrounding the Epstein matter but it would all be speculation. That's not much of a story. Time tends to unravel the truth, which will happen in the Epstein matter, whether DJT, WJC or anyone else want it to or not. Right now. At this point in time, given the potential gravity of the situation surrounding the alleged election interference by individuals inside our own government, the Epstein matter can wait.
So, there are a lot of wrong assumptions in you post. Let the cards fall where they may with regards to Epstein— Clinton, Trump, Dershowitz, let it all come out. My point is that this administration just made that much harder. What they did on Friday was beyond suspicious— it is unheard of.
Russiagate is worse than Watergate? Really? Remember, the maximalist position that Matt and Walt have staked out is that this was a Deep State plot to sink Trump's administration. Right now all we have conflation, misrepresentaiton and hyperbole. It's not enough to show the IC committed mistakes or even ignored or disobeyed directives. Remember, the greatest assist in 2016 was Comey's October Surprise letter that blatantly contradicted DOJ directive and arguably secured Trump's victory.
Russiagate was largely self-inflicted. Trump courted and received help from Russia, we all know this, hell, he said it out loud. Dutch intelligence watched in real time as Russian hackers broke into the DNC servers. There is plenty of evidence that Trump knew, or should have known, of Russia’s involvement and that elements of his campaign were coordinating its release. Hell, the original dirty trickster himself, Roger Stone (he who bragged that he ‘trafficked in the black arts’ for Nixon) was in constant communication, updating Trump as to the timing of its release. Richard Gates even tells us he overheard such a conversation.
Now compare Trump’s behavior with that of Adlai Stevenson when Russia tried to give him an assist. Matt is doing battle with some straw man version of reality — ie, that Trump was some sort of Manchurian candidate taking direct orders from Putin. The fact some might have been peddling this shouldn’t change our assessment of Trump’s behavior. Taibbi is taking the maximalist position that Trump should never even have been investigated, and that to do this was necessarily some nefarious campaign.
Change Trump for Hillary and Cuba for Russia. Let’s say that Hillary had several high and low level individuals in her campaign with ties to Cuba. Let’s say that rapprochement with Cuba was central to her campaign. Let’s say she expressed an open admiration for Cuba’s president.
So far, no problems, right? But let’s also say her hand picked campaign manager had become super wealthy advancing the career of a candidate in Venezuela heavily supported by Cuba. Let’s also say her top military advisor had traveled frequently to Havana on paid junkets and made comments openly praising Cuba.
No problem, righ? I agree, though people on the Right would be howling bloody murder. Now, let’s say that Hillary then made an appeal to Havana to hack her opponent— Havana are you listening! Let’s also suppose that a member of Hillary’s campaign had a little too much wine and tells an Australian diplomat that Havana had dirt on Trump. Let’s say this diplomat felt duty bound to pass this information to US intelligence. Let’s further say that it was true — Cuban hackers had been successful, and then released the data to do maximum damage against Trump.
Let’s further say that during the campaign her manager sat down with a Cuban agent and transferred campaign data to that agent and discussed policies favorable to Cuba. Let’s also suppose that when a bipartisan investigation was opened Hillary and her staff obstructed and perjured themselves left and right. You get the picture? Because I can go on and on.
Again, we are not even talking about the merits, we’re simply asking whether all suspicions should be seen as a ‘fiction’ and whether any investigation should be seen as a ‘witch hunt. The fact that elements of the media went too far doesn’t change the conclusions of three investigations that 1) Russia intervened to help Trump 2) they hacked the DNC 3) Trump courted this situation and there is much evidence that Russia attempted to coordinate its release with Trump’s campaign.
“Sue Miller” is the cover name used by an old friend of mine, who I will call M** M*******. She was a graduate of Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio class of 1981. That was the name my friend, who was very, very cute and was always getting hit on by guys at the dive bars she loved to hang out in. I never knew she was a top CIA operative. I just thought she was a boring suburban mom hanging out in Columbus, Ohio.
was FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok's 'insurance plan' the Russia hoax? How many other people knew about the plan? When the Russia hoax was launched, most expected Hillary to win. At the time of its initiation, even the perpetrators of the hoax could not have had any idea what a big deal it would eventually become. It was still maybe in the realm of a conventional political "dirty trick". At the time, they could have had no idea what a monster they were creating. Had they known, I suspect they would have been more circumspect about keeping the whole thing very secret from the outset. But the thing grew and grew, and the malefactors like Brennan and Comey had no choice but to keep going in deeper. So I do think its interesting to remember that at the outset they could have had no idea what a monster the plot would eventually become. Had they known, perhaps they wouldn't have launched it.
Hosana! We are so fortunate to have a towering intellect such as Matt to cobble together a Grand Unified Theory out of such drivel. He tells us it’s all very complicated. Presumably only he can make sense out of it. A modern day Einstein.
Matt, congratulations, you may soon get the Presidential Medal of Freedom for selflessly distracting attention from the Ghislaine Maxwell story who just today was transferred to a low security prison after a private 6 hour meeting with Trump’s ex personal attorney and current DOJ # 2 (wrap your mind around that for a moment). It’s not only that you have helped repackage a nothing burger of an old story, it’s the enthusiasm with which you do it.
You must be special but not in the good way.
If you believe the Ghislaine Maxwell story requires priority in terms of reporting, perhaps you should write it up. There are many of us who are interested to know how 1) The DOJ could cite thousands of video's of children being molested and abused, only to retract that and say "There's nothing to see here, folks."
2) How it is that a jury could convict Ghislaine Maxwell for her role in finding minors for Jeffrey Epstein's criminal capers when there is now no evidence that any minors were harmed?
3) What happened to "the list", which certainly DOES exist since we know Prince Andrew, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and many more powerful and/or influential individuals were exposed as "guests". Their names were not just plucked out of the air.
There’s a lot of good reporting on the subject, though everything indicates a sweetheart deal is in the offing and we won’t get full transparency. But when will we finally learn Trump’s m.o. as a master of chaos creating vile memes either directly or through his base— Obama is from Kenya, pizzagate, dog eating migrants, and, yes, Russiagate (which he helped foment)? When it comes to Epstein, Trump was one of those tossing gasoline on the rumors, just like he was riling up his base on J6, which makes it all too fitting that it’s biting him in the ass now.
Sure, Taibbi wants to report on old documents from the GOP-led Durham investigation and treat it as the second-coming of Watergate, that’s his prerogative, but let’s not be naive about the timing.
https://substack.com/@goddessofthedesertbooks/note/c-139836421?r=3t1kwq&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I lived through Watergate. What has occurred with the Russia matter is far worse.
I'm no fan of Donald Trump but it sounds like you want reporting on the Epstein matter because you are upset about the illumination of potential criminal misconduct by people aligned on the Left, and think Matt should spend more time examining Trump. Trump's behavior, as it pertains to a variety of things could be characterized as "gross misconduct" if one is being kind. At this point it's more of an expectation than a news story. Honestly, I've been Trumped to death and am quite happy for a break.
The media could discuss the timing of events surrounding the Epstein matter but it would all be speculation. That's not much of a story. Time tends to unravel the truth, which will happen in the Epstein matter, whether DJT, WJC or anyone else want it to or not. Right now. At this point in time, given the potential gravity of the situation surrounding the alleged election interference by individuals inside our own government, the Epstein matter can wait.
So, there are a lot of wrong assumptions in you post. Let the cards fall where they may with regards to Epstein— Clinton, Trump, Dershowitz, let it all come out. My point is that this administration just made that much harder. What they did on Friday was beyond suspicious— it is unheard of.
Russiagate is worse than Watergate? Really? Remember, the maximalist position that Matt and Walt have staked out is that this was a Deep State plot to sink Trump's administration. Right now all we have conflation, misrepresentaiton and hyperbole. It's not enough to show the IC committed mistakes or even ignored or disobeyed directives. Remember, the greatest assist in 2016 was Comey's October Surprise letter that blatantly contradicted DOJ directive and arguably secured Trump's victory.
Russiagate was largely self-inflicted. Trump courted and received help from Russia, we all know this, hell, he said it out loud. Dutch intelligence watched in real time as Russian hackers broke into the DNC servers. There is plenty of evidence that Trump knew, or should have known, of Russia’s involvement and that elements of his campaign were coordinating its release. Hell, the original dirty trickster himself, Roger Stone (he who bragged that he ‘trafficked in the black arts’ for Nixon) was in constant communication, updating Trump as to the timing of its release. Richard Gates even tells us he overheard such a conversation.
Now compare Trump’s behavior with that of Adlai Stevenson when Russia tried to give him an assist. Matt is doing battle with some straw man version of reality — ie, that Trump was some sort of Manchurian candidate taking direct orders from Putin. The fact some might have been peddling this shouldn’t change our assessment of Trump’s behavior. Taibbi is taking the maximalist position that Trump should never even have been investigated, and that to do this was necessarily some nefarious campaign.
Change Trump for Hillary and Cuba for Russia. Let’s say that Hillary had several high and low level individuals in her campaign with ties to Cuba. Let’s say that rapprochement with Cuba was central to her campaign. Let’s say she expressed an open admiration for Cuba’s president.
So far, no problems, right? But let’s also say her hand picked campaign manager had become super wealthy advancing the career of a candidate in Venezuela heavily supported by Cuba. Let’s also say her top military advisor had traveled frequently to Havana on paid junkets and made comments openly praising Cuba.
No problem, righ? I agree, though people on the Right would be howling bloody murder. Now, let’s say that Hillary then made an appeal to Havana to hack her opponent— Havana are you listening! Let’s also suppose that a member of Hillary’s campaign had a little too much wine and tells an Australian diplomat that Havana had dirt on Trump. Let’s say this diplomat felt duty bound to pass this information to US intelligence. Let’s further say that it was true — Cuban hackers had been successful, and then released the data to do maximum damage against Trump.
Let’s further say that during the campaign her manager sat down with a Cuban agent and transferred campaign data to that agent and discussed policies favorable to Cuba. Let’s also suppose that when a bipartisan investigation was opened Hillary and her staff obstructed and perjured themselves left and right. You get the picture? Because I can go on and on.
Again, we are not even talking about the merits, we’re simply asking whether all suspicions should be seen as a ‘fiction’ and whether any investigation should be seen as a ‘witch hunt. The fact that elements of the media went too far doesn’t change the conclusions of three investigations that 1) Russia intervened to help Trump 2) they hacked the DNC 3) Trump courted this situation and there is much evidence that Russia attempted to coordinate its release with Trump’s campaign.
Reading and considering.....thank you!
“Sue Miller” is the cover name used by an old friend of mine, who I will call M** M*******. She was a graduate of Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio class of 1981. That was the name my friend, who was very, very cute and was always getting hit on by guys at the dive bars she loved to hang out in. I never knew she was a top CIA operative. I just thought she was a boring suburban mom hanging out in Columbus, Ohio.
was FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok's 'insurance plan' the Russia hoax? How many other people knew about the plan? When the Russia hoax was launched, most expected Hillary to win. At the time of its initiation, even the perpetrators of the hoax could not have had any idea what a big deal it would eventually become. It was still maybe in the realm of a conventional political "dirty trick". At the time, they could have had no idea what a monster they were creating. Had they known, I suspect they would have been more circumspect about keeping the whole thing very secret from the outset. But the thing grew and grew, and the malefactors like Brennan and Comey had no choice but to keep going in deeper. So I do think its interesting to remember that at the outset they could have had no idea what a monster the plot would eventually become. Had they known, perhaps they wouldn't have launched it.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/durham-annex-evidence-likely-made-up-russia-1235398702/