One of the horrors of Russiagate is that the Democrats have becoming huge supporters of the intelligence agencies, spies who the American people need to know about, and be protected from when it comes the worldwide sneaky-sneak, and surveillance of American citizens. Can we believe the CIA, I don't know but I don't thinks so, do you? When someone tells you 'I cannot tell you because it's secret and the knowing will damage you. It is classified and you may not know.' Don't trust them. This is today's CIA, and likely the rest of our intelligence agencies who operate outside the vision of the American people. It is time for a New Church Committee to declassify the CIA, the NSA --and the whole dam 'all seventeen of them' while limiting their sneak, power and influence in and on our nation. Enough with the heroes and duty and serving the country clap trap. The CIA and the rest of them, have again become a bunch of dissemblers and sneaks, who are all over television and out of control, lying to congress, lying on MSNBC, lying, while operating without oversite or knowledge of the American people. A Danger to our Democracy, if we were one. The Church Committee tried to stop this in and did for a while. But that was 1975, a long time ago, and long before the American people lost so many freedoms after 9-11, before smartphones, and the 1984 surveillance technology of today. That was when they were still using invisible ink and exploding cigars.
The DNC happily played along with the CIA by using them as a political weapon this time. Still, they are yelling for impeachment, and Schiff is leading the band. They KNOW it's BS, but it's their only chance to grab power back.
I say, let the whole fucking rotten mess burn down. I'm sick of it all.
They know they are playing politics, but what they don't know is that they are playing losing politics. They are playing politics that would win if the voting public was their social and peer network, but it is not. Their mistake is to not understand the wider voting public.
The story of Trump vs. Hillary is in part who ran a campaign that resonated versus who ran a campaign that shed voters rather actively. Biden's starting down the latter path in terms of how he will be positioned for the general election. "Orange man bad" is not likely to be a successful campaign slogan.
LOL Agreed. They've run out of fumes on Orange Man Bad, only alienating their fanbase even more from the general public's concerns and anger with our elected boobs.
Their own party is being overrun with insane Marxists who think forcing everyone to stop using fossil fuels, like today, man, and no more air travel or industry will somehow "save the planet".
In other words, while the established parties play to their fans, the rest of us have to get dragged down into the dark ages by either xenophobic nationalists, or a nationalist-socialist dictatorship. We're so screwed.
It's like the perfect storm of all that's bad about human beings. I welcome our demise, or at least a major upending of established societies... however painful it ends up being.
Maybe when it all blows over, and a few hundred years go by, life on this planet will be adjusted and find a balance as it has for hundreds of millions of years.
I like the precision of your language. If the media just called Trump a xenophobic nationalist, they'd make a lot of points against him, instead they create supporters for him by going way beyond that!
Too many people who think the world is black and white, and reason "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's us in the middle who have basic mistrust of BOTH Trump and his intelligence community antagonists. I actually feared them more for a while, because it seemed like they had a staying power to outlast an elected President. An unstoppable bureaucracy with police powers is scarier than a slightly rogue executive, when that executive can be replaced by public vote.
They are making money... saw something the other day that media are pushing for impeachment just to make the $ from the ratings increase, that makes sense.
Is everyone already convinced that Russia was responsible for the hack? I always felt like those claims were backed by heavy assertion but never hard evidence. The guccifer2 story just seemed like complete bullshit on the surface. And given Crowdstrike's ties to a former cybersec analyst under Mueller and a virulently antiRussian Atlantic Council member, it always just seemed like such a small chain of custody for the evidence to make such an extraordinary claim. Crowdstrike royally fucked an analysis of Ukrainian missile systems, falsely blaming Russia. This part of the story has always bothered me; so has the steadfast refusal to interview ANYONE from Wikileaks, from Assange to Craig Murray.
One thing I just noticed recently: Obama's meeting with the intelligence chiefs was on Jan 5, 2017, and then Comey briefed Trump the next day. Susan Rice's goofy memo saying "On Jan 5 we did nothing wrong at all, nothing to see there, Obama said go by the book" referred to that meeting, a red flag that there were things discussed that she wanted to cover for. Comey says they discussed the dossier there, Brennan has previously said they did not. Something very shady about that meeting.
“Russiagate has always been two stories. One is about foreign cyber-incursion. The other is a shaggy dog tale about half-smart intelligence goons who spent years whispering to reporters about their heroic efforts to stop a conspiracy that apparently was never there.”
The reality of Russiagate is certainly far more sinister than the above sentence admits. Many “buy” the DNC “hack” even tho it is not factually proven, some may even buy the overly soft “keystone cops” analogy Taibbi uses to describe the “Intel community” involvement in American domestic politics, but the far stronger likelihood – some would say – “the real story” -- driven by the CIA, FBI, and DOJ folks who lost out on continued “gubmint” work as a result of the Clinton loss to the absurd Trumpster – was a collaborative effort (along with MI6 of course) to surveil and find ways to “tar” Trump & Co as Russian dupes or even agents (the 3/6/2017 ICA Report, etc.) in order to possibly remove him, or at least to strip away his “Russia” friendly aids and “turn” him into a neocon supporter of Cold War II, which, of course, has now happened.
Perhaps the sentence above could be re-worked to include Three, not just "two stories" . . . the "Russia did it" hyped absent real proof story, the B.S. "our well-meaning intel people got it wrong" story, and what many professional analysts outside the "corporate media" call "the real story . . ." ETC.
I agree with you about the real story. It's important that we all critically evaluate information as you are doing, leave open doubt about what we are told until we see evidence. I myself didn't even buy that we knew that the Russian state itself was behind the hacks for a long time. It could have been random Russian people, from the evidence we had, or it could have been an oligarch truly acting on his own initiative. Just because Putin likes your actions and wishes he thought of it himself doesn't mean he ordered it. It's funny to me that so many people do believe it, because the only convincing evidence is something that is never discussed and few have read about: the Dutch infiltration of the security camera network of the Internet Research Agency, or whatever it was called... the hacking center. Go google that, they have great info on it including seeing Russian military officers running operations.
But why are people so gullible to believe this was a pure pro-Trump effort when there is widely disseminated info that they tried to hack the RNC and failed, they hacked Colin Powell and spread his negative words about Trump, they funded anti-Trump and pro-BLM rallies and things like this. This is all readily available public info. Even the ginned up original intelligence report (by 3 individuals at 3 agencies, not by 17 agencies or even written in an unbiased way) only said that it was a pro-chaos, anti-HRC effort. As distinct from pro-Trump.
For sure -- when it comes to the hysteria of Russiagate we've experienced for close to three years now, one has to be wary about accepting allegations, accusations, innuendos, and even "made-up" shit as factual by mainstream corporate media -- ever eager to profit from scandal -- even when it has been debunked, etc. To accept that the DNC was "hacked" by nasty Russkies in the first place has been substantially debunked by former very high level ex- CIA and NSA officials, including Willam Binney former Technology Director of the NSA who spear-headed key programs to "capture" any and all information entering and leaving all major U.S. internet pipeline hubs (partly revealed by the Snowden disclosures earlier). Forensic analysis of the "alleged" hack shows that the download speeds attributed to a "hack" would be impossible from a location as far away as Romania (from the so called "Guccifer" alias) and are more consonant with a "leak" from a disgruntled DNC insider who accessed the computer and downloaded emails using a thumb drive, etc. As Binney has said many times, if an actual "hack" had occurred, "the NSA would have known about it." Indeed, Craig Murray (former Brit ambassador to Uzbekistan and member of the Wikileaks team) has outlined often that he received information from an "American" in the U.S. having to do with the DNC emails that he transferred to Wikileaks. Julian Assange has repeatedly stated that neither he, nor any other member of the Wikileaks editorial staff received any information related to the DNC emails from Russian state actors, or any other "Russians" for that matter. The story that the DNC was "hacked" by nasty Russkies originated from DNC and Hillary Campaign officials who "claimed" their email system was hacked, refused to allow the FBI to examine their server (Comey would take revenge for this later), and instead turned the "analysis" over to a friendly private company run by "Russia hater" and member of the (Russia is the enemy) Atlantic Council Dmitri Alperovitch, co-owner of Crowdstrike . . . in less than a day, Crowdstrike fingered Russia as the culprit and things got rolling from there. Interestingly, the Jan 6/2017 so called "ICA" Report whose analysts were "cherry-picked" by Brennan and Clapper (both out of a job with the Hillary loss to Trump) used both the iffy "Crowdstrike" analysis and the absurd "Steele Dossier" to accuse Russia and, by implication, the absurd "lumpen" Trumpers, of gaming the Election. A KEY thing to remember here, is that -- whether the information about Hillary and the DNC conspiring to betray Bernie, including Hillary's whoring for Wall Street, was "hacked" or "leaked," it was, basically already common knowledge: anyone who supported Bernie and followed events knew that the DNC was operating against his candidacy (MSNBC, CNN, etc. constantly dissed Bernie and the major corporate media downplayed his appeal and successes, etc.). And anyone with a brain also knew that Hillary was not only the ultimate corporate neoliberal globalist whore, but a full on war-mongering "Liberal Imperialist," etc. ERGO: the information that surfaced about Hillary and the DNC pubbed by Wikileaks had little impact on Hillary's chances as it was already well known by Bernie supporters (I was one) who mostly decided not to vote for Hillary in the General Election anyway. Far more "hurtful" to Hillary, of course, is when Comey came out of the woodwork a few days before the Election to raise the question of her own "email scandal" once again. There seemed to be no "reason" for this at the time, and he quickly demurred. It is possible -- tho I don't want to push this analysis too far -- that this was "payback" for Hillary not letting him investigate the supposedly "hacked" DNC server, where "he" could have made the determination to either (1) play the "hero" pretending to out the nasty Russians, or (2) the "anti-hero" by discovering "no hack" took place, letting the Russikies off the hook, etc. Who knows? Comey has proved to be a very contradictory and slippery fellow. There are many other discoveries and examples that reveal that the so called "Russian" influence on the 2016 Election was far more minimal than "advertised" by the hysterical, profit hungry media, etc. I have no further time for this inquiry at the moment . . . I have gone on far too long here as it is!
Your ramblings are on point here. No need to apologize for processing this crap out loud; I think the only place anyone is going to have the relative "luxury" of dissection is here, in internet forums and in non-establishment arenas.
Klinton was the penultimate Liberal Globalist Imperialist; and had already been decrying Russia as someone she would go to war with, as if that's what most Democrats wanted. They don't, really... but it's sickening to see people who have voted Democrat their whole lives just shrug and accept a fake narrative about Russia and eagerly call for impeachment and then open war with Russia because they can't get over their hate toward the King Doofus Trump.
O, irony.
The hippies of old, (now all grown up,) are championing total surveillance and invasive/unconstitutional government spying programs and policies on behalf of their insane rulers.
They believe it because they want to. They don't want to admit the guy can do anything BUT spy for Russia, operate for Russia, force Mexico to stop allowing Colombians in the tens of thousands to WALK through all of Mexico in order to rush the border...
They hate the guy so viscerally that they don't want to hear anything but that he sucks and is failing. He does suck, (my opinion,) but he's not exactly "failing".
Obama's foreign policy was far worse than "build that wall.".
Sec State Klinton was busily busking for future campaign donations to actually negotiate anything, her aides were left to carry the water for the military-industrial complex while she and Bill were engaged in speaking tours.
One of the horrors of Russiagate is that the Democrats have becoming huge supporters of the intelligence agencies, spies who the American people need to know about, and be protected from when it comes the worldwide sneaky-sneak, and surveillance of American citizens. Can we believe the CIA, I don't know but I don't thinks so, do you? When someone tells you 'I cannot tell you because it's secret and the knowing will damage you. It is classified and you may not know.' Don't trust them. This is today's CIA, and likely the rest of our intelligence agencies who operate outside the vision of the American people. It is time for a New Church Committee to declassify the CIA, the NSA --and the whole dam 'all seventeen of them' while limiting their sneak, power and influence in and on our nation. Enough with the heroes and duty and serving the country clap trap. The CIA and the rest of them, have again become a bunch of dissemblers and sneaks, who are all over television and out of control, lying to congress, lying on MSNBC, lying, while operating without oversite or knowledge of the American people. A Danger to our Democracy, if we were one. The Church Committee tried to stop this in and did for a while. But that was 1975, a long time ago, and long before the American people lost so many freedoms after 9-11, before smartphones, and the 1984 surveillance technology of today. That was when they were still using invisible ink and exploding cigars.
The DNC happily played along with the CIA by using them as a political weapon this time. Still, they are yelling for impeachment, and Schiff is leading the band. They KNOW it's BS, but it's their only chance to grab power back.
I say, let the whole fucking rotten mess burn down. I'm sick of it all.
They know they are playing politics, but what they don't know is that they are playing losing politics. They are playing politics that would win if the voting public was their social and peer network, but it is not. Their mistake is to not understand the wider voting public.
The story of Trump vs. Hillary is in part who ran a campaign that resonated versus who ran a campaign that shed voters rather actively. Biden's starting down the latter path in terms of how he will be positioned for the general election. "Orange man bad" is not likely to be a successful campaign slogan.
LOL Agreed. They've run out of fumes on Orange Man Bad, only alienating their fanbase even more from the general public's concerns and anger with our elected boobs.
Their own party is being overrun with insane Marxists who think forcing everyone to stop using fossil fuels, like today, man, and no more air travel or industry will somehow "save the planet".
In other words, while the established parties play to their fans, the rest of us have to get dragged down into the dark ages by either xenophobic nationalists, or a nationalist-socialist dictatorship. We're so screwed.
It's like the perfect storm of all that's bad about human beings. I welcome our demise, or at least a major upending of established societies... however painful it ends up being.
Maybe when it all blows over, and a few hundred years go by, life on this planet will be adjusted and find a balance as it has for hundreds of millions of years.
I like the precision of your language. If the media just called Trump a xenophobic nationalist, they'd make a lot of points against him, instead they create supporters for him by going way beyond that!
Heh, just like how they are said to get copycat killers going with their inyense coverage of tragedies.
Piss biters and maggots.
Not talented enough to actually act in film, but just talented enough to feign concern while reporting in an alien dialect.
If it smells, it sells.
Bleeds, it leads.
Blahblahblah.
Ga-ross!
Too many people who think the world is black and white, and reason "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's us in the middle who have basic mistrust of BOTH Trump and his intelligence community antagonists. I actually feared them more for a while, because it seemed like they had a staying power to outlast an elected President. An unstoppable bureaucracy with police powers is scarier than a slightly rogue executive, when that executive can be replaced by public vote.
Well, they've been sold red and blue, (black and white,) and they're buying it.
It's what the news people are for: to brainwash everyone into fighting each other rather than ousting the crooks.
They are making money... saw something the other day that media are pushing for impeachment just to make the $ from the ratings increase, that makes sense.
Is everyone already convinced that Russia was responsible for the hack? I always felt like those claims were backed by heavy assertion but never hard evidence. The guccifer2 story just seemed like complete bullshit on the surface. And given Crowdstrike's ties to a former cybersec analyst under Mueller and a virulently antiRussian Atlantic Council member, it always just seemed like such a small chain of custody for the evidence to make such an extraordinary claim. Crowdstrike royally fucked an analysis of Ukrainian missile systems, falsely blaming Russia. This part of the story has always bothered me; so has the steadfast refusal to interview ANYONE from Wikileaks, from Assange to Craig Murray.
One thing I just noticed recently: Obama's meeting with the intelligence chiefs was on Jan 5, 2017, and then Comey briefed Trump the next day. Susan Rice's goofy memo saying "On Jan 5 we did nothing wrong at all, nothing to see there, Obama said go by the book" referred to that meeting, a red flag that there were things discussed that she wanted to cover for. Comey says they discussed the dossier there, Brennan has previously said they did not. Something very shady about that meeting.
QUESTIONING A MATT STATEMENT ABOUT RUSSIAGATE:
“Russiagate has always been two stories. One is about foreign cyber-incursion. The other is a shaggy dog tale about half-smart intelligence goons who spent years whispering to reporters about their heroic efforts to stop a conspiracy that apparently was never there.”
The reality of Russiagate is certainly far more sinister than the above sentence admits. Many “buy” the DNC “hack” even tho it is not factually proven, some may even buy the overly soft “keystone cops” analogy Taibbi uses to describe the “Intel community” involvement in American domestic politics, but the far stronger likelihood – some would say – “the real story” -- driven by the CIA, FBI, and DOJ folks who lost out on continued “gubmint” work as a result of the Clinton loss to the absurd Trumpster – was a collaborative effort (along with MI6 of course) to surveil and find ways to “tar” Trump & Co as Russian dupes or even agents (the 3/6/2017 ICA Report, etc.) in order to possibly remove him, or at least to strip away his “Russia” friendly aids and “turn” him into a neocon supporter of Cold War II, which, of course, has now happened.
Perhaps the sentence above could be re-worked to include Three, not just "two stories" . . . the "Russia did it" hyped absent real proof story, the B.S. "our well-meaning intel people got it wrong" story, and what many professional analysts outside the "corporate media" call "the real story . . ." ETC.
I agree with you about the real story. It's important that we all critically evaluate information as you are doing, leave open doubt about what we are told until we see evidence. I myself didn't even buy that we knew that the Russian state itself was behind the hacks for a long time. It could have been random Russian people, from the evidence we had, or it could have been an oligarch truly acting on his own initiative. Just because Putin likes your actions and wishes he thought of it himself doesn't mean he ordered it. It's funny to me that so many people do believe it, because the only convincing evidence is something that is never discussed and few have read about: the Dutch infiltration of the security camera network of the Internet Research Agency, or whatever it was called... the hacking center. Go google that, they have great info on it including seeing Russian military officers running operations.
But why are people so gullible to believe this was a pure pro-Trump effort when there is widely disseminated info that they tried to hack the RNC and failed, they hacked Colin Powell and spread his negative words about Trump, they funded anti-Trump and pro-BLM rallies and things like this. This is all readily available public info. Even the ginned up original intelligence report (by 3 individuals at 3 agencies, not by 17 agencies or even written in an unbiased way) only said that it was a pro-chaos, anti-HRC effort. As distinct from pro-Trump.
For sure -- when it comes to the hysteria of Russiagate we've experienced for close to three years now, one has to be wary about accepting allegations, accusations, innuendos, and even "made-up" shit as factual by mainstream corporate media -- ever eager to profit from scandal -- even when it has been debunked, etc. To accept that the DNC was "hacked" by nasty Russkies in the first place has been substantially debunked by former very high level ex- CIA and NSA officials, including Willam Binney former Technology Director of the NSA who spear-headed key programs to "capture" any and all information entering and leaving all major U.S. internet pipeline hubs (partly revealed by the Snowden disclosures earlier). Forensic analysis of the "alleged" hack shows that the download speeds attributed to a "hack" would be impossible from a location as far away as Romania (from the so called "Guccifer" alias) and are more consonant with a "leak" from a disgruntled DNC insider who accessed the computer and downloaded emails using a thumb drive, etc. As Binney has said many times, if an actual "hack" had occurred, "the NSA would have known about it." Indeed, Craig Murray (former Brit ambassador to Uzbekistan and member of the Wikileaks team) has outlined often that he received information from an "American" in the U.S. having to do with the DNC emails that he transferred to Wikileaks. Julian Assange has repeatedly stated that neither he, nor any other member of the Wikileaks editorial staff received any information related to the DNC emails from Russian state actors, or any other "Russians" for that matter. The story that the DNC was "hacked" by nasty Russkies originated from DNC and Hillary Campaign officials who "claimed" their email system was hacked, refused to allow the FBI to examine their server (Comey would take revenge for this later), and instead turned the "analysis" over to a friendly private company run by "Russia hater" and member of the (Russia is the enemy) Atlantic Council Dmitri Alperovitch, co-owner of Crowdstrike . . . in less than a day, Crowdstrike fingered Russia as the culprit and things got rolling from there. Interestingly, the Jan 6/2017 so called "ICA" Report whose analysts were "cherry-picked" by Brennan and Clapper (both out of a job with the Hillary loss to Trump) used both the iffy "Crowdstrike" analysis and the absurd "Steele Dossier" to accuse Russia and, by implication, the absurd "lumpen" Trumpers, of gaming the Election. A KEY thing to remember here, is that -- whether the information about Hillary and the DNC conspiring to betray Bernie, including Hillary's whoring for Wall Street, was "hacked" or "leaked," it was, basically already common knowledge: anyone who supported Bernie and followed events knew that the DNC was operating against his candidacy (MSNBC, CNN, etc. constantly dissed Bernie and the major corporate media downplayed his appeal and successes, etc.). And anyone with a brain also knew that Hillary was not only the ultimate corporate neoliberal globalist whore, but a full on war-mongering "Liberal Imperialist," etc. ERGO: the information that surfaced about Hillary and the DNC pubbed by Wikileaks had little impact on Hillary's chances as it was already well known by Bernie supporters (I was one) who mostly decided not to vote for Hillary in the General Election anyway. Far more "hurtful" to Hillary, of course, is when Comey came out of the woodwork a few days before the Election to raise the question of her own "email scandal" once again. There seemed to be no "reason" for this at the time, and he quickly demurred. It is possible -- tho I don't want to push this analysis too far -- that this was "payback" for Hillary not letting him investigate the supposedly "hacked" DNC server, where "he" could have made the determination to either (1) play the "hero" pretending to out the nasty Russians, or (2) the "anti-hero" by discovering "no hack" took place, letting the Russikies off the hook, etc. Who knows? Comey has proved to be a very contradictory and slippery fellow. There are many other discoveries and examples that reveal that the so called "Russian" influence on the 2016 Election was far more minimal than "advertised" by the hysterical, profit hungry media, etc. I have no further time for this inquiry at the moment . . . I have gone on far too long here as it is!
Your ramblings are on point here. No need to apologize for processing this crap out loud; I think the only place anyone is going to have the relative "luxury" of dissection is here, in internet forums and in non-establishment arenas.
Klinton was the penultimate Liberal Globalist Imperialist; and had already been decrying Russia as someone she would go to war with, as if that's what most Democrats wanted. They don't, really... but it's sickening to see people who have voted Democrat their whole lives just shrug and accept a fake narrative about Russia and eagerly call for impeachment and then open war with Russia because they can't get over their hate toward the King Doofus Trump.
O, irony.
The hippies of old, (now all grown up,) are championing total surveillance and invasive/unconstitutional government spying programs and policies on behalf of their insane rulers.
How fucked is that?
Ain't that the freakin' truth!
They believe it because they want to. They don't want to admit the guy can do anything BUT spy for Russia, operate for Russia, force Mexico to stop allowing Colombians in the tens of thousands to WALK through all of Mexico in order to rush the border...
They hate the guy so viscerally that they don't want to hear anything but that he sucks and is failing. He does suck, (my opinion,) but he's not exactly "failing".
Obama's foreign policy was far worse than "build that wall.".
Sec State Klinton was busily busking for future campaign donations to actually negotiate anything, her aides were left to carry the water for the military-industrial complex while she and Bill were engaged in speaking tours.
Rotten...
I believe John Huber is from Utah. John Durham is our USA here in CT.