Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Because all the evidence we have seen yet doesn't amount to a hill of beans?

I think I agree with most of the particulars in this blog post:

Russiagate

Some outtakes(lots of links at source):


  • First and foremost, the public technical evidence that Russia hacked the DNC is both completely insufficient to declare who used a simple spear-phishing attack to trick John Podesta into entering his own password and based entirely on technical data from a single firm (Crowdstrike) the DNC itself hired with the intention of blaming the hack on Russia; to this date the FBI has never been allowed to examine the "hacked" servers or made any additional efforts whatsoever to verify Crowdstrike's accusations against Russia. Although many people who are completely ignorant of even very recent history seem content to accept the declaration of American Intelligence Agencies that Russia definitely hacked the DNC for "reasons" - I myself am not comfortable taking the CIA's word for it when surely if they had more evidence of Russian hacking, they would have produced it by now (a full year into the investigation.)

  • The simple truth is that it doesn't matter who hacked the DNC or if there was even a hack at all because the recovered Clinton campaign emails and the damning revelations found inside them were all 100% real and unaltered in any meaningful way. You cannot "rig" an election by telling people the truth and exposing the uncomfortable facts about powerful people is called journalism, not "spreading propaganda." Furthermore, the argument that such activity would represent "an act of war" or a "digital 9/11" is quite simply spurious at best when you consider the known fact that American intelligence continues to engage in cyber intrusion activities and online opinion manipulation on social media in precisely the same manner we're accusing Russia of doing today.
  • by generic on Sun Dec 24th, 2017 at 11:42:28 PM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Except if any foreign government hacked info from an American poolitical campaign and used that information to help the other side, that is a major crime in itself.

    IIRC foreigners aren't even allowed to donate to a poltical campaign. Committing crimes to aid and abet one side is hardly likely to be something that would be tolerated in a more temperate season. And if collusion could be proved, well then we're almost into rico territory.

    So, no it ain't journalism. As if most of the US media have any clue what that even means

    keep to the Fen Causeway

    by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Dec 25th, 2017 at 08:42:24 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Why should anyone care about the particulars of the American legal system? If a Voice of America journalist social engineers a procurement bill for air defence missiles for the Ukrainian separatists, signed by Vladimir personally, out of some Russian functionaries who wouldn't call it journalism?
    by generic on Mon Dec 25th, 2017 at 11:34:15 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Yes, the rule of law is such a minor inconvenience. Just like taxes, we are moving into an era where it only applies to the little people.

    Which may not be an entirely stable situation

    keep to the Fen Causeway

    by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Dec 25th, 2017 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    [ Parent ]
    How does the rule of law even enter here? We are not talking about the exercise of state power and I at least am not giving advice to US prosecutors.

    What I don't see is why I should be outraged about any of this. If a leaker carries out the politically embarrassing office mail, the information is of public interest and it gets published in major newspapers I would have no objection at all. Even if you replace the first step with Vladimir Putin in a hoodie, there is little material change in the outcome. And US political culture already was considering journalism, as in publishing what the powerful don't want published, to be close to treason. Jumping on the McCarthy express doesn't seem helpful.

    by generic on Thu Dec 28th, 2017 at 12:24:15 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Criminal conduct is explicitly identified by U.S. federal and state code, chapter [18] and verse [1961], with plenty exceptions and exemptions and mitigating circumstances &tc ("loopholes"). Any conduct that is NOT indentifed by U.S. federal and state code ("on the books") as criminal is lawful. It is lawful even if civi litigation finds tortious harms, or liability, subject to penalty or compensatory damages ("cost of doing business"). This vaccuum of commonsense is where all unscrupulous people ply their trade "with impugnity".

    Mueller's public brief is programmed to fail.

    "Meddling and interference" in "democracy" or "election process" is no where codified by U.S. Code or states' statutes. But it sure is  "click bait" --the transaction  that produces revenue for the person supplying publishing services to an advertiser ("content creator"). Gah bless Free Trade.

    "Collusion" and "conspiracy" are not crimes, because people collude and conspire every. fucking. day. They collude or conspire to realized some group, enterprise, corporate, company, organization purpose. Gah bless Trade Secrets.

    Collusion or conspiracy to commit a crime [LISTED] is defined. But meddle and interfere in democracy and election process is undefined by USC. Since Mueller has been unable as yet to pin even one of the [LIST] to any foreign or domestic, would you have him invent criminal conduct?

    Or would you prefer he discover evidence of criminal conduct?


    Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

    by Cat on Thu Dec 28th, 2017 at 12:06:49 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Rod Rosenstein's Letter Appointing Mueller Special Counsel May 2017
    "links and/or coordination"

    Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
    by Cat on Thu Dec 28th, 2017 at 02:06:14 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Did Watergate have any effect on the outcome of the election?
    by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Mon Dec 25th, 2017 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    [ Parent ]
    The largest Democratic Congress since FDR, I think, in '74 and Ford lost to Carter in '76. But billionaire money and owned media overwhelmed that tide in '80.

    "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
    by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Dec 25th, 2017 at 04:38:45 PM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Democrats held 2/3rds of the House and 3/5ths of the Senate and President Ford was a moderate. But the committee chairs, esp. in the Senate, remained in the hands of conservative Southern Democrats.


    "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
    by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Dec 25th, 2017 at 04:48:36 PM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Republicans warn Trump of 2018 bloodbath - Politico
    The backstage talks provide a window into how those closest to Trump are bracing for a possible bloodbath in the 2018 midterms, which could obliterate the Republican congressional majorities and paralyze the president's legislative agenda. The potential for a Democratic wave has grown after Republican losses this fall in Virginia, New Jersey and Alabama, and as the president's approval ratings have plummeted to the 30s.
    by Bernard on Mon Dec 25th, 2017 at 07:50:16 PM EST
    [ Parent ]
    I just hope enough are progressives on economics.

    "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
    by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Dec 26th, 2017 at 06:44:32 AM EST
    [ Parent ]
    Watergate convinced the Ueberklass it needed to implement the Powell Memo ASAP, and everything since has flowed from that.
    by rifek on Wed Dec 27th, 2017 at 11:27:57 PM EST
    [ Parent ]

    Display:

    Top Diaries

    Occasional Series