Keep reading Andrew McCarthy
Another highly recommended article by Andrew C. McCarthy. Here are a couple of excerpts:
Mueller’s allegations will never be tested in court. That makes his indictment more a political statement than a charging instrument…
Obviously, if there were strong evidence that Americans had aided and abetted our foreign adversaries in their hostile acts, it would be essential to prosecute them. My objection has been that a special counsel was assigned despite the absence of strong evidence that crimes were committed by Trump-campaign figures…
There are reasons besides ineffectiveness to be concerned about turning this diplomatic dispute into a criminal-justice issue.
This is a dangerous game to play…
Do we really want to signal that we see such agitation-by-information as an indictable crime, in response to which the affected government should issue arrest warrants that will inevitably make it risky for Americans to travel outside the U.S.?
Remember, we are talking here about a case in which Russia’s campaign, despite its energy and funding, was a drop in the ocean of American campaign spending and messaging. It barely registered. It had no impact. And, again, the indictment that has been filed is a gesture that will result in no prosecutions. Is it really worth opening this can of worms?…
In reality, what happened here could not be more patent: The Kremlin hoped to sow discord in our society and thus paralyze our government’s capacity to pursue American interests. The Russian strategy was to stir up the resentments of sizable losing factions. It is not that Putin wanted Trump to win; it is that Putin figured Trump was going to lose…The palpable goal was to promote dysfunction…
That should be the upshot of coverage of the indictment. Instead, it’s the usual cherry-picking to bolster our partisan arguments. For example, in its aforementioned report, the New York Times rejects out of hand the president’s matter-of-fact observation that because Russia’s “anti-U.S. campaign” started long before Trump announced his candidacy, the indictment cuts against the narrative of Trump”“Russia collusion. The Times counters: “Mr. Trump’s statement ignored the government’s conclusion that, by 2016, the Russians were ”˜supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump’ and disparaging Hillary Clinton, his opponent.” The Gray Lady is then off to the races, framing Mueller’s indictment as confirming “a startling example ”” unprecedented in its scope and audacity ”” of a foreign government working to help elect an American president.”
And so it goes.
We don’t have collusion. We have division. And we have an adversary that thrives on our division.
Absolutely.
And Trump, of all people (or someone Tweeting for him) says as much:
If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing their asses off in Moscow. Get smart America!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 18, 2018
I agree that they are almost certainly laughing their asses off. I might add that they are also probably high-fiving each other and swilling down multiple toasts of vodka. It was a very small investment with a very large return.
I had made a draft for my own post fisking the Times’ partisan and distorting coverage of the Rosenstein announcement, but I tired of writing the same old same old and never published it. McCarthy does it more succinctly than I, and he understands the law and the politics better than just about anyone imaginable.
Information fission. Russians initiated a global (including Russia, America) propaganda campaign with a million dollar investment, then Mexico (e.g. NYT), globalists (e.g. WaPo), invest billions more to force catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Any honest person has to admit that any Russia/Trump collusion accusation is pure BS at this point.
On the other hand, a media collusion continues along. Today an article appeared at Politico called ‘Confessions of a Russiagate Skeptic’ or something that reads almost like an Onion parody article. It’s filled with enough virtue signaling, yeah buts and laugh out loud lines to make it worth reading alone. One of the last paragraphs actually claims that the Mueller team doesn’t leak. Seriously.
But then a couple of other journalists responded to this by saying ‘oh yeah lots of journalists agree with this’ even though that NEVER finds it’s way into their stories.
Sounds like collusion to me.
The Russians and the USSR before them have been doing “stuff” (disinformation) like this for most of a century. The biggest line item in the KGB was doing exactly this around the world. An interview with a KGB defector whose job was to implement “disinformation” explains what it has been all about. Worth reading if you want to know why Bernie got so many votes when socialism has failed from Argentina to Zimbabwe. And murdered some 200 million along the way.
https://youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4
The Dems can’t think up anything better than trying to smear Trump.
It makes me quite hopeful. It was the ploy they tried to use last time, and it failed. And I don’t think it will do them one iota of good in the midterms.
Let them keep digging, I say. I mean, imagine the alternative. If we deny them their right to be delusional about Trump, they’ll probably go off and invent a new gender or something.
Griffin Says:
February 19th, 2018 at 8:10 pm
Any honest person has to admit that any Russia/Trump collusion accusation is pure BS at this point.
* * *
Your Politico story was a hoot – but the author made a lot of legitimate points I’ve seen from McCarthy and others.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/18/confessions-of-a-russiagate-skeptic-217024
I was reading an article today agitating for President Trump to just pardon everybody already, but I think he would be better served to let Mueller keep demonstrating that there is no there there.
And the possible retraction of Flynn’s plea deal is very promising.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/michael-flynns-plea-reversal-uncover-federal-corruption/
AesopFan,
My problem with that Politico article is more the fact that the guy can’t just play it straight he has to evade and justify and signal throughout. This is a prototype article for every author that has anything remotely non apocalyptic to say about Trump.
Has there been a story written about Trump that doesn’t refer to his tweets or the like which in reality have zero to do with anything policy related but instead is mostly just media narrative.
So even if he has some valid points I can’t take him seriously.
One can see where this is going, can’t one? You are missing the actual target here, I think. Sure, the indictment is a joke, but watch what happens starting this Summer in the midterms- Republicans trying to run social media advertising will be accused by multiple organizations of being Russian stooges, and the social media companies will then take down the advertising until the buyers can prove their credentials. Republicans will try to reply by doing the same thing to Democrats, but we already know how the social media companies will handle those complaints, don’t we?
Andy was just on Fox. Mueller is preparing to give his report to the House Dems for impeachment. Pearl Harbor Nadler will lead the proceedings as chair of the Judiciary Committee.
If meddling in another nation’s elections is Evil and Indictable, doesn’t Obama have something to answer for in re: the Israeli elections?
Surellin:
Sure. Israel can indict him. It will be about as effective as the indictment of the 13 Russians.
This is dangerous territory and I see no sign that Democrats are willing to back off. Jill Abramson has a long piece in The New Yorker dredging up old Clarance Thomas accusations.
The war on Trump will continue until one of two things happens. The Dems get slapped down in an election; or he decides the hell with it and quits to let Pence fight the war.
The third possibility is real civil war.
it is not surprising that someone named Mé¼ller would employ gestapo tactics. threatening to bankrupt someone and prosecute his son on a non mirandized interview that the interviewers felt was truthful. I wonder how many relatives Herr Mé¼ller has who were guilty of turning people into soap?
Griffin Says:
February 19th, 2018 at 11:24 pm
AesopFan,
…
So even if he has some valid points I can’t take him seriously.
* * *
What you say is true, but it’s reassuring to see there are some potential cracks in the wall.
Or, maybe, take him literally but not seriously. 😉
Yancey Ward Says:
February 20th, 2018 at 1:05 am
* *
Good points. The Dems are not averse to playing the long game, which the GOP is so bad at.
I wish there were a “tag” here for the category “predictions to watch” so we could check back later and see how right you were (not IF, in this case, I fear).
neo-neocon Says:
February 20th, 2018 at 11:48 am
Surellin:
Sure. Israel can indict him. It will be about as effective as the indictment of the 13 Russians.
* * *
Depends on the definition of “effective” – since everyone agrees that the Russians will never stand trial in America.
See Yancey’s speculation on “priming the pump” for the election campaign.
However, if the Israelis really don’t like what someone is doing, they have ways of taking care of the problem.
Dyer raises some points I haven’t seen elsewhere (and some that I have):
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/02/16/mueller-convened-grand-jury-indicts-13-russians-election-interference-wire-fraud/
“Set aside the ominous implications for basically everything people expect to be able to choose for themselves on social media, such as whether an American who uses a fake name on Twitter has to be shut down (even prosecuted in the foreign country) if he wants to retweet a disparaging meme about, say, Angela Merkel, or Nicolas Maduro. The possibility of America setting the wrong example in this regard is not to be shrugged off. [that’s basically McCarthy’s point also]
…
There is also the whole question of the court recognizing fraud behind assumed identities on the Internet, if there is no monetary or other material gain being sought, and if it’s not incident to commission of a separate crime. A whole lot of people assume identities on the Internet, many of them for political purposes; e.g., expressing opinions without exposing their personal information.
…
We’ll see how the prosecution itself comes out. Although these were Russians, whom we obviously don’t want trying to foment political reactions in the U.S. (at any time, including during an election year), I’m not as worried about them as I am about things like Qatar and Saudi Arabia funding propaganda in our public schools, Chinese state-directed enterprises having carte blanche to sell computer hardware to our government agencies, or Russians, Chinese, Saudis, or any other foreigners giving big chunks of cash to the spouses of American political officials, or to their non-profit foundations.
It also doesn’t worry me as much as the long-term implications of prosecuting the “election-interference fraud.” A lot of dangerous repression for Americans can ride in on the coattails of such a prosecution, if it actually comes to anything. I’m not a friend of the case that expression or support of political opinion, without public identity exposure, is a definition of “fraud,” no matter who is doing it. We’re having a hard enough time fending off dangerous threats to our political liberty, without this to muddy the waters.”
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/02/20/russian-troll-apocalypse-lets-get-grip-folks/
“…But it’s important, before moving on, to register a couple of points about the Russian activity.
Each one starts with the reality that it is a serious matter, to know that Russia is trying to stoke political divisions among Americans.
Russia has been attempting to do that for an almost-uninterrupted period of 100 years now.
That’s basically one of the important points to remember. If each new instance of it is a catastrophe on the order of the attack on Pearl Harbor, or the felling of the Twin Towers, what does that make the last one? ”
Historical examples follow.
“If it’s an apocalyptic attack on America for Russian Internet trolls to use fake identities, post political memes on Facebook, and announce rallies to see who’ll show up for them, what was it when Soviet Russian instigators infiltrated a “peace movement” in America and literally wrote policy slogans for it and organized its public demonstrations?”
“(quoting another source) One of the most popular methods of disseminating disinformation targeted legitimate news outlets. By anonymously sending forged documents–such as embassy communications or military memoranda–to credible publications, the Soviets attempted to create well-timed fake news stories that the public accepted as true. Once the stories caught on, they were reprinted extensively in Soviet-controlled papers in the hopes that the story would be picked up by more mainstream sources–and would gain credibility in the process.”
..
“Was that a protracted Pearl Harbor attack? The issue here is not whether we should be concerned about it, but what kind of concern we should have, and how we should respond.
The very last thing we should do is let the “Internet trolls” operation be invoked as a crisis that necessitates Americans giving up our own rights, liberties, and constitutional principles.
…
The important concern is that overhyping the Russian-trolls operation as a grand national crisis could be used to justify violating our constitutional rights.
We should, for example, of course have the right to express political opinions with effective anonymity – even though Russian trolls can do it too.
… Protection from retribution for political opinions often requires effective anonymity, even in a free society. The viability of intellectual freedom should not depend on the situational ability of individuals to withstand persecution, harassment, or attack.
Surveying what we’re supposed to be horrified by in the Russian-trolls narrative, I already see shaping up an attack on donor anonymity for certain kinds of non-profits. The American left’s theme that such anonymity is all about “dark money” and back-room evil will probably make major use of the Russian-trolls scare in the coming days. [h/t Yancey Ward for making a similar prediction]
Yet that type of anonymity is not an attack on “democracy”; it is the lifeblood of intellectual freedom. Russian trolls are not a national crisis that demands we give it up. The remedy for speech is not outing the donor and harassing him and his family; the remedy for speech is speech.
…
As a private company, Facebook has the right to react that way [becoming more restrictive to compensate for the trolls]. And the Facebook moves are having a negative impact as we speak on the reach of conservative voices (as are similar moves by Google and Twitter in their separate, distinctive roles).
But we are also edging perilously closer to calls for government regulation and general limitations on our use of social media for the free exchange of political ideas.
We must, therefore, keep in perspective the fact that we are just as responsible for our own thoughts, in the face of propaganda, as we were in the 1980s and the 1940s, when the Soviet Russians were using the methods of the day to “attack” us.
We should also be mindful of the example we are setting in our relations with other countries. That’s not just about setting a good example, for that matter. It’s about keeping Americans out of jail abroad.
…
The real danger here is the implication that activities Americans routinely engage in, because it is our unalienable right to do so, are existential threats to the nation. There wasn’t a single political theme posted by the Russian trolls that didn’t mirror something Americans were saying, without anyone having to incite us to say it.”
I have been saying for some time now that the Russians didn’t think Trump would win. They have been trying to, and succeeding quite well, at creating distrust and chaos within our political processes. When the Dems are willing to criminalize normal political activity, those kinds of disinformation tactics work even better. Until the two parties are able to recognize that they are both being played and unite against the Russians (and Chinese, and Cubans, and North Koreans, etc.), the chaos will continue.
J.J. Says:
February 21st, 2018 at 12:02 am
… Until the two parties are able to recognize that they are both being played and unite against the Russians (and Chinese, and Cubans, and North Koreans, etc.), the chaos will continue.
* * *
Looks like we’re going to be stuck with it forever.
Schadenfreude post:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/cnn-and-msnbc-promoted-russian-anti-trump-rally.php
If the only people duped by the Russians were the Democrats, then was the election meddled with at all?
Getting smart is going to be a little difficult for Americans, since even the President of the USA didn’t manage to listen to any advice on purging DC of Demoncrats…
The very last thing we should do is let the “Internet trolls” operation be invoked as a crisis that necessitates Americans giving up our own rights, liberties, and constitutional principles.
If Americans are smarter than the DS, then the Deep State wouldn’t be annihilating Americans or the Leftist alliance.
The Left is very good at not letting a crisis go to waste. The DS is even better at it, since they create the crisis ahead of time.
Jon Jewett Says:
February 19th, 2018 at 9:38 pm
By all means, watch Yuri Bezmenov’s disinformation series on youtube. It is quite enlightening and was part of what motivated me to take the Leftist alliance seriously as a cabal, an organization, a hierarchy, rather than the SJW chickens running with their heads cut off appearance given to the masses.
I cannot believe those dirty Russians doing something so outrageous as setting up fake Facebook accounts and using them to seduce and entrap Americans.
Thank goodness we are better than that ..
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27370/report-new-york-attorney-generals-office-teams-hank-berrien
” Unlike Trump, he said that the indictment “underscores why we need to follow the facts and work to protect the integrity of future elections. ” Trump, in past fits of rage, has considered seriously, and loudly, the possibility of firing Mueller and Rosenstein. Stephen Sestanovich, a foreign-policy official and Russian expert in both the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, told me that until now he had been “unconvinced that Putin ordered all of this. ” He was struck by the presence in the indictment of Yevgeny Prigozhin, a wealthy citizen of St. Petersburg, who served nine years in prison for robbery, opened up a sausage stand, expanded to restaurants, and eventually grew close to one of his patrons–so much so that he is known locally as “Putin’s cook. ”Prigozhin, the indictment reads, controls the Internet Research Agency, which was the source of many of the scabrous and undermining posts aimed at the Clinton campaign. The Times reported that Facebook discovered that the I.