Glen Greenwald: Dems Are Panicking Because Barr Will Now Investigate Real Conspiracy

[AnonymityX1000]

Russiagate is about conspiring with a foreign power to win the election. The fact that there wasn't absolute proof of exchange of information doesn't mean that this shouldn't have been looked into regardless of how big an obstacle the burden of proof would be. The president of the United States benefited from Russian interference to get his seat and members of his administration DID have a meeting that was planned as an exchange of information. Of COURSE you investigate that sort of thing.

And that's not to say that the media and many establishment Dems didn't hyper focus on this one situation while ignoring a myriad of other problems with the party. It absolutely has been used as a shield to ignored fixing certain flaws. But that's not an excuse to ignore what could be a very serious crime happening from the highest office in the land. That's not how it works. If the president is suspected of conspiracy, you investigate that ish. Dem, Republican, whatever. The mistake, wasn't the investigation and it wasn't a hoax; but the Dems absolutely did magnify it to cover themselves. I think both are worth acknowledging.

So the Fusion GPS investigation about to go down is cool to? Knowing people on your side did that and not to mention all the meddling and regime change we as a country do abroad maybe they should have taken the L and moved on. Dems win presidential elections when turn out is high right? Do you think throwing our entire electoral process into question is going to help or hurt turnout going forward? Something so low % in baring results and high % in hurting voter turnout maybe isn't a smart thing to do strategically. Case of Dems wanting moral high ground when they really don't have it anyway instead of wanting positive results for the party/country.
But let's say they did this to root out criminal activity fine, but once the investigation started there was nothing to talk about. Just wait until the report comes out. But they didn't do that and now that it is over and Pelosi said she's not interested in impeachment it's over, stop and move on. It didn't work, but now they are threatening Barr and Mueller. When an investigation is never ending, it starts to look like a witch hunt aka a huge gift to Trump. It is getting to the point they are seriously putting 2020 in jeopardy for any Dem no matter who wins the primary.

 

[Starman]

The president of the United States benefited from Russian interference

Let's test this one. As I understand it, "The Russians" are said to have "interfered" in our election in 3 ways.

1. Facebook ads.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russian-facebook-ads-divide-americans_n_5af46067e4b0859d11d121f4

House analysts noted the ads fit within a well-defined set of categories, all of which touch on the most divisive political topics of our time. The posts played both sides of the debate on subjects like immigration, gun control, political candidates and veteran affairs.

The ads would also simultaneously bolster certain communities’ online presence on one hand, while encouraging detractors to attack that same community on the other. They targeted divisions along racial and religious lines, in addition to LGBTQ issues.

If the ads play both sides of hot button issue, how can they be said to benefit Trump? Especially exclusively? Consider this...

What we found in Facebook ads by Russians accused of election meddling

• Only about 100 of the ads overtly mentioned support for Donald Trump or opposition to Hillary Clinton. A few dozen referenced questions about the U.S. election process and voting integrity, while a handful mentioned other candidates like Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush.

Keep in mind, that 100 is out of over 3,000 ads total.

2. Hacking emails

The government doesn't stand by any of this claim.

"DISCLAIMER: This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction"

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

 We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data

Whatever "high confidence" means, it doesn't mean the government says it's true... From the bottom of page 13 "High confidence in a judgement does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong."


I read an article from the NYT, I believe, and of course I can't find it now, but it had a line in there that said identifying a hacker is more of an art than a science. The above quotes seem to suggest the same thing. Often there is no proof and a lot of guess work.

So Russia may not even have hacked the DNC. And since the DNC didn't turn over their servers, that could not have helped identify the culprits.

If Russia didn't hack the DNC, they didn't give the emails to Wiki leaks and cannot be said to help Trump in that way either.

3. Disseminating documents directly

I know of only one example of "Russians" injecting information into the campaign directly. Not the Trump Tower meeting, as far as I know, no Russians gave information to the Trump campaign at that meeting- but the Steel dossier. The Steel dossier the NYT now says contains "Russian disinformation"

Another possibility — one that Mr. Steele has not ruled out — could be Russian disinformation. That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign (), Russian spymasters hedged their bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump’s presidency as well. Oleg D. Kalugin, a former K.G.B. general who now lives outside Washington, saw that as plausible. “Russia has huge experience in spreading false information,” he said...Last year, in a deposition in a lawsuit filed against Buzzfeed, Mr. Steele emphasized that his reports consisted of unverified intelligence. Asked whether he took into account that some claims might be Russian fabrications, he replied, “Yes.”

Mueller Report Likely to Renew Scrutiny of Steele Dossier

Even if you think what the NYT says is true (and you shouldn't) here, Russians are working to benefit both Trump and Clinton. AG Barr all but confirmed that.

Cornyn to Barr: How Do We Know That The Steele Dossier Was Not A Russian Disinformation Campaign?

CORNYN:...Can you state with confidence that the Russian--that the Steele dossier was not part of the Russian disinformation campaign?

BARR: No, I can't state that with confidence and that is one of the areas that I am reviewing. I am concerned about it and--and I don't think it is entirely speculative.

So there's another example of Russians harming Trump's chances, and helping Hilary's. And remember she indirectly paid for the dossier.

It's possible I'm missing something, but as it stands now, I'm not convinced Russia was working to help Trump.

 

[storyteller]

So the Fusion GPS investigation about to go down is cool to? Knowing people on your side did that and not to mention all the meddling and regime change we as a country do abroad maybe they should have taken the L and moved on.
Dems win presidential elections when turn out is high right? Do you think throwing our entire electoral process into question is going to help or hurt turnout going forward? Something so low % in baring results and high % in hurting voter turnout maybe isn't a smart thing to do strategically. Case of Dems wanting moral high ground when they really don't have it anyway instead of wanting positive results for the party/country.

If your stance is to ignore the rule of law for anyone for strategic reasons, Idgaf about strategy. Setting precedents for behavior like this being completely ignored is more problematic to me than worrying about whether or not voters will be discouraged. If there's ample evidence to support an investigation, then investigate and let the chips fall where they may.

But let's say they did this to root out criminal activity fine, but once the investigation started there was nothing to talk about. Just wait until the report comes out. But they didn't do that and now that it is over and Pelosi said she's not interested in impeachment it's over, stop and move on. It didn't work, but now they are threatening Barr and Mueller. When an investigation is never ending, it starts to look like a witch hunt aka a huge gift to Trump. It is getting to the point they are seriously putting 2020 in jeopardy for any Dem no matter who wins the primary.

Yeah, I agree. The drip feed of leaks actually served to take away from the impact of the report imho, but it helped establishment Dems shift focus away from a lot of other issues. That's my point in that second paragraph; we can acknowledge the Dems shytty misuse of the investigation to cover their own mistakes while being real about the evidence that did and does exist. In terms of this whole mess winning 2020 for Trump, I'm a lot more concerned about voter suppression doing that.

 

[Oville]

There are many progressives who have been warning about the danger of Democrats and mainstream media pushing the whole Russiagate conspiracy (Jimmy Dore, Aaron Mate, Jamarl Thomas). Nothing Glen said was wrong. Pitting two nuclear countries against each other because you don't like the president is dangerous and was a huge blunder. Not only is it dangerous from a military perspective but it ultimately plays into the hand of Trump. Now Trump can easily portray himself (and rightfully so) as a victim of a witch hunt. This will only embolden the radical elements of his support base and make the country that much more divided and volatile. Its just bad strategy at the end of the day.

There are very real and detrimental facets of Trumps presidency that could have been critiqued these past two years.
Such as his denial of climate change, deregulating wall street, being a puppet for the Saudis and Israel, corruption, healthcare, tax cuts to the wealthy etc. I could go and on. All of these things are exceedingly more important and none of them were used as weapon by corporate democrats. And the true reason for all of this is because their policies really aren't much different than this current far right administration.

Because those are policy matters and can be part of the debate during sn election. However, he committed things that msy be regarded as unconstitutional and unethical in his position. The fact that Russia is a nuclear power doesnt mean you can just let the fact thst they built up an apparstus to mess with your election. Glenn frames this issue like a lame politicam sttategy by the dems when in fact this is something that shouldnt be political at all.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

If your stance is to ignore the rule of law for anyone for strategic reasons, Idgaf about strategy. Setting precedents for behavior like this being completely ignored is more problematic to me than worrying about whether or not voters will be discouraged. If there's ample evidence to support an investigation, then investigate and let the chips fall where they may.



Yeah, I agree. The drip feed of leaks actually served to take away from the impact of the report imho, but it helped establishment Dems shift focus away from a lot of other issues. That's my point in that second paragraph; we can acknowledge the Dems shytty misuse of the investigation to cover their own mistakes while being real about the evidence that did and does exist. In terms of this whole mess winning 2020 for Trump, I'm a lot more concerned about voter suppression doing that.

Don't we ignore rule of law like all the time? It's illegal to have military intervention without Congressional approval. Presidents do it all the time on both sides of the aisle. Isn't it illegal to violate another country's borders? We let the military/presidents do that whenever we want. Maybe the reasons are different but yeah we do let the rule of law slide all the time.

 

[Oville]

I'm saying Mueller is theorizing not you.
And all he is saying there was anticipation of a crime not that one actually happened.
If my friend's girl cheated on him, and he texts me he is going to kill her and we have a long back and forth about it and it ends with him saying he is driving over her house with a gun. What if he then drives there thinks better of it and goes home without doing anything. Was there a crime? You can't infer what you want from communications. You have to use the facts on the ground.

The fact that the report shows that for all intents and purposes the president of the country was receptive to aiding and abetting a foreign power is a significant issue regardless of whether it raises to the point of a crime. If its not indictable its at least impeachable.

 

[David_TheMan]

LOL if what trump did is impeachable, every president who took money from AIPAC and every presidential candidate who meets and takes money with AIPAC should be jailed and candidates barred from public office.

If we hold the russia bullshyt consistantly lets get Trump out of office and all the Israeli puppets too.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

The fact that the report shows that for all intents and purposes the president of the country was receptive to aiding and abetting a foreign power is a significant issue regardless of whether it raises to the point of a crime. If its not indictable its at least impeachable.

So Pelosi is fukking up not going for impeachment? Or is that smart since the Senate is majority Republican so it's not likely to reach that threshold and create further optics this is a witch hunt?

 

[Oville]

So Pelosi is fukking up not going for impeachment? Or is that smart since the Senate is majority Republican so it's not likely to reach that threshold and create further optics this is a witch hunt?

Honestly, I think its disgusting that she's not going for impeachment. They're not going for it for purely political reasons and it further demonstrates that rules don't apply to the powerful. Ironically, that may not be a smart political strategy either cuz people all sides of the political spectrum are fed up about consequences not being placed on the powerful.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Honestly, I think its disgusting that she's not going for impeachment. They're not going for it for purely political reasons and it further demonstrates that rules don't apply to the powerful. Ironically, that may not be a smart political strategy either cuz people all sides of the political spectrum are fed up about consequences not being placed on the powerful.

So she should try to do it even though it is unlikely to be successful but would expose those not willing to punish someone powerful?

 

[Oville]

So she should try to do it even though it is unlikely to be successful but would expose those not willing to punish someone powerful?

Yes, I am of the mindset that it should take place. Even if people find the attempts to conspire as a grey issue, the attempts at obstruction shouldn't be

 

[storyteller]

Don't we ignore rule of law like all the time? It's illegal to have military intervention without Congressional approval. Presidents do it all the time on both sides of the aisle. Isn't it illegal to violate another country's borders? We let the military/presidents do that whenever we want. Maybe the reasons are different but yeah we do let the rule of law slide all the time.

Yes, I'm opposed to all of that as well. The fact that president's have been pushing the limits of their executive powers is exactly why we need to set standards of accountability. You don't combat that by making excuses for even more egregious behavior.

 

[stro]

He was saying "No Collusion", because all the lack of evidence pointed to NO COLLUSION.

Now they investigated and found nothing, let's get on to some other investigations.

Because...the Mueller investigation explicitly wasn't looking for or trying to charge collusion. "Collusion" isn't a crime and therefore wouldn't be used in a legal setting to begin with, which is why Team Trump banged on that drum so hard: No matter what the report found, it wouldn't find collusion. The point of the investigation was mostly about finding obstruction and other actual crimes, of which it found many, and many more that Mueller decided the legal standard didn't meet because of information that was deleted or hidden in a way that suggests obstruction but due to the possible obstruction can't be proven as such, which is why he punted to the legislative branch which has a lower standard for charging and guilt than what Mueller would have.

That Bill Barr as the highest ranking attorney in the nation uses "no collusion" talking points shows that he's just another Trump crony.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[88m3]

look at all the shyt posters