SocraticGadfly: Best proof yet there was no Trump-Putin collusion? Or not?

July 23, 2021

Best proof yet there was no Trump-Putin collusion? Or not?

I know #BlueAnon continues to claim there was, like Emptywheel (Emptyhead?) Marcy Wheeler did long ago, including narcing on a reporter and then never naming who it was, and other unethical items.

I know that there's no evidence Trump got help from Russia, though, contra the allegedly outside the box stenos  — the same old group of names, including, on various issues, Aaron Maté, Mark Ames, Yasha Levine, Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal, along with fellow travelers that at times include Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald and others who should know better, and conspiracy theorists like Jimmy Dore and his fellators (typed that all out this time so I can do a copy-paste) — there's plenty of evidence Russia meddled plenty in 2016, including but not limited to hacking BOTH the DNC and ALSO the RNC computers, creating both pro-Trump AND pro-Clinton Facebook groups, etc., and succeeding far beyond Vladimir Putin's dreams.

As for actual collusion? Yes, Trump asked Julian Assange for more DNC-hacked emails. But? We don't know if Assange at the time knew his source. And, even if he did, he surely wasn't telling Trump. So, Trump-Assange "collusion" is not Trump-Putin collusion.

As for post-election but pre-inauguration meetings? Flynn's meetings were generally legal. Besides, the country who likely got the most help? Israel, via Flynn's meetings with Turkish cutouts. Take that, Zionists within Blue MAGA, and shut up.

Besides, all along, I've said Vladimir Putin is way too smart to have hitched himself to a flighty weathervane like Donald Trump.

And, we now have proof Putin was thinking exactly that.

Business Insider reports (but SECONDHAND) that leaked Kremlin docs called Trump an "impulsive, mentally unstable and imbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex."

On the other hand? The Guardian, from whom BI is pulling (and this is why it's always important to go back to the original) claims that some of the documents claim they had the dreaded "kompromat" on Trump.

Seriously? Is the Guardian overreading into things, or is Putin that dumb, too? You can't compromise someone who has no sense of shame. And, though this was before the leaking of the "grab 'em by the pussy" old tape, Trump's semi-macking on Ivanka was old news, as were other things.

Finally, contra BlueAnon and BlueMAGA, as well as the Guardian, Trump WAS tougher on Russia in some ways, at least, than Obama.

And, Business Insider talks to better intelligence experts than the Guardian did. By the time I was done with the Guardian, I was believing what Thomas Rid and Chris Krebs told BI: Deliberate disinformation leak, or at least possibly so. Krebs even goes one more and says much of it could indeed be real, even all of it, but yet a deliberate leak.

Putin's playing chess again, knowing Trump wants to run in 2024. And, he knows that BlueAnon is still suckers for the "kompromat" angle. (That part, especially since it points to an appendix the Guardian docs mysteriously don't include, reinforces my idea that this is indeed legit but misdirection at the same time.

Or, to use another word? Catfishing. The Kremlin knew Dum Fuqs would continue to bite on kompromat. One doesn't have to be Aaron Maté pandering to semi-wingnuts at Real Clear Investigations to know that.

No comments: