SocraticGadfly: Rich (Seth)
Showing posts with label Rich (Seth). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rich (Seth). Show all posts

December 17, 2025

Julian Assange makes desperate bid for 15 more minutes of Internet fame

Via the Dissident, who — we'll just see where this goes on any personal comments by him — Julian Assange has launched a criminal complaint against the Nobel Foundation over its awarding the Nobel Peace Prize, or Nobel Piss Prize as I sometimes call it, to Venezuela's María Cortina Machado.

A week ago, the Dissident had a good roundup on her history. For the unknowing, this willing pawn of US Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ was already plotting against her own government when Hugo Chavez was still alive. 

So, she's not deserving.

And? 

As I said at the Dissident's piece, Hank the Knife/Le Duc Tho weren't deserving. Nor was Dear Leader, honored just because he wasn't Shrub Bush.

But, deserving or not? Assange claims it's criminal:

Nobel’s will of 27 November 1895 is binding under Swedish law. It clearly states that each year the peace prize monies shall go to the person who during the proceeding year “...conferred the greatest benefit to humankind...” by doing “...the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” 
Any disbursement contradicting this mandate constitutes misappropriation from the endowment. The pending transfer of 11 million SEK ($1.18 million USD) and existing 10 December 2025 handover of the prize medal to María Corina Machado, in violation of this disbursement restriction, appear to be acts of serious criminality.

OK, there's our bid for a Warholian 15 minutes of fame. 

As for the past history, beyond the above? A list of all winners from 1979 on (choosing that year on purpose) includes, beyond the above:

  • Mother Teresa, exploiter of the poor she claimed to represent, per Hitchens' demolition
  • Elie Wiesel, Zionist flak 
  • Aung Sang Suu Kyi, an eventual sellout to the Burmese military junta 
  • Muhammad Yunus/Grameen Bank, a big stretch to call this about peace, and microlending has been shown to be somewhat overrated.
  • The European Union, with its becoming more and more the political arm of NATO.

A few detailed thoughts in a few cases?

  • Kissinger? Used his prize to lever US adventuresomeness in the rest of Nixon's, and Ford's, presidencies and beyond.
  • Dear Leader? Used his to drone-kill at least one American citizen and otherwise expand warmongering, in concert with NATO in Libya (see EU above)
  • Wiesel? See Oct. 7, 2023 and events both before and after. 

So, yeah, this is posturing.

Beyond that, while not knowing the details of Norway's version of German, non-Napoleonic, European law, this has zero chance as a criminal complaint. So, why didn't he sue instead? Maybe he knows the criminal complaint is such a sure-fired loser he can spin conspiratorial claims, whereas a civil complaint would also be a sure-fired loser but not a slam dunk. Norway's civil law appears to be very much precedent-based, with little in the way of statutory rules.

As for the reality of Assange?

I've got the whole deal here, in one of my top 10 posts ever, about the reality of who Guccifer 2.0 / Forensicator was (definitely NOT Seth Rich), the shady dealings in trying to hide his identity, Patrick Lawrence's pseudo-journalism on the last piece he ever wrote (or has been allowed to write) at The Nation, how both RNC and DNC were hacked, Duncan Campbell's yeoman work and more. 

I also remind you that Assange is not a journalist. That's despite what Chris Hedges and Ken Klippenstein, among others, say. More here.

As for the Dissident's piece? He doesn't have as much a following as Seymour Hersh, but oy, did Sy bring the nutters out

On the deep, dark issue of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory? Even if Yevgeny Prigozhin's Internet Research Agency started it, Assange goosed it. And, his toady, Craig Murray, also lied. That said, when presented with evidence he couldn't deny, Assange said, in essence "THOSE emails were hacked but that's not my source."

So, to all the people talking about Assange's integrity? Fuck off.

Assange's object and focus has always been himself first. Daniel Domscheit-Berg attested this nearly 15 years ago. Wikileaks is probably running low on money and he needs some. Yet Assange give a formal apology to Seth Rich's family and I will sing a different tune.

Assange did good in the past. Chelsea Manning can attest. That said, his formal suborning of Manning's actions is part of why he's not a journalist.

But, he never supported Wikileaks-type projects against less than fully democratic countries, ie, Russia and China. In fact, in the former case, he deliberately turned down options to help. And, this is why I’m a skeptical leftist, for the umpeenth time, and stand outside of political — and other — twosiderism. On this issue, I can call out Western imperialism and its Russian and Chinese forms as well.

April 16, 2024

Julian Assange, the US government and "weasel words"

Per The Guardian's report on the assurances the US government has offered Julian Assange, they could be, in actuality, "weasel words," per his wife Stella. That is, they could be promises broken after he is extradited.

But, I'm going to unpack them at face value. Here we go:
On Tuesday, details emerged of the assurances given by the US, which stated that he “will not be prejudiced by reason of his nationality with respect to which defences he may seek to raise at trial and at sentencing”. 
It referred specifically to him having “the ability to raise and seek to rely upon” the first amendment but also said that its applicability “is exclusively within the purview of the US courts”. The assurances also state: “A sentence of death will neither be sought nor imposed on Assange.”
First, no death penalty is good. That said, Assange, who probably hates on Joe Biden about as much as Bill and Hillary Clinton, should find someone besides Russia's SVR, or Internet Research Agency, to do some pro-Biden fake email leaks. Because, despite Assange's gullibility in 2016, Donald Trump views a relationship with him as purely transactional, and Donald Trump is clearly pro-federal death penalty.

Second, I believe the government's stance on the First Amendment is correct. That's because I don't believe Assange is a journalist. I didn't even before the 2016 leaks. I especially didn't after he goosed the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.

As for her claim that the prosecution says Assange has no First Amendment rights because he's not a US citizen? He generally will have (dependent on exact judicial ruling) access to other clauses of the First Amendment. They also do NOT offer blanket protections against behavior that would be criminal without invoking the First Amendent, and let us remember that Assange would be facing criminal not civil trial. Let us also remember that neither the UK nor Assange's native Australia have anything that close to the First Amendment. And, the Russia to which Assange lured Edward Snowden (he did and shut up) has no such protection at all. And, at Counterpunch on this issue, Binoy Kampmark does some overreading.

Were I the philosopher-president of the USofA, any plea deal with Assange would require him to admit responsibility for his role in the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Period and end of story. Should he make a non-weasel words confession, and should he, especially per what I said about Snowden above, admit to any direct contacts with the SVR, the FSB et al, I would give Assange the equivalent of deferred adjudication — for 10 years, to keep a Sword of Damocles over his head. That would satisfy Aussie calls for non-prosecution, satisfy the spirit of "he's suffered enough," but also satisfy the spirit of what he's actually done. Speaking of the first clause in the previous sentence, Australia is a member of the "Five Eyes," but I suspect US security agencies have shared little information with it.

March 20, 2024

Nope, Julian Assange still isn't a journo

If Andrew Cockburn is going to do a thin update of his Harper’s piece from a year ago that I refuted at that time, then I shall do the same, as we await the likely inevitable result of his Belmarsh hearing.

First, the Committee to Protect Journalists is also right on this issue.

Second, that does not mean that Assange is not entitled to the same protections while incarcerated as any other John/Jane Doe. Of course he is and the CPJ also said that.

Third? The nut graf? Since I wrote before, my thoughts on whether or not Assange is a Russian asset? And, I’m a non-duopoly lefist, not a BlueAnon Democrat screecher, mind you.

I’ll give you 50-50 on that. I had already leaded kind of that way a year ago. I didn’t tie in my 2021 piece on Putin banning Proekt, and no word on that from Assange.

I add this tweet:

In 2012, Assange refused to publish a leak on a 2 billion euro transaction between Assad and a Russian government bank. In 2016, Assange refused to publish a Russian intelligence dump on Russian military and intelligence involvement in Ukraine. We all know who he works for.

More on that here, noting that Assange didn’t always appear to be Putin’s lapdog. (OTOH, he reportedly sought a Russian visa already in 2010.)

That said, Cockburn is not alone in his wrongness. As noted below, tangential to the Seth Rich conspiracy, the likes of Ray McGovern and Patrick Lawrence (don’t even get me started on him) are wrong. John Pilger was wrong, laughably so. So were others that might be mentioned here.

OK, let’s dive in.

Update, May 23, 2019: Julian Assange has now received a superseding indictment on Espionage Act charges


Quick thoughts a year ago, still held?
1. Whether this puts a crimp or not on the freedom of the press portion of the First Amendment (and courts have ruled the Espionage Act does not violate the free speech portion of the amendment) is a secondary issue.
2. To me, the main issue is whether or not the Espionage Act is legally applicable to foreign nationals. I argue it is not.
3. Other than the "yes, but ..." below, I still haven't — and can't — come down squarely on "yes, he's a journalist."

3A. Strike that. As of 2022, I come down squarely on "he's not a journalist." I updated a post from 2019 to offer more thought on that before then writing what I linked above.. As we see how odious the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was, along with the increasing likelihood that Assange at some point knew the source of his information, plus the fact that he told Snowden to go to Russia not Latin America? Maybe he was a journalist long ago, but that long ago is long gone.
More thoughts at bottom.

Now, the original post:

I promised in my initial post about Assange's arrest that I would address this further. And here we are.

A simple answer is two words: "Yes, but ..."

And, that's with everything implied by folk psychology tropes by adding "but" after the "yes."

So, I'm going to break that out more, with a nutgraf of sorts kept down at the bottom.

So, here we go ...

Journalists don't just seek out, gather and collate information.

They analyze it.

Then they write about it.

Assange did little of the analysis or writing work even with the initial information he got from Chelsea Manning, when he had much greater degrees of freedom of space, time, and working space than he does now.

Writers, and even more, editors, make judgment calls with information they receive. Some of those judgments are whether the material is true or not. Others are whether it would be harmful to release some of it.

I think Glenn Greenwald, for whatever reasons, has gone overboard on what Edward Snowden information he and Laura Poitras have chosen not to release, but, they have made a judgment call.

Assange? In the past, at a point after his working space freedom started to close up but was not that tight, made decisions to dump information without redactions, and in the case of some Afghanistan material, was rightly criticized for an endangerment factor.

That's just one issue. As Wikipedia's page on Wikileaks notes, it's released Social Security numbers, credit card numbers and more. With basically no effort at redaction.

I also said in my initial piece on the actual "yes," that to the degree it's true, he's actually like a Beltway steno in reverse in some way. He's an opiner, not a news writer, to the degree we consider him a journalist, by what he gathers, and what he solicits. I've already, along with others, criticized him for not seeking and encouraging leakers inside places like Russia and China. I've criticized more his response to that initial criticism. Today, Russia has a home-grown version of something like Wikileaks — no thanks to Assange.

And, when Assange, or Wikileaks as its mouthpiece, has made editorial judgment calls, sometimes they've been off the wall. Like criticizing the leak of the Panama Papers.

Here? I suspect 190-proof red-eyed jealousy at work — as one motive.

Another? I'm still not ready to call him a Russian agent, but the Panama Papers' attacks on Russian businessmen (Mafiyya, let's be honest) is another reason Assange attacked their release, claiming the U.S. government was behind this, which is nonsense. Ken Silverstein had done some work on Mossack Fonseca even before the main Panama Papers leak and I KNOW he's not a government agent. (Actually, him routing Snowden to Russia? Maybe he IS a Russian agent. UPDATE, March 14, 2022. Dick Tofel, why he's not a journalist, references just that, among other things.)

And? Vlad the Impaler Putin himself cited Wikileaks in fighting to defend Russkies with likely government ties. Again, Assange may not be a Russian agent, but he has certainly left himself open to accusations of such.

Worsening the case against Assange here is that, in hosting his own show on RT, per Wiki's page about RT (and yes, selective Wiki-haters when your ox is gored, there's a link at the site), he admitted he RT would be less comfortable with him if he had encouraged anti-Russia leaks or written anti-Russia items.

(Greenwald and others like him — and the likes of Mark Ames and Yasha Levine may partially fall here, though I've not seen anything explicit so far — fall into their own version, that of certain leftists and certain semi-libertarians on US foreign policy — of #twosiderism in lumping legitimate and illegitimate attacks against RT and Sputnik together.)

Jealousy is not a one-off issue with Assange, either. Edward Snowden was among those who criticized Assange for not sufficiently curating and editing leaked materials, a charge he repeats in his memoir as reason why he didn't work through Wikileaks, and Assange claimed Snowden was pandering to Hillary Clinton.

Good journalists also have good ethics. In promoting the totally base and vile Seth Rich conspiracy theory, primarily to try to cover up that the initial DNC emails came from a Russian hack, Assange has shown his lack of ethics and his willingness to outrightly lie. (Given that nobody — not Assange, Patrick Lawrence, Adam Carter or anybody else that I know of — has tried to explicitly claim that the spearphishing attack that got the later emails was not Russian-done, why the lie was engaged in was perplexing, too, and remains so.)

And, related, Silverstein thinks Snowden, if not originally a Russian agent, got compromised at some point, so who knows?

Wikipedia also raises the issue of whether or not Assange is anti-Semitic. First, to the Assange nutbar fanbois, I know well myself the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, and the use of the latter as a weapon against people calling out the former. As with Russian agent questions, at a minimum, I think Assange has left himself open to anti-Semitism claims.

And, per Andrew Stewart at Washington Babylon, Assange is definitely anti-feminist, which ties back to his troubles in Sweden (which have now been opened legally AGAIN!) He's also, weirdly but openly, anti-atheist, at least on Tweets that Stew collated. And his call for more births in Europe make him come off a bit like an Anders Breivik, or other white nationalists in Europe and America.

Bolded that for Cockburn, who talks about people shedding tears for Navalny. I know his past, too, myself; I’m not shedding.

Per the Intercept in 2016, right after the DNC hack, how Assange chose to frame the hack, as well as claiming they're absolutely not from Russia, which he actually couldn't know if Wikileaks does actually have as robust of source anonymity as Assange claims, means that if he IS doing journalism, it's not news reporting — it's as much or more op-ed only as the Gnu Media, Beltway stenos division.

Assange is also an idiot at times. In the link above, I mentioned his previous issues with lack of password protection. His belief that Trump would give him a pardon or something for all the DNC leaks further shows this idiocy. By the way, to riff on Janice Joplin, schadenfreude is just another word for someone else who arrogantly still has plenty to lose.

Journalism is also a collaborate effort in some way. Even at a small community newspaper, the managing editor will bounce ideas off other staff. A publisher will be a check, if the editor doesn't voluntarily include the publisher in his or her advisors.

Assange was, at the time, managing editor and publisher all in one, with a sycophantic, perhaps even cowering, editorial board, even if Kristinn Hrafnsson is listed as editor in chief.

Whether it is, if not autism, being "on the spectrum" somewhere, as the man hired to ghost Assange's autobiography details in writing about a six-month nightmare, or simple narcissism, or both, Assange simply doesn't play ball except on his terms.

Journalism is an art or a craft, not a science. It will always have a demarcation problem, per philosopher friend Massimo Pigliucci and his writings (in the sciences) on demarcation issues.

==

Sadly, the whataboutism and twosiderism on this issue, beyond the question of "is Assange a journalist" is ramping up.

Should Mueller be faulted if his Internet 12 indictments are based only, as far as computer evidence, on Crowdstrike mirrors of DNC servers? I'd argue yes.

But, that doesn't mean that the case is flimsy, let alone that by default, Seth Rich (or even a non-Seth Richer at DNC) stole the initial set of emails.

Update, Nov. 22, 2019, related to that and Crowdstrike:

Well put on Crowdstrike, & a  I didn't think of before that at least partially refudiates #TrumpTrain riders, #SethRich #conspiracytheory mongers like Ty Clevenger, and their fellow travelers in the VIPS world over #Forensicator. There was/is no single server to "hand over." https://t.co/pOZOehl5ZL

— reallyDonaldTrump  🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) November 22, 2019

Back to the original.

I've covered ALL of this in depth before. I'm sure Consortium News and others are still going to peddle the Patrick Lawrence BS, since Ray McGovern is a chief peddler. AND, the two-siders should stop trying to claim that a burden of proof exists with the VIPS minority plus Ritter et al. Beyond that, I specifically commented on this related to Assange's arrest six weeks ago.

AND, if you're going to criticize Mueller, you need to criticize this Forensicator in spades. Or, Adam Carter, I should say. If you want Mueller to interview someone, toady Craig Murray, it's "interesting" how you want him to interview Bill Binney from VIPS, but not Thomas Drake, the man who said Binney and McGovern found their own "Curveball." Murray claimed early on, with comments here here, that he not only explicitly knew it was not Russians, but without naming Rich, talk about a DNC "insider."

And, sorry ... going down conspiracy theory lane in general?

Some mutes or blocks might be coming up. It's who I am.

The likes of Cockburn on stuff like this is why I continue to call myself a skeptical leftist.

October 06, 2023

Looking closely at Sy Hersh's nuttery on Osama bin Laden.

And, nuttery it is, not only as a conspiracy theory, but Hersh's apparent first ax-grinding against the Navy Seals, as I noted when first discussing his Nord Stream nuttery, or even more, the second piece about his ax-grinding. This is a prequel to another piece about Sy coming up. The original wound up being too long, and so is split.

In reality, the Seals that Sy seems to hate are likely saboteurs without all the cloak-and-dagger overhead that Hersh painted. I mean, look at how smoothly, overall, the bin Laden raid went. So smoothly that Sy had to paint a line of BS on that one, too. And that, in turn, ties back to his ax-grinding.

Let's look at that more.

To be blunt, it's conspiracy-theory mongering. Hersh claims:
The White House’s story might have been written by Lewis Carroll: would bin Laden, target of a massive international manhunt, really decide that a resort town forty miles from Islamabad would be the safest place to live and command al-Qaida’s operations? He was hiding in the open.
That this mission, as portrayed, didn't actually happen. At the same time, he claims it did happen as portrayed, only that bin Laden was an Inter-Services Intelligence prisoner.

Hersh never explains how bin Laden was arrested, in this case. Nor why the ISI arrested him, yet put him in Abbotabad. He does offer a "why" on his arrest, but is it plausible? The Taliban existed before bin Laden and al Qaeda relocated to Afghanistan. If push came to shove, they might "walk" on him. From there, like the typical conspiracy, Hersh cuts himself while trying to shave with something other than Ockham's Razor.

The biggest ridiculousness is that this much manpower would have been wasted on a mission if it were just kill-and-destroy. I mean, this IS Dear Leader, the man who had already drone-killed an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki.

Once should also note that this piece, just like Sy's Nord Stream piece, relies not on anonymous sourceS but source, singular. Per the link at top, yeah, Sy's track record isn't good in a lot of things. And, in things like the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, he's been willing enough, even gullible enough, to stick himself on a limb that can easily be sawn off.

And, specific to this story, with lone-source reliance, we also seem to have something else similar to Nord Stream. "Dirty" intelligence, with enough chaff in it to leave Hersh open for undermining once he publishes.

March 08, 2023

Seymour Hersh has brought nutters out of the woodwork

A few observations of mine, based on various posts by others, and comments at said posts, in reaction to his Nord Stream fan fiction. Much of what follows has been edited and expanded from my original take on Sy's piece.

Much of this comes from Mark Ames' Radio War Nerd interview with Sy. And, that's where I'll start.

• Ames himself? I have for some time said that I don't consider him a Russian agent. He's criticized Russian war operations in Ukraine enough, and Moscow leadership at least somewhat. But, his own contrarianism or whatever on Skripal? Him and Yasha Levine laughing over US names for Russian SVR operations like "Cozy Bear" and "Fancy Bear," even when the operations themselves were real (even if low budget, etc)? "Useful idiots" isn't the right word for people like him, and "fellow travelers" isn't, either. Maybe we need to use a phrase like "sympathetic flacks." Or, "slippery," as one of his commenters called Hersh.

But, whatever the phrase, I'm tightening up again on the amount of slack I'll give him. Another way of putting it? He's not Matt Taibbi. But, he is, as I've said before, in the same general vein as an Aaron Maté: reflexive anti-Americanism on foreign policy that itself becomes twosidered.

Ames' reaction on Twitter to the recent DOE statement about a possible COVID lab leak at Wuhan Institute of Virology underscores that. I quote-tweeted him "back" noting that actual leftists like Sam Husseini also believe in the reality of a lab leak; ain't just mainstream media.

On Hersh, he probably won't interview St. Clair, as I suggested on RWN, in response to another comment of mine:

Seriously, this is what the whole "omg Hersh was a Seth Rich sucker" thing is about? Some guy talking to Hersh, claiming he heard a mountain where hersh said it was a molehill, and that's supposed to affect Hersh's credibility as a journalist? Bad faith twaddle. If it's not clear already, Hersh talking is a lot wilder and pinball-minded than Hersh in print, which is what he should be judged by. Here is what St Clair's article hyperlinks to as proof Hersh was some kind of Seth Rich truther: https://www.cpr.org/2017/08/01/behind-fox-news-baseless-seth-rich-story-the-untold-tale/

OK, Mark. And, re Radio War Nerd invites? You follow John Helmer on Twitter; if you don't want St. Clair, have HELMER on. (That's not happening either, I know; "follow" not only doesn't mean "agree on most" but also doesn't mean "agree on some.") That's the John Helmer who, from the independent left, called out Hersh early on.

And, OK to commenters who are going to try to spin this, and are going to cite the likes of Gateway Pundit in doing so. I also told him that he was welcome to interview St. Clair himself and that I had already said that in another comment.

But, while we're here, let's remember that the RNC as well as DNC was hacked and that Congresscritter Mike McCaul, not just the likes of Comey, said so, before the RNC told him to shut up. Let's also note that McCaul, pre-Congress, was counterterrorism prosecutor for the DOJ. I'll confess to not thinking about that enough at the time.

Ames wasn't the only person cutting blank checks to Seth Rich, or close to it, by any means, though.

• Let's take this from Magic Mikey:

Craig Murray sacrificed his career to expose his own governments involvement in the use of torture during the war on terror. He's nobodies flunky.

Sorry, or "sorry." First, Murray did indeed do that, before he hooked up with early-era Assange, but he's continued to defend Assange lock, stock and barrel since Julian went far beyond being a journalist (if he ever was) to being Putin's flunky. Second, lots of people destroy their careers for bad reasons. Note: I've engaged with Murray on Twitter before; he has in the past "tailed off" when I brought up Seth Rich. Per that link, no, I don't think Assange is a journo. Murray has also indicated, indirectly, that Assange knew the provenance of the DNC emails by the end of 2016. I do think, per what I said above about Ames, that Murray IS a "useful idiot" even if not getting paid to be one.

• And, another "fun" comment at RWN, this from Stephen Jones:

I can't speak to anyone else's thoughts on Seth Rich, but I'm a total "sucker" for the idea that there's something fishy about an unsolved murder of a DNC staffer in the midst of high-powered deception about who stole what from servers. A situation so frought that the most illustrious media, academic, and government institutions and celebrities created a Russiagate fraud and crisis of confidence that has led Americans to crippling pathological paranoia... and the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.

I gave him my blog post with the RNC/McCaul info, noting the RNC being hacked was a big counterargument to this. 

• Mohamed Dalmer claims "data discrepancies." I told him I'd been down the Forensicator/Patrick Lawrence road and spoken with Duncan Campbell. As in this long piece also refudiating the Bill Binneys that Craig Murray said I should talk to, but talking to the Thomas Drakes.

• But, it wasn't just Radio War Nerd that I read. The first hot take I saw on Hersh was from a (Danish? Danish-American?) Nat-Sec Nutsack or fellow traveler, Oliver Alexander. Helmer, three weeks later, calls him "The Danish offshoot of Bellingcat." And, rightly so. His claim that Russian subs "did it" is even stupider (and, more contradicted by facts) than Hersh's piece.

I haven't even mentioned Taibbi, who I haven't seen peddling Sy on Twitter, or Aaron Maté, whom I have, and who I reminded yesterday was hauled around by the nose a couple of years ago in Syria by some of Bashar al-Assad's minders, as reported by Ken Silverstein and others. As for Maté's claims that US journos were afraid to ask German Chancellor Olaf Scholz anything when he was with Warmonger Joe in DC, there's no NEED to ask him anything. Helmer has the goods on that, too.

• If I thought Oliver Alexander was a Nat-Sec Nutsack, one of the commenters on his site, Andrew Benjamin, is so in spades on his own Substack, where he dives into an empty pool to smear Hersh. As I told him:

You've got your whole body coated in Nat-Sec Nutsacks oil. Talk about a hit job piece. Calling Hersh a "Marxist" is the piece of cake. You're in-credible, whatever you may say in follow-up. Your claim that "Views Askew is the IDEOLOGY-FREE ZONE" is laughable bullshit. No, it's not even laughable. It's just bullshit.

What else is there to say?

That Benjamin is an even bigger mouth-breather. He called me this:

Cute for a Tuckerite cultist to call serious people with serious creds, or even myself who is on the scene, "laughable BS." Hey Socrates, have you ever been in the area? Have you photographed the Russian navy preparing to invade Ukraine as I have? I don't think anyone who refers to conspiracist, anantisemitic and pro-Jihadist websites such as Mondoweiss has any business lecturing people who live in the real world. I assume you also don't like Jews much, do you? On your front page. Mondoweiss My diagnosis is PTSD: Fida Jiryis and our ongoing Nakba

My brief response included asking him if Phil Weiss is a self-hating Jew, the obligatory "anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism," and accusing him back of Bullshit self-Derangement Syndrome. BDS!  

And, with his reply, linking to a piece that talks in depth about the self-hating Jew and with the phrase "Jew Flu," just wow.

Beyond that? I find this person scary in some ways, and definitely "rabid."

• I got four comments at RWN from one dude, nameless with a cat icon. He said I was full of shit, asked why anybody would want St. Clair's opinion while also saying Counterpunch has gone downhill and most its content is "syndicated" elsewhere, and called Craig Murray an alcoholic.

My thoughts? In answering him, I said on full of shit, maybe he was infamous Catturd. On St. Clair, I noted that he, re Assange and the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, had three-plus years ago talked about "the more credulous precincts of the left." Beyond that? On Craig Murray, per Murray's own website, he's probably right — Murray sounds like an alcoholic in huge denial. Given his history of depression, suicidal thoughts and physical health ailments, most if not all of which probably tie to the sauce, he needs to get his ass out of denial. Per his Wikipedia page, which I had never checked before, he was reportedly drunk on the job while British ambassador to Uzbekistan, which, unlike the diplomatic issues, he apparently has never contested. He also is officially a Seth Rich conspiracy theorist. And, Counterpunch has long co-published stuff from other sites; it's the way smaller opinion journals of the left — and also often the right — work.

He later apologized for being intemperate, and I've apologized for calling him Catturd in response, because the real Catturd would never apologize. I also said that I don't totally agree with everything at Counterpunch.

• Another commenter at RWN, a Joshua Davies suggested that Ty Clevenger had some new bombshell re Seth Rich, posting a Twitter link. I sent back my, not one (his "origin story"), not two, but three most relevant blog posts about Ty, noting his broader dishonesty, not just on this. Seriously? Believing Clevenger and suggesting him to me is a grade-A way to lose.

• On Twitter, not muted as not a #NAFO, but muted conversation about these issues with a guy named Naphta. British non-skeptical leftists seen as thick as American ones. He's interesting otherwise, looking at his feed, so not muted period, just the conversation.

• That said, people like him are why I'm a skeptical leftist, as noted in the header. And, if you're skeptical of "them" but not "us," you're not really skeptical, and you're a contributor to twosiderism and tribalism. Per the words of St. Clair a few years ago, in re the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, things like this make me glad I am NOT part of "the more credulous precincts of the left."

• Speaking of, and re Sy himself, is he actually engaged in deliberate disinformation, ie, pro-Russia angles? Beyond Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ making that claim, via Dick Tofel, so does Natalia Antelava of "Disinfo Matters," a vertical of Coda Story. That said, she's arguably guilty of disinfo herself, as I told her on Twitter. Saying the story was "spread by ... American leftists" and linking to Max Blumenthal without a "some" in front of "American leftists"? And, given that Coda Story gets money from the National Endowment for Democracy? AND, that she founded it? Homie don't play that game. Actually, she's at least a "fellow traveler" herself.

• Finally, there's Hersh himself. He went on to double down, among other things with a new piece called "The Crap on the Wall." How much crap, whose crap, and how widely apportioned it should be, probably are in the eye of the beholder, or believer, and their degree of tribalism, or non-tribalism.

Sy is also doubling down on the dinero, as that's a subscriber-only piece, and everything past his journalistic scene-setting intro, per John Helmer, is behind the paywall screen. All subsequent articles are also paywalled, and hit the screen no more than halfway in. On one, he cites a letter from Lincoln scholar David Herbert Donald that he says is relevant to his latest, facts-light or facts tangential pieces. No doubt sort-of editor Matt Taibbi is walking him through the details of Substack.

I don't think Sy is a "useful idiot." But I do think, like Ames et al, that he's fallen into a reflexive anti-Americanism on foreign policy that makes him a tribal twosider. 

Let's not forget that Hersh DID take a bite of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory apple, then, when Butowsky tried to run with that, pushed back with something that wasn't much more than the "just asking questions" level of claim. If that. Let's look back at the original conversation.

• Speaking of Hersh's subscribers, if there's any "Crap on the Wall," per his latest piece as of Feb. 19, that would really be many of his subscribers.

I have no doubt more are continuing to come out, and if even 12-15 percent of them are all that are paid subscribers, offering him a potential $100,000 a year in income already. And, it appears that he's writing just to this end. Per John Helmer, his later pieces all have the factoids all lined up on each one, then just when you're about at the alleged meat of a piece, the paywall hits.

November 30, 2022

No, Bernie Bros didn't start the Seth Rich conspiracy theory

Sorry, or rather, "sorry," to Jeff St. Clair of Counterpunch, but contra your Tweet

That might be simplistic, and Andy Kroll doesn't seem to say that in his new book. Rather, per Axios, he makes it clear that it was launched by Assange.

What was the moment the Seth Rich story began to spin out of control? 
I would pinpoint that moment to August of 2016. I would place it very specifically on an interview that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gave to a Dutch radio station.

I do recall that some Berners had some part in trying to amplify it. Launch might be too harsh, whether Kroll covers that elsewhere in the book or not. (I do intend to get it, whenever my library should have it.)

Note the "some" is in bold, and they're probably no more than 10 percent. And, that's "amplify," not "start." Sorry, Jeff, but in this case you sound like you're amplifying Hillbots' conspiracy theory about all Berners. And, on its effects in the 2016 general election? Contra Hillbots like Amanda Marcotte at Slate, Hillary's PUMAs in 2008 defected from Obama in bigger numbers than Berners did from Clinton in 2016. And, even Marcotte admits that other people than Berners were playing it up at the start.

As I told Jeff, I had done a Google Trends long ago, as noted in my Assange and Guccifer 2.0 longform, and the "takeoff" of the conspiracy theory indeed corresponds with Assange offering a reward for Seth Rich's murderers and framing it in a way to imply the DNC did it.

As far as "starting" it? Michael Isikoff reminds me and St. Clair both that Russia's SVR (Internet Research Agency) "started it." 

This, then, per my "longform" link, leads back to the issue of whether or not Assange was lying back in 2016 when he said the leaked emails didn't come from Russia. I'm at least 90 percent certain he was lying and quite willingly, and thus, contra my original tweet which St. Clair was quote-tweeting, itself a quote tweet of an Assangista, Julian Assange is far less than 100 percent honest.

The book does sound interesting, I will say. At the same time, does it have THAT MUCH new compared to Isikoff's 2019 longform? We'll see.

Former prosecutor Deborah Sines, per Isikoff, confirms my other hunch, that the murder was in all likelihood drug-related. Now, the question there, is, was this totally mistaken identity or similar, or is there something else about Seth Rich that we may never know?

October 30, 2021

Matt Taibbi further deconstructed

Ross Barkan's piece on what the fuck is wrong with Taibbi isn't bad. It's got a Doug Henwood quote about him going off the rails. And, I didn't know that he and Mark Ames had a 20-year non-speaking feud going. (Ames refused to talk to Barkan, but Yasha Levine gave him an earful.)

It's not bad, but it's incomplete, as I told Barkan, with cc-s to Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald (because) on Twitter.

Let's just work from the Tweets I sent and build on that.

First, the Glennwald tie:

Then, my follow on that, based on my blogging:

So, Matt saw something in Glenn. Whether it was more money, more fame of being a contrarian with a schtick, about 50-50, or what, who knows.

Then, Taibbi's lies by omission about cancel culture:

Followed by what that means:

This core issue of many famous public quasi-intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals (you, Bari Weiss) who claims to oppose cancel culture while instead promoting it is some of the rankest of hypocrisies.

Taibbi does have some real issues about identity politics. But, left-liberals and leftists like the quoted Henwood, and myself, do as well. Didn't make us nutters. Doesn't make us agree with nutters. That led to this tweet:

And, I concluded with other things Barkan overlooked:

That one, by the way, applies to the aforementioned Ames and Levine, as well, and also to Aaron Maté and other allegedly outside the box stenos, the Russian hacking and related issues part of it. And Glennwald, while I'm here. The Tulsi part was seen through by Ames and Levine, but Glennwald fellated her and Maté flirted with that.

Update: Taibbi is now dropping "poor me" bullshit on Twitter.

My response?

Was that "public housing" or "campus housing"? Matt's dad (dunno about Mom) was either a junior or senior at Rutgers when he was born. And, about everybody in college is broke.

But, was Mike Taibbi that broke? He grew up in an upper middle class suburb of New York City, Malverne, Long Island. Read the City-Data profile. After Rutgers, Mike went to U of Chicago Law. Not Harvard, but a cut above average for sure. Then, within a couple of years of that, his TV gigs were in Boston and NYC, not the hinterlands. Luck?  Connections?

And, that said? Taibbi jumped the shark LONG before Barkan's piece, as I note.

September 26, 2021

CIA wanted to kidnap or assassinate Assange

Michael Isikoff and two co-authors have some breaking news at Yahoo News.

Under Mike Pompeo's reign, the Trump-era CIA was so infuriated at the Vault 7 leaks by Wikileaks (remember, they didn't directly steal this one, nor was it Russkies) that they talked about either kidnapping Julian Assange from the Ecuadorean embassy in London or else assassinating him.

Meanwhile, they gave high credibility to claims that Ecuador's then-president was looking at giving Assange official diplomatic status and sending him to its ambassadorial mission in Moscow. (That presumes that Assange was willing, or at a minimum would accept this if given a TINA by Ecuador, though a former Ecuadorean first minister in London says that when he learned about it, he refused to accept it.)

So, the CIA discussed either getting in a gun battle with Russian operatives on London streets trying to get to the airport, or else shooting the tires out of any Russian plane believed to be carrying him. At least with the latter, the British agreed to assist. But, they also said "No" on any kidnapping attempt.

Post-Edward Snowden leaks, the CIA pushed Dear Leader Obama to not only officially designate that Assange was not a journalist but rather an "information broker," but to do the same for the likes of Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. The Obama Admin said no, thank doorknob.

I totally agree re actual journalists. However, Snowden has himself said he's not a journalist, and I certainly don't think Assange is. My most recent in-depth thoughts on that here.

And, Assange probably had some degree of sympathy within the Obama Admin until he started publishing the Russia-filched emails of the DNC in 2016. I know he started losing sympathy from me when he became the first real pusher of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. My thoughts on that here. My thoughts on some alleged leftist media outlets gaslighting readers over that is here with Consortium News (one of several), and here with "Cozy Bear" gaslighting by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, and here, my big picture piece refuting the Forensicator bullshit first peddled by Patrick Lawence at The Nation. (The Nation eventually had Nathanial Freitas write a new piece to clean up for Lawrence's BS, but has never, AFAIK, ever officially apologized for running it in the first place. Anyway, today's story shows that Consortium, especially, and others who also attacked Isikoff's reporting over Seth Rich and over the fact that Russia's Internet Research Agency stole those DNC emails, owe us all an apology. But, based on past history, they won't. It's part of bigger lying not just by CN, but bigger stooges like Ty Clevenger.)

DOJ rightly thought Pompeo was an unhinged nutter on this and wanted something better.

This led to the sealed charges against Assange, which became unsealed after the change in Ecuadorean governments led to the removal of his asylum, followed by his British arrest. My thoughts on that here.

Anyway, there's lots more. Isikoff talks more about the CIA's self-perceived, self-defined powers under "CIA common law" and other things. Go read it.

August 16, 2021

John Pilger myth-spins the web of Sweet Julian Assange

John Pilger thinks he knows Julian Assange "has committed no crime" and "is a gentle, intellectual visionary driven by his belief that a democracy is not a democracy unless it is transparent, and accountable." I know no such thing on the first, but rather suspect that's not true. Assange is not a traitor to the US, of course, as he's not an American citizen. But, suborning someone else to commit crime, or possibly engaging in a conspiracy, are themselves crimes. Whether they deserve conviction by a jury (or juryless judge) or not, and what sentence they deserve if the answer is "yes," is a different issue.

Gentle? Hardly. His quasi-dictatorial control of Wikileaks, as documented by Daniel Domscheit-Berg and others, says otherwise.

As for transparent? Assange has said nothing about when he likely learned that Guccifer 2.0 was actually Russia. And, he did. Bet your ass on that, his lies aside.

As for accountable? He's never apologized for being the first major fomenter of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.

As for the "one million Russian documents"? Tech Crunch rightly notes it may have been a front, given that before that, Assange brushed off criticism that he'd done nothing to help leakers in Russia, or China for that matter. Rather, Proekt, which recently got Putin's ban-hammer, worked on its own. And, in fact, Foreign Policy claims Wikileaks rejected other Russian leaks a year earlier, presumably as it would undercut the DNC hack.

At one time, Assange may have been somewhat different than what he had become by  2016. But, he was never, ever totally what Pilger claims. It was a full decade ago that Assange threatened to sue Domscheit-Berg over his book, after all. He's also kind of a grubby capitalist, something Pilger ignores.
 
I know Pilger has read or heard all the things I just said, and ditto for many other twosiderism folks in the world of Assange, like the allegedly outside the box stenos, Consortium News, etc. Some of the newer folks there, like Elizabeth Lea Vos, are likely flaks for Putin themselves, almost certainly in her case by name, but that's another story entirely. (Pilger writes regularly for CN and this piece is likely cross-posted.) Whether Pilger chooses to accept that is also a different story. But, I don't have to accept his myth-spinning.

Also, no, Hillary Clinton didn't make Assange this way.

First, we are quasi-independent actors with something kind of like free will, even in the face of button pushers.

Second, as Domscheit-Berg's book came out in 2011, some of Assange's bad behavior and bad psyche were evident before Dear Leader Obama was elected and named Clinton his Secretary of State.

May 26, 2021

Ken Silverstein takes on the ALLEGEDLY "thinking outside the box" stenos

I'm talking about the likes of Max Blumenthal (and his lapdog Mona Holland), Aaron Maté, Ben Norton, more and more Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, and their sometime fellow traveler Matt Taibbi, and more and more Glenn Greenwald.

 For these people, I even invented the label "allegedly outside the box thinkers." 

(Mona Holland is not a "name" other than the [former? still not sure on that one] lapdog of Glennwald. But, she's included for, within the last month or so, tweeting that Max is "factual." Max ain't Factual or Factor, except a factor in being lead suck-up to authoritarians of various types.

Well, Ken Silverstein, focusing on Max, has their number.

Per what Ken and I have written, he's a HUGE peddler of Xi Jinping Thought Kool-Aid, for example. He has been or is on the control of Russian or Chinese state media. And, hey Max and Mona, this is NOT like the New York Times. It's like Max would be working for Voice of America.

Ames and Levine fooled me for a while with their "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear." But, now that we know that Guccifer 2.0 hacked both RNC and DNC, that right there has put paid to their bullshit, as I noted with an extensive overhaul of my original Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear thoughts.. So has the involvement of Disobedient Petulant Media, the batshit crazy of Bill Binney and Ray McGovern and more.

Related? I've directly Tweeted Maté more than once to ask if he's a Seth Rich conspiracy theorist. Crickets. Same applies to most the others above. I think Holland is grounded enough to not be that crazy, but when you play with fire and become fellow travelers with arsonists, you leave yourself open to suspicions.

And, yes, "fellow travelers" is the right word. In all its Tankie glory.

(Update: Ken has a new piece on Aaron, who now looks like as big a dipshit as Max.)

Look, it's easy to say Xi Jinping is committing cultural genocide AND that the US and much of its media is hypocritical for piling on. If you can't walk and chew gum, or walk and fart at the same time (that's what LBJ actualy said about Jerry Ford) on this, take your twosiderism out the door.

That also goes for Green Party nutter fellow travelers like Margaret Flowers and the late Kevin Zeese, along with 2020 prez nominee Howie Hawkins. Flowers said we should treat Xi on the Uyghurs "in Chinese terms," which almost got her a Godwin's Law rebuke on Twitter, and will if I ever see her doing that again.

It goes in spades for Tulsi Gabbard, who, per Jeff Morley, is surely not a Russian agent, but who knows about whether she's one for the government of India?

Back to Ken's piece, as not to hijack it too much.

Besides Max taking Russian and Chinese teevee money, Aaron is reportedly wining and dining on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's dime. Per Ken, some of the stenos, including Max and Ben (Rania Khalek also gets thrown under the bus) have wined and dined on Venezuelan kleptocrat Nicholás Maduro's dime. (I'm less sanguine about Hugo Chavez in some ways than Ken is, but yes, he was more the real deal than Maduro.)

Per Ken's piece, specifically, Tweets by Grayzone-mocking Crayzone, Max's sense of humor is appalling. Disgusting. Glenn Greenwald level or worse of disgusting.

Third, on Syria, as far as something more nuanced? "Fisking" and all, I learned far more about Syria from the late Robert Fisk than from any of these folks.

Fourth, in general, Max in particular, as Ken notes, has even less in the way of journalistic ethics than Glennwald, it's arguable. And, that's pretty low.

Fifth, at a link within his piece, to a 2019 piece by Stew, I think, Ken notes the real problem with Maxie: Like his dad, he's an unrepentant Hillbot. That's why he hates Nader. Why he semi-hated Obama. Why he hated Sanders. And, why he's a neoliberal leech. 

Sixth, since originally posting this, I've called out Aaron and some of his sycophants for not answering Josh Frank's tweet and included the Seth Rich conspiracy theorist wondering. Moar crickets! (Aaron does claim that only Cenk and other Young Turks are attacking him, and he did so, per Twitter, with another appearance on the show of KNOWN Seth Rich conspiracy theorist Jimmy Dore. This was the same Dore to whom alleged lefty Maté blubbered last fall that "we" just "have to elect Status Quo Joe" or words to that effect.)

February 17, 2021

Hot take on uncritical leftists supporting Jimmy Dore Thought

As regular readers here know, I've done several blogposts about uncritical, nonskeptical leftists peddling, and drinking themselves, the Kool-Aid of Xi Jinping Thought.

Now it's time to turn domestically and look at Jimmy Dore Thought for the first time.

I just do not get why Greens like David Bruce Collins think Jimmy Dore is a good dood, ignoring that his political framing on Force the Vote was likely wrong, and all of Dore's other issues.

Oh, yes, all those "other issues."

Per Rational Wiki, with which I do NOT fully agree on what is conspiracy and what is conspiracy theory, Dore is:
A JFK conspiracy theorist;
A 9/11 falser;
A Seth Rich conspiracy theorist.

This ignores his bromance with/whitewashing of the Boogaloo Bois, which DBC also ignores. That said, elsewhere, DBC ignores Caity Johnstone's past support of red-brown alliances in trumpeting her calls for "unity" on the left.

Sidebar: Dunno about Dore, but Greenwald is also a sexist, which DBC may not know. Glennwald has sexism going back 25 years, and yes, gays, despite bigotry against them, can be sexist — in fact, some of the most vociferous sexism I've run across has been from gays.)

Given that many people, like Bob Fisk at Douma, have pointed out realities otherwise, Rational Wiki is full of shit in saying that claims that Assad didn't do every chemical weapons attack attributed to him is a conspiracy theory. And, sometimes Rational Wiki is not just wrong, it's full of shit, and there's no other way to put it. I've done an editing note, similar to ones at Wikipedia, and we'll see if it sticks. (That said, this and related issues, such as whether OPCW has internally lied about some of this or not, is in many ways a cesspool.)

And, if people claim I'm hypocritical? No, based on how I know how to use evidence and critical thinking, I know the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. So, both conspiracy theorists and Rational Wiki can go get stupid.

January 18, 2021

Pardon Snowden and/or Assange? ONLY with preconditions

This leftist homey doesn't write blank checks, and this tweet to Greenwald should say it all:

First, Snowden. 

The questions Glenn failed to ask (and Snowden has failed to answer despite being tagged by me on Twitter many times), are from my review of his book.

Short version here. Go to the review for more in-depth versions, with explainers and my tentative answers.

  • Question 1: Why didn’t Snowden approach him? 
  • Question 2. Snowden talks about cooling his heels in Hong Kong while getting people to bite. What journalists DID he talk to besides Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Barton Gellman and Ewan MacAskill? 
  • Question 3: What is he not revealing about his time in Hong Kong before meeting G & P? 
  • Question 4 goes straight to Snowden: If he did get other serious nibbles, did they not pan out? Did he cut them out? Why?
  • Question 5, or really, a series of related questions: What does he think about Poitras and Greenwald (actually Greenwald, basically) ultimately NOT publishing most of what he gave them? (This is also a question for Glennwald, of course, who lied his ass off when surrendering these jewels to Omidyar.) 
  • Question 6: Given Omidyar’s own access to the national security state, did Snowden not think of this possibility in advance? 
  • Question 7: Did he not, at this point, rethink going to Wikileaks? 
  • Question 8: Had he thought about Greenwald stovepipeing this information? 
  • Question 9: Did he really not think that the almighty US Government would find him sooner rather than later? 
  • Question 10: How does he reconcile him allegedly having a plan to go to Ecuador with him stating a dozen pages earlier that he chose NOT to originally go to Latin America? (At that point, I think we’ve caught Snowden in an outright lie.) 
  • Question 11: How do you explain apparent discrepancies in the passport and the time frame? 
  • Question 12: Why does he never mention direct Russian involvement? 
  • Question 13: This is unrelated to the spying, but if you were such an idealist, and already at least a bit informed at age 20, why didn’t you oppose the Iraq War?

These were no-brainer questions to me.

As for Assange? Beyond him being the first person to goose the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, his toady-flunky Craig Murray has indicated he knows that Assange knew something about their provenance before the end of 2016, it seems. And, he's never apologized for goosing the conspiracy theory.

Greenwald has been tagged about every time I've tagged Snowden, and has also chosen not to respond.

Beyond wanting to know what Snowden and Assange know, I want to remove the potential veil of martyrdom from them. 

Without that, no pardons.

Fox News: The Seth Rich slime "gift" that never stops giving

New York Times media columnist Ben Smith writes about how Fox got Seth Rich's parents to agree to postpone public announcement that their suit against Faux had been settled until after Nov. 3, 2020 and election day. Smith makes it clear that this was an election gift to help Trump and bells the cow of Rupert Murdoch itself.

He also reminds us that, although Julian Assange was the first gooser of the rumor, Fox was the second and far bigger.

Seth's brother, Aaron, not a party to his parents' suit, wonders why Faux can't simply apologize, especially now that the suit is settled and there's no legal liability in apologizing.

So, remember anybody who claims that Faux is normalizing a bit, versus Newsschmucks or Scrambled Onion? No, it's not. Not as long as Rupert and Lachlan are in charge.

December 30, 2020

Greg AtLast calls out BOTH Seth Rich nutters AND Trump collusion nutters

Been about a full year, I think, since Greg AtLast, the better half doppelgänger of Greg Palast, has spoken to me.

Listen to him first call out #TheResistance nutters claiming that Trump surely colluded with Russia, then call out Ty Clevenger for his part in continuing to goose the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, along with Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthal, and other "allegedly outside the box stenos" for their claims that the DNC hacks were NOT by Russia (ignoring the RNC hacks) and failure to offer an option to this being a Russian hack, giving assent by their silence to Seth Rich conspiracy theories.

Per friend Greg, none of this is to say that Trump isn't "unhinged" in his conversations with Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn. It is to say that, AFAIK (and AtLast can tell) there was no collusion. And, re the 25th Amendment, "unhinged" is not "insane" in a clinical sense.

Onward and upward, with three weeks left until Joe Biden does a more graceful management of the continuing decline of America. Given that recent events show the body of the American constitution sucks, this is what we're stuck with until we get a LEFTIST "Convention of the States." AND? It needs to be a skeptical leftist version.

December 09, 2020

Some more lies about Seth Rich from Clevenger?

Here's the link to the latest round of mixed vileness and mendacity from barratry-lawyer Ty Clevenger, legal beagle to the "stars" like Ed Butowsky, but, due to antidepressant withdrawal and lack of moral fiber, unable to keep himself and Ed from folding all their legal tents.

Per one of Jim Hoft's minions at Gateway Nutbar, and as of last night, NOWHERE other than there and other wingnut blogs (NOT "news sites") Clevenger claimed that "the attorney for the FBI" had said that they actually had Seth Rich's laptop.

See the update on the reality of the case below.

First? The FBI has one attorney? To me, that's what "the attorney" implies. No, Ty, it's represented by multo attorneys against you in all your fishing expeditions. (That was actually Gateway Nutbar's doing."

Second? NONE of the wingnut sites, in selections of the quoted email, give us a name for "the attorney." In other words, we can't look online for an actual name.

Third, per what Gateway Nutbar actually quotes?

FBI has completed the initial search identifying approximately 50 cross-reference serials, with attachments totaling over 20,000 pages, in which Seth Rich is mentioned. FBI has also located leads that indicate additional potential records that require further searching. . . . FBI is also currently working on getting the files from Seth Rich’s personal laptop into a format to be reviewed. As you can imagine, there are thousands of files of many types. The goal right now is to describe, generally, the types of files/personal information contained in this computer.

What the fuck gobbeldygook is that? (Boldface original in Gateway Pundit quote.)

And, it IS gobbledygook, probably of the deliberate gaslighting type.

Third, subpoint A: What, all these files aren't in a format already to be reviewed? They're not .eml or whatever Outlook's normal email extension is on a PC? They're not Word docs? Or JPGs? Or PNG screengrabs? 

Third, subpoint B, the biggest part of the gobbledygook? What the fuck is "cross-reference serials"? Is this the alleged "the attorney" trying to present himself, or someone he allegedly is speaking for at the FBI, as a forensic computer examination expert?

I would say this and more onsite at Gateway Nutbar, but it blocked me long ago.

That said, regular readers know that I have the good on Clevenger.

First, the degree to which he and Ed Butowsky folded their lawsuit tents within the last month (and Ty's lies about why) show his immediate past lack of credibility. (And yes, I'm already anticipating wingnuts saying the "Deep State" at the FBI admitted this only because these lawsuits were settled.)

Second, Ty lacked credibility long before this. I've written up a pretty complete list of the goods on his background here, YEARS ago.

Third, Seth Rich didn't leak anything. Per that and several other blog posts, the fact that RNC computers as well as DNC ones were hacked undercuts the Seth Rich leaker thing right there. Unfortunately, for a while, I listened too much to bullshit artists like Aaron Maté (you ARE, on this, Aaron, shut up!) who said "cloud computing" and "mirrors" etc. were no substitute for the real thing. Well, when you use cloud servers, Aaron, that IS the real thing. If you're that much of a gasligher, you too can go fuck yourself along with Clevenger. If you're that much of an idiot, again, shut up. Ditto for anybody else repeating that nonsense.

Fourth, per Stuart Blaugrund on Twitter, Michael Isikoff said 18 months ago that the FBI said it had Rich's laptop. So, nothing new, other than this possibly being Clevenger's small contribution to #StartTheSteal.

Fifth, via a link about Isikoff's story at that time?

But “Conspiracyland” quotes a source familiar with the network’s investigation saying that Fox executives grew frustrated they were unable to determine the identity of the other, and more important, source for the story: an anonymous “federal investigator” whose agency was never revealed. The Fox editors came to have doubts that the person was in fact who he claimed to be or whether the person actually existed, said the source.

Gee, sounds a lot like "an attorney," doesn't it? (My emphasis above.) And, now that I got Ty's site to load, it's even clearer that any reason we should believe him has evaporated.

Also refuting the claims it couldn't have been a botched robbery? The same story notes there had been seven armed robberies in that neighborhood in the six weeks before Rich's death.

I saw this posted, not by a wingnut, but by the owner of the MeWe group "Green Party Supporters." I was already thinking of leaving the group due to the number of Trump Trainers that had joined in the last two weeks. (It has no screening questions, and no post moderation. I'm not sure if MeWe allows either one; if it doesn't, for all its self-braggadocio, that's a big fail vs Fuckbook.)

Since then, she has responded "bullshit" to me, apparently deleted the post, and definitely is no longer owner of the group and apparently no longer even in it. Good. I wonder if the infiltration was connected to this.

As for facts on the ground here? Green types who believe this are, per Counterpunch owner Jeff St. Clair, "the more credulous precincts of the left." (Sadly, St. Clair, along with managing editor Joshua Frank, have crappy editorial control in general over free[lance] submissions that they publish, as he's let his own site fuel this bullshit.)

As for Clevenger, as I asked on Twitter, is this "just" a #StartTheSteal contribution to Trump, or are you a paid agent of the SVR? He makes no new claims, is apparently making up a person and a person's name, mentions Butowsky without mentioning all the lawsuits the pair of them have folded on (this is his first post in four months) and otherwise ignores reality.

There is a related question or two. Does Clevenger believe all the fanbois haven't read about his having to fold his tents legally? And, is this actually a justified true belief, perhaps?

==

Update: Here's the actual legal matter at hand, per Stuart Blaugrund.

The FBI is asking for a three-month delay in meeting Brian Huddleston's FOIA request, filed earlier this year.

Second, despite Clevenger's cloak-and-dagger skullduggery? The FBI's attorney of record is Andrea Hedrick Parker. That's "the attorney."

Third, Ty is so loony he thinks Fox itself is part of the conspiracy:

And why is Fox News working so hard to kill this story? I wish I could say more about Fox’s behind-the-scenes treachery — and someday hopefully I will — but rest assured that Malia Zimmerman’s May 17, 2017 story about Mr. Rich was fully vetted by senior Fox management. I repeatedly encouraged Fox’s attorneys to postpone settlement discussions with Seth Rich’s parents until I obtained the FBI records (my client, Ed Butowsky, was a co-defendant with Fox), but Fox was hellbent on settling the case in October / November. That’s around the time Rupert Murdoch publicly joined forces with Joe Biden.

That's our boy. WORSE than Joey Dauben with a law degree by now. 

(Note: This would also seem to confirm my initial impression, namely, that this was Ty's contribution to #StartTheSteal.)

Fourth? The actual case? Seems to be little more than a conspiracy theory fishing expedition. I quote from the original pleading:

Yeah, right.

All data, documents, records or communications (including texts or emails) that reflect any meetings or communications from July 10, 2016 until July 10, 2017 between former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and any and all of the following: (1) Seymour Myron "Sy" Hersh (born on or about April 8, 1937); (2) Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser; and/or (3) former Democratic National Committee Interim Chairwoman Donna Brazile.

I've already looked at Sy Hersh's involvement, along with him burning Butowsky after finding out Ed taped him. The rest of it? Looney tunes. Have no clue why DC's mayor is in there. The link is from an excellent piece by The Nation. And, yes, Caitlin Johnstone IS a nutter, but she's right that Hersh still owes us an explainer for passing on unverified shite that he'd never seen himself — and not saying it was such to Butowsky. IF Sy was trying to wheedle something out of Butowsky, it seems naive of him not to have expected Ed to have been recording him.

Dec. 17: We have another non-anonymous person from the FBI, Michael Seidel, records division section chief, explaining how FOIA work cannot generally be done remotely and that it therefore has indeed been hampered by COVID. Ty and Huddleston have likely known this all along. It's kind of like Aaron Maté and some of the other increasingly duplicitious outside the box stenos talking about Crowdstrike's failure to turn over computers when they KNEW all along that much of the information in question was cloud-based.

September 16, 2020

Time for some Twitter cleanup, maybe another timeout
as well as one from Facebook

I have taken several Facebook timeouts of one week or less. But, until earlier this summer, never took a Twitter timeout, as in, like with Facebook, doing an account snooze.

The one I did do with Twitter was more than two weeks.

Here's my take on the two.

Twitter's cesspool, proportionally, is probably worse than Facebook's. But, overall, Twitter does a better job of cleanup. That's the only social media programs I use regularly. I use MeWe semiregularly, ditched Jimmy Wales' site, tried and passed on Mastodon and occasionally used Instagram at previous work sites. I use LinkedIn regularly FOR JOB HUNTING ONLY. You're an idiot if you blog there under your real name, especially about anything not narrowly related to your career field.

That said, back to the header.

There's an old cliché that says "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Bullshit.

This is clearly an Idries Shah issue:


First, as I have said here and elsewhere, the enemy of my enemy may simply be an ally of convenience. That's another side right there.

Or, the enemy of my enemy may also be an enemy to me on other issues, or even on the issue at hand, just via a different track.

Politics (what else?) brings this issue to the fore on Twitter.

I get, in a sense ("get" but don't agree with) still butt-hurt Berners who look for takedown tools against Joe Biden. As a Green, Bernie would have been more acceptable, but I was still voting for the Green Party nominee before 2020 started. (Well, at least for eventual actual nominee Howie Hawkins, and at that time, had the door open for Dario Hunter. The other candidates already seemed off the wall, and then, this summer, true Dario revealed himself. But I digress, again.)

That said, using wingnuts who are often attacking Biden because they're Trumpers, or like nutter H.A. Goodman, Bernie → Trump guys, as part of your takedown tools? No. I'm not blocking, or even muting any of you folks, but I am unfollowing several.

Anyway, the cleanup has happened, but not for the reasons above.

Trump talked over the weekend about considering a pardon for Snowden. That then brought the Assange-stanners, especially not the halfway sane ones but, natch, the Seth Rich conspiracy theorists, to the fore. I unfollowed several people who had been following both Suzi 3D and Kim Dotcom, and then eventually kicked both of them full to the curb. On her? Yes, she's right about the "Five Eyes." So are many other people who don't lie about Seth Rich, don't stovepipe Assange, don't claim persecution and haven't "magically" ended up in Moscow. Her tale sounds less credible than it once did, which is part of why I think I had been following her.

The need for a new Facebook timeout is for other reasons. I've been reporting more and more posts there by wingnuts as fake news, and Twitter, sadly, still doesn't have a "false news" report line.

That said, I had already thought weeks ago that Twitter, even though it has the deeper cesspool, does a better job of policing.

That then became confirmed in spades with news that Facebook fired an engineer after he discovered information that wingnut activist groups were getting preferential treatment in getting false news flags removed. And, given that individual wingnuts' false news posts often involve sharing items from these orgs, I've just been playing kabuki theater. Well, no reason to do that deliberately.

Plus, while Facebook does have a "false news" report, the results of it are definitely a "nothingburger" most the time. A screen over the post that says "Facebook has found this partially false/false." No takedowns.

New Facebook, which is being forced upon us, sux donkey dongs worse than New Twitter. And, it sux in another way. It's burying the "most recent" button for chronological post feed, and instead forcing the algorithms on us. And, it says, in New Facebook help, that you can hit the "most recent" feed, but that posts will eventually revert to Hucksterman's definition of "most popular." I smell another Facebook timeout coming up.

Alternatives? Ello long ago became the British MySpace. Mastodon is clunky. I tried some other alternative to Twitter that interested me even less than Mastodon.

But, there is MeWe. Formed out of remnants of Google Plus after Google pulled the plug on it (after screwing the pooch in several ways), it's not bad. I just need to make an effort on developing some contacts there. On the other, or third, or whatever hand or side, I had a Trumper regularly trolling the Green Party group there. And on the fourth hand, friend Brett Welch said several of his groups have "dried up" recently, including some migrating (back?) to Hucksterville.