Russiagate Isn’t About Trump, And It Isn’t Even Ultimately About Russia

[piezoe]

Why does this keep happening? Why does the public keep getting sold a mountain of suspicion with zero substance? Over and over and over again these “bombshell” stories come out about Trump and Russia, Russia and Trump

(The above quote is from an article by Caitlin Johnstone posted by Tsing Tao. Oddly, No source is quoted, all too typical of the poster, but at least the author is given. One assumes such a hair-brained article must be from Breitbart, Infowars, or Zero hedge or similar political site favorable to President Trump.)

Trump himself is the reason behind some of these bombshell stories? Just listen to the guy and follow his money. We have his words, and we have the words of the U.S. intelligence community, which are consistent with there being an , shall we say, unusually close relationship between an American President and Russians. And we also have the bizarre occurrence of foreign agents acting on behalf of Russians, or those with close ties to Russians, playing an active role in Trumps political campaign. So there is the answer to the question raised in the Johnstone article..

Actually you would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to recognize that there is a connection between Trump and Russian operatives. If you want to say there is "zero substance" to any innuendo that Trump is unusually chummy with Russians, then I am going to have to conclude you are deaf, dumb, and blind. The majority of U.S. adults think there is real substance here. And IMO they have a very good reason to think that.

We know when Trump is lying and we know when he isn't, he's completely transparent in that regard at least. He's not lying when he says, "better relations with Russia would not be a bad idea." (Of course in Trump's case that is obviously a self-serving statement. But it is not necessarily wrong, depending on what compromises would have to be made to achieve those better relations, such as overlooking a few political imprisonments, murders, some involvement in U.S. public opinion forming, etc.) And when you hear with your own ears Trump's public statements, backed up by his well-known sources of money and his actions, you know what he means. You don't need facebook, CNN, zerohedge, MSNBC, Fox "News" or Infowars to explain it to you.

As to the remainder of the article, its pointless conspiracy crap. Did this article come from infowars??

 

[Frederick Foresight]

This is a fair point. However, what Johnstone is doing is building an argument through the presentation of facts that are, by themselves, only partially related to the theory's conclusion. When taken together, however, they begin to paint a good picture of the theory but, as you say, there is no evidence. The reader has to decide whether or not the collective argument makes sense or should be discounted.

You don't have to like or agree with her points, and I suspect you won't because of your hyper partisanship.

My takeaway is that she is looking to rush to a conclusion. Why? There is enough smoke coming from different directions to warrant a complete and unfettered investigation. What are you guys so afraid of if there is nothing to be afraid of, and why were you not of a similar mind regarding the various and many Hillary Clinton investigations. In Clinton's case, investigations on her were concluded and nothing was found, so new investigations were pursued by those who were hellbent on finding something...anything. Meanwhile, these same people want Mueller to abort his investigation before it's even concluded. What gives? Can you not smell the hypocrisy? Go ahead, give it a sniff.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Trump himself is the reason behind it? Just listen to the guy and follow his money. We have his words, and we have the words of the U.S. intelligence community, which are consistent with there being an , shall we say, unusually close relationship between an American President and Russians. And we also have the bizarre occurrence of foreign agents acting on behalf of Russians, or those with close ties to Russians, playing an active role in Trumps political campaign. So there is the answer to our question.

First of all, only an establishment, partisan individual, proven - even self-admittedly so - to be so far in the camp for the deep state such as yourself would so easily throw out "intelligence services" as a credible source at this point in the game.

Actually you would have to be deaf, dumb and blind

or someone other than a democrat

not to recognize that there is a connection between Trump and Russian operatives. If you want to say there is "zero substance" to any innuendo that Trump is unusually chummy with Russians, then I am going to have to conclude you are deaf, dumb, and blind. The majority of U.S. adults think there is real substance here. And IMO they have a very good reason to think that.

When you say the "majority of U.S. adults think that there is real substance here", can you please point to the survey/poll that you are referring to? I ask this for two reasons - one, to identify what you mean by "substance" (perhaps the poll will help) and two, to see your source of the claim.

We know when Trump is lying and we know when he isn't, he's completely transparent in that regard at least. He's not lying when he says, "better relations with Russia would not be a bad idea." (Of course in Trump's case that is obviously a self-serving statement. But it is not necessarily wrong, depending on what compromises would have to be made to achieve those better relations, such as overlooking a few political imprisonments, murders, some involvement in U.S. public opinion forming, etc.) And when you hear with your own ears Trump's public statements, backed up by his well-known sources of money and his actions, you know what he means. You don't need facebook, CNN, zerohedge, MSNBC, Fox "News" or Infowars to explain it to you.

No, I don't need all those "sources". Evidence and proof without conjecture would be nice. But that seems to be a rarity these days.

 

[Tsing Tao]

My takeaway is that she is looking to rush to a conclusion. Why? There is enough smoke coming from different directions to warrant a complete and unfettered investigation. What are you guys so afraid of if there is nothing to be afraid of, and why were you not of a similar mind regarding the various and many Hillary Clinton investigations. In Clinton's case, investigations on her were concluded and nothing was found, so new investigations were pursued by those who were hellbent on finding something...anything. Meanwhile, these same people want Mueller to abort his investigation before it's even concluded. What gives? Can you not smell the hypocrisy? Go ahead, give it a sniff.

Here we are, a year later, and there is no hard evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. As for Clinton, it was Podesta that was outed, along with the main stream media. I firmly believe if the media had been fair and the wikileaks stuff had not come out showing just how corrupt Podesta was, Trump wouldn't have stood a chance. The media created Trump.

I don't want Mueller to abort anything. The longer this goes on, the more bullshit is uncovered. It's just not the bullshit you guys on the left seem to be hoping for.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

First of all, only an establishment, partisan individual, proven - even self-admittedly so - to be so far in the camp for the deep state such as yourself would so easily throw out "intelligence services" as a credible source at this point in the game.

See, that's where your credibility takes a broadside hit. It's a tinfoil response.

 

[piezoe]

First of all, only an establishment, partisan individual, proven - even self-admittedly so - to be so far in the camp for the deep state such as yourself would so easily throw out "intelligence services" as a credible source at this point in the game.



or someone other than a democrat



When you say the "majority of U.S. adults think that there is real substance here", can you please point to the survey/poll that you are referring to? I ask this for two reasons - one, to identify what you mean by "substance" (perhaps the poll will help) and two, to see your source of the claim.



No, I don't need all those "sources". Evidence and proof without conjecture would be nice. But that seems to be a rarity these days.

Would you please get in the habit of quoting your sources. I can search for this article , but why should I have to? All you have to do is copy and paste the link. Is that too much to ask? This is a ridiculous article by the way.

And yes I read your comments above. You seem totally unaware that there is an investigation going on at the present time and there has been appointed a special prosecutor to carry it out. Why on God's green Earth would you expect to know the results of that investigation before it is complete? What is wrong with you?.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I don't want Mueller to abort anything. The longer this goes on, the more bullshit is uncovered. It's just not the bullshit you guys on the left seem to be hoping for.

Fair enough. Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Tsing Tao]

See, that's where your credibility takes a broadside hit. It's a tinfoil response.

So when I see texts shared by DoJ folks, credibility challenges to FBI investigators, etc this is all tinfoil hat stuff, is that right?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Would you please get in the habit of quoting your sources. I can search for this article , but why should I have to? All you have to do is copy and paste the link. Is that too much to ask? This is a ridiculous article by the way.

Second line in the post, old man. See those red words? That's called a hyperlink. Means you can click on them and you magically go off to the source, somewhere off in the internets!

written by caitlin johnstone

And yes I read your comments above. You seem totally unaware that there is an investigation going on at the present time and there has been appointed a special prosecutor to carry it out. Why on God's green Earth would you expect to know the results of that investigation before it is complete? What is wrong with you?.

So, if the investigation isn't complete, how is it you are able to pass judgment so easily and quickly and label Trump guilty?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

So when I see texts shared by DoJ folks, credibility challenges to FBI investigators, etc this is all tinfoil hat stuff, is that right?

You mean the people who were reassigned as soon as they were discovered? You mean them? Yes, tinfoil. You make allowances for ships to pass through when it suits you, but are ready to call it a day the moment something is less than perfect, again, when it suits you. How did these texters derail the legitimacy of the investigation? Deap state: a couple of texters/lovers sharing private thoughts. Please.

People have private thoughts quite apart from the jobs they do and take pride in. You may personally dislike the CEO of your company, but it doesn't mean you will automatically or necessarily sabotage the company you work for, and try to take him down.

What evidence do you have that these two lovebirds derailed the legitimacy of the investigation?