As the news is full of the stories of women who are coming forward to say that Donald Trump grabbed at their genitals, kissed them full on the lips without warning and otherwise did pretty much what he said on the now universally known recording with Billy Bush, the other serious charge, that he and his campaign are taking information directly from the Putin regime to use against Hillary Clinton is going largely unreported.
In Newsweek, Kurt Eichenwald points out that there is a smoking gun to be found in the incompetent reports from the Putin regime of the contents of the stolen e-mails from John Podesta. They incompetently misidentified a piece by Eichenwald that Sidney Blumenthal sent to Podesta as being the words of Sidney Blumenthal.
An email from Blumenthal—a confidant of Hillary Clinton and a man,
second only to George Soros at the center of conservative conspiracy
theories—turned up in the recent document dump by Wikileaks. At a time when American intelligence believes Russian hackers
are trying to interfere with the presidential election, records have
been fed recently to Wikileaks out of multiple organizations of the
Democratic Party, raising concerns that the self-proclaimed
whistleblowers group has become a tool of Putin’s government. But now
that I have been brought into the whole mess—and transformed into
Blumenthal—there is even more proof that this act of cyberwar is not
only being orchestrated by the Russians, but that they are really,
really dumb.
The evidence emerged thanks to the incompetence of Sputnik, the Russian online news and radio service established by the government controlled news agency, Rossiya Segodnya....
The documents that Wikileaks unloaded recently have been emails out
of the account of John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s election
campaign. Almost as soon as the pilfered documents emerged, Sputnik
was all over them and rapidly found (or probably already knew about
before the Wikileaks dump) a purportedly incriminating email from
Blumenthal.
The email was amazing—it linked Boogie Man Blumenthal,
Podesta and the topic of conservative political fevered dreams,
Benghazi. This, it seemed, was the smoking gun finally proving Clinton
bore total responsibility for the terrorist attack on the American
outpost in Libya in 2012. Sputnik even declared that the email might be the “October surprise” that could undermine Clinton’s campaign.
Eichenwald identifies the part of his article which Sputnik attributed to Blumenthal a misattribution that appeared only in that source from the Putin government but which almost immediately was coming out of the mouth of Donald Trump who, forgive me for suspecting, is unlikely to read any news services but seems to get his knowledge of the world from what he gets told by people he listens to.
This false story was only reported by the Russian controlled agency (a
reference appeared in a Turkish publication, but it was nothing but a
link to the Sputnik article). So how did Donald Trump end up advancing the same falsehood put out by Putin’s mouthpiece?
At a rally in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke
while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that
it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.”
“This just came out a little while ago,’’ Trump said. “I have to tell you this.” And then he read the words from my article.
“He’s
now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump
said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little
while ago.”
The crowd booed and chanted, “Lock her up!”
This
is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy
disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee
for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as
truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him
falsehoods straight from the Kremlin?
Those seem to me to be at least as important as what we're finding out about the extent of Donald Trump's sexual abuse and possibly worse treatment of women.
It is amazing to me that we have a situation in which the leader of Russia, a former Communist Party member and a high up member of the KGB is running the conservative, right wing - no make that neo-fascist Republican candidate for president, a man who some people believe will, despite all of that get a majority of Republican and conservative votes and who is taking talking points directly from the Putin regime to use against her. If someone told me at any period from the 1950s through the fall of the Soviet Union that the Russians would be running a presidential candidate which was the asset of the same people who ran the Soviet Union, I'd have though it was outlandish fiction. But the corruption of the American right, its media, the media which has created the conditions that produced both Donald Trump AND THE SOCIAL-POLITICAL MOVEMENT THAT CHOSE HIM AS THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE is so complete that even with this, large parts of it will still choose Putin's man over Hillary Clinton.
The media is the source of the mind-deadening gullibility of those who mistook the CEO of "reality" TV as presidential material. Ever stupider network entertainment, the cabloid "news" operations, right-wing hate talk-radio, the "free speech-free press" legal theorists and Supreme Court justices who either bought into their theories of media libertarianism or cynically used their wordings to forge rulings like Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United - if anyone ever asks how we got this far in handing our presidency to, effectively, a KGB apparatchik, that's who did it.
As to how the Republicans went from the political use of accusations of the State Department being riddled with Soviet agents to running a TV star who is one, himself, as their presidential candidate, when you make money and wealth acquisition your one and only value you're eventually going to buy the rope that hangs you. It would certainly be interesting to know the extent to which Russian oligarchs, many of them former members of the Soviet ruling class, stand as Donald Trump's creditors. Though I doubt you'll ever have FOX news raise that question. Or most of the American media. I suspect they wouldn't think such issues would be as good for their ratings as a sex scandal. Though they seemed pretty slow to latch onto one when it involved a Republican nominee who has had decades of public exposure as a sex as well as a business sleaze. Imagine if he'd been a Kennedy or Clinton, there would have been no proof necessary as they ran with it "being said" by.....
Josh Marshall noticed this, too, and argues it is less likely Trump got this straight from Russia than that he got it from alt right/white supremacist websites, which regularly regurgitate what Russian propaganda organs spew out.
ReplyDeleteSo you have your choice: Trump has a pipeline to the Kremlin (not unlikely, IMHO, especially given all the efforts of Russia to affect this election. Putin HATES Clinton almost as much as Assange does.), or Trump is, as JMM argues, swimming in the sea of white supremacy.
It's very clear Trump is getting all his information from the least reputable sources possible ("Clean coal is real"? He actually said that in the debate, but he said so many outrageous things that one is getting lost.). Whether he's tapped into Moscow, or feeding his paranoia with white supremacist websites, it's very ugly either way.
And very sad the media, which should be all over this, is going to ignore it; even when the source is Kurt Eichenwald.
"Who Ever Would Have Believed That It Would Be The Republicans Who Ran A KGB Assett For President"
ReplyDeleteOh, I don't know -- maybe Richard Condon.
Adding: it gets even worse on the "left." Amanda Marcotte at Salon posted an article referencing Eichenwald's article about the e-mails. The comments have been taken over by claims Russia isn't doing anything, all complaints about them are Cold War conspiracy theories that never died, and the only truth comes from Glenn Greenwald (who thinks Eichenwald is wrong because Eichenwald wrote 37 tweets about this subject. No, seriously, that's the factual basis of Greenwald's argument).
ReplyDeleteI give up.
Finishing the thought: Greenwald's "argument" is that Sputnik (the Russian website) pulled the offending article immediately after Eichenwald's first tweet pointing out the error. So, no harm, no foul, and Eichenwald went off the tracks with 36 more tweets about it.
ReplyDeleteExcept, as Greenwald conveniently ignores (and Eichenwald points out in Newsweek), the Sputnik article deliberately took the information in the e-mail out of context. In context, it is clear Blumenthal is quoting Eichenwald's original article. As published in Sputnik, it reads as if the words are Blumenthal's (which is what Trump claimed).
No harm, no foul? Really? So did Sputnik pull the article because they were in error? Or because they got caught? Inquiring minds (which do not include Greenwald's) want to know.
And is it a coincidence that Trump tried to tie Clinton to Blumenthal on Sunday night, and the next day he got more ammunition to do so, from the Russians?
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's gotta be. Right?
Greenwald is such a transparent hypocrite on the topic of governments violating privacy.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know more about the funding of his lackluster "news" operation. I wonder if he'd disclose that information.
Which gets to the issue, doesn't it? Why is it okay to publish other people's e-mails (and there is no legitimate question that Russia hacked the DNC's servers, no matter what noise Greenwald might want to make) and share them with the world? Would it be okay if Russia just intercepted envelopes and opened those up? Or tapped the phones of the DNC? Planted microphones in offices and conference rooms?
DeleteBecause, really, what's the difference?