Scott Limieux at Lawyers, Guns, and Money Blog nails the issue regarding Trump's Russia ties, and, along the way, has some fun with his nemesis, Glenn Greenwald on the Rittenhouse case*--and, sadly, how Glenn is a bit soft on things like Black Lives Matter. Calling Dave Chappelle! Another white gay guy who is on the side of white supremacy. Oh well. The key points of Scott Limieux's post are:
(1) The graph showing how corporate media coverage favored Hillary's email and private speaking fees scandals over the many, many Trump business oriented and personal oriented scandals, and
(2) How the Steele memo proves less than Russiagate is a Hoax folks want to admit, compared to the then-Republican controlled Senate report showing (1) the Russians did acts which proved the Russians wanted Trump to win in 2016; and (2) Trump welcomed Russian help in the 2016 election.**
When one also adds in Trump's cozy ties with Russian oligarchs for nearly 20 years before 2016 and, well, lots of smoke and even some fire. Therefore, one does not have to be a supporter of the FBI, CIA, and NSA in general to recognize there was a reason for those agencies to have people concerned about whether Trump was compromised. Do I think the Russians tipped the election to Clinton in 2016? I have strong doubts and I don't think it is reasonably provable in any event. As I said in a post dated August 1, 2018, the key goal for the Russians was less about victory for Trump than sowing chaos in the United States.
However, I don't think that would matter if, oh, I don't know, Bernie Sanders had such a level of contacts with the Russians. So many people, including progressives, would be saying there is no doubt the nation could not afford to have Bernie in the White House. It is why I just laugh at right wingers who suddenly hate the FBI, CIA, etc. and trust a con man--a literal con man--over those institutions. For the anti-anti-Trump left, yes, they are correct about neo-libs and the systemic fascistic nature of those institutions. However, I have long said there are many great people who are regular FBI agents, regular CIA analysts, etc. who do their jobs with integrity, with good faith, and are truly interested in preserving our nation's ideals while doing their jobs--and the CIA's analysts' track record on any number of foreign policy issues, when not politicized, are fairly accurate, just to take one long arc example. Why this is so difficult to hold in one's head is perhaps the greatest failing of the species, and explains why we are hurtling toward climate disaster while gross inequality continues.
* My take on the Rittenhouse case may be summed up as follows: Wisconsin's self-defense law gave a Mack truck wide opening for this white kid to walk away from the following facts: (a) he crossed state lines to get a gun to shoot people; (b) he shot the first guy, the bipolar one (Rittenhouse didn't know that, of course), four times, with the first shot taking down the guy so that he was no longer a threat, and Rittenhouse decided, at point blank range, instead of retreating, to plug three more bullets into the first guy, including one to the head--and the first guy was unarmed; (c) he shot and killed the second guy, also unarmed, who was trying to subdue Rittenhouse for his clearly to anyone not white, I suppose, an aggressor in a mayhem situation; and (c) shot the third guy, who was armed, in a similar circumstance. The trial judge all but adopted Rittenhouse, as shown by his ridiculous ruling at the start of the trial that the persons shot cannot be called "victims," but could be called, with NO evidence, "rioters" or "arsonists." Then, during the trial, the judge excluded (suppressed from the jury) video evidence from Rittenhouse, before he went to Wisconsin, saying he would like to go to BLM protests and shoot people. But, sure, Glenn, corporate media commentators didn't have a right to be outraged--even if the media folks don't articulate as well as you and me.
*In a February 3, 2018 post, I wrote about why there it is not necessary to use the Steele memorandum to reveal Trump's and his campaign's Russian ties. However, my memory of my Facebook postings from 2017, when the Steele Memo was first disclosed, and throughout 2017, I was willing to believe the Steele memo may have had some validity. I just didn't think it was all that important compared to other information from other sources. For me, Craig Unger's "House of Trump, House of Putin" is a far more comprehensive investigation and analysis of Trump's long-time Russian ties--though Unger is credulous about the Steele memo in a few parts of his book. There is, though, much, much, much more information independent from the Steele memo. And, folks, as I have long said, in comparing this controversy to the Red Scare, I would not fully discount much of the Steele memorandum allegations of facts (not sourcing) eventually coming out. I guess, at that point, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and even Krystal & Saagar will say, "Who could have known?" Heh.
