The Three Purposes of Russiagate
The Three Purposes of
Russiagate
Paul Craig Roberts
Russiagate has three
purposes.
One is to prevent President
Trump from endangering the vast budget and power of the military/security
complex by normalizing relations with Russia.
Another, in the words of
James Howard Kunstler, is “to conceal the criminal conduct of US government
officials meddling in the 2016 election in collusion with the Hillary Clinton
campaign,” by focusing all public and political attention on a hoax
distraction.
The third is to obstruct
Trump’s campaign and distract him from his agenda when he won the election.
Despite the inability of
Mueller to find any evidence that Trump or Trump officials colluded with Russia
to steal the US presidential election, and the inability of Mueller to find
evidence with which to accuse Trump of obstruction of justice, Russiagate has
achieved all of its purposes.
Trump has been locked into
a hostile relationship with Russia. Neoconservatives have succeeded in
worsening this hostile relationship by manipulating Trump into a blatant
criminal attempt to overthrow in broad daylight the Venezuelan government.
Hillary’s criminal conduct
and the criminal conduct of the CIA, FBI, and Obama Justice (sic) Department
that resulted in a variety of felonies, including the FBI obtaining spy
warrants for partisan political purposes on false pretexts from the FISA court,
were swept out of sight by the Russiagate hoax.
The Mueller report was
written in such a way that despite the absence of any evidence supporting any
indictment of Trump, the report refused to clear Trump of obstruction and
passed the buck to the Attorney General. In other words, Mueller in the absence
of any evidence kept the controversy going by setting up Attorney General Barr
for cover-up charges.
It is evidence of Mueller’s
corruption that he does not explain just how it is possible for Trump to
possibly have obstructed justice when Mueller states in his report that the
crime he was empowered to investigate could not be found. How does one obstruct
the investigation of a crime that did not occur?
As Kunstler puts it, “The
Special Prosecutor’s main bit of mischief, of course, was his refusal to reach
a conclusion on the obstruction of justice charge. What the media refuses to
accept and make clear is that a prosecutor’s failure to reach a conclusion is
exactly the same thing as an inability to make a case, and it was a breach of
Mr. Mueller’s duty to dishonestly present that failure as anything but that in
his report — and possibly an act of criminal prosecutorial misconduct” on
Mueller’s part.
But this is not the only
dishonesty in Mueller’s report. Although Mueller’s report clearly obliterates
the Russiagate conspiracy theory peddled by the military/security complex, the
Democrats, and the presstitutes, Mueller’s report takes for granted that Russia
interfered in the election but not in collusion with Trump or Trump officials.
Mueller states this interference as if it were a fact without providing one
drop of evidence. Indeed, nowhere in the report, or anywhere else, is there any
evidence of Russian interference.
Mueller simply takes
Russian interference for granted as if endless repeating by a bunch of presstitutes
makes it so. For example, the Mueller report says that the Russians hacked the
DNC emails, a claim for which no evidence exists. Moreover, it is a claim that
is contradicted by the known evidence. William Binney and other experts have
demonstrated that the DNC emails were, according to their time stamps,
downloaded much more quickly than is possible over the Internet. This fact has
been carefully ignored by Mueller, the Democrats and the presstitutes.
One reason for ignoring
this undisputed fact is that they all want to get Julian Assange, and the
public case concocted against Assange is that Assange is in cahoots with the
Russians who allegedly gave him the hacked emails. As there is no evidence that
Russia hacked the emails and as Assange has said Russia is not the source, what
is Mueller’s evidence? Apparently, Mueller’s evidence is his own political
indictment of Russian individuals who Mueller alleged hacked the DNC computers.
This false indictment for which there is no evidence was designed by Mueller to
poison the Helsinki meeting between Trump and Putin and announced on the eve of
the meeting.
Indictments do not require
evidence, and Mueller had none. Moreover, Mueller could not possibly know the
identities of the Russian intelligence agents who allegedly did the hacking.
This was of no concern to Mueller. He knew he needed no evidence, because he
knew there would be no trial. The indictment was political propaganda, not
real.
The myth of Russian
interference is so well established that even Glenn Greenwald in his otherwise
careful and correct exposition of the Russiagate hoax buys into Russian
interference as if it were a fact. Indeed, many if not most of Trump’s
supporters are ready to blame Russia for trying, but failing, to ensnare their
man Trump.
The falsity of Russiagate
and the political purposes of the hoax are completely obvious, but even Trump
supporters tip their hats to the falsehood of Russian interference so that they
do not look guilty of excessive support for Trump. In other words, Russiagate
has succeeded in constraining how far Trump’s supporters can go in defending
him, especially if he has any remaining intent to reduce tensions with Russia.
Russiagate has succeeded in
criminalizing in the American mind any contact with Russia. Thus has the
military/security complex guaranteed that its budget and power will not be
threatened by any move toward peace between nuclear powers.
The Democratic Party and
the presstitutes cannot be bothered by facts. They are committed to getting
Trump regardless of the facts. And so is Mueller, and Brennan, and Comey, and a
slew of other corrupt public officials.
A good example of
journalistic misconduct is James Risen writing in Glenn Greenwald’s Intercept
of all places, “WILLIAM BARR MISLED EVERYONE ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT. NOW
DEMOCRATS ARE CALLING FOR HIS RESIGNATION.” Quoting the same posse of “hang
Trump high” Democrats, Risen, without questioning their disproven lies, lets
the Democrats build a case that Mueller’s report proves Trump’s guilt. Then
Risen himself misrepresents the report in support of the Democrats. He says
there is a huge difference between Barr’s memo on the report and the report
itself as if Barr would misrepresent a report that he is about to release.
Length is the only
difference between the memo and the report. This doesn’t stop Risen from
writing: “In fact, the Mueller report makes it clear that a key reason Mueller
did not seek to prosecute Trump for obstruction was a longstanding Justice
Department legal opinion saying that the Justice Department can’t indict a
sitting president.” This is something Mueller threw in after saying he didn’t
have the evidence to indict Trump. It is yet another reason for not indicting,
not the reason. Risen then backs up his misreport with that of a partisan
Democrat, Renato Mariotti who claims that Mueller could have indicted Trump
except it is against US Justice Department policy. Again, there is no explanation
from Risen, Mariotti, or anyone else how Mueller could have indicted Trump for
obstructing what Mueller concludes was a crime that did not happen.
Just as Mueller indicted
Russian intelligence agents without evidence, he could have indicted Trump
without evidence, but a case against a president that is without evidence is
not one a prosecutor wants to take to court as it is obviously an act of
sedition.
That the Democrats and the
presstitutes want Trump indicted for obstructing a crime that did not occur shows
how insane they have been driven by their hatred of Trump. What is operating in
the Democratic Party and in the American media is insanity and hatred. Nothing
else.
Risen also alleges that the
unproven Russian hacks were passed over by Barr in his memo on the report. Not
only is this incorrect, but also Risen apparently has forgot that the
investigation was about Trump’s collusion with Russia to do something illegal
and the investigation found that no such thing occurred. Risen, like the rest
of the presstitutes and even Greenwald himself, takes for granted that the
unproven Russian hacks happened. Again we see that the longer a lie is repeated
the more it becomes true. Not even Greenwald can detect that he has been
bamboozled.
At one time James Risen was
an honest reporter. He won a Pulitzer prize, and he was threatened with prison
by the Department of Justice when he refused to reveal his source for his
reporting on illegal actions of the CIA. But Risen discovered that in the new
world of journalism, telling the truth is punished while lying is rewarded.
Risen, like all the others, decided that his income was more important than the
truth.
Journalists who lie for the
Establishment have no need of the First Amendment. Perhaps this is why they
have no concern that Washington’s attack on Julian Assange will destroy the
First Amendment. They are helping Washington destroy Assange so that their
self-esteem will no longer be threatened by the fact that there is a real
journalist out there doing real journalism.
For further reading:
Here you can see the
presstitutes claiming that their lies are vindicated by Mueller’s report: https://on.rt.com/9snj
/https://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2021/09/25/huawei-executive-meng-wanzhou-receives-warm-welcome-upon-return-to-china/_1_meng_wanzhou_2.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.