Robert Reich on the Russia investigation

Billy_T wrote:

I would ask the pundits at RT this:

If it’s all a “so what?” deal, why has Trump, and his entire administration, lied (endlessly) about their contacts with Russia from the beginning? Lied and lied and lied. We have dozens and dozens of examples from video, audio and written transcriptions attesting to this, including lying under oath (Sessions, especially). If it’s not a big deal, why lie? If there’s nothing wrong with these contacts, why keep them secret? Why not put them on forms for security clearance, for example? Why hide work for Russia and Turkey and Ukraine — all of which breaks the law?

Trump and his admin started out by saying, repeatedly, they had ZERO contacts with the Russians, and zero business dealings, etc. etc. We keep learning about extensive contacts, going back years, and there has yet to be a single case where media reports about this have been proven false, much less “fake news.” The NYT, the WaPo, the Atlantic, the New Yorker, etc. etc. . . . I can’t think of a single time that one of their articles regarding these Russia connections has turned out to be incorrect . . . and much of the corroboration has come from Trump insiders over time.

Yeah, the Flynn, Manafort, Gates and Papadopolos indictments are big deals. I have no doubt whatsoever that Trump won the election with the help of Russia, and that we’ll learn how extensive this actually was in the coming years. I think Clinton was a terrible candidate, and the Dems turned their backs on the working class decades ago, AND Trump won with the help of Russia. To me, the latter isn’t an excuse for the former. The two coexist:

Clinton and Dem rottenness AND Trump collusion with Russia. (Kinda like the LAPD “framed” a guilty OJ.)

And, to me, it doesn’t matter that “we do it too.” It’s all wrong. American serial interference in international elections doesn’t let Trump and the Russians off the hook. It all needs to be exposed and stopped dead in its tracks. All of it. I’m honestly baffled that some of the RT punditry asks “so what?”

=============

Well the RT quote was a narrow quote about Flynn. Not all the other stuff. One thing at a time. WHY is it a ‘crime’ for Flynn to talk to a Russian ambassador about policies? Trump had been elected, i believe, but hadnt taken office. Now in this vast-wasteland of a country, why in the world is THAT a crime?

I’m not talking about the lying. I’m talking about the terrible ‘crime’ that Flynn perpetrated — ie, talking to a russian ambassador about policies.

Seems like a witch hunt to me, BT. And i loathe Flynn.

w
v

Billy_T wrote:

wv wrote:

Well the RT quote was a narrow quote about Flynn. Not all the other stuff. One thing at a time. WHY is it a ‘crime’ for Flynn to talk to a Russian ambassador about policies? Trump had been elected, i believe, but hadnt taken office. Now in this vast-wasteland of a country, why in the world is THAT a crime?

I’m not talking about the lying. I’m talking about the terrible ‘crime’ that Flynn perpetrated — ie, talking to a russian ambassador about policies.

Seems like a witch hunt to me, BT. And i loathe Flynn.

w
v

WV, as a lawyer, you obviously know a thousand times more than I ever will about stuff like this, the plea deals, etc. etc. But it appears to me that Flynn got off relatively easy.

Good summary here from the lawfareblog folks ( links/sources on the site) . . .

https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-plea-quick-and-dirty-analysis

Excerpt:

The news that former national security adviser Michael Flynn has reached a cooperation and plea deal with Special Counsel Robert Mueller could not come as less of a surprise. Reports of Flynn’s bizarre behavior across a wide spectrum of areas began trickling out even before his tenure as national security adviser ended after only 24 days. These behaviors raised a raft of substantial criminal law questions that have been a matter of open speculation and reporting for months. His problems include, among other things, an alleged kidnapping plot, a plan to build nuclear power plants all over the Middle East, alleged violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) involving at least two different countries, and apparent false statements to the FBI. In light of the scope and range of the activity that reputable news organizations have attributed to Flynn, it is no surprise that he has agreed to cooperate with Mueller in exchange for leniency.

The surprising thing about the plea agreement and the stipulated facts underlying it is how narrow they are. There’s no whiff of the alleged Fethullah Gulen kidnapping talks. Flynn has escaped FARA and influence-peddling charges. And he has been allowed to plead to a single count of lying to the FBI. The factual stipulation is also narrow. It involves lies to the FBI on two broad matters and lies on Flynn’s belated FARA filings on another issue. If a tenth of the allegations against Flynn are true and provable, he has gotten a very good deal from Mueller.

The narrowness gives a superficial plausibility to the White House’s reaction to the plea. Ty Cobb, the president’s ever-confident attorney, said in a statement: “The false statements involved mirror the false statements [by Flynn] to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year. Nothing about the guilty plea or the charge implicates anyone other than Mr. Flynn.” Cobb reads Friday’s events as an indication that Mueller is “moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion” of the investigation.

This is very likely not an accurate assessment of the situation. If Mueller were prepared to settle the Flynn matter on the basis of single-count plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, he was almost certainly prepared to charge a great deal more. Moreover, we can infer from the fact that Flynn accepted the plea deal that he and his counsel were concerned about the degree of jeopardy, both for Flynn and for his son, related to other charges. The deal, in other words, reflects the strength of Mueller’s hand against Flynn.

==============

Well that article just looked like it was full of wild speculations to me, BT. He is only actually charged with one thing. Lying to the FBI. Thats it. The rest of those paragraphs were full of speculation.

As to the actual charge of lying — yes, he lied. And thats why he plead guilty. But my thing is — what did he lie about? Well he lied about talking a russian ambassador. About policy. He talked to a russian ambassador about policies.

Now, i agree with RT — so what.

Granted, i havent spent any time studying this (nor do i intend to) but my cursory, intuitive take on this is — the deep-state is very very selective about who it goes after. I mean does anyone really think people-in-Flynns-position didnt/dont talk to Israeli Ambassadors all the time? Saudi ambassadors? Etc.

I think basically this comes down to the Capone gang going after the Luciano gang.

w
v

This is worth watching just for the reaction of the liberal-news-show at about the forty second mark:

w
v

Watched about 6 minutes of the Dore video. Sheesh. I’ve never seen him be so wrong, and in such a cavalier way, and I hope it’s out of ignorance, not out of cynical omission of known facts. Cuz, contrary to what he said, the Russia collusion story has long been fleshed out in great detail. We’ve learned of DIRECT connections between the Trump administration and Wikileaks, Assange’s direct offers to help them, etc. We’ve learned of DIRECT connections with Russians and THEIR offers to help. We’ve learned of sitdown meetings between Donald Jr., Kushner, Manafort and several Russians in Trump Tower, after emails were exchanged offering dirt on Clinton. Accepting the meeting is “collusion” right there. Just that.

And all the while, the Trumps lied about all the above until they were caught.

Also, we know about Cambridge Analytica and granular voting information. Dore asked why the Russians needed Trump help for their hacking and disruptions? One reason is they didn’t have that detailed, granular info on millions of American voters. This enabled micro-targeting by the Russians for their ads. This enabled the Russians to set blacks and against whites, browns against blacks, etc. etc. . . with umpteen fake news stories and phony Black Lives Matter groups, etc. etc. The list goes on and on and on, and Dore tries to dismiss it all as a nothingburger?

Sheesh. My opinion of him plummeted after those six minutes.

Quick side note:

Another place where I part company with the “liberal” reaction. I would be just fine if this investigation ALSO brought down a host of Dems along with Trump and company. Wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if they were caught in the net too, if they’re guilty. In fact, I’d love it. An actual “drain the swamp” action, including both of our sleazy money parties, taking down corruption wherever if comes from.

We desperately need a clean sweep and the proverbial new start. Last month’s election brought me some hope, because Democratic Socialists backed 15 winners, their best election night evah.

wv wrote:

Well ok, BT. We just disagree on the russia thing. I agree completely with Dore, Blumenthal, Lee Camp, etc.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Lemme ask you this though — how come no-one is complaining about Israel’s influence, and ALL the deep-state’s “collusion” with Israel? There’s MOUNTAINS of evidence that US politicians ‘collude’ with Israel. Crickets though, from the MSM.

w
v

I’ve long been critical of both major parties all too often putting Israeli government interests over our own. It’s all the worse when that government is the Likud. Yes, “both parties do it,” but the GOP tends to be more aggressively pro-Likud, pro-Netanyahu, etc. and during the Obama presidency, wasn’t averse to undermining US policy in tandem with Likud.

And, yes, the MSM tends to be silent on the issue. There has likely been plenty of “collusion” (and much worse) over the course of the last 50 plus years, and it should be exposed and stopped.

But I’m not seeing how that’s relevant to the Russia stuff. Again, we can condemn it all. I fear some of those leftist pundits think — perhaps just subconsciously — that if they accept that Russia did interfere, and the Trumps did collude, this somehow vindicates Clinton and the Dems, and neoliberalism itself. It doesn’t. Not in the slightest. Not even a remote whisper of it. Again, we can condemn all of it. Both/and. It’s not an either/or deal.

Billy_T wrote:

<
But I’m not seeing how that’s relevant to the Russia stuff. Again, we can condemn it all.

==========

Well here’s where we always diverge. I dont think this is like Bulger and Warner. Where you can talk about one but not the other.

I think what we are all trying to do is….kinda, more or less, ‘describe’ or evaluate or figure out, the ‘situation’ — ie,
the Corporotacracy, Plutocracy, Oligarchy, Empire, or whatever. And to me, that requires describing the whole thing. The contexts. And i dont think we can talk about the russian thing (which to me is minor compared to the the other stuff) without talking about Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Propaganda systems (MSM) etc.

To me the Russia thing is there, but its so small compared to the other stuff. And yet, the MSM only wants to focus on Russia. For propaganda-reasons. Not to get to the truth — but for PROPAGANDA reasons. They are USING the issue to prop up the usual mythologies. And so, to me, talking about the russia thing IN ISOLATION, basically just gives aid and comfort to the deep-state.

Just my opinion. I have a lot of heat in my brain about this but NOT towards my board comrads, BT. If i come across as pissy, its just lack of skill on my part. If we were talking in person, youd know i have no heat towards you guys.

w
v

wv wrote:

I think what we are all trying to do is….kinda, more or less, ‘describe’ or evaluate or figure out, the ‘situation’ — ie,
the Corporotacracy, Plutocracy, Oligarchy, Empire, or whatever. And to me, that requires describing the whole thing. The contexts. And i dont think we can talk about the russian thing (which to me is minor compared to the the other stuff) without talking about Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Propaganda systems (MSM) etc.

To me the Russia thing is there, but its so small compared to the other stuff. And yet, the MSM only wants to focus on Russia. For propaganda-reasons. Not to get to the truth — but for PROPAGANDA reasons. They are USING the issue to prop up the usual mythologies. And so, to me, talking about the russia thing IN ISOLATION, basically just gives aid and comfort to the deep-state.

First off, I’ve never advocated for talking about Russia in isolation, and from my observation, our MSM doesn’t do that. They can’t, really. Cuz Trump is forever stirring up the pot with a thousand other things, so our MSM talks about that too. The NFL. Sexual assault. The tax bill. Health care repeals. North Korea missile tests. Charlottesville. Retweeting fake videos from Islamophobes, etc. etc. Their plate is always pretty full. From my perspective, Russia comes up only when there’s a new revelation or indictment, and there’s always something else going on beyond that.

Second, I don’t see how it’s a very useful propaganda tool for America, for several reasons. It shows how vulnerable we are when it comes to cyberwarfare, how incompetent and unprepared, and because we’re so polarized, much of the country disagrees about what really happened, why, how or if it matters. Just not seeing how this helps the “deep state,” and it’s also a fact that Europe thinks Russia interfered there too. It would be quite the worldwide conspiracy if our MSM and theirs “colluded” to invent this interference, with almost no push back from the vast majority of media outlets.

Third, not seeing how reporting this story props up the usual mythologies. This just isn’t your grandmother’s Russia. Another “red scare” wouldn’t make one iota of sense, because Putin’s Russia is even more ferociously capitalist/neoliberal than we are, and well to our right. I just don’t see how it benefits the “deep state” or anyone else here, except, perhaps, for cybersecurity companies. And even they can be made to look pretty bad for their abject failures to prevent this — the hacks and the massive invasion of our social media infrastructure with endless fake news bots, etc.

I’d be interested in your take on how this actually works as a propaganda tool, and for whom. Again, America is so divided, so fragmented, so at odds with itself . . . it’s difficult for me to see how this is a “winning” issue for anyone among the power elite, really. But I may just be missing the obvious.

Great game. Nice to see the Rams win again.

Billy_T wrote:

First off, I’ve never advocated for talking about Russia in isolation, and from my observation, our MSM doesn’t do that. They can’t, really. Cuz Trump is forever stirring up the pot with a thousand other things, so our MSM talks about that too. The NFL. Sexual assault. The tax bill. Health care repeals. North Korea missile tests. Charlottesville. Retweeting fake videos from Islamophobes, etc. etc. Their plate is always pretty full. From my perspective, Russia comes up only when there’s a new revelation or indictment, and there’s always something else going on beyond that.

Second, I don’t see how it’s a very useful propaganda tool for America, for several reasons. It shows how vulnerable we are when it comes to cyberwarfare, how incompetent and unprepared, and because we’re so polarized, much of the country disagrees about what really happened, why, how or if it matters. Just not seeing how this helps the “deep state,” and it’s also a fact that Europe thinks Russia interfered there too. It would be quite the worldwide conspiracy if our MSM and theirs “colluded” to invent this interference, with almost no push back from the vast majority of media outlets.

Third, not seeing how reporting this story props up the usual mythologies. This just isn’t your grandmother’s Russia. Another “red scare” wouldn’t make one iota of sense, because Putin’s Russia is even more ferociously capitalist/neoliberal than we are, and well to our right. I just don’t see how it benefits the “deep state” or anyone else here, except, perhaps, for cybersecurity companies. And even they can be made to look pretty bad for their abject failures to prevent this — the hacks and the massive invasion of our social media infrastructure with endless fake news bots, etc.

I’d be interested in your take on how this actually works as a propaganda tool, and for whom. Again, America is so divided, so fragmented, so at odds with itself . . . it’s difficult for me to see how this is a “winning” issue for anyone among the power elite, really. But I may just be missing the obvious.

Great game. Nice to see the Rams win again.

===============

None of those things you listed have anything to do with the real context i am talking about. All those ‘issues’ are presented by the corporate media, in ways that merely ‘distract’ or distort or omit the reality of the corporotacracy. So, i dont agree that the MSM actually ‘puts things in context’. I’m surprised you are a fan of the MSM now 🙂

So, no, the MSM does not talk about russia ‘in context’. The msm doesnt put ‘anything’ in context. The corporate-MSM is a propaganda tool. I agree with Chomsky and Herman and Hedges and Lee Camp and others on this. I thought you were in agreement on that.

As far as the question of how does the Russia story (the way the MSM/DNC/Deep-state tells it) fit as a propaganda tool? Simple. The CorporateMSM/DNC story is the usual fairy tale about how the shining city on the hill was attacked by the malevolent outside evil-doers. The beautiful shining american beacon of hope and democracy was polluted and hacked by evil forces. It fits perfectly with the basic propaganda over the last quarter of a century. American system good. Other systems bad.

And how has the corporotacracy reacted to this terrible invasion/onslaught ? Well for starters the internet powers that be have now made it harder to find leftist internet sites like alternet and truthdig and other ‘evil’ voices influenced by evil russians. Etc and so forth.

And it will get worse.

And it was all predictable.

What do i mean by saying the MSM doesnt put the russian thing ‘in context’ ? I mean the MSM buries the real history of the american corporotacracy. You cant put russian interference in context without talking about american interference. You cant talk about interfering with democracy without talking about Citizens United, AIPAC, Saudi Arabia and a gazillion other things the MSM is silent about.

If the MSM WERE putting things in context, our electorate would not be so politically-brain-dead, BT. You know that. You KNOW what the American electorate is. And you know how they got that way. They got that way through decades and decades of propaganda.

The Russian story is not being told with any honest accurate context. Its being ‘used’ by the powers-that-be. Call them ‘deep state’ (i like the term and use it the way Bill Moyers does) or use some other term.

Let me ask you an open question. What do you think of the American NSA/CIA/FBI ?
What do you think of the American Corporotocracy? What do you think of it? Why are you so upset about russian interference with this….thing. ? Do you think this ‘thing’ is a ‘good’ thing?

w
v

wv wrote:

As far as the question of how does the Russia story (the way the MSM/DNC/Deep-state tells it) fit as a propaganda tool? Simple. The CorporateMSM/DNC story is the usual fairy tale about how the shining city on the hill was attacked by the malevolent outside evil-doers. The beautiful shining american beacon of hope and democracy was polluted and hacked by evil forces. It fits perfectly with the basic propaganda over the last quarter of a century. American system good. Other systems bad.

And how has the corporotacracy reacted to this terrible invasion/onslaught ? Well for starters the internet powers that be have now made it harder to find leftist internet sites like alternet and truthdig and other ‘evil’ voices influenced by evil russians. Etc and so forth.

And it will get worse.

And it was all predictable.

What do i mean by saying the MSM doesnt put the russian thing ‘in context’ ? I mean the MSM buries the real history of the american corporotacracy. You cant put russian interference in context without talking about american interference. You cant talk about interfering with democracy without talking about Citizens United, AIPAC, Saudi Arabia and a gazillion other things the MSM is silent about.

If the MSM WERE putting things in context, our electorate would not be so politically-brain-dead, BT. You know that. You KNOW what the American electorate is. And you know how they got that way. They got that way through decades and decades of propaganda.

The Russian story is not being told with any honest accurate context. Its being ‘used’ by the powers-that-be. Call them ‘deep state’ (i like the term and use it the way Bill Moyers does) or use some other term.

Let me ask you an open question. What do you think of the American NSA/CIA/FBI ?
What do you think of the American Corporotocracy? What do you think of it? Why are you so upset about russian interference with this….thing. ? Do you think this ‘thing’ is a ‘good’ thing?

w
v

I think we’re watching, reading and hearing different sources in the MSM, cuz I’m just not seeing the story being peddled that you see. I mostly see reporters concentrating on Trump, as mentioned above, his actions, the actions of his campaign . . . and while, yes, there is some silly bluster how the boy scout nature of the FBI and other Intel groups, I don’t bump into the “city on the hill” rhetoric, or the evil Russians and the awesome Americans. It’s all about Trump lies, his and his campaign’s seemingly endless meetings with the Russians, their lies about those and so on. I see the focus mostly on Trump’s criminality, not Russia’s.

To me, that’s as it should be.

Quick question for you, WV.

Do you see these three things all linked, or working together, or in cahoots? You listed them together.

“MSM/DNC/Deep-state.”

Did you leave out the GOP for a reason?

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I think we’re watching, reading and hearing different sources in the MSM, cuz I’m just not seeing the story being peddled that you see. I mostly see reporters concentrating on Trump, as mentioned above, his actions, the actions of his campaign . . . and while, yes, there is some silly bluster how the boy scout nature of the FBI and other Intel groups, I don’t bump into the “city on the hill” rhetoric, or the evil Russians and the awesome Americans. It’s all about Trump lies, his and his campaign’s seemingly endless meetings with the Russians, their lies about those and so on. I see the focus mostly on Trump’s criminality, not Russia’s.

To me, that’s as it should be.

================

Well, we just interpret what we are seeing differently i guess. I see the DNC-MSM going after Trump as you say. (While the Rep-MSM goes after the Dems)

But i see the Russia-story being ‘used’ by the DNC-MSM as a basic propaganda tool, and as an anti-trump tool. They go hand in hand. The meta story is based on American exceptionalism and purity and the specific story is linking the evil trump to the evil putin empire.

And none of it has any accurate historical context. The DNC-MSM and the Rep-MSM both continue to dum-down the electorate and propagandize them endlessly. And thus we end up with Hillary vs Trump or Obama vs McCain, etc. Its all a circus of lies, comrad.

w
v

I think where we may be diverging is in the effects of dealing with Trump, versus the ongoing propagandizing of the American people. If I read you correctly, you see the focus on Trump as a part of that. I see it as a separate issue.

The propagandizing is ongoing, but it’s mostly, to me, about an attempted obliteration of any kind of alternative economic vision, which also means leftists have to be silenced. We’re not a part of the national conversation. The furthest “left” it’s allowed to go is Sanders, and the MSM has done its best to block even that. You and I and several others here are to the left of Sanders; our ideas are more egalitarian than his — and least those he’s talked about in public. And he’s it. The powers that be won’t allow anything further, because that really is a direct threat to them.

Trump isn’t. He helps them. He’s all in for the plutocracy. He’s deregulated businesses already, massively (through EOs), has turned federal department after federal department against its own public mission — and they were already weakened — and he’s ready to sign a huge tax cut for them. They may think he’s a lunatic, but they’ll gladly accept all the Christmas gifts he’s handing out . . . and the most destructive may be in the near future, with the privatization of our national parks.

In short, Trump is a dream come true for the corporatocracy, for billionaires, for serial pollutors, for arms merchants, the MIC, etc. They haven’t had a president so willing to make rich people richer since Reagan.

And the above is a big reason why I’m so puzzled by some leftist pundits who seem to be coming to his defense. Trump and the GOP are so appallingly against everything we stand for, it really dumbfounds me. As bad as the Clintons and the Dems are, they don’t come close to being so aggressively plutocratic. It’s just not close. And I say that noting how rotten Clinton and the Dems are . . . and I agree with you about their endless propagandizing of voters. I just don’t get the reluctance by some on the left to ALSO go after Trump. Again, he and the GOP are waaaay more destructive.

Anyway . . . more thots later.

….on a side note…i wish i knew more about the US invasion of russia 🙂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mC1bmzbgxY