But if all this was public knowledge before the election, it's evidently not enough. Our lovely countrymen voted for him anyway. Of course, if the media had reported on T***p's actual scandals instead of devoting hours upon hours to phony Clinton scandals courtesy of Wikileaks...
The point is we need more. We need hard evidence of collusion or blackmail. And I am reasonably confident that there is blackmail. As I mentioned yesterday, a tabloid reporter told Howard Stern on the air in 2001 that T***p boasted about visiting Russia for sex tourism, adding that the girls there "had no morals" (and he said this while T***p was on the line!). Now the media can't really report on this, of course. But for any reasonable person, it should be nearly proof positive that the minority-president-elect has frequented Russian brothels. Why would this reporter lie about these *specific* accusations back in 2001? Thus, T***p's claim about being a germaphobe is just a cover. And more importantly, he can't *know* that the Russsians don't have compromising video of him. He probably assumes that's they do, if he doesn't know for sure.
So we can expect the minority-president to acquiesce to all of Putin's demands. He will probably try to get NATO troops removed from the eastern bloc countries. (How much leverage does a US president have when it comes to this?) And what next? If Putin decides to invade Poland, what then?
It's worth noting that the Glenn Greenwald faction of the Left sees nothing wrong with T***p's coziness with Putin. I don't fault them for being skeptical about some of the unproven claims -- but bizarrely, they seem committed to a studied dismissal of even the evidence that's publicly available (like what's covered in your link.) Their attitude is "nothing to see here" when clearly there's a whole lot to see.
Greenwald's latest piece argues that the obsession with Russia will only backfire: people will soon realize that it was all a tempest in a teapot, created by the CIA and trumpeted by the media, and this will have the effect of weakening any future attacks on the administration. I disagree but fair enough. But what I want to know is, why does Greenwald appear eager to do all he can to foment that backlash, appearing on Fox News and denouncing Democrats and liberals for espousing "conspiracy theories"?
There's really pretty good reason to think that Greenwald is not, in any important sense, on "the left". He has a few hobby-horses that are attractive to some on the left, but his general world-view is that of a Republican leaning libertarian. See, for examples, the following:
Many more are possible. (His political views also strike me as hopelessly naive, but that's not, alas, something limited to people of his political persuasions.)
But if all this was public knowledge before the election, it's evidently not enough. Our lovely countrymen voted for him anyway. Of course, if the media had reported on T***p's actual scandals instead of devoting hours upon hours to phony Clinton scandals courtesy of Wikileaks...
ReplyDeleteThe point is we need more. We need hard evidence of collusion or blackmail. And I am reasonably confident that there is blackmail. As I mentioned yesterday, a tabloid reporter told Howard Stern on the air in 2001 that T***p boasted about visiting Russia for sex tourism, adding that the girls there "had no morals" (and he said this while T***p was on the line!). Now the media can't really report on this, of course. But for any reasonable person, it should be nearly proof positive that the minority-president-elect has frequented Russian brothels. Why would this reporter lie about these *specific* accusations back in 2001? Thus, T***p's claim about being a germaphobe is just a cover. And more importantly, he can't *know* that the Russsians don't have compromising video of him. He probably assumes that's they do, if he doesn't know for sure.
So we can expect the minority-president to acquiesce to all of Putin's demands. He will probably try to get NATO troops removed from the eastern bloc countries. (How much leverage does a US president have when it comes to this?) And what next? If Putin decides to invade Poland, what then?
It's worth noting that the Glenn Greenwald faction of the Left sees nothing wrong with T***p's coziness with Putin. I don't fault them for being skeptical about some of the unproven claims -- but bizarrely, they seem committed to a studied dismissal of even the evidence that's publicly available (like what's covered in your link.) Their attitude is "nothing to see here" when clearly there's a whole lot to see.
Greenwald's latest piece argues that the obsession with Russia will only backfire: people will soon realize that it was all a tempest in a teapot, created by the CIA and trumpeted by the media, and this will have the effect of weakening any future attacks on the administration. I disagree but fair enough. But what I want to know is, why does Greenwald appear eager to do all he can to foment that backlash, appearing on Fox News and denouncing Democrats and liberals for espousing "conspiracy theories"?
And in case anyone missed it, "Chinese State Media Tells Trump Team To 'Prepare for Military Clash'"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/rex-tillerson-south-china-sea-state-media-prepare-military-clash-donald-trump-global-times-a7525061.html
... the Glenn Greenwald faction of the Left...
ReplyDeleteThere's really pretty good reason to think that Greenwald is not, in any important sense, on "the left". He has a few hobby-horses that are attractive to some on the left, but his general world-view is that of a Republican leaning libertarian. See, for examples, the following:
https://rootedcosmopolitan.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/glenn-greenwald-neither-a-liberal-nor-a-progressive/
Many more are possible. (His political views also strike me as hopelessly naive, but that's not, alas, something limited to people of his political persuasions.)