Tuesday, January 2, 2018
JANUARY 1ST
It was 16 degrees when I walked this morning at 6 am, but there was a clear sky and a spectacular full moon, the best I have ever seen. I have great hopes for the George Papadopoulos revelations. Everyone is asking whether he talked to members of the campaign about the info he blurted out to the Australian diplomat, but he has pleaded guilty and is a cooperating witness so Mueller knows, and the answer is, Of course he did. This is getting good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Exactly. Furthermore, Popadopoulos was told in April 2016 by the Kremlin-connected professor Mifsud (who has lately gone missing) that Russia had dirt on Clinton in the form of emails. We know he's telling the truth because he was caught lying about this to the FBI. So how is it warranted, again, to remain skeptical that Russia hacked email accounts or that there was no collusion?
A question in the spirit of the Christmas Eve post: is there not a danger in believing too readily the mainstream media? They have proved to be serial liars over many decades, all too eager to further the agenda of one or other part of Eisenhower's military/industrial/financial complex.
A wholly unrelated question: can anyone tell me whether it is worth chasing up Jeffrey Reiman's riposte to "In defense of anarchism"?
Far be it from me to say a word about Reiman's book. Jeff is a good guy, and I think he was wrong, but then of course I would think he was wrong. I actually produced a new edition of IN DEFENSE with a response to Reiman, but it has probably disappeared over the decades. The key question is whether the introduction of the notion of prima facie duties helps the anti-Wolff argument, and the simple answer is no.
As for believing the mainstream media, it is necessary to be a very sceptical reader, to be sure.
Thank you.
I was alerted to Prof. Reiman by the intriguing title of his recent book on "Marxian Liberalism".
On the media, it seems that visitors to your blog are eager to believe what looks from the outside like a typical campaign of disinformation and fabrication (perhaps because they see it as the best way to end the nightmare of the Trump presidency - but that is surely not a reason to believe). There must be plenty of charges that justify President Trump's impeachment without this elaborate charade of Russian "meddling".
A couple of comments on previous comments:
The Russians do indeed have the dirt on Hilary Clinton - her corrupt dealings with a Russian nuclear power company - they got the contracts and the Clinton Foundation got the cash - but the Russians didn't use her blatant illegality to influence the election, and nor did they "hack" the Democratic Party servers (see the findings of the veteran intelligence operatives on this nonsense).
A question from a puzzled foreigner: Are Americans embarrassed about all this brouhaha over alleged but fictional Russian interference in US elections when the US interferes in everyone else's (the US even interfered in our Scottish independence referendum!)? And are Americans sheepish about this brouhaha over Russia's fictional subversion of the US political system when Israel appears able to dictate to US politicians up to and including the President (indeed part of Flynn's purpose in his conversations with the Russian ambassador was to further Israeli interests at the UN)?
President Trump's foreign policy does not differ is substance from that of any previous president over the last couple of decades at least. It is the crudity of its execution that is unique even by the standards of George W.
I'm sorry - this was meant simply as a thank-you to you for taking the trouble to answer my question. I do not look for a response to this rant.
Post a Comment