Billionaire Philanthropist Blasts the Clintons for Massive Foundation Fraud in Haiti

Billionaire Philanthropist Blasts the Clintons for Massive Foundation Fraud in Haiti

Billionaire Gary Heavin slams the Clintons about Haiti

The following transcript comes from this video: Media Caught Covering Up Clinton’s Ongoing Looting Of Haiti (Video)


Gary Heavin’s message to Hillary Clinton, and dialogue amongst local Haiti emergency responders. (Gary is the founder of CURVES)

“Hillary, let me give you a word. First of all I’m wealthier than you are, and here I am with my money, my hands. I’m flying aircraft into these dangerous situations. The head of the Senate here in Haiti said that it of the billions that you collected for these children here only 2%!  2%! You are a grand level thief and the world needs to know about it, Americans need to know about it. If we dare trust you with anything we’re fools, and you know, you’ve proven it over and over again, but Haiti you can’t explain this away.

Look around. Do you see any Clinton fund trucks or airplanes? Isn’t here and I’m an eyewitness. You have the audacity to act as if you care about people. I know you’re a psychopath. You probably get a kick out of the fact that you’re getting away with this grand theft, and it’s because the media the mainstream media in America is your lapdog. I don’t know whether they’re afraid of you, or they buy into your nonsense but I’m not afraid of you. I’m going to challenge you everywhere I can and I’m asking the hundreds of thousands of people who are watching this to get involved, get the word out, get this viral.

Hillary Clinton, with what you’ve done selling state secrets, selling uranium to our so-called enemy, picking a fight with Russia, taking us to the verge of World War 3 but media doesn’t tell us about it. You are the wicked person on this planet, and every time I put food in the mouths of these children I think of what a creepy witch you are. So damn you! This is what you should be doing but you don’t even understand. You’re a psychopath who gets power off getting away with this, and I understand this. You don’t care what I’m saying. The American people who are going to go vote, especially the black Americans, these are black people here that I’m taking care of. The black Americans need to know that you use them for their vote and then you throw them away. You keep them America like Detroit, impoverished, as you have power and control of black Americans. SHAME on you! They’re waking up. I’m not a great Trump fan but he’s not bought and paid by the elites, not bought and paid by the shadow government. Hillary we’re on to you, and we have time to wake the American people up, and get you out of our lives once and for all .. you miserable wretch!”

“Most of the Haitians consider Hillary Clinton a thief” –

2:36 Gary and Diane have been down here with their own caravans, they came down with three planes and we’ve been providing help to Dame-Marie, Lachi, and Jeremie. They have been the only ones able to distribute to about 3,000 people, basically food, water, oil, the basic needs for any human being. We don’t see the Red Cross. We haven’t seen the Clinton Foundation doing anything in Haiti. We are the only ones medevacing those trauma people, and Dame-Marie we’re the only flights landing there getting people out that need to be medevaced.

Gary’s Question. This guy is an EMT. He’s been doing this for quite a while. How much Clinton Fund money have you seen actually put in the hands of Haitians?
EMT. Absolutely nothing right now because we’ve been here since what last Wednesday. We haven’t seen nothing yet.

Gary’s Question. Most of the Haitians consider Hillary Clinton a thief would that be an accurate description?
EMT. I would say yes. It’s been going on for quite a while.

Anon 1. January 2010 and before that.
EMT. Yep. So this is it.
Anon 1. They were already digging their fingers in Haiti before it happened, and when that catastrophic event took place they seized it, jumped in here and then took a hold of the natural disaster and used it as a way to benefit themselves. That’s what they always do.

Gary. And we have absolute proof that the Clintons have put nothing into Haiti other than getting a gold mine for Hillary’s brother and their rich friends.

4:15 Anon 2. I don’t see major organizations down here. I don’t see major organizations out in that area. We’re the only ones out there. Hero [?] is literally the only one out there in Dame-Marie doing this work, and Dame-Marie is one of the most affected areas where the hurricane went through and devastated the entire town. So we have a bunch of people without homes, without food, without shelter, and in need of medical assistance, so that in itself should be screaming out to the world that yes we need eyes back on Haiti because we can’t do it alone, we desperately need help.

4:45 Anon 3. You know what’s amazing aside from some small-scale US military aid, and some other Christian organizations, I looked around and thought, I wonder where the Religion of Peace is at? Why aren’t these guys down here helping out? Where’s the Clinton Foundation that’s collected hundreds of millions of dollars from the earthquake, and dispensed, you know if people were lucky they got ten cents on the dollar out of that. And I think the large part of it is really to blame on the media. The media hasn’t covered the story. This country is devastated.

5:23 Anon 4. Haiti Air Ambulance, the ‘great’ organization with a beautiful helicopter, ambulance, and staff. They want to come here and take our patients but they can’t go round trip on one tank of gas. Okay? The only people they can get gas from out here is MINUSTHA and they won’t sell them gas because they need it for their operation. They won’t let us do medevacs on UN planes. They won’t let us do medevacs on army planes.

Gary. The army won’t let you do medevac right?

Anon 4. The army won’t. They come here and take our people

 

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

ERIC ZUESSE | 17.07.2017 | WORLD

Poll: Americans’ Massive Disapproval of Both Parties

The «Monthly Harvard-Harris Poll: June 2017» is the latest poll in that series, and it scientifically sampled 2,258 U.S. registered voters, of whom (as shown on page 30) 35% were «Democrat», 29% were «Republican», and 30% were «independent»). It indicates (page 24) that 37% «approve» and 63% «disapprove» of «the way the Republican Party is handling its job». It also indicates (page 25) that 38% «approve», and 62% «disapprove», of «the way the Democratic Party is handling its job». So: despite there being 6% more self-described «Democrat»s than «Republican»s, there was only 1% more disapproval of the Republican Party than of the Democratic Party; and, this indicates that there was a substantial disapproval of «the Democratic Party» by Democratic voters (more disaffection by them for ‘their’ Party, than Republicans have for theirs).

The answers to other questions in the poll also help to provide an answer as to why this is so, and why the voting public don’t hold either Party in high regard — why America’s supposedly ‘democratic’ (small-«D») politics is currently a contest between uglies, with neither Party offering anything like what the U.S. voting public want their government to do (i.e., it fits what this scientific study found actually to control U.S. politics):

(Page 27) 41% think «President Trump should be impeached and removed from office», and 45% think «no action should be taken» against him.

(Page 28) 36% think «the investigations into Russia and President Trump» are «helping the country», and 64% think they’re «hurting the country».

(Page 39) Of listed U.S. government officials, the highest percentage-favorable ratings were: Bernie Sanders (52%), Mike Pence (47%), Donald Trump (45%), Hillary Clinton (39%), Paul Ryan (38%), Elizabeth Warren (37%), Jim Comey (36%), Robert Mueller (34%), Nancy Pelosi (31%), Jeff Sessions (28%), and Rex Tillerson (28%).

(Page 40) The highest percentage-unfavorable ratings were: Hillary Clinton (56%), Nancy Pelosi (51%), Donald Trump (50%), Paul Ryan (45%), Mitch McConnell (42%), Jeff Sessions (41%), Mike Pence (40%), Jared Kushner (39%), Bernie Sanders (38%), Jim Comey (36%), and Elizabeth Warren (36%).

(Page 72) 48% think «President Trump colluded with the Russians during the election over the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta’s emails». 52% say «No» — Trump did not do that.

(Page 73) 54% say «associates of President Trump» did it; 46% say «No» to that.

(Page 74) 38% say «There is evidence» of such «collusion» by Trump; 62% say «No».

(Page 75) 54% say this is a «legitimate investigation»; 46% say it’s «fueled to create a cloud over the Trump administration».

(Page 79) 44% say «Keep the focus on the Russia investigation»; 56% say «Move on to other issues».

(Page 83) 73% say they are «concerned» that there has been «lost focus and energy by the administration and Congress because of the Russia investigation». 67% say they’re «concerned» about «future interference by Russia in U.S. elections».

(Page 95) 54% say «Yes» and 46% say «No» to «Do you think the so called ‘Deep State’ — the collection of intelligence agencies and holdover government workers from the Obama administration — is trying to unseat President Trump?»

(Page 96) When asked «Who do you think is more to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss of the election?» 67% choose «Hillary Clinton and her campaign team for running a weak campaign» and 33% choose «Forces like the Russians, former FBI director Comey, and the Democratic National Committee not having reliable voter data».

(Page 124) 74% «Favor» «Offering incentives for electric cars and renewable energy such as wind and solar». 62% «Favor» Setting much tougher emission standards for cars and other vehicles». 34% «Favor» «Putting coal, and all coal and clean coal plants, out of business». Today’s American public take global warming seriously — or at least more seriously than Republican public officials do..

(Page 133) 47% think it was «Right» and 53% think it was «Wrong» for Trump «to pull the United States out of the current version of the Paris Climate Agreement.”

(Page 151) 49% think «the media is being fair» to President Trump; 51% say «Unfair».

(Page 154) 21% «Favor «raising the U.S. government’s debt ceiling». 69% «Oppose».

(Page 155) 36% «Favor» «a government shut down» over the issue; 64% «Oppose».

What this poll found is basically the same thing that has been shown in many different polls. So: former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who was the last person who was able to win the White House without needing to rely upon billionaires in order to do it, was correct when he said that, «Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members». Anybody who refers to this government as being a ‘democracy’ is way behind the times, because it has been, ever since 1980, controlled by its aristocracy; it is an «oligarchy» instead of a democracy; it is a «regime» instead of a government that represents its public. This regime represents its aristocrats. And that is why the public’s disapproval of this country’s leaders is so high. That happens in a regime, not in a democracy. Both of America’s Parties represent this country’s aristocracy, not America’s public. The latest Harvard-Harris poll simply adds to the already-overwhelming evidence of this. But the basic evidence on the matter was the Gilens-Page study. In their section «American Democracy?» they said:

What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of «populistic» democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.

One of the aristocracy’s many magazines, The Atlantic, headlined on June 21st, «Is American Democracy Really Under Threat?» and tried to fool their readers to think the answer is no; but, of course, they were pointing, as ‘evidence’, merely to nominal adherence to ‘democratic’ forms, and ignored the actual evidence on the matter, such as Gilens and Page examined in depth, and such as the many polls that have also been referred to in the links here have additionally reinforced. None of this actual evidence was even so much as mentioned. The honest answer to the article’s title-question is not just «Yes» but more than that: their question itself is more like their having asked «Is there a danger of the horse being stolen?» after the horse was already stolen, and has for decades (since at least 1980) already been absent from the barn; so, that article’s very title is a deception, even without its text (which is written for outright fools who can’t recognize what constitutes «evidence» that is suitable for a given allegation). A better question would therefore be: Why do people still subscribe to vapid propaganda-magazines like that? All propaganda should be free of charge. But, of course, in a dictatorship like this, people pay even for the right to be deceived. It’s no longer free-of-charge. That’s just the way things are — really are. It’s shown in the data — not in anybody’s mere platitudes about the matter. People pay to embellish the lies that they already believe. Most people want that, more than they want to come to know the truth. The worse the truth is, the more that people crave the myth which contradicts it — they’ll pay good money to mainline that into themselves: evidenceless reassurances, such as that article. But anyone who takes that type of pap seriously, won’t be able sensibly to understand such findings as were reported in the latest Harvard-Harris poll.

Russia Baiters and Putin Haters

Russia Baiters and Putin Haters

 by Patrick J. Buchanan

“Is Russia an enemy of the United States?” NBC’s Kasie Hunt demanded of Ted Cruz. Replied the runner-up for the GOP nomination, “Russia is a significant adversary. Putin is a KGB thug.”

To Hillary Clinton running mate Tim Kaine, the revelation that Donald Trump Jr., entertained an offer from the Russians for dirt on Clinton could be considered “treason.”

Treason is giving aid and comfort to an enemy in a time of war.

Are we really at war with Russia? Is Russia really our enemy?

“Why Russia is a Hostile Power” is the title of today’s editorial in The Washington Post that seeks to explain why Middle America should embrace the Russophobia of our capital city:

“Vladimir Putin adheres to a set of values that are antithetical to bedrock American values. He favors spheres of influence over self-determination; corruption over transparency; and repression over democracy.”

Yet, accommodating a sphere of influence for a great power is exactly what FDR and Churchill did with Stalin, and every president from Truman to George H. W. Bush did with the Soviet Union.

When East Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles rose up against Communist regimes, no U.S. president intervened. For those nations were on the other side of the Yalta line agreed to in 1945.

Bush I and James Baker even accused Ukrainians of “suicidal nationalism” for contemplating independence from Russia.

When did support for spheres of influence become un-American?

As for supporting “corruption over transparency,” ex-Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili resigned in disgust as governor of Odessa in November, accusing Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, our man in Kiev, of supporting corruption.

As for favoring “repression over democracy,” would that not apply to our NATO ally President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt, and our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte? Were U.S. Cold War allies like the Shah of Iran and Gen. Augusto Pinochet of Chile all Jeffersonian Democrats? Have we forgotten our recent history?

The Post brought up the death in prison of lawyer-activist Sergei Magnitsky in 2009. Under the Magnitsky Act of 2012, Congress voted sanctions on Russia’s elites.

Yet China’s lone Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo, sentenced to 11 years in prison for championing democracy, died Thursday of liver cancer, with police in his hospital room. Communist dictator Xi Jinping, who makes Putin look like Justin Trudeau, would not let the dying man go.

Will Magnitsky Act sanctions be slammed on China? Don’t bet on it. Too much trade. Congress will do what comes naturally — kowtow. Yet our heroic Senate voted 98-2 to slam new sanctions on Russia.

What are the roots of this hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin, whom a Fox analyst called “as bad as Hitler”?

During the Cold War, every president sought detente with a USSR that was arguably the most blood-soaked regime of the century.

When the Cold War ended in December 1991, the Soviet Union had dissolved into 15 nations. Moscow had given up her empire, a third of her territory, and half the population of the USSR. Marxist-Leninist ideology was dead. An epochal change had taken place.

Yet hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin seem to exceed anything some of us remember from the worst days of the Cold War.

Putin’s Russia is called imperialist, though Estonia, next door, which Russia could swallow in one gulp, has been free for 25 years.

Russia invaded Georgia. Well, yes, after Georgia invaded the seceded province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers.

Russia has taken back Crimea from Ukraine. True, but only after a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev replaced the elected pro-Russian regime.

Russia has intervened to back Bashar Assad in Syria. Yes, but only after our insurgent allies collaborated with al-Qaida and ISIS to bring him down. Is Russia not allowed to support an ally, recognized by the U.N., which provides its only naval base on the Med?

Russia has meddled in our election. And we have meddled in the affairs of half a dozen nations with “color-coded revolutions.” The cry of “regime change!” may daily be heard in the U.S. Capitol.

Putin is not Pope Francis. But he is not Stalin; he is not Hitler; he is not Mao; and Russia today is not the USSR. Putin is an autocrat cut from the same bolt of cloth as the Romanov czars.

His cooperation is crucial to the peace of the world, the freedom of the Baltic States, an end to the Syrian civil war, tranquility in the Persian Gulf, and solving the North Korean crisis.

While our tectonic plates may rub against one another, we are natural allies. The Russia of Tolstoy, Pushkin, Solzhenitsyn and the Orthodox Church belongs with the West.

If America stumbles into a war with Russia that all our Cold War presidents avoided, the Russia baiters and Putin haters will be put in same circle of hell by history as the idiot war hawks of 1914 and the three blind men of Versailles in 1919.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

Saudi Arabia: What’s Really Behind Trump’s Hypocrisy?

July 14, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar – NEO) – US President Donald Trump’s support came in no small part from those Americans who believe terrorism, and more specifically, “Islamic” terrorism pose an existential threat to the United States and the wider Western World.

It is curious then that President Trump’s first trip abroad was to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the sociocultural source code of the very extremism infecting both the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) as well as the wider, global extremism it inspires and fuels everywhere from Southeast Asia, western China and even in the streets of North America and Europe.

Far from a geopolitical gaff, US associations with Saudi Arabia and their mutual link and contribution to (not fighting against) terrorism is increasingly becoming an embarrassing, “open secret.”

It was the US Defense Intelligence Agency in a 2012 memo leaked to the public that revealed the creation of terrorist organizations like the Islamic State (referred to in the memo as a “Salafist principality”) were encouraged by “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.”

Leaked emails from former US Secretary of State and 2016 US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would include direct references to Saudi Arabia and Qatar in regards to their complicity in arming the Islamic State. More specifically, both nations were accused of, “providing clandestine financial and logistic support” to the Islamic State.

While the US postures to the world as engaged in a global war on terrorism, it is clear that those nations in the Middle East cooperating closest with Washington are in fact those also perpetuating this seemingly endless war. Why?

It turns out that perpetual war is a lucrative affair in both terms of acquiring wealth and power. It is this equation of wealth and power that takes precedence, even at the expense of narrative continuity and political legitimacy.

Dollars, Oil and Arms

Was President Trump’s visit to Riyadh to deliver a stern warning regarding its extensive history of state sponsorship of terror? On the contrary. It was to seal an unprecedented weapons deal with Saudi Arabia amounting to an immediate $110 billion, and $350 billion over the next 10 years, according to the New York Times.

The New York Times also revealed the participants in the massive arms deal to include Lockheed Martin.

It was no surprise then that US policy think tanks like the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) encouraged members to submit op-eds praising President Trump’s trip to prominent US and European media sources including The Hill.

The Hill’s op-ed, “Trump gets it right in Saudi Arabia,” for example, was penned by Anthony Cordesman, a CSIS member. His op-ed would conclude by passionately arguing:

This speech is the right beginning — in remarkably well crafted terms — and it deserves bipartisan and expert respect.

It is no surprise considering the sponsors who keep the lights on at CSIS and Mr. Cordesman in a job. The think tank’s most prominent corporate donors include Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and, most telling of all, Lockheed Martin. It is also sponsored by Saudi Aramco, the central nexus of the US-Saudi petrodollar network propping up what many think tanks call the US-led “international order.”

Governments that donate to CSIS include the United States and Saudi Arabia itself. Together, corporate and government donations account for over 60% (34% and 27% respectively) of CSIS’ overall funding, according to its 2016 annual report.

Of course, a man’s “opinion” of President Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, including a multi-billion dollar arms deal favoring Lockheed Martin, will be positive, when the organization he works for is funded directly by both Lockheed Martin and the government of Saudi Arabia.

It is an example of  how the media in the United States actually works and how special interests, not the “truth,” shape narratives and drive agendas in complete contradiction to reality and the best interests of the vast majority on the planet.

Threatening America’s “international order” are competitors that exist independent of or even opposed to Washington and its corporate partners both on Wall Street and in Riyadh.

This is why US President Trump praised Saudi Arabia, a nation that serves as a virtual model for the Islamic State, and condemned Iran whose forces have fought for 6 years against both the Islamic State and Al Qaeda affiliates who have flooded into Syria and Iraq.

Clearly, based on the fact that the US’ closest ally in the Middle East is also one of the worst human rights offenders on the planet and the premier sponsor of global terrorism, ideological and humanitarian concerns are strictly a rhetorical facade.

It was never about ideology, humanitarianism or truly fighting “terrorism.” It is not a matter of “good and evil.” It is as simple dollars and cents, Saudi riyals, oil and arms and maintaining hegemony across a region and upon a planet to prevent this wealth and influence from being usurped either by a competitor of equal footing or a general trend toward multipolar geopolitical decentralization.

The media is awash in politically-oriented rhetoric attempting to divide and distract the public along strictly political lines. The common denominator among all of this propaganda is the fact that all of the narratives, no matter how apparently contradictory, conveniently allow the singular agenda of amassing dollars, oil and arms in pursuit of global hegemony to move forward.

As this very simple reality is understood and acted upon by more people than pay into this prevailing political facade that perpetuates it, multipolar geopolitical decentralization will continue to incrementally replace this current US-dominated “international order.”

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

P.C. Roberts on ‘the ignorant, stupid Nikki Haley’ and the destruction of the Trump Administration

[ Ed. note – A very interesting commentary by Paul Craig Roberts, who argues that Trump is powerless–he is under the complete control of the Deep State–and that the president is furthermore being treacherously undermined by his own appointees. The Trump administration is full of Russophobes like UN Ambassador Nikki Haley who, rather than  pursuing the peaceful relations with Russia that Trump seemed to promise during the campaign, have instead become parrots essentially, repeating the mainstream media mantra about “Russian interference” in the election. What are the implications of all this? Not good, says Roberts. Trump has become nothing more than a “figurehead” president, he argues, while the media and the Deep State are committed to  “raising tensions between the US and Russia to the point of nuclear war.” ]

By Paul Craig Roberts

President Trump Has Been Contradicted by His Own Government, Which Has Lined Up Against Him in Favor of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and the Russophobic Presstitute Media that serves the military/security complex and the neoconservatives.

I am afraid that The Saker and Finian Cunningham are correct. Nothing can come of Trump’s meeting with Putin, because, as Cunningham puts it,

“Trump doesn’t have freedom or real power. The real power brokers in the US will ensure that the Russophobia campaign continues, with more spurious allegations of Moscow interfering to subvert Western democracies. Trump will continue to live under a cloud of media-driven suspicions. And thus the agenda of regime change against Syria and confrontation with Russia will also continue. Trump’s personal opinions on these matters and towards Vladimir Putin are negligible—indeed dispensable by the deep powers-that-be.”

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/395782-trump-putin-meeting-media-syria/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47392.htm

Cunningham points out that instead of lauding the meeting as the beginning of the process to defuse the high tensions between the two major nuclear powers, the US media denounced Trump for being civil to Putin in the meeting.

What is missing from the media in the entirety of the Western world and perhaps also in Russia is the awareness that the dangerous tensions are orchestrated not only by Hillary and the Democratic National Committee, the neoconservatives, the US military/security complex, and the presstitutes, but also by President Trump’s own appointees.

Trump’s own ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, and Trump’s own Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, sound exactly like Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, the neoconservatives, the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN and the rest of the totally discredited presstitute media that is committed to raising tensions between the US and Russia to the point of nuclear war.

Continued here

***

Click the link just above to read the rest of Roberts’ commentary. Meanwhile, the “Russia conspiracy soap opera” continues in the media. The lone exception to this seems to be one program on Fox News.

Kremlin derides new U.S. media buzz of ‘Russian meddling’ as bordering on TV soap opera

Source

TASS, July 12, 2017

MOSCOW – The Kremlin has nothing to do with the correspondence of the U.S. president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., his alleged meeting with Russian attorney Natalya Veselnitskaya and believes that this story is another spin in the ongoing soap opera, Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday.

“This story has nothing much to feed off of,” Peskov said after being asked whether this story could stoke U.S. suspicions regarding Russia’s alleged interference in the most recent U.S. presidential election.

“This is just another spin to the plot and it appeared immediately after the bilateral meeting [between the Russian and U.S. presidents],” he said. “On the whole, it definitely looks like a long-running soap opera, which can compete with the most successful TV-series currently aired in the United States, however, there is no sense drawing us into such soap operas as we are not taking part or playing any roles in it.”

The New York Times daily published a story last week claiming that in June 2016, then presidential candidate Donald Trump’s eldest son Donald Trump Jr., son-in-law Jared Kushner and campaign chairman Paul Manafort held a meeting with a Russian lawyer, who allegedly had connections to Russian authorities. According to the New York Times, some people linked to Russian ruling circles, as well as to a number of state companies, were among Natalya Veselnitskaya’s clients.

Peskov reiterated that the Kremlin “has absolutely nothing to do with this story, has never been in contact with this lawyer (Veselnitskaya) and, therefore, has nothing to say about it.”

The presidential spokesman dismissed as absurd allegations that Veselnitskaya reportedly acted on behalf of the Russian government during the meeting with Trump Jr. “How could a lawyer be possibly representing the Russian government at the official level?” Peskov said adding that an only exception is when a lawyer acts on behalf of the government in a court trial.

“But it was not about it [a court trial] in this given case, therefore such a statement on the issue is improper and absurd,” he said.

U.S. President Trump and his administration repeatedly denied allegations that Russian authorities meddled in last year’s US presidential election helping him to win the race. Moscow has also rebuffed such allegations on numerous occasions.

Related:
‘Wild & overblown’: Lavrov blasts media hype over Trump Jr. meeting with Russian lawyer, RT.com, July 12, 2017

The biggest plot hole in #Russiagate is that nobody can even say what it is

Source

Donald Trump and son Donald Trump Jr.

After months and months of shrieking about Russian hackers, Kremlin bots, RT propaganda and urinating prostitutes, the dauntless crusaders for the Russiagate conspiracy theory are now crowing that they have at long last been vindicated by a new revelation that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of these things. Today’s Shocking Trump-Russia Revelation is that Donald Trump Jr. published his emails with a British tabloid reporter last year who claimed that the Russian government supported Trump over Clinton, and wanted to provide documents to the Trump campaign proving Clinton’s connections with the Kremlin.

Leaving aside the fact that no such documents ever surfaced, the fact that none of these manic Russiagaters seem to be remotely curious about their anointed queen’s Kremlin connections, the fact that it should surprise no one that Russia prefered Trump over the woman who wanted to set up a no-fly zone in an area where Russian military planes are conducting operations, the fact that the lawyer Trump Jr. met with is nowhere near the Kremlin power broker these people are pretending she is, and the fact that what Trump Jr. was doing is virtually identical to what the Clinton camp was doing at the exact same time — leaving all of that aside — the single biggest plot hole in this Trump-Russia collusion narrative is that nobody has ever painted a clear picture of what specifically said collusion is meant to have looked like. The fact that Trump Jr.’s emails don’t fit with any part of the preexisting Russiagate narrative, don’t confirm anything the Russiagaters have been saying about what happened, and never manifested in any actual released documents of Clinton-Russia connections doesn’t seem to bother these people at all.

For pointing out the consistent failure of these tireless Russia conspiracy theorists to provide a clear, non-debunked, fact-based argument for their collusion narrative with enough evidence to satisfy our mandatory skepticism in a post-“Saddam has WMDs” world, I get called a Kremlin agent, a Russian bot, and, most recently, a “denier”, the latter used with the same tone you’d reserve for a Holocaust denier.

But what exactly is it that I’m denying? Nobody has ever been able to tell me what this collusion thing even looks like. The fastest way to get a Russiagater to block you on social media is to demand a specific, concrete narrative describing what this collusion is supposed to have looked like so that you can tell them what kinds of proof you would need in order to believe that it happened.

Try it. Press them. What exactly is the specific accusation here? How specifically does Trump Jr.’s email correspondence prove what Russiagaters have been saying for the last nine months, for example? Or how did the hacking collusion happen? Why would Russian hackers need to “collude” with Trump at all in order to help kill the campaign of a candidate whose election they already wanted to avoid? Why wouldn’t they just do it on their own? You won’t get a straight answer. At best you’ll get some vague, amorphous gibberish about smoke and fire, but if you press them about what this vague Trumpy-Putiny-smoke-fire-something-nothing thing is supposed to have looked like, you’ll get, at best, an accusation of being a Kremlin agent.

For this reason, the Russiagate argument is completely devastated before it ever gets off the ground. In order for there to be a debate, both sides need to clearly define their position. I can clearly point to the lack of solid evidence needed in a post-Iraq invasion world, while Russiagaters are unable to even articulate what specifically their alleged collusion is supposed to have looked like. It’s impossible to argue against something if the other party refuses to even define what you’re meant to be arguing against. This bad thinking is the only thing that keeps this debate going in political discourse.

There is no clearly-defined fact-based picture of what specifically Trump-Russia collusion is meant to look like, and there never will be. Unlike Watergate, which began as an investigation into a concrete burglary and then followed a logical series of investigations into interconnected factors up to President Nixon, Russiagate is an investigation of a person. It began with people disliking Trump, and then trying to find a crime to get him out of the way. That’s all this is, and that’s all it ever will be. We will never, ever see any hard evidence proving that Trump colluded with the Russian government; we will never even see a consensus fact-based argument about how specifically it is supposed to have happened. We will only ever get this vague, gaseous, Trumpy-Putiny-smoke-fire-something-nothing thing, because as long as the Russiagaters keep refusing to make a solid argument, it can never be fully obliterated for the fallacious nonsense that it is.

%d bloggers like this: