NP - Did Putin Swing the Election to Trump? Of Course He Did. (less bluster, more evidence)

Tue Jan 10 04:37:05 CST 2017

I do fully agree that resisting Trump's decisions as we can, protesting now and, yes, protecting the most vulnerable under Trump is an heroic citizenry role. Lots will suffer and we also have to let "them" --all of us--know how it happened via Trump. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 10, 2017, at 5:02 AM, Matthew Taylor <matthew.taylor923 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> But the 'Russian hacking' means what? That they played a role in releasing a few documents, all of which were true and undoctored?
> 
> I don't want to say it's insignificant. But they didn't 'hack the election.' They helped to release some documents and emails. None of those were even out of line with existing narratives about Clinton and the DNC. 
> 
> So sure, it happened. It's important. What's much more important? Building a party that can win next time. Figuring out how to protect the people made most vulnerable by a Trump presidency. Not succumbing to paranoid hysteria about Russia as though they actually installed a dictator. There's a big difference between that and sending out some documents. 
> 
>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> There are 17 intelligence agencies and the FBI which have signed off on the truth of Russian hacking. There are private companies which have as well. A bipartisan unanimity of Senators and others believe and Intelligence committee Senators have seen evidence and know. ( To not believe that they did is to find a way to deny reality, to not see what is in front of your nose--the hardest thing said Orwell. )
>> 
>> Only Donald Trump does/ did not. 
>> 
>> The intercept's use of Russian sourced information disallows than fully and much more than whatever the US intelligence agencies lied about in the past. No one can point to our intelligence agencies lying to the President or the American people during this administration. Administrations matter, which is why the upcoming one demands constant awareness and actions. 
>> 
>> I just love Joseph's smooth segue to WMD and Hillary as a "decisive" voice NOT-as if she were in State then. Talk about irresponsible and distrustful. 
>> 
>> " respectable black intellectuals also" --WTF? Why just them and what does being black have to do with this discussion? Obama himself has almost nothing to do with the " intelligence" except that he doesn't lie, can see reality--unlike so many critics--and ordered the full investigation. 
>> 
>> Lotsa " respectable white intellectuals",  lotsa respectable Asian intellectuals, lotsa respected feminists and lotsa irresponsible folk have criticized Obama. This is stupid-ass non-logic innuendo in every word. EVERYONE who speaks has been criticized..... The point is reality, facts and truth. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On Jan 10, 2017, at 12:38 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Nope.
>>> 
>>> What cogent or relative statements does Greenwald offer to dispute the Intelligence report Obama cites?  It is that simple.
>>> 
>>> David Morris
>>> 
>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2017, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 9, 2017, at 10:54 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Either you or Laura tell me what "specifics" you want refuted or STFU.
>>>>> 
>>>> Which statements of his on the clip do you specifically disagree with? (LK)
>>>> The question was addressed to you. Turning it around is kind of lazy.
>>>> as to actual refutations of government claims by a cyber security expert
>>>> https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/the-u-s-government-thinks-thousands-of-russian-hackers-are-reading-my-blog-they-arent/ 
>>>> 
>>>>> Your digital signatures crap sounds a lot like Truther crap.  Are you a Truther?  You sound like one.  If so, you lost me @ go.  Talk about info bubbles!
>>>> Keep going with these razor sharp darts of  reason and logic. you are bound to hit something.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> David Morris
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Monday, January 9, 2017, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>>> Actually the Intercept( the digital journal edited by Greenwald) has gone into more detail about the quality of the allegations and their digital signature than anyone I have read.( a list of articles can be provided) Laura asked you to address specifics but I hear only louder repetition. As for Obama , there are many reasons to distrust him and that mistrust has been articulated by  respectable black intellectuals also.  Also it was not just Republicans projecting the nonsense about WMD. The vote on the Iraq war was bipartisan with Hillary as a decisive voice.
>>>>>   The fact that Trump is obnoxious and dangerous simply does not mean credible evidence has been provided that Russia was decisive in the election. The claims are unspecific; they were  made by known liars,  and they need to be examined by neutral internet experts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One of my concerns is that this 'Russia did it’ story becomes an excuse to ignore the far more obvious and serious flaws in our electoral process like the 75,000 votes in Detroit discounted because the voting machines can’t read what can easily be read by humans, the long lines in black districts etc.  Sadly, when Jill Stein challenged the process in Detroit plenty of Trump lawyers showed up for the recount but few to no lawyers from the DNC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> > On Jan 9, 2017, at 9:44 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > All Greenwald says in this interview is "Don't believe [anything] that you hear from US intelligence."  No more than that.  We know Bush lied us into Iraq, but do we believe Obama is lying us into believing that Russia hacked the election for Trump?  The implied symmetry is crap.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Why do you give him more credence than Obama?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > David Morris
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:13 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>> > As a courageous investigative journalist, do you think Greenwald's now become a mouthpiece for Putin merely because Russia cagily gave his past source Snowden asylum? Is that really all it takes to buy his collusion? Or is there some other reason for his alleged bias that you're speaking of. Which statements of his on the clip do you specifically disagree with?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > LK
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>> > From: David Morris
>>>>> > Sent: Jan 9, 2017 5:07 PM
>>>>> > To: "kelber at mindspring.com"
>>>>> > Cc: P-list
>>>>> > Subject: Re: NP - Did Putin Swing the Election to Trump? Of Course He Did.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Nice try to paint your stance as beleaguered minority one. But the point is that Greenwald is not unbiased when it comes to Russia.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > David Morris
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:04 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Is there any way to dissent from orthodoxy without being called a lunatic, a dupe or an axe-grinder?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Laura
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>> > From: David Morris
>>>>> > Sent: Jan 9, 2017 5:00 PM
>>>>> > To: "kelber at mindspring.com"
>>>>> > Cc: P-list
>>>>> > Subject: Re: NP - Did Putin Swing the Election to Trump? Of Course He Did.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Greenwald is NOT a reliable source in this case.  His axe grinding is as obvious as hell.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > David Morris
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:55 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>> > As a Pynchon reader, I can simultaneously hold two ideas in my brain, one of which is supported and one of which is not supported by the liberal establishment: 1. Trump is a horror; and 2. Putin wasn't responsible for his election.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/08/us/greenwald-intel-report-reliable-cnntv/
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Laura
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>> > From: David Morris
>>>>> > Sent: Jan 9, 2017 4:35 PM
>>>>> > To: P-list
>>>>> > Subject: NP - Did Putin Swing the Election to Trump? Of Course He Did.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thomas Eckhardt was oh so concerned about the Ukraine.  Not that it was being annexed by Russia, but that some of those wanting freedom from Russia were nazis.  Now the US is being annexed by nazis with the help of Russia.  Where is his concern now?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > David Morris
>>>>> >
>>>>> > http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/did-putin-swing-election-trump-course-he-did
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Given how close the election was, there's a pretty good chance that Putin's campaign of cyber-chaos had enough oomph to swing things all by itself.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'm a little surprised this hasn't produced more panic. In the United States I understand why it hasn't: Democrats don't want to sound like sore losers and Republicans don't care as long as their guy won. But what about the rest of the world?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> 
>>>>> -
>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20170110/6e3e0e7f/attachment.html>