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

Tue Jan 10 05:22:46 CST 2017

And, yes, I am aware of some of the US's interferences in the elections of
other countries. History is still a nightmare
from which I try to awake.

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, I should have written " on the outcome of the US election for
> President". I guess I over identified here, parochially, with the country
> in which I live.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 10, 2017, at 6:09 AM, Jochen Stremmel <jstremmel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mark K: "They attempted to have an effect on the outcome of our election."
>
> Is that an US American speaking? I'm sure you know some examples of how
> your governments in the past did not only attempt to have effects like that.
>
> 2017-01-10 11:37 GMT+01:00 Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>:
>
>> 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-think
>>> s-thousands-of-russian-hackers-are-reading-my-blog-they-arent/
>>> <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-re
>>> liable-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-sw
>>> ing-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/fa5807a2/attachment.html>