Um... could this be "it"?

[Mark Kohut]

You are correct about overstating the case......too hastily did not
distinguish between a Special Prosecuters' team's fact-based indictments and
the same fact-based reporting that so many will doubt--have doubted--
because it hasn't been "vetted' yet by solid evidence-based lawyers, grand
juries, etc.

The kind of solid fact-finding reporting-- before a Special Prosecutor
declares-- that is automatically dismissed by so many because they 'can't
show their work' , so to speak.
I know a few folks like that.

Thanks for the rewrite.



On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> You are overstating the case. An indictment is not legal proof. That
> requires a trial and close examination of evidence. A trial seems unlikely.
> None of the evidence Mueller has points to collusion. So that particular
> media fantasy looks dead in the water. Blaming Jill Stein or Gary Johnson
> is undemocratic and will not help decent people run and get elected.
>    I hope Mueller comes up with something that seriously embarrasses Trump
> or puts him on trial, but I would’t put money on it.
>
> > On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:26 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Michiko Kakutani‏Verified account @michikokakutani 5h5 hours ago
> > More
> > "Counterterrorism intelligence expert Malcolm Nance: Russians "hacked
> the mindset of the American public"
> >
> > --see the effort to create sympathy and votes for Jill Stein, who,
> unlike Bernie Sanders, has NOT denounced the PROVEN, NOW-LEGALLY PROVEN--
> > FACTS about Russian criminal interference in the US election. 'Meddling'
> is the mainstream euphemism.  (I'll give her more time; we know she doesn't
> follow US politics very closely)
> >
> > Ms Stein got almost 5 times as many votes in Michigan as the difference
> in votes between Clinton and Trump.
> > 5 hours ago
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:45 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > God, you do go on and on... I can barely skim you.
> >
> > Also you are so often so misguided.
> >
> > Theses indictments are a strategic first salvo.  They are a dare against
> Trump firing Mueller, and they inherently deligitimze his election, even
> without any proven collusion.  But collusion is pretty close to treason,
> and the flipping of Bannon, Manafort, Gates, etc. make collusion a real
> possible deal.  This shit is BIG, no matter how Republicans try to hide
> from it.  Their gig is almost up.
> >
> > David Morris
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:02 PM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> > It does put teeth in the earlier accusations of Russian efforts to smear
> Hillary, but it strikes me as weak and not likely to go anywhere since the
> accused are Russians and are highly unikely to go to trial.  Mueller also
> has given a preliminary if not final statement of no collusion, no
> treasonous relationship between Trump election team and Russia. Indicting
> people you can’t bring to trial is not so impressive. Also these Russians
> don’t seem to have done much but post fake news on the web, an act which is
> so common as to be meaningless. The hacked emails could just as easily been
> done by someone else and they exposed real misdeeds by the DNC.
> >   Whether there are different routes by which Mueller can expose Trump’s
> business relations to Russian Oligarchs is open to question. Unfotunately
> there may be limits on the scope of his investigation that prevent him from
> going into Trump’s business dealings especially with no indication of
> electoral collusion.  One obvious hypocrisy problem with the 13 indictments
> is that the US interfered in far more direct and questionable ways in
> Russian politics to get Yeltsin in power. Also
> >
> > James Risen is working now for the Intercept and recently posted 2
> stories about Russia. The first is about CIA/NSA cyber weapons that went
> missing and seem to be in the hands of the Russians via a group called the
> Shadow Brokers. If that ain’t werd enough, Risen says US intel offered to
> buy them , mainly because the US agencies don’t know how much was taken and
> want to know the extent of the damage. The Russians wanted to throw in
> damaging info on Trump but the agencies which had sent money to Germany
> then backed off, possibly to avoid the political repercussions  of
> processing Trump info with CIA head Pompeo, a  Trump loyalist.
> >
> > Now it turns out some of the files in question have been sent to the
> NYT( Trump files  or cyber spy files is not clear). If they are Trump files
> and there is some way of the NYT confirming the validity of any of the
> information this may be the next big story.
> >
> > So why would Russia now try to get Trump in trouble? Disinformation?
> Regrets about Trump? Restore friendlier relations?
> >
> > The other Risen story  came out the day before the Mueller announcement
> and makes it clear Risen thinks the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC
> files is very conclusive. It seemed like very strong evidence to me to me
> despite my skepticism about one part where the Russian operative in charge
> of the operation may be a US double agent and the fact that the DNC servers
> were never examined by the FBI. Holy shit it just keeps getting weirder.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> >
>
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20180218/5af20096/attachment.html>