Um... could this be "it"?

Mon Feb 19 08:43:58 CST 2018

I'm sure, some of you have read it but anyway:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/02/16/the-peculiar-business-of-being-russian-american-in-trumps-usa/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NYR%20Venezuela%20Philip%20Roth%20Russian-Americans&utm_content=NYR%20Venezuela%20Philip%20Roth%20Russian-Americans+CID_4b9cf7c07b9db30f0e3959087cde6e30&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_term=On%20Being%20Russian-American

2018-02-19 13:50 GMT+01:00 Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>:

> At least this post admits that your last, perhaps as hasty as mine was
> yesterday morning, stating "bringing Trump to trial" was one of the
> mistakes I pointed out. Admitting makes the pivot more honest in my
> ethical framework but that's another judgment call which you may not
> share, and that's OK.
>
> One again, another straightforward conclusion---"the nation is structured
> to make it very hard to prosecute the rich and powerful"....that is not
> what we were talking about; that is so true that it does not follow the
> argument; that is irrelevant to the reality of Russia's interference in the
> US election . I was talking ultimately---it is all there
> in my emails--about possible collusion by Team Trump members but I rested
> on the charges as ALREADY FILED. The Team Trump members who have taken
> guilty pleas. Who are talking under deals to the Special Prosecutor's team.
> ...... ...and, speculatively, we will see if collusion goes to the top. I
> haven't yet mentioned possible obstruction of justice which many good
> lawyers do think they see. Like Lawrence Tribe.
>
> Yes, the rich and powerful, Nixon was pardoned. But he was made to resign.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 1:22 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
>> The core problem with the Mueller investigation is that Mueller cannot
>> according to his role as special prsecutor bring a criminal indictment
>> directly against Trump. The worst he can do is  1 of these 2 : 1)Present a
>> conclusion that Trump committed impeachable crimes to the DOJ. Would Ryan
>> or McConnel then bring impeachment proceedings? Very remote. 2)  name Trump
>> as an unidicted co-conspirator, as was done to Nixon. Again it goes to the
>> Republican dominated congress who rely on the same voters who elected Trump.
>>   If the evidence is a bunch of  infractions that the Republicans can
>> safely ignore , like the obstruction of Justice case with Comey, it goes
>> nowhere.
>>    The original Rosenstein letter for the investigation only authorizes
>> investigation into collusion with Russia.  It is possible that other crimes
>> will not be able to be disclosed.
>>  Mueller has a big team of good lawyers but so do Trump and the
>> Republicans. The nation is structured to make it very hard to prosecute the
>> rich and powerful.
>>
>> > On Feb 18, 2018, at 8:33 PM, Atticus Pinecone <
>> atticuspineerecone at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Could this be... the acid test for the Flynn effect?
>> >
>> > On Feb 18, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know
>> there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we
>> do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know
>> we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and
>> other free ...
>> >> ☺
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> -
>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20180219/70d3097c/attachment.html>