Weissman writes: "The Washington Post graphic shows Donald Trump and
Vladimir Putin kissing, nothing more than that. But the inference must be
that the two consenting adults did more than simply suck face. The evidence
is circumstantial, I admit. The sources are primarily from US intelligence
and law enforcement agencies, who have such a sterling record in truth
telling. But, c'mon, everyone knows the two men had sex, and soon they'll do
to us what they are clearly doing to each other."
A couple kisses in front of a mural of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump
kissing. (photo: Mindaugas Kulbis/AP)
Did Trump Have Sex With Putin?
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
19 December 16
The Washington Post graphic shows Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin kissing,
nothing more than that. But the inference must be that the two consenting
adults did more than simply suck face. The evidence is circumstantial, I
admit. The sources are primarily from US intelligence and law enforcement
agencies, who have such a sterling record in truth telling. But, c'mon,
everyone knows the two men had sex, and soon they'll do to us what they are
clearly doing to each other.
Everyone also seems to know that Putin made Trump our president. But if you
doubt that the two men had sex, why not exercise the same skepticism about
all those stories of political intercourse? No matter how many times the
mainstream media, progressive news sites in hot pursuit of the terrible
Trump, and liberal icons like Paul Krugman repeat the unproved claims as
gospel, they do not stand up to scrutiny.
The chief fault should be obvious. Most, if not all, of the stories fail to
make a sharp distinction between computer hacking and spreading the
purloined files to the American people.
I would be surprised if the Russians did not use hacking and other
electronic surveillance on us, from stealing industrial secrets to probing
elections. If US spooks can listen in on German Chancellor Angela Merkel,
why wouldn't Putin spy on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and
Hillary Clinton's campaign chief John Podesta? But spying on its own would
not affect how Americans voted.
Spreading the email contents, as WikiLeaks did, could have affected the
election. But where is the evidence the Russians took part in that? If such
evidence exists, it remains almost completely absent from the public record.
Read all 7,000-plus words by Eric Lipton, David Sanger, and Scott Shane in
the December 13th New York Times, and you will find only one alleged link
between Russia and WikiLeaks - a quote from the supposed Russian hacker
Guccifer 2.
"The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to
WikiLeaks," Guccifer 2 is said to have written. "They will publish them
soon."
The article then mentions that Julian Assange "resisted the conclusion that
his site became a pass-through for Russian hackers working for Mr. Putin's
government or that he was deliberately trying to undermine Mrs. Clinton's
candidacy." But, the Timesmen added, "the evidence on both counts appears
compelling."
Compelling to whom?
Back in August, after WikiLeaks made its two campaign-related document
drops, I noted that no one had proved that the emails came from computer
hackers, whether in Russia or anywhere else. The emails could as easily have
come from an inside whistleblower, possibly the 27-year-old Seth Rich, the
DNC staffer who was shot and killed in Washington D.C. in the early morning
hours of July 10.
Adding to the mystery, WikiLeaks's founder Julian Assange suggested on Dutch
television, but would not confirm, that Rich might have been the source of
the emails. Assange added to the speculation by offering a $20K reward for
information leading to conviction for Rich's murder.
Assange went even further in an interview with filmmaker John Pilger, who
has been one of his strongest supporters. The interview was broadcast on
November 5th.
"Hilary Clinton stated multiple times, falsely, that seventeen U.S.
intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our
publications," said Assange. "The Russian government is not the source."
"'Well," asked Pilger, "why doesn't WikiLeaks investigate and publish emails
on Russia?'
"We have published about 800,000 documents of various kinds that relate to
Russia," said Assange. "Most of those are critical; and a great many books
have come out of our publications about Russia, most of which are critical.
Our [Russia] documents have gone on to be used in quite a number of court
cases: refugee cases of people fleeing some kind of claimed political
persecution in Russia, which they use our documents to back up."
Craig Murray, the former ambassador to Uzbekistan whom the British sacked
after he accused the Uzbeki government of torture and other human rights
abuses, makes the case even stronger. Murray is today a close associate of
Assange.
"There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's
corruption," he said in a recent blog. "I know who leaked them."
"I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and
it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things."
These claims from Assange and Murray do not end the discussion. Nor does
their exemplary reputation for truth-telling and the massive contribution
WikiLeaks has made to our understanding of the Clinton campaign, Hillary's
ties to Wall Street and Saudi Arabia, and so much of the world around us. As
journalists and citizens, we have much more digging to do. But until we can
weigh all the relevant evidence for ourselves, we are acting like damned
fools if we allow spooks and secret police to frame how we think about the
relationship between the bare-chested Putin and the ever-groping Trump.
"All Governments Lie," the great journalist I.F. Stone warned us years ago,
and spy services and police agencies in both Russia and the United States
have a long history of telling a large part of those lies. Sometimes they
lie on command from their political superiors (read Putin and Obama).
Sometimes they lie in pursuit of their own agendas. Either way, why help
them run their game?
________________________________________
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a
magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France,
where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How
Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently
Break Their Hold.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
A couple kisses in front of a mural of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump
kissing. (photo: Mindaugas Kulbis/AP)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Did Trump Have Sex With Putin?
By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News
19 December 16
he Washington Post graphic shows Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin kissing,
nothing more than that. But the inference must be that the two consenting
adults did more than simply suck face. The evidence is circumstantial, I
admit. The sources are primarily from US intelligence and law enforcement
agencies, who have such a sterling record in truth telling. But, c'mon,
everyone knows the two men had sex, and soon they'll do to us what they are
clearly doing to each other.
Everyone also seems to know that Putin made Trump our president. But if you
doubt that the two men had sex, why not exercise the same skepticism about
all those stories of political intercourse? No matter how many times the
mainstream media, progressive news sites in hot pursuit of the terrible
Trump, and liberal icons like Paul Krugman repeat the unproved claims as
gospel, they do not stand up to scrutiny.
The chief fault should be obvious. Most, if not all, of the stories fail to
make a sharp distinction between computer hacking and spreading the
purloined files to the American people.
I would be surprised if the Russians did not use hacking and other
electronic surveillance on us, from stealing industrial secrets to probing
elections. If US spooks can listen in on German Chancellor Angela Merkel,
why wouldn't Putin spy on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and
Hillary Clinton's campaign chief John Podesta? But spying on its own would
not affect how Americans voted.
Spreading the email contents, as WikiLeaks did, could have affected the
election. But where is the evidence the Russians took part in that? If such
evidence exists, it remains almost completely absent from the public record.
Read all 7,000-plus words by Eric Lipton, David Sanger, and Scott Shane in
the December 13th New York Times, and you will find only one alleged link
between Russia and WikiLeaks - a quote from the supposed Russian hacker
Guccifer 2.
"The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to
WikiLeaks," Guccifer 2 is said to have written. "They will publish them
soon."
The article then mentions that Julian Assange "resisted the conclusion that
his site became a pass-through for Russian hackers working for Mr. Putin's
government or that he was deliberately trying to undermine Mrs. Clinton's
candidacy." But, the Timesmen added, "the evidence on both counts appears
compelling."
Compelling to whom?
Back in August, after WikiLeaks made its two campaign-related document
drops, I noted that no one had proved that the emails came from computer
hackers, whether in Russia or anywhere else. The emails could as easily have
come from an inside whistleblower, possibly the 27-year-old Seth Rich, the
DNC staffer who was shot and killed in Washington D.C. in the early morning
hours of July 10.
Adding to the mystery, WikiLeaks's founder Julian Assange suggested on Dutch
television, but would not confirm, that Rich might have been the source of
the emails. Assange added to the speculation by offering a $20K reward for
information leading to conviction for Rich's murder.
Assange went even further in an interview with filmmaker John Pilger, who
has been one of his strongest supporters. The interview was broadcast on
November 5th.
"Hilary Clinton stated multiple times, falsely, that seventeen U.S.
intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our
publications," said Assange. "The Russian government is not the source."
"'Well," asked Pilger, "why doesn't WikiLeaks investigate and publish emails
on Russia?'
"We have published about 800,000 documents of various kinds that relate to
Russia," said Assange. "Most of those are critical; and a great many books
have come out of our publications about Russia, most of which are critical.
Our [Russia] documents have gone on to be used in quite a number of court
cases: refugee cases of people fleeing some kind of claimed political
persecution in Russia, which they use our documents to back up."
Craig Murray, the former ambassador to Uzbekistan whom the British sacked
after he accused the Uzbeki government of torture and other human rights
abuses, makes the case even stronger. Murray is today a close associate of
Assange.
"There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's
corruption," he said in a recent blog. "I know who leaked them."
"I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and
it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things."
These claims from Assange and Murray do not end the discussion. Nor does
their exemplary reputation for truth-telling and the massive contribution
WikiLeaks has made to our understanding of the Clinton campaign, Hillary's
ties to Wall Street and Saudi Arabia, and so much of the world around us. As
journalists and citizens, we have much more digging to do. But until we can
weigh all the relevant evidence for ourselves, we are acting like damned
fools if we allow spooks and secret police to frame how we think about the
relationship between the bare-chested Putin and the ever-groping Trump.
"All Governments Lie," the great journalist I.F. Stone warned us years ago,
and spy services and police agencies in both Russia and the United States
have a long history of telling a large part of those lies. Sometimes they
lie on command from their political superiors (read Putin and Obama).
Sometimes they lie in pursuit of their own agendas. Either way, why help
them run their game?
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly
Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a
magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France,
where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How
Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently
Break Their Hold.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize