Russiagate – Some insights into its origins and results

Chris Hedges interviews Aaron Mate, one of the few independent reporters who was never taken in by the Russiagate hysteria and doggedly followed the evidence. Now vindicated by the Mueller investigation, which found no evidence of collusion, Aaron Mate analyses the origins of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and the way corporate media, and much of the alternative media, handled it. He argues that Russiagate turned out, in the end, to be a great gift to Trump and will help him with the 2020 presidential elections.

I believe this is an important interview which should help clarify many for the problems people have had with US politics over the last few years.

Similar articles

2 responses to “Russiagate – Some insights into its origins and results

  1. David Fierstien

    Ken, I will say this for you, once you’ve made up your mind about something, it is not likely to change, even in the face of reality.

    Your quote: “Now vindicated by the Mueller investigation, which found no evidence of collusion, . . ”

    Response: Technically, that is correct. The Mueller Report found no evidence of “collusion,” because Mueller was not looking for collusion. The Report itself says this.

    However, there was much evidence of conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russians for the intended purpose of influencing the 2016 U.S. election.

    For example, according to The Report, Trump Campaign Director, Paul Manafort instructed his deputy, Rick Gates, to, “provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump campaign—including internal polling data.” The Report also goes on to say that, “Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and with Deripaska. Gates periodically sent such polling data to Kilimnik during the campaign.”

    What exactly would you call that?

    And what about Roger Stone’s work to coordinate with WikiLeaks on the release of Hillary Clinton’s stolen emails. The Report says, “[S]hortly after [an unidentified] call candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming,” (Unfortunately, redactions at that point limit our view into Mueller’s understanding of the extent of Trump’s knowledge.)

    It’s in The Report, Ken. These are things that were admitted, under oath.
    The only way you could truthfully say there was no evidence of “collusion” would be on the technicality that Mueller wasn’t looking through a legal lens of “collusion,” since collusion is not itself a specific federal crime.

    It might help if, instead of watching RT, you actually read The Report about which you keep writing fiction.

    Like

  2. David Fierstien

    First question to you: Did you even bother reading the Mueller Report? I hope the answer is no, which would mean you are relying on sources you choose simply because they confirm your biases. Because if the answer is yes, that means you are purposely writing deceptive opinion pieces. For what purpose? . . Good question.

    Ken, this is nuts. You are literally part of the process of trying to re-write history as it is unfolding.

    Since your comments in this post are rather vague, let’s clarify. You didn’t say it, but Mate is discussing the Mueller Report: “So that means that some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested in it.” . . . . “Or you can say there must be a devil somewhere behind all this, and that devil is a foreign power, and his name is Putin, and his country is Russia.”

    He is saying that the Report found no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia. That is simply a lie.

    He’s basing everything he says here on that Report . . but he knows he’s misrepresenting it because he takes the time to attack Mueller personally. Johnstone: “Maté talked about how Mueller, despite his horrible track record of supporting the WMD lie in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, has been made into a hero, . . “

    This is a guy, like you, who either never read the report or is purposely trying to misrepresent it. And then he mixes it up in a stew of bullshit pop psychology to make it sound cerebral, which it is not. It is simply a political lie.

    So let’s talk about the Report & Russiagate, since you, Johnstone, & Mate are lying about it. You are saying the Report says there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia to influence the 2016 election . . . but . .

    . . The Report actually says There were two efforts by Russia to influence the 2016 election. 1.) The first effort involved disinformation and social-media operations (kind of like what you’re doing here . . . and 2.) The second effort involved hacking into computers to get e-mails from people affiliated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Democratic Party organizations to gather and disseminate information.

    There’s your boogeyman, which Mate says is non-existent.

    According to the Report, the Russian government QUOTE, “perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.” . . . . Moreover, the Trump Campaign QUOTE, “expected it would benefit” from stolen materials which were released through Russian efforts.

    The Report also says that Trump’s Campaign Director instructed his deputy to QUOTE, “provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump campaign—including internal polling data.” The Report also goes on to say that, “Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and with Deripaska. Gates periodically sent such polling data to Kilimnik during the campaign.”

    Ken, these were the findings of the Mueller Report which contradicts the crux of everything you have written in this post, . . taken from Gabor Mate, a self-proclaimed psychology/addiction guru who isn’t widely thought of in professional circles (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-in-society/201112/the-seductive-dangerous-allure-gabor-mat ) .

    So the question remains . . have you bothered to read the report or are parroting sources that make you feel good . . because your mother didn’t breast feed you and your father drank himself to death 😉 (see . . I can do it too.) Up until this point I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your mind was closed shut, unwilling to admit you were wrong . . a symptom of old age. But I am fast approaching the point at which I may conclude you are purposely pushing a false narrative. If that is the case, the purpose of your agenda remains the key question.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s