So Trump Jn met with a Russian lawyer during the election campaign; the meeting being set up by a British publicist, Rob Goldstone, with a promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Has anyone got any strong evidence that Goldstone had authority to speak on behalf of the Russian government? He said, in an email to Trump Jn, that 'the Russian government' supports Trump, (I mean, obviously they did - like most sane people, they were quite keen to avoid Hillary's no-fly-zone in Syria, aka possible WW3. Plus Trump was the first Presidential candidate to talk about Russia with some respect, for some time).
Goldstone managed a Russian singer, the son of a Russian billionaire; in the eyes of the obsessively hysterical/Russophobic mainstream media, this is all the evidence they need. He's a music publicist; isn't it possible that he is simply an opportunist? Or, if there is something nefarious going on, isn't it more likely to be some deal between Trump and this billionaire, rather than with Putin?
Trump Jn tried to get dirt on Hillary from a Russian - this is fact, and great news for those high on this hysteria. But isn't it only illegal if money is exchanged? And if 'dirt' is actually exchanged? It would seem this Russian lawyer offered nothing incriminating, and instead wanted to talk about the Magnitsky Act. And as mentioned, where is the evidence that this is 'collusion with the Kremlin' and not just collusion with a foreigner? There is little evidence that either Goldstone or the lawyer have any authority to speak on behalf of the Russian government.
Also, didn't Hillary do worse? Her campaign paid a British spy to find dirt on Trump, via Russian contacts.
Is this yet another 'nothing-burger', pushed by many supposedly respectable media outlets, specifically the New York Times?
When will this particular psy-op end? Only when Trump is impeached? Who cares if it is largely based on nonsense, and increases tensions with a nuclear power? Who cares if it is distracting from all the horrible policies that Trump is implementing? Who cares if it encourages Trump to bomb stuff in order to prove he isn't a 'Putin puppet', and to gain some positive media coverage? (The media love a good bomb, as evidenced by the reaction to his bombing of Syria). Who cares if it distracts from much needed focus on reforming the disastrous Democrat party?
This reform of the Democrats will only come about if lefties put their energy into it, rather than the Russiagate hysteria which, seemingly, will go on indefinitely. The Democratic establishment do not want reform; they want to remain as war-mongering neoliberals; so they will keep pushing Russiagate, making good use of their pals in the corporate media, who also are keen to keep the neoliberal status quo.
Trump is being attacked for things that 'establishment' politicians are as guilty/guiltier of - Hillary hiring the spy to 'collude' with Russians, for example.
The UK's left-wing leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, also is being attacked for things for which the Tories/Blairites are guiltier of - for eg, 'supporting terrorists', (the Tories have been supporting jihadists in the Middle East and harboured them in the UK pre the destruction of Libya).
The 'establishment', including the mainstream media, is the bigger enemy here; even bigger than Trump. They will do their utmost to prevent change by smearing anyone who holds views which stray significantly from the status quo. They fear socialism; is this Russia-Trump hysteria largely an effort to distract from the reasons behind Hillary's loss - the failure of neoliberalism?
Trump deserves to be scrutinised by the media for a variety of reasons, but in my view, his desire for better relations with Putin, is a positive for the planet. Could there be some corruption involved? Possible, but shouldn't we wait until actual clear evidence emerges for this, and focus our energy elsewhere in the meantime?
Chomsky's' 'Manufacturing of Consent' is in overdrive right now
https://youtu.be/34LGPIXvU5M
No comments:
Post a Comment