But the shock of Trump’s election and the decision of many never-Trumpers to cast their lot with the Resistance led to a situation in which any prudent skepticism or demand for evidence was swept aside.
So, on Jan. 6, 2017, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released an evidence-free report that he said was compiled by “hand-picked” analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA, offering an “assessment” that Russia and President Putin were behind the release of the Democratic emails in a plot to help Trump win the presidency.
Despite the extraordinary gravity of the charge, even New York Times correspondent Scott Shane noted that proof was lacking. He wrote at the time: “What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. … Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”
But the “assessment” served a useful purpose for the never-Trumpers: it applied an official imprimatur on the case for delegitimizing Trump’s election and even raised the long-shot hope that the Electoral College might reverse the outcome and possibly install a compromise candidate, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in the White House. Though the Powell ploy fizzled, the hope of somehow removing Trump from office continued to bubble, fueled by the growing hysteria around Russia-gate.
Virtually all skepticism about the evidence-free “assessment” was banned. For months, the Times and other newspapers of record repeated the lie that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had concurred in the conclusion about the Russian “hack.” Even when that falsehood was belatedly acknowledged, the major news outlets just shifted the phrasing slightly to say that U.S. intelligence agencies had reached the Russian “hack” conclusion. Shane’s blunt initial recognition about the lack of proof disappeared from the mainstream media’s approved narrative of Russia-gate.
Doubts about the Russian “hack” or dissident suggestions that what we were witnessing was a “soft coup” were scoffed at by leading media commentators. Other warnings from veteran U.S. intelligence professionals about the weaknesses of the Russia-gate narrative and the danger of letting politicized intelligence overturn a constitutional election were also brushed aside in pursuit of the goal of removing Trump from the White House.
It didn’t even seem to matter when new Russia-gate disclosures conflicted with the original narrative that Putin had somehow set Trump up as a Manchurian candidate. All normal journalistic skepticism was jettisoned. It was as if the Russia-gate advocates started with the conclusion that Trump must go and then made the facts fit into that mold, but anyone who noted the violations of normal investigative procedures was dismissed as a “Trump enabler” or a “Moscow stooge.”
i cannot believe how that lie has taken hold with no evidence supplied at all.
i'm also worried about robert parry. he had a cardio episode near the end of the year.
i was hoping that, when i visited today, i'd see something that he was doing better.
:(
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Monday, January 15, 2018. Baghdad's slammed by bombings while political
fusion takes place among various groups in their desperate plea to hold
back thug Nouri al-Maliki.
Today is MLK Day.
Today is MLK Day.
Glenn Greenwald Retweeted
Martin Luther King Jr. Spent the Last Year of His Life Detested By the Liberal Establishment interc.pt/2mzm0D7 by @ZaidJilani
The bipartisan political propaganda machine always sweeps such events under a rug until they are relegated to recent history. And the corporate media makes sure any deviant explanation faces ridicule and shame as a #conspiracytheory. And of course there are agents everywhere...
Happy #MLK
Day! This holiday should be moved to the date when the US security state had him murdered. Connect the dots:
Day! This holiday should be moved to the date when the US security state had him murdered. Connect the dots:Turning to Iraq . . .
The @IraqiGovt strongly condemns this morning attack in Tayaran Square, Baghdad. Our government and the people of Iraq offer their condolences and full support to all those affected.
The Baghdad government serves up "their condolences and full support" to those attacked outside the Green Zone. Almost as if the Baghdad-based government, within the Green Zone, is another country. But then, it really is, isn't it?
AMN reported earlier this morning that Baghdad was slammed by twin bombings leaving at least 16 people dead and 64 more injured.
RT notes that the official death toll is now 38. Mohammed Ebraheem (IRAQI NEWS) reports on Salim al-Jaoburi, the Speaker of Parliament:
During a parliament session, Jabouri urged “maintaining national unity in Iraq and making the utmost use of the great victory achieved over terrorism.”
“We condemn the terrorist acts that targeted innocent people in the Iraqi capital Baghdad and we call on security bodies to take required measures to protect citizens,” Jabouri said.
But what national unity?
Saturday, we noted these Tweets:
This is confirmed: PM Haider al-Abadi have reached a final agreement with the PMU fictions including Badr, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Hiblollah and al-Nujaba to run for the election in a united coalition. #Iraq
The coalition which is led by Abadi is called Nasr al-Iraq or The Victory of Iraq: all PMU factions, Ibrahim al-Jafari, Shahristani's party and Islamic Supreme Council among others.
Haider al-Abadi will run on the top of the coalition in Baghdad followed by Hadi al-Amiri and sources tell me the coalition will go into alliance with Maliki's State of Law coalition and Muqtada al-Sadr's coalition after the elections.
There are few Sunnis in the coalition including Iraq's former defence minister Khalid al-Obaidi.
Iran has played a major role in the agreement between Abadi and PMU.
And two last notes: the US is not happy with Abadi’s agreement to run with the PMU and the agreement will largely kill Abadi’s ‘anti-corruption battle’ given many of those in the list of targeted are close to the parties that are in his coalition now.
And now several Iraqi sources say Qasem Soleimani was in Baghdad in the afternoon of Saturday in which he attended a long quadrilateral-meeting with Abadi, Hadi Amiri and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis which resulted in the final agreement to run for elections together.
In response to that news? Only one person appears to be speaking out. ALARABIYA reports:
The leader of the Sadrist movement political party, Muqtada al-Sadr, criticized the new electoral alliance of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi with the Iranian backed Popular Mobilization Unit (PMU) militias.
Sadr, one of the most influential religious and popular figures in Iraq, issued a statement issued on Sunday describing the alliance as “an abhorrent political agreement.”
He also expressed his deep surprise at the inclusion of the PMU militias calling them an “abhorrent sectarian dichotomy,” that is aimed at reproducing a “corrupt political class”.
Mina Aldroubi (THE NATIONAL) adds:
However, Mr Al Sadr described the militias as “shameless” and considers the deal to “pave the way for the return of corruption and sectarianism”.
The militias, known as Hashed Al Shaabi, are a Shiite-dominated alliance which remains deeply divisive and has been accused of a string of abuses.
ASHARQ AL-AWSAT notes:
Also on Sunday, the Hikma Movement headed by Ammar al-Hakim said it was joining the Abadi-Ameri alliance under the name of “the Nasr al-Iraq coalition,” or Victory.
An Iraqi politician, who wished to remain anonymous, told Asharq Al-Awsat on Sunday that the decision of the Hikma Movement to join this alliance might strengthen Abadi’s situation and could guarantee his reelection for a second term.
The politician said that all indicators reveal that Iran is backing Abadi, adding that it could be the force that encouraged Hash al-Shaabi to ally with the prime minister, a decision that places Nouri al-Maliki in a very difficult position.
Was that the whole point?
For Hayder to make sure Nouri didn't take his place?
Nouri had a first term that wasn't good. But it was his second term that really saw him carrying out non-stop abuses.
Betting that the same won't be true of Hayder seems a long shot.
He and Nouri were good friends until Hayder became prime minister. Hayder belongs to Dawa (Nouri's political party) and is a member of State of Law (Nouri's political slate).
The issue of displacement and voting is ignored by most outlets -- MIDDLE EAST MONITOR is one of the few to report on it.
Marcia's "Tide pods" went up this morning as did Ava and my "Media: 'It's very rude of him,' she said, 'To come and spoil the fun!'."
