White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters issued the following statement in reaction to today’s indictment of twelve Russians for their election activities in 2016.
“Today’s charges include no allegations of knowing involvement by anyone on the campaign and no allegations that the alleged hacking affected the election result,” Walters said. “This is consistent with what we have been saying all along.”
In other words, even after having read all the evidence provided in the indictments, the White House is still skeptical of the work of their own FBI and Department of Justice. They’re still saying that it is merely allegation that the Democrats were hacked at all.
That’s a risible and insufferable response. It’s doubtful that the defendants will ever have to appear in an American court and answer for what they did, so we may never get to see the Special Counsel’s evidence challenged. We can’t assume they can prove every allegation beyond a reasonable doubt, but we should at least be able to concede that they’ve proven that the hacks actually occurred.
As for the White House’s other defenses, it is of course not within the purvey of the Special Counsel’s office to try to figure out how many votes were flipped due to Russia’s multifarious attempts to help Trump win and if anyone on the Trump campaign was involved that evidence will be spelled out in separate indictments.
OTOH, you don’t have to give the Intercept any clicks to read it…
Since the only thing remaining on the American right is now the National Trumpalists (the old Repub party having ceased to exist), Der Trumper obviously is free to say and do whatever he likes—as this sort of egregious WH statement makes clear. There is now no institutional check beyond Mueller, and ultimately all he can do is provide a report to Congress–which the National Trumpalists obviously intend to ignore, whatever “allegations” about Der Trumper it may contain. The national tv media could have no effect even if it tried, and it has no intention of trying.
As someone indicated on the other thread, the fate of the nation now hangs on the midterms—Weimar 1933, USA 2018. The incompetent white electorate failed spectacularly in 2016, so one can’t be too hopeful of the odds.
The indictment clearly states that the 12 were aided by others known and unknown. When Mueller brings charges against the Americans that aided the Russians, that is when the proof will be presented in court. Note that the Americans can claim they did not know they were working with Russians but it still a crime to aid someone to move/use stolen stuff. That aid is collusion.
Just wondering who the GOP ’16 candidate is/was that contacted Guccifer2.0 and asked for leaked dirt on his Dem opponent? Despite the heads up on this there’s no reason to believe that Mueller doesn’t have more evidence of more and higher up Rep candidates. Hard to believe only one candidate was slimy enough to tap Guccifer2.0.
If that’s the case, the palpable fear that’s humming along among Rep is all the more treasonous.
The Congressman is some guy in Florida, Adam Silverman over at BJ names the guy.
From Politico:
politico
. . . (link), as she helpfully reminds us:
So, yeah, the hypothesis that a major explanation for why the Banana Republicans have circled the wagons so tightly around The Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief is because so many of them are up to their necks in all this unethical and criminal* ratfucking has a great deal of factual evidence supporting it.
*soliciting, accepting, and using stolen goods
Booman-You write/link:
I refuse tp pay the Washington Post to lie to me, so I cannot read the entire link. However, the quote you include definitely does not say anything about doubt regarding the actual hacking. Is there a link/quote that you can provide where they do say that?
Thank you…
AG
You seem intent on plumbing the limits [underline emphasis yours!]:
He already did. You just quoted it, declaring it “definitely does not say” what it very clearly and obviously does say! [Emphasis — of every kind I could think of — added, but who knows if even that is sufficient to focus your attention on the blindingly obvious]:
In case that still isn’t obvious enough: inserting “alleged” in there doesn’t just “imply”, it declares that it is still in doubt whether the hacking even happened. Duh! Booman, in a moment of folly, evidently assumed this would be obvious to everyone.
Glad I could help.
Title of Booman’s post:
Booman quotes the White House:
There are too damned many “allegations” being thrown around by whatever doublespeak/triplespeak specialist wrote that little gem to even begin to parse.
Then Booman writes (emphases mine):
“We should at least be able to concede that they’ve proven that the hacks actually occurred!!!???”
Why, if “we may never get to see the Special Counsel’s evidence challenged?”
Why would “we”..and kindly count me out of that particular “we”…believe any goddamned thing that any element of the standing government might say have until presented with real proof? (Anti-Trump, pro-Trump or…at least allegedly [There’s that word again!!!]…impartial.) We may as well have willing believed James Clapper’s proven, outright lie to the Senate about massive unwarranted surveillance during Obama era. What we have here is simply two sets of professional liars facing off in yet another public shitstorm…one of way too many…that neither of them are willing and/or able to back up with facts.
I personally can “allege” that I am presently drinking a very good cup of Cuban coffee, and I can just as easily “allege” that last night I was spirited into a flying saucer and presented with incontrovertible proof that the hacking indeed happened, and that it was really the work of The Universal Brotherhood in an effort to stop nuclear war.
Until thoroughly proven or disproven, each allegation is equally living in Schroedinger’s CatLand.
Neither dead nor alive.
Neither true nor false, nor anyplace in between those two ideal concepts.
The Russians did it?
Great.
Prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law.
Until then?
It’s all “alleged.”
In fact, that word is often not used.
Does a defense lawyer say “My client is ‘allegedly’ innocent?”
No. That lawyer might say “My client is ‘allegedly’ guilty,” because the aim is to cast doubt on that guilt.
Do government prosecutors use the word “allegedly” many times before a verdict is rendered? Of course, especially in public presentation to the media. Does the media use it as well? Also of course. Everybody’s trying to cover their ass, just in case the hustle doesn’t work out. Gotta pay that mortgage, right, wrong or somewhere in between.
That’s where we are now in this Post-Truth world.
Seemingly in a permanent Schroedinger’s CatLand
Allegedly.
Later…
AG
P.S. While I’m at it:
Booman writes:
This is willful doublespeak, and I believe that Booman knows it.
As I wrote in my recent post Trump is Captured by the Russians? Maybe, Maybe Not. Try Other Approaches.:
Leaving aside any “alleged” guilt or innocence regarding the loathsome Trump, it is quite clear that a successful insurgent president would not consider “…State Department, Defense Department, intelligence services, [at least some of] his top advisors and congressional members of his own party” as allies, and would oppose any “consensuses” whatsoever that stemmed from that group.
Duh.
The fact that Trump is doing so neither absolves nor proves his guilt as far as Russia is concerned. It just makes him another contestant in the big, bigger, biggest Reality (
TV)…errr, ahhh…I meant Media Show.Quite unbelievably…at least as far as I am concerned…he’s made it to the finals.
Stay tuned.
It’s gonna get even rougher.
Watch.
Now a standalone:
Allegations, Allegations, Allegations. Doesn’t Anybody Ever J’ACCUSE!!! Anymore?
Please comment there.
Thank you…
AG
. . . in direct proportion to the weight of the preponderance of the factual evidence for a given proposition.”
9/11 Inside Job? TOTALLY plausible!
Russian hacking/ratfucking of 2016 election and beyond (for which only fractions of the mountains of factual evidence — which have nevertheless resulted in multiple indictments and convictions — are yet public)? ALLEGATIONS!!!
It also requires a complete lack of understanding of the concept of “proof” to take this position. Which is illustrated above by the misstatement of the legal standard of “proof” in criminal cases, which is not “beyond a shadow of a doubt” (cuz, duh, except for universal claims that require only a single counter-example to disprove them, such “proof” is almost never possible), but rather “beyond reasonable doubt“.
This lack of understanding of course explains a lot about why the vast majority of what ag spams and pollutes this place with is — when not just hideously dishonest — ridiculous dreck. No insight. No discernment. No critical reading/thinking skills. No ability to weigh factual evidence and draw reasonable conclusions from it. And therefore an easy mark for any con artist looking for a dupe.
Wow.
Its been clear for a long time, but as of today, its not even algebra, or the kind of addition where you need to carry your tens.
The Russians are responsible for releasing the daily poisonous dribble of DNC and Clinton emails.
This had an enormous effect on the election result.
Among other things the emails exposed infighting within the Democratic committee which made the whole party seem weak and troublesome. This had a very souring impact. Every step of the releases gave DJT mud to sling and sling he did.
Without this HRC would have had a big triumph.
DJT would have lost.
Its about time that the media begin reporting upon this as established fact, instead of posing it as a two sided issue.
Its about as controversial as that Tanya Harding had a negative impact on Nancy Kerrigan.
Its simply true.
I agree, joeljimtree.
Except for this:
Unfortunately, the truth sometimes comes in hostile packages.
The whole party was weak and troublesome. Its treatment of Bernie Sanders during the primaries is sufficient evidence of that as far as I am concerned. Plus…HRC was a weak and troublesome candidate.(See her many gaffes for all you need to know on that account….”deplorables,” “public/private positions,” etc.) If these things had not been so, the emails would never have been used. They were used with hostile intent, and I am quite sure that other hacks on the Republican communications would have been just as damaging had they been used, but it was in the hackers’ interests to defeat HRC and elect Trump.
So it goes.
A thorough reformation of the Democratic Party is in order.
Believe it.
AG
Where is our Churchill? Who will lead us against this attack from a fascist power, which has managed to corrupt the very highest office in our land, and to put in power a quisling who is a traitor to our country and our institutions?
Let us not be confused about what has happened. We have suffered a great military defeat. The Russians couldn’t afford the strategic bombers that were supposedly the currency of power…so they learned a new approach. A new kind of warfare. And in that, they have been triumphant. They have attacked our system from within–with great success.
When the history of the 2016 election is written, it will be recognized that it was an important event in MILITARY history. I fear that the election of 2018…when the Russians will no doubt hack the election directly…will be the Waterloo of the West.
The sad fact is we haven’t had any leaders of substance, integrity or stature in decades, that could assume a leadership role with Churchill-like effect against fascism. The republicans have sold out the country in a treasonous lust for power. The democrats simply don’t have anyone that either meets the leadership criteria, or is willing to try.
History will also show that the United States was effectively subdued from within by Russia, without a shot being fired.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/house-conservatives-impeachment-rosenstein
Conservatives in the House are preparing a document to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and could file the document as early as Monday, Politico reported Friday afternoon, citing conservative sources on Capitol Hill.
Traitors. There’s no other way to describe it.
We are seeing a full court press to protect Trump. And any in the Republican Party who are complicit.
Kennedy replacement, DOJ criminal division head and now this on Rosenstein.
Suggests to me they know Mueller has the goods and is closing in on them.
Methinks you mean “purview” in your last sentence.
The Russians also hacked the GOP. The idea that they have the ability to blackmail Trump and the GOP congress is consistently ignored.
For that matter, Putin could tell Trump “look, I’ll let it leak that you and I specifically colluded (even if they didn’t), unless you __ and __).
I mean – the whole security clearance process is designed to prevent the possibility of blackmail, but this is right under everyone’s noses.
This would help explain why the Republican Party is willing to do just about anything to halt Mueller’s investigation. And ramped up their efforts in the past 2 weeks
And what Russia likely got in those hacks, in emails and other communications, is evidence of the complicity of republican leaders in Russia’s subversion of elections, hacking, etc., that they benefited from. Holding that over the head of Ryan, McConnell, McCarthy and others is powerful and easily explains why they let Trump run wild, even when he runs roughshod over them.
So yeah, Putin’s got many of them by the short hairs, just as he has the Orange Globulin.