This post was originally written in response to an attack on something that I wrote in a comment on Booman’s recent post WH Won’t Admit Democratic Hacks Occurred It was written by the entity oaguabonita in its usual way, full of psuedo-grammatical sound and fury but not much else. However, when you don’t really have much to say except to attack someone’s thought processes and means of expression, that’s all one would expect.
P.S. The title of this post comes from a rather indelicate old Riding Hood and the Wolf joke. You could look it up, as Casey Stengel used to say. The joke is indelicate, but the concept is not.
Title of Booman’s post:
WH Won’t Admit Democratic Hacks Occurred
Booman quotes the White House:
“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.”
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):
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.
“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 have to say until presented with real proof? (Anti-Trump, pro-Trump or…at least allegedly [There’s that word again!!!]…impartial.) We may as well have willingly believed James Clapper’s proven, outright lie to the Senate about massive unwarranted surveillance during the 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?
Prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law.
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
P.S. While I’m at it:
…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.
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:
Why would a president adopt these anti-NATO positions when they do not reflect the consensus of opinion within his own State Department, Defense Department, intelligence services, or his top advisors and congressional members of his own party?
Leaving aside the distinct possibility that Trump has indeed been “captured” by the Russians…and by “captured” I mean that they have something with which to effectively blackmail him…let’s do a little thought experiment.
Let us imagine a president whose election showed no signs whatsoever of irregularities except that he (or she) offered an entirely new approach to governing the U.S., one that alienated almost the entire political establishment as it now stands (Or would “totters” be more accurate?) and somehow managed to get elected by sheer force of will and personality.
Would that president not “adopt…positions when they do not reflect the consensus of opinion within his own State Department, Defense Department, intelligence services, or his top advisors and congressional members of his own party?”
Of course that would happen. They would represent the status quo against which that president ran!!!
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.
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 mean Media Show.
Who’s Your Daddy?
Quite unbelievably…at least as far as I am concerned…he’s made it to the finals.
It’s gonna get even rougher.