consultants are sandburs

Friday, January 13, 2017

A closing thought on the "Trump dossier." Without any links. What did Buzzfeed moot?

Buzzfeed published it, bringing it to light. Trump says it is fake news. Peskov as Putin's surrogate says it is "pulp fiction," that he does not know the author, (purportedly Christoper Steele a purported Russian expert in the past at MI6), and that Russians have no "kompromat" and do not deal in such stuff. He says. On behalf of Putin.

That insulates Trump from any "kompromat" pressure in the future. Had Buzzfeed not published, making it a front page thing now (during confirmation hearings), the question and threat would have lingered. Presuming for the sake of argument there is kompromat, this exercise in sunlight disarmed its value against Trump while serving as President. The Russians have disarmed anything they hold by publicly claiming they hold nothing. They cannot later say, "Oh, wait . . .".

Book/chapter closed. Things move on from there, and the validity of that "kompromat" part of the "dossier" is now moot.

Last thought: Who owns Buzzfeed?

UPDATE: Another simple question nobody in MSM cares to track down; McCain has come forward and said the 35page "dossier" crossed his desk and he threw it over the trnasom at FBI. Just "shine it on" without any committment to it either way of many possible ways.

Fine. Press the Arizonan - who gave it to him? Slid under the office door at night without security cameras in the hallway? Come on. Who?

There is a problem with working backwards, and it would be starting a new McCarthyism. What did you know and when did you know it was Watergate, not Joe and aide Roy Cohn, but still, is it best to have allegation in public and denial about "kompromat" so that's sanitized as a question whether "kompromat" exists or not?

The other question being ducked, who started the tar ball rolling - allegedly a Trump primary opponent, and then the claim is the opposition research effort somehow segued to "the Democrats" as opposiiton research. Which Trump opponent, which "Democrat?" Names work better than vagaries.

Strib has carried an AP feed, "Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush unlikely to run for office again," and it would be easy but wholly unfair to say there is the "dossier" as one dot "primary opponent" allegation and all, and now Jeb says . . . as a second dot; so connect them.

That would be an unfair. The Bush family has its history, etc., but still Jeb's innocent unless proven to have been the instigator.

Rubio? Cruz? Not likely Ben Carson? Worse, there is a cloud over Rand Paul until it is identified which opponent. Rand Paul's been a trend setter in advising restraint regarding arming crazy militants in Syria; e.g., here, here and here. A voice of reason that was ignored by Obama/Clinton/CIA et al., yet that Rand Paul position stands closest to the claim Trump tilts too far towards Russian aims in Syria, and should be clouded for it. That clouds Rand Paul too, and he deserves better for being a sane voice of restraint.

Who instigated things? Who started the ball rolling, and then, which particular Democrat picked up on it. Podesta? Mook? The Clinton Foundation? Kaine? DWS at DNC? Pick a culprit. Bubba?

Elsewise, as to who shined it on to McCain; Lindsey Graham was briefly putting his name in play, and McCain and Graham seem as close as any two other neocons - but again, pure harmful speculation.

McCain should be pressed, and the press should be doing the job. You shined it on to FBI, who shined it to you? If he declines to answer, that would tar a host of "pre-primary opponents" unnecessarily. (All but one of the multitude likely would want McCain to answer and would want the press to identify the instigator.) So, go figure why it took Buzzfeed to defuse the infernal thing and what interests the MSM had in leaving vagaries to persist.

Fiorina? Besides embracing the little embryos, gunning for Trump too?

These are not pretty thoughts. But "Great Again" somewhere along the way should require lifting rocks to see what's under them, or else it's as dumb a slogan as "Row the Boat."

And in that context, how about: "MAKE THE GOPHERS GREAT AGAIN." Caps could be embroidered, buttons prepared, billboards set up, etc.

An entire cottage industry could be generated to advance a "culture." But mixing rants may be unwise, so, back to "John, half the story's never been told. So tell it."

FURTHER: Three YouTube segments; CBC with McCain talking; Young Turks, here and here, and then Trump has curious repeated hand gestures in the segment of his press conference included in that third item; compare this Strib image, used more than once online. Is he adopting an NBA gesture for a made three point shot, or what? It's the incumbent who's the basketball fan, not Trump, or is he? Just talking with one's hands, right?

The CBC item is helpful on McCain's actions; but still, who bought the "opposition research" in the first instance among Republicans, and then after Dems are alleged to have funded the alleged ex-MI6 Brit, who cut the checks? The first CBC item is reporting, while clearly the Young Turk items are opinion, clearly so, and the three are offered without any endorsement beyond for the CBC's background on McCain and the argument that prior restraint of press action is Unconstitutional, per set First Amendment law - alluded to in the third item.

FURTHER: This link, Ben Smith of Buzzfeed on its publishing decision. Besides unverified, it is an inherent possibility that the item was intentional disinformation, to get intelligence community people into a wild-goose chase with nothing but dead ends and off any real and possibly obvious scent trails. That's a point emphatically raised in this already cited item.

No comments: