Amazing theorizing about the Trump 2016 campaign

We all know about Occam's razor--that the simplest explanation is usually correct. We need a pithy name for a complementary principle--the bizarre and nutso complexity that is piled high to support a conspiracy theory.

A column in National Review inspired this realization. Here's the subhead:

The State Department and an Australian diplomat grossly exaggerated Papadopoulos's claims - which were probably false anyway.

The author makes such leaps of assumption. Papadopoulos didn't know about the DNC hacked emails (true) and didn't know about any emails (a big leap). Mifsud didn't tell Papadopoulos about any emails because there is only Papadopoulos's claim about that (true, but why would Papadopoulos fabricate that?) Mifsud wasn't a Russian agent as Papa believed, but was most likely a British one (because the author wants it to be so).

When Mifsud was interviewed by the FBI in 2017, he denied saying anything to Papa about emails. This must be true because Mifsud wasn't charged with lying to the FBI. (Never mind that he perhaps wasn't charged because they couldn't prove this was a lie.) Also, the Mueller report didn't say Mifsud knew about Russian intelligence, therefore Mifsud must not know anything about Russian intelligence (because the Mueller report contain all known information and nothing is true unless reported there).

And on, and on, and on. There is no evidence Papa told the Australian diplomat about the Russian approach because the Aussie can't be trusted, and made the whole thing up.

Yes, there's more. It just keeps on this way, doubting everything except when it's convenient not to doubt something.

The only interesting possible fact in the whole piece is that Steele passed some information on to an FBI legal attache on July 6, 2016. Maybe this was before the Australian wrote his meeting with Papa for the second time, and with much more urgency due to the leak of DNC emails. It should be possible to check this. I'm certainly not taking the word of this author. Nonetheless, it is worth noting the information for future checking.

The upshot of the whole 'it didn't happen' is that there was no other information given to the FBI about Russian contacts with the Trump campaign except for the Steele shitty and questionable research.

But maybe there was... Maybe the Mifsud, Papa, and Australian connection was as reported: a solicitation by Mifsud which Papa spilled to an Australian. Shall I apply Occam's razor?

Image: amazon.com

Update 12/27/19. I checked back to see if the author had amended anything due to the IG report. OF COURSE NOT. DON'T LET FACTS INTERFERE WITH A GREAT NARRATIVE... or even a mediocre narrative. The author, Andrew McCarthy, shows again that he's a hack.

Messy questions about Ukraine

I'm not trying to derail the inquiry into Trump pressuring Ukraine for dirt on Biden while withholding aid that they sorely needed. That was horrendous, and so like Trump not to consider the legal and ethical implications.

However, I wonder about a couple issues laying around from 2016. It's pretty obvious to me that Biden's son cashed in, and that wasn't seemly. (It's not illegal isn't a compelling argument.) What about the black ledger that showed Manafort receiving millions of dollars. There are charges that it's a forgery. I hadn't thought of that possibility, but maybe we should consider it. It turned up at a convenient time, and it was payback from some Ukrainians to Manafort, an adviser to their recently departed, dearly hated ex-president.

Has the black ledger been verified? It contains a listing of disbursements. It ought to be possible to check that money leaving wherever and going somewhere else, right? I looked for information about the accuracy of the black ledging, and found nothing. So I can't say it's real or it's a forgery.

That's one piece of the GOP alternative reality we've been hearing about. Here's another: in 2016, the Russians weren't interfering in the election, it was the Ukrainians trying to help Hillary Clinton, probably with a big dollop of conspiring by the Deep State.

What else? The main reporter of the Ukraine-did-it story was a quasi-journalist named John Solomon who wrote for The Hill website. His colleagues weren't happy with him, raised questions about his journalistic standards (reasonable questions probably), and eventually he moved on from the hostile environment. I didn't find any reputable site that has confirmed his reporting though there's been plenty of time for it.

Solomon's questionable stories also had an outlet (wait for it) on Fox News' Hannity hour. Hannity (another fine journalist) is pissed now because fingers are pointing at him, and he claims he was barely involved. It was also interesting to see the ambassador Yovanovitch was removed largely due to unsubstantiated reports that she criticized Trump in private conversations. This fascinating source (news for Russian-speaking Americans) shows a picture of the letter of accusation. But, I wonder, could someone make up a story to get the ambassador removed? This gives a great glimpse into the Ukraine-did-it theory, provided by a Russian source.

Image: kyivpost.com

Extras. Sondland bristled at being called part of a rogue operation or irregular channel for foreign policy. Everyone at the top knew about it, and he was doing Trump's bidding.

Parnas (one of the Ukrainians arrested just before getting on an airplane) bragged about being on a secret mission for Trump. Supposedly he'll be cooperating with prosecutors. However,  he might be as reliable as other lowlifes are.

The new Zelensky administration in Ukraine is cleaning out the prosecutors' offices (take 3?). There are complaints that they are just trying to bury information about corruption. The link also has more about the black ledger.

Sondland runs out the clock at his House testimony while trying to avoid the obvious conclusion that Trump woud benefit from Biden being investigated by Ukraine.

Conservative media lies again, Chapter XXX

For all the complaints about the real bias in the MSM, they have standards for not lying, and they rarely do what conservative media has just done. A couple days ago I saw reports that perhaps the former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch had committed perjury in her testimony in closed hearings in the House. This story was featured in prime time by Fox News opinion host Tucker Carlson, who has now shown himself to be a bald-faced liar, as are many at Fox News. From their website:

However, emails obtained by Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" showed that in fact, Yovanovitch had responded to Carey's initial Aug. 14 email, writing that she "would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you."

They pretend that this doesn't square with Yovanovitch's testimony. However, that impression is due to them ignoring the rest of the email from Yovanovitch, which says:

I would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you. I have let EUR [Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs] know that you are interested in talking and they will be in touch with you shortly.

So Yovanovitch told the congressional staffer that she was letting her higher-ups know about the communication, which is the above-board operating procedure.

So did Carlson neglect to get the entire email, which would be poor journalistic practice? Or did he ignore her clear statement in order to make it seem like she was having secret communications with House staff? Either way, Carlson was unethical. Big surprise!

This story was picked up by various conservative media outlets, but not by MSM. Not because the MSM is biased, but because they have standards and probably smelled a rat, or maybe even saw that it was a lie when one read the entire email.

There don't appear to be any retractions or clarifications by various conservative outlet, so, as usual, they aren't correcting their mistakes, and just letting the lies stand. That is so despicable. Plus I found this gem of disinformation too, also about Yovanovitch. Conservative media seems not to have principles that include telling the truth. Everyone watching/reading them should be aware of that.

Image: bitchute.com

Update 3/30/20. Another example. Somebody fabricated a screenshot supposedly showing a tweet by Schumer. It's debunked, but some conservative news sources picked it up and haven't written retractions or corrections. The New York Times, they do heavily highlighted corrections. Not Fox News. Not the Washington Times. Courtesy of a lying, partisan troll who barely admitted the mistake after being pounded on it.

The Republicans Strike Back... they hope.

Republicans are fighting against the Ukraine scandal and subsequent impeachment inquiry with all they have. They continue to push the theory that the FBI, CIA, and other departments were/are full of corrupt Dem-sympathetic officials who have illegally targeted Trump. The Horowitz Inspector General (IG) report was supposed to blow it out of the water. That didn't happen. Now the investigation by US attorney John Durham is supposed to unmask this deep state conspiracy. 

I doubt it will happen. As we saw with the Mueller investigation and IG report, almost all of the big pieces leaked well before the reports were published. So Durham will probably not have anything beyound the known bits on Comey, Strzok and Page, McCabe, Bruce Ohr in the State Department, and how the FBI used the Steele dossier. I doubt there will be any smoking gun showing that the Trump campaign was set up by the FBI or CIA, with a phony approach by Mifsud that they orchestrated. I predict that will turn out to be true as reported, that Mifsud offered info on Hillary Clinton, and the campaign was interested. That Papadopoulos drunkenly mentioned it to an Australian diplomat, who eventually reported it through channels to the FBI. 

Their grand hopes of indictments and perp walks of these heinous Dem-leaning traitors isn't going to happen. But we shall all see.

Image: youtube.com

Extra. This column points out how the GOPers are using slander as a counterattack. Lt. Col. Vindman who was injured in Iraq--has a grudge against Trump and is lying. Also, he's a never-Trumper, meaning he isn't loyal. Not loyal  to Trump--to me, it sounds like Trump thinks he's running a banana republic.

Update 2/28/2020. I never specified why I think there won't be perp walks of conspirators among the FBI/CIA/etc. There are two reasons: 1) There wasn't a conspiracy. 2) The inestigators, as much as they hope to find evidence of a conspiracy, will not manufacture evidence, i.e. lie and fabricate a case. No fake evidence and no real evidence, so no perp walks. Sorry, folks. No, not sorry. 

Ukraine saga continues

I don't know how many threads I'll have on this Ukraine saga. I feel vindicated for focusing on the prosecutors and ambassadors, but perhaps I deserve credit only for reading the transcript of the phone call and the whistleblower's letter.

The House Democrats started private, closed-door testimony from some of those involved or with knowledge of the situation. The Republicans have been yelling foul on whatever grounds they can think of. They claimed the testimony was wrong because there was no formal vote, so the Dems held a formal vote, which passed. The Republicans said the closed-door testimony was wrong, and even tried to stage a sit-in. Starting today, the Dems have are releasing transcripts of the testimony taken so far. It's fairly damning. Trump claims that the Dems are going to change the words, but he looks like a fool on that account.

So far, a fair number of people, mostly connected to the State Department, have talked about Giuliani running his own Ukraine policy that was focused on getting dirt on the Biden family. Some of the people testifying have been:

• William Taylor
• Lt. Col. Vindman (who contacted the NSC legal branch twice)
• Marie Yovanovitch (the targeted US ambassador)

This list will probably grown. I keep hearing that what Giuliani has done and what Trump has let him do are without precedent for modern times in the State Department. I certainly don't remember dealings like this, though there were occasionally rumors of secret underhanded dealings like Bush Sr. doing something-something. What we have here is much more than rumor. 

Republicans are fighting back with all they have. They continue to push the theory that the FBI, CIA, and other departments were/are full of corrupt Dem-sympathetic officials who have illegally targeted Trump. But that's the subject of my next post.

Vindman going to testify. Traitor or patriot?

Image: nationalreview.com

Update 11/5/19. The House released transcripts of two ambassadors (Volker and Sondland). Sondland had a mysterious change in his memory, and now says that he told the Ukrainians that they'd have to announce the investigations for aid to be freed. Sondland still provided a bit of a figleaf for Trump, saying it was his 'presumption' that the aid was tied because he heard it hadn't been released. Sondland confirmed that Giuliani was the key person on Ukraine, and Trump didn't want to deal with it, but directed the ambassadors to Giuliani.

Also this quote from a federal prosecutor:

Now they've got this whole other crazy defense about there's no corrupt intent, but these guys haven't done their legal researching and corrupt intent under the law means improper purpose. And when you're using the levers of government and monies appropriated by Congress to further your own re-election effort and use it to try and bribe and extort a foreign government, I mean, what more improper purpose can you get?  - 

Update 11/7/19. Two more articles about the released transcripts. Both give an inside view of what the testimony was like. Taylor--resolutely sticking to the facts, supported by his meticulous notes. Sondland--buffeted, not knowing what to say, having trouble remembering.

Update 11/16/19. A taut, thriller-like retelling of the whistleblower's actions and many others. John Bolton has the most memorable lines: calling Giuliani a human hand-grenade and instructing an aide to tell <someone> that he isn't part of the drug deal being cooked up. 

October links

(And a few left over from September. Oops, it's November already.)

Hating on climate change. It's no surprise to me that nasty conservative trolls would hate on teenager Greta Thunberg for her message that the people currently in charge of the world aren't doing enough. I've written elsewhere that models for climate change haven't been strong, but there is also enough solid data to be very worried.

Intolerance on campus. I hear screeching about it, but here is a solid court case about bullying of Christian groups by campus officials.

The fear among the conservatives. They fear being overwhelmed by the left and forced to give up their religious beliefs. Considering the disrespect for religious beliefs on the left, I have to say it seems like a rational fear.

Why Trudeau almost lost. Canada is in good shape, which allows lesser issues to create more fractures than before.

Iran and Russia interfere. ... in the US via Facebook.

Tough politics in Texas. The Texas House speaker is out after being stabbed in the back while conspirimg to stab other Republican reps in the back. Do I like anyone in this mess?

Image: edenpoliticalcartoons.com