Russia-gate as Count Dracula

Ann Garrison reviews Stephen F. Cohen’s book, “War with Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate.”

By Ann Garrison
Special to Consortium News

Russiagate, like Count Dracula, will never end because new political blood will be fed to this vampire . . . The Russiagate fable — fraud — has become a kind of theocratic cult, and it has millions and millions and millions of self-interested and unwitting followers.

That was Stephen F. Cohen’s comment after Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that there was no evidence to convict President Donald Trump or any of his campaign staff of colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election.  He was speaking to nationally syndicated radio host John Batchelor in one of their broadcasts on Radio WABC-AM, New York City, which have been archived on the website of The Nation for the past five years.

Now, a month later, Democratic elites are still roaming the streets of Washington and the Halls of Congress in search of fresh blood. On May 16, The Washington Post reported that House Democrats had begun a marathon public reading of the Mueller Report” for citizens who don’t have time to read the whole thing but might listen to the audio. There’s no there there, but they won’t let go. Are they serious? Or just mortified, like most vampires, by the light of day? Whichever, they’re likely to lose again in 2020, because poll after poll says that Americans don’t care; Russia-gate is nowhere near the top of their list of concerns.

Cohen is Russian studies professor emeritus at Princeton and NYU. His latest book, “War with Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate,” is a series of essays published in The Nation and text elaborations of the radio broadcasts.

Cohen says that Russia-gate has deeply damaged at least four U.S. institutions: the electoral system; the presidency; the “intelligence community;” and the media, meaning most of all the influential “legacy” media; The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the major television and cable news networks. Whichever side of the partisan divide they’re on, Americans know they’ve been lied to by one or more of them. Will they find reason to widely trust any of these institutions again? Will any Washington officials and their staffers, and their allied power brokers and intelligence agents, trust any others from here on?

Stephen F. Cohen. (YouTube)

The Democrats, he says, have created a permanent excuse for failure: “the Russians did it.” And what’s to keep the Republicans from using the same excuse for their own electoral failures? Or to keep dangerous tension between the U.S. and Russia, the world’s two greatest nuclear powers, from ratcheting up all the while?

“War with Russia?” analyzes where we are, how we got here, and where we can go if U.S.-driven military escalation between the U.S. and Russia doesn’t lead to nuclear apocalypse. Cohen still believes that there are options as long as there is human agency, as he wrote in Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Political Biography, 1888-1938.”

Lost Prominence 

That book, published in 1973, made him a prominent voice in both U.S. and Soviet politics until his dissidence about the New Cold War, then Russia-gate, made him persona non grata at The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the network news outlets where he had previously been a welcome commentator.

Since Russia-gate was “ginned up,” as Cohen puts it, he has even been attacked by fellow Nation writers. Katrina vanden Heuvel, editorial director of The Nation and Cohen’s wife, has, to her credit, defended him, despite their own disagreements about the Mueller investigation. She opposes the new McCarthyism, but she has said that the investigation is worthwhile insofar as it reveals the corruption of Trump and friends.

Cohen and vanden Heuvel. (YouTube)

Cohen has said that politicians are corrupt Democrat, Republican and Russian and that the central reality of the Mueller investigation is its dangerous escalation of U.S.-Russian tensions. He has often said that he doesn’t like Trump, but that Trump is the president we’ve got, for two more years or even six, so any moves he makes toward détente with Russia or military de-escalation anywhere else in the world should be encouraged.

In the introduction to “War with Russia?,” Cohen writes: “The book would not have been possible in any way without the support of my wife. Whatever her own opinions, no matter the external pressures, Katrina posted every commentary I wrote.”

Again, kudos to Katrina vanden Heuvel, but the fact that Cohen’s critique of Russia-gate has stirred such anger even at The Nation, the publication that led the opposition to McCarthyism in the 1950s, is evidence of how much ground Russia-gate has gained, even among liberal progressives.

John Batchelor. (Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons)

Cohen and Batchelor readily acknowledge their differences as well —Cohen a liberal progressive, Batchelor a libertarian conservative — but they agree on the dangerous folly of the New Cold War. After a lifetime of scholarship and engagement in Russian history, Cohen says that the current state of U.S.-Russian relations is more perilous than any moments of the First Cold War, including the Cuban Missile Crisis. Indeed, one of his concerns is that Trump has been so fraudulently vilified as a puppet of Russian President Vladimir Putin that he may be politically unable to defuse another precipitous confrontation like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Irrational and terrifying as the anti-Communist Red Scare of the 1950s was, he writes, it never led to the claim that a U.S. president was the puppet of a foreign government or that there’s been a silent coup leaving the White House in its clutches.


In February 2017, in a chapter titled “Kremlin-Baiting President Trump,” Cohen writes:

“But the crux of pro-Kremlin allegations against Trump was, and remains, the charge that Putin hacked the DNC and disseminated the stolen emails through WikiLeaks in order to put Trump in the White House. A summary of these ‘facts’ was presented in the declassified report [the Steele Dossier] released by the US ‘intelligence community’ and widely published in January 2017.

“Not addressed [in the report] is the point made by a number of American hacking experts that Russian state hackers would have left no fingerprints, as US intelligence claimed they had. Indeed, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity believe that the damaging DNC documents were not hacked but leaked by an insider. If so, it had nothing to do with Russia. (The NSA, which has the capacity to monitor the movement of emails, was only ‘moderately confident’ in the report it co-signed, while the CIA and FBI were ‘highly confident,’ even though the FBI inexplicably never examined the DNC computers.) [Later, Cohen said that a source had told him that, in NSA parlance, “moderately confident” means they don’t know.]

“There is another incongruity. At his final presidential press conference, Obama referred to the DNC scandal as a leak, not a hack, and said he did not know how the emails got to WikiLeaks—this despite allegations by his own intelligence agencies. (No one seems to have asked Obama if he misspoke!) On the other side of this alleged conspiracy, nor is it clear that Putin so favored the clearly erratic Trump that he would have taken such a risk, which if discovered, as I also pointed out earlier, would have compromised Trump and greatly favored Clinton. (Judging from discussions in Kremlin-related Russian newspapers, there was a serious debate as to which American presidential candidate might be best—or least bad—for Russia.)”

In a May 8 broadcast with Batchelor, Cohen said even more adamantly that Mueller’s a priori assumption that Russians hacked into the DNC emails, his failure to undertake his own forensic investigation, and his failure to interview Bill Binney, a former technical director at the National Security Agency, and Julian Assange himself, should be enough to discredit the whole report.

Amen, and I hope these highlights recommend the book. It’s a page-turner.

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes Region. She can be reached at [email protected].

81 comments for “Russia-gate as Count Dracula

  1. Gerry L Forbes
    May 23, 2019 at 22:17

    In the early days of the internet discussion groups frequently featured accusations of “ad hominem,” “straw man,” “appeal to authority,” etc. Newbies who didn’t get it would be provided a link to a page of logical fallacies. They would also be advised not to feed the trolls, who soon went away when no one took their bait. If politicians are so concerned about trolls and fake news why don’t they insist that the public be provided with the tools of critical thinking? (Oh yeah, ’cause then they would never get elected.)

    Canadians have been told several times in the last few months that there will be Russian meddling in the national election this fall. Even some MSM pundits find this ridiculous, like Thomas Walkom in The Star ( :

    “But why is it in the interest of Russia — or indeed any foreign state — to try and upend a Canadian election? The CSE report cites the fact that Canada is a member of both the G-7 and NATO. But this is a description rather than an explanation.

    According to the report, foreign meddling lets unnamed adversaries try to “sway the ideas and decisions of voters by concentrating on polarizing social and political issues, promoting the popularity of one party over another or trying to shape the public statements and policy choices of a candidate.”

    Which pretty much describes the motives and actions of Canada’s existing political parties.

    Who needs the Russians to interfere when we already have Conservative leader Andrew Scheer labelling Justin Trudeau as “corrupt” while the Liberal prime minister dismisses his rival as someone who plays footsie with anti-immigrant extremists?

    The short-term effect of foreign meddling, the report says, is to distract voters “from important election issues.” But in Canada, such distractions are already tried and true political tactics. Buck-a-beer anyone?”

    (The Communication Security Establishment (CSE) is Canada’s version of the NSA and “buck-a-beer” is one of Ontario premier Doug Ford’s election promises.)

    The whole Russia-gate thing is nothing less than terrorism, preparing the populace to accept the judgment of their corporate overlords when they declare an election invalid because of foreign meddling (but really because a neoliberal/neoconservative candidate didn’t win).

    • OlyaPola
      May 24, 2019 at 03:39

      ““But why is it in the interest of Russia — or indeed any foreign state — to try and upend a Canadian election? The CSE report cites the fact that Canada is a member of both the G-7 and NATO. But this is a description rather than an explanation.”

      Knowledge is a counter-intuitive lateral process and lateral processes are functions of many interactive factors of varying significance, trajectories and velocities.

      Consequently neither a “definitive” answer nor omniscience ever exists, but descriptions of momements in the lateral processes do exist as functions of framing, including factors to be included within the frame.

      The opponents are faced with existential threats facilitated by their own practices – hence the relevance of the question in respect of Mr. Bolton and others – a danger to whom?

      In attempts to deflect these existential threats the opponents seek to use notions of “the other” – whom in George W. Bush’s formulation “Hate our freedom” – to re-enforce notions of “we”, ideological notions generally relying for catalysation on pre-existing ideological notions – a resort to notions of webs including but not restricted to axes of evil, not nice people would you allow your daughter to marry one?, and the smell of their cooking, they don’t even speak English and if they do they do very badly.

      Notions of webs require notions of self-significance for plausible belief, also relying on pre-existing ideological notions such as “exceptionalism” – hence “the fact that Canada is a member of both the G-7 and NATO.” has tasty cheese, cold beer and a public health service.

      Not all assign the significance to the “exceptionalists” that the “exceptionalists” seek to assign to themselves, and ideological notions have half-lives, the truncation of which are facilitated by others’ experiences of the practices of the “exceptionalists” – akin to abscence makes the heart grow fonder, and familiarity breeds contempt.

      When familiarity breeds contempt the “exceptionalists” tend to double-down their notions of deflection with greater amplitude, greater audience whether targeted or not, greater oscillation, and greater velocity in emulation of the Sorceror’s Apprentice, thereby facilitating greater familiarity and consequent greater contempt, doubling-down and greater oscillation, since the opponents are prone to conflating quantity with quality.

      Oscillation poses an existential threat even to structures with a measure of flexibility, the velocity of kinetic threats being a function of flexibility.

      Hence instead of relating to pre-publicised societies of the spectacle such as:

      “Canadians have been told several times in the last few months that there will be Russian meddling in the national election this fall. Even some MSM pundits find this ridiculous, like Thomas Walkom in The Star ( :”

      perhaps a more productive effort would be to ponder – what is Canada and how is it facilitated? – to transcend “Canada” if so minded.

  2. May 22, 2019 at 22:44

    An excellent review of an important and excellent book As Trump’s top lieutenants prepare war on Iran, Democrats are powerless to oppose this unjust war because of their fixation on Russiagate.. So tragic and dangerous. Cohen has read #Trump and the Democrats exactly right. And thanks John Batchelor and Katrina vanden Heuvel for giving Cohen a media voice . There is no such voice in Australia, we only hear the Democrat Russiagate orthodoxy. Australia could be in a war soon based on these bipartisan US lies and incompetence.

  3. Abe
    May 22, 2019 at 12:58

    “As if more evidence was needed to debunk the pathetic narrative that the Russians hacked the DNC computers during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump confidant Roger Stone, currently on trial for lying during the Mueller inquisition released an important truth to the light of day on May 10th. During a court filing, Stone’s lawyers finally gave a voice for the first time in an official setting to former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, who has been fighting to have his testimony heard by special prosecutor Robert Mueller for nearly two years to no avail. […]

    “In a nine page motion to suppress ill-gotten evidence now being used against Roger Stone, his lawyers made the point that the entire case, including all warrants to collect evidence were contingent upon the pre-supposition that the Russians irrefutably hacked the DNC computers and provided the data to WikiLeaks. The motion stated: ‘It is clear.?.?. that the government has relied on the assumptions made by a source outside of the U.S. intelligence community that the Russian State was involved in the hacking and that the data taken from the various servers were given to WikiLeaks… The government does not have the evidence, and it knew it did not have the evidence, when it applied for these search warrants.’

    “Bill Binney’s Voice is Finally Heard

    “Stone’s motion includes expert testimony by Bill Binney whose forensic evidence proved conclusively that the 49.1 megabytes per second download speed of emails from DNC servers on May 23-25th, 2016 which were uploaded to WikiLeaks could not possibly have occurred through the means of a hack of any source external to the USA but rather COULD ONLY have occurred via a thumb drive such as that which DNC staffer Seth Rich conducted and released to WikiLeaks before his murder on July 10th, 2016.

    “In spite of having briefed CIA Director Mike Pompeo at Trump’s personal request in October 2017, Binney has been blocked for two years from providing expert testimony during the $26 million inquisition. Binney’s affidavit states in part: ‘WikiLeaks did not receive the stolen data from the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files that were acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive physically local to the DNC.’ […]

    “Binney points out the absurdity that anti-Russian private security firm CrowdStrike admitted that they observed that supposed Russian hackers began penetrating DNC servers on May 6th, 2016 yet chose to do nothing until June 10th, 2016. For these reasons Stone is demanding unredacted copies of CrowdStrike’s forensic reports which have never been made public. CrowdStrike had a monopoly on all DNC computers and other physical evidence at the time, which has never been made accessible to the FBI or any other government agency.”

    Roger Stone Shines New Light on Russia-Gate Hoax
    By Matthew Ehret

  4. Chris
    May 22, 2019 at 12:51

    Cohen’s book, which I’m about a third of the way through, is like a trip down memory lane for anyone who listened to him on the John Batchelor Show. I’m not convinced he’s right about everything, but his is a perspective that should be taken into account. Especially since it’s not taken by either the leftstream or rightstream media. Keep up the good work, Professor Cohen!

  5. Abe
    May 22, 2019 at 12:47

    “While no details about discussion on Iran in Pompeo–Lavrov meeting have been revealed, there is no doubt that Russia strongly opposes any destabilisation in Iran—something that would not only spread havoc in the Middle East but would also become the reason for a highly possible spread of Jihadi groups from the Caspian to the Caucasus. Whereas, within the US administration, there are enough number of people who wish to ‘punish’ Iran; hence, the underlying tension in the US-Russia ties.

    “This takes to another tension in the US-Russia relations i.e., although the Mueller inquiry could not prove any collusion between Trump and the Kremlin, Russophobia still remains a toxic subject in the US and normalisation with Russia remains a highly sensitive political question.

    “And then there is also the question of US sanctions on Russia. Significantly enough, these sanctions curb the scope for any meaningful expansion of ties more than any other aspect. For instance, almost all the post-2016 sanctions emanate out of laws passed by the US. Congress and not from the president’s executive orders, thanks to the post-2016 election phobia spread through fears and doubts about Russian interference in the US elections.”

    Are the US and Russia Really Headed Towards a Re-set of Relations?
    By Salman Rafi Sheikh

  6. May 22, 2019 at 00:26

    Indeed. The vampire squid squad has assumed control of the ship. The media hypernormalized nonsense. We sail the seas of cheese. Gibberish is our national language – do you speak it? The sign says Welcome to Forever-gate…

  7. Abe
    May 21, 2019 at 18:22

    In War with Russia (2019), in the chapter titled “Russiagate Amnesia or Denialism”, Stephen F. Cohen notes:

    “Whatever ‘meddle’ means – the word is both capacious and imprecise – governments have meddled in the elections of other states for centuries in one form or another. Israel has, of course, meddled in US elections for decades. More to the point, according to a study reported by the New York Times, on February 17, 2018, the US government ran 81 ‘overt and covert election influence operations’ in foreign countries from 1946 to 2000. (Soviet and post-Soviet Russia ran 36 such operations during the same period.)” (Cohen, page 161)

    Cohen’s remark elides over the very precise point of perpetual pro-Israel Lobby election influence operations, particularly Israeli interference in the 2016 US presidential election.

    The Russia-gate fiction, and its dangerous escalation of US-Russian tensions, were arguably “ginned up” by the pro-Israel Lobby very precisely in order to deflect attention from the central reality of pro-Israel Lobby manipulation of American foreign policy.

    In Cohen’s note “To My Readers” at the beginning of War with Russia, he mentions the “unprecedented realities” that evolved during “the years since 2014 when US-Russian relations were becoming more dangerous than they had ever been – and then made even worse by the allegations known as Russiagate”. Cohen acknowledges that evolution of the new US-Russian Cold War has been “driven primarily by politics in Washington, not in Moscow”.

    What Cohen and the majority of contributors to Consortium News consistently fail to acknowledge is the direction and degree to which politics in Washington unmistakably have been driven by the pro-Israel Lobby since 2011, with increasingly dangerous consequences for US-Russian relations.

    Most conspicuously, Russia’s 2013 “meddling” in the US-Israeli-Saudi Axis “regime change” project in Syria precipitated direct pressure on Russia in the form of a violent “regime change” project in Ukraine.

    While asking the question “Has Washington Gone Rogue?” Cohen appears inordinately enamored with what he describes as “a growing political and security relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Russian president”, as if the escalation of Washington’s anti-Russian behavior had no connection to Israel.

    Despite his reluctance to examine the connection between Israel and US “rogue” behavior, Cohen has been most loudly attacked by all the usual pro-Israel Lobby mouthpieces. Here’s an example:

    • Clark M Shanahan
      May 22, 2019 at 16:27

      Somehow I erred and my reply to you posted way below. So here it is.
      Just as Israeli interrogation experts entered Baghdad the day after US forces secured the city.
      Just as Israeli mercenaries helped the Guatemalan forces track & liquidate Mayans and build “model villages” for the remaining during the Reagan/Bush1 years since US forces were prohibited.
      Just as Israel recognized Guaido.
      Just as ex-IDF partook in the Ukraine Coup.
      In defense of Prof Cohen; he is one man who really needs to choose his battles. :-).

  8. boxerwar
    May 21, 2019 at 18:08

    Netanyahu guide dog leads a blind and ignorant Trump


    • MAY 7, 2019

    • T
      May 22, 2019 at 05:31



      Shouldn’t that be “giraldi”?

      But even corrected, the page does not exist (or no longer exists)

      • boxerwar
        May 25, 2019 at 15:14

        Israel’s War Criminals In Their Own Words
        Shooting unarmed Palestinian demonstrators “preserves Israeli values”

        PHILIP GIRALDI • MAY 21, 2019 • 1,300 WORDS • 630 COMMENTS • REPLY

        Israel’s public face, sustained and propagated by a wealthy and powerful diaspora that has significant control over the media, insists that the country is the Middle East’s only true democracy, that is operates under a rule of law for all its citizens and that its army is the “most moral in the world.” All of… READ MORE
        The Deal of the Century

        Trump Team and Netanyahu conspire to sell out the Palestinians

        PHILIP GIRALDI • MAY 14, 2019 • 1,500 WORDS • 457 COMMENTS •

        In the aftermaths of both the First and Second World Wars national borders were readjusted to suit the victors and entirely new countries were created from the ruins of the empires that had collapsed as a result of the conflict. The process continued with the end of the Soviet Union but the new states were… READ MORE

        What’s in a Cartoon?
        Netanyahu guide dog leads a blind and ignorant Trump

        PHILIP GIRALDI • MAY 7, 2019 • 1,300 WORDS • 841 COMMENTS • REPLY

        Israel and its friends in Washington and New York never miss the opportunity to exploit the news cycle to tighten the screws a bit more, rendering any criticism of the Jewish state unacceptable or even illegal. Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon has been persistently demanding that what he describes as anti-Semitic speech… READ MORE

        Blame Palestinians for Gaza
        Israel is the perpetual victim

        PHILIP GIRALDI • APRIL 30, 2019 • 1,600 WORDS • 492 COMMENTS • REPLY

        If you have read a recent New York Times op-ed entitled “Care about Gaza? Blame Hamas” written by none other than the White House “special representative for international negotiations” Jason Greenblatt you would understand that the misery being experienced by Palestinians in Gaza is all their own fault. Greenblatt, who is Jewish of the Orthodox… READ MORE

        Jared Kushner, Not Maria Butina, Is America’s Real Foreign Agent

        PHILIP GIRALDI • APRIL 25, 2019 •

        [This column was written before Ms. Butina’s Friday sentencing.] Maria Butina is in jail for doing nothing while Jared Kushner, who needed a godfathered security clearance due to his close Israeli ties, struts through the White House as senior advisor to the president. The Mueller Special Counsel inquiry is far from over even though a… READ MORE

  9. Abe
    May 21, 2019 at 14:50

    Russiagate: Dead and Loving It

    • Ann Garrison
      May 21, 2019 at 20:35


  10. DH Fabian
    May 21, 2019 at 12:58

    What is so discouraging is that “Russia-gate” is likely to resume in full force following the 2020 election. It’s a near certainty that Trump will be re-elected, as Democrats maintain their resistance against acknowledging the consequences of splitting apart their own voting base, middle class vs. poor, workers vs. those who have been phased out of the job market. We just keep repeating the same cycle, seeking scapegoats to explain-away reality.

  11. bobzz
    May 21, 2019 at 12:37

    When it comes to the MSM, one of the many low points occurred during a national press conference. Bush II showed a video on him looking in various places, in the trash can, behind the curtains, under the desk (I don’t remember the specific places, but you get the idea). Each time he commented, “Not here; not here either; nope”. He was referring to the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. And all the MSM big wigs in the audience were laughing. They thought it was funny. Over 4,000 GIs killed, only God knows how many Iraqis, trillions wasted, etc., when the proper response would have been to walk out. What an illustration of the MSM in the pockets of the powers that be.

    • Realist
      May 22, 2019 at 05:22

      Goebels, Himmler and das Schutzstaffel would have gotten a big kick out of Dubya’s routine too. A good performer knows his audience.

  12. lexx
    May 21, 2019 at 11:22

    how can the relations between the Russians and the US improve?
    the US breaks treaties and lies and renegs on agreements all the time

  13. Mike from Jersey
    May 21, 2019 at 10:41

    The article notes:

    “Whichever side of the partisan divide they’re on, Americans know they’ve been lied to by one or more of them. Will they find reason to widely trust any of these institutions again?”

    I know that I, myself, consider the MSM to a be a pure propaganda organ. I didn’t alway feel that way. I used to think that they were a flawed, but occasionally reliable, medium. In the past few years I have come to the conclusion that they are just purveyors of soviet-style propaganda – plain and simple.

    I would love to see a reliable poll on just how many people still believe the MSM.

    It makes a big difference.

    If a true national emergency takes place, it makes a difference if the citizenry trusts their institutions or considers them to be a bunch of ruthless scoundrels.

    I travel a lot and I know that – in a lot of countries whom the United States considers adversaries – the citizenry, despite grievances with their nation, would nonetheless rally to support their nation in an emergency. This is especially true in China where there exists popular outrage against the behavior of the United States.

    I would love to know the exact extent to which the politicization of the media has destroyed its own credibility and to what extent the media’s attempts to control the population have resulted in a weakening of the basic citizen support for American institutions.

    • Clark M Shanahan
      May 21, 2019 at 21:30

      We need a military 51% conscript with affirmative action for the children of families making +$250K.

  14. May 21, 2019 at 10:28

    America’s establishment has achieved another end.

    It has lost the confidence of tens of millions of people and a number of leaders because the deceit in all of this is so clear to unbiased people.

    Really, when something smells as bad as this has smelled, and you still push it as truth, you not only lose credibility with thinking people, you truly do begin to look asinine.

    The following contains a couple of interesting references to former NSA technical expert Bill Binney:

    • Realist
      May 22, 2019 at 05:03

      Normally, when someone has been exposed as a charlatan and huckster they usually just STFU or try to change the subject, hoping that the public and the commentariat will soon forgive and forget.

      In this case, I think the hoaxers realise they went way too far for far too long. They basically went all in… bet the farm, as folks say, and are too embarrassed to accept the medicine they so richly deserve. It’s like, how do you admit to your loving mother that you have been deceiving and victimizing her for years by cashing her social security checks and buying drugs with them? They have not yet reached the stage, which they must to be absolved by the greater public and be given a fresh start, of admitting their treachery and begging forgiveness. They are still playing the long con.

      Eventually, everyone is going to catch on and their pseudo-progressive agenda will be set back for a full generation or more. Women are now poised to lose control of their own reproductive functions (as Roe stands to be overturned in the Supreme Court) because Hillary was rejected as a lying warmonger and crypto Wall Street kleptocrat at the ballot box in 2016. All because the Dems doubled down on bullshit Russophobic campaign rhetoric instead of choosing more wisely when selecting a nominee.

      • Skip Scott
        May 22, 2019 at 11:27

        That’s just one of the many prices we are paying because of the DNC insistence on Hillary in 2016; and the demise of the democratic party in general began in earnest when her hubby was elected and then proceeded to act like he was from the GOP.

        Here’s an excerpt from 1995 that the democrats would like us all to forget:

        • Realist
          May 23, 2019 at 01:45

          It’s always an interesting ride on the “Way Back Machine,” is it not?

          In this 2016 clip, Jimmy Dore presents historical fact that Hillary was proposing walls on the Mexican border back when she was a senator (circa 2005), long before Trump entered politics. (I think they were on the same side about a lot of things back then.)

          Just one more example of the old “memory hole” depicted so effectively in Orwell’s “1984.”

          She is so pissed she didn’t get to play the role of “Big Sister.”

  15. Clark M Shanahan
    May 21, 2019 at 09:16

    My favorites:
    Comey, Those Russians were scurrying about, doing their nasty deeds right out in the open, without any concern of being discovered.

    Hayden: “Maybe the Russians are still messing with our heads? I think that might be a very plausible explanation for what’s going on here,”

    Schiff: LATimes 5/30/17 : “Now if you look at this as just a one-off intervention, you might be inclined to dismiss the greater significance of it, or if you listen to the president, you might be inclined to dismiss this as simply efforts to relitigate a lost election,” Schiff told several hundred people at UC Irvine. “But the significance is really far greater. Quite separate and apart from the desire of the Russians to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton was a more fundamental objective, and that was really to tear down at our democracy.” […]
    But Schiff argued the larger point was sowing discord in the U.S., so Putin could argue that American democracy is no better than his government.

    Sadly. this morning’s Guardian has two Russiagate related stories.
    I believe the Dems are determined to carry on until Nov 2020.

    • Skip Scott
      May 21, 2019 at 09:52

      Thanks to idiotic corporate toadies like Schiff, the USA doesn’t need any help from Russia or anyone else in tearing down our democracy. Actually much of the programming on RT could be said to be in support of our democracy, and in opposition to an MSM propaganda machine in support of an Oligarchy which gives zero coverage to stories like Hillary’s finding it necessary to hold ‘private’ positions that are different from her ‘public’ positions.

    • DH Fabian
      May 21, 2019 at 13:16

      Liberal media, meanwhile, have resumed scapegoating tiny Israel as the cause of all our problems, and will swing back to Russia-gate following the 2020 election. Americans never accept responsibility for the consequences of our own political/policy choices. The absurdity of Russia-gate is obvious to anyone who follows the news — not merely checking in with their pundits of choice. We watched Trump reinstate sanctions against Russia, increase US/NATO troops near the Russian border, dangerously increase US “meddling” in Ukraine/Eastern Europe, setting the stage for a Trump-sized war, a “mother of all wars,” US vs. Russia and China.

        May 22, 2019 at 08:38

        The term “little Israel” to describe a highly privileged and subsidized state with illicit nuclear weapons does border on the absurd.

    • May 22, 2019 at 08:35

      The Guardian is a pathetic newspaper.

      It wears its bias like a big ugly cheap fur coat.

      In its hard news and views, The Guardian, despite its pose as progressive, is about as Tory as Theresa May. It is a constant defender of all the interests of American empire. Russophobia has been a staple for years.

      I could cite many instances, but my favorite is found below, where I have critiqued a ridiculous set of Russia-hating articles some time ago.


    • Clark M Shanahan
      May 22, 2019 at 10:10

      I forgot the most ugly/cynical: the “act of war” meme and the need to feed the outrage machine in order to sharpen the political divide between the “victims” and the deplorables.
      Reps Nadler, Speier, Watson, Swalwell, and Sen Cardin,
      “It’s a fundamental attack on our way of life. It’s a very fundamental attack on the U.S. And it has to be taken seriously, and Trump is not doing his job,” Nadler said. “What if Roosevelt had said, after Pearl Harbor, ‘We’re not sure who did it. Maybe it was the Chinese. Maybe it was somebody else’? And used that as an excuse not to respond?”

    • Clark M Shanahan
      May 22, 2019 at 13:19

      Just as Israeli interrogation experts entered Baghdad the day after US forces secured the city.
      Just as Israeli mercenaries helped the Guatemalan forces track & liquidate Mayans and build “model villages” for the remaining during the Reagan/Bush1 years since US forces were prohibited.
      Just as Israel recognized Guaido.
      Just as ex-IDF partook in the Ukraine Coup.
      In defense of Prof Cohen; he is one man who really needs to choose his battles :-).

  16. nietzsche1510
    May 21, 2019 at 05:40

    professor Cohen, get this right: they want to keep the status-quo of the hegemony of the U.S dollar which comes to live at the expense of the rest of humanity. Putin is the serious danger of this state of things: he endangers all the “printed” fortunes of the “chosen” ones.

    • May 21, 2019 at 09:05

      In the aftermath of the 2nd Iraq war I became somewhat cynical about economic explanations.

      There is a large block in the establishment that thrives on conflicts and the pursuit of hegemony regardless of profit. Bulk of the money that feeds that block comes directly or indirectly from domestic taxes. Part of their activity is academic, justifying the conflicts, this part is populated by think tankers, former intelligence and diplomatic officials who migrate to academia with some hops through more lucrative think tanks etc. This creates sophisticated ideology/pseudo-science. For the lower classes there is a need to explain that adversaries are evil. For the higher classes and those who deem themselves sophisticated there are economic and economically-sounding explanations. That said, it is hard to see that those economic or economically-sounding goals could be compromised by more cooperative policies, most of the time it is actually opposite.

      For example, “dollar hegemony” is actually convenient for other countries except when it is used to block wide classes of transactions under various sanctions. Sanctions stimulate the search for alternative agreed media of exchange and actually may in time erode the position of US dollar. But they are lucrative to the “conflict block” (wider than MIC).

      • DH Fabian
        May 21, 2019 at 13:23

        “For the lower classes there is a need to explain that adversaries are evil.” That’s merely a common, erroneous perception of the bourgeoisie, shining a light on their own false sense of superiority. For those “lower class” people, the immediate enemy is the bourgeoisie. Many are well-educated, most have to rely on common sense for survival, and they are keenly aware of the way that government uses propaganda to “rally the troops” to protect their own hind-quarters. The lower class are a segment of the population who see America without its mask.

      • Skip Scott
        May 21, 2019 at 14:44

        “… it is hard to see that those economic or economically-sounding goals could be compromised by more cooperative policies, most of the time it is actually opposite.”

        It makes a difference as to who gets to make the money. As a prime example, during the Yeltsin years exploiters like Bill Browder were making a ton of money, and they were leaving the country with it, and doing absolutely nothing to help the Russian economy, at least as far as the Russian people were concerned. Putin stopped most of the capital flight, and raised the standard of living for the average Russian citizen. Chavez raised the standard of living for the poorer Venezuelans, but it was at the expense of the old ruling (white European) class. The average Venezuelan would no doubt do much better without the sanctions, and some foreign corporations would make some money doing business with the socialist government, but the Empire doesn’t do business that way. They want the whole pie, or it’s time for the jackals.

  17. Joe Tedesky
    May 20, 2019 at 22:38

    When it comes to wives after Barr’s Summary Report was released ending the Mueller Investigation my wife did an about face as she started watching old tv reruns…. Andy of Mayberry, Everybody loves Raymond, has made my distressed over Trump wife a less stressed person. My beloved swore off cable news so goodbye CNN & MSNBC. This after a year ago I told her that Russia wasn’t the culprit that the hack was a leak and, that there were no good guys in this story.

    Professor Cohen has it right. The shame of it is our MSM goes out of its way either to ignore or discredit the most brilliant professor and for this I despise our corporate media. Although it’s somewhat benefiting that a country which honors war criminals over truth tellers would invent such a reality as to start WWIII. We Americans need a new roadmap or GPS if you will cause we have certainly loss our way.

    • Realist
      May 21, 2019 at 04:10

      As soon as Hillary’s minion Victoria Nuland and her treacherous accomplice John McCain succeeded in meddling in Ukrainian/Russian affairs to the point where a violent coup was perpetrated on the Maidan and civilised relations between the countries were, by design, irrevocably torpedoed, it was clear to me that the best source of information and opportunity to understand the realities of the situation free from state department, intel agency, and media propaganda was going to be Professor Stephen F. Cohen, the main go-to expert on all matters Soviet or Russian throughout the first Cold War.

      Doctor Cohen was sourced for approximately two or three interviews by MSNBC, otherwise known as the official spokespersons for the DNC, and then cast aside when he chose to speak truth rather than parrot a script written by Obama’s lackeys. It was quite clear at the time that the creatures in the Deep State who really run this country had opted for an all-out hybrid war with Russia when the only rhetoric forthcoming from Obama’s gob was basically ghetto trash talk, dissing Russia and Putin in every way imaginable rather than making an attempt to defuse a potential nuclear confrontation–the very focus of Professor Cohen’s efforts then and since, as should be the choice of any sane individual.

      Thus we learned definitively that Obama was, as his worst critics had been saying, nothing but a puppet of some string pullers hiding in the shadows rather than his own man. This verbiage and accompanying policy decisions by Obama were strikingly at odds with the campaign nostrums that had got him elected, most especially in the race against Romney. It also evidenced an ingrate of the worst sort, as Vladimir Putin had gone the extra mile several times to ensure success of Obama foreign policies, most notably incineration aboard American ships of Syria’s entire chemical weapons inventory after their surrender to our military forces rather than initiating a bombing campaign against that country in response to an al Qaeda false flag poison gas attack, and implementation of the JCPOA nuclear control agreement with Iran, which was made possible only because Russia upheld the American economic sanctions against Iran and twisted the Ayatollah’s arms until he saw the promised benefits to acquiescing to Washington’s will.

      Of course, Washington, being thoroughly without honor, later rebuked both completely sensible agreements out of sheer desire to destroy all Middle Eastern powers not thralls of Israel. I could see ALL of this–and the rest I’ve not mentioned, like the Crimea and Donbass crises–before the incinerated bodies were yet cooled in Odessa, and so could Professor Cohen, but he was not allowed to share his wisdom using the corporate American media, rather he was denigrated and vilified as just another “Putin puppet.” There seem to be so many such alleged entities, Trump is just one in Avogadro’s Number of putative traitors. If the phenomenon were really as imposing as the establishment purports it to be, their feeble attempts at full spectrum control of the American mindset should have been swept away long ago. But their projection has largely, and unfortunately, succeeded. The evil motives and actions they’ve ascribed to Russia and Putin have been their own great success story in completely squelching ANY domestic dissent on the many wars, both hot and cold, which they have instigated or threatened.

      Congratulations, Joe, on at least seeing the wife turn off the spigot of hate and deceit flowing endlessly from CNN, MSNBC and most other sources in the grand collusion of corporate media outlets. If such people would only start to listen to Professor Cohen’s words they might regain some of the clarity they once had when Ronald Reagan said it was now okay not to hate Russia, that we were now going to co-operate and actually partner with them in a peaceful world. It seems as clear as day that the new goals of both Russia and China have been merely to excel at capitalism, make money and raise their standard of living rather than to conquer the world. What could be more American?

      • Joe Tedesky
        May 21, 2019 at 08:00

        Great reply Realist very informative as you brought up much that has been forgotten. Only the Obama Administration could not have accomplished any of what you mentioned without a media which is better scripted for argumentation over true reporting. A media that rather than highlight what Professor Cohen had to warn us about was demeaned as his being a ‘Putin Apologist’. A MSM so enthralled with they’re own career advancement over keeping our nation out of war is not reliable for keeping us citizens well informed. Trashing Professor Cohen is proof of our degenerating into an ignorant and brutal society.

      • Seer
        May 21, 2019 at 15:21

        And, yet, here we are, with Mika Brezinski at a top level of propagandizing on MSM: for her it’s a matter of protecting her father’s moves which has placed much of the world in hell; and the double-bonus is that she gets paid millions to do this.

        It is quite true that there was a concern over blackmailing Trump, however, it wasn’t from/bythe Russians, it was from/by the US (Deep State). I see only a couple of POTUS candidates as being able to withstand any possible blackmailing, but this means they would be assassination candidates: Sanders and Gabbard are the two that are more capable of “freelancing” around all of this; having them enter the Oval Office as a team would make it hard to take out one of them w/o taking out the other, something that the Deep State won’t be able to rig up a story for (as long as Sanders and Gabbard don’t travel together- or, eat together?). NOTE: Gabbard is the bigger threat to the Deep State, while Sanders’ possible entourage (which is almost certain to include Gabbard) will be sufficient enough to overwhelm the corporate Dem’s ability to push back (using the Deep State).

        Obama might have had his own mind, but, as with Trump, “they” pulled him into that “room” for the “talk.” Trump is pure chicken shit, so no surprise he caved: way too much dirty laundry to hang out, too many people attached to his ill-gotten gains for him to risk- again, everyone was TOLD that he was blackmailable- we were just lied as to by whom. Obama was more of an impostor, so probably less convincing was necessary: but, he was no fan of the Clintons (and that’s well documented), so that ought to give him a little bit of a break.

        Keep in mind that there ARE alternate voices that are out there and getting aired. In an upside-down kind of world that it’s become we’re seeing that FOX News is the place where the non-insane views on all of this can be heard: Tulsi Gabbard has airtime which actually solicits her views rather than attacks her; and Bernie too (though not on a regular basis- the town hall was, from what I hear, a plus for him). The neocons have infiltrated (back to? [consider Henry Jackson, a Dem US senator, was a huge neocon/warhawk]) the Democrat party; the idiot Democrat zombie followers, failing, always, to understand the Big Picture, have been co-opted without even noticing.

        And to give full disclosure: I’m a Tulsi supporter. I’ve never voted or supported Bernie: but I would should he rise to the top and tag her as a running mate (or otherwise note her as someone he’d pick to be part of his administration). Oliver Stone recently endorsed her, and the list is building. If all she manages to do is to keep Trump from starting a war with Venezuela and or Iran (and, of course, RUSSIA!) then, really, that’s the real mission, that the right thing be done rather than some team’s “chosen” one is anointed POTUS. She is attacking the neocons, neolibs and Deep State; supporting her in this (if nothing other than to force proper debate on it all) is worth it.

        Sorry for somewhat hijacking…

      • Dave P.
        May 22, 2019 at 01:02

        Realist: As always, your comments show complete understanding of world political events and history; a very clear eyed, objective, and balanced views on the U.S. and World events indeed.

        Your observation of Obama “. . . the only rhetoric forthcoming from Obama’s gob was basically ghetto trash talk, dissing Russia and Putin in every way imaginable . . .” is absolutely correct.

        The following is characterization of Obama in the article by John Chuckman in the Information Clearing House a few months back:

        “Obama made a better public impression, but if you analyze his actions, you see a man of immense and unwarranted ego, a very secretive and unethical man, and a man who held no worthy ideals he promoted. He was superficial in many things. And he was completely compliant to the power establishment, leaving no mark of his own to speak of.”

        Joe Tedesky above wrote about a change for the better in his home. It is not so in our home; still watching CNN, MSNBC, and PBS. What can one expect! My wife was raised in a middle class home with parents having a summer cottage on the lake about forty miles north of the Auto City. You know that Album by the Detroit area “Heartland Rocker” Bob Seger’s album “Night Moves”. That is how the teenagers passed their summers on the lake during the 1950’s. The stint in the Peace Corps during the 60’s to teach English in S.E. Asian newly independent English Colony did not help to enlighten either. And there have been scores of books on the shelf and subscription to “The Nation” for three decades did not have any effect. We stopped subscribing to “The Nation” when Victor Navasky retired as its editor.

        Watching some of these experts invited to the shows on CNN, MSNBC, and PBS reminds me of village women squabbling during my growing up in the village during 1940’s and 50’s. Their arguments and incriminations were more analytical and fact based than these experts. It can be jarring to the nerves to listen to this nonstop barrage of garbage about Russia Gate, Mueller Report and related issues coming from the mouths of the show hosts and the invited experts.

        Just a few decades I could have imagined that the discourse in the Political Class and Media would come down to this disgusting level in The West. The big question is what will happen to the people raised on all these lies, untruths, and other garbage. Maybe they will retrain them with the propaganda machine in the hands of Financial and Media Oligarchy

        • Dave P.
          May 22, 2019 at 01:13

          A correction: The first line in the last paragraph should read as; “Just a few decades ago I could not have even imagined that . . . “

        • Realist
          May 22, 2019 at 13:54

          Beautiful reply, Dave P. Spot on description of the formerly liberal Democratic working class culture in the industrial Midwest, including Michigan. Kid Rock did a reprise of the exact cultural analysis you just did about 10 years ago with his music video “All Summer Long,” though maybe he did not realise it.

          “It’s a great tune. You can dance to it.” So would say the kids on Dick Clark’s “American Bandstand” from those days gone by.

          But those people have changed. The Dems have alienated them by their callousness and turn towards the Dark Side (to corporate America for their lifeblood, i.e., money). Kid Rock himself became a conservative GOPer with a corrosive foreign policy years ago. He was going to run for senator or governor of Michigan, but backed away. Probably because still more money to be made in show business.

          • Dave P.
            May 23, 2019 at 17:07

            Thanks. I loved the Video. What can I say! I loved that age too. As soon as I arrived at the Ann Arbor Campus during mid 1960’s, I started dreaming about it. With all these lakes around that area; could not wait for the summer to come. Though my color kind of blended in somewhat, being an outsider and inexperienced, I had lot of learning to do – all these mysteries.

            You know that song “What a Wonderful World” by Louis Armstrong, that is how I felt; and we three free spirited friends in the Graduate School from the same countryside area back at home wished we were born here.

            1950’s and 60’s was the true Golden Age of America. It started to sour starting during mid 1970’s.

            Your last paragraph aptly describes the liberal working class Dem s from that time.

          • Realist
            May 23, 2019 at 22:53

            I was born and raised in Chicago, but as a boy scout in the 50’s I used to attend their summer camp near Muskegon, Michigan. It was a magical place and time.

            I can understand why you were enchanted with the place, Dave.

          • Dave P.
            May 24, 2019 at 01:43

            I fell in love with Chicago, the first time I saw it in summer of 1966. My wife’s baby sister and her husband live near University Of Illinois Campus in a nineteenth century row home; and we visit Chicago often since the 80’s.

    • Clark M Shanahan
      May 21, 2019 at 09:33

      Joe, I heartily recommend “Have Gun-Will Travel”.
      Most episodes has the hired Paladin going into a remote, once pristine community that has gone all out fascist; due to some shadowy, foreign threat.
      There’s sometimes a happy ending with the embarrassed citizenry asking themselves WTF?

  18. May 20, 2019 at 20:21

    “the crux of pro-Kremlin allegations against Trump was, and remains, the charge that Putin hacked the DNC and disseminated the stolen emails through WikiLeaks in order to put Trump in the White House”

    That type of reasoning is totally wrong as revealed by a simple test: “This is exactly what Putin wants”, combined with the second test “what would make Putin happy?” Indisputably, giving credence to that argument! In the same time, there is a myriad of proofs of unique iniquity of Putin in particular and Russians in general. For example, they caused Brexit and inflamed separatist passions in Catalonia, poisoned four people in pristine Wiltshire, etc. Luckily, valiant defenders of the West and everything we hold pure and dear have their methods too.

    For example, Her Majesty Government wasted no time and energy to discover culprits of Skripal poisoning. I quote from memory so a bit imprecisely: only Russia had the combination of the motivation, ability and brutality necessary to accomplish it. The subsequent discovery of the precise location where the poison was spread and the timeline of the poison toxicity — few hours with no symptoms followed by simultaneous knockout effect on two people — were merely confirming what was established with dispatch, gallantry and aplomb by Foreign Minister Johnson, Prime Minister May and thousands of little people.

    Or take perhaps most heinous of Putin crimes: shooting down a Malaysian jetliner full of innocent Westerners. Right from the start the guilt was indisputably proven by American satellite photos. A minor reason why it is indisputable stems from the fact that Americans did not provide copies of the photos, but the main reason is that badgering to see those photos would make Putin happy.

    Or consider the fact that thousands of murders occur every year in Russia (the rate is a bit worse than in USA). Given tyrannical nature of the regime, how credible it is that they are committed without instructions from Kremlin?

    And I did not even touch on ways unseen Russian propaganda sows dissension and distrust in the institutions in the West hitherto populated by most harmonious and agreeable folks.

    • b.grand
      May 21, 2019 at 02:53

      Piotr, it wasn’t until the 4th paragraph that I was sure this was satire. (Whew!)

      “A minor reason why it is indisputable stems from the fact that Americans did not provide copies of the photos…”

      You might enjoy this Means TV spoof of the Venezuela Embassy news coverage – – –

      • May 21, 2019 at 09:24

        It is partly satire and partly my understanding how people who spew this stuff thing. The phrases like “it would make Putin happy” are used regularly to block unwanted investigations or deductions.

        One has to know that theologians made advances in formal logic when we compare them with Aristotle etc. Yet they were proving quite a bit of unprovable or outright false preposition. The general mechanism that is applied is to make certain preposition forbidden. E.g. we know that “A or B”. On pure logic we have to explore the possibility that A is true and B is true. A theologian has to consider first which of A and B is forbidden. If both are forbidden than clearly “A or B” is forbidden as well. Forbidden is different from false, it means that you are not allowed to consider it.

        Consider the poisoning of Skripals that apparently required considerable skill to produce a rare chemical compound and brutal. Who could do it? Suppose it was done by Her Majesty Government. Surely it employs chemists with sufficient skill. But it is not brutal (hm, for the sake of argument). As we explore the forbidden hypothesis we can imagine a compassionate decision maker objecting “How can we poison an innocent young woman!”. Such objection could be dissuaded in several ways. The poison could be suitably diluted to sub-lethal level. “But even so! What if they will not get immediate help!? What if people trying to help them will be incompetent!?” After long discussion it is agreed that the most qualified nurse of the armed forces of the Kingdom will be at hand. What I am trying to say that assuming that the poisoning was done by the government leads to the conclusion that it was not particularly brutal.

        • Seer
          May 21, 2019 at 16:18

          And, oddly(said with a smirking face), on 9/11 we were told to pay no attention to the happy, Dancing Israelis who actually/factually were rejoicing in the results of that event (stating that the “Palestinians are your problem”). And the Israeli govt was also stating that they benefited. YET, here we are with this crap…

          Facts and proof aren’t worth knowing/exploring. Gossip and innuendo are what we deal in now.

          “We will know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believes is false” -William Casey 1980, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency?

          To quote G.W. Bush: “Mission accomplished!”

    • OlyaPola
      May 21, 2019 at 04:43

      “That type of reasoning is totally wrong…”

      Evaluation is a function of purpose and purposes vary.

      Hence your assertion is likely “ultra vires” which you apparently conflate with “wrong” obfuscating/precluding questions that will likely aid perception and opportunity.

      A portal question to aid such activities may be: Why and for/to whom did the initiators evaluate that their activities would engender/enhance plausible belief ?

      Perhaps remembering Mr. Rove’s observation ” We are an Empire, We create our own reality to which others respond,………..” may aid your efforts?

  19. OlyaPola
    May 20, 2019 at 19:12

    1. ““Russiagate, like Count Dracula, will never end because new political blood will be fed to this vampire . . . The Russiagate fable — fraud — has become a kind of theocratic cult, and it has millions and millions and millions of self-interested and unwitting followers.””

    2. “After a lifetime of scholarship and engagement in Russian history….”.

    3. “Cohen and Batchelor readily acknowledge their differences as well —Cohen a liberal progressive, Batchelor a libertarian conservative — but they agree on the dangerous folly of the New Cold War.”

    4. “In a May 8 broadcast with Batchelor, Cohen said even more adamantly that Mueller’s a priori assumption that Russians hacked into the DNC emails, his failure to undertake his own forensic investigation, and his failure to interview Bill Binney, a former technical director at the National Security Agency, and Julian Assange himself, should be enough to discredit the whole report.”

    Quote number one is based on the a priori assumption that the opponents (not restricted to The United States of America) will not be transcended but will last forever.

    Quote number two is based on a conflation of engagement in with scholarship in Russian history.
    Mr. Cohen had a level of blat (connections) in the Soviet Union and continues to have a level of blat (connections) in the Russian Federation, but unless authenticated evidence in corroboration is produced to the contrary, on present evidence in the public domain, neither in the Soviet Union nor in the Russian Federation has Mr. Cohen been engaged as a representative of either state with necessary permissions to act as their accredited agent.

    Quote number three is an attempt to conflate agreement with a hypothesis, with the correctness of a hypothesis.
    Quote number three in the abscence of authenticated evidence in corroboration and by omission through framing inferring that one cold war was ended facilitating the requirement of a new cold war, does not outline to whom the new cold war is a dangerous folly, nor in what assay for various parties a new cold war is a dangerous folly and hence is rendered an a priori assumption.

    Quote number four is therefore rendered an attempt of deflection sometimes known in the vernacular as the teapot calling the kettle black.

    Consequently the restriction of the practice of theocratic cults to “Russiagate” is a misrepresentation through ommission, as are the attempts by representatives of “The United States of America” minimise their potential opponents by framing of China, Iran, Russia and Venezuela, in obfuscation of the prevalence of practices of theocratic cults in the “culture” of “The United States of America” and its associates, including resort to mantra to push away “evil spirits”.

    • ML
      May 21, 2019 at 16:57

      Throw some dressing on that word salad, Olya. Might make it taste better…

    • David Horsman
      May 21, 2019 at 18:16

      I have no idea what the point of that was.

      However. I do note people here don’t know the difference between a ‘a priori’ and a presupposition.

      An a priori assumption is a true by definition assumption. That is incoherent. Just sayin.

      • OlyaPola
        May 22, 2019 at 04:05

        “That is incoherent.”

        No it is circular in emulation of practices of theocratic cults – an iterative practice widely illustrated in certain “cultures” including, but not limited to, the self-designated “The United States of America” where hopes, expectations and outcomes often fail to cohere.

      • OlyaPola
        May 22, 2019 at 05:00

        David Horsman
        May 21, 2019 @ 18:16 (EST)

        “An a priori assumption is a true by definition assumption. That is incoherent. Just

        ““That is incoherent.”

        No it is circular in emulation of practices of theocratic cults – an iterative
        practice widely illustrated in certain “cultures” including, but not limited to, the
        self-designated “The United States of America” where hopes, expectations and
        outcomes often fail to cohere.”

        Some like Mr. Wilkerson as referenced by link below, understand that in some amalgam in some assay to some degree, but understandably on the basis of context including potential audiences, potential limited information and framing derived therefrom, limits his exposition of some potential consequences but not all.

        Portals are pathways not destinations, although some “cultures” are prone to disregard this by attempting to force blocked pathways instead of re-routing, a practice sometimes known in the vernacular as doubling-down.

    • OlyaPola
      May 26, 2019 at 10:08

      In large part until 1980 “The Soviet Union” sought to emulate “the United States of America” in placing a premium on conformance, thereby increasing levels of non-conformance and alienation facilitating the demise of “The Soviet Union” and the lateral process of transcendence of “The Soviet Union” by the CIS/Russian Federation..

      The “United States of America” continued to attempt such practice through various means – a significant component in policies of dumbing down and increasing resort to coercion in other forms.

      This data has been subject to developing and varying analyses and interpretations as illustrated by Mr. Cohen’s question contained in an interview linked below paraphrased as “Why did the United States of America prefer dealing with “Communists” than with Mr. Putin?”

      Mr. Cohen observes that some in “The United States of America” expected Mr. Putin to be a sober Mr. Yeltsin”, inherent in which is the prevalent belief that Mr. Yeltsin was the wholly owned agent of “The United States of America”.

      That belief facilitated the complicity of “The United States of America” in the transcendence of “The Soviet Union” by the Russian Federation, hence it served the purpose of an increasing sum of some not to disabuse the opponents of their simplistic illusions, although the opponents had suspicions in 1994 which were partly set aside by discussions in the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the fall of 1994 reliant on pre-existing ideological frames and expectations.

      The opponents were publicly disabused of some of their illusions by a speech delivered by Mr. Putin in 2005 although the opponents continue to believe in a “New Cold War” to suggest that the Cold War finished.

  20. May 20, 2019 at 18:36

    Is the consensus here that the sock puppets and trolls just didn’t exist? I agree that the proof is weak that the Russians hacked the hacks of the Democratic national Committee, but there was an awful lot of communication between the Trump campaign and Russians during the election, and whatever Hillary’s vast faults, those contacts were unseemly. On the other hand, there is a group that thrives financially and institutionally when Cold War tensions are revived or heightened. I’m willing to be convinced by any reasonable narrative. Help me out here.

    • Larry
      May 20, 2019 at 19:55

      I would recommend the following interview with Bill Binney and Ray McGovern to get an idea of the questions about the Russian “hack” job:

      They won’t say it out loud, but I think they’re implying that it was perpetrated by the intelligence agencies (FBI?). Worth listening to.

      • May 21, 2019 at 08:16

        Concerning the hack/leak, it is easier for insider than outsiders. The bulk of insiders is probably loyal to their organization, but there may be malcontents of persons bribed from outside. Accepting a bribe may stem from tepid loyalty and/or financial difficulties or simply greed.

        For example, previous government in Poland was seriously undermined by the release of tapes of the conversations of the top officials in an exclusive Warsaw restaurant. Apparently a businessman who felt abused by fiscal agencies paid the waiters to place a microphone among the flowers decorating the dining table. Were there any people of means in USA deeply detesting Democratic party in general and Hillary Clinton in particular?

        What I want to say is that a purely private effort is a distinct possibility.

        In turn, making a shoddy investigation is a standard method for any law enforcement official who wants to advance. In the case of officials who advanced brilliantly before they retired, it can be ingrained in their blood. Not reinvestigating convenient conclusions and “evidence” that supports those conclusions is principle number one — why are those conclusions convenient to begin with?

        • Seer
          May 21, 2019 at 16:27

          “Were there any people of means in USA deeply detesting Democratic party in general and Hillary Clinton in particular?”

          I think there’s a distinct possibility, and that it’s “hint” comes by way of Wikileaks offering a reward (for info) on Seth Rich’s death.

          • David Horsman
            May 21, 2019 at 19:34

            The death of Seth Richards is highly suspicious but I doubt the truth will ever be known.

            “Apparently a businessman who felt abused by fiscal agencies paid the waiters to” (Piotr)

            Most leaking and informing is done by angry folks for little money.

        • OlyaPola
          May 23, 2019 at 02:55

          ” The bulk of insiders is probably loyal to their organization”

          Some have loyalty to their oaths and this is respected and understood by others.

          “but there may be malcontents of persons bribed from outside”

          Bribes are not a motivation for some whose motivation is based on loyalty to their oaths and how that is best implemented.

          In large measure at this point in the lateral processes most seek to maintain a modified version of the self-designated “The United States of America” and its associates in the hope branded as expectation that reform is an option in precluding transcendence rendered more problematic by illusions of sole/primary agency.

          Mr. and Mrs Gulliver are constrained by many threads wriggling in various trajectories like fish in a fishing net becoming more tightly bound.

          Ideology is immersive akin to a swimming pool – when you start to emerge you still carry water droplets of varying saturation.

          Immersion in What You See is What You Getism evangelised through “We the people hold these truths to be self-evident..” and other mantra of control, facilitates what you get is what you don’t see.

        • OlyaPola
          May 23, 2019 at 07:23

          “Some have loyalty to their oaths and this is respected and understood by

          “but there may be malcontents of persons bribed from outside”

          “Bribes are not a motivation for some whose motivation is based on loyalty
          to their oaths and how that is best implemented.”

          Constitution has many meanings and hence definite articles are best avoided.

          “One nation under god” and a cacophony of illusions in short phrasing.

          How strange the change from major to minor?

          Systemic dissonance increasing pitch and tempo towards crescendo?

          A time of goodnight, sweet prince
          and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest?

    • H. Beazley
      May 20, 2019 at 21:03

      Why was it “unseemly” for Trump to talk to Putin? We are not now nor ever have been in a war with Russia, so it is not treasonous to talk to Russian leaders. I am not a fan of Trump but there is no reason NOT to engage with Putin than there is NOT to converse with English or French leaders. The more meetings among world leaders, the less likelihood of murderous wars. The people condemning the interchange with Putin are the same war mongers who kept the Cold War going needlessly for so long. We need new thinking to stop the endless war machine.

    • Clark M Shanahan
      May 20, 2019 at 21:20

      I believe that you can rest assured that the vast majority of G-men would never have turned a blind eye to Trump associates dealing with Russian interests.
      Manafort had been under the Fed’s watch since 2014.
      The point that the famous Russian Dossier was surreptitiously jointly contracted by the Clinton campaign and the DNC (fact kept under wraps until Oct 2017) should have raised alarm bells. Stefan Halper’s involvement reeks (see Greenwald/The Intercept).
      I strongly recommend Gabor Maté being interviewed by his son, Aaron:

      • Seer
        May 21, 2019 at 16:31

        Manafort was dealing with Ukrainians, was he not? And the not-so-Russia friendly ones?

        If this is how I believe it to be then, as seems to always be the case, the story was twisted 180 degrees out (it was the Clintons, and Bidens, who were knee deep in Ukraine crap). Keep in mind that under Bill Clinton the US meddled in Russian elections: they saw an ability to rape Russia; the Russian oligarchs and their accomplices, such as Bill Browder, looted Russia and Putin came in and cracked down on them, thus the wrath was unleashed.

        • Clark M Shanahan
          May 21, 2019 at 21:10

          Yep, While Manafort was, perhaps, no angel,
          he’s collateral damage of the deep-state, wag the dog op.
          There was little justice with his sentence.

    • Detroit Dan
      May 20, 2019 at 22:13

      Please provide some examples of the unseemly communication between the Trump campaign and the Russians during the election. Was it any worse than that between the Hillary campaign and Ukraine? Or either campaign and Israel? Honest question.


    • H. Beazley
      May 21, 2019 at 00:07

      To put this whole Russiagate red herring in perspective, read the following accounts of US imperial aggression against democratically elected governments for the past 120 years: THE TRUE FLAG by Stephen Kinzer; DRUGS, OIL AND WAR and THE AMERICAN WAR MACHINE by Peter Dale Scott; and KILLING HOPE by William Blum. Before we call foul on another country’s foreign policy, we should change our own. The US is guilty of extreme hypocrisy.

  21. boxerwar
    May 20, 2019 at 18:33

    The Vampires among us are as the
    opioid-addicted Zombies
    plodding US cities in search of a ‘fix’

    as Dark Money recipients set policy
    thru back-slapping Congressional
    deal-making Contributions/FIXING.

  22. boxerwar
    May 20, 2019 at 17:59

    Lost Prominence.. ? — Are you sure about that, Ms Garrison.. ?

    The Blood Sucking scoundrels are manifestly these;
    The US – “Christian”/Israeli/ Saudi alliance equate
    to a Doomsday Alliance set before all humanity and –
    Is THE BEAST warned of in Revelation Chapter 13. . .

    • boxerwar
      May 21, 2019 at 17:22

      Netanyahu Took Trump to New Heights of Global Tension and Dropped Him

      By Elijah J. Magnier
      Global Research,
      May 21

      Israel prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu claimed he personally convinced the US president Donald Trump to abandon the Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA agreement, and wished Iran to “disappear with the help of God”. Israel is much more experienced in dealing with the Middle East than the current US president and his entire team in this administration. Even if Israel itself was not convinced, they evidently managed to convince the Americans that a show of US “superior force with the will to use it” would compel Iran to back off and submit to the US 12 conditions dictated by Secretary Pompeo, as Israel’s former Ambassador to Washington Danny Ayalon said would happen. Israel, the instigator of this strategy that has been refuted by two clear messages from Iran and its allies– is nonetheless coming out unharmed by this rhetorical escalation. Trump seems the only loser, waiting by the phone that is not expected to ring.

      It is Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s belligerence which obliges Iran to take a strong stand; Netanyahu has boasted that his influence led Trump to give him the Syrian Golan Heights, move the US embassy to Jerusalem, give Jerusalem to Netanyahu, and to revoke the JCPOA deal with Iran. He is also very likely behind the 12 conditions Trump seeks to impose on Iran since, unlike the inept US administration, the Israelis know well that Iran cannot accept them. The US president has sabotaged the peace process and squandered the position of his country as a mediator between the Palestinians and Israel.

      When Netanyahu asked Trump to give him all these gifts, the US president did not hesitate to save the Israeli prime minister from criminal prosecution for fraud and breach of trust to boost his re-election and give him what doesn’t belong to him!

      And now it is Iran’s turn to be in the US frying pan. Nevertheless, it seems things haven’t turned out the way Trump planned. His own image has been damaged, but not that of Netanyahu, who has instructed his cabinet to keep silent and stay out of the Iran-US contention. The Israeli Prime Minister can wash his hands of the US non-act of war against Iran and watch in silence, keeping Israel out of the Iran-US tensions as though he were far from being involved. He is trying to pretend that the ongoing bras-de-fer between the US and Iran and Trump’s retreat after the al-Fujairah and Aramco attacks have nothing to do with him.

  23. Jeff Harrison
    May 20, 2019 at 17:41

    Where is the media that should be telling us what happened, albeit a little late?

    • Seer
      May 21, 2019 at 16:38

      You’re engaged with it!

      If you look around you will find that the majority of people get their news off of the Internet, from other than MSM outlets! Do NOT underestimate the real groundswell. Some will likely snark me for this, but Joe Rogan on YouTube has something like 5.4 million subscribers; he has endorsed Tulsi Gabbard (viewer reaction has been something like 88% in FAVOR); while he may not be identified as a “journalist” he nonetheless brings a LOT of people information that ain’t going to come from the MSM.

      The MSM may have locked the front door, but the backdoor (Internet) is unlocked. They are quite aware of this, which is why they have created the movement to save us from “disinformation” (read: crackdown on people providing facts). We need to stop them from doing this lest we be locked out of OUR house once and for all.

  24. John Neal Spangler
    May 20, 2019 at 16:22

    A Very good book, I recommend it highly. A good summary of US Russia relations for last few years

Comments are closed.