Steve wrote:
. . .
All we need to know of what Hersh says is:
"All I know comes off an FBI report."
He says the report was read to him over the phone by a contact, who he considers reliable.
. .
In all, there's a lot less here than meets the eye. It's entirely plausible that Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks, if they happened at all, where not the same e-mails that WikiLeaks published. It's even plausible that the e-mails that Rich might have had were provided to him by a Russian source, and not from his own work at the DNC. Using Rich as a conduit to WikiLeaks would convince WikiLeaks that Russia had nothing to do with it.
Or, it's plausible that the "FBI report" was a fabrication, and Hersh has nothing. Or that Hersh just made up the whole thing, and he has no contact at all.
Terry responds:
I don't find the bolded plausible at all. A post or two back you claimed Wikileaks was working with Russia, now you have Russia working with or through Rich to deceive Wikileaks.
No, wasn't me. If Julian Assange says Russia wasn't the source of the emails, I believe he's sincere--though possibly deceived. How could he have confidence that his source wasn't provided the emails via Russia? Well, if his source actually worked for the DNC, for example. So, Rich could have been a stooge and didn't himself steal the emails from work. Or, shoot, Rich's (or somebody else's) identity was stolen to get files to WikiLeaks. Only an investigation with subpoena powers can sort out the reality.
Remember, the unseen "FBI report" (whose authenticity I gravely doubt) only discussed an analysis of Rich's home computer, not his work computer.
Terry continues:
Asking others to discount Hersh's body of work is only plausible if your own body of work is comparable. How many government deceptions have you unearthed?
I didn't discount Herh's body of work, that wasn't me. But this argument is just not valid, anyway. Anyone with decent scholarly skills can establish whether a given author's recent body of work is crap.
Personally, I'd give Hersh the benefit of the doubt about his having some inside source that he trusts. That doesn't mean I share his trust in the validity of the information he was given. Nor that I trust his speculations about Clapper et al.
If you find it easier to believe that Assange, Hersh, Putin, and Trump are conspiring together to make an already defeated candidate look foolish, I'd have to ask you why they are doing so. The election is over. No one is considering a do over. Hillary isn't going to be president - ever.
Adding Seth Rich to our conspirators doesn't add credibility to your story. He was, as far as we know, a pro-Bernie Democrat, not a pro-Trump, pro-Putin, Republican in hiding.
Personally, I think Assange, Hersh, and Rich (if Rich did anything at all) are sincere. But just possibly deceived. I don't think Trump *conspired* with Putin to do anything. I think Trump probably was *informed* that Russia was doing several different things to aid his campaign, and passively allowed the campaign to benefit without objection--which would still be a campaign finance felony.
Steve wrote:
There's even less to all this than the wildest speculation would support. The DNC email leak to Wikileaks isn't the only (or even most important) form of Russian interference. There are solid reports of hacking into local elections commissions--not fo fix the vote count, but to disrupt voter registration records in strategic Democratic districts. And then there's the well-documented "fake news" reports as the election neared, and related "bot" attacks. These are more than sufficient to justify sanctions.
Terry responded:
If this was true every London Times article advising Germans not to vote for Hitler would have opened Britain to legitimate sanctions by Germany, every Voice of America broadcast would have crossed some imaginary line, and every Globe and Mail post derisive of Trump would open Canada to sanctions.
Totally different. You're citing public statements by one nation about events in another. Such words may be offensive to a given government, but not illegal or grounds for sanctions. In the context of US election finance law, that kind of "assistance" to a campaign is out of the control of the official campaign, and thus not illegal. Nobody's saying Russia should be sanctioned because Putin praised Trump.
Terry continues:
Countries do have legitimate concerns about who heads other governments, and they have every right to try and influence their vote. Otherwise your own country is the greatest scofflaw the world has seen, as well as the greatest hypocrite.
Entirely agree. The US has probably been the worst hypocrite and scofflaw when it comes to interfering with elections in other nations, by means other than public statements. I'm not morally outraged over Putin's putative actions.
I am outraged by what we *know* of Trump's campaign, and horrified by what we can reasonably conclude from other facts about his campaign.
Mostly, I'm heartened that relevant facts are coming to light, and that a vigorous investigation is taking place. I'm cautiously optimistic that Trump can be removed from power before he launches nukes to N. Korea or starts a hot war with Iran. He holds the power to do both of these things, all by himself.
As for forged documents being provided to news media to create false reporting, it's a real problem. See:
http://www.salon.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddow-warns-people-are-trying-to-fool-the-media-with-forged-documents/This is why I doubt the validity of the "FBI report" that Hersh talks about.