RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Weissman writes: "The Washington Post graphic shows Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin kissing, nothing more than that. But the inference must be that the two consenting adults did more than simply suck face. The evidence is circumstantial, I admit. The sources are primarily from US intelligence and law enforcement agencies, who have such a sterling record in truth telling. But, c'mon, everyone knows the two men had sex, and soon they'll do to us what they are clearly doing to each other."

A couple kisses in front of a mural of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump kissing. (photo: Mindaugas Kulbis/AP)
A couple kisses in front of a mural of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump kissing. (photo: Mindaugas Kulbis/AP)


Did Trump Have Sex With Putin?

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

19 December 16

 

he Washington Post graphic shows Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin kissing, nothing more than that. But the inference must be that the two consenting adults did more than simply suck face. The evidence is circumstantial, I admit. The sources are primarily from US intelligence and law enforcement agencies, who have such a sterling record in truth telling. But, c’mon, everyone knows the two men had sex, and soon they’ll do to us what they are clearly doing to each other.

Everyone also seems to know that Putin made Trump our president. But if you doubt that the two men had sex, why not exercise the same skepticism about all those stories of political intercourse? No matter how many times the mainstream media, progressive news sites in hot pursuit of the terrible Trump, and liberal icons like Paul Krugman repeat the unproved claims as gospel, they do not stand up to scrutiny.

The chief fault should be obvious. Most, if not all, of the stories fail to make a sharp distinction between computer hacking and spreading the purloined files to the American people.

I would be surprised if the Russians did not use hacking and other electronic surveillance on us, from stealing industrial secrets to probing elections. If US spooks can listen in on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, why wouldn’t Putin spy on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief John Podesta? But spying on its own would not affect how Americans voted.

Spreading the email contents, as WikiLeaks did, could have affected the election. But where is the evidence the Russians took part in that? If such evidence exists, it remains almost completely absent from the public record. Read all 7,000-plus words by Eric Lipton, David Sanger, and Scott Shane in the December 13th New York Times, and you will find only one alleged link between Russia and WikiLeaks – a quote from the supposed Russian hacker Guccifer 2.

“The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to WikiLeaks,” Guccifer 2 is said to have written. “They will publish them soon.”

The article then mentions that Julian Assange “resisted the conclusion that his site became a pass-through for Russian hackers working for Mr. Putin’s government or that he was deliberately trying to undermine Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy.” But, the Timesmen added, “the evidence on both counts appears compelling.”

Compelling to whom?

Back in August, after WikiLeaks made its two campaign-related document drops, I noted that no one had proved that the emails came from computer hackers, whether in Russia or anywhere else. The emails could as easily have come from an inside whistleblower, possibly the 27-year-old Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who was shot and killed in Washington D.C. in the early morning hours of July 10.

Adding to the mystery, WikiLeaks’s founder Julian Assange suggested on Dutch television, but would not confirm, that Rich might have been the source of the emails. Assange added to the speculation by offering a $20K reward for information leading to conviction for Rich’s murder.

Assange went even further in an interview with filmmaker John Pilger, who has been one of his strongest supporters. The interview was broadcast on November 5th.

“Hilary Clinton stated multiple times, falsely, that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications,” said Assange. “The Russian government is not the source.”

“‘Well,” asked Pilger, “why doesn’t WikiLeaks investigate and publish emails on Russia?’

“We have published about 800,000 documents of various kinds that relate to Russia,” said Assange. “Most of those are critical; and a great many books have come out of our publications about Russia, most of which are critical. Our [Russia] documents have gone on to be used in quite a number of court cases: refugee cases of people fleeing some kind of claimed political persecution in Russia, which they use our documents to back up.”

Craig Murray, the former ambassador to Uzbekistan whom the British sacked after he accused the Uzbeki government of torture and other human rights abuses, makes the case even stronger. Murray is today a close associate of Assange.

“There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption,” he said in a recent blog. “I know who leaked them.”

“I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.”

These claims from Assange and Murray do not end the discussion. Nor does their exemplary reputation for truth-telling and the massive contribution WikiLeaks has made to our understanding of the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s ties to Wall Street and Saudi Arabia, and so much of the world around us. As journalists and citizens, we have much more digging to do. But until we can weigh all the relevant evidence for ourselves, we are acting like damned fools if we allow spooks and secret police to frame how we think about the relationship between the bare-chested Putin and the ever-groping Trump.

“All Governments Lie,” the great journalist I.F. Stone warned us years ago, and spy services and police agencies in both Russia and the United States have a long history of telling a large part of those lies. Sometimes they lie on command from their political superiors (read Putin and Obama). Sometimes they lie in pursuit of their own agendas. Either way, why help them run their game?



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN