In the article, former US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, labels some extremely questionable opinions as “facts”.
We know some facts, and they are disturbing. For instance, we know that Russian actors stole data from people working at the Democratic National Committee. We know that another foreign actor, WikiLeaks, published data stolen from the DNC to adversely affect Clinton. We also know that WikiLeaks and others published data stolen from John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, in order to try to damage further the Democratic candidate. We also know that WikiLeaks did not publish similar kinds of data from the Trump campaign or the Republican Party.
We do not know precisely if the Russian government or its intermediaries transferred the data they stole to WikiLeaks. We do not know with certainty if the Russian government (or any other actor) stole data from Trump and the Republican Party but chose not to release it to WikiLeaks. We do not know if WikiLeaks had obtained data on Trump and the Republican Party but made an editorial decision not to release this information.
We also know that Russian hackers were probing computers that contained information on voter registration, and poking around at actual voting machines and tabulators. Thankfully, this clear Russian capacity to disrupt Election Day activities, including vote counting, does not seem to have led to actions influencing the election outcome.
In addition, we know that Russian-government-controlled “media” outlets such as RT and Sputnik campaigned openly for one candidate, Donald Trump. Sputnik even tweeted the hashtag #CrookedHillary. We have laws preventing foreign governments from contributing financial support to candidates. Should we have similar laws about in-kind support? Such regulation seems hard, in tension with our First Amendment, but shouldn’t our lawmakers wrestle with the issue?
McFaul admits there are some things he doesn’t know. But much of what he alleges to know is a lie. He does not “know” it was Russia that stole any data.
If he does know, let’s see the proof.
Some of the attacks in his Op-ed appear as if they were written by an eighth grader.
“Sputnik tweeted #Crooked Hillary,” whines McFaul.
Mercy, how horrendous. Would he have been as upset if Sputnik tweeted “#Crooked Trump”?
McFaul attempts to disguise a blatant attack on the first amendment by posing a ridiculous, and disturbing question: “Should we have similar laws about in-kind support? Such regulation seems hard, in tension with our First Amendment, but shouldn’t our lawmakers wrestle with the issue?,” asks McFaul.
No, our lawmakers have no business wrestling with the first amendment. Nor does McFaul, nor anyone else.
McFaul goes on: “Should Sputnik and RT employees be accredited as journalists or as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? I don’t know,” says McFaul.
I do know. And anyone who doesn’t know the answer is no, does not believe in the first amendment.
McFaul and his ilk are very dangerous. He did not get the election result he wanted, so he blames the press, makes unsubstantiated allegations, and questions freedom of Speech.
WaPo Scores Again
The Washington Post should have trashed such nonsense. Instead it posted McFaul ‘s allegations and twisted opinions as “facts”.
For the second time in recent days, I suspect WaPo will be under attack for fake news, this time containing an attack on the first amendment hidden in the form of questions.
For discussion of WaPo other recent errors, please see:
By posting McFaul’s preposterous Op-Ed, the Washington Post further fueled the Russian witch hunt, while simultaneously questioning the first amendment.
The stunning hypocricy in this mad witch hunt is direct US interference in foreign governments.
The US overthrew the Shah of Iran with disastrous consequences, overthrew Sadaam Hussein with disastrous consequences, and interfered in Cuba, Chile, Afghanistan, Libya and numerous other places with disastrous consequences.
But here is the ultimate irony of them all:
Time Magazine Boasts of US Interference in Russia Elections
After Yeltsin won, he did not do what the US wanted so we tried to get rid of him.
By the way, I have one final question:
What information did Wikileaks publish about Hillary that was not factual?
Mike “Mish” Shedlock