Thursday, August 25, 2016

The big Russian fake-out: Told ya so

Forgive me for tooting my own horn, but I was probably the first blogger to suggest that Putin was the secret power behind Trump. That theory has become almost mainstream by this point.

And now it seems that another one of my absurd, ridiculous, off-the-wall suggestions was not so off-the-wall as all that. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote the following...
Put those three reasons together, and you will understand why I am forecasting that Team Trump (or rather, Team Putin) will use Wikileaks to foist a "damning" email on the world which will seem to prove that Hillary had someone whacked.

I think that this will hit us somewhere in the October 20th - October 30th time period. The Democrats have to be ready now.

You can be sure that the fake message will be "backstopped" (as the spooks like to say). That is: The sole piece of evidence will not be a few faked emails. There will be more -- an additional "something" designed to provide the illusion of verification. Perhaps a witness or two (either paid or blackmailed) will come forward.
Perhaps I should explain that reference to someone getting "whacked." At the time, one of Roger Stone's little propaganda flurries had every right-wing conspiratard convinced that Hillary had gone kill-crazy again.

Maybe the Great Fake-Out which I am predicting won't have anything to do with bogus assassination plots. Maybe the false charge will be about something else. Here's the bottom line: Two weeks ago, I predicted a scenario in which the Russians release "hacked" Clinton emails which will, in fact, be clever concoctions.

And now looky here...
Whoopsie: Russian hackers post same document twice, but with glaring differences
Often, in war, mistakes are made. Sometimes, in Russia’s information war against the West, mistakes are made and then published for all the world to see.

That seems to be what happened when two supposedly independent hacking groups, believed by security experts to have ties to the Kremlin, posted the same documents stolen from a philanthropy run by George Soros. But the hack included a twist: Some of the documents taken by one group were altered in a bid to try and link Soros to Russian anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny, revealing how hackers likely working for Moscow are editing documents to smear their victims.
Soros is an important target in his own right, but the big score is taking down Hillary Clinton.

Maybe we will see a hoax document which will tie her to an assassination plot. Maybe the fabrication will tie her to terrorism. Maybe the goal is to make Clinton out to be a puppet of the Iranian. Maybe it will concern racism or anti-Semitism.

There are any number of possibilities. But when the brown-n-smelly hits those infamous whirling blades -- and a late-October date still strikes me as likely -- don't believe what you read. Keep in mind those altered Soros documents. If they did it to Soros, they will do it to Hillary.

Remember, we've already seen fake documents about Hillary's health. And we all recall those bogus "real" Obama birth certificates which the birthers have waved around over the past seven-plus years.

Coming up with a counterfeit document is the easy part. To make the false charge stick, it will have to be backstopped. In other words, the disinformers will need something more than a mere document.

Right now, I cannot guess what that "something" might be. Perhaps false testimony from a mole within the Clinton camp...? A really well-done piece of video trickery? Both?
Again, I reckon that, with a trivial number of exceptions, the only people who will believe the hypothetical hoax are people who would never have voted for Clinton, anyway.

Orrrrr--maybe Tsar Vlad has realized that putting an unstable orange grifter in charge of one of the world's two biggest nuclear arsenals would NOT be the best thing for Mother Russia, and so nothing will happen?
The National Enquirer and The Weekly Globe are taking turns headline potshotting the Clintons. Maybe while eveyone is running around looking for stuff, the ongoing assault on the Clintons at the supermarket check out aisles will be enough to sway a few million votes away from Clinton and onto Trump.
I think over 10 million shoppers see the Tabloid headlines every week. In 10 weeks time 100 million eyes will have seen ongoing anti Clinton headlines in their local supermarket, could be a difference maker.
I also suspect that, with a trivial handful of exceptions, the people who believe what they read in checkout-counter tabloids are the people who would never vote for Clinton, anyway--if they vote at all.

If such people indeed don't vote, I would not recommend they be encouraged to do so.

(Addressing a couple of our Founders here) Sorry, Tom. I think I've gone over to Alex's side.
"Whoopsie: Russian hackers post same document twice, but with glaring differences"

Uh-oh; I think someone(s) will be holidaying in Siberia...

"You have failed me for the last time."
Ivory Bill, that's the beauty of the National Enquirer / Weekly Globe scam, sure, lets say 90% don't take the headline assaults against the Clinton's seriously, that still leaves a few million who do and they weren't all necessarily already in line for Trump.
The Tabloid assault against the Clintons is corrosive, it just works its acidity little by little.
Plus, when the Tabloid's run a topical headline that happens to match what the regular media is discussing, it could sway people who were on the fence.
Put another way, if those Tabloid headlines were glowingly talking about the Clinton's past accomplishments instead of claiming Bill Clinton will die before election day from Parkinson's and that Hillary Clinton has gained 103 pounds, Hillary Clinton would probably be up by 15 points right now instead of 9 or 10.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that something published by wikileaks has been faked? I have never seen a suggestion that anything published by wikileaks was fake before. Can you point me to the fake wikileak?

Or are you suggesting that something that will be published by wikileaks WILL be fake, even though nothing published by them has been faked so far?
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that something published by wikileaks has been faked? I have never seen a suggestion that anything published by wikileaks was fake before. Can you point me to the fake wikileak?

Or are you suggesting that something that will be published by wikileaks WILL be fake, even though nothing published by them has been faked so far?
I'm saying YOU are the fake, Anonymous. My statements of fact are perfectly clear and easy to check. You are not confused; you are trying to confuse others.

Next time you see your boss Vladimir, say hi for me. I'm quite aware that he runs a massive trolling operation.
I get that a lot. Let's assume I am a russian troll. Because you are a thoughtful man you will be immune to my propaganda. So let me reply.

I double checked and I see that you didn't suggest anything published by wikileaks was fake so far. My mistake. But it's useful to bear that in mind in the search for truth. Right now for example, many people speculate a link between Putin and Trump. However the evidence they present is weak. One piece I saw noted that some business associates of Trump are Russian for example. I don't say there is no link. How would I know? Just that the evidence is weak. But no one says that what wikileaks publishes is fake.

However there is certainly a link between the ukraine and the current administration. A link between Vicky Nuland, Yats, and HRC. How about another kind of October surprise? One which involves conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Who would that benefit? It's not so hard to get russian uniforms.

For example, Russians allege Ukrainians were caught trying to enter Crimea for sabotage. They have suspects in custody. And yet despite the provocative nature of the claimed event, Putin did nothing other than complain. Maybe they think that a different kind of response is what this administration wants?

Biden recently went to ukraine. What do you think he told Poroshenko?

There are reports of a buildup of arms from NATO in Ukraine.

When I put this together I think you might find there are two October surprises coming. One in the form of emails dumped by wikileaks, the other in the form of heating up of the conflict in Ukraine. Possibly another coup if Poroshenko doesn't play ball.

I have one question for you. How am I fake? Because I might be russian? I get that a lot.

This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"I get that a lot." If you wish to be taken for real, have the courage to use your real name, as I do. Give us some way to double-check your internet history.

(By the way, I have a clearly-posted rule about anonymous comments, which I've now allowed you to break twice. No third time. You have been warned.)

"Let's assume I am a russian troll." I do. Your hypersensitivity on this score is what we call a "tell."

Besides, you are capable of writing grammatically correct English, even as you attempt to help Trump attain the presidency. Clearly, you are being paid. If you wish to be taken for an actual American who supports Trump, your commentary should be more along these lines: "Hillary is a fuckin CUNT you globalist cuck! WHITE POWER! Fuck Angela Merkel!"

Let me help you do your job better.

If you wish to be taken for an American Trump supporter, you should first visualize a brain-damaged, English-speaking Siberian Alma wearing a swastika armband -- an Alma so fat and hideous that he couldn't get laid even if he visited an Alma whorehouse with 10,000 rubles in his big hairy hand. Now imagine that same Alma filling himself up with cheap vodka and somehow gaining access to the internet. Now imagine a drunken, rage-filled fascist Alma who, even when speaking in mixed company, always relies on Alt-Right/white nationalist/Breitbartian/8chan jargon, because he has lost the ability to express himself in any other way.

THAT, comrade, is the way you should write if you wish to pass as an American Trumper.

By the way: There's a cool-looking restaurant across the street from your workplace at 55 Savushkina Street. The one with the bronze hand coming out of the door. Ever try it?

"I double checked and I see that you didn't suggest anything published by wikileaks was fake so far."

Don't put words into my mouth, and do not ignore the words that I DID say.

What I SAID was that the Russians have been caught red-handed creating faked documents pertaining to George Soros. If they did it to Soros, they will likely do it to Hillary.

As discussed in previous posts, the Russians hacked into the DNC and elsewhere to look for anything they can use on Hillary. Everyone in his right mind knows that the Russians are the ones supplying documents to Assange.

What Wikileaks has done in the past doesn't count. Assange wants to get out of that damned embassy. Thus, he wants to make Trump president.

How would he even KNOW which emails have been "fixed" by the Russians and which are not?

Wikileaks is simply a conduit. A pipe can transmit toxic liquid at any time, even if it has channeled only clean water heretofore. If Wikileaks did not exist, the Russians would simply have to find some other way to get the fakes out.

The topic of my post -- as anyone can plainly see -- was not Wikileaks but Russia. The fact that you attempted, with commendable slyness, to switch the topic only buttresses the theory that you are a paid troll.

Your comments about Ukraine are a similar exercise in casuistry. I have talked about Ukraine ad infinitum in previous posts; if you wish to address that topic in the future, look up one of those older posts.

Please note the rule in which I ask commenters to stay reasonably close to the topic at hand. In the present case, the topic you have avoided is Russia's demonstrated willingness to create faked documents.

Nevertheless, I do thank you for the hearty laugh. You seem to think that peace has a better chance with the candidate supported by warmongering monsters like Michael Ledeen and Joseph Schmitz, as opposed to the candidate who befriended Tyler Drumheller and the Blumenthal family. Hilarious.

I must admit that you were a cut above some of my other trolls. What is you people say? От во́лка бежа́л, да на медве́дя попа́л...
Re: Remarkable Troll English abilities. Your syntax is awkward. I suggest you study the Romantic poets in order to gain some fluidity in your writing. Your grammar is mostly accurate but that point is besides one I wish the to make.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?