I Told You So: Only Idiots Believed in Russiagate

Image result for russiagate

There they go again.

In 2002 and 2003 corporate media idiots speculated that secular socialist Saddam Hussein might give nukes that he didn’t and couldn’t have to radical Islamists who wanted to kill him. That story wasn’t true. Worse than that, it couldn’t have been true. I said it over and over and over. So did others.

But we skeptics were outsiders. Corporate media’s strict idiots-only hiring policy keeps journalists-as-stenographers, propagandists and broken-brain logic-haters employed by censoring those of us who are always right. The idiots’ idiotic lies about WMDs justified a war that left more than a million Iraqis dead.

Corporate media didn’t fire their idiots after the WMD fiasco. Why would they? They were in the war business and the suck-up-to-government business. Had they been in the truth business, losing their credibility might have mattered.

Idiots gonna idiot. So it’s no surprise that in 2016 the same corporate media morons fabricated another conspiracy theory so outlandish that not only was it obviously untrue, it could not possibly have been true—and that it would again have devastating real-world consequences.

Russiagate was a propaganda campaign waged by the Democratic Party and its media allies with a daily blizzard of overheated speculation that Russia installed Donald Trump as its stooge by hacking the 2016 presidential election. Several years and millions of dollars later, special counsel Robert Mueller has concluded that it didn’t happen.

Of course it didn’t happen. It couldn’t have happened.

As I wrote last year: “You’re asking us to believe that Trump’s people met with Putin’s people, not to discuss Trump’s sleazy real estate developments in the former Soviet Union, but to encourage Russian hackers to break into the DNC, steal Hillary’s emails and funnel them to WikiLeaks with a view toward angering enough voters to change the outcome of the election in Trump’s favor. Trump doesn’t even read one-page memos. Yet we’re being asked to believe that he supervised a ridiculously complex Machiavellian conspiracy?

“WikiLeaks didn’t get the DNC documents from Russia or any other state actor. They got them from a disgruntled pro-Bernie Sanders staffer at the DNC. Anyway, the intelligence community — you know, the friendly folks at the CIA, FBI and NSA whom Democrats worship the way Republicans revered firefighters after 9/11 — says whatever Russian hacking occurred did not affect the outcome of the election.

“Then there’s this: Trump didn’t actually want to win. Why would he go to such lengths to steal something he didn’t want?”

As Chris Christie pointed out January 28th, how the hell could a shoestring operation like the Trump campaign, which was “just trying to figure out how to get field people hired in places like Pennsylvania” be so internationally sophisticated as to “run some sort of Tom Clancy operation”?

My colleague Matt Taibbi writes, and he’s right: “Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.” Whatever credibility U.S. media still had after pimping those imaginary Iraqi WMDs, The Los Angeles Times allowing its stock to be sold to the LAPD and then taking orders from the police, and “experts” repeatedly reporting that Donald Trump had no chance of winning, lies in tatters.

The media idiots’ WMD BS cost a million-plus Iraqis their lives. Their Russiagate crap has vastly increased the chances that Trump will win reelection. Russiagate will make it all but impossible to impeach the bastard as he deserves and as the country desperately needs.

As I said on the radio after the Mueller news broke: “Business corruption would have been, should have been the focus of Democrats looking for legal means to remove this president. That’s the low-hanging fruit; that’s where something actually happened. Instead, they went after the president for something he didn’t actually do, and so they look really foolish, and Trump is going to beat the Mueller report over the heads of the Democrats all through next year, and it’s going to be hard for the Democrats to put this behind them.”

Trump is a corrupt real estate magnate with ties to the mafia and sleazy autocrats around the world. Anyone out to get him should have started by following his misbegotten money. Instead Democrats tried to do three things at once: get Trump, destroy U.S.-Russia relations to provoke a new Cold War that would profit the military-industrial complex and explain away the bankruptcy of Hillary Clinton’s brand of centrist corporatism.

Democrats are now turning their attention to the New York-based investigations of Trump and his business affairs by U.S. Attorneys. The president faces significant legal jeopardy on several fronts, including abusing a charitable organization to evade taxes and the likelihood that his hush-money payoffs to Stormy Daniels violated federal campaign finance laws. When he leaves office, Trump might even face jail time.

But none of that matters. Trump is so old and fat he’ll probably die before facing prosecution. The real threat to Trump from New York is current and political. Thanks to Mueller’s exoneration on Russiagate, Trump is largely politically inoculated from the New York stuff even if the Department of Justice files major charges. “Just another witch hunt,” he’ll say—and voters—not just his base—will nod their heads. The media will go on and on about wrongdoing that under normal circumstances would amount to one hell of a scandal—but who will listen other than partisan Democrats?

The second Trump Administration that just became likelier will hasten the destruction of the planet by pollution and climate change, widen income and wealth disparity and gut the Affordable Care Act. The U.S. system may never recover. All because the corporate media idiots went after a serial criminal for the one crime he didn’t commit.

Wanna know the richest irony? Trump knew how this would turn out. He knew what the Mueller Report would say. For two years he’s been watching DNC mouthpieces like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow rant about Russiagate. He knew he’d use those clips for one attack ad after another.

Actual collusion! Democrats and their media outlets conspired to install Donald Trump as president in 2020.

(Ted Rall, the cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of “Francis: The People’s Pope.” You can support Ted’s hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.)



  • Damn, Ted, you’ve seen Mueller’s report? Can you post it? Share, man!

    Does Mueller confess that his entire investigation has been a scam? That he knew from the beginning it was a ginormous hoax perpetrated by Hillary Clinton and the reanimated corpse of Joseph McCarthy? Does he have pictures of the secret underground bunker where the heads of all the world’s spy agencies met to coordinate their stories? (And did they, like, wear robes and chant Satanic verses?) Did he get schematics for the time machine Hillary used to go back and hack the DNC servers? Receipts for all the bribes paid to all the cybersecurity agencies? Don Jr’s signed confession that he lied about the Trump Tower Meeting? Mueller’s own confession he lied about all the Trumpions who lied about their dealings with Russia, and that they will subsequently receive full pardons?

    Man, I’d love to see that report. Until you do post it, I’ll have to go with Barr’s letter which states:

    1) Russia hacked the DNC servers and leaked the info with the intent of undermining our elections
    2) Russia orchestrated a massive cyber psy-ops campaign with the same intent
    3) Trump has not been exonerated

    But, as usual, Sparky says it better than I ever could.

  • Great column, Ted.

    The reality-based community has had few effective spokespersons for a long time.

    I really admire you for sticking your neck out while so many knives are out for partisan doubters.

    I never expected any evidence to be revealed after going through the 2018 campaign without Democrats dropping the “bomb” (if there actually was a bomb) before the elections when it would have been most useful.

    Reports of the existence of evidence, and demonstrations of a fervent belief that evidence does in fact exist, is not evidence in itself.

    The Russia-gate lies are going to die hard among its true believers, mostly because that is all they have, and all they dare risk having.

    Trump could never be exonerated because a negative of this type can’t be proved without an examination of a number of possibilities effectively approaching infinity.

    Only a fool would exonerate Trump with the expectation that no irrefutable evidence might ever arise that would invalidate this exoneration, and thus prove himself to be either a fool or a liar or both, whether tomorrow or a hundred years from now.

    • To Glenn:

      In your understanding, of WHAT accusations, exactly, has His Hairness not been exonerated?

    • > Only a fool would exonerate Trump with the expectation that no irrefutable evidence might ever arise that would invalidate this exoneration, and thus prove himself to be either a fool or a liar or both, whether tomorrow or a hundred years from now.

      I couldn’t have said it better, yet it appears that many little Trumpkins are doing just that. Me, I’d suggest that they hold off their victory parades until such time as the actual report is released.

  • Idiots gonna idiot.

    But there are, distinctions, Ted. Some people promulgate this absurdity – i e, that «Russia installed Donald Trump as its stooge by hacking the 2016 presidential election» – in order to profit from it ; others simply because they are and do as described above….


  • Assuming someone actually wants to discuss the events of the day …

    I found several ve-r-r-ry interesting tidbits in Barr’s letter. First of all “The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election … ” ‘k – but that’s only a half-truth. He left out the part about “… on behalf of Trump,”

    Why the omission? Wasn’t that a big part of the investigation? The spooks concluded long ago it was in support of Trump, if Mueller found anything different than it most assuredly would have been included in his final report. The answer, of course, is that Barr is spinning the report just as fast as he can. He’s simply doing his job: he was hand-selected to get Trump off the hook.

    Which brings up my second observation, he let Trump off the hook. Experts struggled for months with what seems to be a tricky question, yet Barr made up his mind instantly. (My bet is that he made up his mind before actually reading the report, but I digress.) Something this important and tricky should have been decided by Grand Jury or perhaps the Supremes themselves, but Barr made the decision, in private, without revealing the evidence upon which he based his decision. Is that suspicious or what? Barr should have recused himself, like Sessions before him. Our system of justice is founded on transparency – y’ud think the head of the department would know that – yet here he is, making highly dubious calls behind closed doors.

    Let’s look a little closer at what was actually said. “the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction” So … there WAS evidence of obstruction, (otherwise he would have said so) – and he as much as admits that he let the cheeto in chief off the hook based on a technicality. What we know publicly is that Trump fired Comey because of the investigation, that he pressured multiple attorneys general to stop the investigation, said of Sessions, “never would have hired Sessions if he knew he was going to recuse himself from the Russia probe,” hired Barr specifically because of his views of the probe, and that he was publicly hostile to the investigation. Yeah, I may not be a lawyer, but that certainly sounds like obstruction to me. I’m really curious what that technicality is. Is it the old canard about how the DOJ can’t indict a sitting president? ‘cuz that’s an entirely different matter than ‘not guilty.’

    Lastly – and I’m sure most controversially – is the biggest conclusion: “No collusion” ‘cuz what he actually said was “if we set the bar wa-a-a-ayyy up here, then no, there was no collusion.” Okay, I’ll accept that for now – but how about if we set the bar just s li-i-i-ittle lower, what happens then? DJTJR is most assuredly guilty of peddling influence, yet Barr’s Cliff Notes version doesn’t even mention it. Hypothesis: DJTJR is guilty of peddling influence to a Russian oligarch with ties to Putin which is, of course, an entirely different thing than peddling influence directly to the Russian government. (but it still falls under “high crimes and misdemeanors”)

    “Your honor, my client is not guilty of Grand Theft Auto because the car was a junker”
    “So … he stole the car?”
    “I didn’t say that”
    “What does your report say?”
    “The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.”
    “What does the report say?
    “Tell, ya what, yer honor, I’ll issue ‘a version’ of the report some day real soon now. In the meantime, you’ll just have to trust me.”

    Hold onto your popcorn the play ain’t over yet; in fact the curtain is just rising on the Third Act. Watch for fireworks over “releasing the report” and “releasing the FULL report.” Earlier I asked “why is Trump fighting an investigation that can only prove him innocent?” (Still waiting for an answer) In the future I shall be asking “Why is Trump fighting the release of a report which can only prove him innocent?”

  • «Only a fool would exonerate Trump …» Indeed. But some fools don’t seem willing to acpt the fact that, as Ted noted above, that the «Russia installed Donald Trump as its stooge by hacking the 2016 presidential election» meme is bankrupt, but rather continue to promulgate it, pointing instead to evidence of other types of criminality on the part of Mr Trump and his entourage. No one can – and few have – disputed that point – but that sort of sleaze, not uncommon, it would seem, in Washington, was hardly the (ostensible) main reason for the investigation, as anyone with a modicum of memory – and/or integrity – should be capable of recognising. It was rather to uncover :

    (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; …

    No such evidence has been found, despite 22 months of investigations and interminable cries of «the walls are closing in [i e, on Mr Trump]» in the corporate media in the US (and elsewhere) – but no doubt the parlous political situation in the United States is all the fault of that heinous Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin anyway, no matter what the investigators may or may not find…. 😉


  • Fine analysis, Ted.

    I’d suggest only that any reference to the number of Iraqi dead due to post 2000 “lies about WMD” by the Cheney/Bush administration lackeys & running dogs (including essentially ALL Dems) must always discuss the ≥mass-murderous, historical context.

    That is, it must include reference to the Iraqi deaths resulting from the (primordially bogus) FIRST Iraq invasion by pappy Bush (several hundred thousand dead) followed by the adherence to and escalation of pappy’s “economic sanctions” against Iraq by the Clinton diumvirate that killed an additional million … half of them children but deemed “worth it” by HRC’s ghoulish paragon at head of the State Department.

    • Here, falco, the ghoul herself, telling us how hard the choice was….


      • Hi Henri,

        Thanks for your input but I will pass on the ghoul link.

        I’m having enough trouble with my computer.

        I can’t risk drowning it with a healthy wad of projectile vomit.

  • i totally agree with you, ted. but who are you trying to reach with this post? are you simply doing a victory lap to tell your readers that you were right? or are you interested in converting non believers who may now feel duped? cause i have to tell you, no one likes to be called an idiot. and those that might be open to hearing the truth are just going to become more alienated. this is an opportunity to reach out to those people who believed the lie and are becoming disillusioned by mainstream liberal media. have you given up trying to reach beyond your fan base? preaching to the converted might feel good but you might as well just jerk off.

    • @Pork

      > this is an opportunity to reach out to those people who believed the lie

      What lie would that be? The report *confirmed* that there really was a vast Russian conspiracy to put Trump on the throne, they really did hack the DNC, they really did mount a massive cyber psy-ops campaign, and they really did leak the DNC emails.

      In addition to the report, Maria Butina really was a Russian agent who really did infiltrate the NRA, and DJTJR really did meet with a Russian agent to discuss influence peddling in exchange for dirt on Hillary.

      The report clearly indicates that there really was other real evidence supporting conclusions of both collusion and obstruction (merely not enough to clear the highest bar they could find.) It explicitly states that it does not exonerate Trump. In short, it definitively refutes the bulk of deniers’ claims while supporting all those of the believers.

      So, I ask again – in all sincerity, no sarcasm expressed or implied:

      What lie would that be?

    • As you can see from the response you received immediately above, pork, it is futile to attempt «reach out» to certain people ; they are so committed to the fantastic notion that it was not voters in the US, but those dastardly Russians, in particular Gospodin Putin, who put Mr Trump in the Oval Office, that they are unable to discard it, irrespective of the evidence. That, I suspect is why, among others, Ted has more or less given up, and, more in sorrow than in anger, chose to write «[i]diots gonna idiot», which seems, alas, to be an accurate analysis of the current situation….


      • WHAHAHAHahahahahahahaha, oh, henri – you do manage to pull a throaty belly laugh out of me every once in a while.

        You refuse to discard the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy Theory in spite of the the fact that Mueller just blew 95% of it out of the water.

        You refuse to discard the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy Theory in spite of the fact that you can not provide one, single, solitary shred of evidence to support it.

        And THEN you post this gem right out in public where everyone can see it:

        “they are unable to discard it, irrespective of the evidence.”

        That’s FUNNY.

        I made a nice, polite post, and asked a nice, polite question, and sincerely tried to ‘reach out’ as suggested.

        Not only did you fail to answer the question, but you replied with a ad hominem attack. (and will undoubtedly reply to this post whining that the big, bad, crazy man hit you first.) Since such behavior accounts for the majority of your posts, it has long since ceased being funny.

        Which is why I put you on ‘ignore’ in the first place. But since I choose to briefly acknowledge your existence…

        For three years now, you have been screaming incessantly that the very notion of the Russians “hacking the election” was an absurdly absurd absurdity and cast aspersions on the intelligence of anyone who would dare suggest otherwise.

        Now that we know that the Russians really did “hack the election” you don’t even have the balls to stand up and admit you were wrong.

        Be sure to giggle next time your hero Trump grabs you by the pussy.

  • As Ted put it, «idiots» [not least those who confuse abuse with argument] gonna idiot.» Even on the present forum…. 😉


    • HAHAHAHahahahahaha HOOO HOOO HOOO wackawackawack heee heee hee

      Oh, stop, stop it please! I’m going to wet myself! HAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahaha hohohohohohohohohoho

      Okay, okay, :chortle: let me catch my breath.

      :: snicker ::

      I’m okay now ::suppressed giggle:: Let’s see, you’re going to respond to a charge of making ad hominem attacks with an ad hominem attack ::snort:: The Millennials would call that “meta” the X’ers would call that “ironic” – me, I’d call that the most self-oblivious fucking thing I’ve ever read.

      HAW! HAW! HAW! HAW!

      You have never once in your life made an argument that consisted of anything *but* abuse. The *only* rejoinder you know is “oh yeah? Well that’s cuz you’re stupid.” Exhibit A: the post I was just mocking you for a couple hours ago. You answered a polite, well reasoned post (containing “facts” and “logic” and zero “abuse”) with A STREAM OF ABUSE. When called on it, you responded with even MORE abuse, all while whining about other people being abusive.

      AKA “Weh, weh, weh, the big, bad, crazy man hit me first” (as predicted – your passive-aggressive third-person-passive-voice ain’t foolin’ nobody.) (See “self-oblivious” above)

      Y’know, you *could* always try to defend your «idiotic» conspiracy theory with “facts” and “logic” thereby proving me wrong about your shortcomings in the fine art of argumentation. Instead, you’ve simply proved me right. Again. In spades and with a cherry on top. I do thank you for that, as well as for the belly laughs.

      Well, goodbye until you post something equally amusing. (always assuming I bother to read it.)

  • Hey didja know that Barr has a history of letting high-ranking criminals off the hook, including the Iran-Contra conspirators?


    I’m sure that’s no more relevant to the discussion than his memo to Rosenstein documenting his belief that Mueller had overstepped his authority. Nothing to see here, move along …

    • To CrazyH:

      Re: “Hey didja know that Barr has a history of letting high-ranking criminals off the hook, … ”

      Then he’s a perfect complement to Mueller.

      • You misunderstand, falco – Mr Barr’s willingness to let the CIA (which, if that well-known prevaricator, John Owen Brennan is representative, certainly is no fan of Mr Trump) off the hook demonstrates conclusively that Gospodin Putin had Mr Trump installed as US president. Aristoteles obviously didn’t know all there is to know about drawing logical conclusions…. 😉


      • @falco – citation needed.

        Barr set a pretty high bar ::chortle:: when he insisted that the Iran-Contra conspirators should be pardoned ‘cuz otherwise it would “outlaw law enforcement.”

        Can you cite anything as egregious as that on Mueller’s part?

      • To CrazyH:

        Re: “citation needed”
        Are your fingers broken?

        What is actually needed is a modicum of curiosity, a dose of cynicism re authoritarian pronouncements (including, but not limited to, those of corporate media), a little better understanding of US history & the criminal methods of the powerful …. LONG before His Hairness took the stage.

        Here, knock yourself out
        “Mueller resume”

        Note also that Mueller was a willing conspirator in the Cheney/Bush program of 735 lies, on public record, to sell the Iraq war.

        Mueller, as then FBI chief, contributed by perjury in congressional testimony.

        I’m not going to debate relative egregiosity

      • @falco, and here I thought we were going to be friends.

        Do you have any credible sources? Sorry, GlobalResearch doesn’t cut it.

    • To CrazyH:

      Re Global Research.

      Yes, it has become very clear that, if you read at all, it is only from WaPo/CIA-approved sources.

      To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, it can’t be determined if you can handle the truth if you actively and, apparently so successfully, avoid encountering it.

      • > avoid encountering it.

        I’m perfectly happy to encounter truth, do you have any to share?

        If your fingers aren’t broken, you might try looking up Mueller’s real history. He’s had some successes, and some failures – par for the course, nobody wins all the time.

        Thing is, if any of the things he’s done count as an evil conspiracy, they are *right wing* conspiracies.

        But my original comment was about *Barr* – who knew what the Iran-Contra conspirators did, but thought they should be let off the hook because to do otherwise would be to “outlaw law enforcement.”

        You remember Iran-Contra don’t you? A Republican presidential candidate cut a deal with an unfriendly foreign country to help him get elected? Or is that just a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy as well? You know, ‘cuz they’re very sad Carter lost…

      • Oh, speaking of truth – have you found any which would suggest that the VLWC actually exists? Anything? Anything at all? (4.097th time asking – still no answers)

      • To CH:

        Re your quote about Mueller: “Thing is, if any of the things he’s done count as an evil conspiracy, they are *right wing* conspiracies.”

        Correct, so how does THAT concession make YOUR case.

        Mueller was sought to and delivered on, as he has done all through his career, i.e. cover up anything remotely resembling dangerous evidence against reich-wingers in power.

        The “VLWC” is YOUR construct and, apparently,
        all-consuming obsession — not mine.

      • ‘cuz the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy is a Left Wing conspiracy. duh?

        Speaking of which – have you found any evidence that it exists? (4,098th time asking …)

        “Mueller was sought to and delivered on, as he has done all through his career, i.e. cover up anything remotely resembling dangerous evidence against reich-wingers in power.”

        Still waiting for evidence that this is true (third time asking) (Still not accepting GlobalResearch – have you tried InfoWars? Brietbart? Fox? )

        Okay, so you’re saying he’s trying to protect the reich-winger currently in power.* And he lies a lot? So … how come he didn’t make up any lies to “prove” the VLWC theory? Why didn’t his report insist that the Russians never did hack nuttin’?

        *Reminder: Hillary lost.

      • To CrazyH,

        Re: “a) Okay, so you’re saying he’s trying to protect the reich-winger currently in power.* And he lies a lot? b) So … how come he didn’t make up any lies to “prove” the VLWC theory? c) Why didn’t his report insist that the Russians never did hack nuttin’?”

        a) OK so far!?!
        b) as you so succinctly put it: “‘cuz the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy is a Left Wing conspiracy. duh?”
        c) he didn’t have to do so “to protect the reich-winger currently in power.” Besides if he implicates the Russians ALONE it appeases those whose motivation for the hysteria was generated by the VPWMC … as next

        Re: “4098th time”: see “Russia to the googleplex” comic just removed from the front page of the site.

        Re Global Research: your reluctance to allow truth to impinge on you has already taken its grave toll. If you still want to light candles to Saint Robert … knock yourself out.

      • falco – might I suggest you wait until after posting before picking up the bong?