Seth Abramson Connects the Dots

[dajoki]

Seth Abramson Connects the Dots
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/6/3/1862344/-Seth-Abramson-Connects-the-Dots

During this whole Trump election ordeal, there have been several data points that made no sense at all to me. Three in particular have been haunting:

Why would Kushner be put in charge of “Middle East peace”? He had zero experience and zero skills in that area.

Why would Kushner seek to get a secure communication channel that could not be traced by the NSA or CIA?

WTF was going on with that Seychelles meeting that featured a rogue’s gallery of Arabs and Russians, plus everybody’s favorite mercenary, Erik Prince?

Abramson comments on a new NYTimes story. The story seems rather vague, but Abramson is able to connect dots with his own background. Suddenly those three above questions make perfect sense. Here are the points Abramson makes on Twitter:

<<snip>>

If Abramson is correct in his inferences, and I think he probably is, suddenly those three questions at the top of this post make sense. Specifically:

Kushner was put in charge of “Middle East peace” not to broker a deal, but to carry out the wishes of these 6 nations that were part of the organized attack on America.

The need for a secure channel becomes obvious, as this is treason beyond anything ever known in this country.

And the Seychelles “rogue’s gallery” is not a collection of rogues after all. It is a meeting of the key players in this attack
Why is this not getting more attention? Even on the NYTimes it is already on the back pages.

[Hotler]

1. Kicking for a must read. nt

[Stargazer09]

2. I've followed him for years

He’s brilliant at connecting the dots.

Our media really needs to start paying attention to the big picture. They keep reporting stuff, but they aren’t picking up on the larger story.

[BSdetect]

4. They are not bright enough, sadly. For the most part.

[NewJeffCT]

6. They're bright enough, but

they're usually too busy chasing after the daily Trump scandals and outrages to look at the big picture.

What's great about Seth is that a lot of his information (almost all of it) is gathered from legitimate mainstream news sources from around the world. He does see the big picture.

[calimary]

22. AND they're still trying desperately, and rather sloppily, IMO

to do the “Both sides! Both sides!” thing.

There’s being objective to the arguments and being objective to THE FACTS. They’re not the same thing!

Seems to be there comes a point where you don’t cling to a veil of “objectivity” to “both sides” when the FACTS become unavoidable and undeniable.

[triron]

33. Missing the forest for the trees.

[Pepsidog]

8. The public still cannot figure out Mueller's report let alone a grand conspiracy like this.

[CaptainTruth]

12. The death of investigative journalism.

Today there is a lot more "reporting stuff" & less "investigating stuff to connect the dots."

[tanyev]

3. Marking to read later.

[smirkymonkey]

5. K&R for later reading

[planetc]

7. There are several subjects the Times and other media never connect the dots on.

Since 2004, for example, the major media have assured us that although an election seemed to have some hanky-panky, it was not enough to affect the outcome of the election. This is always said with great confidence, in a story that reports reasons for a lack of confidence in the vote totals.

We have received the information that Russia "meddled" with the 2016 election, and the Times and others regularly report on efforts to suppress the vote in selected states, with gerrymandering and voter ID laws, but no one seems curious about whether these efforts could actually change the vote tallies. At the moment, the only entity deemed capable of changing a US election tally is Russia, and that's very hard to measure because it was a "soft" attack, on voters' attitudes, not on their actual votes. Hillary Clinton is deemed to have "lost" that election when in fact she won the popular vote by 2.84 million votes. So, in the eyes of the major media, the only enemy of fair and accurate U.S. elections is Russia, and, despite the mounting number of Democratic popular vote victories which fail in the electoral college, there is no story to be followed about other possible ways to manipulate the vote tally. America's enemies can only be external, never inside our borders.

I suspect that newspaper editors don't feel the American voter could handle the news that the candidate with the most votes didn't win. We are seen to be rather stupid and uninformed, and liable to go haywire if our trust in our own system is shaken. The media don't have much respect for the 99%. But they do expect that we will accept their reassurances about this crucial fact: either vote totals have been changed in presidential elections, or they haven't. If voters are naive, then media pundits have no curiosity whatever, and will be content to go on forever discussing the political implications of Donald Trump's "victory."

[people]

10. Didn't change the outcome of the election?

Last night I heard for the first time a sentence in the Mueller report that I did not know was there. In a section that talks about the Russians entry into certain states voter data bases, etc., this sentence says that the FBI and another U.S. government agency are still investigating whether any votes were changed. .. . . I thought the U.S. had already concluded that no votes were changed.

[watoos]

21. Pretty hard to conclude that when no

voting machines are ever independently audited.

[planetc]

31. It's not that the U.S. has reached a conclusion ...

on the question of vote flipping, it's that the NYTimes has already concluded that no votes were flipped. So far as I know, the F.B.I is only investigating whether Russian hackers flipped votes. The question is, did anyone flip votes? Were votes flipped? The media starts from the assumption that no votes were actually flipped. That assumption is what prevents any competent government agency or news organization from starting a serious investigation. The guardians of truth in this country have leaped gazelle-like to the conclusion that there's no cause for alarm. Meanwhile, an increasing number of citizens have become alarmed. But until the Times becomes alarmed, we are unlikely to see a special prosecutor assigned to the question. A special prosecutor with expertise in computer security would be ideal.

[triron]

34. Even if they fnd out strong evidence for altering vote tallies, the public will not be allowed to

know. It will be highly classified. Just like the coverup of NHI visitations and encounters.

[DemocracyMouse]

11. The NYTimes is not only crawling with semi-liberal, but fundamentally careerist sorts...

it has an institutional habit of slathering every article with that special "tone" —i.e. "the status quo is truth."

[planetc]

32. "...slathering every article with that special 'tone'"

is a nice phrase. I hear that tone as saying: "The New York Times is never wrong, peasant." Even when they have inserted so many qualifiers into every sentence that you can't tell what they are saying, they're never wrong. That's a fatal attitude.

[UniteFightBack]

45. I sometimes have to check if I'm DU or the Daily Caller. nt

[thewhollytoast]

14. Frog meet pot.

If you tell the average guy on the street that any rich guy, anywhere, can buy General Dynamic stock they'll just respond, "So, what?" If then you try to explain that this might not be so good for U.S. security the average guy on the street will reply, "I like rice, it's good huh?" 40+ years of the Southern strategy and the wholesale dismantling of public education is really paying off for the slaver class.

Thank God I've got a big widescreen TV to watch the end of the world on.

Toast

[Laura PourMeADrink]

47. Slightly different tack...Do you think there is anyway

humanly possible to determine whether TRussian interference changed minds ?? I've never understood why the Dems and the press immediately bought into the idea that, 'well they interfered, but wouldn't change the result '. Whaaaa?

This is patently untrue. It is a more than a fair assumption that people who see a false story or negative picture of a candidate, and don't follow up to see if it is true, will be affected.

I saw first hand in Texas, Beto was on the rise, and then a couple weeks before the election, I saw Cruz send smear up and down Facebook. Low-infos pass that stuff on and geometrically, it's everywhere.

But there's no way to quantify this. A much better response would be that a normal person could assume that it WOULD affect the election, but there is no way to prove it.

[planetc]

52. No, there's no way to count votes changed by targeted disinformation.

This is the beauty of it--media can admit the troll campaign occurred, but cannot quantify what effect it had. Quantifying opinions is what elections are for, and we really ought to be able to count the vote accurately. But the more I think about the Russian interference, the more I wonder how large the vote shifting was: surely most of the targeted voters already leaned right? If they were getting most of their news from Facebook, they were already in trouble for sorting fact from fiction. The example you offer of Cruz v. Beto is classic Republican rhetorical attack. An enormous part of Republican campaigning is killing your opponent by making him or her out to be a terrible, dangerous person. And far too many people are susceptible to it, Democrats as well as Republicans. So I'm not sure how many votes are flipped by disinformation, because many voters were already using a database of disinformation, and likely to vote Republican.

What we really need is a more focused kind of campaign, one with most of the money and insults removed. I may write up my idea later on. Just because we have come to the concentrated idiocy of the 2016 campaign, that doesn't mean we have to stay there.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

53. It is striking me that you almost need a completely different

campaign strategy based on the state. I am stuck in a red zone in a red state. Been to many public and private events, and trust me, the vast majority of people never talk about world issues or politics. Facebook users are rampant. Not to share info on world events, but to share pics of their kids playing ball and parties where they had a fantastic time and to flaunt how many friends they have! A false, lurid story and unflattering picture about a candidate has maximum effect and rocks the idylic world they are trying to portray. It motivates them to vote.

Trump has already spent millions on Facebook ads here in TX. At the very minimum, we could set up some kind of rapid response team. Buy Trump's list of targets, create a counter ad asap and shoot it out. At least it is doing something!

[nini]

9. Everyone in that damn administration is doing Putin's work

It's not just Kushner.

[thewhollytoast]

17. NRA+Russians+GOP Criminals, what could possibly go wrong? eom

[ms liberty]

15. K&R for visibility on an important story n/t

[OregonBlue]

16. Rachel last night with her ah ha qatar moment. It is all coming

together but the news organizations are ignoring it.

[lindysalsagal]

18. I never make it through Rachel live because she's soothing,

And makes me think we're all safe. So I fall asleep. Plus I get up at 5 am. I have to catch her on DVR when I'm awake. Glad she's onnit.

[kacekwl]

19. So is the Department of Justice

apparently.

[watoos]

23. Barr is in charge.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

51. Another chess piece trump placed to block. Cut the

funding for protecting the vote and don't ask anyone to head an executive effort up. Not as dumb as everyone thinks.

Sarah said a couple weeks ago they were doing a lot to prevent Russian interference. Yet WTF...no press conferences to follow up.

Before we do anything else we and the press must ridicule them every day for not having pressers. And helicopter ones where you can't hear question don't count. It's one thing we can do to at least make some attempt at holding them accountable.

[triron]

35. She's about the only one onto this. Even Lawrence O'Donnell is not there.

[Duppers]

37. "news organizations are ignoring it"

Yes, but why are they?

One exception is Rachel and she's getting there.
Why some DUer maligned her and all of MSNBC I do not understand.

[triron]

38. Bothers me as well. A well known poster? Or maybe a troll?

[Haggis for Breakfast]

46. Yes. We DO have trolls here on occasion. Usually they are spotted quickly.

[FakeNoose]

42. I hear ya - same problem for me

I always DVR Rachel & Lawrence and watch them the next morning. Their news is still fresh the next day, and I'm better able to listen with a fresh, hot cup of coffee.

[marieo1]

20. Connects the Dots

A 'MUST READ' for every one that lives in our country. If there were any doubts in your mind after reading this, there shouldn't be!!

[malaise]

24. K & R

This is huge

[Baltimike]

25. The "liberal media" has been the CONSERVATIVE PRESS all along. nt

[Grasswire2]

26. Abramson has emphasized that "grand plan" for many many months now.

The Axios interview of Jared is a good time to focus on the Grand Plan.

[zaj]

27. Big claims require big evidence

[triron]

36. Have you read Abramson's books? You might not be so cavalier.

[UniteFightBack]

43. He has hard evidence in his books? nt

[alwaysinasnit]

28. K&R

[calimary]

29. Bookmarking this one, for sure!

[spanone]

30. K&R...👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

[BigmanPigman]

39. I never heard of the Seychelles until two years ago

and now I have a ton of bookmarks related to it. How come little ol' me finds this interesting and probably criminal activity alarming but the govt doesn't? Where are the Dems on this? Where is the MSM on this? Isn't this more important than the fucking moron's ill fitting tux at a state dinner?

[triron]

40. Never had heard of them either.

[RANDYWILDMAN]

41. Where can I buy the poster of that ???

I want to wallpaper the inside of my fox loving mom's house, so she can finally understand what happened and how it's connected.

Thanks Seth, you are awesome, an Angel for truth !!!!

[UniteFightBack]

44. Maybe this is one of the many ongoing investigations. nt

[Poiuyt]

48. That back channel from the Russian embassy is what really got me

What possible reason would trump need one except for nefarious purposes?

[triron]

50. Face it, We have a fucking traitor in the WH.

[triron]

49. knr