The collusion illusion. - Hallo friend USA IN NEWS, In the article you read this time with the title The collusion illusion., we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article HOT, Article NEWS, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : The collusion illusion.
link : The collusion illusion.

The collusion illusion.

On "State of the Union" today, Jake Tapper, talking to Virginia Senator Mark Warner, played a clip of Hillary Clinton speaking in a way that seemed a bit wacky:

TAPPER: Hillary Clinton said something very interesting this week that reminded me of something that you said in a hearing not long ago. She said that she believes that the Russians, in their interference in the U.S. election, must have been guided by Americans. Take a listen.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D), FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE (on video): The Russians, in my opinion, and based on the intel and counterintel people I talk to, could not have known how to best weaponize that information unless they had been guided. And here's...

Asked: "Guided by Americans?" She responds:

CLINTON: Guided by Americans and guided by people who had polling and data information.

Actually, if you take all the words seriously, she's saying almost nothing. "Weaponize" sounds scary, but all that was "weaponized" was "information," which I think mainly refers to things her people wrote in their own email. And she just has an "opinion" that in order to "best weaponize," some Americans would have been needed to give advice. But she doesn't even say that the the info was "best weaponize[d]" or even that the Russians were doing the weaponization. And it's all only an "opinion."

I thought it sounded wacky because I heard it, initially, as an assertion that she knew Americans had to have helped the Russians weaponize information. Parsing it now, I feel that she chattered out a bunch of words that seemed to mean a lot but she preserved completely deniability by actually saying nothing. Check the transcript!

But Tapper asks Warner:

TAPPER: Is that true? Do you agree?

See if you can find anything that looks like an answer in Warner's word salad:

WARNER: This is one of the questions we have to sort through, again, one of the questions I was asking when I was out on the West Coast. It does seem strange, it appears, that Russian-paid Internet trolls who created bots were then able to put forward fake news, selective stories in a way that seemed targeted. Now, we don't...

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: Targeted at certain states?

WARNER: Targeted it at certain states, at certain demographics. We don't have fool proof [sic] of that. So, I'm not where Secretary Clinton is in terms of jumping to a conclusion. But this is one of the many questions that we need to investigate. 

What did he just say? That he thinks internet trolls passed stories along? That they did it with "bots" (is that the "weaponization" Hillary referred to?)? This seems so incredibly trivial. Imperfect information flows on the internet. This is the world we are dealing with and adapted to. Why are we talking about this amorphous junk for an entire year without getting any closer to substance? Tapper must know this is embarrassingly insubstantial:

TAPPER: One of the big questions, of course, is, is there any evidence of collusion that you have seen yet? Is there?

WARNER: Listen, there's a lot of smoke. We have no smoking gun at this point. But there is a lot of smoke....

Later, in a panel discussion, former Democratic Governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm went big with the smoke metaphor. The former Attorney General of Virginia, a Republican, Ken Cuccinelli, brought up Warner's reference to smoke. Cuccinelli said there's "no evidence" of "collusion." (I think it's weird that everyone is just saying "collusion" without specifying who supposedly colluded with whom.) Granholm reacted in a way that prompted Tapper to say "I appreciate your continued use of the metaphor. That was very, very skillful."

GRANHOLM: There is a lot of smoke because each day there are pieces of wood that are added to the fire.  And what Mark Warner also said is one of the things they're going to ask is why Donald Trump, on the day that Jim Comey announced that he was doing an investigation of Russian collusion, calls Dan Coats, head of the director of National Intelligence and says, can you push back on that? And then calls Admiral Rogers and says the same thing. All of these things -- then he fires -- all of these things add up to not just smoke but potentially a bonfire. We'll see.

Was that very, very skillful? "Bonfire" sounds big, but it's still just "potentially a bonfire." When I hear the kind of speech we're seeing from Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, and Jennifer Granholm, I think: This is how conspiracy theorists talk. They stress the thing they imagine is true, though they don't have proof, and they keep asserting that they are going to find the evidence later.

Thus articles The collusion illusion.

that is all articles The collusion illusion. This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article The collusion illusion. with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-collusion-illusion.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: