July 16, 2021

"Vladimir Putin personally authorised a secret spy agency operation to support a 'mentally unstable' Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council..."

"... according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents. The key meeting took place on 22 January 2016, the papers suggest, with the Russian president, his spy chiefs and senior ministers all present. They agreed a Trump White House would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them 'social turmoil' in the US and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position. Russia’s three spy agencies were ordered to find practical ways to support Trump, in a decree appearing to bear Putin’s signature. By this point Trump was the frontrunner in the Republican party’s nomination race. A report prepared by Putin’s expert department recommended Moscow use 'all possible force' to ensure a Trump victory. Western intelligence agencies are understood to have been aware of the documents for some months and to have carefully examined them. The papers, seen by the Guardian, seem to represent a serious and highly unusual leak from within the Kremlin. The Guardian has shown the documents to independent experts who say they appear to be genuine. Incidental details come across as accurate. The overall tone and thrust is said to be consistent with Kremlin security thinking...."

From The Guardian reports, and this is quite a conundrum! If you can believe the story told in the documents, then you should also believe that it's at least as likely that there's a different plot and these documents are crafted to further that plot. If you think Moscow aims to do anything to cause social turmoil in the U.S., then why would it not, after the fact, fake evidence that it affected the election? 

The Guardian thinks it has a scoop here, and I know I'm encouraging them by linking, but the article on its face is full of skepticism-provoking phrases: "the papers suggest... the papers, seen by the Guardian, seem to represent a serious and highly unusual leak...  appear to be genuine... come across as accurate... said to be consistent with Kremlin security thinking...."

1 comment:

Ann Althouse said...

Temujin writes:

"Forget it, Jake. It's The Guardian."