So we now know that Trump's election campaign manager is accused of pretty serious fraud.
And we know that here are allegations of pretty serious fraud in Vote Leave in the UK that means the UK's future could have been changed as a result of a fraudulent election.
And we know that the Tories seemed to commit electoral fraud in 2015.
But the election results are not challenged. And so what looks like fraud seems to pay.
What is happening?
Does democracy count for nothing now?
Why is the world so indifferent to this?
I greatly appreciate what Jolyon Maugham is doing. But why has he had to do it? Why can't we have fair elections? Or have the left just given up and accepted the right can do whatever they like?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I have been asking my self these questions ever since the Referendum, and getting outraged by the lack of action. I have come to the conclusion that the Electoral Commission either has no teeth or is exclusively appointed by the Tory Party as is the Public Prosecutor!
In Scotland we’d agree with what you say, but the referendum we think about was in 2014, after bags of Yes votes were found put out with the trash, amongst other things.
A fascinating piece by the excellent and tireless Carole Cadwalladr in yesterday’s Observer.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/28/trump-assange-bannon-farage-bound-together-in-unholy-alliance
As she says in conclusion:
“We need parliament to step up and start asking proper questions”
Oh yes
So true
There’s asking ‘proper questions’ and there’s hunting for dirt to fit a narrative.
I’m afraid that much of what has been published so far about Russian influence is simply hysterical nonsense – almost certainly designed to stop those who lost whatever election from having to answer questions about their campaigns – and in the US Democrats case all the dirt from leaked emails.
So we get horror stories about Facebook ads that turn out to be just $100K worth of adverts over 3 years ‘linked to Russia’ which were dredged up only after the FBI
returned to them three times. Compared to the tens of millions both US parties paid on them in the run up to the US election this is miniscule , compared to FB’s $3-5billion yearly revenues it’s laughably pathetic.
After similar pressure Twitter identified only 200 accounts similarly ‘linked’ to Russia – which made headlines news on both sides of the pond. Similarly pathetic when compared to montly users in excess of 390 MILLION.
Carole Cadwalldr’s piece was just another tawdry example of this this with a healthy dollop of inuendo and guilt by association.
Robert Parry has covered this in detail at the (very excellent) Consortium News:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/10/russia-gate-jumps-the-shark/
With respect, I do not agree
Far from it, in fact
I think you’re joining in a conspiracy against democracy
I am entirely willing to believe the Democrats are party to that
But this is not the non-issue you wish to suggest
I’m not saying that this is a non-issue — quite the opposite (see my last paragraph below). I am also not saying that there is not a conspiracy against democracy going on, just that the evidence so far presented for their being a Russian dominated one falls a very long way short of proving the case.
The BBC news page this morning tells us that Facebook are today handing over 3,000 ‘Russian linked’ adverts from around the time of the US election. Completely missing from their, or any other MSM coverage, is any kind of context — how do these numbers compare to German, Saudi, British, Qatari, Chinese, Angolan or Bolivian adverts around the same time?
Is being paid for by a Russian account or in Roubles enough evidence of links to the Kremlin? Is actually covering the Occupy Movement and Dakota protests evidence of an attempt to ferment unrest? Seriously, these are the levels of ‘proof’ so far presented.
Cadwaladr’s latest piece was based on just a few ‘facts’ — that Julian Assange had been asked by the CEO of Cambridge Analytica if Wikileaks wanted help with the Clinton email cache (no indication whether they did), that Nigel Farrage met Julian Assange for dinner and they both later met a lawyer and laughably that the Ecuadorian Embassy is “just a few miles” from the headquarters of Cambridge Analytica.
Yves Smith of Naken Capitalism (whose judgement I respect entirely — and suspect you do to), has a very dim view of the hype surrounding Cambridge Analytica and their nefarious abilities.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/03/cambridge-analytica-bingo.html
With respect I suggest that a much more significant threat to democracy comes from the very real (and proven) way that this fake-news hysteria has been used to attack non-mainstream sources — such as Naked Capitalism, Consortium News, Alternet, CounterPunch, Zerohedge, Trout-Out, Truthdig and the like — many of whom have seen their search traffic slashed by FB and Google altering their algorithms to counter this alleged barrage of ‘fake news’. This is the real threat to our democracy and why everyone should be more than a little sceptical of these claims.
Adrian D,
Having read both of your comments It appears that, with the best of intentions, you have been effectively suckered into an, inappropriate, dead-end defence of the Trump/Bannon/Mercer camp when it is perfectly clear that what you should be doing is questioning the power of Google.
Lets take your first comment for example. On its own it appears to be repeating the Trump script which now represents a pattern of retreat that has gone from outright denial to indignant excuses and dubious claims that try to downplay the scale of the issue. There are three obvious problems with that script. First is the pattern of retreat, second is the obviously self-serving nature of the claims and third is that the scale of the issue is largely irrelevant on a matter of principle. The Watergate burglary itself (for example) was never said to be a major event. It was the implications that mattered most of all.
As for your reference to the Clinton e-mails (seriously?). The Trump team were always too stupid to know that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Clinton’s culpability in one event does not diminish Trump’s culpability in another. The pointless what-about-ery in the Clinton references should be self-evident.
As to your 2nd and somewhat redeeming comment, I too have seen the discussion emerging from the unwanted and inadvertent(?) results of Google’s altered algorithms.
For those who may be unaware Salon offers a good introductory article here: “Progressive websites say they’re being unfairly penalized by Google’s clumsy efforts to stamp out fake news”
https://www.salon.com/2017/10/18/fake-news-or-free-speech-is-google-cracking-down-on-left-media/
Now there is a real problem but it is no reason to be joining the Trump / Breitbart chorus. This new issue with Google does not diminish the culpability of Robert Mercer, Cambridge Analytica, Trump or his Russian friends and clearly, there is no reason to think that it should. Nor is there is there any reason to join World Socialist Website in accusing accusing Google of intentionally trying to silence leftist voices (see link above). That’s possible but unlikely and we just don’t know that.
For those that are capable of a moment’s reflection the real issue that has emerged here lies not in the idea that Google is trying to ‘silence’ legitimate, edited, accountable publications. The problem is that they could do that if they wanted to. In a world where internet reliance and smart-phone zombies abound we should take this opportunity to stop and consider what sort of God-almighty power we have now unwittingly bestowed on a largely unaccountable Californian tech company.
Should we not?
Well, I don’t see that these pieces, Cadwalladr and Robert Parry are in any way contradictory.
Two different stories are about two entirely different agendas I would say and neither of them has a great deal to do with Russian involvement at all.
The Russia-is-our-our-natural-enemy MIC theme is barely credible unless you are an American in which case it comes straight out of the Creative Design playbook to be swallowed whole.
The CIA is the militant wing of the most dangerous ‘organisation’ the world has ever known.
End of. As long as we have a dollar hegemony it remains unchangeable. Especially from this side of the pond where we persist in the idiotic fantasy of the ‘Special Relationship’. (Into the maw of which Brexit will thrust us inexorably and inextricably.)
Maybe history will prove David Icke right – the reptilians are indeed conspiring to achieve a new world order – lol 🙂 Democracy would be the last thing they want. I can sense a pitchfork moment approaching …….
I’ve been touching-up my pitchfork for years.
At this rate it’ll be no bigger than a pickle-fork before it’s needed.
AdrianD I agree . ‘ Collusion’ with the Russians by Trump ; to what effect. Trump lost the popular vote , but won on the electoral college. Well that’s the system working as the system does . Clinton was a lousy candidate . Trump is screwed up ; just dig into the history of his father and you’ll discover why. Trump and Brexit and the Catalans should make us pause for thought and LISTEN .
Paul Manafort is the only person to successfully fleece Oleg Deripaska…an achievement!
As well as Carole Cadwalldr’s excellent pieces in the Guardian and Twitter, do check out JJ Patrick’s excellent Tweets and his recent book Alternative War (on Kindle). It’s fornsically detailed and readable. He and Carole are on the same track – he is ex Met police and the material he has dug out on the links between Trump, alt-right, big money, Farage, Putin et al are really worrying. It’s not just UK and US either as the Baltic states were on the case a while back
As worrying is why the U.K. media including the BBC, politicians, intelligence and police seem to be showing no interest
George W Bush was not elected at all. His people stole the election through the courts.
And look where that led.
Would we have any further elections post the Henry V111 Bill, I wonder? I can’t see why we should expect to.
On the supposed intervention of Russians in the US election I am very sceptical (or even Skeptical).
The US needs an External enemy on the Orwellian principle. To line up against China when it is the US main manufacturing centre would be frankly silly; So Russia it has to be. (There isn’t another candidate)
I reckon Obama got his new health provisions passed (plenty of jobs for Democrat voters) as a quid pro quo for troop build ups on the Russian borders. The hysteria surrounding Trump’s suggestion that he just might pop over to Moscow and crack a couple of tinnies with Vladimir would back up such a theory .
I think it not unlikely that Trump and Putin would get on reasonably well together and that would be absolutely disastrous for the military, security types. They couldn’t risk that and I reckon we’re still dealing with the fall out of that piece of nonsense. I don’t take it seriously at all.
Andy,
I am “very skeptical” about your comment there because “I reckon” it looks your just making stuff up on a whim.
Marco,
When you were a child I expect at some stage you did dot-to-dot pictures.
In life there are no numbers on the dots. When I join dots that’s the picture I get.
You can join the dots your way and see what you come up with. Neither of us will quite right.
Andy,
What you have done is assign motives to certain characters: “the US” (generally), “Obama” and “military, security types”. There is no doubt that they now have a view and an interest in the investigation into Russia’s US election interference.
One can of course have their suspicions but for all that we actually know, the truth and extent of Russia’s involvement may bear no relation to some of those people or their motives.
I was recently involved in a court case and I was aware of some people who did not wish me well. They had their reasons but that did not mean that they were all involved in the case or its outcome.
Fair Comment Marco,
I’m not however saying that Obama, the US generally and The Military/Security industry is acting in concert. The parties with an interest in this issue are milking it for all it’s worth. And my impression is that isn’t worth much. I think it’s all froth.
One thing that makes US politics so difficult to understand is that it is often difficult to see where the motive force emanates from. Certainly it is not, as some would have us believe, the White House.
In truth there are, doubtless, numerous players turning the wheels who from time to time make and break their alliances as conditions dictate in furtherance of their interests. (Whatever they be – more power one suspects)
I find interesting the extent to which Donald Trump has been criticised for not endorsing the Paris Accord on Climate Change. I find it difficult to imagine that the pressures in the background were much different from those which led Barack Obama to kill the Copenhagen climate summit ten years or so ago with considerably less opprobrium heaped upon him. I detect a shift there and The Donald kept ‘them’ guessing. He was definitely teasing, but I think he’d like to see out at least his first term in office.
Even more interesting is the extent to which many American state and city authorities have overtly agreed to pursue the terms of the accord.
If people are dishonest in life why would elections be untainted.
Getting back to Jolyon Maughm and the Vote Leave issue. It was barely a week ago that we saw this:
“Theresa May is being urged to appoint the former director of the Vote Leave campaign as as a vice-chair of the party to revive its fortunes. And who is this wizard of populist sentiment? None other than Matthew Elliott, once of the so called (but in practice, anything but) Taxpayers’ Alliance”
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/10/26/these-are-desperate-times-for-the-conservative-party/
More recently we now see this:
“The Good Law Project is asking the (High) Court to find that the Electoral Commission was wrong to clear overspending by the official Vote Leave campaign.” “If the action succeeds the Electoral Commission will be forced to reopen its investigation. And it is very likely that either a public or private prosecution of Vote Leave will follow.”
https://waitingfortax.com/2017/10/30/electoral-commission-sued-in-high-court-over-eu-referendum/
My first question would be to ask if Mathew Elliott will be on the hook for the Vote Leave overspend? If he is, does this mean that:
A. He won’t get to be vice-chair of the Conservative party?
B. He will get to be vice-chair because it just goes to show that he really is their kind of guy?
C. He won’t get to be vice-chair but will be running their next ‘Battlebus’ initiative, or
D. None of the above
It will be interesting to see the outcome.
Indeed
To Obama and Copenhagen – that’s a complete distortion. The folk who were there will explain that China blocked the ambitions and measures, in part to humiliate Obama who has been consistent in resisting pressures from fossil fuel interests from his own side.
As for Trumps track record on climate change and links to oil and coal, that should not need much explanation. His rationale should be pretty obvious
I start to wonder when I find someone defending the actions of Trump, Farage/Banks, Putin and the Tory far right, what they are doing on a blog like this
What am I doing on a site like this?
Looking for explanations to the orthodox shite that gets pumped out by miscreants and swallowed by a complacent MSM and broadcast to a gullible public.
Mostly that.