© The Duran
Every so often during the Russiagate story, whenever one senses growing doubts about some aspect of the story, a gigantic article appears in some part of the US media which appears intended to still those doubts.
The latest example
a gigantic article by Raffi Khatchadourian which has recently appeared in the
New Yorker, and which is purportedly about Julian Assange, but which
when read carefully is actually about Russiagate.A consistent feature of these articles is that though they present themselves as works of investigative journalism, in terms of actual new information they invariably provide little or nothing that is actually new. This article in the
New York Times is no exception, and as I will discuss what it actually does is repeat - at great length - claims about the persona known as Guccifer 2.0 which have appeared before.
The purpose of the article is to squash doubts about Russian intelligence involvement in the hacks or alleged hacks of the computers of John Podesta and the DNC, and of Russian intelligence involvement in providing the results of those hacks or alleged hacks to Wikileaks. It does this by giving heavy focus to the Guccifer 2.0, which it accepts as Russian, and by seeking to provide what it claims is conclusive evidence of a connection between Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0.
The article provides a case study of the danger of the subject of such an article cooperating with its author.
Comment: