Joining Some Dots on the Skripal Case: Part 6 – Tying up the Loose Ends

Rob Slane, the Blogmire

Yulia Skripal allegedly making voluntary statement May 23 2018

Over the last five pieces (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5) I have, slowly but surely, advanced a theory of what happened in the Skripal case. I must confess to having done so with a fair amount of unease. I don’t want to believe that my Government has been stating a case that is false. I don’t want to believe that the public have been lied to. I don’t want to have to think that there has been a lot of effort made to present an explanation that hides the truth.

And yet, given the fact that the Government story contains self-evident fallacies, and cannot be made to add up, I don’t think that there’s much alternative than to be hugely sceptical about their claims. I stated the two main fallacies in Part 1, which are the claims that three people were poisoned by the nerve agent A-234, which is 5-8 times more toxic than VX, and that because A-234 was developed in the Soviet Union, the Russian State is responsible for what happened. The first claim cannot be true, because the three people are alive and well and have suffered no irreparable damage. The second claim is palpably untrue, because A-234 has been synthesised in a number of countries.

Yet this is only the tip of the iceberg of the absurdities and anomalies. I don’t intend to go through all of them, but would simply point anyone who does believe the official story to concentrate on three words: The Door Handle. This was apparently where the poison was poured, so allow me to pose five questions about this claim to those who believe it to be true:

  1. During the “clean-up” operation, there were lots of military chaps wearing HazMat suits, which are designed to protect against exposure to toxic chemicals. How, then, did the assassin apparently manage to pour this same lethal, military grade nerve agent on a door handle, without wearing a HazMat suit?
  2. On the other hand, if he or she was wearing a HazMat suit when performing the operation, wouldn’t someone in Christie Miller Road have noticed and found it – shall we say – a bit odd?
  3. If the poison was administered to the door handle, how exactly did both Sergei and Yulia Skripal manage to touch it (people don’t normally both touch the door handle if they go in the house together), and how did they manage to get exactly the right quantities on their skin so that they collapsed at exactly the same time, some four hours later?
  4. The door handle theory only reared its head some three weeks after the poisoning, at which point the substance was said to have been still present in a “highly pure” form. During this three weeks, many people went in and out of Mr Skripal’s house using the front door. How did they manage to do so without using the door handle, or if they did, how did they manage not to succumb to poisoning?
  5. Part of the Government’s alleged evidence pointing at the high likelihood of Russian involvement in the case, is an FSB instruction manual showing – amongst other things – how to assassinate someone by pouring Novichok on a door handle. Suspending our disbelief on this claim for a moment (and admittedly that is hard), did the Government have the manual when they made their accusations against the Russian Government on 12th and 14th March, and if so, why did the door handle theory not surface for more than a week after this?

Of course, a few moments consideration about the door handle theory will show that – like the rest of the official story – it is simply wrong. And because it is so plainly wrong, that is why we can safely say that the real explanation lies elsewhere.

Nevertheless, I am aware that in advancing another explanation, there are likely to be many holes in it too. Whilst much of what I have said throughout this series has been based on facts and eyewitness statements, the theory I have advanced from those facts and witness statements remains unproven. And so I would ask that where I have got things wrong, you would forgive me, and where things don’t make sense, you would point them out.

Having said that, what I want to do in this final piece it to tie up a few loose ends and – most particularly – attempt to demonstrate how the theory I have advanced explains some of the other anomalies in the case in a far more cogent and rational way than does the official story. So here goes.

The Deafening Silence of Sergei Skripal

One of the least talked about points in the official story, yet one that really is very important, is that if it were a true account, Mr Skripal would almost certainly have no more clue about who poisoned him than the average person in the street. If it were true that an unknown assassin, appointed by the Russian Government, poured military-grade nerve agent onto his front door on 4th March, before fleeing back to the Motherland, Mr Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, would be as much in the dark as to who did it than you or I.

Now, if that were the case, two things would naturally follow. The first is that Mr Skripal would almost certainly be inclined to believe the version of events given to him by the Metropolitan Police. Think about it. He wakes up one morning in a strange hospital bed, and has absolutely no clue why he is there or what happened to him. Then a kindly policeman comes and explains that he was the target of an assassination attempt using a lethal nerve agent, and that the British Government believes that it was ordered by the Russian Government. What is he going to believe? Fairly obvious I would think. At least he would have no reason to disbelieve them.

The second thing that would naturally follow is that, as soon as he was able, he would want to release a statement, either on paper, or in an interview, where he not only pledges his support for the Metropolitan Police and their ongoing investigation, and no doubt hints at involvement of the Russian State, but also – and this is crucial – where he also gives the public some information about what actually happened to him on 4th March: where he went, when he first started to feel ill, and what he last remembers.

Again, think about it. If you were in his shoes, wouldn’t you want to catch the people who did it? And wouldn’t you assume that the more information you could give to the public, perhaps even clearing up some of the anomalies (such as the reason for the agitation in Zizzis), the more chance there would be that someone’s memory might be jogged and vital information given to the police?

Of course you would. And yet so far, Mr Skripal has released no such statement. Why?

It isn’t that he is physically or mentally incapacitated. We know from Yulia Skripal’s brief call to her cousin on April 5th (which almost certainly wasn’t “meant” to happen), that Sergei was by that time fine. In response to Viktoria’s question about her father, she said this:

“Everything is ok. He is resting now, having a nap. Everyone’s health is fine, there are no irreparable things. I will be discharged soon. Everything is ok.”

That was nearly three months ago, and yet the Sergei Skripal who was fine on 5th April, having suffered no irreparable damage from apparently being poisoned by the world’s most deadly nerve agent, and who was discharged on 18th May, still has not spoken.

I put it that the theory I have advanced (see Part 5 in particular), suggests an obvious reason for his silence. Were he in the dark about the identity of those who poisoned him, as the official story implies, his silence would be inexplicable. Don’t you want to catch the perpetrators of this crime upon you and your daughter, Sergei?

Yet, if we assume that actually he knows exactly who poisoned him and why they poisoned him – as would be the case according to the theory I have advanced – then his silence is very easily explained. He cannot be allowed to be interviewed about what happened, because he would blow the whole wretched business clean out of the water. He cannot be allowed to make an open statement, with the press there to ask free questions, because it would come out that he had been meeting someone at the bench in The Maltings, and that this someone whom he met was the person who poisoned him.

In addition, his (highly likely) authorship of the Trump Dossier would be revealed. And if this were to happen, not only would it be seen that the foundation upon which the whole Trump/Russia collusion hoax was based was made of straw, but it would become clear that the interference in the 2016 US Presidential election was never really about Russian interference to get Trump elected; but rather about British interference to stop Trump getting elected.

The deafening silence of Mr Skripal is therefore strong evidence of a number of things:

  • That the Government story, in which he was the unsuspecting victim of a Kremlin plot, is without foundation.
  • That he well knows who his poisoners were and why they poisoned him.
  • That he cannot be allowed to speak freely because if he was, a scandal of monumental proportions would be revealed.

The Deafening Silence of Yulia Skripal

Deafening silence of Yulia? What am I talking about? She has released a number of statements through the Metropolitan Police, and in the statement (not interview) she made to Reuters. So what do I mean?

Many have pointed out a number of remarkable things about her Reuters statement. For one, she looked remarkably well. For another, the language of the statement she read was highly suggestive that it was first written in English – not by her – and then translated into Russian (statements like “I do not wish to avail myself of their services” don’t normally trip off the tongue of native English speakers, let alone those who speak it as a second language).

But for me the most remarkable thing about all of her statements are not what they do say, but rather what they don’t say. As with Sergei’s silence, Yulia has nothing whatsoever to say about the day of the poisoning. Isn’t that odd? She notes that she and her father survived an “attempted assassination”. She notes that a nerve agent was used to do it. But she says nothing about her and her father’s movements that day. Nothing about what they did and where they went. Nothing about when they first succumbed to the effects of the poisoning. Nothing to suggest that her father’s agitation in Zizzis may have been caused by poisoning.

In short, she says nothing whatsoever about the poisoning itself. Zero. Diddly squat. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Why?

As with Sergei’s non-statements, this doesn’t compute. If you happened to wake up in a hospital to be told that you had been the victim of a nerve agent poisoning, you would almost certainly want to tell people as much as possible about your movements up to the point of the poisoning. Wouldn’t you? Of course. Especially if not only you had been poisoned, but also your dad. You’d at least want to sound a bit more interested in actually catching the perpetrators than Yulia, who didn’t so much as mention it, and instead sounded like she just wanted to move on and forget it ever happened.

Once again, this total silence on something so crucial just doesn’t fit at all with the official story. That narrative suggests that Sergei and Yulia were innocent victims of a Kremlin-hired assassin. That narrative suggests they don’t know who that Kremlin-hired assassin was. But it also suggests that they of all people have a huge interest in giving details of what happened to them that day. And yet there is silence.

Does it fit better with the theory I have proposed? You bet it does. If what I have suggested is anywhere close to the truth, just like Sergei, Yulia cannot be allowed the freedom to give a proper interview where any question is allowed. She cannot be given consular access by the Russian Embassy. Why not? Because she knows what her dad was up to; she knows why he was meeting people at a park bench on Sunday 4th March; and she knows that the two of them were poisoned by the people who they were meeting.

Why did she agree to an interview? No doubt she realises what a difficult and vulnerable position she is in. Despite claims to the contrary, she clearly has no contact with her family back in Russia, or indeed any contact with the outside world. She was almost certainly pressured into making a statement, and yet — as Tony Kevin convincingly argues here — it has many signs of being a compromise statement. And so she agreed to making a fairly nebulous statement — one which is almost inconceivable from the point of view of the official narrative, but which fits perfectly with the narrative I have advanced.

The Deafening Silence of Nick Bailey

One final deafening silence that doesn’t exactly do wonders for the official narrative, is the silence of Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. He has always been a big puzzle in this case, for a number of reasons. It was first said that he was poisoned at The Maltings. However, the problem with this explanation is that there was absolutely no reason for him to have been there. The case was treated by Salisbury District Hospital as a case of Fentanyl poisoning. Why would a member of the Criminal Intelligence Department (CID) be called to a bench to an apparent opioid overdose?

It was then said by none other than Lord Ian Blair that DS Bailey was actually poisoned at Mr Skripal’s house. But again, the same question arises. Why would a member of CID be sent to the home of a person in a what looked like a case of opioid poisoning?

The story then swung backwards and forwards a number of times between a poisoning at the Maltings and a poisoning at Mr Skripal’s house. These anomalies are very important, but even more important is that they could have been put straight by DS Bailey himself. If the official story was correct, not only would it have been super easy to have verified where DS Bailey was poisoned, but he himself could have testified to it. And yet like the Skripals, there has been nothing!

Given the absurd changes to this particular part of the story – and it is perhaps the easiest of all parts to verify – my assumption is that he was poisoned at neither The Maltings or Mr Skripal’s house. Instead, just as I wrote in Part 5 that I believe it likely the Skripals were poisoned by an incapacitating nerve agent in the red bag that was then seen next to the bench, I think it highly likely that DS Bailey was poisoned from the same source.

But where? The red bag was removed from the scene by a police officer and placed in an evidence bag. Why would this have been done? Because the pair on the bench were suspected of overdosing on an opioid, and the bag would naturally be removed by police so that its contents could be examined. And whereas I think it unlikely that someone from CID would be called to the scene of a drug overdose, it seems quite likely that they might receive and handle evidence taken from such a scene. Therefore my guess – and I stress that it is only a guess – is that DS Bailey was the man who received the bag, and whilst looking inside to see its contents, was poisoned by the same incapacitating agent as the Skripals (possibly something like 3-Quinuclidinyl Benzilate (BZ), but definitely not A-234).

Again, if the official story were true, what would prevent DS Bailey from giving a brief statement or interview, confirming exactly what happened to him? But if the red bag theory is close to the mark, then it becomes plainly obvious why this hasn’t yet happened.

Smokes and Mirrors

Which actually brings me on to the penultimate point I want to make in this piece, and indeed in this 6-part series. Everything in the official story, no matter how absurd, seems designed to point our attention away from the most probable source, place and type of poisoning: The red bag, at the bench, and an incapacitating nerve agent. And it does so because if our attention is focused on them, then a very different story begins to emerge. Which cannot be allowed to happen.

As stated above, claims about A-234 being used just don’t add up. Neither the time delay, nor the symptoms, nor the recovery of the Skripals with no irreparable damage match up to what this deadly, military grade, high purity, lethal nerve agent that is so much more toxic than VX, is meant to do. What the claim does, however, is points our attention away from what is far more likely – an incapacitating agent administered to the Skripals between 3:45 and 4:00pm on 4th March.

As stated above, claims about the door handle just don’t add up. Neither the fact that both Sergei and Yulia were poisoned, nor the fact that others went in and out of the house before the door handle theory was put forward and didn’t succumb, nor the fact that the substance on it apparently remained of “high purity” weeks later – none of these things make any sense. What the claim does, however, is directs our thoughts away from what is far more likely – that the substance used to poison the Skripals was administered at the bench, and probably via the red bag.

The apparent motive put forward in the official narrative doesn’t add up either. There is a general agreement among countries that you do not target spies who have been part of a swap. Why? Because if you do, you can kiss goodbye to ever getting any other spies swapped in the future. It’s called shooting yourself in the foot big time! But what this frankly risible explanation for the apparent motive behind the poisoning does, however, is to point our attention away from what Mr Skripal was really up to. And as I set out in Part 4, this was very likely something to do with authoring the Trump Dossier.

Nothing about the official story makes sense. None of it adds up. It is riddled with holes. But I would submit that the only thing that does make sense about it, is that the parts that go to make up the sum are all desperate attempts to divert attention. They are smokes and mirrors, designed to stop us from considering some of the more obvious aspects of the case, and some of the more startling aspects of the case – Mr Skripal’s involvement with MI6; his likely involvement in or authorship of the Trump Dossier; the likelihood that he was due to meet people at the bench in The Maltings; the probability that this is why he was agitated and in a hurry in Zizzis; the likelihood that he knows who poisoned him and why.

And of course the reason that these things are not supposed to be considered is that if – and I acknowledge it is a big if – the alternative explanation I have advanced is true, and if it became generally known, then it would cause just about the biggest political crisis in British political history.

And Finally…

Having said that, I have to say that I don’t believe it at all likely that the British Government knew about any of this before it occurred. I get the impression that the intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic are a law unto themselves, and I think it likely that some of their number wanted to send Mr Skripal a message, one which would look like an opioid overdose, one which he would recover from reasonably quickly, and one which would be forgotten very soon.

However, I don’t think that the poisoning of DS Bailey was meant to happen, but when it did, it set off a series of events that quickly got out of control. I don’t think the identity of Sergei Skripal as a Russian involved in a spy swap was ever meant to make it into the press, but it did and very soon what looked like some kind of opioid poisoning quickly became an international spy saga.

The British Government’s reckless and extraordinarily quick reaction to the case was, apart from being a travesty of the rule of law, one of the biggest clues that the official narrative was not true. If it were true, they could have took their time, acted calmly, and let the investigation run its course. Instead, what we got was a lawless, irrational and absurd response. It all smacked of a panicked reaction, and whilst it made no sense in terms of the story they sold us, it makes perfect sense if the truth was that they were desperate to prevent news getting out about who Skripal really was, what he had been up to, and how the poisoning might well be connected with that work. And indeed the D-notices they slapped on the reporting of that stuff, and of Mr Skripal’s connections to Christopher Steele and Pablo Miller, are further evidence that it is so.

And so they very quickly decided to turn attention away from the big clues of the case, by invoking the scary sounding “Novichok” and pinning the blame – without any evidence – on the Russian State. To this date, they have given us no evidence to back up their claim, much less a suspect, but have unwittingly given us a bunch of absurdities that can be blown out of the water through the use of simple reason and logic.

They should have remembered this:

“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Galatians 6:7)

But I have a feeling they don’t believe it applies to them. I have a feeling that it does.

And so there’s my case. As I say, there are bound to be a good many holes and no doubt many errors and inconsistencies in it. Please do forgive me for those. As for the rest of it — Make of it what you will.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ross Hendry
Reader

‘…On Friday, Salisbury District Hospital’s director of nursing Lorna Wilkinson announced Mr Rowley had been discharged and Public Health England said he posed no risk to the community…She said “I would also like to reassure everyone that, despite many people seeking advice following these incidents, there have only ever been a total of five people who have been exposed to this nerve agent and admitted to hospital for treatment”‘. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/20/novichok-victim-charlie-rowley-discharged-salisbury-hospital/ This whole Salisbury saga is a complete riddle. The A&E consultant wrote to the Times saying nobody had ever been treated for nerve agent poisoning, yet here we are months… Read more »

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

Ross, Yes, considering Sergei and Yulia were placed in medical comas for several weeks supposedly to aid their recovery, Rowley’s treatment and speedy recovery appear to have inexplicably followed a completely different pattern. With regard to Dr Davies’ letter to the Times, have a look at ‘The Blogmire’ website where there has been posted in the past two or three days a brief report on this, followed by interesting reader comments. Rob Slane, who also provides articles for this website, is ‘Mr’ Blogmire and he managed to contact Dr Davies but really received less than convincing information.

Ross Hendry
Reader

Hmm, thanks for that. Curiouser and curiouser.

Einstein
Reader

Novichok poisoning: Skripal attack suspects ‘identified on CCTV as several Russians’
is the latest article in today’s Telegraph.
No comments allowed, of course.

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

I’ve read the Telegraph article and it convinces me of nothing. No mention of where the CCTV images are from and ‘a source’ claims that “investigators believe that they have identified the perpetrators”. Just like Theresa May believes the Russians are guilty. As I recall we’ve been through all this before. Can’t recall the precise timing but maybe three weeks after the initial ‘poisoning’ event we were told that several Russians had been identified as entering the UK and departing within the space of two or three days so they must be the perpetrators. No allowance given for the fact… Read more »

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: Did Trump overnight?

Not on Saturday night/Sunday morning which is the only night of interest.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Why do you say that was the only night of interest? The Steele dossier doesn’t mention the night of the prostitutes. Anyway, he was there Saturday night, in fact until say 1am to give him time to get to the airport. Probably he was up all night on Saturday, so even more opportunity for a splash. And of course he overnighted in the full sense on Friday. Note I don’t necessarily believe the prostitutes stuff, although it is completely in character for him. Steele doesn’t fully believe it either. The point is that it’s consistant with what we know for… Read more »

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Because the alleged incident was supposed to have happened that night.

Its not at all in character for Trump who is well known to be a germophobe. He doesnt even shake hands if he can avoid it.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

What? He doesn’t shake hands? See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T84se4fc4KU and a hundred other places. And why is germophobe relevant? They were peeing on the bed, not on him. Anyway, I think you’ll find we only have one of tweets as evidence for him being a germophobe.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: What? He doesn’t shake hands? See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T84se4fc4KU and a hundred other places.

You don’t appear able to read simple sentences. He doesn’t shake hands if he can avoid it was what i wrote.

Antonyl
Reader
Antonyl

Totalitarians love scare stories like “terrorists” or “nerve gas” to push through their own agendas. Also perfect to pull the “secret” blanket over all their hanky panky.
The behaviour of Mi6, CIA or FBI these days scare me much more.

Antonyl
Reader
Antonyl

At the Guardian Novichok: police take away 400 potentially contaminated items https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/14/novichok-police-find-more-than-400-potentially-contaminated-items

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

“400 potentially contaminated items” is absolutely meaningless but sounds good. It is a useful means to imply that the police are on top of things. Even if they found contamination on any of the items, I’m not sure what it would prove. Basically all they mean is they have removed everything that Rowley and Sturgess might have touched since some randomly selected vague date or been told by Rowley was the date he ‘acquired’ the ‘bottle’. It could be all their clothing, everything in the fridge or kitchen cupboards, everything in the bathroom etc etc If history repeats itself they… Read more »

jantje
Reader
jantje

It sounds more like a bunch of junky drug dealers contaminated by their own ware[where did that huge house come from again?]

D'Esterre
Reader
D'Esterre

jantje: “It sounds more like a bunch of junky drug dealers contaminated by their own ware….”

Indeed. It’s really the explanation with the fewest moving parts, so to speak. Occam’s Razor….

D'Esterre
Reader
D'Esterre

JudyJ: “400 potentially contaminated items”

I was puzzled at this. I remarked to a family member that it looks as if either somebody at Porton Down has been very careless, or the spooks don’t understand subtlety.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

The brainwashed morons are impressed by big numbers.

Frankly Speaking
Reader
Frankly Speaking

If this article is anywhere near the truth as to what happened, it follows that it could actually be the Russian state whodunnit. If Skripal wrote the dossier then it’s clear this was damaging the reputation of Russia to a new level and Skripal might do further damage, so he was sent a warning, or worse by the FSB. They may have been aware of yet another dossier and decided to act there and then. They knew their domestic audience wouldn’t care or know about Skripal, so the timing before the election was not a risk, it could even be… Read more »

Jen
Reader
Jen

Not bad but you have to explain why the UK authorities incinerated the Zizzi’s Restaurant table where the Skripals had lunch, the park bench and the pet animals without autopsying them.

D'Esterre
Reader
D'Esterre

Jen: “….you have to explain why the UK authorities incinerated the Zizzi’s Restaurant table where the Skripals had lunch….” That’s interesting. I hadn’t known that. Curious though: if the authorities incinerated the table at which they had lunch, how is it that the front desk – where presumably they paid the bill – wasn’t also incinerated? Come to that, what about whatever was on the table: cloth, utensils, plates and so on. Also waitstaff and kitchen staff: surely they’d have been contaminated as well? Truly, the more we’re told about this incident, the more farcical it sounds. Ditto the incident… Read more »

Jen
Reader
Jen

I have just checked the website of Zizzi’s Restaurant (Salisbury) and the restaurant is still closed.

As far as I’m aware, the staff at the restaurant had to surrender all their uniforms which ended up also being incinerated. I suppose they have all been employed elsewhere in that region of England.

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

D’Esterre, Yes, the following is an extract from the Daily Mail of 11 March: “The pair are still in a critical condition and more than 250 counter-terrorism officers are desperately trying to find the source of the chemical after traces were found on their table in Zizzi, which has since been destroyed.” As I recall – and it is just a recollection – ‘the traces’ referred to were a visible dusting of white powder! I believe the bench the Skripals purportedly sat on in the park suffered the same fate. It begs the immediate question whether the chemical weapons ‘experts’… Read more »

D'Esterre
Reader
D'Esterre

JudyJ: “As I recall – and it is just a recollection – ‘the traces’ referred to were a visible dusting of white powder!”

White powder! Good grief…. every day, it sounds more bizarre. A family member here has pointed out that white powder is anthrax. Which is true. Does that explain their symptoms?

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

More likely it was white pepper or icing sugar!

D'Esterre
Reader
D'Esterre

JudyJ: icing sugar, eh? Dangerous stuff, that!

jantje
Reader
jantje

It becomes clearer and clearer to me,he dropped his packet,that’s why he got so agitated

Frankly Speaking
Reader
Frankly Speaking

Good points but we don’t know whether they were or were not incinerated. Deliberate disinfo could have been put out.

My other theory is that the CIA or Mossad did it, but the Russians may well have the motive. It could even be a splinter of Atlantacists in the FSB too, and we know Medvedev and some other politicians are in that camp. If this latter theory is right then it would explain the constant three – four party accusations against Russia or some group going AWOL and wreaking havoc.

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

@Frankly Speaking, the most significant words you use in your comment are “we don’t know..” and “theory”. Just that. Your theory carries as much weight as the next person’s. And even people, myself included, who put forward possible theories are not denying that other theories are equally as plausible. The reason we have to do it is because the Government and MSM won’t. If we don’t, who will? “To constantly suggest that Russia is always the victim here…” None of us are doing this. Russia may very well be behind it but so may many others. The fact that the… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

When the Western kakistocracies and the Evil psychopaths who comprise them, in politics, the ‘intelligence’ apparatus and the fakestream media brainwashing machine, lie about everything to do with Russia ie about Putin’s legitimacy, the nature of Russian society, the ‘popularity’ of fascist Quislings like Navalny, Russia’ role in saving Syria from the takfiri death-squad armies sent against it, about Russia’s non-existent role in Western installation of fascists in power in Kiev, Russian ‘meddling’ in US elections etc, etc, etc, on the balance of probabilities it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that these pathological liars are telling the truth about the Skripals. Particularly… Read more »

Antonyl
Reader
Antonyl

Good theory, just the Russia FSB is not that clumsy in their operations.

john2o2o
Reader

I have a “conspiracy theory” for you. I do not say my idea is true – it may not be. But it does explain what happened in a logical way. Thus far nothing makes any sense. The truth, they say, is stranger than fiction, an little can be stranger than the fiction of the government narrative on the poisonings. First of all I would like to state that the Skripals were poisoned by an opiate as was first reported. I am confident of that. Medical professionals treat symptoms. They cannot wait for diagnoses. Clearly the Skripals were exhibiting strong signs… Read more »

Jen
Reader
Jen

I have some issues with the details of your theory – you have to demonstrate that Pablo Miller was at Zizzi’s or at the pub with the Skripals on that Sunday, and so far it seems the Skripals were on their own at Zizzi’s – but it actually looks watertight.

Miller could have driven the Skripal car back to the house as well. That could account for the early story about the car being a medium of contamination.

Jen
Reader
Jen

Gregory says the dossier fails the laugh test and is full of bizarre statements. Murray regards it as equivalent to the Hitler Diaries hoax. Where do they not find anything wrong in the dossier?

Nitecore
Reader
Nitecore

I loved these comments sections before but now government shills are getting involved it’s so much more entertaining. Keep it up guys, you tickle me.

Frankly Speaking
Reader
Frankly Speaking

What leads you to think that there are only shills of one side here?

candideschmyles
Reader

Very strange the troll surfaces to what end? Like we have not already considered his every argument and dismissed them as inconsistent with the facts. Yet he, they, persist. Perhaps the theory expounded in this series does have some merit after all.

Jerry Alatalo
Reader

Yulia Skripal’s agreeing to convey the message concerning her possibly meeting with Russian authorities – “I do not wish to avail myself of their services” -, raises suspicion that she and her father Sergei Skripal were “in on” an engineered false flag chemical event from the start. Perhaps others have already done the investigative research and verified Yulia Skripal did indeed undergo a tracheotomy, the neck scar seemingly over-exposed and the central focus for all who watched her short Reuters “interview”. Has this been confirmed by the doctor(s) who performed the surgical procedure, nurses assisting those surgeon(s) in the operating… Read more »

Brad Pitte II (independent)
Reader
Brad Pitte II (independent)

Maybe, just maybe, Yulia was speaking of her own free will. Have you considered that?

She has just nearly died and her father too.

The stuff you post about the tracheotomy is plain daft. How do you overexpose a scar on your neck? She wasn’t wearing a polo-neck (in hot summer) you mean? What does that prove even we’re your point correct? It says nothing.

Really, don’t give up the day job, Columbo.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Back from a refreshing expedition to attack a Roma camp, or deface a Soviet war cemetery, our resident Ukronazi troll re-emerges.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Speaking of her own spontaneous free will, of course.

that’s why she read from a scripted statement and took no questions.

thorella
Reader

Brad Pitte II, This is a comment from you further down the thread. Can you tell me why ‘Ruth EH’ is written in the middle of your comment; it stands alone and is out of context. I ask this because ‘RuthEH’ is my unique user name for commenting on articles in the Independent. July 11, 2018 On 22 May 2007, the MPS/Crown Prosecution Service (the CPS) considered that there was sufficient evidence to charge Andrey Lugovoy with the murder of Mr Litvinenko. An application was made to City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court for the issue of a warrant for Mr… Read more »

vexarb
Reader
vexarb

@thorella: “The uk legal system and uk forensics are second to none.”

Dr. John Kelly, RIP. Assassinated by MI6 by order of Prime Miniister TB.Liar of Dodgy Dossier, interred without mandatory Crown Coroners Inquest with Case Sealed for 70 years by order of Lord “Safe Pair of Hands”Hunt of Bloody
Sunday fame, and Dr.Kelly’s bodily remains subsequently dug up and incinerated to destroy chemical evidence by order of Prime Minister St Theresa of Porton Down.

“Second to none” in what?

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

The Zionist apartheid regime used Polonium 210 to murder Arafat-there’s a coincidence!

Brad Pitte II (independent)
Reader
Brad Pitte II (independent)

Original comment written months ago, obviously.

We now know more and Y has survived.

Jim Scott
Reader
Jim Scott

What is scary for me is that all of this fear mongering and lies is not for our good but in order to give NATO a license to murder millions of non Western people to prevent their resources getting into the hands of the Chinese or Russians. We destroy countries to benefit bankers and arms manufacturers. I note Trump is ordering EU countries to spend more money on weapons and to stop buying gas and oil from the Russians. The taxpayers like you and me pay for these weapons and pay higher energy prices because we are forced to use… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Africa is the perfect example. China brings investment, loans (often forgiven later)the building of roads, schools, railways, hospitals and trade including telecommunications equipment etc, plus the education of tens of thousands of Africans in China, and the USA brings Africom, Special Forces death-squads terrifying the continent, IMF and World Bank ‘restructuring’, austerity, cuts to health and education, and aggression, destruction, mass murder and the installation of jihadist swine in power, in Libya, ignoring strenuous AU protests in the process. Latin America is similar.

jantje
Reader
jantje

whatever the theories about why,how,when,it’s obvious to me that the russian government has nothing to with the whole thing

flaxgirl
Reader

Except that they haven’t come out and called it a false flag hoax. Why the hell don’t they? The UK Russian ambassador said sardonically, “They should call in Poirot” but why not just come out and call it a false flag hoax? No state EVER calls out another for committing a false flag which only means that at some level they’re all in it together.

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

But surely another way of looking at it is that, by saying ‘false flag’, the defendant is, by definition, accusing another country (or agents acting on their behalf) of deliberately carrying out the attack. Even though there may be that suspicion, only the perpetrators and/or instigators know for certain whether that was the case. The Russians sensibly and calmly recognise that, in the absence of hard evidence to date, there may well be other reasons for the attack (e.g. no attack at all but an overdose of recreational drugs, or a private feud) so there is little merit or diplomacy… Read more »

flaxgirl
Reader

This is true but they could say “PERHAPS it’s a false-flag hoax” or “the evidence tends to suggest …”. I believe the reason that no state ever accuses another of a false flag or false-flag hoax or even the possibility of it is that they all do it so no one points the finger. “Gentlemen’s agreement.” Diplomacy. Call it what you will.

D'Esterre
Reader
D'Esterre

Flaxgirl: “This is true but they could say “PERHAPS it’s a false-flag hoax” or “the evidence tends to suggest …” As others have pointed out, that’s not the way international diplomacy works. Best not to read anything malign into what you’ve seen or heard reported regarding Russia’s response to accusations. Bear in mind, too, that you’re being informed by reportage that must be translated from Russian to English: be mindful of what’s lost in translation, so to speak. At present, various media outlets and talking heads are clutching their pearls at what Trump’s been saying to the politicians of Europe… Read more »

Paul X
Reader
Paul X

I wonder how much money Sergei stole and was paid per agent he gave up and how much remains stashed away? A week after his death another Russian was strangled in London, apparently an inter-oligarch or gangsters dispute. The notion that Russian mafia may have been involved has never been explored. They would appreciate the idea to use a ‘Russian nerve agent’.

Jim Scott
Reader
Jim Scott

“Except that they haven’t come out and called it a false flag hoax.”
The main problem with your conjecture is that it is verifiably untrue. Lavrov and a number of Consular officials have strongly denied it but they do not use MSM/Trumpian terminology like fake news or false flags.. Lavrov and Putin always speak very clearly and precisely about important issues.

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

Quite right, Jim. In the same way that their ‘official speak’ certainly doesn’t include “Go away and shut up”! I doubt that their intelligence, respect and dignity would even see them uttering such sentiments behind the scenes either.

flaxgirl
Reader

False flag is a term from ancient times. How is it verifiably untrue?

Jen
Reader
Jen

The Russian Foreign Ministry and the Russian embassy in London are too busy having a laugh at seeing the whole affair collapse under its own inconsistencies and at the British government and security services trying to prop up the whole mess and failing to distract public attention away from the shit-heap that Theresa May has made of Brexit.

Einstein
Reader

Why should the Russians bother commenting on it at all, when we can all see it’s a false flag without the Russians having to tell us?
This is a domestic UK issue about MI6 being out of control.

Admin
Reader

There’s a diplomatic language of courtesy that Russia respects probably more than most other cultures, but within that, they have heavily implied the idea it’s a hoax. Considering the objectives behind such crazy russophobic stunts it seems very improbable they’re all in it together.

jantje
Reader
jantje

well,they’re trying to keep the whole thing diplomatic,what’s the point of both sides acting hysterical?Then you also can be accused of not wanting to go into a discussion,and that seems not to be the russian way,not only about the scripals but in general

flaxgirl
Reader

“… they have heavily implied the idea it’s a hoax”. But that’s my point. They’ve IMPLIED it – they haven’t said it straight. I’d argue a “diplomatic language of courtesy” is tantamount to them all being in it together at some level. Why be diplomatic towards a country that has staged a crime and blamed you for it to make you look bad? Because they all do it. I simply don’t understand your reasoning. Wouldn’t it be a far different thing to say “It’s a false flag hoax falsely impugning us” than “Better bring in Poirot”? I do not at… Read more »

D'Esterre
Reader
D'Esterre

flaxgirl: “They’ve IMPLIED it – they haven’t said it straight. I’d argue a “diplomatic language of courtesy” is tantamount to them all being in it together at some level.”

That’s not so. Russia sets great store by diplomatic language; people such as Lavrov have spoken as directly as the constraints of diplomacy allow. Russia also sets great store by following rules of international behaviour. Unlike some other countries we could all name….

Bear in mind that there are cultural differences between Russia and western countries. Such differences play out in responses to, for instance, provocations on the part of other countries.

thorella
Reader

Brad Pitte II

In the middle of your comment beginning ‘On 22 May 2007, the MPS/Crown Prosecution Service…’ you have written ‘Ruth EH’

Why have you done this?

Paul X
Reader
Paul X

As for Brad Pitte remember Distract and Disrupt are keynotes for trolls of his ilk. Best ignored

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Here’s the sketch of an alternative theory. I’m not saying it’s true, but it explains as much as yours and it seems simpler and so it’s the one to beat. It’s based on two assumptions: (1) Putin is a gangster, with a gangster’s thought patterns, morality, and methods, and he’s a man who loves to fuck with your mind; and (2) the British are somewhere between incompetent and stupid, obsessed with secrecy, and completely contemptuous of democratic accountability, but they’re not the kind who would – let alone could – run an assassination like this. (Seriously? That shower?) The Russians… Read more »

D'Esterre
Reader
D'Esterre

George Blot: “Putin is a gangster, with a gangster’s thought patterns, morality, and methods, and he’s a man who loves to fuck with your mind;” Good heavens! And your evidence for this would be….. what? Thus far, the evidence suggests that he’s by a considerable distance the superior politician of the contemporary world: sophisticated, diplomatic, fiercely intelligent; an effective leader. “…the British are somewhere between incompetent and stupid, obsessed with secrecy, and completely contemptuous of democratic accountability…” Ah, now, there I can agree with you: the evidence shows that in abundance. But in fairness, it isn’t just the British; the… Read more »

Jim Scott
Reader
Jim Scott

George you say that your paragraphs on D S Baily is speculation. Why did you single out this section when your whole long post is wildly speculative and based on unrealistic assumptions like Putin is a gangster and its the sort of thing he does. Exactly what gangster examples did you provide. Your other assumption is that Britain doesn’t carry out assassinations. What the hell was it doing in Libya then? Does mass killing and the destruction of a nation state solely on the basis of stopping a leader from creating an Africa wide currency to replace the Petrodollar with… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

I know from this bilge that you are far more of a ‘gangster’ than Putin will ever be.

George
Reader
George

“Putin is a gangster…..and …..the British are somewhere between incompetent and stupid….”

Familiar tactic. The curse on both their houses method aiming at a fraudulent sense of objectivity. But the difference is revealing. They are evil. We are merely stupid. Thus it turns out that we are the “good guys”.

postkey
Reader

No one was affected by a ‘nerve agent poison’? ‘ . . .   he began his letter to the Times . . . with; “may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury” ‘ “ The Times published a letter from Stephen Davies (Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust) on the 16th March. ‘Sir, further to your report (‘Poison Exposure Leaves Nearly 40 needing Treatment’), may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several… Read more »

pm
Reader
pm

…..well thats one comment that didn’t go down well!

Jen
Reader
Jen

The assumption behind George Blot’s theory that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a gangster with a gangster’s mindset (without anything to support it) is so far-fetched that one has to wonder what Kool-Aid GB drank when he sent the comment. Maybe it was flavoured with BZ? The notion that the dossier is “broadly accurate” is odd when various commentators who have seen the contents of the dossier (published by Buzzfeed) have stated that it is either a forgery or a fake. Even before the poisoning incident the dossier’s credibility had already been trashed and Christopher Steele already facing a lawsuits… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

It’s pathopsychological projection, Jen. Nasty little gangsters see gangsters everywhere. It’s the type they admire and associate with.

Einstein
Reader

If the dossier is genuine, as you claim, the Russians would want Skripal alive and well to demonstrate that it was MI6 who tried to interfere with the US election, not Russia.
The UK (and especially MI6 and the CIA) would, of course, want Skripal silenced . . .

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Well, I don’t claim the dossier is genuine, only that most experts seem to be convinced (Gregory and Craig aside) and that therefore it should be taken seriously. But really I have an open mind; experts are often wrong, and disastrously so. Indeed, even Steele puts his accuracy at 80% overall, and significant claims (particularly the peeing prostitutes) as much less. See, this is the adult way of thinking: probabilities, estimates, best guesses. I know, it’s hard, but trust me, it gets easier. But, Einstein, even then I can’t follow your logic. If the dossier is 100% genuine (were that… Read more »

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Name an expert who thinks the dossier is genuine.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

I just had another comment vanish…

I had said that it’s not a black-or-white matter. The spies who read and write these kind of documents regard 70% accuracy as pretty high – by their nature, they have unreliable sources (that’s roughly the job description of a spy). But if you insist. Senator Whitehouse: “As I understand it, a good deal of his information remains unproven, but none of it has been disproven, and considerable amounts of it have been proven.” See, this is an adult response to a difficult judgement call. Keep sceptical, but follow the evidence.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: Here’s the New Yorker. Just picked at random, not a special selection. Lots of stuff like this.

John Sipher spent twenty-eight years as a clandestine officer in the C.I.A., and ran the agency’s Russia program before retiring, in 2014. He said of Steele’s memos, “This is source material, not expert opinion.” Sipher has described the dossier as “generally credible,” although not correct in every detail.

I dont see this guy saying the dossier is genuine. Generally credible means nothing.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

It means pretty damn good in a complicated world. This is the CIA, not the Off-Guardian. It’s a higher standard than anything on this page, including my posts, and certainly including your suggestion that the Ukraine were behind it. Is that 100% gold-standard perfect? No, because only an empty dossier can be perfect in every respect. But actually I just noticed. How do you define “genuine”? Sourced from reputable and reliable people who are in a position to know? If so, see the quote above: He also said that the F.B.I. had “confidence” in the dossier’s author—a careful but definite… Read more »

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

‘generally credible’ means nothing. it’s a non statement as to the truth or falsity of the ‘dossier’

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

“Credible” means “believable” or “convincing”. Sounds pretty high standard to me. It doesn’t apply to this page’s main article, for example, nor to your idea that the Ukrainians dunnit.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: For example, Mueller pointedly doesn’t rely on the dossier, but follows leads in it and is continuously surprised by its ongoing accuracy.

Where are you getting this waffle from? When has Mueller made any statement to this effect?

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

I didn’t say he had. But it’s still true. Which parts aren’t? Link to reputable sources to demonstrate falsehood, please. While you’re there, where’s your evidence for any Ukrainian connection at all, as in your previous post. (Or, if you prefer, you can help to work out what’s really going on instead of engaging in robotic debating tricks).

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

i dont need to prove a negative. you need to prove what you said is true.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: But if you insist. Senator Whitehouse: “As I understand it, a good deal of his information remains unproven, but none of it has been disproven, and considerable amounts of it have been proven.”

I asked you to name an expert who thinks the dossier is genuine.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

I’ve said in post after post that the dossier (and the general model of the Russian source of the Skripal attack) is not clear-cut. I’d distrust anyone who said the dossier was 100% genuine as much as you – more, I suggest, since scepticism is a frame of mind that you seem uncomfortable with. The correct approach is to be cautious and curious. For example, Mueller pointedly doesn’t rely on the dossier, but follows leads in it and is continuously surprised by its ongoing accuracy. Exactly what Whitehouse says. And many others that you not only could find yourself, but… Read more »

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: “Credible” means “believable” or “convincing”. Sounds pretty high standard to me. It doesn’t apply to this page’s main article, for example, nor to your idea that the Ukrainians dunnit.

Er no, it says absolutely nothing about whether the dossier is true or not. It’s really not complicated.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

So you can’t name any experts who believe the dossier is genuine. OK.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Here’s the New Yorker. Just picked at random, not a special selection. Lots of stuff like this. John Sipher spent twenty-eight years as a clandestine officer in the C.I.A., and ran the agency’s Russia program before retiring, in 2014. He said of Steele’s memos, “This is source material, not expert opinion.” Sipher has described the dossier as “generally credible,” although not correct in every detail. He said, “People have misunderstood that it’s a collection of dots, not a connecting of the dots. But it provided the first narrative saying what Russia might be up to.” Alexander Vershbow, a U.S. Ambassador… Read more »

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

I believe in human reason, and its power to overcome all prejudice and willy-waving. So, I really really want to believe that, for one hundredth of a second, you nearly learnt something that would have rocked your world. Alas, deep down I know that isn’t true.

bevin
Reader
bevin

“most experts seem to be convinced ” of the Dossier’s authenticity.
I know of no such ‘experts’ making such a claim. It was so widely held that the dossier was unreliable that nobody would publish it, despite being urged to do so by Steele and his co-conspirators, until Buzzfeed did so.

BigB
Reader
BigB

The main corroboration for the Steele Dossier was Christopher Steele: briefing the press at the Tabard Inn, Washington – to set up a collaboration loop. Julian Assange tweeted that one of the journalists was Paul Wood …who looks like a spook or an asset himself. https://mobile.twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/976943588394323973 Another journalists was Michael Isikoff. His planted story war used to collaborate the Dossier as the basis of the FBI’s FISA warrant to surveill Carter Page. The Nunes Memo also states that Steele back-chanelled additional allegations into the DOJ via Bruce Ohr. Another corroboration was the Trump Tower meeting: ostensibly set up by Trump… Read more »

Einstein
Reader

“Genuine” in the sense that it was really written by a KGB insider (which Skripal was), NOT in the sense that what he alleged was true.
The point is that the source of the Steele-Clinton dossier would have been revealed and, of course, the source would have been a proven consummate liar and traitor. This would blow Mueller’s “investigation” out of the water.
But I’ll not engage with you any further on this, since there’s none so blind as those who will not see.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Pity – you’re one of the few posters here who can tell the difference between shouting and argument. Almost. Just to clarify. Skripal didn’t write the Steele dossier, of course. Steele wrote the Steele dossier. However, it seems likely that Skripal was one of Steele’s sources. Many papers (including Harding of the Guardian) have hinted this, but there appears to be a D notice on connections between Skripal and Orbis, so they can’t be explicit. The MSM doesn’t have the Off-Guardian’s freedom! As for why there’s a D notice: see my original post. In short: the British intelligence agencies and… Read more »

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

why exactly does it seem likely Skripal was one of Steele’s sources? did Steele even need any sources to write his ludicrous ‘dossier’?

Jen
Reader
Jen

Paul Roderick Gregory who has followed Soviet and Russian politics professionally for several decades has this to say about the Steele dossier: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/01/13/the-trump-dossier-is-false-news-and-heres-why/#5a2c34e06867 The Orbis report makes as if it knows all the ins-and-outs and comings-and-goings within Putin’s impenetrable Kremlin. It reports information from anonymous “trusted compatriots,” “knowledgeable sources,” “former intelligence officers,” and “ministry of foreign affairs officials.” The report gives a fly-on-the-wall account of just about every conceivable event associated with Donald Trump’s Russian connections. It claims to know more than is knowable as it recounts sordid tales of prostitutes, “golden showers,” bribes, squabbles in Putin’s inner circle, and… Read more »

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

The connection is through Steele’s partner – from memory, one Pablo Miller, who was Skripal’s case officer when Skripal was an active spy. MSM journalists aren’t allowed to speculate too much, so you’re right – we don’t know for sure. But it’s widely assumed, on Off-G and by Murray and elsewhere.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

I don’t assume it. I see no reason to think Skripal had anything to do with the dossier. More likely in my view the sources, if there were any, were Ukrainians and Americans.

There’s a stink of Ukraine about it.

Jim Scott
Reader
Jim Scott

George I don’t mind British intelligence being secretive, what I object about them is that they loudly and persistently tell us lies to get us to pour money into more violence. They see us as the enemy they must control by deception.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Yes, that’s right, at least for elements within the services, and I despise it as well. So, for chissakes man, stop messing around with these wacky conspiracy theories and fight the bastards!

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

After a history of intelligence lying in the West that includes the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the Warren Commission, ‘yellow rain’ in Indochina, KAL 007, Lockerbie, Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators, the USS Liberty, Saddam’s WMD, Gaddafi’s ‘container-loads of Viagra’, MH17, the Russian ‘invasion of Georgia’, the Russian ‘invasion of Ukraine’, the Tian An Men Square ‘massacre’ etc (I could go on ALL day), to credit ANYTHING that Western intelligence agencies state is sign either of intractable dementia, or duplicity-or both, probably.

Paul X
Reader
Paul X

So the D Notices are not needed and self harming? How odd!

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Well, they imagine they are needed. For example, the British Government is pretending Porton Down doesn’t have Novichok. Of course they do have it, and the Russians know they have it, the Americans know, the international chemocal weapons bods know, the readers of the Off-Guardian know, and really anyone with any sense knows. If PD didn’t have it, you’d wonder exactly what they were doing with public money! But the government thinks that if they admitted PD had novichok then people would think they had something to do with Skripal. So they deny it and of course people are even… Read more »

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

But Putin, not being a complete idiot, would obviously know that Russia, not Porton Down would be blamed even if Porton Down does have novichok.

Pretty crappy theory really.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Hi, Jen. Good point, and an excellent couple of links. However, most experts seem to more supportive than dismissive of the Steele dossier. Don’t forget that this is a speculative type of briefing document anyway – intelligence agencies are staffed with spies, not journalists or lawyers, and an accuracy of 60%-70% is considered pretty good. Nevertheless, the dossier has been confirmed in several claims, and not disproven in any yet. Gregoriy’s objections are more to do with style and Craig’s with plausibilty, and they both have interesting points. In any case, it doesn’t matter. The question is that we have… Read more »

Jim Scott
Reader
Jim Scott

For goodness sake George the dossier was put together as a dirt file for Clinton during the Presidential election. Now the Democrats are using a dirt file produced by a agent of a foreign government to prove that Trump was working with Russians to produce a dirt file on Clinton and that is somehow treasonous and deserving of impeachment. Hmm can you not see the irony and hypocrisy at work here. Furthermore what the Clinton camp and its deep state minders are most angry about is the so called hacking of the DNC by Russians. What did this “hacking” reveal… Read more »

D'Esterre
Reader
D'Esterre

Jim Scott: “the DNC information was not hacked it was downloaded by an Iinsider and the data was handed to Wikileaks by Craig Murray.”

Indeed. See this: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/15/memo-to-the-president-ahead-of-mondays-summit/

Paul X
Reader
Paul X

Yes indeed! The Clinton campaign now begins to beggar belief; do they really expect voters to ignore the last two years of acute humiliation? The Democrats are like a Labour Party would be under current “centrist” control, seriously unelectable.

Jen
Reader
Jen

Yes I suppose a document based mostly on hearsay, rumour and guesswork, and with an accuracy of 60 – 70% (where? in spelling?), ought to be taken seriously – to the kitty litter box.

I mentioned Paul Roderick Gregory and Craig Murray as two people who dismissed the dossier as fraudulent. What “experts” can you put forward, GB, who support the dossier’s contents as genuine or accurate? I suppose you think Luke Daniel Harding and Eliot Higgins might qualify as experts supporting the dossier’s contents as more or less accurate?

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Wikipedia lists a dozen expert comments and reactions, cautiously favourable to my eye. In particular several commentators point out that no element of the dossier has yet been disproven, while a few have been confirmed.

Gregory points to the feel and style of the document being wrong, and Craig to its implausibility. Both are valid. However, neither find anything factually wrong.

Jen
Reader
Jen

Gregory says the dossier fails the laugh test and is full of bizarre statements. Murray regards it as equivalent to the Hitler Diaries hoax. Where do they not find anything wrong in the dossier?

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Yes, they both find plenty wrong, they just don’t find any factual errors. The things they find are oddities of style and claims that are bizarre and implausible. Gregory isn’t as well-informed as he claims, though, because he says the capitalised names prove it was written by a Russian trained in the FSB tradition (it doesn’t: MI6 capitalise names in house reports as well, and for the same reason – to make them easy to find on a quick scan.) Craig Murray – lovely guy, salt of the earth, damn good writer – is still human, and makes mistakes. His… Read more »

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

what in the dossier has been proven other than things like Trump went to Moscow for Miss Universe?

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Well, only that you say he didn’t. And you seem to admit Trump did as well, when you said “I wouldn’t call that staying overnight and neither DID Trump.” See how boring this kind of argument gets? But leave that to one side, there is something really interesting here that I hadn’t noticed before. Here’s Slate (who are following the legal technicality of Obstruction). Remember that at this point Comey is still working for Trump, and remember that his memos are contemporaneous – they were written at the time, and that that can be proven. Slate: On Jan. 6, 2017,… Read more »

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: So, facts and evidence. Why do you think Comey made it up?

Comey’s ramblings are not facts or evidence. I don’t care what he says really unless it can be proven. It’s not complicated.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Comey provided contemporaneous memos that Trump had volunteered (on two separate occasions!) the information that he hadn’t overnighted. Contemporaneous means hard to forge – needs someone very clever, working to a long term plan, and being very careful. Very risky, easy to get caught. And Comey was still working for Trump – indeed, he had helped to make him president. And the fact that Trump had volunteered the information, unasked, is itself odd – innocent people tend not to do that.

So, facts and evidence. Why do you think Comey made it up?

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: Well, how are you going to find your answers? By only reading stuff you agree with? That is not the mark of a thinker; that’s the mark of a religious zealot. That’s the last type of person the world needs.

Sorry but I need facts and evidence.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: Wiggle. And, not to be too rude, a little disappointing. Oh well.

Neither Trump nor myself has ever denied he stayed overnight on Friday night. Really its not complicated.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Well, how are you going to find your answers? By only reading stuff you agree with? That is not the mark of a thinker; that’s the mark of a religious zealot. That’s the last type of person the world needs.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Not interested in Comey’s self serving unevidenced ramblings, sorry.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Wiggle. And, not to be too rude, a little disappointing. Oh well.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: Well, only that you say he didn’t. And you seem to admit Trump did as well, when you said “I wouldn’t call that staying overnight and neither DID Trump.”

Both Trump and I were talking about the night of Saturday/Sunday, where he did not stay the night. Neither he nor I have ever denied he stayed overnight on Friday.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Plenty, as you can confirm or refute easily yourself – provided you keep an open mind and strive to be objective. But on the subject of Trump’s visit to Moscow, let’s recall that Trump initially denied he had stayed overnight, until receipts proved the dossier was right and he had. Now, it’s possible he misremembered: he’s an old man, does a lot of travelling, and probably one Trump hotel luxury suite is much like another. In the spirit of keeping an open mind and striving to be objective, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. But then… what kind… Read more »

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: Did Trump overnight?

You seem to be assuming that I accept your claim that Trump said he never spent any nights in Moscow. I don’t.

He of course did spend Friday night there. What of it?

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

See, this is the problem with this kind of pugilistic style you’ve introduced. All reason goes out the window and it just becomes a rather boring fisking. Oh well.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

If so, do you admit being wrong to say he left at 4 the following morning?

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Did Trump overnight?

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: Well, 4am counts as overnight to hotel managers when they come to charge you. Good luck with saying well it isn’t the full night. Although I imagine Trump wouldn’t be keen sleeping in the bed, after what he had done to it.</>

Sure sweetie, this fairy tale really happened.

How could we doubt the word of a guy sitting in London being paid by Hillary Clinton who was last in Russia in 1992?

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Well, 4am counts as overnight to hotel managers when they come to charge you. Good luck with saying well it isn’t the full night. Although I imagine Trump wouldn’t be keen sleeping in the bed, after what he had done to it.

In any case, the point is that it wasn’t 4am the following day, but 4am the day after. So Trump overnighted.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: Probably the same place as you, dear, when you say Trump called leaving at 4 not staying overnight.

4 am is the middle of the night for most people, it certainly is for me.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: Also, it’s in the first paragraph of the Bloomberg link.

I see some tittle tattle from Comey, nothing from Trump.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Also, it’s in the first paragraph of the Bloomberg link.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Probably the same place as you, dear, when you say Trump called leaving at 4 not staying overnight.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

Where and when did Trump say he hadn’t spent any nights in Moscow? Do you have a link to a video or written statement by Trump?

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Trump did leave early – but not on the day after he arrived, but the day after that. So he spent two full nights in Moscow, but said he hadn’t spent any.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/flight-records-illuminate-mystery-of-trump-s-moscow-nights

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

let’s recall that Trump initially denied he had stayed overnight, until receipts proved the dossier was right and he had

Didnt he leave to get a flight at 4 am or something like that the morning after the pageant? I wouldnt call that staying overnight and neither did Trump.

Thomas Peterson
Reader
Thomas Peterson

George Blot wrote: Plenty, as you can confirm or refute easily yourself – provided you keep an open mind and strive to be objective

Name one other than already known facts such as Trump visiting Moscow.

bevin
Reader
bevin

If all that you have to go on for now is a dossier put together by a mercenary for the use of a political party in attack ads, produced at great expense, and totally unsourced and uncorroborated, the world is in a worse way than you fear.
Or perhaps, it’s not the world but you?

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

The utterly fraudulent ‘dossier’ was also used to gain an illegal FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, as part of the conspiracy to derail Trump’s electoral bid, elect the blood-soaked feminazi Gorgon, Clinton, and further the hate campaign against Russia.

Jen
Reader
Jen

George Blot is stuck in a rut of his own making in much the same way as fellow troll Brad Pitte II is. They both need to go back to their call-centre supervisor for a new argument template because their current one is worn out from over-use.

George Blot
Reader
George Blot

Jen, my answer to this seems to have vanished, but it was something along the lines of “there really isn’t a special department within MI5 that posts complicated lies to troll small websites like this. Off-Guardian is not important enough, and even if it was, there are more effective ways to control public opinion. You should be fighting them.” Alas, I think the original was much longer, so you’ve had a lucky escape.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Wikipedia???!!! You buffoon!

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Don’t you mean ‘most Ukronazi experts’, Blot? Otherwise it is regarded with deserved derision, as is your type of liar.

Robbobbobin
Reader
Robbobbobin

“(1) Putin is a gangster, with a gangster’s thought patterns, morality, and methods, and he’s a man who loves to fuck with your mind….”

What do you do with your other hand while you formulate your geopolitical theories? Finger your anus?

nwwoods
Reader

Truth is, the more that they insist that they know anything about Putin, the less they actually do know, as a general rule.

thorella
Reader

I think this comment section has been manipulated so that the government troll’s comment stays at the top. If this is so, then the government is running scared of the truthh

Brad Pitte II
Reader
Brad Pitte II

Putin is FSB as well as the president of Russia, and he said traitors will choke on their ill gotten gains.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

You Ukronazis prefer garrotting, don’t you. It’s traditional.

nwwoods
Reader

Putin is not “FSB”. Super dumb assertion

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

And Theresa May is in charge of the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) so your point is…?

thorella
Reader

Most countries have the death penalty for treason including the US. So what’s special about what Putin said?

JudyJ
Reader
JudyJ

You might care to explain what he actually said in the context in which it was said, unlike the BBC. He gave his statements in a lecture ( to students as I recall seeing so he may have used some terminology which young people could relate to) in which he said that ” ‘traitors’ often return to Russia where they are rejected by family and friends because of their unpatriotic actions. This often leads to them turning to drink and/or drugs, and as a result they end up on the streets where they die homeless and penniless. And whatever they… Read more »

Brad Pitte II (independent)
Reader
Brad Pitte II (independent)

It was in 2010- just after the spy swap.

He didn’t say all that you say he did.

He made it patently clear he would be pleased for them to choke on their ill gotten gains.

Two months ago, he said he has no quarrel with Skripal.

Why the change?

A prosecution lawyer would be all over this.

thorella
Reader

‘ the British are somewhere between incompetent and stupid, obsessed with secrecy, and completely contemptuous of democratic accountability, but they’re not the kind who would – let alone could – run an assassination like this.’ Rubbish – the cry of incompetency is the hallmark of government agencies taking part in illegal activities i.e. the loss of almost 2 billion of taxpayers’ funds in the London City Bond scam directed by Customs as an ‘incompetent’ sting but in actual fact was a massive fraud to covertly remove taxpayers’ money from the UK just as VAT carousel frauds were set up and… Read more »

bevin
Reader
bevin

Have you been playing ‘cowboys and indians’ today,George? This is such a childish theory that it can only be interpreted as an insult to the public intelligence. Though it is confirmation that ” the British are somewhere between incompetent and stupid, obsessed with secrecy, and completely contemptuous of democratic accountability,.” To which we can add “and incapable of seeing that theories based upon the character of a man in Putin’s position ,which is to say surrounded by intelligent and sensible patriots with the power to prevent dangerous stupidities from being carried, are incredible” Does George seriously believe that Lavrov, for… Read more »

Phil
Reader
Phil

Government troll

thorella
Reader

Definitely

vierotchka
Reader

Do watch it on YouTube so that you can read the lengthy and informative video description:

vierotchka
Reader

Published on 10 Jul 2018 Three miles from Amesbury, six miles from Salisbury. ‘Porton Down is the elephant in the room’: former British ambassador who visited Nukus plant where Novichok was tested, Craig Murray dismantles Amesbury poisoning story on BCFMradio, Porton Down: What is the experimental government facility in Wiltshire at the centre of recent poisonings? The secretive laboratory has unintentionally become key in political developments and international relations The major incident in Amesbury saw two people poisoned by the same nerve agent that almost killed the Skripals, government scientists have confirmed. The attack turns attention once more to Porton… Read more »

vierotchka
Reader

Published on 10 Jul 2018 Three miles from Amesbury, six miles from Salisbury. ‘Porton Down is the elephant in the room’: former British ambassador who visited #Nukus plant where #novichok was tested, Craig Murray dismantles #Amesbury poisoning story https://youtu.be/LbbxNkPDNrQ on @BCFMradio Porton Down: What is the experimental government facility in Wiltshire at the centre of recent poisonings? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/porton-down-what-is-explained-experiments-salisbury-wiltshire-novichok-latest-a8431951.html The secretive laboratory has unintentionally become key in political developments and international relations The major incident in Amesbury saw two people poisoned by the same nerve agent that almost killed the Skripals, government scientists have confirmed. The attack turns attention once more… Read more »

Einstein
Reader

There’s another source of “deadly silence”.
A doctor was reported (by the BBC on 8th May) to have given CPR to Julia for 30 minutes without being contaminated by the “novichok”. Indeed, the doctor reported to the BBC that she ‘felt fine’ afterwards.
No-one has seen nor heard from this doctor since, yet a doctor should be easy enough to trace.