You have no legitimate grounds to dismiss Clapper and his remarks as unimportant.
Caitlin Johnstone

Caitlin Johnstone :

"You have no legitimate grounds to dismiss Clapper and his remarks as unimportant. The man played an absolutely formative role in developing the establishment narrative about Russia. Your claim is illegitimate."

Agreed that Clapper has a formidable role developing the anti-Russia narrative. But if he frames his point based upon genetics, that does not necessarily mean that Americans will use the same basis for criticism. James Clapper is a staid, stern government official. I dont see much risk of him swooning the masses with charisma and casting influence (as Trump has). And, as I said, the issue is cultural differences, which in turn drive division and political differences. You completely dropped that point.

"Have you spoken with any Russian Americans about their experience of the Russophobia that has taken over America? This is a terrifying time for them. The 3 million Russian Americans who are routinely picked on by establishment liberals are certainly experiencing a power imbalance. The Russian civilians impacted by America’s sanctions and NATO expansionism are certainly experiencing a power imbalance."

Yes I have. I live in San Francisco, which has a sizeable population. Here, the oppression Russians face is minimal. The crime section in the papers have zero Russian victims, just the same darker-skinned vixtims of crime and police brutality. This is a progressive, diverse city, so I understand there may be other parts of the country where this is not the case. But I question the alarmist overtones. Show me evidence from a credible source saying that Russians in America are experiencing a severe increase in hate crimes similar to darker-skinned people and Muslims ever since Trump got elected. Good luck with that.

"The fact that Trump and Putin have homophobic supporters in no way, shape or form changes the undeniable fact that homophobia has been used to advance the Russiagate narrative."

If that's your limited opinion as a journalist, great. Rhetorically speaking, this is not so cut and dry. The painting of Trump and Putin was done in Lithuania. It was a riff on the 1979 painting of Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and East German President Erich Honecker. There is a much deeper context at play than it being simply homophobic.

If Clintonites and Democrats have used it to further the Russiagate narrative, that falls on them.

"You have never at any time seen me defend either Trump or Putin."

I have read your writings fairly consistently ever since you've been on Medium. I have recommended many of your articles. appreciate the zeal with which you apply pressure to power establishments. But the defense lawyer routine of wanting exact 100% proof of everything is unrealistic and misguided. You end up defending Trump by default when you clamor for such a standard of proof, while giving a liar the benefit of the doubt.

"My husband is American. His insight informs all my ideas about US politics."

Safe to say, that's an incredibly woeful sample size. And neither of you have a clue about what it's like to live under Trump. But, keep on thinking you do just because you're married to an American. This line of argument reminds me of when Millenial Clintonites try to tell us that Hillary isn't all that bad when they didn't even live through the Clinton years. They've read inaccurate, whitewashed history books and are heavily influenced by their Clinton-loving academic mentors. But they don't have the full picture.

Keep up the good work. We just disagree on this one mostly due to our different backgrounds. You're a journalist, I'm a rhetorician. We are analyzing the same data with different methodologies.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.