If you recall, in perhaps the most chilling moment of the Helsinki press conference with both Presidents Trump and Putin at the podium, Putin admitted to, at the very least, wanting Trump to win the 2016 election, and – if he is to be taken at his word in answering the question – ordering his people to assist Trump in winning that same election.
Here is the real transcript, and by “real,” I am referring to something that actually happened, when Putin finished an answer that led to Reuters’ Reporter Jeff Mason’s follow-up:
Putin (replying to previous question): That could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.
Mason: President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?
Putin: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russian relationship back to normal.
Case closed, right? Putin just admitted to wanting Trump to win, and directing his officials to help Trump win. Of course, Russian is a difficult language and there can always be trouble associated with translations back and forth, so it is hard to pin it officially on Putin, who as a trained KGB spy learned English as a young man and doesn’t even need an interpreter, but you understand.
Regardless, Mason certainly established that Putin admitted to wanting Trump to win the election, and – in a court of law, there would now be at least evidence of an admission to meddling.
Except that was reality, not necessarily officially recorded history according to your new fascist government because the transcript now reads:
PRESIDENT PUTIN: That could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.
Q: And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?
PRESIDENT PUTIN: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.
Now, to be fair, there is some trouble and ambiguity in the fact that Mason began to ask his question just as Putin was finishing the answer to his last question, and if there is overlap, it is difficult to write out a clear transcript (ask any court reporter).
According to the Atlantic:
Transcripts published by the Federal News Service and Bloomberg Government mirror the White House transcript, while NPR’s contains the full exchange. Confusing matters further, C-SPAN’s footage contains Mason’s full question but only the second half of Putin’s answer.
It would almost appear as if this was all intentionally confusing, that the answer itself – that Putin wanted Trump to win and directed his staff to do it, is just some shiny object deep in a lapping lake that you can quite grab because its “true” location is so hard to know.
That’s precisely the point. Want to know how we know?
The Russian transcript of the press conference leaves out the question and answer altogether. So, according to “reality” there is the tape from NPR showing the entire exchange, others show part, and according to Russia – it never happened.
As noted by the Atlantic:
The varying accounts of the same remarks highlight the profound confusion that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have generated in the past 24 hours. The discrepancies in the accounts of what was said also underscore the extent to which the Trump presidency has challenged a common understanding of reality. Even if the omission was accidental, it appears suspicious at a moment marked by the president’s repeated claims that legitimate news reports are “fake.”
I have noted here before, several times, that the indoctrination of a democratic-republic society to a fascist state is a well-studied science. It is shockingly easy to manipulate large segments of people if one has the power to control the message.
I often invoke conservative commentator and Trump opponent Charlie Sykes’ definition of propaganda and its purpose; that propaganda isn’t delivered to get you to believe any one thing, it is to throw out so much false information, information at odds with the facts and each other, that the average citizen begins to believe that any attempt to find the “truth” is laughable, the endeavor of only the foolish or gullible, “truth” no longer exists, everything is subjective, because everyone has an angle, even double blind studies by scientists can’t be believed because “they want their grant money.” Truth disappears.
When I see official White House transcripts missing what they know to be a key piece of an exchange, it makes me immediately want to know who ordered it put that way, who oversaw the process. I believe it had to come from the top.
It had to come from the top because there is no “ambiguity” when we are talking about official releases from the White House, these are career people, not political appointees, people far smarter and more conscientious than me, who ensure that the most important business, the nation’s business, the United States’ business is done properly.
If there is confusion as to whether the question went over the answer, then note that fact in the transcript itself, prominently. Add a notation to the video (which has also been played with, but that’s part of the Atlantic story and fits the same theme). We are the United States government, and as such, we do not allow “miscommunication.” We are made up of people and where people are involved, imperfections arise, and confusion springs. Note it! Note that there could well have been confusion regarding the end of the answer and the beginning of the next question, that is “reality,” too – admitting that there was a problem.
But, those aren’t the ideals of the society in which we live right now. We live somewhere between full disclosure, the video and transcripts as they were recorded, unredacted, with notations where confusion or problems may have arisen, and Russia, the nation that simply suppressed the entire question and answer.
We are somewhere in the middle now. I don’t think I need to tell you which direction we’re moving. After all, we’re led by the president who just last Monday said; “I don’t see any reason why it would be” Russia that interfered with the election. But on Tuesday, he clarified that he had meant to say: “I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia.”
One word, one alteration, one question, the little things that encompass truth, can change the course of history – and this is a science, proven to work, if allowed.
***The truth exists, and is knowable. Fight this movement with us @Politizoom and me @MiciakZoom on Twitter, follow us, we follow you, and all spread the truth.
