Debating the Senate Intel Russia report

Pushback with Aaron Maté

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s final report on alleged Russian interference focuses on “a wide range of Russian efforts to influence the Trump Campaign and the 2016 election.” Does the report advance our understanding of the Trump-Russia story? Mattathias Schwartz, contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine, joins Pushback.

Guest: Mattathias Schwartz, contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine.

Support Pushback at Patreon:

Debating the Senate Intel Russia report w/ Mattathias Schwartz by Pushback with Aaron Mate is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
||| The Grayzone |||

Find more reporting at

Support our original journalism at Patreon:


Written by The Grayzone

The Grayzone is a news and politics website dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis on war and empire.


  1. So, the excel spreadsheet that was not public info is the only foot he balances on to justify his position. You don't become a NYT writer by being a clueless chump, so I am pleased to have him present his case … and even coming from an educated and somewhat informed position, his case is weak. Crowd Strike (and who contracted them) did not come up enough, who owns/runs Crowd Strike, the email servers and that investigation (if you can call it that), the Internet Research Agency and it's connection (or lack thereof) to the Kremlin, resources spent to influence a billion dollar plus election, and sadly … quite sadly, the investigation (or lack thereof again) of Seth Rich's connection to this – including communications with Assange/ Wikileaks.

  2. Yes, confirmation that Hillary blew a golden opportunity to be POTUS.
    Man, these awful news outlets just keep digging for fools gold.
    Aaron ripped this guy a new one and it was beautiful.

  3. I don't think Mattathias made a case any stronger than, it's within the realm of possibility. But that doesn't even rise to the level of plausible, though not as unlikely as the Infinite monkey theorem. If you take a step back and really understand how Mattathias argued this and how it is actually reported in the MSM, there is a wide disparity there. If it was reported exactly how he argued it here it wouldn't have been news.

  4. Perhaps not the body slam delivered to Luke Harding those years ago (this one was more cautious perhaps wiser from the history) but what becomes apparent is his willingness to trust the opinion of the elected and other officials, whoever authority is. That willingness to trust, especially when there appears consensus in the duopoly, is a pass on the need to dig deeper. Aaron has been digging deeper for so long. Aaron, you love these blood matches, don’t you? Don’t get me wrong. I love them too. You hold mainstream media to a higher standard.

  5. That was great. I was disappointed, though, that Aaron let the opportunity pass to mention the alleged Navalny poisoning, which rings entirely bogus. The U.S. Senate also wants to stick its
    nose into that to sniff out the Ruskie threat. Just as the Senate and House would both love to see Assange imprisoned. So why in the world consider their judgment legitimate? Chomsky has assailed our U.S. Congress as the biggest threat to entire planet. He's right.

  6. He knows who's buttering the bread. I think ya gotta be a rooskie hater to mop a floor in D.C. I just needed to hear Schiff and Maddow singing "bombshell" and "damning". The Commie industry's gotta sack Trump.

  7. Schwartz exposes his establishment chains of supression throughout his many atttempts to refute Aarons' well-sourced perspectives, when he holds up his copy of the Mueller Report showing NO edge wear, ear tabbing, or "cracking" of the books' glued soft-cover spine. The MSM further reveals its' penchant for faux conflation in Schwartz' almost robotic rationalization that Trump is controlled by Putin, though Trumps' policies clearly serve the opposite of ends. Aaron's discernment, commitment to journalism, and integrity is showcased in this beautifully clever, and at times knife-twisting MSM smackdown.

  8. Yes, they have an excel spread sheet with no proof that it was passed to anyone. He printed it before the meeting, as he was leaving for the meeting or a week before the meeting? In either case, it isn’t even circumstantial, it is zero evidence.

  9. Excellent journalism once again Aaron. Help Aaron’s work by donating to his account on Patreon. I am proud to support both Aaron and the Grayzone via Patreon. And thank goodness for Patreon because my credit card and PayPal are blocked from donating money to Aaron.

  10. All this discussions about polling data? Much of which was historical data? That's the smoking gun? The Russians captured the 2016 election for Trump because they had inside information from the Trump campaign's polls. What a fucking joke!

  11. Well, if trivial polling data, (not received, but offered, and not to any one of 140 million Russian citizens, but to an Ukrainian) – if that is the nearest these sleuths could get to an example of Russian meddling in US elections, that is sufficient to throw out the rest of the 1000 pages. And to place the sorry neurotic bunch of authors on sedatives before they suffer brain inflammation. And third, have some dignity. Do what young George Washintgon did. Apologize to Russia.

  12. Mattathias makes the same mistake that many other Russiagate sympathizers have made re. Trump's request about Clinton's emails. He was referring sarcastically to the emails that Clinton's lawyers had deleted from the private servers she was using as SecState, not the DNC emails. There were no missing DNC emails.

  13. I do think it's important to give Mattathais Schwartz credit for going on the Grayzone to have an in depth discussion w/ Aaron Mate about Russiagate. Very few journalists working for major news outlets would even consider having such a discussion–there's nothing in it for them. So I think it's commendable that Schwartz accepted the invitation, and I would suggest that it indicates Schwartz is earnest in his desire understand the truth vis-a-vis Russiagate; otherwise, if he was merely interested in peddling the mainstream narrative, he could certainly do so within the confines of commercial media. I say this as someone who is highly critical of the mainstream narrative, and has never heard of Schwartz before.