Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/829524
31 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 28 MAY 2017 Opinion to Havana for one purpose. He was a multi-purpose spy, to be moved about like a piece on a chess-board depending on the circumstances of the day. 2) The Russian warships arrived in October 2016 Precisely. Makes more sense to have someone you trust already in place, rather than send someone out there only when the need arises (which, let's face it, would be highly suspicious in its own right). Bottom line: those dates mean nothing really. 3) The documents were taken from the Pilatus safe in March 2016 More pointless dates, but this one raises an additional problem for the counter-conspiracy theory. How do we know that those documents were indeed taken from the safe at the time when the whistle-blower says they were? How do we know they were ever taken from the safe at all... or indeed if they even ever existed? For this, we only have the word of Daphne Caruana Galizia (and whatever evidence was presented before the inquiring magistrate... which we won't see for some time yet). As already pointed out, I apply exactly the same scepticism to those claims as I do to the Russian hypothesis. I don't believe it without proof. So to use one unsubstantiated claim to disprove another is – for want of a better word – utterly ridiculous. 4) Egrant wasn't founded by the Russians, but by Nexia BT in the names of Keith Schembri, Konrad Mizzi and Michelle Muscat [sic] I was tempted not to even bother with this one, but it's too important to ignore. For those who enjoy spotting logical fallacies, this is a classic case of 'begging the question'. The identity of the ultimate beneficiary owner of Egrant is what the whole inquiry is meant to determine. It is the question everyone is trying to answer. Yet according to this argument, the Russians cannot have had anything to do with it, because it is a 'fact' (please note the inverted commas) that Egrant belongs to Michelle Muscat, and not the Russians. Sorry, but that is fallacious on two counts. One, it is very far from a 'fact' that Michelle Muscat owns Egrant at this stage; and two, Nexia BT opens such companies on behalf of clients of literally all kinds (so long as they have money). I obviously don't have any reason to suppose that Egrant was set up on behalf of a Russian client – which, by the way, isn't even what is being alleged by Intelligence Online – but then again... who knows? I certainly don't, and it is evident that neither does NET News. 5) Joseph Muscat claims that Egrant was concocted by Simon Busuttil and the PN, not the Russians Oh dear, looks like we are mixing up our allegations again. There are two sets of claims being disputed here. One, that the Egrant allegation was cooked up by Simon Busuttil and the Nationalist Party; two that the Russians were instrumental in securing the 'evidence' (so far unseen) on which the previous allegation was based. Those two allegations do not cancel each other out. Without even going into the veracity of either claim, they can both easily co-exist at the same time. To put the matter bluntly: if a Russian secret agent (for whatever reason) wanted to destabilise the Maltese government using fake news... he or she would find a willing partner in a Nationalist Party that is hell-bent on unseating Joseph Muscat at all costs. It is to be expected, then, that fake documents would be leaked precisely to the PN and/or Daphne Caruana Galizia. 6) Joseph Muscat has lost all credibility This one's my favourite, because it reminds me of Cato the Elder's famous line: 'Delenda Est Cartago!'[Carthage Must Be Destroyed!]... with which he concluded his every Senate address, regardless of subject- matter. The problem here is that – again, whether true or not – it doesn't actually address the allegations being made in the first place. Moreover, this 'reason' is actually a highly subjective (and obviously biased) statement of opinion, as opposed to fact. And there doesn't seem to be a great deal to base that opinion on. This may come as a surprise to the authors of that article, but opinion polls have consistently confirmed that Joseph Muscat enjoys higher trust ratings than Simon Busuttil, even after all the recent allegations. Whether he deserves all this confidence is naturally another question... but to dismiss his credibility in the face of so much evidence – and in relation to an allegation for which no hard evidence has yet emerged – is just a tiny bit delusional, I would say. But again, to disprove these arguments point by point brings us no closer to the truth or otherwise of the Russian spy hypothesis. I certainly cannot take such a seemingly far- fetched claim seriously... but it must be said that this theory – unsatisfactory though it may be – does at least attempt to address one of the many unanswered questions surrounding this case. Let us (for argument's sake) dismiss the claim that the whistle-blower is working for the Russian secret services. We are still left with an unanswered question. What is her real motivation, then? Incredibly, it's a question no one else has even bothered asking to date. As long as it remains unanswered – and as long as we persist in this dangerous habit of accepting unproven hypotheses as 'facts', out of political prejudice – we can only expect that more fanciful conspiracy theories will emerge in future... and that these unsubstantiated claims will automatically be believed and rejected by both halves of this hopelessly divided nation. Opinion polls have consistently confirmed that Joseph Muscat enjoys higher trust ratings... whether he deserves all this confidence is naturally another question