Tag: Hillary Clinton

About Hillary Clinton

Subscribe Feeds

New York Times met schaamteloze anti-Russische propaganda en ‘fake news….’

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Robert Parry legt op Consortium News uit, in een artikel overgenomen door Anti-Media, waar goed journalistiek werk o.a. aan moet voldoen: een teken dat een artikel het product is van slordige of oneerlijke journalistiek, kan gezien worden als de kern van het verhaal als feit wordt neergezet, terwijl dit niet bewezen is, of onderdeel is van een serieuze discussie. Veelal wordt zo’n artikel het fundament voor andere (niet bewezen) claims, waarmee een verhaal ‘wordt gebouwd’, dat gefundeerd is op los zand….

Dergelijke journalistiek zou niet in de reguliere media terecht mogen komen, echter tegenwoordig is het tegendeel vaak de praktijk, zoals we zien in de reguliere westerse (massa-) media. Neem de berichtgeving over de illegale oorlogen van de VS tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en nu weer tegen Syrië. ‘Voldongen’ leugens werden en worden als feiten en de enige waarheid neergezet…….

Hetzelfde geldt voor alle belachelijke claims, dat Rusland de VS verkiezingen zou hebben gemanipuleerd middels hacken en het publiceren van artikelen door o.a. Sputnik en Russia Today (RT). Daarbij worden  naast een ‘tsunami’ aan berichten op Facebook en Twitter, nu ook advertenties genoemd, die werden geplaatst op Facebook……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Voor al deze zogenaamde feiten, is geen nanometer bewijs, maar ze worden desondanks door diezelfde reguliere media en het merendeel van de westerse politici als de enige waarheid gezien, dit terwijl het overtuigende bewijs van het tegendeel terzijde wordt geschoven………

Parry schrijft over een artikel dat afgelopen vrijdag over 3 pagina’s werd geplaatst in the New York Times (NYT). Daarin wordt betoogt dat Rusland ‘een leger van nep-Amerikanen’ heeft gebruikt om de VS verkiezingen te beïnvloeden……. Of wat dacht u van: ‘met een vloed aan Facebook en Twitterberichten hebben bedriegers haat en verdeeldheid gezaaid in de VS…..’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Ja, ze durven wel hè, terwijl die zogenaamde Amerikanen elkaar al een paar eeuwen de strot kunnen afbijten!! (neem alleen al de nog steeds bestaande grove discriminatie van gekleurden in de VS….)

Facebook weigert intussen nog steeds om de advertenties vrij te geven, die volgens haar door de Russische overheid werden geplaatst……. Kortom Facebook beschuldigt een land van uiterst grove handelingen en stelt daarna vrolijk dat men maar moet geloven op de blauwe ogen van de redactie……..

Lees het volgende uitstekende artikel van Parry en zegt het voort!

Has
the New York Times Gone Completely Insane?

September
16, 2017 at 11:31 am

Written
by Robert
Parry

Crossing
a line from recklessness into madness, The New York Times published a
front-page opus suggesting that Russia was behind social media
criticism of Hillary Clinton, reports Robert Parry.

(CN) For
those of us who have taught journalism or worked as editors, a sign
that an article is the product of sloppy or dishonest journalism is
that a key point will be declared as flat fact when it is unproven or
a point in serious dispute – and it then becomes the foundation for
other claims, building a story like a high-rise constructed on sand.

This
use of speculation as fact is something to guard against particularly
in the work of inexperienced or opinionated reporters. But what
happens when this sort of unprofessional work tops page one of The
New York Times one day as a major “investigative” article and
reemerges the next day in even more strident form as a major Times
editorial? Are we dealing then with an inept journalist who got
carried away with his thesis or are we facing institutional
corruption or even a collective madness driven by ideological fervor?

What
is stunning about the lede
story in
last Friday’s print edition of The New York Times is that it offers
no real evidence to support its provocative claim that – as the
headline states – “To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake
Americans” or its subhead: “Flooding Twitter and Facebook,
Impostors Helped Fuel Anger in Polarized U.S.”

In
the old days, this wildly speculative article, which spills over
three pages, would have earned an F in a J-school class or gotten a
rookie reporter a stern rebuke from a senior editor. But now such
unprofessionalism is highlighted by The New York Times, which boasts
that it is the standard-setter of American journalism, the nation’s
“newspaper of record.”

In
this case, it allows reporter Scott Shane to introduce his thesis by
citing some Internet accounts that apparently used fake identities,
but he ties none of them to the Russian government. Acting like he
has minimal familiarity with the Internet – yes, a lot of people do
use fake identities – Shane builds his case on the assumption that
accounts that cited references to purloined Democratic emails must be
somehow from an agent or a bot connected to the Kremlin.

For
instance, Shane cites the fake identity of “Melvin Redick,” who
suggested on June 8, 2016, that people visit DCLeaks which, a few
days earlier, had posted some emails from prominent Americans, which
Shane states as fact – not allegation – were “stolen … by
Russian hackers.”

Shane
then adds, also as flat fact, that “The site’s phony promoters
were in the vanguard of a cyberarmy of counterfeit Facebook and
Twitter accounts, a legion of Russian-controlled impostors whose
operations are still being unraveled.”

The
Times’ Version

In
other words, Shane tells us, “The Russian information attack on the
election did not stop with the hacking and leaking of Democratic
emails or the fire hose of stories, true, false and in between, that
battered Mrs. Clinton on Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik. Far
less splashy, and far more difficult to trace, was Russia’s
experimentation on Facebook and Twitter, the American companies that
essentially invented the tools of social media and, in this case, did
not stop them from being turned into engines of deception and
propaganda.”

Besides
the obvious point that very few Americans watch RT and/or Sputnik and
that Shane offers no details about the alleged falsity of those “fire
hose of stories,” let’s examine how his accusations are backed
up:

“An
investigation by The New York Times, and new research from the
cybersecurity firm FireEye, reveals some of the mechanisms by which
suspected Russian operators used Twitter and Facebook to spread
anti-Clinton messages and promote the hacked material they had
leaked. On Wednesday, Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut
down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a
Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads
pushing divisive issues during and after the American election
campaign. On Twitter, as on Facebook, Russian fingerprints are on
hundreds or thousands of fake accounts that regularly posted
anti-Clinton messages.”

Note
the weasel words: “suspected”; “believe”; ‘linked”;
“fingerprints.” When you see such equivocation, it means that
these folks – both the Times and FireEye – don’t have hard
evidence; they are speculating.

And
it’s worth noting that the supposed “army of fake Americans”
may amount to hundreds out of Facebook’s two
billion or so monthly users and
the $100,000 in ads compare to the company’s annual ad revenue
of around
$27 billion.
(I’d do the math but my calculator doesn’t compute such tiny
percentages.)

So,
this “army” is really not an “army” and we don’t even know
that it is “Russian.” But some readers might say that surely we
know that the Kremlin did mastermind the hacking of Democratic
emails!

That
claim is supported by the Jan. 6 “intelligence community
assessment” that was the work of what President Obama’s Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper called “hand-picked”
analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency,
National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation. But, as
any intelligence expert will tell you, if you hand-pick the analysts,
you are hand-picking the conclusions.

Agreeing
with Putin

But
some still might protest that the Jan. 6 report surely presented
convincing evidence of this serious charge about Russian President
Vladimir Putin personally intervening in the U.S. election to help
put Donald Trump in the White House. Well, as it turns out, not so
much, and if you don’t believe me, we can call to the witness stand
none other than New York Times reporter Scott Shane.

Shane wrote at
the time: “What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is
what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back
up the agencies’ claims that the Russian government engineered the
election attack. … Instead, the message from the agencies
essentially amounts to ‘trust us.’”

So,
even Scott Shane, the author of last Friday’s opus, recognized the
lack of “hard evidence” to prove that the Russian government was
behind the release of the Democratic emails, a claim that both Putin
and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who published a trove of the
emails, have denied. While it is surely possible that Putin and
Assange are lying or don’t know the facts, you might think that
their denials would be relevant to this lengthy investigative
article, which also could have benefited from some mention of Shane’s
own skepticism of last January, but, hey, you don’t want
inconvenient details to mess up a cool narrative.

Yet,
if you struggle all the way to the end of last Friday’s article,
you do find out how flimsy the Times’ case actually is. How, for
instance, do we know that “Melvin Redick” is a Russian impostor
posing as an American? The proof, according to Shane, is that “His
posts were never personal, just news articles reflecting a
pro-Russian worldview.”

As
it turns out, the Times now operates with what must be called a
neo-McCarthyistic approach for identifying people as Kremlin stooges,
i.e., anyone who doubts the truthfulness of the State Department’s
narratives on Syria, Ukraine and other international topics.

Unreliable
Source

In
the article’s last section, Shane acknowledges as much in citing
one of his experts, “Andrew Weisburd, an Illinois online researcher
who has written frequently about Russian influence on social media.”
Shane quotes Weisburd as admitting how hard it is to differentiate
Americans who just might oppose Hillary Clinton because they didn’t
think she’d make a good president from supposed Russian operatives:
“Trying to disaggregate the two was difficult, to put it mildly.”

According
to Shane, “Mr. Weisburd said he had labeled some Twitter accounts
‘Kremlin trolls’ based simply on their pro-Russia tweets and with
no proof of Russian government ties. The Times contacted several such
users, who insisted that they had come by their anti-American,
pro-Russian views honestly, without payment or instructions from
Moscow.”

One
of Weisburd’s “Kremlin trolls” turned out to be 66-year-old
Marilyn Justice who lives in Nova Scotia and who somehow
reached the conclusion that
“Hillary’s a warmonger.” During the 2014 Winter Olympics in
Sochi, Russia, she reached another conclusion: that U.S. commentators
were exhibiting a snide anti-Russia bias perhaps because they indeed
were exhibiting a snide anti-Russia bias.

Shane
tracked down another “Kremlin troll,” 48-year-old Marcel Sardo, a
web producer in Zurich, Switzerland, who dares to dispute the West’s
groupthink that Russia was responsible for shooting down Malaysia
Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine on July 17, 2014, and the State
Department’s claims that the Syrian government used sarin gas in a
Damascus suburb on Aug. 21, 2013.

Presumably,
if you don’t toe the line on those dubious U.S. government
narratives, you are part of the Kremlin’s propaganda machine. (In
both cases, there actually are serious reasons to doubt the Western
groupthinks which again lack real evidence.)

But
Shane accuses Sardo and his fellow-travelers of spreading “what
American officials consider to be Russian disinformation on election
hacking, Syria, Ukraine and more.” In other words, if you examine
the evidence on MH-17 or the Syrian sarin case and conclude that the
U.S. government’s claims are dubious if not downright false, you
are somehow disloyal and making Russian officials “gleeful at their
success,” as Shane puts it.

But
what kind of a traitor are you if you quote Shane’s initial
judgment after reading the Jan. 6 report on alleged Russian election
meddling? What are you if you agree with his factual observation that
the report lacked anything approaching “hard evidence”? That’s
a point that also dovetails with what Vladimir Putin has been saying
– that “IP addresses can be simply made up. … This is no
proof”?

So
is Scott Shane a “Kremlin troll,” too? Should the Times
immediately fire him as a disloyal foreign agent? What if Putin says
that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and your child is taught the same thing in
elementary school, what does that say about public school teachers?

Out
of such gibberish come the evils of McCarthyism and the death of the
Enlightenment. Instead of encouraging a questioning citizenry, the
new American paradigm is to silence debate and ridicule anyone who
steps out of line.

You
might have thought people would have learned something from the
disastrous groupthink about Iraqi WMD, a canard that the Times and
most of the U.S. mainstream media eagerly promoted.

But
if you’re feeling generous and thinking that the Times’ editors
must have been chastened by their Iraq-WMD fiasco but perhaps had a
bad day last week and somehow allowed an egregious piece of
journalism to lead their front page, your kind-heartedness would be
shattered on Saturday when the Times’ editorial board penned a
laudatory reprise of
Scott Shane’s big scoop.

Stripping
away even the few caveats that the article had included, the Times’
editors informed us that “a startling investigation by Scott Shane
of The New York Times, and new research by the cybersecurity firm
FireEye, now reveal, the Kremlin’s stealth intrusion into the
election was far broader and more complex, involving a cyberarmy of
bloggers posing as Americans and spreading propaganda and
disinformation to an American electorate on Facebook, Twitter and
other platforms. …

“Now
that the scheming is clear, Facebook and Twitter say they are
reviewing the 2016 race and studying how to defend against such
meddling in the future. … Facing the Russian challenge will involve
complicated issues dealing with secret foreign efforts to undermine
American free speech.”

But
what is the real threat to “American free speech”? Is it the
possibility that Russia – in a very mild imitation of what the U.S.
government does all over the world – used some Web sites
clandestinely to get out its side of various stories, an accusation
against Russia that still lacks any real evidence?

Or
is the bigger threat that the nearly year-long Russia-gate hysteria
will be used to clamp down on Americans who dare question fact-lite
or fact-free Official Narratives handed down by the State Department
and The New York Times?

By Robert
Parry /
Republished with permission / Consortium
News / Report
a typo

=================================

Zie ook: ‘JULIAN ASSANGE OFFERS U.S. GOVERNMENT PROOF RUSSIA WASN’T SOURCE OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEAKS, SAYS WSJ‘ (op Stan van Houcke die het overnam van Global Research)

Charlottesville: twee schuldigen? Of is het de taak van eenieder te vechten tegen fascisme?

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Sinds de gebeurtenissen in Charlottesville, waar een fascist een jonge vrouw vermoordde en andere neonazi’s met wapens en knuppels tekeergingen, is er een discussie losgebarsten waarin ook linkse antifascisten* (Antifa) verantwoordelijk worden gesteld voor het geweld…….. Terwijl je kan stellen dat zij zich zelf en andere demonstranten verdedigden tegen het fascistische geteisem, dat zelfs met wapens rondliep in Charlottesville……..

Die antifascisten, o.a. door Clinton cs aangeduid als ‘alt-left’ (dit al tijdens de voorverkiezingen van het presidentschap in de VS vorig jaar), bevechten terecht het fascisme, waarbij ze tot nu toe niet  één dodelijk slachtoffer hebben gemaakt, dit i.t.t. tot de neonazi’s die vanaf het jaar 2000 tot 2016 in de VS al 49 mensen hebben vermoord …….

Na WOII zou het de taak van eenieder moeten zijn, zich te verzetten tegen het opnieuw opkomende fascisme………

Bent u van mening, dat links schuld heeft aan de gebeurtenissen in Charlottesville, dan raad ik ook u aan, de hieronder opgenomen video te bekijken. Onder het begeleidende artikel kan u klikken voor een vertaling:

This
Vice News Documentary from Charlottesville Is Horrifying

Watch
it and share it.

By
Jack Holmes

August
16, 2017 “Information
Clearing House” – Hundreds of white
supremacists marched
with torches in an American city Friday night.
They arrived the next day brandishing weapons and armor. One white
supremacist allegedly
murdered an anti-racist protester in
the street with his car and injured several others. This is what
really happened when you peel back all the rhetoric flying in the
aftermath, and after you tune out the first reprehensible response
from the President of the United States, and his subsequent update to
it that
was two days late and a dollar short.


Vice News, to the outlet’s immense credit, was on the ground to document the events in Charlottesville this weekend. Reporter Elle Reeve even embedded, for a time, with white supremacist leader Chris Cantwell. What she found speaks for itself, but keep an eye out for the little things. Like, say, how many guns these white supremacists have

The
question before us is obvious. Is this the country we’ve built for
ourselves? And can we allow it to continue this way?


Click
for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French,
translation- Note- Translation
may take a moment to load.

==============================

* Bestaan er eigenlijk nog rechtse antifascisten?

Zie ook:

‘Before Trump, Clinton Democrats Invoked the Term ‘Alt-Left’ to Demonize Critics‘

‘Among the Racists‘ (met mogelijkheid tot vertaling)

‘Neonazi
terreuraanslag in VS, westerse media spreken ‘op hun best’ over ‘een
daad van agressie……’‘

‘Charlottesville:
Trump haalt antifascisten toch onderuit………‘

‘Charlottesville: twee schuldigen? Of is het de taak van eenieder te vechten tegen fascisme?‘

‘Charlottesville: wat er fout ging voor de verzamelde gewelddadige en bewapende fascisten……….‘

‘De evolutie van politiestaat VS o.a. te zien in het buitenspel zetten van burgerrechten in steden als Boston en Charlottesville‘

VS bereid zich voor op oorlog met Rusland en China >> On the Beach 2017: The Beckoning Of Nuclear War

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Information
Clearing House (ICH) bracht gisteren een artikel van John Pilger, een
Australische journalist en documentaire maker.

In zijn
schrijven waarschuwt Pilger voor een komende nucleaire wereldoorlog.
Met een aantal voorbeelden geeft Pilger aan hoe de VS zich voorbereid
op zo’n oorlog…….

Lees dit
(uitstekende) bericht en oordeel zelf (onder het artikel kan u
klikken voor een vertaling):

On
the Beach 2017: The Beckoning Of Nuclear War


By
John Pilger

The
US submarine captain says, “We’ve all got to die one day, some
sooner and some later. The trouble always has been that you’re
never ready, because you don’t know when it’s coming. Well, now
we do know and there’s nothing to be done about it.”

He
says he will be dead by September. It will take about a week to die,
though no one can be sure. Animals live the longest.

The
war was over in a month. The United States, Russia and China were the
protagonists. It is not clear if it was started by accident or
mistake. There was no victor. The northern hemisphere is contaminated
and lifeless now.

A
curtain of radioactivity is moving south towards Australia and New
Zealand, southern Africa and South America. By September, the last
cities, towns and villages will succumb. As in the north, most
buildings will remain untouched, some illuminated by the last
flickers of electric light.

                                  This
is the way the world ends
                                  Not
with a bang but a whimper

These
lines from T.S. Eliot’s poem The
Hollow Men appear at
the beginning of Nevil Shute’s novel On
the Beach, which
left me close to tears. The endorsements on the cover said the same.

Published
in 1957 at the height of the Cold War when too many writers were
silent or cowed, it is a masterpiece. At first the language suggests
a genteel relic; yet nothing I have read on nuclear war is as
unyielding in its warning. No book is more urgent.

I
read On
the Beach for
the first time the other day, finishing it as the US Congress passed
a law to wage economic war on Russia, the world’s second most
lethal nuclear power.  There was no justification for this
insane vote, except the promise of plunder.

The
“sanctions” are aimed at Europe, too, mainly Germany, which
depends on Russian natural gas and on European companies that do
legitimate business with Russia. In what passed for debate on Capitol
Hill, the more garrulous senators left no doubt that the embargo was
designed to force Europe to import expensive American gas.

Their
main aim seems to be war – real war. No provocation as extreme can
suggest anything else. They seem to crave it, even though Americans
have little idea what war is. The Civil War of 1861-5 was the last on
their mainland. War is what the United States does to others.

The
only nation to have used nuclear weapons against human beings, they
have since destroyed scores of governments, many of them democracies,
and laid to waste whole societies – the million deaths in Iraq were
a fraction of the carnage in Indo-China, which President Reagan
called “a noble cause” and President Obama revised as the tragedy
of an “exceptional people”He was not referring to the Vietnamese.

Filming
last year at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, I overheard a
National Parks Service guide lecturing a school party of young
teenagers. “Listen up,” he said. “We lost 58,000 young soldiers
in Vietnam, and they died defending your
freedom.”

At
a stroke, the truth was inverted. No freedom was defended. Freedom
was destroyed. A peasant country was invaded and millions of its
people were killed, maimed, dispossessed, poisoned; 60,000 of the
invaders took their own lives. Listen up, indeed.

A
lobotomy is performed on each generation. Facts are removed. History
is excised and replaced by what Time magazine
calls “an eternal present”. Harold Pinter described this as
“manipulation of power worldwide, while masquerading as a force for
universal good, a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of
hypnosis [which meant] that it never happened. Nothing ever happened.
Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t
matter. It was of no interest.”

Those
who call themselves liberals or tendentiously “the left” are
eager participants in this manipulation, and its brainwashing, which
today revert to one name: Trump.

While
they pursue their fossilised anti-Russia agendas, narcissistic media
such as the Washington
Post,
the BBC and the Guardian suppress
the essence of the most important political story of our time as they
warmonger on a scale I cannot remember in my lifetime.

On
3 August, in contrast to the acreage the Guardian has
given to drivel that the Russians conspired with Trump (reminiscent
of the far-right smearing of John Kennedy as a “Soviet agent”),
the paper buried, on page 16, news that the President of the United
States was forced to sign a Congressional bill declaring economic war
on Russia.

Unlike
every other Trump signing, this was conducted in virtual secrecy and
attached with a caveat from Trump himself that it was “clearly
unconstitutional”.

A
coup against the man in the White House is under way. This is not
because he is an odious human being, but because he has consistently
made clear he does not want war with Russia.

This
glimpse of sanity, or simple pragmatism, is anathema to the “national
security” managers who guard a system based on war, surveillance,
armaments, threats and extreme capitalism. Martin Luther King called
them “the greatest purveyors of violence in the world today”.

They
have encircled Russia and China with missiles and a nuclear arsenal.
They have used neo-Nazis to instal an unstable, aggressive regime on
Russia’s “borderland” – the way through which Hitler invaded,
causing the deaths of 27 million people.  Their goal is to
dismember the modern Russian Federation.

The
threat is simultaneous. Russia is first, China is next. The US has
just completed a huge military exercise with Australia known as
Talisman Sabre. They rehearsed a blockade of the Malacca Straits and
the South China Sea, through which pass China’s economic lifelines.

The
admiral commanding the US Pacific fleet said that, “if required”,
he would nuke China. That he would say such a thing publicly in the
current perfidious atmosphere begins to make fact of Nevil Shute’s
fiction.

None
of this is considered news. No connection is made as the bloodfest of
Passchendaele a century ago is remembered. Honest reporting is no
longer welcome in much of the media. Windbags, known as pundits,
dominate: editors are infotainment or party line managers. Where
there was once sub-editing, there is the liberation of axe-grinding
clichés. Those journalists who do not comply are defenestrated.

At
the height of the Cold War, the anti-communist hysteria in the United
States was such that US officials who were on official business in
China were accused of treason and sacked. In 1957 – the year Shute
wrote On
the Beach –
no official in the State Department could speak the language of the
world’s most populous nation. Mandarin speakers were purged under
strictures now echoed in the Congressional bill that has just passed,
aimed at Russia.

The
bill was bipartisan. There is no fundamental difference between
Democrats and Republicans. The terms “left” and “right” are
meaningless.  Most of America’s modern wars were started not
by conservatives, but by liberal Democrats.

When
Obama left office, he presided over a record seven wars, including
America’s longest war and an unprecedented campaign of
extrajudicial killings – murder – by drones.

In
his last year, according to a Council on Foreign Relations study,
Obama, the “reluctant liberal warrior”, dropped 26,171 bombs –
three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.  Having pledged to help
“rid the world” of nuclear weapons, the Nobel Peace Laureate
built more nuclear warheads than any president since the Cold War.

Trump
is a wimp by comparison.  It was Obama – with his secretary of
state Hillary Clinton at his side – who destroyed Libya as a modern
state and launched the human stampede to Europe. At home, immigration
groups knew him as the “deporter-in-chief”.

One
of Obama’s last acts as president was to sign a bill that handed a
record $618billion to the Pentagon, reflecting the soaring ascendancy
of fascist militarism in the governance of the United States. Trump
has endorsed this.

Buried
in the detail was the establishment of a “Center for Information
Analysis and Response”. This is a ministry of truth. It is tasked
with providing an “official narrative of facts” that will prepare
us for the real possibility of nuclear war – if we allow it.

Click
for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French,
translation- Note- Translation
may take a moment to load.

Voor
het volledige artikel, hier de link naar het origineel:

On the Beach 2017: The Beckoning Of Nuclear War

Hoe Clinton en haar team de wereld op scherp hebben gezet >> Did Hillary Scapegoat Russia to Save Her Campaign?

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Wie nog steeds gelooft dat de Russen de VS presidentsverkiezingen en de voorverkiezingen daarvan, heeft gemanipuleerd middels hacken en lekken, zou nu eindelijk eens de tijd moeten nemen, om zich te verdiepen in wat er echt is gebeurd: Hillary Clinton en haar team hebben dit verhaal willens en wetens in de wereld gebracht, waarvoor de CIA en de NSA (aangevuld met wat andere geheime diensten die de VS ‘rijk is’) het scenario hebben geschreven. Intussen is hier al zoveel over gepubliceerd, aangevuld met de Vault 7 documenten van WikiLeaks, dat je voor de gelovigen in de schuld van Rusland, kan spreken van willens en wetens kwaadaardig wegkijken van de waarheid……* Dit alles met maar één doel: Rusland ten koste van alles zwart maken en zo de Koude Oorlog 2.0 te voorzien van een nog steviger fundament…….

Ofwel het moet hier gaan om lobbyisten van: het militair-industrieel complex, het uiterst agressieve VS buitenlandbeleid en de NAVO, de oorlogshond van de VS (uiteraard werken die 3 in goede harmonie met elkaar), of het gaat hier om psychopathische oorlogshitsers, die uit zijn op een uiterst rechts neoliberaal westers machtsblok, waarin geen plaats is voor links en andere alternatieven voor het ijskoude, inhumane neoliberalisme, kortom de fascisten 2.0……. Waaraan toegevoegd moet worden dat er maar weinig verschil is tussen die twee en het militair-industrieel complex in het geheel geen bezwaar heeft tegen fascisten aan het stuur, ook dat is uitstekend voor de winsten…….

Met deze gang van zaken is WOIII een stap dichterbij gebracht en een steeds beter voor te stellen Armageddon……..

Lees het volgende uitstekende bericht over ‘Russia-gate’ (het verzinsel van de Democraten, de CIA, de NSA en op later tijdstip de FBI), voor het volledige Information Clearing House artikel en de mogelijkheid tot vertaling (onder het origineel), klik op de link onder het volgende eerste deel:


By
Mike Whitney

August
01, 2017 “Information
Clearing House” – The “Russia hacking” flap has nothing
to do with Russia and nothing to do with hacking. The story is
basically a DNC invention that was concocted to mitigate the
political fallout from the nearly 50,000 emails that WikiLeaks
planned to publish on July 22, 2016, just 3 days before the
Democratic National Convention. That’s what this is really all
about. Russia didn’t hack anything, it’s a big diversion that was
conjured up on-the-fly to keep Hillary’s bandwagon from going down
in flames.

Put
yourself in Hillary’s shoes for a minute. She knew the deluge was
coming and she knew it was going to be bad. (According to Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, DNC contractor Crowdstrike
claimed to find evidence of Russian malware on DNC servers just three
days after WikiLeaks announced that it was about “about to publish
“emails related to Hillary Clinton.” Clearly, that was no
coincidence. The plan to blame Russia was already underway.) Hillary
knew that the emails were going to expose the DNC’s efforts to rig
the primaries and torpedo Bernie Sanders campaign, and she knew that
the media was going to have a field-day dissecting the private
communications word by word on cable news or splashing them across
the headlines for weeks on end. It was going to be excruciating. She
knew that, they all knew that.

======================

* Uiteraard is daar ook nog het grote deel van de westerse bevolkingen, die middels hersenspoeling van de media en politiek zijn gaan geloven in de schuld van Rusland……..

Voor het volledige artikel (waaronder u kan klikken voor een vertaling) klik op:

Did Hillary Scapegoat Russia to Save Her Campaign?

Russische ‘hacks’ door deskundigen nogmaals als fake news doorgeprikt >> Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Hier nog meer bewijs dat Rusland niets te maken had met het hacken en manipuleren van de VS verkiezingen, terwijl het merendeel van de westerse politici en de reguliere westerse media glashard het tegengestelde (tegen beter weten in) blijven volhouden….


Information Clearing House (ICH) publiceerde het volgende artikel van Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) op 26 juli jl. Onder het artikel kan u klikken voor het volledige bericht op ICH en onder dat origineel kan u klikken voor een vertaling:

SUBJECT:
Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?

Executive
Summary

Forensic
studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee
computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked
(not hacked) by
a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to
incriminate Russia.

After
examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion
into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded
that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and
that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.

Key
among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the
conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at
a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of
equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring
were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far,
mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent
studies [see here and here].

Independent
analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information
Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a
co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed
technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian
Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent
it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney
General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director
at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in
VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic
findings.

The
recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI
neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original
“Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of
any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and
NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated
January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.

NOTE:
There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we
wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We
focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack”
of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the
lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and
WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any
evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the
Russians [see here and here].

Addressing
this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described
“the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not
conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of
January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence
“relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”

Obama’s
admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us
that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a
transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no
such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical
experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a
year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC
insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data
on July 5, 2016).

From
the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC,
copy/leak process was
used at two different times, by two different entities, for two
distinctly different purposes:

-(1)
an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June
12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them
(which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose
strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and

-(2)
a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything
WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a
“Russian hack.”

Voor het volledige artikel en de namen van de deskundigen (plus mogelijkheid tot vertaling), klik op de volgende link:

Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence

Zie ook: ‘FBI, de spin in het Russiagate web……..‘

        en: ‘FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information‘

       en: ‘Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election‘

       en: ‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘

       en: ‘Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media‘

       en: ‘CIA chef Pompeo waarschuwt voor complot van WikiLeaks om de VS op alle mogelijke manieren neer te halen……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘Rusland krijgt alweer de schuld van hacken, nu van oplichters Symantec en Facebook……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘Russiagate, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen……..‘

       en: ‘CIA speelt zoals gewoonlijk vuil spel: uit Wikileaks documenten blijkt dat CIA zelf de verkiezingen manipuleerde, waar het Rusland van beschuldigde……..‘

       en: ‘‘Russische bemoeienis’ met de Nederlandse verkiezingen….. Waaruit blijkt nu die manipulatie, gezien de verkiezingsuitslag?‘

       en: ‘CIA malware voor manipulaties en spionage >> vervolg Wikileaks Vault 7‘

       en: ‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)

       en: ‘WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia‘

       en: ‘Hillary Clinton en haar oorlog tegen de waarheid…….. Ofwel een potje Rusland en Assange schoppen!‘

       en: ‘Murray, ex-ambassadeur van GB: de Russen hebben de VS verkiezingen niet gemanipuleerd‘

       en: ‘‘Russische manipulaties uitgevoerd’ door later vermoord staflid Clintons campagneteam Seth Rich……… AIVD en MIVD moeten hiervan weten!!‘

       en: ‘Obama gaf toe dat de DNC e-mails expres door de DNC werden gelekt naar Wikileaks….!!!!‘

       en: ‘VS ‘democratie’ aan het werk, een onthutsende en uitermate humoristische video!‘

       en: ‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘

       en: ‘Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van aankoop Steele dossier over Trump……..‘

       en: ‘Flashback: Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016 Election‘

       en: ‘Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election‘

       en: ‘Rusland zou onafhankelijkheid Californië willen uitlokken met reclame voor borsjt…….‘

       en: ‘Clinton te kakken gezet: Donna Brazile (Democratische Partij VS) draagt haar boek op aan Seth Rich, het vermoorde lid van DNC die belastende documenten lekte‘

       en: ‘Rusland zou onafhankelijkheid Californië willen uitlokken met reclame voor borsjt…….‘

       en: ‘CIA deed zich voor als het Russische Kaspersky Lab, aldus Wikileaks Vault 8…..‘

       en: ‘WannaCry niet door Noord-Korea ‘gelanceerd!’‘

       en: ‘‘Russiagate’ een complot van CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton en het DNC………..‘

       en:  ‘False flag terror’ bestaat wel degelijk: bekentenissen en feiten over heel smerige zaken……….‘

Al Qaida de bondgenoot van de VS in de strijd tegen…… terrorisme! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Met het schaamrood op de kaken moet is vaststellen een belangrijk artikel aangaande de bewapening van terreurgroepen door de VS te hebben laten liggen.

In dit artikel van Whitney Webb o.a. aandacht voor het enorme aantal wapens, inclusief chemische wapens (als Sarin gas), dat de VS in Syrië leverde aan de door haar gesteunde terreurgroepen (in het westen aangeduid als ‘gematigde rebellen)…… Daarnaast stopte de VS honderden miljoenen dollars in deze terreurgroepen…….. Militaire training was eveneens een manier van hulpverlening aan psychopathische moordenaars en verkrachters…………….

Lees hoe de VS willens en wetens enorme terreur tegen het Syrische volk heeft gesteund, zelf heeft uitgeoefend en uitoefent op dit volk, zogenaamd in het belang van de strijd tegen terreur…….

Ook vind je hier een uitleg over de terreurgroepen in Syrië en hoe die in feite allen gelieerd zijn aan Al Qaida Syrië of ook wel al-Nusra genaamd……. Jammer dat Webb geen kritiek levert op het Syrian Observatory of Human Rights (SOHR), een propagandaorgaan van de zogenaamde gematigde rebellen, dat ook door de reguliere afhankelijke (massa-) media wordt geciteerd……

How
Al-Qaeda Became an American Ally in the ‘War on Terror’

July
3, 2017 at 9:30 am

Written
by Whitney
Webb

Nearly
16 years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States is
inexplicably finding itself in bed with al-Qaeda, its alleged sworn
enemy. The group’s efforts to terrorize the population of Syria
have been rewarded with U.S. arms, training and other military aid.

(MPN) — Despite
ostensibly being the United States’ “Public Enemy No. 1”
following the 9/11 attacks, the international terror group al-Qaeda
has instead been a beneficiary of U.S. military aid in the post-9/11
world, particularly in Syria. With the Syrian conflict well into its
sixth year, al-Qaeda’s active branch in that war, widely known as
Jabhat al-Nusra or the al-Nusra Front, has continually received arms
and military protection from the United States, an outcome that is
clearly counterproductive to the U.S.’ global “War on Terror.”

Yet,
while the arming and propping up of al-Qaeda in Syria may not serve
the U.S.’ fundamental goal of eradicating terrorism, it certainly
has helped the U.S. political establishment pursue a decades-old goal
of regime change in regionally strategic Syria.

Gareth
Porter, an award-winning independent investigative journalist, and
historian told MintPress News that such tactics are part of the U.S.
government’s long-standing “bureaucratic habit of mind that
really privileges short-term advantages against state adversaries
over the long term, fundamental interests of the American people.”

In
this case, U.S. counter-terrorism efforts have been usurped by the
government’s broader geopolitical interests in reshaping the Middle
East. While Washington politicians and bureaucrats may be content
with having helped extend Syria’s “civil war” to their benefit
and the benefit of their allies, this reality has had the ugly
consequence of the U.S. willfully sponsoring
terrorists who torture civilians to death,
regularly conduct mass executions, kidnap children and mutilate the
bodies of their victims.

U.S.
funneled Libyan arms, chemical weapons to “rebels”

The
U.S.’ arming of al-Nusra began when the conflict in Syria was in
its infancy. In September 2011, the Obama administration began
providing logistical assistance to anti-Assad forces – namely the
Free Syrian Army, Syrian Revolutionaries Front, the Democratic Forces
of Syria and related groups – who were then supported by U.S.
allies Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. These groups received an
estimated $1 billion from
the CIA every year from 2012 until the program was scaled back in
2015. In addition, the U.S. government gave
another $500 million to
the “rebels” in 2014 which was intended to train thousands of
opposition fighters – an operation that turned out to be remarkably
ineffective.

A
year later, the CIA initiated weapon shipments to these
foreign-funded “rebels” by
funneling weapons that
once belonged to the fallen Gaddafi regime in Libya to
anti-government militias in Syria.

As
Gareth Porter details in his recent piece “How
America Armed Terrorists in Syria,”
the CIA continued to connect U.S. regional allies directly arming the
opposition with weapons from Libya and former Soviet bloc countries,
resulting in an estimated 8,000 tons of weapons being poured into
Syria in less than four months, from December 2012 to mid-March 2013.
The quantity of weapons that flooded into Syria from 2011 until that
time undoubtedly dwarfs this figure.

In
addition, the U.S. secured more than just conventional arms being
shipped to Syria. For instance, Pulitzer Prize-winning
journalist Seymour
Hersh exposed how
the Gaddafi regime’s chemical weapon stores were also sent to
foreign-backed opposition forces in Syria, including sarin gas. Hersh
has suggested that former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton approved the chemical weapon transfers.

While
the U.S. was not directly arming al-Nusra specifically at this time,
the terror group’s effectiveness at combating the Syrian
government, along with their ruthlessness, quickly made them the
darlings of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who were funding the “rebels”
with their own money and with U.S. assistance.

By
late 2012, the U.S. was well-aware that most of the arms it was
sending into the country were going to Syria’s al-Qaeda offshoot.
As the New
York Times reported in
October 2012, U.S. officials acknowledged off the record that “most”
of the arms shipped to Syrian “rebels” with U.S. support had
ended up in the hands of “hardline Islamic jihadists.”

However,
internal government communications reveal that the government knew
that such “jihadists” were al-Nusra. A now-declassified
U.S. government internal report from
2012 stated that the “the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI
[al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in
Syria.” However, no efforts were taken to halt the U.S.-supported
flow of arms to such groups, which continued years after this
surprisingly frank admission.

Other
evidence from that same year has suggested that this “oversight”
was intentional. For instance, a
2012 email written
by Jacob Sullivan and sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
stated that “AQ [al-Qaeda] is on our side in Syria,” implying a
tacit alliance of sorts between the U.S. government and known
terrorist elements that dominated the Syrian armed opposition.

PDF
embed

Despite
the true nature of the foreign-funded opposition being well-known to
U.S. officials, the arming of these so-called “rebel” groups only
became more rampant in the years that followed, with the
U.S. supplying
them with
heavy weaponry, such as anti-tank
missiles and anti-aircraft
weapons,
while also providing themwith
training.

The
advantage of such substantial support from the U.S. and its regional
allies has only led to the rapid growth and strengthening of
al-Nusra, enabling them to out-compete and eventually absorb nearly
all groups belonging to the U.S.-backed “moderate rebels” active
within Syria.

As
al-Nusra’s influence grew, many “moderate” groups who shared
similar ideas began to work alongside the terror group and eventually
became part of it or directly allied with it. Among the first to do
so were U.S.-supported groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh
al-Islam, whose cooperation and close relationship with al-Nusra has
been documented by
the pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR).

But
the U.S. had no complaints when Jaysh al-Islam led
the Syrian opposition at
peace talks in Geneva in 2016. In addition, the U.S. has
consistently refused to
add al-Nusra collaborators to the UN terrorist list, prompting some
journalists to call such
a refusal an “unwitting U.S. admission” regarding who really
leads the “rebellion” in Syria.

According
to the
Russian Defense Ministry,
the vast majority of Syrian opposition groups supported by the U.S.
form “an integral part” of al-Nusra front. Even the mainstream
press in the United States has admitted that most “rebel” groups
have been overtaken by al-Nusra. For instance, in
February, the Washington
Postquoted an
official with the U.S.-backed Fastaqim rebel group as saying
“Al-Qaeda is eating us” and that al-Qaeda’s influence and power
led his group chose to join the al-Nusra affiliated group Ahrar
al-Sham.

As
University of Oklahoma Center for Middle East Studies Director Joshua
Landis told
Sputnik last year:

“The
United States has placed itself in a very difficult situation because
many of the rebel groups that it wants to become principal holders of
state power in Syria work hand and glove with Al-Qaeda.”

Supporting
al-Qaeda from the shadows

While
the arming of Syrian “rebels” that are either members of or
affiliated with al-Nusra should be controversial enough, the U.S.
government has also managed to aid the terror group in other ways,
offering them protection and covert tools to bolster their ranks.

The
U.S. State Department and the U.S. military have
long justified the
presence of U.S. military personnel and assets within Syria as being
directly aimed at fighting terrorists within that nation, namely
Daesh (ISIS). However, on repeated occasions, the U.S. has worked to
protect al-Nusra by
asking the Russian military and
Syrian government to avoid targeting the terror group.

Such
requests have led Russia to call the U.S.’ commitment to fighting
al-Nusra into question, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov stating
in October last
year that the Russian government “doesn’t see any facts that the
U.S. is seriously battling al-Nusra.”

However,
the words of al-Nusra members themselves paint an even more
disturbing picture of direct U.S. involvement in aiding the group. In
an interview with
German newspaper Koelner
Stadt-Anzeiger,
an al-Nusra unit commander named Abu Al Ezz stated that when al-Nusra
was under siege from the Syrian and Russian governments that “we
had officers from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and America
here…Experts in the use of satellites, rockets, reconnaissance, and
thermal security cameras.”

When
asked to confirm the presence of U.S. instructors within its ranks,
Al Ezz replied “the Americans are on our side,” echoing a 2012
email exchange between Hillary Clinton and her advisor Jacob Sullivan
regarding al-Qaeda in Syria.

Perhaps
this explains why the “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” introduced by
Hawaiian Democratic Senator Tulsi Gabbard, which would bar federal
agencies from using taxpayer-backed funds to provide weapons,
training or any other type of support to terrorist cells such as
al-Qaeda, Daesh or any other group associated with them,was
only supported by 2 percent of
U.S. congressmen.

U.S.’
history of flirting with terrorist groups for geopolitical gain

While
the strategy of arming al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists and extremists
in Syria may seem bizarre, it is actually part of a long-standing
U.S. government practice that led to the terror group’s founding in
the first place. Indeed, al-Qaeda is the textbook example of the U.S.
creating and arming a terror group for political purposes.

Under
the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the U.S. government sent
billions of dollars in military aid to
the mujahideen in Afghanistan as part of a U.S.-supported “jihad”
against the Soviet Union. These extremist fighters, led by Osama bin
Laden, would soon become known as al-Qaeda. Gareth Porter told
MintPress that the creation of al-Qaeda under the Reagan
administration “set the precedent for the U.S. to support jihadi
forces where and when it is deemed to serve broader U.S. political
and diplomatic aims.”

Years
later, al-Qaeda’s relationship with the U.S. is best described as a
love-hate affair. As Garikai
Chengu wrote in Counterpunch in
2014: “Depending on whether a particular al-Qaeda terrorist group
in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State
Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group.
Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim
extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.”

However,
al-Qaeda is just one example of the U.S.’ aiding and abetting of
terror groups in order to realize broader geopolitical aims targeting
“enemies” of the U.S. political establishment. Latin America, for
instance, is rife with examples of how the U.S. trained and funded
terror groups to destabilize or topple leftist governments,
particularly in Nicaragua and El
Salvador in
the 1970s and 1980s.

Colombia
is another example that bares an uncanny resemblance to the U.S.’
policy in the Syrian conflict. Colombia, the U.S.’ closest ally in
South America, has
received over $4 billion in
U.S. military assistance since 2000. Much of that assistance has gone
to elements of the military – including right-wing paramilitary
groups – that the U.S. State Department had “vetted” and
“determined had complied with human rights requirements.”

While
that vetting was taking place, Colombia reported a surge in the
Colombian military murdering civilians in cold blood, resulting in
329 civilians killed in 2007. The Los
Angeles Times reported that
47 percent of those murders had been conducted by the very army units
previously “vetted” by the State Department.

Iraq
is another example where, for civilians, the line between “rebel”
terrorist and “army” terrorist is becoming increasingly thin.
There, the U.S. recently doubled down, promising to continue sending
aid to elements of the Iraqi Security Forces that have documented
carrying out human rights violations and war crimes. Many of the more
notorious units within the Iraqi Security Forces were
trained by former
U.S. special forces operative James Steele, who first made a name for
himself training U.S.-backed paramilitary forces that terrorized El
Salvador in the 1980s.

The
U.S.’ well-documented history of supporting and using terror groups
to fulfill geopolitical goals is so convincing that even Lt. General
William Odom, director of the National Security Agency under Ronald
Reagan, has
noted that “By
any measure, the U.S. has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate
was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every
version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in
violation.”

Today,
little has changed, especially given the true nature of U.S.
involvement with the “moderate” opposition in Syria. Now, the
Trump administration has taken to inventing chemical attacks to blame
on the Syrian government before
they even happen,
again hoping to justify Western intervention in Syria.

The
timing couldn’t be better, as only Western
intervention is
guaranteed to save Syria’s struggling al-Qaeda “rebels” and
create the next failed state in the Middle East.

By Whitney
Webb /
Republished with permission / MintPress
News / Report
a typo

======================================

Toevoeging op 16 december 2017: intussen heeft de VS ‘Al Qaida Syrië’ van de zwarte lijst met terreurorganisaties gehaald!! 

Plus de volgende links:

Zie ook: ‘CIA erkent dat Israël samen met Saoedi-Arabië ‘vecht tegen terreur’, die ze NB zelf hebben georganiseerd……..‘

‘VS centraal commando werkt in Syrië samen met IS en verklaarde Rusland de oorlog………‘

‘CIA 70 jaar: 70 jaar moorden, martelen, coups plegen, nazi’s beschermen, media manipulatie enz. enz………‘

 

‘Van Baalen (VVD EU topgraaier) het is moeilijk te zien wie je moet steunen: Al Qaida, Al Qaida of Al Qaida……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

 

‘CIA valt nogmaals door de mand als wapenleverancier van IS…….‘

Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Ondanks het feit dat er meer dan voldoende bewijzen zijn, dat Rusland niets te maken had met het hacken en manipuleren van de VS presidentsverkiezingen (en de Democratische voorverkiezingen), blijft men dit volhouden in de westerse reguliere media en schreeuwen de meeste westerse geheime diensten en politici er schande van…….

Sterker nog: men heeft geen nanometer bewijs voor deze belachelijke aantijgingen. Het gaat zelfs zover dat men stelt dat het bewijs is geleverd doordat 17 geheime diensten uit de VS e.e.a. hebben bevestigd (alweer zonder bewijs, daar dit staatsgeheim zou zijn….. ha! ha! ha!). Uiteindelijk blijkt het om 3 van die geheime diensten te gaan, de: FBI, CIA en NSA…….

Deze 3 geheime diensten staan daarnaast ook nog eens bekend om de vele leugens die ze in het verleden hebben verspreid….. Neem de leugens over de massavernietigingswapens van Saddam Hoessein. Leugens die tot de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak hebben geleid, waar de VS (en haar hielenlikkende mede oorlogsmisdadigers zoals Nederland) verantwoordelijk is voor de dood van meer dan 1,5 miljoen Irakezen……

Overigens is er een opvallende gelijkenis met die gebeurtenis en de hack/manipulatie leugen over de presidentsverkiezingen in de VS: ook destijds wisten de reguliere (massa-) media niet hoe men elkaar kon overtreffen in het herhalen van die leugens over Irak…… Over nepnieuws (of fake news) gesproken (waar zelfs de NRC aan meedeed……)……

Russia Today (RT) wordt NB onder andere door de NRC beticht van het brengen van nepnieuws, terwijl daar het tegenspreken door RT van de NRC leugens (of leugens van andere westerse mediaorganen) als bewijs voor wordt opgevoerd……..

RT heeft betaald voor een aantal leuzen, die o.a. op Russische vliegvelden zijn te lezen, leuzen waarin wordt gesteld, dat als er ook maar iets mis gaat in de wereld, je daar onmiddellijk de Russen de schuld van kan geven. Een uitstekende zet, want zoals u weet, er hoeft maar iets mis te gaan en men wijst inderdaad met de beschuldigende vingers naar Rusland, zoals zelfs een aantal opiniemakers en kranten durfden te doen na de laatste fishing actie Petya, die men als cyberaanval durfde weg te zetten. Lullig genoeg was Rusland zelf ook slachtoffer, waarmee die leugen werd doorgeprikt…….

Gegarandeerd dat er over een half jaar nog steeds media en politici zijn, die stellen, dat Rusland verantwoordelijk was voor Petya…. Dat deze laatste fishing actie net als de eerdere WannaCry is begonnen in Oekraïne interesseert ook al geen hond, terwijl men bij het noemen van Rusland al rood aanloopt en begint te hijgen……. Overigens kan een beetje hacker het doen voorkomen, dat een aanval uit een heel ander land komt, dan waar deze zelf werkzaam is. Uit de Vault7 documenten op WikiLeaks blijkt dat de geheime diensten van de VS deze mogelijkheid zelf uitgebreid beschrijven……..

Waar wel bewijs voor is, is het aantal coups en opstanden die door de VS werden voorbereid, gefinancierd en geregisseerd…….. Waar wel bewijs voor is, is het feit dat de VS een ongelofelijk aantal landen en politici (zelfs bevriende landen en politici) heeft gehackt. De CIA en NSA hebben een scala aan mogelijkheden om dit te doen, zo bleek uit dezelfde Vault7 documenten op WikiLeaks……..

Russia
Is Trolling the Sh*t out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media

July
18, 2017 at 11:16 am

Written
by Anti-Media
Team

(ANTIMEDIA) Moscow
— Russia’s
state-funded news network, RT,
is apparently now sponsoring ads in a Moscow airport targeting
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. Images of
the signs, posted on Reddit over the weekend, come as the
mainstream media continues to push the notion that
Russia intervened in the 2016 election on behalf of Donald Trump.

“Missed a plane? Lost an election? Blame it on us!” says one of the ads, alluding to the fact that in terms of seats in Washington, D.C., the Democrat Party was decimated in 2016.

“The
longer you watch, the more upset Hillary Clinton becomes,” says
another ad. And a third, which reads “Come
closer and find out who we are planning to hack next,” clearly
references the notion that
Russia was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Convention
networks.    

To
date, no
hard evidence has
been put forth proving that Russia colluded with Donald Trump and his
team, and both Trump and President Vladimir Putin have denied that
any conspiracy exists.

The
advertising, however, is very real, and it does appear to be funded
by the Russian government. The Independent
Journal Review reached
out to RT for
comment, and a spokesperson confirmed that
the ads are “absolutely” genuine and sponsored by the
network.

Recently,
the “Russian collusion” theory spread to Donald Trump’s son,
Donald Jr. The accusation suggests he met with a Russian lawyer in
June of last year to try to obtain damaging information on Hillary
Clinton. While the meeting did take
place, the Trump administration contends it
was standard political practice.

Creative
Commons / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

=========================================


Zie ook:: ‘FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information‘

       en: ‘Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election‘

       en: ‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘

       en: ‘CIA de ware hacker en manipulator van verkiezingen, ofwel de laatste Wikileaks documenten……...’

       en: ‘CIA speelt zoals gewoonlijk vuil spel: uit Wikileaks documenten blijkt dat CIA zelf de verkiezingen manipuleerde, waar het Rusland van beschuldigde……..‘

       en: ‘‘Russische bemoeienis’ met de Nederlandse verkiezingen….. Waaruit blijkt nu die manipulatie, gezien de verkiezingsuitslag?‘

      en: ‘CIA malware voor manipulaties en spionage >> vervolg Wikileaks Vault 7‘

      en: ‘Eichelsheim (MIVD) ‘waarschuwt voor agressie CIA en NAVO……….’‘

      en: ‘WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia‘

       en: ‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)

       en: ‘Murray, ex-ambassadeur van GB: de Russen hebben de VS verkiezingen niet gemanipuleerd‘

      en: ‘‘Russische manipulaties uitgevoerd’ door later vermoord staflid Clintons campagneteam Seth Rich……… AIVD en MIVD moeten hiervan weten!!‘

      en: ‘Obama gaf toe dat de DNC e-mails expres door de DNC werden gelekt naar Wikileaks….!!!!‘

      en: ‘VS ‘democratie’ aan het werk, een onthutsende en uitermate humoristische video!‘

      en: ‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘

      en: ‘Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van aankoop Steele dossier over Trump……..‘

      en: ‘Flashback: Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016 Election‘

      en: ‘CIA chef Pompeo waarschuwt voor complot van WikiLeaks om de VS op alle mogelijke manieren neer te halen……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

      en: ‘Russische ‘hacks’ door deskundigen nogmaals als fake news doorgeprikt >> Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence‘

      en: ‘Rusland krijgt alweer de schuld van hacken, nu van oplichters Symantec en Facebook……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

      en: ‘Russiagate, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen……..‘

       en: ‘‘Russiagate’ een complot van CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton en het DNC………..‘

       en: ‘Kajsa Ollongren (D66 vicepremier): Nederland staat in het vizier van Russische inlichtingendiensten……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Het volgende artikel komt van Information Clearing House en handelt o.a. over het niet-schandaal van de ontmoeting van Trump jr. met een Russische advocaat. De schrijver Lee Perry, merkte eerder o.a. al op dat het heel normaal is, dat gekozen presidenten voor hun inwijding (inauguratie) tot president, contact hebben met buitenlandse mogendheden, zo is het al decennia de gewoonste zaak van de wereld dat deze gekozen presidenten en/of hun staf contact hebben met de Israëlische regering.

Perry merkt op, dat het verzamelen van stront over Trump door de Democraten, allesbehalve is vergeten, iets dat de Democraten wel graag willen….. Met grote bedragen werd de Britse ex-spion Steele door de Democraten betaald, om in Rusland bagger over Trump te verzamelen. Als er grote bedragen worden geboden, is de kans levensgroot dat de vergaarde informatie op z’n zachtst gezegd onbetrouwbaar is (Ap).

Lees dit onthullende artikel van Perry, daaronder vindt u de link naar het volledige verhaal, op die webpagina kan u ook klikken voor ‘een Dutch vertaling’:

Forgetting
the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump

By
Robert Parry

Exclusive:
The new Russia-gate furor is over Donald Trump Jr. meeting a Russian
who claimed to have dirt on Hillary Clinton, but the Clinton team’s
Russian cash-for-trash search against Trump Sr. is all but forgotten,
writes Robert Parry.

Essentially,
Trump’s oldest son is being accused of taking a meeting with a
foreign national who claimed to have knowledge of potentially illegal
activities by Trump’s Democratic rivals, although the promised
information apparently turned out to be a dud.

Yet,
on Monday, the Times led its newspaper with a story about this
meeting – and commentators on MSNBC and elsewhere are labeling
Trump Jr. a criminal if not a traitor for hearing out this lawyer.

Yet,
no one seems to remember that Hillary Clinton supporters paid large
sums of money, reportedly about $1 million, to have ex-British spy
Christopher Steele use his Russian connections to dig up dirt on
Trump inside Russia, resulting in a salacious dossier that Clinton
backers eagerly hawked to the news media.

Also,
the two events – Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russian lawyer and
the Clinton camp’s commissioning of Steele’s Russia dossier –
both occurred in June 2016, so you might have thought it would be a
journalistic imperative to incorporate a reference or two to the
dossier.

But
the closest the Times came to that was noting: “Political campaigns
collect opposition research from many quarters but rarely from
sources linked to foreign governments.” That would have been an
opportune point to slide in a paragraph about the Steele dossier, but
nothing.

But
the Steele dossier is a more immediate and direct example of close
Hillary Clinton supporters going outside the United States for dirt
on Trump and collaborating with foreign nationals to dig it up –
allegedly from Kremlin insiders. Although it is still not clear
exactly who footed the bill for the Steele dossier and how much money
was spread around to the Russian contacts, it is clear that Clinton
supporters paid for the opposition research and then flacked the
material to American journalists.

As
I wrote on March 29, “An irony of the escalating hysteria about the
Trump camp’s contacts with Russians is that one presidential
campaign in 2016 did exploit political dirt that supposedly came from
the Kremlin and other Russian sources. Friends of that political
campaign paid for this anonymous hearsay material, shared it with
American journalists and urged them to publish it to gain an
electoral advantage. But this campaign was not Donald Trump’s; it
was Hillary Clinton’s.

“And,
awareness of this activity doesn’t require you to spin conspiracy
theories about what may or may not have been said during some
seemingly innocuous conversation. In this case, you have open
admissions about how these Russian/Kremlin claims were used.

“Indeed,
you have the words of Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic member
of the House Intelligence Committee, in his opening
statement at
[a] public hearing on so-called ‘Russia-gate.’ Schiff’s
seamless 15-minute narrative of the Trump campaign’s alleged
collaboration with Russia followed the script prepared by former
British intelligence officer Christopher Steele who was hired as an
opposition researcher last June [2016] to dig up derogatory
information on Donald Trump.

“Steele,
who had worked for Britain’s MI-6 in Russia, said he tapped into
ex-colleagues and unnamed sources inside Russia, including leadership
figures in the Kremlin, to piece together a
series of sensational reports that
became the basis of the current congressional and FBI investigations
into Trump’s alleged ties to Moscow.

“Since
he was not able to go to Russia himself, Steele based his reports
mostly on multiple hearsay from anonymous Russians who claim to have
heard some information from their government contacts before passing
it on to Steele’s associates who then gave it to Steele who
compiled this mix of rumors and alleged inside dope into ‘raw’
intelligence reports.

“Besides
the anonymous sourcing and the sources’ financial incentives to dig
up dirt, Steele’s reports had numerous other problems, including
the inability of a variety of investigators to confirm key elements,
such as the salacious claim that several years ago Russian
intelligence operatives secretly videotaped Trump having prostitutes
urinate on him while he lay in the same bed in Moscow’s
Ritz-Carlton used by President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.

“That
tantalizing tidbit was included in Steele’s opening report to his
new clients, dated June 20, 2016. Apparently, it proved irresistible
in whetting the appetite of Clinton’s mysterious benefactors who
were financing Steele’s dirt digging and who have kept their
identities (and the amounts paid) hidden. Also in that first report
were the basic outlines of what has become the scandal that is now
threatening the survival of Trump’s embattled presidency.


Hier de link naar het volledige verhaal:

Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump

Zie ook: ‘Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van aankoop Steele dossier over Trump……..‘ (een vervolg op het bovenstaande bericht)

       en: ‘Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump‘ (artikel in Nederlands)

       en: ‘Flashback: Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016 Election‘

       en: ‘FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information‘

       en: ‘Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election‘

       en: ‘Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media‘

       en: ‘CIA chef Pompeo waarschuwt voor complot van WikiLeaks om de VS op alle mogelijke manieren neer te halen……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘Russische ‘hacks’ door deskundigen nogmaals als fake news doorgeprikt >> Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence‘

       en: ‘Rusland krijgt alweer de schuld van hacken, nu van oplichters Symantec en Facebook……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘Russiagate, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen……..‘

       en: ‘Walls Closing in on Russiagate Conspiracy Theorists: Evidence Mounts That DNC Emails Provided to WikiLeaks By Inside Source‘

       en: ‘WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange Drops Russiagate Shell!!!‘ (video).

       en: ‘‘Russiagate’ een verhaal van a t/m z westers ‘fake news…..’‘

       en:  ‘FBI, de spin in het Russiagate web……..‘

       en: ‘New York Times met schaamteloze anti-Russische propaganda en ‘fake news….’‘

       en: ‘BBC World Service: Rusland heeft VS verkiezingen gemanipuleerd……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘Hoe Clinton en haar team de wereld op scherp hebben gezet >> Did Hillary Scapegoat Russia to Save Her Campaign?‘

       en: ‘Brekend nieuws: door Rusland betaalde reclames van Shell, Calvé pindakaas, AH boerenkool en Hema worst >> doel Rutte 3 ten val te brengen!!!‘

       en: ‘CIA deed zich voor als het Russische Kaspersky Lab, aldus Wikileaks Vault 8…..‘ 

Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Weer een bericht waarin Russische inmenging in de VS presidentsverkiezingen als propaganda en verdoezeling van feiten wordt neergezet. De schrijver stelt echter dat hiermee niet het bewijs is geleverd, dat de Russen niet betrokken zouden zijn, echter gezien alle eerdere publicaties over dit onderwerp, kan je niet anders concluderen dan dat de VS zelf verantwoordelijk is voor het gebeurde. 

Zo werden de Hillary Clinton mails, ten tijde van de democratische voorverkiezingen gelekt door Seth Rich, een medewerker van haar team….. De ‘dader’ Rich was terecht pissig over de manipulaties door het Clinton team, manipulaties die Sanders zijn kandidaatstelling hebben gekost……. Rich werd korte tijd later dood gevonden, hij zou zich twee maal door het hoofd hebben geschoten, zoals u begrijpt is dat onmogelijk……

Onder het bericht kan u klikken voor een ‘Dutch’ vertaling:

By
Jeffrey Carr

Three
days ago, the Washington Post ran this article by Philip
Bump — “Here’s
the public evidence that supports the idea that Russia interfered in
the 2016 election”.

This
gist of the article was, since we can’t know what the classified
evidence is that supports the U.S. government’s finding in favor of
Russian government intereference, there is plenty of public evidence
which should convince us.

Bump
is wrong about that. The public evidence isn’t enough to identify
Russian government involvement, or even identify the nationality of
the hackers involved. That doesn’t mean that the Russian government
isn’t responsible. It means that we don’t know enough to say who
is responsible based solely on the publicly known evidence, including
classified evidence that’s been leaked.

Here’s
a recap:

The
X-Agent malware used against the DNC is not exclusive to Russia. The
source code has
been acquired by
at least one Ukrainian hacker group and one European cybersecurity
company, which means that others have it as well. “Exclusive use”
is a myth that responsible cybersecurity companies need to stop using
as proof of attribution.

The
various attacks attributed to the GRU were a comedy
of errors;
not the actions of a sophisticated adversary.

The
FBI/DHS Grizzly Steppe report was a disaster (here, here, here,
and here).

Crowdstrike’s Danger
Close report,
which was supposed to be the nail in the coffin that proved the GRU
was involved in the DNC hack, has been repudiated by the Ukrainian
government, the IISS whose data they misused, and the builder of the
military app that they claimed was compromised.

The
Arizona and Illinois attacks against electoral databases that were
blamed on the Russian government were actually conducted
by English-speaking
hackers.

The
Reality Winner leak of a classified NSA document contained a graphic
that used different colors of lines to qualify the data (confirmed,
analyst judgment, contextual information). The line that connected
the “actors” who sent out the spearphishing email to various
electoral organizations with the GRU was yellow (analyst judgment)
and included the words “probably within”; meaning that this was
not a communications intercept.

There
are many other problems with the DNC investigation starting with the
fact that no government agency actually did the forensics work. It
was done by a company with strong ties to the Clinton campaign and
an economic
incentive to
blame foreign governments for cyber attacks on evidence that was
either flimsy or non-existent.


Does
any of this mean that the Russian government didn’t do it? No. It
only means that there is insufficient public evidence to say that it
did.

 

Click
for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French,
translation- Note- Translation
may take a moment to load

========================

GRU in Nederlands GROe, label veranderd op 5 oktober 2018.

Zie ook mijn eerdere bericht van deze dag: ‘FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information‘

Zie verder:

             ‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘

       en: ‘Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media‘

       en: ‘CIA chef Pompeo waarschuwt voor complot van WikiLeaks om de VS op alle mogelijke manieren neer te halen……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘Russische ‘hacks’ door deskundigen nogmaals als fake news doorgeprikt >> Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence‘

       en:  ‘WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia‘

       en: ‘Rusland krijgt alweer de schuld van hacken, nu van oplichters Symantec en Facebook……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘Russiagate, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen……..‘

      en: ‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘


      en: ‘WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia‘

      en: ‘Murray, ex-ambassadeur van GB: de Russen hebben de VS verkiezingen niet gemanipuleerd‘

       en: ‘Obama gaf toe dat de DNC e-mails expres door de DNC werden gelekt naar Wikileaks….!!!!‘

       en: ‘VS ‘democratie’ aan het werk, een onthutsende en uitermate humoristische video!‘

       en: ‘Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van aankoop Steele dossier over Trump……..‘

       en: ‘Flashback: Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016 Election‘

      en: ‘‘Russische manipulaties uitgevoerd’ door later vermoord staflid Clintons campagneteam Seth Rich……… AIVD en MIVD moeten hiervan weten!!‘

      en: ‘WannaCry niet door Noord-Korea ‘gelanceerd!’‘

      en:  ‘False flag terror’ bestaat wel degelijk: bekentenissen en feiten over heel smerige zaken……….‘

FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information

Posted on by Willem Wachtmeester

Het volgende artikel komt van Information Clearing House en komt van ZeroHedge.

Ex-FBI oplichter Comey is door de mand gevallen. De topgraaier heeft zelf veel (ook geheime) documenten gelekt naar nu blijkt.

Een goed artikel met mogelijkheid tot vertaling (zie link naar origineel onder het volgende artikel): 

FBI
Director’s Leaked Trump Memos Contained Classified Information

By
Tyler Durden

Amid
the constant media outrage over everything Trump,
Trump, Trump,
some might have forgotten that in the political rollercoaster over
the past 12 months, there were numerous other high-profile
individuals involved, including not only
former DOJ head Loretta Lynch,
whose every interaction with the Clinton campaign is about to be
probed under a Congressional microscope, but the man who some say
started it all: former FBI Director James Comey.

First
loved by the Democrats when he personally absolved Hillary Clinton of
any sins regarding her (ab)use of her personal email server, then
furiously loathed when he reopened the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton
one week before the election, then finally getting into a feud with
President Trump which cost his him job, Comey ultimately admitted to
leaking at least one memo which contained personal recollections of
his conversations with the president, in hopes of launching a special
probe into the president’s alleged Russian collusion. 

There
was just one problem: according to a blockbuster
report from The Hill,
in addition to the leaked memos, Comey
also leaked classified information in gross and direct violation of
FBI rules and regulations. And
just like that Comey finds himself in trouble. Only not just any
trouble, but the virtually same trouble that Hillary Clinton was in
in the summer of 2016… and which James Comey was tasked to
investigate.

Aside
from once again confirming that Trump may have been right all along
in his accusation of the ex-FBI chief’s motives, this shocking
revelation raises the possibility that Comey
broke his own agency’s rules –
by putting his own interests above those of his country – but far
more grotesquely, ignored
the same security protocol that he publicly criticized Hillary
Clinton for in the waning days of the 2016 presidential election, in
order to settle his vendetta with President Trump.

Amusingly,
Comey’s alleged flagrant disregard for FBI regulations would explain
why he also found Clinton’s email server transgressions to not be a
material concern, contrary to what most Republicans claimed at the
time. After all, if it was good – or rather not bad enough for
Clinton, maybe it was the same with Comey’s own abuse of confidential
data? The
only problem is that while Comey was generous enough to let Hillary
go, now that the ex-FBI chief is facing the president of the US as
his adversary, he may not be quite so lucky.

Lees
het hele artikel op:

FBI Director’s Leaked Trump Memos Contained Classified Information

Zie ook: ‘Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election‘

       en: ‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘


       en: ‘WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia‘

       en: ‘Murray, ex-ambassadeur van GB: de Russen hebben de VS verkiezingen niet gemanipuleerd‘

       en: ‘Obama gaf toe dat de DNC e-mails expres door de DNC werden gelekt naar Wikileaks….!!!!‘

       en: ‘VS ‘democratie’ aan het werk, een onthutsende en uitermate humoristische video!‘

       en: ‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘

       en: ‘Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van aankoop Steele dossier over Trump……..‘

       en: ‘Flashback: Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016 Election‘

       en: ‘Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election‘

       en: ‘Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media‘

       en: ‘CIA chef Pompeo waarschuwt voor complot van WikiLeaks om de VS op alle mogelijke manieren neer te halen……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘Russische ‘hacks’ door deskundigen nogmaals als fake news doorgeprikt >> Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence‘

       en: ‘Rusland krijgt alweer de schuld van hacken, nu van oplichters Symantec en Facebook……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘

       en: ‘Russiagate, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen……..‘

       en: ‘CIA deed zich voor als het Russische Kaspersky Lab, aldus Wikileaks Vault 8…..‘