Noam Chomsky en Alica
Walker hebben een artikel geschreven over het proces tegen Julian
Assange, eerder gepubliceerd op Independent
(vanwege mijn adblocker mag ik geen gebruik maken van dit
platform……) en door mij overgenomen van Information
Clearing House.
In de kop stellen Chomski
en Walker dat de VS regering, ofwel de Trump administratie Julian
Assanges persoonlijkheid terecht stelt, echter als je het stuk leest
zie je dat men weliswaar Assange probeert te besmeuren, maar dat in
feite de echte journalistiek terecht staat, dit naast de
klokkenluiders die hun ergernissen melden aan onderzoeksjournalisten
als Assange….
Iemand te besmeuren is in
dit geval voor de VS overheid het middel om een journalist als
Assange of klokkenluiders als Chelsea Manning en Edward Snowden
totaal ongeloofwaardig te maken voor het grote publiek…… Tevens is dit uiteraard het middel om de zaak waarvoor mensen als Assange en
Manning terecht staan/stonden ofwel te bagatelliseren dan wel te stellen dat
deze 2 de staatsveiligheid in gevaar hebben gebracht, dat laatste is een leugen van
enorme proporties…..
Meer dan schunnig dat de reguliere
westerse media zich massaal achter de leugens van de opvolgende VS
administraties stelden, die van Bill Clinton, George W. Bush,
‘vredesduif’ Obama en nu die van de psychopathische fascist
Trump…….Deze media deden dat zonder te onderzoeken of de leugens
kloppen, die veelal van de CIA en de NSA kwamen, organisaties die
bekend staan om hun leugens en verdraaiingen van feiten, zoals die
over Irak, Afghanistan, Libië en Syrië…… Terwijl die media van
de eerste 3 op zeker weten dat het leugens waren, door hen herhaalt
en daarna nooit gerectificeerd, sterker nog men blijft de leugens
gewoon herhalen, hoewel sinds de illegale invallen van de VS in
Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië intussen meer dan 2,5 miljoen
mensen zijn vermoord………
Nog veel erger is het dat diezelfde media hun collega, de meer dan eens gelauwerde onderzoeksjournalist* Assange, zo hebben laten vallen, ja zelfs voor verrader hebben uitgemaakt (ook door de reguliere Nederlandse media)……. Al moet ik zeggen dat ze daar wel reden toe hadden, immers als men Assange had verdedigd, had men toe moeten geven dat men volkomen fout zat met de steun voor de illegale oorlogen die de VS met hulp van NAVO-lidstaten als Nederland tegen voornoemde landen begon, terwijl alle bewijzen daarvoor op tafel lagen en liggen…….**
Mensen zien deze waanzinnig leuke video van een paar minuten
Lees het korte artikel van
Chomski en Walker en zegt het voort: Julian Assange moet onmiddellijk
worden vrijgelaten en de westerse media moeten eindelijk doen wat ze
jaren geleden al hadden moeten doen: Assange steunen en daarmee de
echte journalistiek verdedigen!! Als die media dit niet doen is het hek van de dam en zal echte journalistiek (ook het kleine beetje dat nog in die reguliere media is te vinden) de nek worden omgedraaid ‘voor het groter goed: een nieuwe orde ofwel een politiestaat als die door George Orwell beschreven in het boek 1984’ (onder het artikel kan je klikken
voor een Nederlandse [Dutch] vertaling, dit neemt wel enkele tientallen seconden tijd in beslag)
How
the US government put Julian Assange’s personality on trial
By
Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker
September 11, 2020
“Information
Clearing House”
– On Monday Julian
Assange was driven to the Old Bailey to continue his fight
against extradition
to the United States, where the Trump administration has launched
the most dangerous attack on press freedom in at least a generation
by indicting him for publishing US government documents. Amid
coverage of the proceedings, Assange’s critics have inevitably
commented on his appearance, rumours of his behaviour while isolated
in the Ecuadorian embassy, and other salacious details.
These predictable
distractions are emblematic of the sorry state of our political and
cultural discourse. If Assange is extradited to face charges for
practising journalism and exposing government misconduct, the
consequences for press freedom and the public’s right to know will
be catastrophic. Still, rather than seriously addressing the
important principles at stake in Assange’s unprecedented indictment
and the 175 years in prison he faces, many would rather focus on
inconsequential personality profiles.
Assange is not on
trial for skateboarding in the Ecuadorian embassy, for tweeting, for
calling Hillary Clinton a war hawk, or for having an unkempt beard as
he was dragged into detention by British police. Assange faces
extradition to the United
States because he published incontrovertible proof of war crimes
and abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, embarrassing the most powerful
nation on Earth. Assange published hard evidence of “the ways in
which the first world exploits the third”, according to
whistleblower Chelsea Manning, the source of that evidence. Assange
is on trial for his journalism, for his principles, not his
personality.
You’ve probably
heard the refrain from well-meaning pundits: “You don’t have to
like him, but you should oppose threats to silence him.” But that
refrain misses the point by reinforcing the manipulative tropes
deployed against Assange.
When setting a gravely
dangerous precedent, governments don’t typically persecute the most
beloved individuals in the world. They target those who can be
portrayed as subversive, unpatriotic – or simply weird. Then they
actively distort public debate by emphasizing those traits.
These techniques are
not new. After Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to
journalists to expose the US government’s lies about Vietnam, the
Nixon administration’s “White House Plumbers” broke into
Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office in search of material that could
be used to discredit him. NSA whistleblower Edward
Snowden was falsely portrayed as collaborating with the Chinese,
then the Russians. Obsession with military intelligence analyst
Manning’s mental health and gender identity was ubiquitous. By
demonizing the messenger, governments seek to poison the message.
Julian Assange in the
Ecuadorian embassy – a timeline
The prosecution will
be all too happy when coverage of Assange’s extradition hearing
devolves into irrelevant tangents and smears. It matters little that
Assange’s beard was the result of his shaving kit having been
confiscated, or that reports of Paul Manafort visiting him in the
embassy were proven to be fabricated. By the time these petty claims
are refuted, the damage will be done. At best, public debate over the
real issues will be derailed; at worst, public opinion will be
manipulated in favour of the establishment.
By drawing attention
away from the principles of the case, the obsession with personality
pushes out the significance of WikiLeaks’ revelations and the
extent to which governments have concealed misconduct from their own
citizens. It pushes out how Assange’s 2010 publications exposed
15,000 previously uncounted civilian casualties in Iraq, casualties
that the US Army would have buried. It pushes out the fact that the
United States is attempting to accomplish what repressive regimes can
only dream of: deciding what journalists around the globe can and
cannot write. It pushes out the fact that all whistleblowers and
journalism itself, not just Assange, is on trial here.
This piece was
written by Noam Chomsky and Alice Walker, co-chairs of
AssangeDefense.org – “Source“
*Wikipedia heeft de informatie verwijderd over de prijzen die Assange won met zijn onderzoeksjournalistiek…….. Schande!!!
** Nogmaals:
terwijl alle bewijzen voorhanden zijn dat de VS de westerse wereld heeft
voorgelogen om deze oorlogen te rechtvaardigen, sterker nog een aantal
landen waaronder Nederland hebben meegeholpen met de fabricage van deze
leugens voor één of meer van deze oorlogen, wat betreft Nederland betrof
dit de illegale oorlog tegen Irak……)
Waar
bijna niemand over spreekt als het gaat om de impeachment van Trump
is het feit dat er definitief iets goed fout zat met Hunter Biden en
een paar companen, die wel een enorme berg geld verdienden in een land dat
in feite arm is, e.e.a. heeft alles te maken met witwassen……. Eerder al gaf de vader van Biden, Joe Biden
toe dat hij Oekraïne onder druk heeft gezet om een openbaar aanklager te ontslaan die een strafrechtelijk onderzoek leidde naar de handel en wandel van o.a. zijn zoon Hunter……* (moet je nagaan, nu gaat de Democratische Partij tekeer tegen Trump die in feite hetzelfde deed als Joe Biden…..)
Zoon en vader griezels Biden, brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…………………
De
hysterie over Trump won het echter van deze uiterst vreemde zaak die
volgens ingewijden zoals gezegd o.a. met het witwassen van geld had te maken……
Het
voorgaande is een opvallende gelijkenis met Hillary Clinton, die eigen
misdadig handelen tijdens de Democratische voorverkiezingen in 2016
verdoezelde door te liegen dat Rusland haar mail had gekraakt en
de gegevens naar buiten had gebracht….. Een beschuldiging die een enorm aantal
zaken aan het rollen heeft gebracht, op grond van deze leugen hebben we
nu zelfs censuur op het internet en liegt men telkens weer dat Rusland
de verkiezingen elders manipuleert >> geen bewijs maar toch….
Terwijl er kilometers aan dossiers zijn waarin wordt aangetoond dat de
VS verkiezingen elders manipuleert en als dat geen effect draait de CIA
er haar hand niet voor om een gewelddadige opstand in een dergelijk land
te organiseren met het doel een coup te forceren, als ook dat niet
helpt wordt een staatsgreep georganiseerd, veelal door leger en politie
van het bewuste land onder druk te zetten……
Clinton manipuleerde deze voorverkiezingen, waardoor Bernie Sanders deze verkiezingen verloor, ofwel Clinton heeft deze verkiezingen gestolen van
Sanders….. Seth Rich, behorend tot haar campagneteam heeft
pissig over dit gore spel de bewijzen daarvoor naar buiten gebracht,
dus hij was het die de mails en andere zaken lekte naar de pers….. Echter
zonder enige ethisch besef gaf Clinton de Russen de schuld van het
inbreken op de servers van het campagneteam en daarmee was Russiagate
geboren en werd ‘Clintongate’ ver naar de achtergrond gedrukt…….
Seth
Rich werd overigens later vermoord op straat gevonden, volgens de
politie een roofmoord, terwijl noch zijn portefeuille, noch zijn
zichtbare sieraden werden gestolen……..
Het volgende arttikel waarin Tyler Durden dieper ingaat op de witwaszaak waarbij Hunter Biden was betrokken, werd eerder gepubliceerd op Zero Hedge:
Update:
Biden has denied
the allegations against him and asked the court to strike the
filing from the record, claiming the allegations were improperly
filed, and may constitute “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or
scandalous” material,
and that it was a “scheme by a non-party simply to make
scandalous allegations in the pending suit to gain some quick media
attention.”
Biden also asked for attorney’s
fees and costs to address the allegations.
Judge Don McSpadden only
agreed that it was improperly filed, striking the evidence on a
technicality “as
it was not filed in any acceptable manner to this court.”
It is unclear whether it may be
re-filed pursuant to (Ark
R. Civ. P. 24).
According to the New
York Post: “Reached
by phone, Dominic Casey, the D&A investigator who filed the
papers, refused to say whether his group had been retained by
Roberts, or sent the information to the court of its own volition.”
***
A new filing in an Arkansas lawsuit
against Hunter Biden claims that the former Vice President’s son “is
the subject of more than one (1) criminal investigation involving
fraud, money laundering and a counterfeiting scheme.”
Filed by private investigator
Dominic Casey of D&A Investigations on behalf of Lunden Alexis
Roberts – with whom Hunter fathered a child, Monday’s “Notice
of Fraud and Counterfeiting and Production of Evidence”
alleges that Hunter Biden and associates Devon Archer and John Kerry
stepson Christopher Heinz engaged in a money laundering scheme which
accumulated over $156 million
between March 2014 and December 2015.
According to the document, Biden,
Archer and Heinz became directors of consulting firm Rosemont Seneca
Bohai, LLC in order to “conceal their family members ownership,”
establishing financial accounts at Morgan Stanley and China Bank, the
latter of which was used in a money
laundering scheme.
Biden and associates are accused of
using the counterfeiting scheme “to
conceal the Morgan Stanley et al Average Account Value.
The filing also says that “Family
members of DEFENDANT Robert Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and
Christopher Heinz are
business partners of Serhiy Leshchenko and Mykola Zlochevesky in the
Ukraine, and are currently under
investigation for their part in the counterfeiting scheme.“
Of note, Leshchenko
is a former Ukrainian parliamentarian who made headlines in August
2016 for helping to leak the so-called “black ledger” that
resulted in the firing of then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort – the supposedly
‘debunked’ Ukraine meddling detailed in a November,
2017 Politico
article.
Notably, following an outreach to the
Ukrainian embassy by Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa, Artem
Sytnyk, Ukraine’s
Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and
Leshchenko released
the “black ledger” containing off-book payments to
Manafort. In
December of 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that Sytnyk and
Leshchenko “acted
illegally” by
releasing Manafort’s name – a conviction which was later overturned
on a technicality.
Het verhoor door een comité van de Democraten in het Huis van Afgevaardigden van speciaal aanklager Robert Mueller n.a.v. diens rapportage over Russiagate, was een anticlimax voor de Democraten, Mueller gaf op veel vragen geen antwoord en hij gaf verder de indruk het eigen rapport niet of slecht te kennen…….
Over deze zaak hieronder twee artikelen, de eerste van Consortium News en de tweede van Zero Hedge, over dat tweede artikel het volgende:
Robert
Mueller hoogstwaarschijnlijk niet de schrijver van eigen rapport
Robert
Mueller die afgelopen week moest getuigen over ‘eigen’ rapport*,
leek voor een groot deel van de tijd wel dement, zo kon hij (als gezegd) veel vragen niet beantwoorden en niet zelden leek het erop dat hij z’n eigen
rapport niet eens kende…..
Niet zo
vreemd als je bedenkt dat het grootste deel van het team van
aanklagers dat Mueller ter zijde stond bestond uit donoren van
Hillary Clinton! (ha! ha! ha! ha!, de ware misdadiger was Clinton en met de Russiagate leugen kon ze haar eigen zeer kwalijke rol verhullen binnen de Democratische Partij, een misdadige rol van haar en haar campagneteam tijdens de voorverkiezingen t.b.v. de democratische presidentskandidaat in 2016……
Nogmaals
is duidelijk dat het team van Mueller en hijzelf geen flinter aan
bewijs hebben dat Rusland inderdaad de boel heeft gemanipuleerd…..
Je moest intussen ook wel een imbeciel zijn als je dat hele
achterlijke verhaal nog gelooft, zoals de reguliere westerse media en
het overgrote deel van de westerse politici deze nonsens keer op keer blijven herhalen als was het een feit, ondanks dat er geen bewijzen zijn die e.e.a. bevestigen….. Dit alles terwijl er meters aan bewijs zijn voor
bemoeienissen van de VS met verkiezingen in andere landen, dit nog
naast het op poten zetten van gewelddadige opstanden die met staatsgrepen moesten (en moeten) eindigen, zoals de VS al zo vaak heeft
gedaan, om nog maar te zwijgen over de illegale oorlogen die de VS keer op keer begint…….
Tyler
Durden is de schrijver van het tweede artikel hieronder dat eerder op
Zero Hedge verscheen (zie ook de link onder zijn artikel*):
Former
Russiagate special counsel Robert Mueller’s appearance before the
Democratic-controlled House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on
Wednesday was an exercise by the Democrats of trying to extract
statements that would keep Russiagate alive and an attempt by the
Republicans to finish off the story once and for all.
Appearing
to be feigning, or actually suffering early signs of senility, the
nearly 75-year old Mueller disappointed both parties and the public.
He declined to answer 198 questions, according to a
count by
NBC News. When he did answer he was often barely intelligible and
mostly stuck to what was in his final report, though he often had to
fumble through pages to find passages he could not recall, eating
into committee members’ five-minute time limit.
Mueller
especially refused to comment on the process of his investigation,
such as who he did or did not interview, what countries his
investigators visited and he even dodged discussing some relevant
points of law. It was an abdication of his responsibility to U.S.
taxpayers who footed his roughly $30-million, 22-month probe.
But
when it came to making political statements, the former FBI director
suddenly rediscovered his mental acuity. He went way beyond his
report to say, without prosecutorial evidence, that he agreed with
the assessment of then CIA Director Mike Pompeo that WikiLeaks is
a “non-state, hostile intelligence agency.”
Mueller
called “illegal” WikiLeak‘s
obtaining the Podesta and DNC emails, an act of journalism. In the
2016 election, the Espionage Act would not apply as the DNC and
Podesta emails were not classified. Nor has WikiLeaks been
accused by anyone of stealing the emails. And yet the foremost law
enforcement figure in the U.S. accused WikiLeaks of
breaking the law merely for publishing.
Though
Mueller’s report makes no mention of The
Guardian’s
tale that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
visited WikiLeaks publisher
Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, when questioned on this,
Mueller refused to refute the story, for which there isn’t a scrap
of evidence. That was another purely political and not legal
intervention from the lawman.
Russia, Russia, Russia
Mueller:
Came to when he wanted to make a political point. (Flickr)
While
Mueller concluded there was no evidence of a conspiracy between
Russia and the Trump campaign to throw the 2016 election, he has not
let up on the most politicized part of his message: that Russia
interfered “massively” in “our democracy” and is still doing
it. There was no waffling from Mueller when it came to this question.
He
bases this on his indictment of 12 GRU Russian intelligence against
who he alleges hacked the DNC emails and transmitted them
to WikiLeaks.
Mueller knows those agents will never be arrested and brought to a
courtroom to have his charges tested. In that sense the indictment
was less a legal than a politicaldocument.
Among
the inaccuracies about Russigaate that were recycled at the
hearing is that the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) spent $1.25 million in the United States to influence the election.
That figure belonged to a unit that acted worldwide, not just in the
U.S., according to Mueller’sindictment.
In fact it only spent $100,000 on Facebook ads, half coming after the
election, and as even Mueller pointed out, some were anti-Trump.
Cambridge
Analytica had
5,000 data points on 240 million Americans, some of it bought from
Facebook, that gave an enormous advantage for targeted ads to the
Trump campaign. It paid at
least $5.9 million to the company co-founded by Trump’s campaign
strategist Steve Bannon. But we are supposed to believe that a
comparatively paltry number of social media messages from the
IRAthrewthe
election.
Mueller
implied in his testimony that there was a link between the IRA and
the Russian government despite anorder from
a judge for him to stop making that connection. In focusing again on
Russia, no member of Congress from either party raised the content of
the leaked emails.
IRA
headquarters in St. Petersburg (Wikimedia Commons)
For
the Democrats especially, it is all about the source, who is
irrelevant, since no one disputes the accuracy of the emails that
exposed Hillary Clinton. (That the source of authentic documents is
irrelevant is demonstrated by The
Wall Street Journal and
other major media using anonymous drop boxes pioneered by WikiLeaks.)
Were a foreign power to spread disinformation about candidates in a
U.S. election (something the candidates do to each other all the
time) that would be sabotage. But the leaking and publication of the
Clinton emails was information valuable to American voters.
And WikiLeaks would
have published Trump emails, but it never received any,
Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson told Consortium
New‘s
webcast CN
Live!
No
Power to Exonerate
With
“collusion” off the table, the Democrats have been obsessed with
Trump allegedly obstructing an investigation that found no underlying
crime. That’s something like being arrested for resisting arrest
when you’ve committed no other infraction.
In
his morning testimony, Mueller amplified the misperception that the
only reason he didn’t charge Trump with obstruction is because of a
Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel policy that a sitting
president can’t be indicted.
But
then Mueller came back from a break in the hearing to issue a
“correction.” It was not true that he had concluded there’d
been obstruction but was blocked by the OLC policy, he said. In fact
he never concluded that there had been obstruction at all. “We
didn’t make a decision about culpability,” Mueller said. “We
didn’t go down that road.”
Instead
of leaving it at that, Mueller said in his report and testimony that
Trump was not “exonerated” of an obstruction charge. That led to
blaring headlines Wednesday morning while the hearing was still going
on. “Trump was not exonerated by my report, Robert Mueller tells
Congress,” said the BBC. “Mueller Report Did Not Exonerate Trump,
Mueller Says,” blared the HuffPost.
But
in what may have been the most embarrassing moment for Mueller,
Republican Congressman Michael Turner (R-OH) pointed out that a
prosecutor does not have the power to exonerate anyone. A prosecutor
prosecutes.
Rep.
Michael Turner
“Mr.
Mueller, does the Attorney General have the power or authority to
exonerate?” Turner asked the witness. “What I’m putting up here
is the United States code. This is where the Attorney General gets
his power. And the constitution … .
“Mr.
Mueller, nowhere in these [documents] … is there a process or
description on ‘exonerate.’ There’s no office of exoneration at
the Attorney General’s office. … Mr. Mueller, would you agree
with me that the Attorney General does not have the power to
exonerate?”
“I’m
going to pass on that,” Mueller replied.
“Why?”
Turner asked.
“Because
it embroils us in a legal discussion, and I’m not prepared to do a
legal discussion in that arena,” Mueller said.
Pointing
to a CNN headline that had just appeared, “MUELLER: TRUMP WAS NOT
EXONERATED,” Turner said: “What you know is, that this can’t
say, ‘Mueller exonerated Trump,’ because you don’t have the
power or authority to exonerate Trump. You have no more power to
declare him exonerated than you have the power to declare him
Anderson Cooper.”
Turner
said: “The statement about exoneration is misleading, and it’s
meaningless. It colors this investigation— one word of out the
entire portion of your report. And it’s a meaningless word that has
no legal meaning, and it has colored your entire report.”
Who
is a Spy for Whom?
Mueller
also took a pass every time the Steele dossier was raised, which it
first was by Rep. David Nunes (R-CA):
“Despite
acknowledging dossier allegations as being salacious and unverified,
former FBI Director James Comey briefed those allegations to
President Obama and President-elect Trump. Those briefings
conveniently leaked to the press, resulting in the publication of the
dossier and launching thousands of false press stories based on the
word of a foreign ex-spy, one who admitted he was desperate that
Trump lose the election and who was eventually fired as an FBI source
for leaking to the press.
“And
the entire investigation was open based not on Five Eyes
intelligence, but on a tip from a foreign politician about a
conversation involving Joseph Mifsud. He’s a Maltese diplomat who’s
widely portrayed as a Russian agent, but seems to have for more
connections with Western governments, including our own FBI and our
own State Department, than with Russia.”
When
Nunes pointed out to Mueller that Konstantin Kilimnik, a Manafort
business associate, whom Mueller’s report identifies as having ties
to Russian intelligence, was actually a U.S. State Departmentasset,
Mueller refused to comment saying he was “loath” to get into it.
This
Schiff Has Sailed
The
chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff (R-CA) used the
word “lies” 19 times in his opening statement, which contained at
least that many.
The
central one was this:
“Your
investigation determined that the Trump campaign, including Donald
Trump himself, knew that a foreign power was intervening in our
election and welcomed it, built Russian meddling into their strategy
and used it.
Disloyalty
to country. Those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a
presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a
foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which did not publicly shun
it or turn it away, but which instead invited it, encouraged it and
made full use of it?”
Schiff
reluctantly admitted that no Trump conspiracy with Russia was
uncovered, but said the “crime” of disloyalty was even worse.
“Disloyalty
to country violates the very oath of citizenship, our devotion to a
core principle on which our nation was founded that we, the people
and not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we decide who governs
us,” said Schiff.
It
was pure fantasy.
Mueller
should have taken a pass on that one too.
Joe
Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former
correspondent for The
Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Sunday
Times of
London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached
at joelauria@consortiumnews.comand
followed on Twitter@unjoe.
Former
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on Thursday that
Robert Mueller
could just be a “figurehead” who may not have been involved
in writing “his” own report,according
to The
Gateway Pundit.
The
comments came during a CNN interview discussing
why Robert Mueller didn’t seem to have “command” over the
report’s contents while testifying on Capitol Hill yesterday.
Clapper
was heavily involved in the coup against President Donald Trump and
was an advocate for the Russia hoax theory earlier on.
Mueller’s
role was likely more of a “CEO”, he said. “I
think his role as a special prosecutor was a lot more like a CEO
where he oversaw the operations but did not engage in interrogating
witnesses or actually writing the report.”
James Clapper, one of the originators of the Collusion Hoax, suggests Mueller was just a figurehead, who was not involved in writing his report
Then who did?
Anti-Trump zealots who went to Hillary’s Election wake, & represented the Clinton Foundation & Hillary’s hammer man
(Dit is een still van een video die ik niet kan overnemen en waar na het voorgaande niets nieuws wordt verteld dan het CEO verhaal in het begin van dit artikel op Zero Hedge, zie het origineel)
And
naturally, as the article asks, if Mueller didn’t write
the report, was it left to the anti-Trump zealots that filled his
team? The piece notes that nearly “every
single prosecutor on Mueller’s team was a Hillary/Obama donor.”
Lead
prosecutor Andrew Weissman was with Hillary Clinton on election night
and praised acting AG Sally Yates for not enforcing Trump’s travel
ban. Aaron Zebley, another Mueller team member, represented the IT
aide that smashed Clinton’s Blackberrys while under subpoena.
Zebley
was next to Mueller on Wednesday to “advise” him on
questions and was clearly more well versed on the report than Mueller
himself was.
Mueller’s
embarrassing testimony – during which he admitted he
wasn’t even familiar with Fusion GPS – is
being panned not only by conservatives, but also by Democrats, as
we reported yesterday.
Conservative
columnist Byron York wrote yesterday:
“Mueller’s
performance raised questions that reached far beyond one appearance
before one committee.It
called into doubt the degree to which Mueller was in charge of the
entire special counsel investigation.”
Zelfs voor CNN is de nieuwe lastercampagne die deze zendgemachtigde tegen Assange voert van een niveau dat al in jaren niet meer werd gezien, behalve dan bij de desinformatie vorig jaar over het ‘Assange-Manafort rapport’ in The Guardian. De haatzaaicampagne van CNN berust niet op documenten zoals men beweert, er is voor geen van de beschuldigingen ook maar een schijntje van bewijs……..
Zo stelt men dat Assange de Ecuadoraanse ambassade in een commandopost had omgetoverd om de verkiezingen in de VS te manipuleren….. Verder meldt CNN dat Assange kamers van de ambassade onder de poep zou hebben gesmeerd, weer geen greintje van bewijs, terwijl de ambassade maar wat blij zou zijn geweest, ware het echt gebeurd, immers men zat al sinds het aantreden van de nieuwe (fascistische Ecuadoraanse president) met Assange in de maag en had hem dus makkelijk kunnen laten verwijderen als inderdaad zou blijken dat hij een gevaar voor anderen en zichzelf zou zijn (dan zou hij zijn opgenomen in een psychiatrische kliniek….) Nee, ook dit door CNN gebrachte ‘feit’, wordt niet onderschreven door de Ecuadoraanse ambassade, noch de regering van dat land…….
Messcherp legt de schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel de vinger op de etterende wond, waar ze bijvoorbeeld stelt dat door het gebruik van het woord ‘potentially’ (mogelijk) de kijkers en luisteraars op het verkeerde been worden gezet, immers men koppelt er zogenaamde ‘feiten’ aan vast in de vorm van ‘documenten’ (die men niet heeft bij CNN, immers ze bestaan niet..)……
Mensen lees het artikel van Johnstone, een gedegen stuk tekst en zegt het voort, daar we ook hier op dergelijke manieren worden besodemieterd, zo hoorde ik gistermorgen de bijna slechtste presentator van Radio1 (die bovendien volkomen ten onrechte denkt leuk te zijn), Jurgen van den Berg zeggen dat de vraag over de eigenaar van het goud uit een museum op De Krim, diezelfde dag in een rechtszaak in Nederland zou dienen (in hoger beroep, wat van den Berg er niet bij vertelde), een zaak aangespannen door de directie van het museum op de Krim en autoriteiten van de regio daar.* Volgens van den Berg is dit goud tijdens de inname door Rusland van De Krim naar Nederland gegaan voor een tentoonstelling……
Dit zijn 2 dikke leugens, ten eerste hadden de autoriteiten na het referendum waar meer dan 80% van de bevolking stemde vóór aansluiting bij Rusland, nooit toestemming gegeven het goud te verzenden. Het goud was ten tijde van het referendum al een paar maanden in Nederland… De autoriteiten en de museumleiding hadden echt wel geanticipeerd op een eventuele (schandelijke) inbeslagname ware men van plan geweest die collectie af te sturen naar Nederland, juist daar er in Oekraïne een neonazi-junta zat o.l.v. de zwaar corrupte misdadiger en neonazi Porosjenko, een junta door de VS geparachuteerd, deze junta werd ook onvoorwaardelijk door de Nederlandse flutregering Rutte 2 gesteund…….
Ten tweede: iedereen kan weten dat De Krim niet is ingenomen door Rusland, maar dat de bevolking zich in een door internationale waarnemers als goed en eerlijk beoordeeld referendum, massaal (meer dan 80%) uitsprak vóór aansluiting bij Rusland (en dat vóór aansluiting stemmen werd met eenzelfde percentage gedaan door de oorspronkelijke bewoners van De Krim….)
New CNN Assange Smear Piece Is Amazingly Dishonest, Even For CNN
CNN has published an unbelievably brazen and dishonest smear piece on Julian Assange, easily the most egregious article of its kind since the notoriously bogus Assange-Manafort report by The Guardian last year. It contains none of the “exclusive” documents which it claims substantiate its smears, relying solely on vague unsubstantiated assertions and easily debunked lies to paint the WikiLeaks founder in a negative light.
And
let’s be clear right off the bat, it is most certainly a smear
piece. The
article,
titled “Exclusive: Security reports reveal how Assange turned an
embassy into a command post for election meddling”, admits that it
exists for the sole purpose of tarnishing Assange’s reputation
when it
reports,
with no evidence whatsoever, that while at the Ecuadorian embassy
Assange once “smeared feces on the walls out of anger.” Not
“reportedly”. Not “the Ecuadorian government claims.” CNN
reported it as a fact, as an event that is known to have happened.
This is journalistic malpractice, and it isn’t an accident.
Whenever
you you see any “news” report citing this claim, you are
witnessing a standard
smear tactic of
the plutocratic media. Whenever you see them citing this claim as a
concrete, verified fact, you are witnessing an especially aggressive
and deliberate psyop.
The
Ecuadorian embassy was easily the most-surveilled
building in the world during
Assange’s stay there, and the Ecuadorian government has
leaked photos of Assange’s living quarters to
the media in an attempt to paint him as a messy houseguest in need of
eviction, so if the “feces on the walls” event had ever
transpired you would have seen photos of it, whether you wanted to or
not. It never happened.
Exclusive: Security reports reveal how Assange turned an embassy into a command post for election…
New documents obtained exclusively by CNN reveal that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange received in-person deliveries, potentially of hacked materials related to the 2016 US election, during a series…
cnn.com
“New
documents obtained exclusively by CNN reveal that WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange received in-person deliveries, potentially of hacked
materials related to the 2016 US election, during a series of
suspicious meetings at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London,” the
article begins.
In
its very first sentence the article invalidates all the claims which
follow it, because its use of the word “potentially” means that
none of the documents CNN purports to have contain any actual
evidence. It’s worth noting at this time that there is to this day
not one shred of publicly available evidence that any of the
Democratic Party emails published by WikiLeaks in 2016 were in fact
“hacked” at all, and could very well have been the result of a
leak as
asserted by former British ambassador Craig Murray,
who claims to have inside knowledge on the matter.
The
glaring plot holes in the Mueller report’s assertions about Russia
being the source of the 2016 WikiLeaks drops have already been ripped
wide open by journalist Aaron Maté’s meticulous analysis of
the report’s timeline in an article accurately titled
“CrowdStrikeOut:
Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims“.
The CNN smear piece, which claims
to “add
a new dimension to the Mueller report”, is entirely relying on this
porous timeline for its reporting. Plot holes include the fact that
Mueller claims (and CNN repeats) that the Russians transferred the
emails to WikiLeaks on or around July 14, which Maté notes is “a
full month after Assange publicly announced that he had them.”
CNN
kicks off its smear piece with the inflammatory
claim that
“Assange met with Russians and world-class hackers at critical
moments”, mentioning both “Russians” and “hackers” in the
same breath in an attempt to give the impression that the two are
related. It’s not until paragraph 43 and 46,
long after most people have stopped reading, that the articles
authors bother to inform their readers that the “hackers” in
question are German and have no
established connection to
the Russian government whatsoever. The “Russians” counted among
Assange’s scores of visitors consist of RT staff, who have always
consistently reported on WikiLeaks, and a “Russian national”
about whom almost
nothing is known.
The
article falsely
labels Assange a “hacker”,
a defamatory
claim the
mass media circulates whenever it wants to tarnish Assange’s
reputation. Assange, of course, is a publisher. WikiLeaks publishes
materials which are given to it, it doesn’t “hack” them.
.@CNN puts out the claim that @RT published articles about Podesta e-mails before @wikileaks even released them. A serious claim for which CNN scrupulously fails to provide evidence.
That is a LIE that’s been debunked over and over. We published ONE article about the emails that were RELEASED already, just not TWEETED about yet, because WikiLeaks had been releasing them like clockwork and we paid attention. It’s called journalism, they should try it sometime.
CNN
also repeats the long-debunked
lie that
RT “published articles detailing the new batches of emails before
WikiLeaks officially released them” during the 2016 election,
citing no evidence because this never happened. RT reported
on a WikiLeaks release in
October 2016 after it had been published by WikiLeaks but before the
WikiLeaks Twitter account had tweeted about it, and western
propagandists willfully conflated WikiLeaks publications with tweets
from the WikiLeaks Twitter account in order to make it look like RT
had insider knowledge about the publications.
In
reality, RT was simply watching the WikiLeaks site closely for new
releases in order to get an early scoop before other outlets, because
Podesta email leaks had been dropping regularly.
“That
is a LIE that’s been debunked over and over,” tweeted RT
America editor Nebojša Malić in response to the smear. “We
published ONE article about the emails that were RELEASED already,
just not TWEETED about yet, because WikiLeaks had been releasing them
like clockwork and we paid attention. It’s called journalism, they
should try it sometime.”
“Yes
that is fake news,” tweeted RT’s
Ivor Crotty. “I was the editor on the team that monitored wikileaks
and by Podesta 6 we knew they tweeted at 9am EST each day (1pm
Dublin) – so we checked the database by reverse searching and
discovered a new dump, tweeted about it, and the conspiracy theorists
jumped.”
“RT
already addressed this in 2016, convincingly if you read the sequence
of events they lay out: the Podesta emails appeared on the WikiLeaks
website before WikiLeaks sent a tweet about it,” Maté tweeted
at CNN’s Marshall Cohen.
“Ignoring that allows for the conspiracy theory you propose. It’s
ridiculous to suggest that RT-Wikileaks ‘were coordinating behind
the scenes’ based on the fact that RT tweeted about the Podesta
emails AFTER they appeared on WL’s site, but BEFORE WL tweeted
about them. You’re implicating RT in a conspiracy… for doing
journalism.”
It’s
not possible to research the “RT had advance knowledge of WikiLeaks
drops” conspiracy theory without running across articles which
debunked it at the time, so the article’s authors were likely
either knowingly lying or taking dictation from someone who was.
“Spanish
newspaper El Pais on July 9: ‘Spanish
security company spied on Julian Assange’s meetings with lawyers‘.
Add little security state propaganda and 6 days later you get from
CNN: ‘How Julian Assange turned an embassy into command post for
election meddling’,” notedShadowproofmanaging
editor Kevin Gosztola in response to the CNN smear, a reminder of how
a little narrative tweaking can turn a story on its head in support
of the powerful.
This
would be the same CNN who told its viewers that it’s against the
law to read WikiLeaks, with Democratic Party prince Chris
Cuomo lying “Remember,
it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents; it’s different
for the media, so everything you learn about this you’re learning
from us.” The same CNN which falsely reported that Assange is a
pedophile not once,
but twice.
The same CNN which has been
caught blatantly lying in
its Russiagate coverage, which has had
to fire journalists for
misreporting Russiagate in a media environment where that almost
never happens with Russia stories, which has deleted
evidence of its journalistic malpractice regarding
Russiagate from the internet without retraction or apology.
So
this latest attempt to tarnish Julian Assange’s reputation from CNN
is not surprising. Nor is it surprising that the article contains
exactly zero of the “exclusive documents” which it says validate
its claims and insinuations. Nor is it surprising that CNN is using
invisible evidence which almost
certainly came
into its hands through a government agency to give weight to its
smear. But the sheer volume of disinformation and deceit they were
able to pack into one single article this time around was just
jaw-dropping. Even for CNN.
_____________________
The
best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the
stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website,
which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My
work is entirely
reader-supported,
so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook,
following my antics onTwitter, throwing
some money into my hat on Patreon orPaypal, purchasing
some of my sweet
merchandise, buying
my new book Rogue
Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone,
or my previous book Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do
with this platform, click
here.
Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has
my permission to
republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve
written) in any way they like free of charge.
* Er is nog geen uitspraak in deze zaak, maar reken maar dat de rechter beslist dat de kunstschatten volkomen ten onrechte naar Kiev en niet naar De Krim gaan…..
Geheime diensten van de VS en Groot-Brittannië hebben de
presidentsverkiezingen in 2016 zonder succes gemanipuleerd….. Larry
C. Johnson, de schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel stelt
dat er overtuigend bewijs is dat de Obama administratie de coördinatie deed voor de afschildering van Trump als een stroman van de Russen….. Die administratie werkte daarvoor samen met andere westerse regeringen en geheime diensten uit binnen- en buitenland
(met medeweten van de belangrijkste van die regeringen in het buitenland, t.w. die van GB….)……..
Het
rapport van Mueller n.a.v. het onderzoek naar een verbintenis van
Trump en de Russen, heeft duidelijk gemaakt dat deze beschuldiging is
gefabriceerd door geheime diensten, politiediensten (zoals de FBI),
de Obama administratie en als voornaamste buitenlandse regering zoals gezegd die van GB, dit nog plus organisaties die
gelieerd waren aan het Clinton campagne team en dat team zelf…..
Johnson
noemt in zijn artikel 8 punten waarop het Mueller onderzoek was
gericht en ontleedt deze punten stuk voor stuk, waarna de conclusie
van Johnson, zoals hiervoor deels verwoord, een terechte beschuldiging
is aan het adres van geheime diensten (waaronder de CIA), de Britse regering, de FBI, de Obama
administratie en het campagne team van Clinton, plus de organisaties
die gelieerd waren aan dat campagneteam.
Lees
het volgende artikel en geeft het door, immers de reguliere westerse
(massa-) media doen net of de neus bloedt, hetzelfde geldt voor het
grootste deel van de westerse politici…… Ondanks dat men weet
meer dan 2 jaar lang leugens en nepnieuws (fake news) te hebben
gebracht, blijft men doen alsof het Russiagate sprookje nog steeds
overeind staat, laat staan dat men daar rectificaties voor plaatst en
wat betreft de politici het maken van excuses naar de bevolking….
Het
kan nog sterker mensen, alle maatregelen gebaseerd op de Russiagate
leugens, zoals censuur door accounts van mensen te blokkeren of zelfs
op te heffen, blijven gehandhaafd en men is al druk bezig om de
volgende ronde van ‘Russische inmenging’, de EU verkiezingen, te
beveiligen tegen Russische bemoeienis…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Intussen stuurt de VS de EU meer en meer en het is zeker dat de VS al bezig is met de manipulatie van de EU verkiezingen later deze maand…..*
In
Nederland hebben we hare D66 leeghoofdigheid Ollongren, die als
minister maatregelen heeft genomen tegen Russische bemoeienis met de
Provinciale verkiezingen en de EU verkiezingen….. ha! ha! ha! ha!
ha!
Alle
maatregelen die men neemt tegen bemoeienissen met verkiezingen door
Rusland, zouden met een naamsverandering alsnog kunnen worden
gebruikt, althans als men de naam Rusland wil inwisselen voor de
Verenigde Staten, immers voor het feit dat de VS zich bemoeit met
verkiezingen elders zijn hele bergen bewijs, niet alleen dat: als de
VS niet blij is met een verkiezingsuitslag elders, is de kans groot
dat dezelfde VS dat land zal destabiliseren, een opstand organiseert
en als dat niet leidt tot de afzetting van de gekozen regering, heeft
de VS nog altijd militair ingrijpen tot haar beschikking, ook
daarvoor bewijzen te over….
De
VS bespioneert en hackt zelfs de regenringen van haar bevriende
landen, ook dat is bewezen……
Het hieronder opgenomen artikel komt van Consortium News, de schrijver, Larry Johnson is een ex-CIA analist en voormalig anti-terreur specialist verbonden aan het VS ministerie van buitenlandse zaken (mijn excuus voor de lay-out van het overgenomen artikel, krijg het niet op orde)
How
US and Foreign Intel Agencies Interfered in a US Election
May
7, 2019
The
evidence is plain—there was a broad, coordinated effort by the
Obama Administration, with the help of foreign governments, to target
Donald Trump and paint him as a Russian stooge, writes Larry Johnson
The
preponderance of evidence makes this very simple–there was a broad,
coordinated effort by the Obama Administration, with the help of
foreign governments, to target Donald Trump and paint him as a stooge
of Russia.
The
Mueller Report provides irrefutable evidence that the so-called
Russian collusion case against Donald Trump was a deliberate
fabrication by intelligence and law enforcement organizations in the
United States and the United Kingdom and organizations aligned with
the Clinton Campaign.
The
New York Timesreported
that a man with a long history of working with the CIA, and a female
FBI informant, traveled to London in September of 2016 and tried
unsuccessfully to entrap George Papadopolous. The biggest curiosity
is that U.S. intelligence or law enforcement officials fully briefed
British intelligence on what they were up to. Quite understandable
given what we now know about British spying on the Trump Campaign.
The
Mueller investigation of Trump “collusion” with Russia prior to
the 2016 Presidential election focused on eight cases:
Proposed
Trump Tower Project in Moscow
George
Papadopolous
Carter
Page
Dimitri
Simes
Veselnetskya
Meeting at Trump Tower (June 16, 2016)
Events
at Republican Convention
Post-Convention
Contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak
Paul
Manafort
One
simple fact emerges–of the eight cases or incidents of alleged
Trump Campaign interaction with the Russians investigated by the
Mueller team, the proposals to interact with the Russian Government
or with Putin originated with FBI informants, MI-6 assets or people
paid by Fusion GPS, and not Trump or his people.
There
is not a single instance where Donald Trump or any member of his
campaign team initiated contact with the Russians for the purpose of
gaining derogatory information on Hillary or obtaining support to
boost the Trump campaign. Not one.
Simply
put, Trump and his campaign were the target of an elaborate, wide
ranging covert action designed to entrap him and members of his team
as an agent of Russia.
Let’s
look in detail at each of the cases.
THE
PROPOSED TRUMP TOWER PROJECT IN MOSCOW,according
to Mueller’s report, originated with an FBI Informant–Felix
Sater. Here’s what the Mueller Report states:
“In
the late summer of 2015, the Trump Organization received a new
inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow. In
approximately September 2015, Felix Sater . . . contacted Cohen
(i.e., Michael Cohen) on behalf of I.C. Expert Investment Company
(I.C. Expert), a Russian real-estate development corporation
controlled by Andrei Vladimirovich Rozov. Sater
had known Rozov since approximately 2007 and, in 2014, had served as
an agent on behalf of Rozov during Rozov’s purchase of a building
in New York City. Sater later contacted Rozov and proposed that
I.C. Expert pursue a Trump Tower Moscow project in which I.C. Expert
would license the name and brand from the Trump Organization but
construct the building on its own. Sater worked on the deal with
Rozov and another employee of I.C. Expert.” (see page 69 of the
Mueller Report).
Sater, FBI Informant
Mueller, as
noted previously, is
downright dishonest in failing to identify Sater as an FBI informant.
Sater was not just a private entrepreneur looking to make some coin.
He was a fully signed up FBI informant. Sater’s status as an FBI
snitch was first exposed in 2012. Sater also was a boyhood chum of
Michael Cohen, the target being baited in this operation. Another
inconvenient fact excluded from the Mueller report is that one of
Mueller’s Chief Prosecutors, Andrew
Weissman, signed the deal with Felix Sater in December 1998 that put
Sater into the FBI Informant business.
All
suggestions for meeting with the Russian Government, including Putin,
originated with Felix Sater. The use of Sater on this particular
project started in September 2015.
Papadopolous
was targeted by British and U.S. intelligence starting in late
December 2015, when he is offered out of the blue a job with
the London
Centre of International Law and Practice Limited (LCILP)?.
The LCILP has all of the hallmarks of an intelligence front company.
LCILP began as an offshoot from another company?—?EN Education
Group Limited?—?which describes itself as “a global education
consultancy, facilitating links between students, education providers
and organisations with an interest in education worldwide”.
Papadopolous
EN
Education and LCILP are owned and run by Nagi Khalid Idris, a
48-year-old British citizen of Sudanese origin. For no apparent
reason Idris offers Papadopolous a job as the Director of the
LCILP’s International Energy and Natural Resources Division. Then
in March of 2016, Idris and Arvinder Sambei (who acted as an attorney
for the FBI on a 9-11 extradition case in the UK), insist on
introducing Joseph Mifsud to Papadopolous.
It
is Joseph Mifsud who introduces the idea of meeting Putin following a
lunch in London (from Papadopolous’s book “Deep State Target: How
I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President
Trump”):
“The
lunch is booked for March 24 at the Grange Holborn Hotel,. . . .
“When I get there, Mifsud is waiting for me in the lobby with an
attractive, fashionably dressed young woman with dirty blonde hair at
his side. He introduces her as Olga Vinogradova.” (p. 76)
“Mifsud
sells her hard. “Olga is going to be your inside woman to Moscow.
She knows everyone.” He tells me she was a former official at the
Russian Ministry of Trade. Then he waxes on about introducing me to
the Russian ambassador in London.” (p. 77)
“On
April 12, “Olga” writes: “I have already alerted my personal
links to our conversation and your request. The embassy in London is
very much aware of this. As mentioned, we are all very excited by the
possibility of a good relationship with Mr. Trump. The Russian
Federation would love to welcome him once his candidature would be
officially announced.”
And
it is Mifsud who raises the possibility of getting dirt on Hillary:
“Then
Mifsud returns from the Valdai conference. On April 26 we meet for
breakfast at the Andaz Hotel, near Liverpool Street Station, one of
the busiest train stations in London. He’s in an excellent mood and
claims he met with high-level Russian government officials. But once
again, he’s very short on specifics. This is becoming a real
pattern with Mifsud. He hasn’t offered any names besides Timofeev.
Then, he leans across the table in a conspiratorial manner. The
Russians have “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, he tells me. “Emails
of Clinton,” he says. “They have thousands of emails.”
Here
again we encounter the lying and obfuscation of the Mueller team.
They falsely characterize Mifsud as an agent of Russia. In fact, he
has close and longstanding ties to both British and U.S.
intelligence (Disobedient
Media lays
out the Mifsud mystery in detail).
Mifsud: Ties to UK intelligence. (Flickr)
Mifsud
was not alone. The FBI and the CIA also were in the game of trying to
entrap Papadopolous. In September of 2016, Papadopolous was being
wined and dined by Halper (who has longstandingties to
the U.S. intelligence community) and Azra Turk, an FBI
Informant/researcher (see New
York Times).
The
FBI disingenuously claims they ran Azra Turk at Papadopolous because
they were alarmed ostensibly by Russia’s attempts to disrupt the
2016 election. But Papadopolous was not seeking out Russian contacts.
He was being baited. It was Mifsud and others tied to British and
U.S. intelligence who were bringing up the “opportunity” to work
with the Russians.
CARTER
PAGE
The
section of the Mueller report that deals with Carter Page is a total
travesty. Mueller and his team, for example, initially misrepresent
Page’s status with the Trump campaign—he is described as
“working” for the campaign, which implies a paid position, when
he was in fact only a volunteer foreign policy advisor. Mueller also
paints Page’s prior experience and work in Russia as evidence that
Page was being used by Russian intelligence, but says nothing about
the fact that Page was being regularly debriefed by the CIA and the
FBI during the same period. In other words, Page was cooperating with
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement. But this fact is omitted in
the Mueller report.
Mueller
eventually accurately describes Page’s role in the Trump campaign
as follows:
“In
January 2016, Page began volunteering on an informal,
unpaid basis for
the Trump Campaign after Ed Cox, a state Republican Party official,
introduced Page to Trump Campaign officials. Page told the Office
that his goal in working on the Campaign was to help candidate Trump
improve relations with Russia. To that end, Page emailed Campaign
officials offering his thoughts on U.S.-Russia relations, prepared
talking points and briefing memos on Russia, and proposed that
candidate Trump meet with President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
Page: Cooperated with US intel.
“In
communications with Campaign officials, Page also repeatedly touted
his high-level contacts in Russia and his ability to forge
connections between candidate Trump and senior Russian governmental
officials. For example, on January 30, 2016, Page sent an email to
senior Campaign officials stating that he had “spent the past week
in Europe and had been in discussions with some individuals with
close ties to the Kremlin” who recognized that Trump could have a
“game-changing effect . .. in bringing the end of the new Cold War.
The email stated that ” [t]hrough [his] discussions with these high
level contacts,” Page believed that “a direct meeting in Moscow
between Mr. Trump and Putin could be arranged.”
The
Mueller presentation portrays Carter Page in a nefarious, negative
light. His contacts with Russia are characterized as inappropriate
and unjustified. Longstanding business experience in a particular
country is not proof of wrong doing. No consideration is given at all
to Page’s legitimate concerns raising about the dismal state of
U.S./Russia relations following the U.S. backed coup in the Ukraine
and the subsequent annexation of Crimea by Russia.
Page’s
association with the Trump campaign was quite brief—he lasted seven
months, being removed as a foreign policy advisor on Sept. 24. Page
was not identified publicly as a Trump foreign policy advisor until
March of 2016, but the evidence presented in the Mueller report
clearly indicates that Page was already a target of intelligence
agencies, in the U.S. and abroad, long before the FISA warrant of
Oct. 2016.
While
serving on the foreign policy team Page continued his business and
social contacts in Russia, but was never tasked by the Trump team to
pursue or promote contacts with Putin and his team. In fact, Page’s
proposals, suggestions and recommendations were either ignored or
directly rebuffed.
The
timeline reported in the Mueller report regarding Page’s trip to
Russia in early July raises questions about the intel collected on
that trip and the so-called “intel” revealed in the Steele
Dossier with respect to Page. Carter admits to meeting with
individuals, such as Dmitry Peskov and Igor Sechin, who appear in the
Steele Dossier. Page’s meetings in Moscow turned out to be
innocuous and uneventful. Nothing he did resembled clandestine
activity. Yet, the Steele report on that visit suggested just the
opposite and used the tactic of guilt by association to imply that
Page was up to something dirty.
The
bottomline for Mueller is that Page did not do anything wrong and no
one in the Trump Campaign embraced his proposals for closer ties with
Russia.
DMITRI
SIMES
The
targeting and investigation of Dmitri Simes is disgusting and an
abuse of law enforcement authority. Full disclosure. I know Dmitri.
For awhile, in the 2002-2003 time period, I was a regular participant
at Nixon Center events. For example, I was at a round table in
December 2002 on the imminent invasion of Iraq. Colonel Pat Lang sat
on one side of me and Ambassador Joe Wilson on the other. Directly
across the table was Charles Krauthammer. Dmitri ran an honest
seminar.
Dmitri Simes
The
entire section on Dmitri Simes, under other circumstances, could be
viewed as something bizarre and amusing. But the mere idea that Simes
was somehow an agent of Putin and a vehicle for helping Trump work
with the Russians to steal the 2016 election is crazy and idiotic.
Those in the FBI who were so stupid as to buy into this nonsense
should have their badges and guns taken away. They are too dumb to
work in law enforcement.
Dmitri’s
only sin was to speak calmly, intelligently and rationally about
foreign policy dealings with Russia. We now know that in this new
hysteria of the 21st Century Russian scare that qualities such as
reason and rationality are proof of one’s willingness to act as a
puppet of Vladimir Putin.
TRUMP
TOWER MEETING (JUNE 9, 2016)
This
is the clearest example of a plant designed to entrap the Trump team.
Mueller, once again, presents a very disingenuous account:
“On
June 9, 2016, senior representatives of the Trump Campaign met in
Trump Tower with a Russian attorney expecting to receive derogatory
information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. The
meeting was proposed to Donald Trump Jr. in an email from Robert
Goldstone, at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son
of Russian real-estate developer Aras Agalarov. Goldstone relayed to
Trump Jr. that the “Crown prosecutor of Russia … offered to
provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and
information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with
Russia” as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr.
Trump.” Trump Jr. immediately responded that “if it’s what you
say I love it,” and arranged the meeting through a series of emails
and telephone calls.” …
The
Russian attorney who spoke at the meeting, Natalia Veselnitskaya, had
previously worked for the Russian government and maintained a
relationship with that government throughout this period oftime. She
claimed that funds derived from illegal activities in Russia were
provided to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. Trump Jr. requested
evidence to support those claims, but Veselnitskaya did not provide
such information.”
Natalia Veselnitskaya (Wikimedia)
Ignore
for a moment that no information on Hillary was passed or provided
(and doing such a thing is not illegal). The real problem is with
what Mueller does not say and did not investigate. Mueller
conveniently declines to mention the fact that Veselnitskaya was
working closely with the firm Hillary Clinton hired to produce the
Steele Dossier. NBC News reported on Veselnitskaya:
“The
information that a Russian lawyer brought with her when she met
Donald Trump Jr. in June 2016 stemmed from research conducted by
Fusion GPS, the same firm that compiled the infamous Trump dossier,
according to the lawyer and a source familiar with the matter.
In
an interview with NBC News, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
says she
first received the supposedly incriminating information she brought
to Trump Tower — describing alleged tax evasion and donations to
Democrats — from Glenn Simpson,
the Fusion GPS owner, who had been hired to conduct research in a New
York federal court case.”
Even
a mediocre investigator would recognize the problem of the
relationship between the lawyer claiming to have dirty, damning info
on Hillary with the firm Hillary hired to dig up dirt on Donald
Trump. This was another botched set up and the Trump folks did not
take the bait.
EVENTS
AT THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION
This
portion of the Mueller report is a complete farce. Foreign
ambassdors, including the Russian (and the Chinese) attend Republican
and Democrat Conventions. Presidential candidates and their advisors
speak to those ambassadors. So, where is the beef? Answer. There
isn’t any. That this “event” was considered something worthy of
a counter intelligence investigation is just one more piece of
evidence that law enforcement and intelligence were weaponized
against the Trump campaign.
POST-CONVENTION
CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR KISLYAK
Ditto.
As noted in the previous paragraph, trying to criminalize normal
diplomatic contacts, especially with a country where we share
important, vital national security interests, is but further evidence
of the crazy anti-Russian hysteria that has infected the
anti-Trumpers. Pathetic.
MANAFORT
If
Paul Manafort had rebuffed Trump’s offer to run his campaign, he
would be walking free today and still buying expensive suits and
evading taxes along with his Clinton buddy, Greg Craig. Instead, he
became another target for DOJ, the intel community and the DNC, which
were desperate to portray Trump as a tool of the Kremlin. Thanks to
John Solomon of The
Hill,
we now know the impetus to targetManafort
came from the DNC:
Manafort at 2016 RNC Convention. (Wikimedia Commons)
The
boomerang from the Democratic Party’s failed attempt to
connect Donald
Trump to
Russia’s 2016 election meddling is picking up speed, and its flight
path crosses right through Moscow’s pesky neighbor, Ukraine. That
is where there is growing evidence a foreign power was asked, and in
some cases tried, to help Hillary
Clinton.
In
its most detailed account yet, Ukraine’s embassy in Washington says
a Democratic National Committee insider during the 2016
election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and
even tried to enlist the country’s president to help.
In
written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly’s office
says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the
Ukrainian government on Paul
Manafort’s dealings
inside the country, in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.
Manafort
was not colluding, but the Clinton campaign and the Obama
Administration most certainly were.
Take
these eight events as a whole a very clear picture emerges—U.S. and
foreign intelligence (especially the UK) and U.S. law enforcement
collaborated in a broad effort to bait the Trump team with ostensible
Russian entreaties in order to paint Trump as a tool of the Kremlin.
That effort is now being exposed and those culpable will hopefully
face justice. This should sicken and alarm every American regardless
of political party. Will justice be served?
Larry
C. Johnson is a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at
the State Department. This article first
appeared on Sic
Semper Tyrannis.
Big
Brother, ofwel deepstate, inclusief media en politiek, zorgt ervoor
dat de burgers in de VS nog het meest begaan zijn met de invasies van
de VS elders, illegale invasies, het begin van de illegale oorlogen die de VS voert tegen landen waar het niets, maar dan ook helemaal niets te
zoeken heeft.
De
enorme berg leugens die de VS al heeft gebruikt om haar
grootschalige terreur te legitimeren, wordt er als het ware door de
reguliere massamedia ingestampt bij de bevolking….. Het gaat
intussen al zover dat er een ‘feitenchecker’* is ingesteld, te weten
Politifact, dat is een platform waar veel VS burgers ‘hun licht opsteken’ over het
gaande nieuws. Wat die burgers niet weten is dat die ‘feitenchecker’ in feite is geïnstalleerd om de leugens in de reguliere media, van meer
gewicht te voorzien, zodat iedereen die leugens gelooft en blijft geloven……
Voor
alle leugens over de illegale VS oorlogen die de reguliere media
brachten over Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië, heeft bij mijn weten niet één
mediaorgaan een rectificatie gemaakt, alsof het de normaalste zaak is
te blijven liegen en dat over oorlogen waarin alleen deze eeuw al 2,5 miljoen mensen werden vermoord…… Het is dan ook niet vreemd dat miljoenen in
de VS en de EU nog steeds geloven dat Saddam Hoessein
massavernietigingswapens had, terwijl dat aantoonbaar niet zo
was…..
Het smerige is dat met een beetje ‘geluk’ deze leugens in de
geschiedenisboeken worden opgenomen, waar al een fiks aantal leugens is te vinden (neem bijvoorbeeld nogmaals de leugens over de
aanvallen van de VS en haar oorlogshond de NAVO op Afghanistan, Irak,
Libië en Syrië….)
Eric
Zuesse heeft een artikel over o.a. het voorgaande geplaatst op Strategic
Culture Foundation, waarin hij uitgebreid op deze zaak ingaat. De VS
als politieagent van de wereld, i.p.v. de werkelijkheid waarin de VS
de grootste terreurentiteit op onze kleine aarde is en waar deze
vereniging van terreurstaten sinds WOII al meer dan 22,5 miljoen
mensen heeft vermoord………
Voorts
wijst Zuesse op de VN, een orgaan dat VS president Roosevelt
(overigens ook een oorlogsmisdadiger) graag installeerde, waar hij
dit orgaan zag als een toekomstige onafhankelijke wereldmacht en niet
een door een staat als de VS geleid orgaan, dat overal waar het haar
uitkomt een oorlog begint en waar een niet volgzame houding t.o.v. de VS al voldoende is,
om als land in de gevarenzone te komen………
Niet
voor niets ook dat Zuesse Oekraïne aanhaalt en de enorme leugens die
daarover al zijn geventileerd, waar het zeker is dat de VS ingreep
met een door de CIA georganiseerde opstand (op initiatief van Hillary Clinton, destijds minister van BuZa in de VS), die moest eindigen in de
coup tegen de democratisch gekozen regering Janoekovytsj, alleen
omdat deze regering vriendschappelijke banden had met Rusland…….. (de kosten voor deze operaties in Oekraïne hebben de VS belastingbetalers maar liefst 4 miljard dollar gekost…..) Voorts kon daarmee de gaslevering van Rusland aan West-Europa worden
getorpedeerd, zodat dit deel van Europa haar gas in de VS zou gaan
kopen……..
Vandaar ook dat de achterlijke boerenlul
Hoekstra, VS ambassadeur in Nederland en kopstukken in de VS (waaronder Trump) een grote bek hebben tegen de EU over het door laten gaan van Nord
Stream 2 (NS2), waarmee Russisch gas via een pijpleiding door de
Oostzee richting Duitsland zal worden vervoerd…… Er gaan zelfs
stemmen op in de VS om de EU en dan m.n. Duitsland daarvoor te straffen…….
Pete Hoekstra, VS ambassadeur in Nederland, met zijn typische ‘intelligente blik’
Dan dien ik nog op te merken, dat de titel de lading niet dekt,, immers ook wij worden dagelijks voorgelogen en dat over dezelfde grootschalige westerse terreur in gebieden als het Midden-Oosten, dit o.l.v. de VS, terreur die door de reguliere media, ook in ons land, wordt voorgesteld alsof we daar liefdewerk doen…….
Zuesse merkt verder op dat het militair-industrieel complex oorlogen nodig heeft (oké, een open deur), ofwel de VS heeft vijanden nodig zodat de winsten van de wapenindustrie, inclusief die voor rollend, varend en vliegend oorlogstuig, kunnen blijven groeien……. Uiteraard is het dan nodig dat het volk achter deze illegale oorlogen van de VS staat en daar ligt ‘een mooie taak’ voor de ‘onafhankelijke’ reguliere massamedia, die hun werk uitermate grondig doen: het hersenspoelen van de VS burgers en hen opzetten tegen de ‘vijanden’ van de VS, die zogenaamd een gevaar vormen voor de staatsveiligheid van de VS…….. (of men stelt gewoon dat een bepaald land zoals eerder Irak [en Noord-Korea] de wil en de middelen heeft om de VS direct aan te vallen; te belachelijk voor woorden, zoals je begrijpt)
Lees het
artikel van Zuesse en geeft het door, tijd dat men ontwaakt uit de
consucoma en de hersenspoelstand van de reguliere media!
How
Big Brother Grips Americans’ Minds to Support Invasions
On
November 29th, Gallup headlined “Democrats
Lead Surge in Belief U.S. Should Be World Leader” and
reported that “Three-fourths (75%) of Americans today think the
United States has ‘a special responsibility to be the leading
nation in world affairs,’ up from 66% in 2010. The surge is driven
by Democrats, whose belief in this idea has increased from 61% eight
years ago to 81% now.” This finding comes even after the lie-based
and catastrophic U.S. invasions of Iraq in 2003, and of Libya in 2011
(and of so many others, such as Afghanistan, where the U.S. and
Sauds created
the Taliban in 1979).
Americans — now even increasingly — want ‘their’ (which
is actually
America’s billionaires’)
Government to be virtually the world’s government, policing the
world. They want this nation’s Government to be determining what
international laws will be enforced around the world, and to be
enforcing them. Most Americans don’t want the United Nations to
have power over the U.S. (its billionaires’)
Government, but instead want the U.S. Government (its billionaires)
to have power over the United Nations (which didn’t authorize any
of those evil, lie-based, U.S. invasions).
Not
only would doing this bankrupt all constructive domestic functions
(health, education, infrastructure, etc.) of the U.S. federal
Government, but it would also increase the global carnage, as if the
U.S. Government hasn’t already been doing enough of that, for
decades now.
The
leadership for this supremacist craving comes straight from America’s
top, not from the masses that are being sampled by the Gallup
organization, who only reflect it — they are duped by their
leaders. Here is how U.S. President Barack Obama (a Nobel Peace Prize
winner in 2009, for nothing
at all but
his ‘kindly’
but insincere verbiage when
he had been a candidate) stated this widespread delusional American
belief in American global moral supremacy, when addressing the
graduating class at West Point Military Academy, on 28 May 2014:
The
United States is and remains the one indispensable
nation. [Every
other nation is therefore ‘dispensable’; we therefore now have
“Amerika, Amerika über alles, über alles in der Welt”.] That
has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the
century to come. … America must always lead on the world stage.
This
had certainly not been the objective of U.S. President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he set up the U.N. just before his
death in 1945; he instead wanted the U.N. to evolve into a democratic
government of the world, with elected representatives of each and
every one of the world’s governments — to evolve into
becoming the
global international republic —
regardless of whether or not the U.S. Government approves or
disapproves of another nation’s government. The idea on which the
U.N. was founded was not to involve the U.S. Government in the
internal affairs of other nations, not to be the judge jury and
executioner of other governments that it doesn’t like, nor to
dictate what other nations should or should not do within the given
nation’s boundaries. FDR intended that there instead be
democratically represented, at the U.N., each and every nation, and
each and every people within that global government, where each of
these national governments is (hopefully but not necessarily) a
democracy. FDR
was just as opposed to dictatorship internationally, as he was
opposed to dictatorship nationally,
and he recognized that inevitably some governments will disapprove of
other governments, but he was deeply committed to the view that a
need exists for laws and law-enforcement between nations,
on an international level, and not only within the
individual nations, and that each nation is sacrosanct on its own
internal laws. He respected national sovereignty, and opposed
international empire. (This was his basic disagreement with Winston
Churchill, then, and with American leaders such as Obama and Trump
now.) Unlike President Obama (and evidently unlike the vast majority
of today’s Americans) FDR didn’t want this international
government to be an American function, but instead an entirely
separate international governmental function, in which there is no
international dictatorship whatsoever — not American, and not by
any other country. He knew that this
is the only stable basis for international peace, and for avoiding a
world-annihilating World War III.
Barack
Obama rejected FDR’s vision, and advocated for the United
States as being (and even as if it already had been for a century)
virtually the government over the entire world, which “must always
lead on the world stage.” Adolf Hitler had had that very same
international vision for his own country, Germany, “the
Thousand-Year Reich,” but he lost World War II; and, then, when FDR
died, Hitler’s vision increasingly took over iHoen America, so
that ideologically, FDR
actually lost WW II, when Harry S. Truman took over the White House
and increasingly thereafter, until today, when the
U.S. commits more invasions of foreign countries than do all other
nations in the world combined.
Americans (apparently, as shown in this and other polls) like this,
and want more of it. Nobody
else does. For
example, nobody (except the U.S. and Saudi and Israeli aristocracies
and their supporters worldwide, which are very few people) supports
the U.S. regime’s reinstitution of sanctions against Iran, which
the U.S. regime is imposing as the global dictator. America’s
economic sanctions are like spitting into the face of FDR, who had
opposed such imperialistic fascism in the more overtly military form
when Hitler’s regime was imposing it. It’s also spitting at the
U.N.
This
latest Gallup finding displays an increase, but nothing that’s at
all anomalous as compared to the decades-long reality of
imperialistic U.S. culture. For
decades now, Gallup’s polling has shown that the most respected of
all institutions by the American people is the nation’s military —
more than the church, more than the Presidency, more than the U.S.
Supreme Court, more than the press, more than the schools, more than
anything. America is invasion-nation. This is true even
after the
2003 invasion of Iraq on the basis of blatant
lies,
which destroyed Iraq
— a nation that had never invaded nor even threatened to invade the
United States. The American people are, resolutely, bloodthirsty for
conquest, even after having been fooled into
that evil invasion,
and subsequent decades-long military occupation in Iraq, and
after subsequent conquests
or attempted conquests, in Libya, Syria,
Yemen, and elsewhere — all destroying nations that had never
invaded nor even threatened America. Why? How did this mass-insanity,
of evil, come to be?
The
public simply do not learn. That’s a tragic fact. Largely, this
fact results from reality being hidden by the ‘news’-media; but,
even now, long after the fake ‘news’ in 2002, about the U.S.
regime’s having possessed secret and conclusive evidence of
“Saddam’s WMD,” the published ‘history’ about that invasion
still does not acknowledge the public’s having been lied-to at that
time, by its Government, and by the ‘news’-media. So,
the public live, and culturally swim, in an
ongoing river of lies,
both as its being ‘news’, and subsequently as its having been
‘history’. This is why the public do not learn: they are being
constantly deceived. And they (as Gallup’s polls
prove) tolerate being constantly deceived. The public do not
rebel against it. They don’t reject either the politicians, or the
‘news’-media. They don’t demand that the American public
control the American Government and that America’s billionaires
lose that control — especially over the ‘news’-media.
Honesty
is no longer an operative American value, if it ever was. That’s
how, and why, Big Brother (the operation by the
international-corporate billionaires) grips Americans’ minds to
support foreign Invasions. Americans support liars, and it all comes
from the top; it’s directed from the top. It is bipartisan, from
both Democratic Party billionaires and Republican Party
billionaires. National
politicians will lose their seats if they disobey.
A
good example, of this Big-Brother operation, is America’s
Politifact, the online site which is at America’s crossover where
‘news’ and ‘history’ meet one-another. It’s controlled by
billionaires such
as the
one who founded Craigslist.
Millions of Americans go to Politifact in order to determine what is
true and what is false that is being widely published about current
events. The present writer sometimes links to their articles, where I
have independently verified that there are no misrepresentations in
an article. But, like the ‘news’-media that it judges, Politifact
is also a propaganda-agency for the
(U.S.-Saud-Israeli) Deep State,
and so it deceives on the most critically important international
matters. An example of this occurred right after the
U.S. regime had overthrown in February 2014 in a bloody coup the
democratically elected Government of Ukraine, and replaced it by a
rabidly anti-Russian racist fascist or nazi Government on Russia’s
doorstep, a regime that was selected by the rabidly anti-Russian (but
lying that it wasn’t) Obama regime.
This Politifact article was dated 31 March 2014, right after over 90%
of Crimeans had just voted in a referendum, to rejoin Russia, and to
depart from Ukraine, which the Soviet dictator had transferred them
to, separating them from Russia, in 1954. (None of that history of
the matter was even mentioned by Politifact.) The Politifact article
was titled “Viral
meme says United States has ‘invaded’ 22 countries in the past 20
years”,
and it was designed to deceive readers into believing that “Russia’s
recent annexation of Crimea” reflected the real instance of
“invasion” that Americans should be outraged against — to
deflect away from America’s recent history as being the world’s
actual invasion-nation. This propaganda-article said nothing at all
about either Crimea or Ukraine except in its opening line: “A
Facebook meme argues that Americans are pretty two-faced when it
comes to Russia’s recent annexation of Crimea.” It then proceeded
to document that the exact number of American invasions during the
prior 20 years wasn’t 22, and so Politifact declared the allegation
“false” (as if the exact number were really the entire issue or
even the main one, and as if America’s scandalous recent history of
invasions were not).
So,
it’s on account of such drowning-in-propaganda, that the U.S.
public not only respect what U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower
derogatorily called the “military-industrial complex,” but
respect it above even the U.S. Presidency itself, and above all other
U.S. institutions (as Gallup’s constant polling demonstrates to be
the case).
Here’s
the reality: The same group of no more than a thousand super-wealthy
Americans control both the United States Government and the
weapons-manufacturing firms (such as Lockheed Martin), which are
the only
corporations whose only customers are the U.S. Government and its
chosen allied governments.
So, these few people actually control the U.S. Government’s foreign
relations, and foreign policies. They create and control their own
markets. This is the most politically active group of America’s
super-rich, because they own America’s international corporations
and because their business as owners of the military ones is military
policy and also diplomatic policy, including the conjoining of both
of those at the CIA and NSA, including the many coups that they (via
their Government) engineer. They also control
all of the nation’s major news-media, which report international
affairs in such a manner as to determine which foreign governments
will be perceived by the mass of Americans to constitute the nation’s
‘enemies’ and therefore to be suitable targets for the U.S.
military and CIA to invade and conquer or otherwise “regime-change” —
such as have been the lands of North Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Venezuela, etc., at various
times. The
weapons-manufacturers won’t have any markets, at all, if there are
no ‘enemy’ nations that are deemed by the public to be suitable
targets for their weapons. ‘Enemy’
nations, and not only ‘allies’ (or ‘allied’ nations), are
necessary, in order for the military business to produce the most
profits. Overwhelmingly, if not totally, the chosen ‘enemies’ are
nations that have never
invaded nor even threatened to invade the United States;
and, so, in order to keep this Government-funded business (the
war-profiteering and associated international natural-resources
extractions businesses)
growing and thriving, what’s essential is continuing control over
the nation’s ‘news’-media. As Walter Lippmann wrote in
1921, “the
manufacture of consent” is
an essential part of this entire operation. It happens via the media.
Even Germany’s Nazis needed to do that. Any modern capitalist
dictatorship (otherwise called “fascism”) does. The U.S. regime,
being a capitalist dictatorship, certainly does. Physically, Hitler
lost, but his ideology won, he won even as nazism (racist fascism)
instead of merely as fascism, and this racism is shown because the
U.S. regime is rabidly racist anti-Russian (not
merely anti-communist),
and has been so for at least a century. (Maybe it’s what Obama
actually had secretly in mind when he said “That has been true for
the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.”
And Trump is no less a liar than Obama, and he continues this aim of
ultimately conquering Russia.) They say they’re only against
Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin, but Putin shows in all polls of
Russians, even in non-Russian polls, to be far more favorably viewed
by Russians than either Barack Obama or Donald Trump are viewed by
Americans. This is why regime-change-in-Russia is increasingly
becoming dominated by U.S. economic sanctions and military, and less
dominated by CIA and other coup-organizers. The actual dictatorship
is in America, and it requires participation by its
‘news’-media. Demonizing
‘the enemy’ is
therefore crucial. It is crucial preparation for any invasion.
The
United States Government spends at
least as much money on its military as do all of the other
governments in the world combined. Its
‘news’-media (that is to say, the media that are owned by, and
that are advertised in by, the corporations that are controlled by,
the same small group of billionaires — America’s billionaires —
who fund the political campaigns of both the Democratic Party’s and
the Republican Party’s nominees for the U.S. Congress and the
Presidency) may be partisan for one or the other of the nation’s
two political Parties, but they all are unitedly partisan for the
international corporations, such as Lockheed Martin, that America’s
billionaires control, and that sell only to the U.S. Government and
to the foreign governments that are allied with the U.S. Government.
They also are partisan for the U.S.-based oil and gas and mining
international corporations, which need to extract at the lowest costs
possible, no matter how much the given extractee-nation’s public
might suffer from the deal. “Three-fourths (75%) of Americans today
think the United States has ‘a special responsibility to be the
leading nation in world affairs,’” and the actual beneficiaries
of this mass-insanity are the owners of those U.S.-based
international corporations, the military and extraction giants.
Anthony
Cordesman, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
headlined on 15 August 2016, “U.S.
Wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen: What Are The Endstates?” and
he said, “Once again, the United States does not seem to be
learning from its past. The real test of victory is never tactical
success or even ending a war on favorable military terms, it is what
comes next.” But he ignored the main reason why these invasions had
occurred. America’s weapons-manufacturers won’t have any markets,
at all, if there are no ‘enemy’ nations that are deemed by the
American public to be suitable targets for their weapons. Cordesman
is there calculating success and failure on the basis of the myths
(such as that the U.S. Government cares about those “Endstates”),
not of the realities (that it craves targets). The realities focus
upon the desires of the owners and executives of the
weapons-manufacturers and the extraction-firms, for ongoing and
increased profits and executive bonuses, and not on the
needs of America’s soldiers nor on the national security of the
American people. Least of all, do they focus upon the needs — such
as the welfare, freedom, or democracy — of the Iraqi people, or of
the Syrian people, or of the Libyan people, or of the Yemenite
people. It’s all just lies, PR. Those invasions served their actual
main functions when they were occurring. “The Endstates” there
are almost irrelevant to those real purposes, the purposes
for which the invasions were, and are, actually being done.
A
task force of senior former U.S. diplomatic and military officials
has come up with suggestions for how Trump could prevent Iran from
taking over what’s left of liberated Syria and fulfill his own
promise to contain Iranian influence in the region.
“Most
urgently… the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran’s
pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime in Syria,” the
report by
the Jewish Institute for National Security of America states. “Time
is of the essence.”
The
underlying presumption there was that the U.S. regime has legitimate
authorization to be occupying the parts of Syria it has invaded and
now occupies, and that Iran does not. But the reality is that the
U.S. regime is occupying Syria instead of assisting Syria’s
Government to defeat the U.S.-Saud-Israeli invasion to overthrow and
replace Syria’s Government, by stooges
who will be selected by the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia,
and the reality is that Iran’s forces there are invitees who are
instead assisting Syria’s Government against the
Saudi-Israeli-American invasion. In other words: this WP article
is basically all lies. Furthermore, the Jewish Institute for National
Security of America is a
front-organization for
the fascist
regime that rules Israel,
and the WP hid that fact, too, so its cited ‘expert’
was a mere PR agency for Israel’s aristocracy. So, this is
Deep-State propaganda, parading as ‘news’.
Americans
actually pay their private good money to subscribe to (subsidize)
such bad public ‘news’papers as that. The billionaire who happens
to own that particular ‘news’paper (the WP), Jeff Bezos, had
founded and leads Amazon, which receives almost all of its profits
from Amazon Web Services (AWS), the cloud-computing division, which
supplies the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department, CIA, and NSA. For
example, “without
AWS and Prime, Amazon lost $2 billion in the 1st quarter of FY18. …
These losses come from Amazon’s retail business. About 60% of
Amazon’s revenue comes from retail and that’s where Amazon is
losing money.” Amazon is profitable because of what it sells mainly
to the Government, but also to other large U.S. international
corporations, and they all want to conquer Syria. None opposes that
evil goal. Although Bezos doesn’t like the Sauds, he has actually
been (at least until the Khashoggi matter) one of their main U.S.
media champions for the Sauds to take over Syria. It’s all just a
fool-the-public game. It works, it succeeds, and that’s what
Gallup’s polls are demonstrating. The public never learns. It’s a
fact, which has been proven in many different ways.
This
reality extends also to other nations, allies of the U.S.
aristocracy, and not only to the U.S. regime itself. For example, on
27 November 2018, a whistleblowing former UK Ambassador, Craig
Murray, who is a personal friend of Julian Assange, headlined“Assange
Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish
Still More Blatant MI6 Lies”,
and he proved that Britain’s Guardian had
lied with total, and totally undocumented (and probably even totally
non-credible), fabrications, alleging that Julian Assange of
WikiLeaks had secretly met (in 2013, 2015, and 2016) with Paul
Manafort of the Trump campaign. The UK, of course, is a vassal-nation
of the U.S. aristocracy, and the Guardian is
run by Democratic Party propagandists (paid indirectly by Democratic
Party and conservative Tony-Blair-wing Labour Party billionaires)
and therefore fabricates in order to assist those Parties’ efforts
to impeach Trump and to dislodge Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour
Party’s leadership. However, each of America’s two political
parties (like the UK’s aristocracy itself) represents America’s
aristocracy, which, like Britain’s aristocracy, is united in
its determination
to eliminate Assange —
they are as determined to do that to him, just as Saudi Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud was determined to eliminate Jamal
Khashoggi. ‘Democracy’? This? It is Big Brother.
Only
if the population boycott lying individuals and organizations, is
democracy even possible to exist in a nation. Democracy can’t
possibly exist more than truth does. In political matters, deceit is
always treachery; and its practitioners, whenever the evidence for it
is overwhelming and irrefutable, should experience whatever the
standard penalty is for treachery. Only in a land such as that, can
democracy possibly exist. Elsewhere, it simply can’t.
The only basis for democracy, is truth. Deceit is for
dictators, not for democrats. And deceit reigns, in the U.S. and in
its allied countries. Is this really tolerable? Americans, at least,
tolerate it.
When
Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the far-right Rupert
Murdoch’s Wall
Street Journal editorialized
against Obama on 10 October 2009, by saying that “What
this suggests to us — and to the Norwegians — is the end of what
has been called ‘American exceptionalism’.” Little
did anyone then know that after winning re-election upon the
basis of such war-mongering lies from Obama, as that “America
remains the one indispensable nation”,
Obama in February 2014 would go so far as to perpetrate a bloody coup overthrowing
the democratically elected Government of one “dispensable”
nation, Ukraine; and, then, on 28 May of 2014, Obama would be
telling America’s
future generals,
that “The United States is and remains the one indispensable
nation” and that Obama would, in that speech, explicitly malign
Ukraine’s neighbor Russia. He did it, in this speech, which
implicitly called all
nations except the U.S. “dispensable.”
He had carefully planned and orchestrated Americans’ hostility
toward Russia. His successor, Trump, lied saying that he wanted to
reverse Obama’s policies on this, and Trump promptly, once becoming
elected, increased and expanded those policies. Whatever a
deceitfully war-mongering country like this might be, it’s
certainly no democracy. Because democracy cannot be built upon a
ceaseless string of lies.
* Ik wist niet, dit artikel schrijvend, dat er een organisatie bestaat met de naam ‘Feitenchecker’, waar men kan vinden of (nieuws-) berichten echt zijn of zijn opgemaakt met ‘fake news’ (nepnieuws)……. Je snapt het al, een organisatie die vooral de leugens van de reguliere media als waarheid bestempelt en terecht commentaar op die leugens als ‘fake’ neerzet….. Hier het adres: De Feitenchecker (@DeFeitenchecker) Twitter.
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende twee artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
Caitlin
Johnstone publiceerde gisteren het hieronder opgenomen artikel over een door The Guardian
vorige week geplaatst artikel, daarover schreef Washington Post (WaPo) journalist Pul Farhi een artikel met de titel:“The
Guardian offered a bombshell story about Paul Manafort, It still
hasn’t detonated”. Farhi heeft de aandacht gevestigd op het feit dat The Guardian met het
artikel over Paul Manafort dacht een ‘explosie’ te veroorzaken in de andere media en bij het publiek.
In het artikel van The Guardian wordt beschreven dat Manafort tot drie keer toe in de
Ecuadoraanse ambassade was om te spreken met Julian Assange, één
keer zelfs vergezeld van twee Russen……*
Uit
alles, zoals het gastenboek van de ambassade, wat een ieder die de
Ecuadoraanse ambassade betreedt moet tekenen, is niets terug te
vinden over ook maar één bezoek van Manafort aan de ambassade in
Londen…….. Ook medewerkers van de ambassade ontkennen e.e.a……
Bovendien: sinds Assange zijn toevlucht nam tot de ambassade zijn
buiten die ambassade praktisch altijd journalisten te vinden en ook zij hebben ‘vreemd genoeg’
Manafort nooit gezien, zelfs niet in de buurt van de
ambassade……
De
bedoeling is uiteraard de zoveelste poging om Russiagate te bewijzen,
echter dat zal niet lukken, hoewel je niet op hoeft te kijken, dat
geruchten straks als waarheid worden neergezet, neem alleen al de
illegale oorlog van de VS tegen Irak, waar met leugens een illegale
oorlog werd gestart, die intussen aan meer dan 1,5 miljoen mensen het
leven heeft gekost……..
Intussen
blijft The Guardian stil, op één toevoeging na dan: volgens dit
nieuwsmedium hebben ze zowel Assange als Manafort om commentaar
gevraagd, echter die zouden niet hebben gereageerd….. Conclusie daarvan door de hoofdredacteur van The Guardian, Katherine Viner, is dat het verhaal dus moet kloppen…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Je stuurt een paar mails
naar een account dat niet bekend is bij degene die men wil pakken
(want daar komt het op neer), waarop je geen antwoord krijgt en je
zegt vervolgens dat jouw ronduit anti-Russische, anti-Assange propaganda klopt…… Zowel Assange als Manafort hebben
beiden allang in de pers gezegd dat er geen jota van het verhaal
klopt…….
Trouwens
totaal onbegrijpelijk dat zovelen die zich journalist durven noemen,
nog steeds in het Russiagate sprookje blijven geloven, ik bedoel wat is er
tegen een grondig onderzoek naar de voorliggende feiten??!!! Het is daarom wel duidelijk dat de reguliere westerse (massa-) media al lang niet meer onafhankelijk berichten, maar de leugens herhalen die de huidige status quo moeten bewaren, ofwel berichten wat ‘deep state’ van hen verlangt, al krijgen deze media het steeds moeilijker met het verdedigen van een vals sprookje, zoals uit het bovenstaande al is op te maken………
Lees het volgend artikel van Caitlin Johnstone, die verder en dieper ingaat op deze zaak, een artikel waarin ze vooral de rol van de media belicht (en geeft het door!):
When
even the Washington
Post is
saying your Russiagate article is bad journalism, your Russiagate
article is really, really bad journalism.
In an
article titled
“The Guardian offered a bombshell story about Paul Manafort, It
still hasn’t detonated”, WaPo writer Pul Farhi draws attention to
the fact that it has been a week since the Guardianpublished
a claim that
former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort met repeatedly with
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, without any evidence backing up the
claim, using solely anonymous sources, and despite the claims
contradicting known records of Assange’s guests at the Ecuadorian
embassy. Criticism
and demands for answers have
been growing louder and louder from both friends and enemies of
WikiLeaks, with new
plot holes opening
up in the Guardian‘s
narrative daily,
and the scandal is now moving into mainstream awareness.
And
the Guardian remains
silent, with its editor-in-chief Katharine Viner refusing to utter so
much as a peep of defense this entire time. The only comment the
publication has issued has been repeated day after day verbatim to
every news outlet which writes about this bizarre occurrence: “This
story relied on a number of sources. We put these allegations to both
Paul Manafort and Julian Assange’s representatives prior to
publication. Neither responded to deny the visits taking place. We
have since updated the story to reflect their denials.” Which is
basically just implying that they can print any libelous nonsense
they want about anyone if their denials aren’t sent
to the proper email address on time.
This, clearly, is
bananas.
Do these establishment smear merchants not realize how creepy, desperate and frantic they make themselves look when they crank out these hit pieces on anti-imperialist voices? This one HuffPo editor writes this empire smut all the time and doesn’t even notice how freaky it looks. https://t.co/RQZFKxgsm2
The Huffington
Post has
just published yet
another brazen hit piece on University
of Sheffield professor Piers Robinson. And when I say brazen, I
mean really goddamn
brazen. The entire article consists of nothing but senior HuffPo
editor Chris York meticulously documenting the fact that a university
professor is “heavily critical of western governments and media”
who expresses skepticism of establishment narratives around 9/11,
Syria, and Russia, and suggesting that it is bad and wrong for a
university to employ anyone with dissenting views.
Even for a hit piece the
article feels incredibly forced, ham-fisted and desperate. Reading it
gives you the feeling as if York is leaning way into your personal
space, pressing his face against your ear, and saying “You are
not to believe the things that horrible man says about what is
happening in your world. I will tell you what you are to believe
about those controversial events. Big Brother is your friend. You
love Big Brother.”
Which
would be weird enough even without the fact that York has been
personally targeting Robinson and other anti-imperialist voices with
identical hit pieces over and over and over
again this
year. A senior HuffPo editor has published hit piece after hit piece
after hit piece against a small group of academics and reporters who
have very little influence compared to a mass media outlet, but still
far too much for a virulent empire sentry like York.
And this is just what’s
happening today. For the last two years the mass media machine has
been behaving very, very strangely, and it isn’t getting better, it’s
getting worse. Not since the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq have we
seen mainstream media outlets trying to shove narratives down our
throats so desperately and aggressively, and even then they were
doing it for one very specific purpose.
This
time around things are less clear-cut. I do not subscribe to the
belief that the shift in behavior of the media is due to an
establishment hatred of Trump; despite the rhetoric and the
narratives,
Trump has been protecting
establishment interests just
as reliably as his predecessors, and everyone who knows anything
about Russiagate knows that it
will never lead to the removal of Trump from office.
A much more logical explanation is the need to manufacture support
for the geopolitical agenda of isolating Russia and shoving it off
the world stage to stop it from protecting
China’s rise to superpower status,
and in cold war the use of propaganda becomes
even more important than in hot war.
But I also think there’s more to it than that. I think a large part
of the frantic urgency that we are seeing from the establishment
propaganda machine is nothing other than an attempt to regain control
of the narrative.
In 2016, for the first
time ever, some things didn’t go as scripted for the propagandists
and manipulators who pace the public into going along with plans laid
that they never voted for by people they did not elect. Widespread
internet access, alternative media, WikiLeaks, and discontent with
the status quo converged and danced in such a way with one another in
2016 that a large number of people realized that the talking heads on
their TV screens are lying to them all the time. An unacceptably
large number of people.
Whoever
controls the narrative controls the world. The unelected power
establishment which rules over us depends on narrative control in
order to rule, and if people do not trust the plutocrat-owned talking
heads who are telling them what narratives to believe, there can be
no control. In France we’ve been seeing uncontrollable
protesters from across
the political spectrum writing “We’ve
chopped off heads for less than this” in graffiti
on the Arc de Triomphe,
which you may be certain has widened plutocratic eyes all around the
world.
And
that, I believe, is why the mass media has been behaving so
strangely. For two years they have been reaching and leaning all over
the place trying to regain control of the narrative like a novice ice
skater trying to regain balance, and they are only getting closer to
falling. Which probably makes the present moment the perfect time to
give them a good shove. Spread truth about the mass media’s
deceptions like the Guardian‘s psyop
against WikiLeaks,
wake people up to what they’re trying to accomplish by herding people
into partisan echo chambers, arresting Assange, censoring the
internet, and marginalizing alternative media which provides
dissident narratives.
The
only thing keeping the many from rising
like lions against
the few to create a new world which benefits everyone is the
establishment propaganda machine, and right now it is wildly off
balance. Shove hard, and don’t stop shoving until it falls.
Arc
de Triomphe still covered in graffiti this morning: ‘We’ve
chopped off heads for less than this’ , ‘Topple the Bourgeoisie’
, ‘May 1968 December 2018’
Thanks
for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make
sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list
for mywebsite,
which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My
articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me onFacebook,
following my antics onTwitter, throwing
some money into my hat on Patreon orPaypal, buying
my new book Rogue
Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone,
or my previous book Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende twee artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
Onlangs
kwam The Guardian met het verhaal dat Paul Manafort contact zou
hebben gehad met Julian Assange in de Ecuadoraanse ambassade in
Londen. Een verhaal dat als onzin werd doorgeprikt met aantoonbare
leugens in The Guardian. Zelfs reguliere mediaorganen twijfelden aan
het artikel.
Blijkbaar
vond The Guardian het gebrachte artikel daarna zelf ook dubieus, daar
men de tekst heeft aangepast, zonder daar echter melding van te
maken. In de aangepaste tekst wordt nu gesproken over anonieme, niet
te controleren bronnen……. De schrijver van het Guardian
propagandistische artikel, Luke Harding, stelde in het artikel dat
Manafort meermaals werd gezien in de Ecuadoraanse ambassade en dat
één keer ‘zelfs met 2 Russen….’
Met het
Guardian artikel toonde Harding zogenaamd aan dat Assange contacten
had met de Russen en dat die na het hacken van de DNC server, de emails van Hillary Clinton zouden
hebben doen toekomen aan WikiLeaks, ofwel één van ‘de
smoking guns’ in het Russiagate sprookje….. Kortom de Russen en
Assange zouden hebben samengespannen om Clinton haar presidentschap
door de neus te boren…..
Uiteraard
gebruiken ook de democraten in de VS het fantasie verhaal van Harding om te
stellen dat Assange en Rusland de presidentsverkiezingen van hen
hebben gestolen, terwijl echte deskundigen en ingewijden uitvoerig
stellen, dat de emails werden gelekt vanuit het campagneteam van
Clinton, waar de naam Seth Rich telkens weer opduikt……
Seth Rich
was medewerker van het campagneteam, hij was zwaar gefrustreerd over
de smerige spelletjes van Clinton en de top van haar campagneteam, om de voorverkiezing in 2016 van Bernie Sanders te stelen…….. Sanders was
de tweede belangrijke democratische kandidaat voor het presidentschap
in de VS. Zelfs Obama gaf toe dat e.e.a door het campagneteam werd gelekt naar WikiLeaks….*
Rich
werd vermoord, kort nadat de mails waren gelekt naar WikiLeaks, volgens de politie ging het om een roofmoord, waarbij Rich vreemd genoeg niet werd beroofd
en zelfs dure sieraden niet werden gestolen…….. De poging om Sanders buiten
spel te zetten is gelukt, zoals we al en paar jaar weten.
Manafort
heeft ontkent dat hij zelfs maar één keer met Assange heeft
gesproken en Assange heeft The Guardian gedreigd met een proces
wegens laster…… De bedoeling in het hele Russiagate verhaal is
dan ook Assange als spion neer te zetten, ofwel hij heeft geen recht op bescherming zoals dit het geval zou moeten zijn met (onderzoeks-) journalisten, waarbij WikiLeaks wordt weggezet als een staatsvijandig
vehikel van de Russen…… Waarmee de democraten dan de schuld van het
verlies van de verkiezingen in de schoenen schuiven van WikiLeaks,
haar oprichter Assange en uiteraard de Russen…..**
Met
artikelen als die van Harding in The Guardian moet de publieke opinie
voorbereid worden op het uit de Ecuadoraanse ambassade zetten van
Assange en de arrestatie van deze journalist, die zich met niets anders dan
zijn werk bezighield, dit in sterke tegenstelling tot het overgrote deel van de
journalisten, die voor de reguliere westerse (massa-) media
werken…….
Deze
media hebben i.p.v. Assange te steunen, een taak van onafhankelijke mediaorganen en hun journalisten, hem zwart gemaakt in de publieke opinie,
waarbij zelfs werd gesteld dat Assange alleen de Ecuadoraanse
ambassade in vluchtte, om publiciteit te genereren…. Gelukkig voor
Assange werd ook die belachelijke claim doorgeprikt, toen per
ongeluk stukken werden gepubliceerd waaruit bleek dat de VS een
aanklacht heeft opgesteld voor Assange en op grond waarvan Assange
een lange gevangenisstraf te wachten staat…….
The
Guardian ging zelfs zover dat het een VN panel met experts
belachelijk probeerde te maken, die stelden dat het totaal
onwettelijk was dat Assange niet zonder gearresteerd te worden de
ambassade zou kunnen verlaten…..
De
schrijver van het artikel hieronder, Jonathan Cook, haalt ook Glenn
Greenwald aan, waar het om de claim gaat dat Manafort Assange zou
hebben bezocht. Deze stelt dat het onmogelijk is om ongezien de
Ecuadoraanse ambassade binnen te komen, daar Londen propvol camera’s
hangt en de Ecuadoraanse ambassade, sinds Assange daar binnen
vluchtte, van alle kanten in de gaten werd en wordt gehouden, niet alleen
door camera’s, de politie, maar ook door journalisten……
Als
Manafort inderdaad in de ambassade zou zijn geweest, volgens The
Guardian 3 keer, in 2013, 2015 en 2016, zouden daar zeker bewijzen
voor zijn…….
Intussen is The Guardian gekomen met een volgens deze fake news brenger nog betere fundering van de (ongefundeerde) beschuldigingen aan het adres van Assange (en WikiLeaks) en zijn zogenaamde verbintenis met Rusland, ook nu weer geen enkel bewijs……. Assange zal en moet hangen en in dit geval door een mediaorgaan dat stelt onafhankelijk te zijn en haar berichtgeving dubbel zou checken….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Lees het
artikel van Cook, eerder gepubliceerd op Creative Commons en door mij
overgenomen van Anti-Media, waarin Cook verder nog aandacht besteedt aan het nep-journalistenforum Bellincat (daaronder nog een kort artikel en video van een interview van Aby Martin met Randy Credico aangaande de zaak Assange):
The
Guardian Continues to Escalate Its Vilification of Julian Assange
The
Guardian did not make a mistake in vilifying Assange without a shred
of evidence. It did what it is designed to do.***
(CD) — It
is welcome that finally there has been a little pushback, including
from leading journalists, to the Guardian’s long-running
vilification of Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks.
Reporter
Luke Harding’s latest article, claiming that
Donald Trump’s disgraced former campaign manager Paul Manafort
secretly visited Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London on three
occasions, is so full of holes that even hardened opponents of
Assange in the corporate media are struggling to stand by it.
Faced
with the backlash, the Guardian quickly – and very quietly – rowed
back its
initial certainty that its story was based on verified facts.
Instead, it amended the text, without acknowledging it had done so,
to attribute the claims to unnamed, and uncheckable, “sources”.
The
propaganda function of the piece is patent. It is intended to provide
evidence for long-standing allegations that Assange conspired with
Trump, and Trump’s supposed backers in the Kremlin, to damage
Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race.
The
Guardian’s latest story provides a supposedly stronger foundation
for an existing narrative: that Assange and Wikileaks knowingly
published emails hacked by Russia from the Democratic party’s
servers. In truth, there is no
public evidence that
the emails were hacked, or that Russia was involved. Central actors
have suggested instead that the emails were leaked from within the
Democratic party.
Nonetheless,
this unverified allegation has been aggressively exploited by the
Democratic leadership because it shifts attention away both from its
failure to mount an effective electoral challenge to Trump and from
the damaging contents of the emails. These show that party
bureaucrats sought to rig
the primaries to
make sure Clinton’s challenger for the Democratic nomination,
Bernie Sanders, lost.
To
underscore the intended effect of the Guardian’s new claims,
Harding even throws in a casual and unsubstantiated reference to
“Russians” joining Manafort in supposedly meeting Assange.
Manafort
has denied the
Guardian’s claims, while Assange has threatened to sue the
Guardian for libel.
‘Responsible
for Trump’
The
emotional impact of the Guardian story is to suggest that Assange is
responsible for four years or more of Trump rule. But more
significantly, it bolsters the otherwise risible
claim that
Assange is not a publisher – and thereby entitled to the
protections of a free press, as enjoyed by the Guardian or the New
York Times – but the head of an organisation engaged in espionage
for a foreign power.
The
intention is to deeply discredit Assange, and by extension the
Wikileaks organisation, in the eyes of right-thinking liberals. That,
in turn, will make it much easier to silence Assange and the vital
cause he represents: the use of new media to hold to account the old,
corporate media and political elites through the imposition of far
greater transparency.
The
Guardian story will prepare public opinion for the moment when
Ecuador’s rightwing government under President Lenin Moreno forces
Assange out of the embassy, having already withdrawn most of his
rights to use digital media.
It
will soften opposition when the UK moves to arrest Assange
on self-serving
bail violation charges and
extradites him to the US. And it will pave the way for the US legal
system to lock Assange up for a very long time.
For
the best part of a decade, any claims by Assange’s supporters that
avoiding this fate was the reason Assange originally sought asylum in
the embassy was ridiculed by corporate journalists, not least at the
Guardian.
Even
when a United Nations panel of experts in international law ruled in
2016 that Assange was being arbitrarily – and unlawfully –
detained by the UK, Guardian writers led efforts to discredit the UN
report. See here and here.
Now
Assange and his supporters have been proved right once again. An
administrative error this month revealed that the US justice
department had secretly
filed criminal charges against
Assange.
Heavy
surveillance
The
problem for the Guardian, which should have been obvious to its
editors from the outset, is that any visits by Manafort would be
easily verifiable without relying on unnamed “sources”.
Glenn
Greenwald is far from alone in noting that
London is possibly the most surveilled city in the world, with CCTV
cameras everywhere. The environs of the Ecuadorian embassy are
monitored especially heavily, with continuous filming by the UK and
Ecuadorian authorities and most likely by the US and other actors
with an interest in Assange’s fate.
The
idea that Manafort or “Russians” could have wandered into the
embassy to meet Assange even once without their trail, entry and
meeting being intimately scrutinised and recorded is simply
preposterous.
According
to Greenwald: “If Paul Manafort … visited Assange at the Embassy,
there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof
demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of
that.”
Former
British ambassador Craig Murray also points
out the
extensive security checks insisted on by the embassy to which any
visitor to Assange must submit. Any visits by Manafort would have
been logged.
In
fact, the Guardian obtained the
embassy’s logs in May, and has never made any mention of either
Manafort or “Russians” being identified in them. It did not refer
to the logs in its latest story.
Murray:
The
problem with this latest fabrication is that [Ecuador’s President]
Moreno had already released the visitor logs to the Mueller inquiry.
Neither Manafort nor these ‘Russians’ are in the visitor logs …
What possible motive would the Ecuadorean government have for
facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort?Furthermore
it is impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge
of the security – would not know the identity of these alleged
‘Russians’.
No
fact-checking
It
is worth noting it should be vitally important for a serious
publication like the Guardian to ensure its claims are unassailably
true – both because Assange’s personal fate rests on their
veracity, and because, even more importantly, a fundamental right,
the freedom of the press, is at stake.
Given
this, one would have expected the Guardian’s editors to have
insisted on the most stringent checks imaginable before going to
press with Harding’s story. At a very minimum, they should have
sought out a response from Assange and Manafort before publication.
Neither precaution was taken.
I
worked for the Guardian for a number of years, and know well the
layers of checks that any highly sensitive story has to go through
before publication. In that lengthy process, a variety of
commissioning editors, lawyers, backbench editors and the editor
herself, Kath Viner, would normally insist on cuts to anything that
could not be rigorously defended and corroborated.
And
yet this piece seems to have been casually waved through, given a
green light even though its profound shortcomings were evident to a
range of well-placed analysts and journalists from the outset.
That
at the very least hints that the Guardian thought they had
“insurance” on this story. And the only people who could have
promised that kind of insurance are the security and intelligence
services – presumably of Britain, the United States and / or
Ecuador.
It
appears the Guardian has simply taken this story, provided by spooks,
at face value. Even if it later turns out that Manafort did visit
Assange, the Guardian clearly had no compelling evidence for its
claims when it published them. That is profoundly irresponsible
journalism – fake news – that should be of the gravest concern to
readers.
A
pattern, not an aberration
Despite
all this, even analysts critical of the Guardian’s behaviour have
shown a glaring failure to understand that its latest coverage
represents not an aberration by the paper but decisively fits with a
pattern.
Glenn
Greenwald, who once had an influential column in the Guardian until
an apparent, though unacknowledged, falling out with his employer
over the Edward Snowden revelations, wrote a series of baffling
observations about the Guardian’s latest story.
First,
he suggested it
was simply evidence of the Guardian’s long-standing (and
well-documented) hostility towards Assange.
“The
Guardian, an otherwise solid and reliable paper, has such a pervasive
and unprofessionally personal hatred for Julian Assange that it has
frequently dispensed with all journalistic standards in order to
malign him.”
It
was also apparently evidence of the paper’s clickbait tendencies:
“They
[Guardian editors] knew that publishing this story would cause
partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news
outlets would hyperventilate over it, and that they’d reap the
rewards regardless of whether the story turned out to be true or
false.”
And
finally, in a bizarre tweet, Greenwald opined, “I hope the story
[maligning Assange] turns out true” – apparently because
maintenance of the Guardian’s reputation is more important than
Assange’s fate and the right of journalists to dig up embarrassing
secrets without fear of being imprisoned.
The reason it will be so devastating to the Guardian if this story turns out false is because the Guardian has an institutional hatred for Assange. They’ve proven they’ll dispense with journalistic standards for it. And factions within Ecuador’s government know they can use them.
What
this misses is that the Guardian’s attacks on Assange are not
exceptional or motivated solely by personal animosity. They are
entirely predictable and systematic. Rather than being the reason for
the Guardian violating basic journalistic standards and ethics, the
paper’s hatred of Assange is a symptom of a deeper malaise in the
Guardian and the wider corporate media.
Even
aside from its decade-long campaign against Assange, the Guardian is
far from “solid and reliable”, as Greenwald claims. It has been
at the forefront of the relentless, and unhinged, attacks on Labour
leader Jeremy Corbyn for prioritising the rights of Palestinians over
Israel’s right to continue its belligerent occupation. Over the
past three years, the Guardian has injected credibility into the
Israel lobby’s desperate efforts to tar Corbyn as an anti-semite.
See here, here and here.
Similarly,
the Guardian worked tirelessly to promote Clinton and undermine
Sanders in the 2016 Democratic nomination process – another reason
the paper has been so assiduous in promoting the idea that Assange,
aided by Russia, was determined to promote Trump over Clinton for the
presidency.
The
Guardian’s coverage of Latin America, especially of populist
leftwing governments that have rebelled against traditional and
oppressive US hegemony in the region, has long grated with analysts
and experts. Its especial venom has been reserved for leftwing
figures like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, democratically elected but
official enemies of the US, rather than the region’s rightwing
authoritarians beloved of Washington.
The
Guardian has been vocal in the so-called “fake news” hysteria,
decrying the influence of social media, the only place where leftwing
dissidents have managed to find a small foothold to promote their
politics and counter the corporate media narrative.
The
Guardian has painted social media chiefly as a platform overrun by
Russian trolls, arguing that this should justify ever-tighter
restrictions that have so far curbed critical voices of the dissident
left more than the right.
Heroes
of the neoliberal order
Equally,
the Guardian has made clear who its true heroes are. Certainly not
Corbyn or Assange, who threaten to disrupt the entrenched neoliberal
order that is hurtling us towards climate breakdown and economic
collapse.
Its
pages, however, are readily available to the latest effort to prop up
the status quo from Tony Blair, the man who led Britain, on false
pretences, into the largest crime against humanity in living memory –
the attack on Iraq.
That
“humanitarian intervention” cost the lives of many hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis and created a vacuum that destabilised much of
the Middle East, sucked in Islamic jihadists like al-Qaeda and ISIS,
and contributed to the migrant crisis in Europe that has fuelled the
resurgence of the far-right. None of that is discussed in the
Guardian or considered grounds for disqualifying Blair as an arbiter
of what is good for Britain and the world’s future.
The
Guardian also has an especial soft spot for blogger Elliot Higgins,
who, aided by the Guardian, has shot to unlikely prominence as a
self-styled “weapons expert”. Like Luke Harding, Higgins
invariably seems ready to echo whatever the British and American
security services need verifying “independently”.
Higgins
and his well-staffed website Bellingcat have taken on for themselves
the role of arbiters of truth on many foreign affairs issues, taking
a prominent role in advocating for narratives that promote US and
NATO hegemony while demonising Russia, especially in highly contested
arenas such as Syria.
That
clear partisanship should be no surprise, given that Higgins now
enjoys an “academic” position at, and funding from, the Atlantic
Council, a high-level, Washington-based think-tank founded to drum up
support for NATO and justify its imperialist agenda.
Improbably,
the Guardian has adopted Higgins as the poster-boy for a supposed
citizen journalism it has sought to undermine as “fake news”
whenever it occurs on social media without the endorsement of
state-backed organisations.
The
truth is that the Guardian has not erred in this latest story
attacking Assange, or in its much longer-running campaign to vilify
him. With this story, it has done what it regularly does when
supposedly vital western foreign policy interests are at stake – it
simply regurgitates an elite-serving, western narrative.
Its
job is to shore up a consensus on the left for attacks on leading
threats to the existing, neoliberal order: whether they are a
platform like Wikileaks promoting whistle-blowing against a corrupt
western elite; or a politician like Jeremy Corbyn seeking to break
apart the status quo on the rapacious financial industries or
Israel-Palestine; or a radical leader like Hugo Chavez who threatened
to overturn a damaging and exploitative US dominance of “America’s
backyard”; or social media dissidents who have started to chip away
at the elite-friendly narratives of corporate media, including the
Guardian.
The
Guardian did not make a mistake in vilifying Assange without a shred
of evidence. It did what it is designed to do.
Zie ook het volgende artikel plus begeleidende video, waarin ook al onterecht beschuldigingen over contacten met Assange en de aanklachten tegen het Trump team, WikiLeaks en Rusland aangaande ‘Russiagate’, een beschuldiging die speciaal aanklager Mueller nooit rond gaat krijgen.
Het gaat hier om Randy
Credico (politiek- en mensenrechtenactivist, programmamaker en komiek), hij wordt door Mueller beschuldigd van banden met WikiLeaks….. (zien beste bezoeker!)
In
this exclusive interview, Abby Martin speaks with Randy Credico
on his role in the Russia investigation, his upcoming interview with
Robert Mueller, and his relationship with Trump campaign advisor
Roger Stone.
With
never before revealed details about Stone and the Mueller
investigation, Credico details his long-standing ties to the
political operative and answers the hard questions about his alleged
coordination with Wikileaks.
The
interview highlights the larger context of the multi-front assault on
Julian Assange, Wikileaks and the future of press freedom.
**
Vergeet niet dat de Obama administratie al lang bezig was om de
Russen te demoniseren, dit onder andere t.b.v. het militair-industrieel complex en waarmee de VS en haar oorlogshond de NAVO ook in Oekraïne aan de grens met Rusland zou komen te staan……..
Zo hebben Hillary Clinton en de CIA de opstand in Oekraïne op poten
gezet, een opstand waarvan de opzet was een staatsgreep te ontketenen
tegen de democratisch gekozen regering Janoekovytsj…… Deze ‘grap’
(een specialiteit van de VS) heeft de VS maar ‘liefst’ 4 miljard
dollar gekost…….
*** Deze toegevoegde tekst later overgenomen van Common Dreams, daar deze niet op Anti-Media werd genoemd en de extra vermelding terecht is (m.i.).
PS: geeft door mensen, er kan niet genoeg feiten worden weergegeven tegenover de enorme berg leugens (met heel veel ‘fake news, of anders gezegd: ‘nepnieuws’) waaruit het kwaadaardige sprookje Russiagate bestaat.
Zie wat betreft het Steele dossier, een spil in de leugens die men ‘Russiagate’ is gaan noemen, de volgende berichten:
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende twee artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
The
Guardian durft te beweren dat Paul Manafort meermaals contact had met
Julian Assange in de Ecuadoraanse ambassade in Londen, dit voorafgaand aan
de verkiezingen in 2016, bovendien zou Manafort Assange eerder hebben
bezocht in 2013 en 2015……..
Blijkbaar
werkt de speciaal aanklager Robert Mueller samen met
The Guardian in het promoten van het sprookje dat men ‘Russia Gate’ noemt, daar hij ‘geheel toevallig’ afgelopen maandag het
bericht naar buiten bracht dat Manafort de voorwaarden voor een plea
bargain had gebroken en meermaals heeft gelogen tegen de FBI
(Manafort zit een gevangenisstraf uit)……. Sterker nog: Manafort
zou volgens Mueller naast te hebben gelogen ook misdaden hebben
begaan in een groot aantal zaken…….
The
Guardian weet te melden dat de Ecuadoraanse inlichtingendienst bewijzen zou hebben van het bezoek dat Manafort bracht
aan de Ecuadoraanse ambassade, dit nog naast dezelfde claim van een
persoon die niet bekend is bij de FBI, ofwel een anonieme ‘bron….’
Volgens
The Guardian heeft Manafort in de lente van 2016 een bezoek van 40
minuten gebracht aan Assange, waar men zelfs weet te vertellen welke
kleding hij droeg (om twijfelaars te overtuigen…)…. Vreemd genoeg
moeten bezoekers aan de Ecuadoraanse ambassade zich registreren,
echter volgens medewerkers van de ambassade staat de naam Manafort niet één
keer genoteerd in het betreffende register……..
Voorts
weet The Guardian te melden dat de de Russiche militaire geheime dienst GROe de Democraten zou hebben
gehackt, een claim waarvan we weten dat die totaal zonder enig bewijs
keer op keer wordt herhaald…… Men wil zelfs niet uitgaan van de
mogelijkheid dat de documenten lokaal, dus in de VS zijn gekopieerd
en aan WikiLeaks zijn verzonden…..
Seth Rich, een medewerker van
het DNC, het democratische campagneteam dat Hillary Clinton bijstond
tijdens de voorverkiezingen, heeft uit frustratie over de smerige
campagne van Clinton tegen de andere democratische kandidaat Bernie
Sanders, een enorm aantal documenten gelekt naar WikiLeaks……
Enige tijd later zou Rich zijn vermoord tijdens een beroving, aldus
de politie, waarbij vreemd genoeg niets van hem werd gestolen……..
Lees
het volgende artikel van Tyler Durden, gepubliceerd op Zero Hedge
(door mij overgenomen van Anti-Media), in de niet eindigende soap die
men ‘Russiagate’ noemt, terwijl intussen duidelijk is geworden dat
m.n. Groot-Brittannië de Democratische Partij heeft geholpen bij het
manipuleren van de presidentsverkiezingen in de VS, ofwel: we moeten spreken
van Britaingate!!! Mensen geeft het door: nog dagelijks hoor je
leugenaars in en op de reguliere media beweren dat Rusland de VS
verkiezingen heeft gemanipuleerd…… Hoe eerder een eind komt aan
deze leugens hoe beter, immers de VS zoekt oorlog met Rusland
(geholpen door de rest van het westers terreurgeteisem en waaronder
ik ook Rutte 2 en 3 versta) en juist dit soort leugens maakt de argeloze
lezer klaar voor een oorlog tegen Rusland, ofwel WOIII……
Nogmaals
laat The Guardian zien dat het een trouwe lobbyist is van het
neoliberalisme, het militair-industrieel complex en de ongebreidelde terreur van de VS…… Verder heeft The Guardian geen moeite om voor deze zaken fake news (nepnieuws) te
verspreiden, zelfs niet als daar meer dan 2 miljoen mensen door omkomen, zoals de valse berichtgeving van The Guardian over de illegale oorlogen van de VS tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië…… Die 1 miljoen dollar kan The Guardian dan ook
vergeten!!
WikiLeaks
Bets the Guardian $1,000,000 That Assange Never Met Paul Manafort
(ZHE) — Update: WikiLeaks
has fired back at the Guardian,
tweeting: “Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial
fabricator to totally destroy the paper’s reputation. @WikiLeaks is
willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head
that Manafort never met Assange.”
Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper’s reputation. @WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange. https://archive.fo/pUjrj
The
Guardian‘s
report was written by Luke Harding and Dan Collyns, and was based
exclusively on unnamed sources.
Paul
Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, held secret
talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London,
right around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, according to The
Guardian, which
as is now the norm in reports of this kind refers to unnamed
“sources.”
***
Sources
have said Manafort
went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 –
during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for
the White House.
It
is unclear why Manafort wanted to see Assange and what was discussed.
But the last meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could
interest Robert
Mueller,
the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between
the Trump campaign and Russia.
A
well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see
Assange around March 2016. Months later WikiLeaks released
a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.
– The
Guardian
The
69-year-old Manafort has denied any involvement in the release of the
emails, and has said that the claim is “100%
false.”
While
Manafort was jailed this year under a plea agreement with special
counsel Robert Mueller, on Monday, Mueller said that Manafort
had repeatedly
lied to the FBI,
breaching his deal. According to documents filed in court, Manafort
committed “crimes and lies” covering a “variety of subject
matters.”
According
to The
Guardian,
Manafort’s first visit to the Ecuadorian embassy occurred one year
after Assange was granted asylum inside, according to two sources.
To add icing to the cake, “a separate internal document written by
Ecuador’s Senian Intelligence agency and
seen by The
Guardian lists
“Paul Manaford [sic]” as one of Assange’s several well-known
guests, along
with… “Russians.”
According
to two sources, Manafort returned to the embassy in 2015. He paid
another visit in spring 2016, turning up alone, around the time Trump
named him as his convention manager. The visit is tentatively dated
to March.
Manafort’s
2016 visit to Assange lasted about 40 minutes, one source said,
adding that the
American was casually dressed when he exited the embassy, wearing
sandy-coloured chinos, a cardigan and a light-coloured shirt.
Visitors
normally register with embassy security guards and show their
passports. Sources in Ecuador, however, say Manafort was not
logged. – The
Guardian
So
we have Manafort allegedly visiting Assange, in
sandy-coloured chinos, and
that Russians also visited the WikiLeaks founder. And none of this
was known until today.
The
Guardian goes
on to suggest that “The revelation could shed new light on the
sequence of events in the run-up to summer 2016, when WikiLeaks
published tens of thousands of emails hacked by the GRU*,
Russia’s military intelligence agency. Hillary
Clinton has said the hack contributed to her defeat.”
Note
that The
Guardian has
considered the “hack” settled, which agrees with Western
intelligence assessments (the same Western intelligence that
conducted espionage on Donald Trump’s campaign). Nowhere to be
found is the possibility that the emails were copied
locally –
a theory recently bolstered by a fresh
analysis that
flies in the face of a report commissioned by cybersecurity
firm Crowdstrike
– which
was caught fabricating a report on Russia hacking Ukrainian
munitions, and was forced to retract portions of their analysis after
the government of Ukraine admonished them.
The
Guardian goes
on to link Manafort to “black operations” against the political
rival of Ukraine’s former “Moscow-friendly president, Viktor
Yanukovych,” and that Manafort “flew frequently from the US to
Ukraine’s capital, Kiev – usually
via Frankfurt but sometimes through London.”
Manafort
is currently in jail in Alexandria, Virginia. In August a jury
convicted him of crimes arising from his decade-long activities in
Ukraine. They include large-scale money laundering and failure to pay
US tax. Manafort pleaded guilty to further charges in order to avoid
a second trial in Washington.
As
well as accusing him of lying on Monday, the special counsel moved to
set a date for Manafort to be sentenced.
One
person familiar with WikiLeaks said Assange was motivated to damage
the Democrats campaign because he believed a future Trump
administration would be less likely to seek his extradition on
possible charges of espionage. This fate had hung over Assange since
2010, when he released
confidential US state department cables.
It contributed to his decision to take refuge in the embassy. – The
Guardian
And
in perhaps the most shocking part of The
Guardian‘s
reporting, they
refer to the highly salacious and largely discredited “Steele
Dossier,”**saying
that according to the document, Manafort was at the center of a
“well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between the Trump
campaign and the Kremlin, and that both sides had a mutual interest
in defeating Clinton, wrote former MI6 spy Christopher Steele.
In
a memo written soon after the DNC emails were published, Steele said:
“The [hacking] operation had been conducted with the full knowledge
and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team.” – The
Guardian
You
know things are desperate when the Steele Dossier makes a guest
appearance to once again bolster unsupported reporting.
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende twee artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
Ontving
afgelopen vrijdag het hieronder opgenomen artikel van Caitlin Johnstone,
waarin ze de vloer aanveegt met de democraten die zogenaamd oppositie
voeren tegen Trump, terwijl ze zijn meer dan belachelijke verhoging
van het oorlogsbudget goedkeuren. De democraten tonen zogenaamd hun
ongenoegen over Trump op basis van vermeende Russische inmenging in
de presidentsverkiezingen van 2016, een zaak die nooit te bewijzen
valt, daar het eenvoudigweg niet gebeurd is, wat men je ook vertelt
in de reguliere (massa-) media. Elk zogenaamd bewijs blijkt na een
korte beschouwing weer het zoveelste niet te bewijzen kul verhaal te
zijn…..
Zoals
die media maar achter de onzin over Russische inmenging aan blijven
lopen en het verkondigen als ‘de weg, de waarheid en het leven’, zo
doet de democratische oppositie dit ook en niet zonder reden.
Johnstone stelt volkomen terecht dat er in de VS eigenlijk niets te
kiezen valt, de democraten en republikeinen staan beide achter de
grootschalige terreur die de VS waar het maar kan uitoefent, van
Latijns-Amerika, via Afrika, Europa en het Midden-Oosten tot in Azië….. De uitspraak over het niet bestaande verschil tussen republikeinen en democraten komt overigens van Julian Assange, zoals je in het artikel kan lezen.
Zou
ik bijna de EU vergeten, al staat die als ‘één man’ achter wat de
VS en nu de Trump administratieook maar flikt…. Dezelfde EU die Trump zelfs gelijk geeft als hij erop wijst
dat het oorlogsbudget (‘defensie’)van de meeste NAVO-EU-lidstaten veel te laag is, waar deze EU
oplichters dondersgoed weten dat de VS door haar illegale
oorlogvoering en andere misdadige acties in het buitenland uiteraard
veel meer moet uitgeven aan oorlogsvoering…. Alsof men niet weet dat alleen de EU-lidstaten Duitsland, Groot-Brittannië, Frankrijk en Italië al
meer dan 3 keer zoveel uitgeven aan oorlogsvoering dan de Russen aan
defensie en buitenlandse hulp, zoals die aan Syrië….. Daarover
gesproken: de kosten voor buitenlandse (illegale) Nederlandse militaire missies
komen voor een groot deel niet uit het defensie budget!
Johnstone
komt met een voorbeeld dat duidelijk toont dat de democraten in feite
het verlengde van de republikeinen zijn: de genocide die
Saoedi-Arabië met hulp van o.a. de VS pleegt in buurland Jemen
(jammer dat zij nog steeds niet spreekt van een genocide, terwijl
alle tekenen daarvoor volop aanwezig zijn!)…… Hoe makkelijk kan
het voor de democraten zijn om deze genocide te gebruiken tegen
Trump, zo zijn de laatste paar jaar mede door toedoen van de VS al
duizenden kinderen omgekomen in Jemen….. Nee, die kaart spelen de
democraten niet omdat ze er vierkant achter staan en stonden, ook toen de Obama (‘vredes’)administratie hetzelfde flikte………
Trump’s “Opposition” Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsens
A new
article from the Wall
Street Journal reports
that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lied
to congress about
the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian
casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in
order to secure two billion dollars for war profiteers.
This
is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made
bombs have
been conclusively tied to
civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst
humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees scores
of Yemeni children dying every
single day and has placed
five million children at risk of
death by starvation in a nation where families are now eating
leaves to survive. CIA
veteran Bruce Riedel once
said that
“if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight
told King Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow,
because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot operate without American and
British support.” Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from
the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against
humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to override his own expert advisors on
the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war
plutocrats.
If
the so-called “Resistance” to Trump was ever actually
interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way,
this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like
how “bombshell” revelations pertaining to the made-up
Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn’t, and it
won’t be.
(om de video in bovenstaand Twitterbericht te zien klik op deze link🙂
It
would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and
Democrat-aligned media to hurt this administration at the highest
level and cause irreparable political damage based on this story. All
they’d have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they’ve given
the stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul
Manafort which end
up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or
proof of collusion with the Russian government. The footage of the
starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at the
heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until
Republicans have lost all hope of victory in the midterms and in
2020; all they’d have to do is use it. But they don’t. And they
won’t.
The
US Senate has just passed Trump’s mammoth military spending increase
by a
landslide 92-8 vote.
The eight senators who voted “nay”? Seven Republicans, and
Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most
bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war. Rather than
doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be
done by a president they’ve been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of
equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they’ve been actively
increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful
military force the world has ever seen.
The
reason for this is very simple: President Trump’s ostensible
political opposition does not oppose President Trump. They’re on the
same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the reason they attack
him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among
them know full well will never be proven and have no basis in
reality. They don’t stand up to Trump because, as Julian Assange once
said,
they are Trump.
In
John Steinbeck’s The
Pearl,
there are jewelry buyers set up around a fishing community which are
all owned by the same plutocrat, but they all pretend to be in
competition with one another. When the story’s protagonist discovers
an enormous and valuable pearl and goes to sell it, they all gather
round and individually bid far less than it is worth in order to
trick him into giving it away for almost nothing. US politics is
pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same
political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give
the illusion of competition.
In
reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game
remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he
wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an
Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the
agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation;
the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to
care about women and minorities and sometimes it’s pretending to care
about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same
plutocrat, and that video game remote won’t impact the outcome of the
game no matter how many buttons you push.
The
only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the
rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as
Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth
about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere
useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence
is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and
oppression. If enough of us keep throwing sand in the gears of the
lie factory, we can wake
the masses up from the oligarchic lullaby they’re
being sung. And then maybe we’ll be big enough to have a shot at
grabbing one of the real video game controllers.
_____________________
The
best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the
stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for mywebsite,
which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My
articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me onFacebook,
following my antics onTwitter,
checking out mypodcast,
throwing some money into my hat on Patreon orPaypal, or
buying my book Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.