Nancy
Pelosi, de ‘Speaker of the House’ (nee, bepaald geen B&O speaker) heeft
laten weten dat ze geen behoefte heeft aan een impeachment (afzetten) van Trump
over Russiagate…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Na 2
jaar lang schreeuwen over Russiagate, zonder ook maar een flinter aan
bewijs, waar het woord ‘impeachment’ niet van de lucht was, durft
Democraat Pelosi te zeggen dat ze geen reden ziet om Trump af te
zetten…….
Russiagate
was niets anders dan een doofpot voor het misdadig optreden van
Clinton en haar campagneteam, ofwel: Russiagate truc geslaagd: Trump
ten onrechte beschuldigd van samenspannen met Rusland*, (nogmaals) terwijl de
misdaden van Clinton en haar campagne team onder het tapijt zijn
geveegd!! Het gaat hier om de enorme misdaad van de kandidaatstelling diefstal, door Clinton en haar team, de kandidaatstelling voor het presidentschap van de VS van haar partijgenoot Bernie Sanders…..
Sanders was veel te ‘links’ voor de apparatsjiks van de Democraten, dus voor figuren als Clinton en Obama, vandaar dat de boel zo werd gemanipuleerd dat Sanders deze voorverkiezingen verloor…… De aanduiding ‘Clintongate’ zou dan ook moeten worden gebruikt, i.p.v. Russiagate……….
Vergeet niet dat de hele Russiagate hysterie heeft gezorgd voor censuur op het internet**, iets waarvoor westerse politici en de reguliere westerse media, regimes als dat in China aan de paal nagelen…… Niet alleen dat, er worden kapitalen uitgegeven ‘om te voorkomen’ dat Russiagate zich kan herhalen…..
In Nederland heeft hare D66 akeligheid Ollongren het gore lef te stellen dat Rusland hier ook de boel manipuleert en reken maar dat ook aan de bestrijding van die fantasie enorme kapitalen aan belastinggeld worden verspild…….. Waar de schrijvers op sites die vertellen wat er echt gebeurd in de wereld, werden en worden afgeschilderd als Russische trollen……. Denk daaraan als je volgende week en in mei in het stemhok staat, niet alleen D66 is volkomen fout op dit gebied, maar ook partijen als de VVD, CDA, PvdA, CU, SGP en GroenLinks……
Lees het
volgende sarcastische en toch ook humoristische artikel (je gelooft je ogen af en toe niet) van Caitlin Johnstone,
eerder geplaatst op haar website en overgenomen van Anti-Media:
Nancy
Pelosi Tacitly Admits That Russiagate Is Bullshit
(CJ Opinion) — In
an interview
with the Washington
Post yesterday,
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she opposed the impeachment
of President Trump. This comes shortly before Mueller’s
investigation into Trump-Russia collusion is expected
to wrap up.
“I’m
not for impeachment,” Pelosi told the Post. “This is news. I’m
going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this
to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been
thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that
unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and
bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it
divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”
The
response to Pelosi’s remarks has been swift and strong.
“Wrong!” exclaimed MSNBC’s
Russiagate con
man Malcolm
Nance via Twitter. “What the hell is wrong with the @SpeakerPelosi
Congress that they absolve themselves of their duty! Nothing is
criminal anymore?! Trump can do and say like a dictator as he
pleases? All of his crimes are OK even if you see them? This requires
a public outcry. #Disgraceful”
“I
like Speaker Pelosi but this is NOT the right
approach,” tweeted Michael
Avenatti of Stormy Daniels fame. “If Trump has committed
impeachable offenses, he must be charged and he must face a trial in
the Senate. Would the Repubs take this approach? Hell no! And this is
why we get outplayed.”
“Sorry,
Madam Speaker,” tweetedEsquire’s
Charles P Pierce. “If you really believe the president* is an
unprecedented threat to the Constitution, your oath demands that you
begin the process to remove him. It’s your job.”
Wrong! What the hell is wrong with the @SpeakerPelosi Congress that they absolve themselves of their duty! Nothing is criminal anymore?! Trump can do and say like a dictator as he pleases? All of his crimes are OK even if you see them? This requires a public outcry. #Disgraceful.
The
House’s most virulent Russiagater, however, sang a different tune.
“If
the evidence isn’t sufficient to win bipartisan support for this,
putting the country through a failed impeachment isn’t a good
idea,” said Congressman Adam Schiff told
CNN yesterday.
As
you might expect, those voices in alternative media who’ve been
voicing skepticism of the Russiagate narrative since the beginning
have been having a ball with this one.
“BREAKING:
The Democrats’ Congressional leadership is realizing that their
two-year Russia conspiracy theory is not going to pan
out,” tweeted journalist
Aaron Maté, who has been in my opinion the single most lucid
Russiagate critic for a long time now.
“If
Trump is literally controlled by Putin to the point where Trump is
forced to act in the best interests of Russia *at the expense of the
US* — which has been the prevailing claim not of Dem fringes
but its mainstream — how can it be morally justified not to
impeach him???” tweeted journalist
Glenn Greenwald in response to Pelosi’s comments.
How
indeed? Pelosi’s comments go completely against the narrative that
mainstream Democrats have been selling America for over two years
now, and this close to the Mueller report amount to a rejection of
that narrative. Her statement is a tacit admission that she knows
Russiagate is bullshit, has always been bullshit, and will continue
to be bullshit.
Anyone who actually believed Putin controls Trump, Trump subordinates US interests to Russia, and that Trump conspired with a foreign adversary to win an election – as Schiff has spent 2 years screaming he’s seen *conclusive* evidence for – would have a duty to try to impeach:
“Is
it possible that Putin has something on Pelosi?” Greenwald joked.
“Or perhaps Democratic politicians and their media allies have been
knowingly feeding the party base and cable viewers unadulterated,
deranged, unhinged bullshit that they now can’t carry through on
with the power in their hands because it was all self-serving,
manipulative dreck? Anyone who has ever believed Trump is controlled
and blackmailed by Putin to the point that Putin makes Trump
treasonously sacrifice America’s interests for Russia’s — and
there are a lot of you — should be marching in fury in the
streets over Pelosi’s refusal to impeach Trump.”
But,
of course, they will not. There will be no protest against Pelosi’s
opposition to impeachment because those who would lead it know there
will never be any evidence that could possibly lead to a bipartisan
willingness in the Senate to remove him from office.
Anyone
who’s paid close and intellectually honest attention to the
Russiagate circus has known since the beginning that Trump was never
going to be impeached for a treasonous conspiracy with the Russian
government, despite the endless fantasies inflicted upon the
blinkered Maddow muppets day after day after day for over two years
now. Back in 2017 I
said that
“Mueller will continue finding evidence of corruption throughout
his investigation, since corruption is to DC insiders as water is to
fish, but he will not find evidence of collusion to win the 2016
election that will lead to Trump’s impeachment,” because it was
obvious to anyone who knew anything. And that has proven to be the
case with uninterrupted consistency.
If
those who have been driving the Russiagate conspiracy theory really
believed what they’ve
been pushing,
they would be up in arms at Pelosi’s remarks. Instead, we see
responses like Russiagate grifter Bill
Palmer publishing a
hilarious article titled
“Nancy Pelosi is playing rope-a-dope with Donald Trump on
impeachment”, explaining that her remarks were actually a brilliant
57-D chess maneuver designed to “play this Trump fool like fiddle.”
“Instead,
by answering the question in this manner, Pelosi accomplishes two
things,” says the Palmer
Report,
where sitting
US senators and top
Harvard law professors go
for the important updates they need to continue fueling Russia
hysteria in America. “First, she manages to put off the question
until she and her allies have managed to carve Donald Trump up.
Second, she’s messing with him. She just insulted him
by saying he’s not worth the trouble of impeachment. Pelosi is
looking to bait Trump into publicly feuding with her over the
question of impeachment. That way it’ll be Trump introducing the
concept, not her. And that’ll serve to help put the impeachment
process on the right track. Just don’t call it ‘impeachment’
quite yet.”
So
that tells you a bit about where the Russiagaters are at today.
This
all comes out, by the way, at the same time as a
new Wall
Street Journalreport that
Trump once attempted to personally cajole German Chancellor Angela
Merkel into ceasing to buy gas from Russia out of fear that “it
will make Europe’s largest economy excessively reliant on Russian
energy.” Hardly the behavior you’d expect from a Putin puppet,
but then neither are the rest of the many,
many other actions that
this administration has taken against the interests of Moscow.
As Democratic elites back off impeachment & collusion after pushing it for 2 years, perhaps voters will conclude they’ve been misled. And perhaps a backlash will benefit the wing of the party those same elites have used the Trump-Russia hype to ward off: the actual progressives.
It
is right and appropriate that those few voices on the left who’ve
been sharply critical of Russiagate from the beginning are now taking
some time to gloat at and mock its peddlers with increasing scorn.
The centrists who chose to spend more than two years forcing
everyone’s energy into this blatant psyop which escalated
a cold war against
a nuclear superpower were wrong, and the leftists who objected to it
were right. Trump’s term is more than halfway over, and
Russiagaters chose to suck all the oxygen out of the room for this
brainless, fruitless, worthless endeavor instead of allowing space
for progressive reform and for criticism of Trump’s actual
pernicious policies from the left. And they did it on purpose.
Mock
the Russiagaters. Mock them ruthlessly, and never, ever let them
forget the horrible thing that they did. Never stop making fun of
them and reminding them how stupid and crazy they acted during this
humiliating period of American history. And never stop using it as a
weapon against them. They were wrong, so they should not be leading
the way on what passes for America’s political left today.
Skepticism was the only appropriate response to Russiagate in a
post-Iraq invasion world, and those on the left who made that
appropriate response should be treated with infinitely more respect
and deference than those who did not.
They
were wrong, we were right, and now even Nancy Pelosi is all but
admitting it. Never let them forget it.
* Door alle tamtam van Pelosi en andere Democratische Partijbonzen zullen velen in de VS blijven geloven dat Trump wel degelijk samenspande met Rusland…… Immers een belachelijk cliché werkt voor velen nog steeds: ‘waar rook is is vuur……’ Begrijp me goed, Trump is een smerige psychopaat, die inderdaad afgezet zou moeten worden, maar juist door het gebruik van valse beschuldigingen komt Trump steeds ‘vaster’ in het zadel te zitten…..
** Hier een ‘paar’ voorbeelden van wat het Russiagate sprookje teweeg heeft gebracht:
De
reguliere massamedia in de VS (en elders in het westen) zijn afgelopen week nog eens keihard door de
mand gevallen, nadat een bericht op Buzzfeed meldde dat Trump plotsklaps
echt impeachable (afzetbaar) zou zijn. Trump zou Michael Cohen hebben opgedragen te
liegen tegen het congres, over een te bouwen Trumptoren in Moskou,
niets van waar, zelfs Mueller die de zaak al zo’n 2 jaar onderzoekt (en nog steeds zonder enig bewijs zit) stelde dat dit een kulverhaal is en er geen documenten over
bestaan…..
De 2
daders voor dit zoveelste ‘Russiagate’ debacle, Jason Leopold en Anthony Cornier, waren zo ‘slim’ om beiden een
verschillend verhaal te vertellen aan de pers, Cornier vertelde CNN
dat hijzelf de documenten niet had gezien en Leopold vertelde MSNBC
dat hij ze wel had gelezen…… Over CNN gesproken: deze ‘nieuwsorganisatie’ ging al veel vaker plat op de bek als het om ‘Russiagate’ gaat, zo maakte men een heel domme fout met data, waarmee Trump junior in een kwaad daglicht werd gesteld, hij zou op het verkeerde moment toegang hebben gehad tot WikiLeaks….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Voordat
Mueller zijn reactie op de leugens gaf, gingen de reguliere media in
de VS (en heel wat westerse collega’s elders) helemaal los, en dat op basis van een verhaal van 2 figuren die
eerder al de boel hebben gemanipuleerd, met de claim dat Rusland de
VS presidentsverkiezingen had gefinancierd, terwijl het om verkiezingen in Rusland ging….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
De New York Times plaatste e.e.a. met veel bombarie op de voorpagina, waar de rectificatie, nadat Mueller een dag later de claim naar de prullenbak had verwezen, op pagina 11 werd geplaatst……..
Je hebt
het waarschijnlijk al begrepen: de zoveelste berg aan fake news
(nepnieuws) en desinformatie in de reguliere massamedia, terwijl men
daar met de vieze vingers durft te wijzen naar nepnieuws op de
alternatieve media (overigens zonder daar bewijzen voor te
leveren….)….. Ondanks dit alles (en dat voor de zoveelste keer) hebben deze media het gore lef om vertrouwen van hun klanten te vragen…….. Totaal ongeloofwaardig!!
Following
what the Washington
Posthas
described as
“the highest-profile misstep yet for a news organization during
a period of heightened and intense scrutiny of the press,” mass
media representatives are now flailing desperately for an argument as
to why people should continue to place their trust in mainstream news
outlets.
On
Thursday Buzzfeed
News delivered the
latest “bombshell” Russiagate report to
fizzle within 24 hours of its publication, a pattern that is now so
consistent that I’ve personally made a practice of declining to
comment on such stories until a day or two after their release.
“BOOM!” tweets were issued by #Resistance pundits on
Twitter, “If true this means X, Y and Z” bloviations were
made on mass media punditry panels, and for about 20 hours
Russiagaters everywhere were riding the high of their lives, giddy
with the news that President Trump had committed an impeachable
felony by ordering Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a proposed
Trump office tower in Moscow, a proposal which died
within weeks and the Kremlin never touched.
There
was reason enough already for any reasonable person to refrain from
frenzied celebration, including the fact that the story’s two
authors, Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier, were giving the
press two
very different accounts of
the information they’d based it on, with Cormier telling CNN that he
had not personally seen the evidence underlying his report and
Leopold telling MSNBC that he had. Both Leopold and Cormier, for the
record, have already previously
suffered a Russiagate faceplant with
the clickbait viral story that Russia had financed the 2016 election,
burying the fact that it was a
Russian election.
Then
the entire story came crashing down when Mueller’s office took the
extremely rare step of issuing
an unequivocal statement that
the Buzzfeed story was wrong, writing simply, “BuzzFeed’s
description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office,
and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this
office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not
accurate.”
According
to journalist and economic analyst Doug Henwood, the print New
York Times covered
the Buzzfeed report
on its front page when the story broke, but the report on Mueller’s
correction the next day was
shoved back to page 11.
This appalling journalistic malpractice makes it very funny that
NYT’s Wajahat Ali had the gall to tweet,
“Unlike the Trump administration, journalists are fact checking
and willing to correct the record if the Buzzfeed story is found
inaccurate. Not really the actions of a deep state and enemy of the
people, right?”
This is the behavior of a
media class that is interested in selling narratives, not reporting
truth. And yet the mass media talking heads are all telling us today
that we must continue to trust them.
“Those
trying to tar all media today aren’t interested in improving
journalism but protecting themselves,” tweeted NBC’s
Chuck Todd. “There’s a lot more accountability in media these
days than in our politics. We know we live in a glass house, we hope
the folks we cover are as self aware.”
More accountability in
media than in politics, Chuck? Really? Accountability to whom? Your
advertisers? Your plutocratic owners? Certainly not to the people
whose minds you are paid exorbitant sums to influence; there are no
public elections for the leadership of the mass media.
“Mueller
didn’t do the media any favors tonight, and he did do the president
one,” griped
the odious Chris Cuomo on
CNN. “Because as you saw with Rudy Giuliani and as I’m sure
you’ll see with the president himself, this allows them to say ‘You
can’t believe it! You can’t believe what you read, you can’t believe
what you hear! You can only believe us. Even the Special Counsel says
that the media doesn’t get it right.'”
“The
larger message that a lot of people are going to take from this story
is that the news media are a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to
get the president, and they’re willing to lie to do it, and I don’t
think that’s true” said Jeffrey Toobin on
a CNN panel,
adding “I just think this is a bad day for us.”
“It does reinforce
bad stereotypes about the news media,” said Brian Stelter on the
same CNN panel. “I am desperate as a media reporter to always
say to the audience, judge folks individually and judge brands
individually. Don’t fall for what these politicians out there want
you to do. They want you to think we’re all crooked. We’re not. But
Buzzfeed now, now the onus is on Buzzfeed.”
CNN,
for the record, has been guilty of an arguably even
more embarrassing Russiagate flub than Buzzfeed‘s
when they wrongly reported that Donald Trump Jr had had access to
WikiLeaks’ DNC email archives prior to their 2016 publication, an
error that was hilariously due to to the simple misreading of an
email date by multiple people.
(let op bij het hieronder weergegeven Twitterbericht hoort een video die ik niet kan overnemen, zie daarvoor het origineel)
CNN is leading the way in bashing BuzzFeed but it’s worth remembering CNN had a humiliation at least as big & bad: when they yelled that Trump Jr. had advanced access to the WL archive (!): all based on a wrong date. They removed all the segments from YouTube, but this remains:
The
mass media, including pro-Trump mass media like Fox News, absolutely
deserves to be distrusted. It has earned that distrust. It had earned
that distrust already with its constant promotion of imperialist wars
and an oligarch-friendly status quo, and it has earned it even more
with its frenzied promotion of a narrative engineered to manufacture
consent for a preexisting agenda to shove Russia off the world stage.
The
mainstream media absolutely is the enemy of the people; just because
Trump says it doesn’t make it untrue. The only reason people don’t
rise up and use the power of their numbers to force the much-needed
changes that need to happen in our world is because they are being
propagandized to accept the status quo day in and day out by the mass
media’s endless cultural engineering project. They are the reason why
wars go unopposed, why third parties never gain traction, why people
consent to money hemorrhaging upward to the wealthiest of the wealthy
while everyone else struggles to survive. The sooner people wake up
from the perverse narrative matrix of the plutocratic media, the
better.
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
Gisteren
publiceerde Caitlin Johnstone een artikel met een kop waarin ze stelt
dat de hysterische massamedia eindelijk openlijk erkennen dat propaganda werkt.
Ze legt dit verder uit met te zeggen dat de reguliere (massa-)
media hebben ontdekt dat propaganda werkt, dit door het dag in dag uit op de oorlogstrommel slaan met de leugen
dat Rusland de verkiezingen in de VS heeft gestolen van Hillary
Clinton…….
Ben
het in deze niet eens met Johnstone, daar die reguliere media al ver
voor de presidentsverkiezingen van 2016 volop propaganda maakten,
neem alleen al de leugens van die media over Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en Syrië, leugens die mede aan de wieg stonden van grootschalige VS terreur tegen die landen, dit in
de vorm van illegale oorlogen……
Ondanks dat voor een ieder en zeker voor journalisten van de massamedia, duidelijk zou moeten zijn dat men het publiek heeft voorgelogen (over de landen waartegen de VS illegale oorlogen begon), immers daar zijn stapels bewijzen voor, blijven die media (alsook het grootste deel van de westerse politici) dezelfde leugens herhalen……….
Syrië?
Vraag je je misschien af. Ja, in feite geldt dit ook voor Syrië,
immers de VS was al vanaf 2006, onder opperschoft G.W. Bush, bezig
met het opzetten van een opstand in Syrië, die tot de afzetting van
Assad had moeten leiden….. Met grote graagte herhaalden de massamedia de leugens van o.a. de CIA over Syrië en dat al ver voor ‘de opstand…..’
Eén en ander zegt jammer genoeg niets over het in puin bombarderen van Syrië, waarvoor de VS als hoofdverantwoordelijke kan worden aangewezen….. ‘Opstand’ (middels buitenlandse
agitatoren en de CIA) geslaagd, coup mislukt, hetzelfde recept werkte overigens
wel in Oekraïne en als gevolg van die geslaagde staatsgreep tegen de
democratisch gekozen regering Janoekovytsj, voert de door de VS
geparachuteerde neonazi-junta Porosjenko oorlog tegen burgers, die het
terecht niet pikten dat de door hen gekozen regering werd
afgezet….. Ofwel de VS is ook verantwoordelijk voor de oorlog die de Porosjenko junta voert tegen de burgerbevolking van Oost-Oekraïne….
De
media hebben met hun propaganda het grootste deel van de westerse
bevolkingen overtuigd van de Russische bemoeienis met de
presidentsverkiezingen, het Brexit referendum en het Catalaanse
onafhankelijkheidsreferendum. Waar de media in de EU lidstaten de
Russen beschuldigden van zo ongeveer alles wat fout ging op
politiek-maatschappelijk gebied…..
Uiteraard
beseft men bij die media dat men openlijk meewerkt aan anti-Russische
propaganda, immers waar zou men als eerste door moeten hebben dat
claims van Russische manipulaties je reinste kul zijn? Juist, bij die
reguliere media! Media die met een claim op nationale veiligheid
al lang zijn gestopt met het zetten van vraagtekens bij
beschuldigingen waarvoor zelfs na 2 jaar niet één steekhoudend
bewijs werd geleverd……..
Ondanks
mijn bedenkingen geeft het artikel van Johnstone een duidelijk
(sarcastisch en bij tijd en wijle humoristisch) beeld van waar het om
gaat als je spreekt over Russiagate en de verdere anti-Russische propaganda
in de reguliere media. Nogmaals wijst Johnstone (volkomen terecht) op de minimale bedragen waarmee Rusland zogenaamd de VS presidentsverkiezingen zou hebben beïnvloed, terwijl de bedragen waarmee deze verkiezingen wel worden beïnvloed, de ‘Russische bedragen voor eenzelfde invloed’ volkomen in de schaduw stellen…..
Om nog maar te zwijgen (niet dus) over het optreden van de Israëlische Palestijnenslachter en premier Netanyahu in de VS senaat, maanden voor de presidentsverkiezingen, waar deze massamoordenaar de democraten afmaakte en de republikeinen (onder Trump) voor Israël als enig aanvaardbare toekomstige regering afschilderde…… Geen hond in de reguliere (massa-) media die hier grote ophef over maakte, terwijl dit toch echt veel verder ging dan de leugens over het kwaadaardige sprookje dat men ‘Russiagate’ noemt…….
Mass
Media’s Russia Hysteria Is Openly Acknowledging the Power of
Propaganda
(CJ Opinion) — “So
now the question becomes: how did Russia know to target African
American voters, and especially in certain key states,” asked popular
#Resistance pundit Amy Siskind in response to a New
York Times article claiming
Russian social media trolls targeted Sanders supporters and Black
voters during the 2016 election.
“I
think we’ll get our answers in the coming months from the Mueller
probe,” Siskind speculated.
Well
that’s a mighty good question there, Amy, and I think the answer is
pretty obvious. Clearly Russia knew to target African American voters
because Donald Trump called his boss Vladimir Putin and told him
about America’s secret racial issues, which nobody in any foreign
country could ever know about on their own. Then it was a simple
matter of sending the trolls of St Petersburg’s Internet Research
Agency to trick black people into thinking that the American
political system hasn’t been working for them, thereby ensuring the
defeat of the rightful heir to the presidential throne, Hillary
Rodham Clinton. It’s not disenfranchised voters’ fault that
Hillary’s coronation failed to take place, it’s the fault of
Russian memes on social media which confused their silly heads about
who they wanted to vote for!
Or,
alternate theory: everything about that question is immensely stupid.
Russian 2016 Influence Operation Targeted African-Americans on Social Media
Two reports commissioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee take a deeper look at the fake social media accounts used by Russia in the American election.
nytimes.com
This
whole story is unbelievably idiotic. Not just because it’s based on
a report by a private cybersecurity company that was founded
by an NSA veteran,
a company which would have every incentive to bend its findings in
the most sensational way possible to attract clients with a viral new
“bombshell” story about Russian election meddling. Not just
because it infantilizes voters by implying that a smattering of
cutesy memes deprived them of independent agency and caused the
failure of Hillary Clinton’s historically awful presidential
campaign. Not just because of the sleazy gaslighting element inherent
in a narrative which insinuates that a populace meant to elect a
different candidate but got confused. By far the dumbest thing about
this story is the implicit suggestion that only Russian propaganda
was at play during the 2016 election, and no other propaganda.
It’s
often claimed that the dastardly Russians had a $1.2 million monthly
budget for US social media influence in the lead-up to the 2016
election, but that’s false. As Aaron Maté noted
back in February,
this figure actually covers the Russian troll farm’s total
operating budget, which was for “domestic audiences within the
Russian Federation and others targeting foreign audiences in various
countries, including the United States.” So the actual monthly
budget was some thousands of dollars, and most of the troll farm’s
posts weren’t
even about the election.
Contrast that with Hillary Clinton’s $1.2
billion campaign budget and
the untold billions of dollars worth of free mass media coverage she
received, and even if everything we’re being told about Russia’s
“influence campaign” is completely true, that’s a microscopic
drop in the bucket.
FiveThirtyEight
editor-in-chief Nate Silver, a fairly reliable establishment
loyalist, tweeted
today about
the new Russia report saying “If you wrote out a list of the most
important factors in the 2016 election, I’m not sure that Russian
social media memes would be among the top 100. The scale was quite
small and there’s not much evidence that they were effective.”
“For
instance, this story makes a big deal about a (post-election) Russian
social media disinformation campaign on Bob Mueller based on… 5,000
tweets? That’s **nothing**. Platform-wide, there are something like
500,000,000 tweets posted each day,” Silver continued.
What fraction of overall social media impressions on the 2016 election were generated by Russian troll farms? 0.1%? I’m not sure what the answer is, but suspect it’s low, and it says something that none of the reports that hype up the importance of them address that question.
For
all the fearmongering we see in the mass media about “Russian
propaganda”, propaganda from Russia actually constitutes an almost
nonexistent percentage of the media westerners consume which is
designed to influence the way they think, act and vote. You can go
your whole life without ever encountering any propaganda that was
cooked up by the Kremlin, yet every day you are surrounded
by screens,
billboards and literature aimed at manipulating you into supporting
the corporatist oligarchy that rules the nation you live in. The only
reason anyone thinks Russian psyops have any kind of meaningful
influence on people’s minds is because the mass media have been
shrieking about it day in and day out for two years without ever
contrasting it with the rest of the propaganda they consume.
But
within all the hysterical hand-wringing about Russian propaganda
there is an important admission: these mass media talking heads are
all openly acknowledging that there exists a science for manipulating
the minds of the public, and that it is very effective. Now if they
could only admit that they are the world’s greatest practitioners
of this science, they’d be telling the full story.
Of
course, that’s the part of the story they’ll never tell you. They
tell you their concern is that Russians are trying to manipulate your
mind with propaganda, but really their concern is that they want to
be the only ones manipulating your mind with propaganda. They tell
you Russian propaganda is so dangerous that it’s necessary to
censor the internet and hide all narratives which aren’t in line
with the ruling establishment in order to protect democracy, but
really all they want is to have full control of the narratives you
consume. This is evidenced in the
article by the Washington
Post which
kicked off this latest round of Russia panic, which reports the
following:
The
report expressed concern about the overall threat social media poses
to political discourse within nations and among them, warning that
companies once viewed as tools for liberation in the Arab world and
elsewhere are now threats to democracy.
“Social
media have gone from being the natural infrastructure for sharing
collective grievances and coordinating civic engagement to being a
computational tool for social control, manipulated by canny political
consultants and available to politicians in democracies and
dictatorships alike,” the report said.
Of all the absolute mountains of propaganda produced every election cycle, we’re supposed to believe the minuscule fraction of Russian stuff (probably .000001% of total propaganda produced) was somehow decisive. No one has *ever* explained how that even remotely makes sense.
There
does indeed exist a science for manipulating the minds of the people.
It is indeed very effective, and it has been developed, refined and
perfected for
over a century.
Propaganda works, and even establishment mouthpieces like the New
York Times and
the Washington
Post admit
it.
Think
powerful people in your own country aren’t using it on you? Think
again.
‘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‘)
Als
een kleuter gaat psychopaat Trump tekeer tegen de democraten die niet
meer dan 1,6 miljard dollar beschikbaar willen stellen voor Trumps ‘big,
very big en beautiful wall’ aan de grens met Mexico.
Trump
dreigt een deel van de regering lam te leggen, zodat
overheidsinstellingen geen geld krijgen voor salarissen en deze
instanties de deuren zullen moeten sluiten…
Totaal
idioot Trump stelt dat 3 grenswachten, volgens Trump heel dappere mannen, die met stenen werden
geraakt, aantonen dat de muur nodig is…… Echter er is niets aan de hand met deze 3
ambtenaren, ze liepen zelfs geen schram op, maar Trump doet net of ze zijn neergeschoten en daarna
gemarteld, maar ja liegen en schreeuwen is dan ook datgene wat hij het best
beheerst…..
In
feite chanteert de machtigste man ter wereld de VS oppositie (al is
die in de vorm van de Democratische Partij amper verschillend van de
Republikeinse Partij van Trump)….. Hogan Gidley, Witte Huis
woordvoerder, stookte het (kolen-) vuur verder op, door te stellen dat
tegenstand van de democraten zal leiden tot een streep door plannen
van die partij……
Kortom
met Trump aan het roer zullen we nog veel zot en uiterst misdadig
gedrag te zien krijgen van de volgens de VS zelf beste democratie ter
wereld is (ha! ha! ha!)…….
Het
volgende artikel geschreven door JT Crowe, werd gepubliceerd op Money and Markets:
Trump:
Give Me Border Wall Money or I’ll Shut Down the Government
With
a partial government shutdown possible on Dec. 7, President Donald
Trump has met with Republican leaders to hash out a spending plan
that includes money for Trump’s proposed border wall with Mexico.
Trump is seeking $5 billion for the border wall,
which he made a centerpiece of his 2016 campaign and said Mexico
would pay for, and he is stepping up pressure on Congress to provide
it. Trump said he would “totally be willing” to shut down the
government if he doesn’t receive the wall money he wants.
House
Republicans approved $5 billion for Trump’s wall in a key
committee, but a bipartisan bill in the Senate allocates just $1.6
billion for the border.
House
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., called Tuesday’s White
House meeting “very productive” and said Trump “is very solid
with where he wants to go and what he needs to have a secure border.”
House
Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., took a hard line on the
negotiations, saying Democrats will soon face a crucial question:
“Are they going to shut down the government because they don’t
want to keep America safe?”
Trump
said he is considering a backup plan if Congress rejects his demand
for the $5 billion, possibly including the continued use of troops
and razor wire to prevent migrants from entering the country. He told
The Washington Post that if he doesn’t get the money, there are
other ways he could get it done.
But
he has expressed impatience. “I am firm,” he said in an interview
published Wednesday in Politico.
“I
don’t do anything … just for political gain,” Trump said. “But
I will tell you, politically speaking, that issue is a total winner.
People look at the border, they look at the rush to the police, they
look at the rock throwers and really hurting three people, three very
brave border patrol folks — I think that it’s a tremendous issue,
but much more importantly, is really needed. So, we have to have
border security.”
Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Trump administration
hasn’t even spent the $1.6 billion Congress approved in the current
budget for the border wall.
With
Republicans in control of the presidency, the House and the Senate,
“a shutdown is on their back,” Schumer said Tuesday. “Stick to
the $1.6 billion.”
Democrats
and GOP leaders struck a deal earlier this year to fund nearly
three-fourths of the government into next year. Left undone, however,
is funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees
the border, and a few other agencies. They’re now running on
stopgap funds set to expire Dec. 7.
Complicating
border negotiations, Democrats also want to protect special counsel
Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference
and any possible coordination with Trump associates.
“I
didn’t know Robert Mueller needed protection,” McCarthy told
reporters, adding that there’s “nothing out there” for Mueller
or Democrats to fear from Trump or his administration. “But I do
know the southern end of our country needs protection.”
McCarthy,
whose party lost more than three dozen House seats in the midterm
elections earlier this month, urged Democrats to work with
Republicans on the border wall and other legislation, including a
long-stalled farm bill, a new tax cut package and criminal justice
reform.
“The
election is over. Let’s put people before politics,” McCarthy
said. “We’ve got a problem before us. Let’s solve that
problem.”
Schumer
said Democrats support strong border security and believe that $1.6
billion for border security, including physical barriers and
technology along the U.S. southern border, “is the right way to
go.”
White
House spokesman Hogan Gidley said Trump and
GOP leaders discussed a range of legislative priorities, including
the California wildfires, the farm bill and “the great need for
border security at this crucial time,” as well as prison reform and
the budget. The group also talked about Monday’s announcement by
General Motors (GM) that it will
shutter five plants and slash 14,000 jobs in
North America, Gidley said.
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‘)
Politico
heeft een rapport uitgebracht, waarin de lezer wordt
gewaarschuwd niets te verwachten van het onderzoek dat Mueller doet
naar Russiagate, precies zoals al een paar jaar te voorzien was,
behalve dan door de hijgerige reguliere media met hun ‘fake news’ en
het grootste deel van de liegende westerse politici.
Een
hysterisch complotdenken, gelanceerd door een in de voorverkiezingen
van de VS presidentsverkiezingen frauderende Democratische partij
onder hare kwaadaardigheid Hillary Clinton, die van Bernie Sanders de
kandidatuur voor die presidentsverkiezingen heeft gestolen….. Met de gegenereerde hysterie wist de Democratische partij de aandacht van het frauderen door Clinton en haar partij in de voorverkiezingen deels in de doofpot te stoppen……
Intussen
is op grond van deze enorme berg aan leugens censuur ingesteld op
het internet door Facebook en Twitter…..* Het internet waarover de eerder genoemde media en een groot deel van de westerse politici eisen de groeiende alternatieve nieuws
media de verdere toegang te ontzeggen, dit daar het publiek langzaam maar zeker begint door
te krijgen dat ze bij die reguliere media keer op keer worden belazerd met ‘fake news’ en foute opiniemakers, waardoor die media dan ook te maken hebben met een dalend aantal gebruikers en derhalve met een dalend aantal reclames, die tezamen deze media op de been moeten houden……..
Politico
Report Says Russiagaters Should Prepare To Kiss My Ass
Win McNamee/Getty Images
In
a new article titled “Mueller
report PSA: Prepare for disappointment”, Politico cites
information provided by defense attorneys and “more than 15 former
government officials with investigation experience spanning Watergate
to the 2016 election case” to warn everyone who’s been lighting
candles at their Saint Mueller altars that their hopes of Trump being
removed from office are about to be dashed to the floor.
“While
[Mueller is] under no deadline to complete his work, several sources
tracking the investigation say the special counsel and his team
appear eager to wrap up,” Politico reports.
“The
public, they say, shouldn’t expect a comprehensive and
presidency-wrecking account of Kremlin meddling and alleged
obstruction of justice by Trump — not to mention an explanation
of the myriad subplots that have bedeviled lawmakers, journalists and
amateur Mueller sleuths,” the report also says, adding that details
of the investigation may never even see the light of day.
So
that’s it then. An obscene amount of noise and focus, a few
indictments and process crime convictions which have nothing to do
with Russian collusion, and this three-ring circus of propaganda and
delusion is ready to call it a day.
This
is by far the clearest indication yet that the Mueller investigation
will end with Trump still in office and zero proof of collusion with
the Russian government, which has been obvious since the beginning to
everyone who isn’t a complete fucking moron. For two
years the idiotic, fact-free, xenophobic Russiagate conspiracy theory
has been ripping through mainstream American consciousness with
shrieking manic hysteria, sucking all oxygen out of the room for
legitimate criticisms of the actual awful things that the US
president is doing in real life. Those of us who have been courageous
and clear-headed enough to stand against the groupthink have been
shouted down, censored, slandered and smeared as assets of the
Kremlin on a daily basis by unthinking consumers of mass media
propaganda, despite our holding the philosophically unassailable
position of demanding the normal amount of proof that would be
required in a post-Iraq invasion world.
As
I predicted
long ago,
“Mueller isn’t going to find anything in 2017 that these vast,
sprawling networks wouldn’t have found in 2016. He’s not going to
find anything by ‘following the money’ that couldn’t be found
infinitely more efficaciously via Orwellian espionage. The factions
within the intelligence community that were working to sabotage the
incoming administration last year would have leaked proof of
collusion if they’d had it. They did not have it then, and they do
not have it now. Mueller will continue finding evidence of corruption
throughout his investigation, since corruption is to DC insiders as
water is to fish, but he will not find evidence of collusion to win
the 2016 election that will lead to Trump’s impeachment. It will
not happen.” This has remained as true in 2018 as it did in 2017,
and it will remain true forever.
None
of the investigations arising from the Russiagate conspiracy theory
have turned up a single shred of evidence that Donald Trump colluded
with the Russian government to rig the 2016 election, or to do
anything else for that matter. All that the shrill, demented
screeching about Russia has accomplished is manufacturing support
for steadily
escalating internet censorship,
a massively
bloated military budget,
a hysterical McCarthyite atmosphere wherein anyone who expresses
political dissent is painted as an agent of the Kremlin and any
dissenting opinions labeled
“Russian talking points”,
a complete lack of accountability for the Democratic Party’s brazen
election rigging, a total marginalization of real problems and
progressive agendas, and an overall diminishment in the intelligence
of political discourse. The Russiagaters were wrong, and they have
done tremendous damage already.
In
a just world, everyone who helped promote this toxic narrative would
apologize profusely and spend the rest of their lives being mocked
and marginalized. In a world wherein pundits and politicians can sell
the public a war which results in the slaughter of a million Iraqis
and suffer no consequences of any kind, however, we all know that
that isn’t going to happen. Russiagate will end not with a bang,
but with a series of carefully crafted diversions. The goalposts will
be moved, the news churn will shuffle on, the herd will be guided
into supporting the next depraved oligarchic agenda, and almost
nobody will have the intellectual honesty and courage to say “Hey!
Weren’t these assholes promising us we’ll see Trump dragged off
in chains a while back? Whatever happened to that? And why are we all
talking about China now?”
But
whether they grasp it or not, mainstream liberals have been
completely discredited. The mass media outlets which inflicted this
obscene psyop upon their audiences deserve to be driven out of
business. The establishment which would inflict such intrusive
psychological brutalization upon its populace just to advance a few
preexisting agendas has proven that it deserves to be opposed on
every front and rejected at every turn.
And
those of us who have been standing firm and saying this all along
deserve to be listened to. We were right. You were wrong. Time to sit
down, shut up, stop babbling about Russian bots for ten seconds, and
let those who see clearly get a word in edgewise.
________________________
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,
checking out mypodcast,
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.
Tyler
Durden publiceerde vorige week zaterdag een artikel op Zero Hedge over
‘Russia-gate’, althans hoe men de operatie van de FBI inkleedde om
een oud medewerker van die dienst, gevangen gehouden in Iran, vrij te
krijgen……
Daarvoor
heeft de FBI de Russische oligarch Oleg Deripaska, een figuur die
in nauw contact staat met Putin, in de arm genomen en hem gevraagd 25
miljoen dollar beschikbaar te stellen om de oud-FBI agent Robert
Levinson vrij te krijgen. Levinson werkte voor de CIA toen hij in
2007 werd gearresteerd in Iran…..
Deripaska,
waarvan wordt gezegd dat hij fungeerde als contact tussen Trump en
Putin via de voormalige Rusland ‘connector’ Paul Manafort,
stelt dat hij van 2009 tot de presidentsverkiezingen van 2016
samenwerkte met de VS regering….
Uiteindelijk
ging de operatie niet door daar buitenlandse zaken o.l.v. Hillary
Clinton zich haastig terugtrok uit de deal met Iran die erop gericht was Levinson vrij
te krijgen…..
Lees het
artikel van Durden, waarin hij onder meer stelt dat de verbintenis
Trump – Putin bestond uit een door de FBI gerekruteerde Russische ‘burger’,
t.w. Deripaska. Hij stelt dan ook volkomen terecht dat het ministerie van
justitie in de VS beter zichzelf kan onderzoeken!
Russian
Oligarch And Putin Pal Admits To Collusion, Secret Meetings
Russian
Oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a close associate of Vladimir Putin,
has gone on record with The
Hill‘s
John Solomon – admitting to colluding with Americans
leading up to the 2016 US election, except it might not be what
you’re thinking.
Deripaska,
rumored to be Donald Trump’s “back
channel”
to Putin via the Russian’s former association with Paul
Manafort, says he “colluded” with the US
Governmentbetween 2009
and 2016.
In
2009, when Robert
Mueller was running the FBI,
the agency asked Deripaska to spend $25 million of his own money to
bankroll an FBI-supervised operation to rescue a retired FBI agent –
Robert Levinson, who was kidnapped in 2007 while working on a 2007
CIA contract in Iran. This in and of itself is more than a bit
strange.
Deripaska
agreed, however the Obama State Department, headed by Hillary
Clinton, scuttled a last-minute deal with Iran before Levinson
could be released. He hasn’t been heard from since.
FBI
agents courted Deripaska in 2009 in a series of secret hotel meetings
in Paris; Vienna; Budapest, Hungary, and Washington.
Agents persuaded the aluminum industry magnate to underwrite the
mission. The Russian billionaire insisted the operation neither
involve nor harm his homeland. -The Hill
In
other words – Trump’s
alleged “back channel” to Putin was in fact an FBI
asset who
spent $25 million helping Obama’s “scandal free”
administration find a kidnapped agent. Deripaska’s admitted
Steele,
Ohr and the 2016 US Election
As
the New
York Times frames
it, distancing Deripaska from the FBI (no mention of the $25
million rescue effort, for example), the Russian aluminum magnate was
just one of several Putin-linked Oligarchs the FBI tried to flip.
The
attempt to flip Mr. Deripaska was part of a broader, clandestine
American effort to gauge the possibility of gaining cooperation from
roughly a half-dozen of Russia’s richest men, nearly
all of whom, like Mr. Deripaska, depend on President Vladimir V.
Putin to maintain their wealth, the officials said. –NYT
Central
to the recruiting effort were two central players in the
Trump-Russia investigation; twice-demoted DOJ #4 officialBruce
Ohr and Christopher Steele –
the author of the largely unverified “Steele Dossier.”
Steele,
a longtime associate of Ohr’s, worked for Deripaska beginning in 2012
researching a business rival – work which would evolve to the point
where the former British spy was interfacing with the Obama
administration on his behalf – resulting in Deripaska regaining entry
into the United States, where he visited numerous times between 2009
and 2017.
The
State Department tried to keep him from getting a U.S. visa between
2006 and 2009 because they believed he had unspecified connections to
criminal elements in Russia as he consolidated power in the aluminum
industry. Deripaska has denied those allegations…
Whatever
the case, it
is irrefutable that after he began helping the FBI, Deripaska
regained entry to the United States.
And he visited numerous times between 2009 and 2017, visa entry
records show. –The
Hill
Deripaska
is now banned from the United States as one of several
Russians sanctioned in
April in response to alleged 2016 election meddling.
In
a September 2016 meeting, Deripaska
told FBI agents that it was “preposterous” that Paul
Manafort was colluding with Russia to help Trump win the 2016
election.
This, despite the fact that Deripaska and Manafort’s business
relationship “ended in lawsuits”, per The
Hill –
and the Russian would have every reason to throw Manafort under the
bus if he wanted some revenge on his old associate.
So
the FBI
and DOJ secretly collaborated with Trump’s alleged
backchannel over a seven-year period,
starting with Levinson, then on Deripaska’s Visa, and finally
regarding whether Paul Manafort was an intermediary to Putin.
Deripaska vehemently denies the assertion, and even took out
newspaper advertisements in the US last year volunteering to testify
to Congress, refuting an AP
report that
he and Manafort secretly worked on a plan to “greatly benefit
the Putin government” a decade ago.
Soon
after the advertisements ran, representatives for the House and
Senate Intelligence Committees called a Washington-based lawyer for
Mr. Deripaska, Adam Waldman, inquiring about taking his client up on
the offer to testify, Mr. Waldman said in an interview.
What
happened after that has been in dispute. Mr. Waldman, who stopped
working for Mr. Deripaska after the sanctions were levied, said he
told the committee staff that his client would be willing to testify
without any grant of immunity, but would not testify about any
Russian collusion with the Trump campaign because “he doesn’t
know anything about that theory and actually doesn’t believe it
occurred.” –NYT
In
short, Deripaska wants it known that he worked with the FBI and
DOJ, and that he had nothing to do with the Steele dossier.
Today,
Deripaska is banned anew from the United States, one of several
Russians sanctioned in April by the Trump administration as a way to
punish Putin for 2016 election meddling. But he wants to be clear
about a few things, according to a statement provided by his
team. First,
he did collude with Americans in the form of voluntarily assisting
and meeting with the FBI, the DOJ and people such as Ohr between 2009
and 2016.
He
also wants Americans to know he
did not cooperate or assist with Steele’s dossier, and he tried to
dispel the FBI notion that Russia and the Trump campaign colluded
during the 2016 election.
–The
Hill
Interestingly,
Steele’s dossier which was partially funded by the Clinton campaign,
relied on senior
Kremlin officials.
It
would be most helpful if the Department of Justice could please
investigate and then prosecute themselves and/or members of the
previous administration, so that journalists like John Solomon,
Sara Carter, Luke Rosiak, Chuck Ross and others don’t have to
continue to break stories that are seemingly ignored by all but a
handful of Congressional investigators.
Mensen, hoe is het mogelijk dat men in de westerse wereld moord en brand schreeuwt, daar Putin en Trump de spanningen tussen Rusland en de VS uit de lucht proberen te halen…??
Wil men zo graag oorlog, of een voortbestaan van de koude oorlog, zaken waar werkelijk niemand beter van wordt??
Op Radio1, BNR, VRT (radio) 1, WDR en BBC vanmorgen de ene na de andere oorlogshitser, die schande sprak van de ontmoeting tussen Putin en Trump……. Deze reguliere media die het woord complottheorie te onpas en te onpas gebruiken, hebben nu geen moeite de ene na de andere samenzweringstheorie te lanceren, zo zou Putin Trump in de hand hebben, zou Putin een geheim van Trump weten en hem daarmee chanteren, om er een paar te noemen….
Uiteraard haalt men alle fake news (nepnieuws) van stal: de Russen zouden voor de winst van Trump tijdens de VS presidentsverkiezingen hebben gezorgd, middels het hacken van computers en documenten te lekken….. Niet dat daar ook maar één bewijs voor is geleverd, ook voor de laatste beschuldigingen van Mueller aan het adres van de Russen, is niet een flinter van bewijs gegeven….. (en dat zal zo blijven) Een correspondent van WDR durfde zelfs te beweren dat hij een stapel aan bewijzen had gezien voor de beschuldigingen van Mueller aan het adres van 12 Russische inlichtingenofficieren, als zouden zij de computer van Podesto, de rechterhand van Clinton tijdens de verkiezingscampagne, hebben gehackt……. Dit terwijl ook deze ‘bewijzen’ niet openbaar kunnen worden gemaakt, daar ze anders ‘een gevaar voor de VS staatsveiligheid’ zouden vormen…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Scala is een programma op WDR 5 en in dat programma werd een goed uur geleden door een presentator gezegd dat Trump Putin gelooft met diens bewering dat Rusland geen hand had in de manipulatie van de VS presidentsverkiezingen, de presentator deed dit op een smalende manier, daar Putin dit gezegd zou hebben, terwijl voor deze zaak zoals gezegd geen flinter bewijs ligt…… Als deze presentator z’n werk had gedaan, had hij zelf deze conclusie kunnen trekken…. Ook de annexatie van De Krim werd door deze presentator gehekeld, terwijl het volk van De Krim, in een door internationale waarnemers als eerlijk en goed beoordeeld referendum besloot zich aan te sluiten bij Rusland en niet langer te willen leven onder de corrupte neonazi-junta van Porosjenko, een junta die één op één door de VS in het zadel werd geholpen……
De reguliere westerse media en het grootste deel van westerse politici hebben geen moeite met een illegale oorlog meer of minder aangegaan door de VS, sterker nog men verdedigt zelfs de leugens die de VS gebruikt om een land naar god te bombarderen…….
Vanmorgen na 9.30 u. op Radio1, hare kwaadaardigheid Salemon, naast alle leugens over Rusland stelde ze dat het economisch slecht gaat met Rusland, terwijl Rusland het ene contract na het andere afsluit met niet-westerse landen en het ondanks de westerse sancties economisch redelijk goed gaat met Rusland…. Dat laatste, het afsluiten van overeenkomsten en contracten met niet westerse landen en de grote bedrijven daar, is ook van toepassing op het volgende wat Salemon aan haar woorden toevoegde: Putin is geïsoleerd…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Tja dat krijg je als je het westen als heel de wereld ziet! (jezus!) Ook zwetskop en grofgraaier Charles Groenhuijsen mocht heel dapper laten horen wat hij aan kronkels in de kop heeft als het om Rusland, Putin of Trump gaat…..
Op BNR was vanmorgen na 8.30 u. VS ‘deskundige’ Diederik Brink te horen, deze huis, tuin en keukenpsycholoog stelde dat Trump maar slapjes stond naast Putin en zo stelde Brink, het lijkt erop dat hij werkelijk gelooft op eigen kracht in het Witte Huis te zijn gekomen…… ha! ha! ha! ha! Zie het voorgaande, bovendien is de smerige campagne die Clinton voerde de oorzaak voor haar verlies, een smerige campagne die men in de schoenen van de Russen wil schuiven, nogmaals: zonder dat er ook maar een flinter aan bewijs werd geleverd……. Terwijl er een fiks aantal documenten liggen, die duidelijk maken dat er vanuit de DNC is gelekt naar de pers, daar er nog een paar medewerkers waren die het niet eens waren met het smerige spel van Clinton……
Voor het tegenovergestelde, dus dat de VS elders: -verkiezingen manipuleert (ook middels hacken, zie Vault 7 en 8 documenten op WikiLeaks), -opstanden organiseert, -staatsgrepen regisseert dan wel uitvoert, -verdachten en niet verdachten massaal vermoordt middels drones, -met geheime CIA/leger acties, een groot aantal mensen vermoordt en -illegale oorlogen begint, liggen er wel een enorm aantal bewijzen (veelal officiële documenten van de VS en alweer >> vaak te vinden op WikiLeaks…)….
Brink was één van de figuren die beweerde dat Rusland waarschijnlijk zaken van Trump weet waarmee het Trump onder druk zou hebben gezet……. Volgens Brink komen er in de VS dagelijks schandalen bij, waaronder hij ook de lariekoek van Mueller verstaat……
Overbodig te melden dat men vanmorgen tijdens deze anti-Russische propaganda keer op keer vlucht MH17 aanhaalde, terwijl het hele onderzoek naar het neerhalen van MH17 een farce is >> ondanks alle belachelijke beschuldigingen aan het adres van Rusland, liggen er meer dan voldoende bewijzen die in de richting van de VS en Oekraïne wijzen……
Om een paar zaken te noemen: waarom week vlucht MH17 op 17 juli 2014 van het normale ‘vliegpad’ af en vloog men over oorlogsgebied? Hoe is het mogelijk dat een land al haar radarposten op dezelfde dag uitschakelt, zoals Oekraïne op 17 juli 2014 heeft gedaan, vandaag precies 4 jaar geleden? Wie had er belang bij het neerhalen van MH17? (Niet Rusland noch de opstandelingen tegen de Oekraïense dictatuur) Waarom mocht Maleisië niet meewerken aan het onderzoek, omdat het ‘de Rusland is schuldig doctrine’ niet geloofde? Voor meer berichten over het neerhalen van vlucht MH17, klik op het label MH17, direct onder dit bericht (na een aantal berichten volgt het laatst gelezen bericht telkens weer terug, dan even onder het laatst gelezen bericht nog eens op ‘MH17’ klikken)
Nogmaals: mensen hoe is het mogelijk dat men de kans op ontspanning verfoeit in het westen, niet alleen door de reguliere media, maar ook door het grootste deel van de politici…? Wil men zo graag een echte oorlog met Rusland…?
Bij deze wil ik de nabestaanden van de slachtoffers die door de MH17 ramp te betreuren zijn, deze dag sterkte wensen.
Ray
McGovern, een ex-CIA agent, die zoals je gerust kan stellen tot
inkeer kwam, schreef een artikel op Consortium News over het
‘Russische hack’ verhaal.
Volkomen
terecht stelt McGovern dat er na 2 jaar nog steeds geen schijn van
bewijs is voor Russische hack van het DNC, het comité dat zwaar op de
hand van Hillary Clinton was en dat er voor zorgde dat haar tegenkandidaat
Bernie Sanders de voorverkiezingen verloor…… Het DNC wist van
Julian Assange dat hij zou komen met uitgelekte documenten waaruit
e.e.a. zou blijken. Om Assange voor te zijn werd rap naar de Russen
gewezen als de dader die deze documenten middels een hack zou hebben
bemachtigd en deze Wikileaks zou hebben doen toekomen……..
Intussen
is uit en te na bewezen dat deze documenten door een lid van het DNC
zijn gelekt, waarschijnlijk uit frustratie over het meer dan smerige
spel van het DNC tijdens de democratische voorverkiezingen. Deze klokkenluider is naar grote waarschijnlijkheid
Seth Rich, die niet lang nadat de ellende begon werd vermoord tijdens
een ‘straatroof’ terwijl er niets van hem werd gestolen zelfs zijn
geld niet……..
Onterecht
merkt McGovern op dat dit hele hackverhaal niet meer terug komt in de
media, echter dat is onzin, zoals de al evenzeer niet bewezen
manipulaties door de Russen van de presidentsverkiezing regelmatig in de media worden genoemd, het enige verschil is dat men niet verder
spreekt over deze belachelijke beschuldiging, maar deze eenvoudig
aanhaalt als bewijs voor de smerige rol die Rusland zou hebben gespeeld en speelt…..
Ofwel: het demoniseren van Rusland op grond van leugens, terwijl de ware demon de VS zelf
is, de grootste terreurentiteit op onze aarde………
De NSA en de andere geheime diensten van de VS hebben een enorm scala aan mogelijkheden om de schuld voor bepaalde door de VS begane zaken op het internet, in de schoenen van een ander land kan schuiven en dat ook daadwerkelijk heeft gedaan, zie de Vault 7 en 8 documenten op Wikileaks……..
McGovern
heeft de zaak nog eens netjes op een rij gezet en dat werkt uiterst
verhelderend na een paar jaar middels leugens haat en angstzaaien tegen/voor de
Russen.
More
than two years after the allegation of a Russian hack of the 2016
U.S. presidential election was first made, conclusive proof is still
lacking and may never be produced.
(CN Op-ed) — If
you are wondering why so little is heard these days of accusations
that Russia hacked into the U.S. election in 2016, it could be
because those charges could not withstand close scrutiny.
It could also be because special counsel Robert Mueller appears to
have never bothered to investigate what was once the central alleged
crime in Russia-gate as no one associated with WikiLeaks has ever
been questioned by his team.
Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity — including two “alumni”
who were former National Security Agency (NSA) technical directors — have
long since concluded that Julian Assange did not acquire what he
called the “emails related to Hillary Clinton” via a “hack”
by the Russians or anyone else. They found, rather, that he got them
from someone with physical access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers who copied the material onto an external storage device —
probably a thumb drive. In December 2016 VIPS explained this
in some detail in an open Memorandum to President Barack Obama.
On
January 18, 2017 President Obama admitted that
the “conclusions” of U.S. intelligence regarding how the alleged
Russian hacking got to WikiLeaks were “inconclusive.” Even the
vapid FBI/CIA/NSA “Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian
Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections” of January 6,
2017, which tried to blame Russian
President
Vladimir Putin for election interference, contained no
direct evidence of Russian involvement. That did not prevent
the “handpicked” authors of that poor excuse for intelligence
analysis from expressing “high confidence” that Russian
intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the Democratic
National Committee … to WikiLeaks.”
Handpicked
analysts, of course, say what they are handpicked to say.
Never
mind. The FBI/CIA/NSA “assessment” became bible truth for
partisans like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking member of the House
Intelligence Committee, who was among the first off the blocks to
blame Russia for interfering to help Trump. It simply could not
have been that Hillary Clinton was quite capable of snatching defeat
out of victory all by herself. No, it had to have been the
Russians.
Five
days into the Trump presidency, I had a chance to challenge Schiff
personally on the gaping disconnect between the Russians and
WikiLeaks. Schiff still “can’t share the evidence” with me …
or with anyone else, because it does not exist.
WikiLeaks
It
was on June 12, 2016, just six weeks before the Democratic National
Convention, that Assange announced the pending publication of “emails
related to Hillary Clinton,” throwing the Clinton campaign into
panic mode, since the emails would document strong bias in favor of
Clinton and successful attempts to sabotage the campaign of Bernie
Sanders.
When
the emails were published on July 22, just three days before the
convention began, the campaign decided to create what I call a
Magnificent Diversion, drawing attention away from the substance of
the emails by blaming Russia for their release.
Clinton’s
PR chief Jennifer Palmieri later admitted that
she golf-carted around to various media outlets at the convention
with instructions “to get the press to focus on something even we
found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only
hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to
help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.” The diversion
worked like a charm. Mainstream media kept shouting “The
Russians did it,” and gave little, if any, play to the DNC
skullduggery revealed in the emails themselves. And like Brer’ Fox,
Bernie didn’t say nothin’.
Meanwhile,
highly sophisticated technical experts, were hard at work fabricating
“forensic facts” to “prove” the Russians did it. Here’s
how it played out:
June
12, 2016: Assange announces that WikiLeaks is about to
publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”
June
14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious
professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces
that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is
evidence it was injected by Russians.
June
15, 2016: “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement;
claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks
source; and posts a document that the forensics show was
synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
The
June 12, 14, & 15 timing was hardly coincidence. Rather, it was
the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything
WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it
came from a Russian hack.
Enter
Independent Investigators
A
year ago independent cyber-investigators completed the kind of
forensic work that, for reasons best known to then-FBI Director James
Comey, neither he nor the “handpicked analysts” who wrote the
Jan. 6, 2017 assessment bothered to do. The independent
investigators found verifiable evidence from metadata found in the
record of an alleged Russian hack of July 5, 2016 showing that the
“hack” that day of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by
Russia or anyone else.
Rather
it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a
thumb drive, for example) by an insider — the same process used
by the DNC insider/leaker before June 12, 2016 for an altogether
different purpose. (Once the metadata was found and the “fluid
dynamics” principle of physics applied, this was not difficult
to disprove the
validity of the claim that Russia was responsible.)
One
of these independent investigators publishing under the name of The
Forensicator on May 31 published new evidence that
the Guccifer 2.0 persona uploaded a document from the West Coast of
the United States, and not from Russia.
In
our July 24, 2017 Memorandum to President Donald Trump we stated,
“We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish
to ask the FBI.”
Our July
24 Memorandum continued: “Mr. President, the disclosure
described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is
something we think you should be made aware of in this general
connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove
of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled ‘Vault
7.’ WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former
CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and
significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in
2013.
“No
one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of
Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools
developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering
Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA
Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established
by John Brennan in 2015. [ (VIPSwarned President
Obama of some of the dangers of that basic CIA reorganization at the
time.]
Marbled
“Scarcely
imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and
make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying
through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York
Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3
release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework”
program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as ‘news fit
to print’ and was kept out of the Times at
the time, and has never been mentioned since.
“The
Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, ‘did not get the
memo’ in time. Her March 31 article bore
the catching (and accurate) headline: ‘WikiLeaks’ latest release
of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking
operations.’
“The
WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and
easy-to-use ‘obfuscation,’ and that Marble source code includes a
“de-obfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.
“More
important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In
her Washington
Post report,
Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point
made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to
conduct a ‘forensic attribution double game’ or false-flag
operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian,
Korean, Arabic and Farsi.”
A
few weeks later William Binney, a former NSA technical director,
and I commented on
Vault 7 Marble, and were able to get a shortened op-ed
version published in The
Baltimore Sun.
The
CIA’s reaction to the WikiLeaks disclosure of the Marble Framework
tool was neuralgic.
Then
Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange
and his associates “demons,” and insisting; “It’s time to
call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile
intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”
Our July
24 Memorandum continued: “Mr. President, we do not know
if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of
role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do
we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation
Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These
are areas that might profit from early White House review. [
President Trump then directed Pompeo to invite Binney, one of the
authors of the July 24, 2017 VIPS Memorandum to the President, to
discuss all this. Binney and Pompeo spent an hour together at
CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017, during which Binney briefed
Pompeo with his customary straightforwardness. ]
“We
also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail
with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly
he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues
related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7
disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin
pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be ‘masked
and camouflaged to an extent that no one
can understand the origin’ [of the hack] … And, vice
versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any
individual that everyone will think that they are the exact
source of that attack.
“‘Hackers
may be anywhere,’ he said. ‘There may be hackers, by the way,
in the UnitedStates
who very craftily and professionally passed the buck
to Russia. Can’t you imagine such a scenario? … I can.’
New
attention has been drawn to these issues after I discussed them in a
widely published 16-minute interview last
Friday.
In
view of the highly politicized environment surrounding these issues,
I believe I must append here the same notice that VIPS felt compelled
to add to our key Memorandum of July 24, 2017:
“Full
Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence
profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that
agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we
add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and
do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth
around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence
colleagues.
“We
speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance
between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say
is purely coincidental.” The fact we find it is necessary to
include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized
times.
Ray
McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years and co-founded Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
