Research Shows Google’s Search Manipulations Tried To Rig Election For Hillary

google manipulated the 2016 election

Hillary Clinton may have lost by a substantially larger margin had Google not manipulated the search results in her favor. Even trending negative searches about the corrupt democrat were suppressed. According to an exclusive by Breitbart, the conclusions are based on 16 months of experiments conducted with a total of 1,800 people from all 50 U.S. states. Participants in the study came from diverse ideological backgrounds, including liberal, conservative, and moderate. In order to control prior biases, participants were asked to judge political candidates that they were unfamiliar with.

The research showed that the manipulation of results pages in search engines can shift the voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic –meaning Google was attempting to rig the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton.

The voting preferences of participants who saw no search suggestions shifted toward the favored candidate by 37.1%. The voting preferences of participants in the search suggestion groups who saw only positive search suggestions shifted similarly (35.6%). However, the voting preferences of participants who saw three positive search suggestions and one negative search suggestion barely shifted (1.8%); this occurred because the negative search suggestion attracted more than 40% of the clicks (negativity bias). In other words, a single negative search suggestion can impact opinions dramatically. Participants who were shown four negative suggestions (and no positives) shifted away from the candidate shown in the search bar (-43.4%). -Epstein, Mohr, & Martinez, The Search Suggestion Effect, 2018

Led by Dr. Robert Epstein, the researchers concluded that by using this method of manipulation, search engines can shift a “50/50 split among people who are undecided on an issue to a 90/10 split without people’s awareness and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to follow.” Meaning the real collusion during the 2016 election was not between Trump and the Russians, but was between tech giants and their propaganda scheme and the Hillary Clinton campaign. 

It is no longer a conspiracy theory that Google is manipulating people.  Just look at the heavy amount of manipulation in Google’s “suggested” searches in comparison to those of Bing and Yahoo. The researchers suggested that the search suggestion manipulation made against Google during the 2016 election when the tech giant appeared to be suppressing negative search suggestions for Hillary Clinton while allowing negative suggestions for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders to remain.

read more: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/research-shows-googles-search-manipulations-tried-to-rig-election-for-hillary_04252018

Secret Meeting Between Obama & Comey Took Place Two Weeks Before Donald Trump Became President

Obama asks, What is Treason?

REPORT: Secret Meeting Between Obama & Comey Took Place Two Weeks Before Donald Trump Became President

James Comey never mentioned this meeting while testifying under oath to Congress. He never mentioned it in interviews to media, or in his book. In fact, the meeting that took place between himself and Barack Obama was so secret there was no official record of it having taken place at all.

Until now.

  • The Daily Caller News Foundation and Judicial Watch filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday
  • The lawsuit is seeking records related to meetings between former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama
  • Comey’s statements regarding times he met with the president conflict with other statements and records

The Daily Caller News Foundation and the watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday seeking records to determine the actual number of times and reasons former FBI Director James Comey met with then-President Barack Obama.

The request by the two organizations was filed because the former FBI director claimed he rarely met with Obama, and he was an independent and nonpartisan leader of the nation’s top law enforcement agency. The parties filed the lawsuit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Comey’s impartiality about his relationship with Obama was sharply called into question by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary when its chairman, Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, uncovered a private, undisclosed meeting Comey held with Obama on Jan. 5, 2017, two weeks before Trump’s inauguration.

TheDCNF requested, “records that identify and describe all meetings between former FBI Director James Comey and President Barack Obama,” in its Freedom of Information Act request before the FBI, which it filed Feb. 19.

On May 22, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch sought records for a broader set of Comey meetings including Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and top political figures. Its request included records “written or ordered written by FBI Director James Comey summarizing his conversations with any of the following individuals: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Senator Chuck Schumer, Representative Nancy Pelosi, and Senator John McCain.” Their timeframe for its request was between Sept. 4, 2013 and May 9, 2017.

Comey has carefully parsed his words about his interactions with Obama. In his June 8, 2017, testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence he suggested his firsthand meetings with the Democratic president were rare. He claimed he only spoke with Obama twice, once in 2015 and another “to say goodbye in late 2016,” according the former FBI director’s testimony.

“As FBI director, I interacted with President Obama. I spoke only twice in three years,” he said. “I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly, for him to say goodbye in late 2016,” Comey’s opening statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee read.

Grassley along with South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is a Judiciary subcommittee chairman, discovered through the National Archives that Obama met with Comey on Jan. 5, 2017, two weeks before Trump’s inauguration.

Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, recorded the meeting in an email around 12 p.m on Inauguration Day. She addressed the email to herself.

“President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office,” Rice stated.

In a Feb. 8, 2017, letter to Rice, Grassley and Graham wrote, “It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation.”

Biden and Yates joined Rice and Obama in the meeting.

By failing to inform the Congress about the Jan. 5 meeting, Comey may have deliberately misled Congress about his interactions with the former president.

Read More: http://dcwhispers.com/report-secret-meeting-between-obama-comey-took-place-two-weeks-before-donald-trump-became-president/#hTIdywum0p0fxGsU.97

The Real Obstruction of Justice: FBI Pardon of Hillary’s Illegal Activities

FBI - DOJ - Fusion GPS - DNC - Circle of Treason

Did McCabe Order FBI Agents To “Stand Down” On Early Clinton Email Investigation?

Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe reportedly gave a “stand-down” order to FBI agents who began probing Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server for official government business following a report in the New York Times, reports journalist Sara Carter, citing “multiple former FBI officials, along with a Congressional official.”

After The New York Times publication, the FBI Washington Field Office began investigating Clinton’s use of private emails and whether she was using her personal email account to transmit classified information. According to sources, McCabe was overseas when he became aware of the investigation and sent electronic communications voicing his displeasure with the agents. –Sara Carter

“Electronic communications” you say? Sounds like McCabe picked the right time to relaunch his new legal defense fund.

McCabe’s reported March 2015 “stand down” order to agents investigating the New York Times report may have broken FBI rules, to say the least. The official DOJ request to investigate Clinton would not be issued until the end of July 2015, four months later.

McCabe tried to steer people off the private email investigation and that appears to be obstruction and should be investigated,” said one former FBI official with knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the investigation. “Now if the information on the ‘stand-down’ order is obtained by the IG that could bring a whole lot of other troubles to McCabe.”

Last week, Inspector General Michael Horowitz released an internal report which revealed that McCabe had lied four times to investigators, including twice while under oath, about authorizing an F.B.I. spokesman and attorney to tell Devlin Barrett of the Wall St. Journal, just days before the 2016 election, that he had not issued a similar “stand-down” order on the reported FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation – right around the time McCabe was coming under fire for his wife Jill taking a $467,500 campaign contribution from Clinton proxy pal, Terry McAuliffe.

So McCabe was accused of a “stand-down” order during the 2016 election, for which he authorized the leak that got him fired – and he now stands accused of a separate, previous “stand-down” order as agents began to follow up on a March 2 2015 New York Times report into Clinton’s use of a private server.

Horowitz and his team of investigators at the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have been sifting through more than 1.2 million documents, of which Sara Carter‘s sources say 46,000 are connected to ongoing investigations. “Of those documents, Congress has received a tiny fraction of the emails pertaining to their oversight investigations.”

Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in September 2017 against the FBI for the communications on behalf of retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Jeff Danik, as previously reported. Danik spent more than 28 years with the bureau as a supervisor in the counter-terrorism division and special overseas advisor. Thus far, the FBI has failed to abide by a judge’s order to turn over all of former McCabe’s text messages, emails and SMS phone messages. –Sara Carter

According to the OIG report on McCabe, the Wall Street Journal article which used McCabe’s leak “discussed not only the FBI’s handling of the Clinton E-mail Investigation but ‘internal disagreements within the Bureau and the Justice Department surrounding the Clintons’ family philanthropy.’” It stated that “McCabe, in particular, was caught . . . [in] an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case.

The former law enforcement sources who spoke to this reporter said a possible stand-down order on the Clinton Foundation investigation doesn’t preclude another stand-down order from McCabe on the Clinton email server investigation. They noted that it appears from the IG’s report that the Justice Department was attempting to dissuade McCabe from moving forward with the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation. McCabe said he authorized the disclosure to The Wall Street Journal of his conversation with the DOJ’s Principal Assistant Attorney General (PADAG) in an effort to counter the narrative that he had given a stand-down order on the Bureau’s Clinton Foundation investigation. –Sara Carter

Meanwhile, ol’ Andy has received two referrals seeking criminal prosecution – the first sent last week by 11 GOP Congressional legislators, and the second coming from Inspector General Horowitz. As Carter notes, evidence collected by the Inspector General has raised new questions over McCabe’s role in the FBI’s investigations of Clinton and Trump – as well as what role President Obama’s DOJ (and State Department) may have played in both. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-24/did-mccabe-order-fbi-agents-stand-down-early-clinton-email-investigation

Obama Admin Illegally Influenced Election: Using FBI for Political Ends

“Very Pissed Off” Obama DOJ Made “Dramatic” Call To McCabe To Quash Clinton Probe

As the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation pressed on during the 2016 election, a senior official with the Obama justice department, identified as Matthew Axelrod, called former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe – who thought the DOJ was pressuring him to shut down the investigation, according to the recently released inspector general’s (OIG) report.

The official was “very pissed off” at the FBI, the report says, and demanded to know why the FBI was still pursuing the Clinton Foundation when the Justice Department considered the case dormant. –Washington Times

The OIG issued a criminal referral for McCabe based on findings that the former Deputy Director “made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor – including under oath – on multiple occasions.”

McCabe authorized a self-serving leak to the New York Times claiming that the FBI had not put the brakes on the Clinton Foundation investigation, during a period in which he was coming under fire over a $467,500 campaign donation his wife Jill took from Clinton pal Terry McAuliffe.

It is bizarre — and that word can’t be used enough — to have the Justice Department call the FBI’s deputy director and try to influence the outcome of an active corruption investigation,” said James Wedick – a former FBI official who conducted corruption investigations at the bureau. “They can have some input, but they shouldn’t be operationally in control like it appears they were from this call.”

Wedick said he’s never fielded a call from the Justice Department about any of his cases during his 35 years there – which suggests an attempt at interference by the Obama administration.

As the Washington Times Jeff Mordock points out, Although the inspector general’s report did not identify the caller, former FBI and Justice Department officials said it was Matthew Axelrod, who was the principal associate deputy attorney general — the title the IG report did use.

Mr. McCabe thought the call was out of bounds.

He told the inspector general that during the Aug. 12, 2016, call the principal associate deputy attorney general expressed concerns about FBI agents taking overt steps in the Clinton Foundation investigation during the presidential campaign. –Washington Times

“According to McCabe, he pushed back, asking ‘are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?’” the report reads. “McCabe told us that the conversation was ‘very dramatic’ and he never had a similar confrontation like the PADAG call with a high-level department official in his entire FBI career.”

Read More: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-24/very-pissed-obama-doj-made-dramatic-call-mccabe-quash-clinton-probe

The CIA: The World’s REAL Election Meddlers

CIA_Director_JAMES-WOOLSEY

Former CIA Chief Admits US Meddling In Foreign Elections “For Their Own Good”

Former CIA chief James Woolsey appeared on Fox News to push the narrative of how dastardly ‘dem Russkies’ are in their meddling with the sacred soul of America’s democracy.

Woolsey did his patriotic deep-state-duty and proclaimed the evils of “expansionist Russia” and dropped ‘facts’ like “Russia has a larger cyber-army than its standing army,” before he moved on to China and its existential threats.

But then, beginning at around 4:30, the real debacle of the conversation begins as Ingraham asks Woolsey,

“Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries’ elections?”

Hes responds, surprisingly frankly…

“Oh probably… but it was for the good of the system…”

To which Ingraham follows up…

“We don’t do that now though? We don’t mess around in other people’s elections?”

Prompting this extraordinary sentence from a former CIA chief…

“Well…hhhmmm, numm numm numm numm… only for a very good cause…in the interests of democracy”

So just to clarify – yes, the CIA chief admitted that Democracy-spreading ‘Murica meddled in the Democratic elections of other nations “in the interests of democracy.”

In case you wondered which ones he was referring to, here’s a brief selection since 1948…

2016: UK (verbal intervention against Brexit)
2014: Afghanistan (effectively re-writing Afghan constitution)
2014: UK (verbal intervention against Scottish independence)
2011: Libya (providing support to overthrow Colonel Gaddafi)
2009: Honduras (ousting President Zelaya)
2006: Palestine (providing support to oust Prime Minister Haniyeh)
2005: Syria (providing support against President al-Assad)
2003: Iran (providing support against President Khatami)-
2003: Iraq (ousting of President Hussein)
2002: Venezuela (providing support to attempt an overthrow of President Chavez)
1999: Yugoslavia (removing Yugoslav forces from Kosovo)
1994: Iraq (attempted overthrow of President Hussein)
1991: Haiti (ousting President Aristide)
1991: Kuwait (removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait)
1989: Panama (ousting General Noriega)
1983: Grenada (ousting General Austin’s Marxist forces)
1982: Nicaragua (providing support
1971: Chile (ousting President Allende)
1967: Indonesia (ousting President Sukarno)
1964: Brazil (ousting President Goulart)
1964: Chile (providing support against Salvador Allende)
1961: Congo (assassination of leader Lumumba)
1958: Lebanon (providing support to Christian political parties)
1954: Guatemala (ousting President Arbenz)
1953: Iran (ousting Prime Minister Mossadegh)
1953: Philippines (providing support to the President Magsaysay campaign)
1948: Italy (providing support to the Christian Democrats campaign)

(h/t @Yogi_Chan)

What is the FBI hiding in its war to protect Comey?

Fusion GPS and the Trump Dossier

As the James Comey saga continues to unfold, the James Comey legend continues to unravel. The more we learn about his involvement in the deep state’s illicit targeting of President Trump, the more reason the American people have to question both his motives and his management as director of the FBI, the now-disgraced agency he headed before Trump fired him on May 16, 2017. Comey has left a trail of suspicious activities in his wake.

Comey now looms large over a burgeoning constitutional crisis that could soon overshadow Watergate at its worst. To deepen the crisis even further, it now appears some of Comey’s former FBI and Justice Department colleagues continue to protect him from accountability.

Three suspicious activities stand out, all intertwined: The so-called Comey Memos, Comey’s controversial testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee and Comey’s book deal.

After Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, he arranged to give the New York Times a Feb. 14, 2017 memorandum he had written about a one-on-one conversation with Trump regarding former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The New York Times published a report about the memo on May 16, 2017. Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed the following day.

On June 8, 2017, Comey testified under oath before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he stated he authored as many as nine such memos. Regarding the Flynn memo, Comey admitted: “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter [for The New York Times]. I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”

Comey also testified about President Trump’s firing of him, and he detailed multiple conversations with President Trump, during which Comey confirmed he told President Trump three times that he was not a target of investigation. Judicial Watch is pursuing numerous FOIA lawsuitsrelating to Comey’s memoranda and FBI exit records as well a lawsuit for Justice Department communications about Comey’s Senate testimony. The American people deserve to know what, if any, complicity his former colleagues had in drafting that testimony and/or in engineering the appointment of Robert Mueller.

The day before Comey’s testimony, Fox News reported: “A source close to James Comey tells Fox News the former FBI director’s Senate testimony has been ‘closely coordinated’ with Robert Mueller…”. Comey may have violated the law in leaking his official FBI memos to the media, and it would be a scandal if Comey coordinated his Senate testimony with Mr. Mueller’s special counsel office.

That we have had to sue in federal court to discover the truth speaks volumes. The FBI has built a protective stonewall around Comey by refusing to release the Comey Memos and refusing to disclose records of communications between the FBI and Comey prior to and regarding Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intel Committee.

Since his forced departure from the FBI, Comey signed a book deal in August 2017, set for publication in April 2018, for which he reportedly received an advance in excess of $2 million. Given the fact that the FBI appears to be letting Comey get away with stealing and leaking official government documents and colluding with the special counsel to get Trump, even a trusting person must be suspicions about his book deal.

The FBI has fanned those suspicions by, you guessed it, adding a new layer to the protective stonewall around Comey. Again, Judicial Watch has been forced to sue a recalcitrant FBI for records, including but not limited to forms Comey was required to complete relating to prepublication review of the book by the FBI. Did Comey’s cronies give the fired FBI director a pass on this long-standing requirement? Is that why they are stonewalling the Judicial Watch FOIA?

Read More: http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/374675-what-is-the-fbi-hiding-in-its-war-to-protect-comey

The Mysterious Death of Seth Rich – One America News Network Special Report

On July 8, 2016, 27 year-old Democrat staffer Seth Conrad Rich was murdered in Washington DC. The killer or killers took nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone. Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family. Seth Rich’s father Joel told reporters, “If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life.”

OANN Releases Report On Seth Rich Murder, Raises Questions About Chinese Corruption

The San Diego based One American News Network has released a new report highlighting key elements of the mystery surrounding the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich. OANN cites a number of inconsistencies and lingering questions in the case, while also noting that Rich’s murder occurred in close proximity to the similarly strange death of UN official John Ashe. Ashe was found dead just days before he was set to testify against Clinton in relation to matters pertaining to a corruption case where Chinese billionaire Charlie Trie helped launder $1.2 million dollars as part of Chinese government efforts to influence Bill Clinton’s 1996 presidential election. Ashe’s death was originally reported as a heart attack, but the story changed after it emerged that the cause was in fact a crushed windpipe in what was labeled a “workout accident.”

On May 25th, one day before OANN’s report, a representative of the media company made a post on the online messageboard 4chan appealing for help locating information regarding the doctor who treated Seth Rich for gunshot injuries he sustained during the incident. Within minutes of the post, OANN’s website was taken offlinein a Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attack.

The findings of the report offer fresh insights what is appearing to be a story of complex political corruption and Democratic National Committee (DNC) attempts to downplay the scandal. Disobedient Media has previously reported on the extensive ties that key players in the Seth Rich case have to the DNC, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Rose Law Firm, the law firm which was at the center of the 1990’s Whitewater Controversy.

Read More: https://disobedientmedia.com/2017/05/oann-releases-report-on-seth-rich-murder-raises-questions-about-chinese-corruption/

 

Who’re the ones Colluding with Russia?

Mark Warner Paper Trail

‘Rather Not Have Paper Trail’ — Leaked Messages Show Dem Sen Talking With Russian Oligarch’s Lobbyist

A new report indicates that Democratic Virginia Sen. Mark Warner was in contact with a lobbyist for Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian billionaire, in order to get in contact with Christopher Steele, author of the infamous dossier that was used to surveil.

Fox News reports Adam Waldman, a lobbyist for Deripaska, texted Warner “Chris Steele asked me to call you” on March 16, 2017.

Warner wrote back, “Will call tomorrow be careful.”

Warner also said on March 20, 2017, “Can you talk tomorrow want to get with ur English friend”

“I spoke to him yesterday,” Waldman replied.

On March 30th, 2017, Warner expressed a desire to not leave evidence of a meeting with Steele, which he wanted to be with only him.

“We want to do this right private in London don’t want to send letter yet cuz if we can’t get agreement wud rather not have paper trail,” he wrote to Waldman.

Warner is the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is investigating President Trump’s connections to Russia.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Birr, a Republican, has been working with Warner to investigate Russian meddling.

Birr and Warner released a statement to Fox News “stressing they are working together, while blasting the ‘leaks of incomplete information.’”

Although the Fox News article doesn’t mention Russian president Vladimir Putin, Deripaska is close with the head of state

A Los Angeles Times profile of Deripaska from 2017 described him as “tight” with Putin and said that the two men’s ties were “so close that Russia’s foreign minister asked U.S. secretaries of state for more than a decade, including as recently as last year, to help Deripaska secure a visa to enter the United States, the Washington Post reported.”

Warner disclosed these messages to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the entire committee was made aware of them in October 2017, the Fox News report notes.

Read More: http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/08/steele-warner-paper-trail-russian-oligarch/

How The Media Buried Two Huge FBI Stories

memos memos everywhere

For more than a year and a half, the media have gone all-in on reporting every possible angle of President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. No story update has been too small, no encounter with a Russian too inconsequential, and no anonymous source too sketchy to generate outsize coverage and histrionic claims from major media.

But as the Russian collusion story disintegrates, another interesting story ascends. Investigations by multiple congressional committees as well as an investigation by the inspector general of the Department of Justice have shown irregularities in the handling of the most politically sensitive probes in recent memory: the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information while secretary of State and the investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged nefarious ties with Russia to meddle in a U.S. election.

These investigations have resulted in the firing, demotion, and reassignment of at least six top officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice. And all of those personnel changes were made before even the first official reports and memoranda from these investigations were made public.

In recent weeks, however, some official documents have come to light. These are statements made by elected members of the U.S. government on the record, not selective and political leaks from anonymous sources. So how have the media responded to these official statements regarding wrongdoing? Mostly by downplaying, mocking, and ignoring them.

When the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s majority memo was made public last week, many journalists highlighted Democratic talking points against it or otherwise rushed to defend the agencies credibly accused of abuse of power. As soon as they could, they dropped the story, despite the dramatic claims in the memo.

Two nights ago, a criminal referral by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was published with far fewer redactions than an earlier version of the referral. The less-redacted letter was significant. For one thing, it confirmed all of the major claims from the House memo authored by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).

A Clinton campaign document formed an essential part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application to spy on a Trump campaign affiliate. The application failed to note that the campaign document was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The dossier wasn’t corroborated so much as taken in faith based on the supposed credibility of its author, even after the FBI discovered he’d violated his working agreement with them. A top Justice official’s wife also worked on the Clinton campaign effort. The official funneled her information into the investigation.

The FBI hid their relationship with the Clinton operation from the court. The principal creator of the dossier revealed that he was “desperate” to keep Trump out of office, and the FBI knew this but didn’t tell the court about his extreme political bias. A news article obviously sourced to the dossier author, Christopher Steele, was presented in the application as separate from and corroborating the dossier.

In addition to supporting the major claims of the House Intelligence memo, the criminal referral also said that Clinton associates — elsewhere reported to be the extremely sketchy Cody Shearer and Sid Blumenthal — funneled information to Steele and he took it seriously, itself completely discrediting for someone working with the FBI.

Grassley and Graham had to fight the FBI tooth and nail to get this memo released with few-enough redactions to serve the public. Grassley accused the bureau of playing a “bureaucratic game of hide the ball.” In short, there were multiple interesting angles worthy of serious — perhaps even breathless — coverage.

Yet Major Outlets Don’t Want to Talk About This

Instead, The New York Times ran a story on page 19 of the newspaper. Its portions about the criminal referral — as opposed to its portions repeating Democratic talking points — could not have been more dryly written or uninteresting. Reporters Maggie Haberman, Sharon LaFraniere, and Michael Shear devoted a total of five sentences in a 22-paragraph story to the Grassley and Graham expose. It ran under the false headline “2 Senators Issue Letter To Support House Memo,” even though the letter was issued in early January, weeks before the House memo was made public. The criminal referral was only this week published with few-enough redactions to make sense of it.

What about at the Washington Post? Their reporters did not write a story about the significantly less redacted letter released Tuesday. A blog post mischaracterized the more redacted version of the letter Monday as a letter written “in an effort to breathe life into the deflating Nunes effort. Unsurprisingly, it’s another big nothing.” It’s not nothing, as coverage of the less redacted letter shows. It confirms the dramatic claims in the House memo, which are anything but deflated. And it was written weeks prior to the House Intel memo. But other than that, great job downplaying.

Certainly Politico covered the dramatically more transparent letter released Tuesday, right? Wrong. I mean, it’s not a scandal if you don’t look at it!

Before we move on to the next big example, let’s look at Washington Post senior political reporter Aaron Blake, who was very upset on January 5 when Grassley and Graham announced the criminal referral of dossier author Steele. That’s when the criminal referral was announced, but we didn’t know why they made the referral until late Tuesday night. Back in January he tweeted that it looked “pretty darn political,” wondered why they made their cover letter public when the particulars were classified, and quoted someone calling it a distraction and “nonsense.” When both the highly redacted and less redacted version of the letter came out this week, however, he was silent.

He did find time to repeatedly throw cold water on the revelations of the House Intel memo, saying it was “laughable” to be concerned about the FBI hiding the fact the dossier was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton when attempting to secure a wiretap to spy on a Trump campaign affiliate. He said arguments in support of the memo were “tortured.” And he generally tweeted and retweeted critiques of those with a different perspective on FISA abuse than the average House Democrat.

Where Journalistic Instincts Go To Die

Let’s turn our attention to another big development in the growing scandal of mismanagement at the FBI. The broad contours are already known. The FBI’s deputy assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, and key FBI lawyer Lisa Page were alleged to be cheating on their respective spouses with each other, presumably a big no-no for counterintelligence officials seeking not be compromised. The chatty duo exchanged tens of thousands of text messages about their work on the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia investigation.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/08/how-the-media-buried-two-huge-fbi-stories-yesterday/

Russian Meddling: Gagging on the Irony

PeepState Mag
The irony that is most gagging is that America’s power elite is destroying the nation’s social order by its concentration of wealth and abuse of power.
The irony of the Deep State’s obsessive focus on “Russian meddling” in the precious bodily fluids of our hallowed democracy is so overwhelming that it’s gagging. The irony is a noxious confluence of putrid hypocrisy and a comically abject terror at the prospect that the citizenry may be awakening to the terrible reality that America has lost its soul as well as its democracy.
The foul stench of hypocrisy arises from the long and sordid history of America’s meddling in the internal politics of virtually every nation on the planet— a deeply entrenched policy of meddling on such a vast scale that the Deep State minions tasked with projecting a wounded astonishment that some foreign power has the unmitigated gall to attempt to influence our domestic politics must have difficulty restraining their amusement.
America’s foreign policy is one of absolute entitlement to influence the domestic affairs and politics of every nation of interest, which to a truly global empire includes every nation on the planet to the degree every nation is a market and/or a potential threat to U.S. interests.
Assassination of elected leaders–no problem. Funding the emergence of new U.S.-directed political parties–just another day at the office. Inciting dissent and discord to destabilize regimes–it’s what we do, folks. Funding outright propaganda–one of our enduring specialties. Privatizing public assets to reward our cronies and domestic corporations–nothing’s more profitable than a public monopoly transformed into a privately owned monopoly.
(If your nation hasn’t been targeted for intervention and campaigns of hard and soft power influence, we apologize for the oversight. We’ll get to destabilizing your political order and economy just as soon as the queue of pressing interventions clears a bit.)
One of our most effective means of meddling is economic. First we press the targeted foreign government and civilian power centers–universities, corporations, banks and other institutions–to liberalize the economy and banking system to allow foreign credit and investment in, under the guise of encouraging beneficial development.
Then we flood the economy with cheap, abundant credit, first to buy up natural resources and the most valuable assets, and secondly to fuel a consumption binge that feels like Utopia to credit-starved residents and enterprises: suddenly there’s credit to buy almost everything consumers could hope for, and credit to expand production, tourism, etc.
The government is encouraged to borrow to fund large-scale infrastructure projects (which are of course built by foreign firms) and other development projects, with great big slices of the borrowed billions carved off for politicos, functionaries and others in line for bribes, fees and offshore accounts of stolen millions.
This monumental expansion of debt eventually undermines the nation’s currency and its economy, as the addictive gush of credit quickly moved beyond sensible, productive projects into speculative ventures with little prospects beyond the initial profits earned by insiders.
As all these marginal projects default, the credit spigot is suddenly shut off, and waves of creditors who thought the good times would last forever go bankrupt.
This destabilization was not an unfortunate side-effect–it was the goal from the start. With the target nation’s currency in a freefall and enterprises defaulting left and right, U.S. firms flush with U.S. dollars and banks with nearly unlimited lines of credit in dollars swoop in and offer to ease the pain by scooping up devalued assets for dollars, or extending credit denominated in dollars.
Compared to the scale of these interventions, $100,000 in Facebook adverts is like a pin prick. The indignation and outrage of America’s power structure is a tell:how dare you give us a taste of our own medicine–only we’re entitled to meddle and intervene as we see fit.
The other source of pungent irony is the failure of America’s power structure to maintain the pretense of a functioning democracy and social contract. The nation we inhabit has strayed so far from the nation’s founding principles and values that it is unrecognizable. In place of democracy, we have a permanent unelected, impervious-to-the-people Deep State and a pay-to-play system in which political power is auctioned off to the highest bidder.
A mercantile nation that sought to protect sea lanes and trade routes and avoid foreign entanglements has metastasized into an entitled Imperial Project, a Project that enriches domestic corporations and veritable armies of national defense / national security functionaries, think tank and university employees, philanthro-capitalist toadies, media factotums–a nearly endless profusion of beneficiaries of Imperial aspirations.
America’s power elite isn’t just entitled to intervene and meddle at will globally; it also feels entitled to select America’s elected leadership. Elected leaders are anointed in the media, and the citizenry is expected to march to the drumbeat.
That the people failed to follow the directives of their betters was a shock that is still reverberating, hence the power elite’s hysterical need to locate a source other than the power elite itself that can be publicly blamed and crucified.
Projection is a well-known psychological coping mechanism. That the loss of the nation’s democracy and soul are the direct consequence of the self-serving power elite’s own concentration and abuse of power–this is unacceptable. And so the responsibility must be pinned on some external demonic force.
The irony is the American social contract is in tatters due to the self-enriching extremes of the New Gilded Age: an era of unprecedented concentrations of wealth and power in which the citizenry has been reduced to dry tinder awaiting a spark.
Washington and the technocrats are aghast at reports that the opportunistic efforts of Russia-based groups to sow discontent ended up generating 300 million impressions says more about the corruption and abuses of power that have undermined the social order than it does about the diabolical effectiveness of amateurish front groups.
If the U.S. wasn’t a nation of haves and have-nots, a nation stripmined by the few at the expense of the many, a nation befuddled by a grotesquely Orwellian media that goes into full propaganda mode if its group-think is questioned, a nation that until recently lauded tech giants whose profits flow exclusively from advertising aimed at users whose engagement is encouraged by just the sort of divisive, emotionally disturbing “news and opinion” that the Russian groups paid for–if the U.S. wasn’t a rotten-to-the-core fake-news, fake-recovery, fake-democracy nation, then the modest efforts of the Russian interlopers would have been lost in a sea of legitimacy and authenticity.
The irony that is most gagging is that America’s power elite is destroying the nation’s social order by its concentration of wealth and abuse of power, yet this power elite claims a handful of social media sites undermined our democracy. How pathetic is that?
The correct question to ask is: what democracy?

 

Read More: http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2018/02/russian-meddling-gagging-on-irony.html