The New York Times just came out with an extremely long, but substance-free retelling of the two year trail of nonsense called Russia-gate by some.
It amounts entirely to accusations and hearsay and shows no connection between Trump and Russia’s meddling in U.S. politics.
Because most people won’t read a 10,000 word article from start to finish, they’ll never notice that the article contradicts itself in two different paragraphs…
First they claim that public is beyond comprehension on Trump’s denials because of a “mountain of evidence.”
Later they go on to say that there is “no public evidence” that has shown Trump colluded with Russia.
OF course, many people are still hoping, after two years, that Muller is going to pull some real evidence of collusion out, and isn’t just stalling until the midterms.
Most of us see this for what it is: A two year long smear campaign to try to overturn an election that didn’t go the way they wanted.
Articles like this are pointed to as evidence by many low information propaganda victims because the New York Times is supposed to be the “paper of record,” but how many of them have actually read the article and can actually point to any evidence presented?
We should understand that the New York Times, owned by Carlos Slim, is a globalist/CIA propaganda rag. Of course they hate Trump and they hate the alternative media and the truth and freedom movements… because they’re all competition to the business, power and profit interests of the New York Times investors and controllers.
For many Americans, the Trump-Russia story as it has been voluminously reported over the past two years is a confusing tangle of unfamiliar names and cyberjargon, further obscured by the shout-fest of partisan politics. What Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in charge of the investigation, may know or may yet discover is still uncertain. President Trump’s Twitter outbursts that it is all a “hoax” and a “witch hunt,” in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, have taken a toll on public comprehension.
Mr. Trump’s frustration with the Russian investigation is not surprising. He is right that no public evidence has emerged showing that his campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money.
Former head of US Intelligence James Clapper just admitted that the United States was simply looking out for citizens of various countries “when we tried to manipulate or influence elections or even overturned governments,” a statement directly at odds with the moral high ground claimed by President Obama and other US officials on the topic of Russian election meddling.
In an interview with Bloomberg’s Tobin Harshaw published Saturday, Clapper – who is promoting his new book “Facts and Fears,” said “I guess the way I think about that is that through our history, when we tried to manipulate or influence elections or even overturned governments, it was done with the best interests of the people in that country in mind,’ adding that the US has a “traditional reverence for human rights.”
The Central Intelligence Agency has practiced a double standard for many years. Former CIA director David Petraeus escaped a jail sentence despite providing eight notebooks of highly classified information, including names of covert operatives, to his biographer-mistress. Conversely, Reality Winner, a former Air Force linguist, has been in jail for the past year, awaiting sentencing for leaking a classified report about Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Everyone in the United States is talking about Russian interference in the U.S. elections.
There is nothing new here, however. Former CIA director John Deutch placed sensitive operational materials on his home computer, which was used to access pornographic sites, but he was pardoned by President Bill Clinton. Clinton’s national security adviser, Samuel Berger, received a modest fine for stuffing into his pants classified documents from the National Archives. And Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was not even charged when he kept sensitive documents about the NSA’s massive surveillance at his home. Conversely, my good friend Tom Drake was charged with violations under the Espionage Act for “mishandling” what turned out to be unclassified information.
On December 29, 2016, the Obama Administration – with three weeks remaining in its term – issued harsh sanctions against Russia over supposed election interference. Two compounds in the United States were closed and 35 Russian diplomats were ordered to leave the country.
Russia responded by calling the actions “Cold War déjà vu.”
In the two years that have elapsed since, it has been learned that the “intelligence” that formed the basis for the sanctions was beyond dubious.
A single unverified “dossier” compiled by an ex-British spy with no discernable connections to Russia was shopped to FISA judges and the media as something real.
The dossier was opposition research by the Hillary Clinton campaign, a fact that was not disclosed and actively hidden by off-the-book transactions through the law firm Perkins Coie.
As a dog that chases its tail, the fake dossier was being used to cause the investigation which itself lent credibility to the notion of Russian interference.
The FBI and CIA thumbed the eye of an armed nuclear state based on false intelligence. Why?
The answer is now obvious: to cover up their own election year shenanigans they thought would remain forever hidden in the inevitable Hillary Clinton victory.
In today’s United States, the term “espionage” doesn’t get too much use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage, but with regard to Americans’ own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they prefer the term “intelligence.” This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you look at things.
First of all, US “intelligence” is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.
In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate negotiating future spy swaps. In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies, sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as “Al Qaeda.” There was no such thing before US intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.
Most recently, British “special services,” which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their “secret” lab in Porton Down doesn’t work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).
Botched CIA Communications System Helped Blow Cover of Chinese Agents
The number of informants executed in the debacle is higher than initially thought.
By Zach Dorfman
It was considered one of the CIA’s worst failures in decades: Over a two-year period starting in late 2010, Chinese authorities systematically dismantled the agency’s network of agents across the country, executing dozens of suspected U.S. spies. But since then, a question has loomed over the entire debacle.How were the Chinese able to roll up the network?
Now, nearly eight years later, it appears that the agency botched the communication system it used to interact with its sources, according to five current and former intelligence officials. The CIA had imported the system from its Middle East operations, where the online environment was considerably less hazardous, and apparently underestimated China’s ability to penetrate it.
“The attitude was that we’ve got this, we’re untouchable,” said one of the officials who, like the others, declined to be named discussing sensitive information. The former official described the attitude of those in the agency who worked on China at the time as “invincible.”
Other factors played a role as well, including China’s alleged recruitment of former CIA officer Jerry Chun Shing Lee around the same time. Federal prosecutors indicted Lee earlier this year in connection with the affair.
But the penetration of the communication system seems to account for the speed and accuracy with which Chinese authorities moved against the CIA’s China-based assets.
“You could tell the Chinese weren’t guessing. The Ministry of State Security [which handles both foreign intelligence and domestic security] were always pulling in the right people,” one of the officials said.
“When things started going bad, they went bad fast.”
USEFUL IDIOTS: How Our Intelligence Agencies Helped Putin Weaken America
John D. O’Connor
Today, no informed American citizen should have any doubt but that the Russian government attempted to meddle in the 2016 presidential election, one clear purpose having been to sow discord in the electorate. Many of these citizens, on both the left and right, have as well questioned President Trump’s rhetorical conflation of the question of Russian meddling, clearly proven, with the issue of Russian collusion, glaringly unproven. But this rhetorical confusion, obvious to all, is of little serious consequence beyond the political sniping it engenders.
However, such resulting kerfuffles, unfortunately, divert focus from a far more critical issue of whether our intelligence agencies, directed by politicized partisans, have analytically conflated this Russian meddling with a Russian bias for Trump, in turn corroborating in their assessment the Russian collusion narrative. If such conflation has occurred, our intelligence agencies were either shamefully duped, or, worse, were enticed into intentionally framing a disliked political figure. In either case, these agencies would have helped Putin sow discord in America, the very wrongdoing they were sworn to investigate fully and fairly.
They include a diagram of YouTube personalities and connect them with a bunch of red lines, claiming to map out all of their guest appearances on each other’s shows.
They don’t mention that many of these YouTubers and personalities are usually opposing each other.
They don’t mention that many of these guest appearances were to have a debate between opposing ideas. Very few of these people agree about everything.
Apparently it’s “extremist” to invite people onto each other’s shows… and debate any views differing from the corporate mainstream.
“the problem is fundamentally linked to the social network of political influencers on the platform and how, like other YouTube influencers, they invite one another on to their shows.”
Apparently, these “influencers” have a wide range of positions, including just plain old conservatism… so they’re not all “dangerous extremists,” but they’re dangerous because they’ve debated with “extremists” on their show.
Or does having any non-liberal viewpoint make someone an extremist?
“promoting a range of rightwing political positions, from mainstream conservatism to overt white nationalism.”
How are they “overt” white nationalists? Did they say something good about white people? How can you be an “overt” white nationalist, or is the author just throwing out highly emotional, negative words hoping it sticks?
This is propaganda, pure and simple. This is a hit piece against the competition in media and the competition of ideas.
Remember these YouTubers have won in the ratings war, especially since they claim Joe Rogan is one of these dangerous influencers.
And non-leftist and non-globalist views are making a comeback as people realize the lies behind multicultural globalism as an ideology.
Any view advocating people’s rights is called “Nationalism” and any view against demographic warfare through mass immigration is called “White Nationalism” or “White Supremacy.”
When did people lose the right to free speech and association?
This is Nineteen-Eighty-Four-level stuff. This is the real world example of Orwell’s Newspeak. They are trying to rewrite reason and logic and debate to all mean dangerous and subversive because it doesn’t agree with their ideology and agenda.
YouTube provides a breeding ground for far-right radicalisation, where people interested in conservative and libertarian ideas are quickly exposed to white nationalist ones, according to a report from Data & Society.
The report describes an “alternative influence network” of about 65 scholars, media pundits and internet celebrities promoting a range of rightwing political positions, from mainstream conservatism to overt white nationalism. They are broadly united by their reactionary position: an opposition to feminism, social justice and leftwing politics and present themselves as an underdog alternative to the mainstream media.
The report, for those who have not read it yet, is as exactly what you would expect from an establishment stenography institution like The Guardian: The so-called “Syrian Civil Defence,” aka the White Helmets, are pure and virtuous; anyone who questions them is an anti-imperialist activist/conspiracy theorist/troll with support from the Russian government; no criticisms of the group are valid and they’ve all been refuted by reputable fact-checkers like Snopes; blah blah blah, etc., etc. As I say, you know exactly how the story goes…but you should read it anyway. It really is a perfect snapshot of the template that the MSM uses to discredit any and all opposition, and it would have been incredible effective…in the 1950s, when people still trusted the mainstream media. (Protip: no one trusts the MSM anymore!)
This being the age of the internet, though, it’s impossible for fake news stories like this to fly with an increasingly informed and connected public. When The Guardian ran its hit piece on the independent researchers like Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett and Tim Anderson, all of whom are countering the mainstream White Helmets / Syria narrative, they simply responded on their own websites and social media and in interviews on independent media sites, probably reaching more people in the process.
I find this meme to be very divisive and disingenuous.
I believe that there have been thousands of children sexually abused, both male and female… but their gender shouldn’t matter. They’re innocent children. Innocent children being systematically preyed upon by adults in positions of power is a pretty bad thing, should it be used in this way?
I also believe that for decades (centuries?) the victims of priest abuse were not believed, or, if they were believed it didn’t matter because they were silenced and shamed.
Victims of abuse need to be supported in any case, but evidence and due process and protections for the accused should remain in place, as is our tradition of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’
Christine B Ford has our support, but given the culture of her high school, her own admissions about her lifestyle during that time and the lack of solid evidence, willing witnesses, or even memory of time and place, makes it seem like the Democrats brought forward fairly unprovable accusations about an extremely unfortunate event at the most politically opportune time to stall the Kavanaugh vote until after the midterms and next SCOTUS session.
No, I Don’t Believe Christine Blasey Ford, Here’s Why
by Ann McCormack September 19, 201829
Only yesterday, we found out that the ‘victim’s’ lawyer Debra Katz — a major Democrat donor — is Vice Chair of a partially Soros-funded organization that opposes Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Ms. Katz is vice chair of the board of the Project on Government Oversight [POGO]. POGO is one of the many leftist groups demanding Kavanaugh’s records.
Christine Blasey Ford, the ‘victim’, has a brother — Ralph Blasey — and he has close financial ties to Fusion GPS. [Update: This has been disputed. Fusion denies any direct connection]
Katz at first said ‘victim’ Christine Blasey was willing to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then she said it had to be an open session. Then it was closed session. Now she will only testify after an FBI probe.
They keep moving the goalposts over a claim that can never be disproven.
The FBI said they already did their investigation of Kavanaugh and will not do another. A 36-year-old case of two alcohol-imbibing teens without evidence cannot be probed, and, if it could be, which it can’t, it would be the police, not the FBI who would do it.
Ford, I think, has this problem. She says it was so traumatic that it took her years to get beyond it but she can’t tell us where she was, when it happened, or how she got home. She’s saying it changed her life and at the same time, she’s telling us that she can’t recall anything about it.
“I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail,” one of those friends, Jim Gensheimer, recalled Blasey Ford saying that summer day while watching her kids participate in a Junior Lifeguard program. “They’re going to be all over me.”
This, of course, is a misrepresentation. No one is demanding “every little detail.” But we do have a right to expect any allegation that seems to have as its objective the sandbagging of a Supreme Court nominee have some verifiable details, like whose house it was.
I had been researching beyond the mainstream gatekeepers since 2011 when I finally followed up on a friend’s question, “Have you watched ‘Loose Change 911′? That movie was an eye opener but I still didn’t understand what it all meant.
After that, I randomly came across a Doug Casey book, I thought the guy looked like a jerk so I decided to see what this jerk was talking about. What started as a joke became an actually interesting read, and some of what he said actually stuck.
Looking things up and watching YouTube videos led to me subscribing to YouTube channels. What I found on YouTube was so compelling that I couldn’t get enough… an unfiltered, self-directed learning platform where you can find experts on any subject, reporting out of their own drive to share the truth and interact with others.
After a while I started to follow news topics and events on my favorite YouTube channels as much as I followed everyday mainstream outlets so that I was able to compare the two.
I was bemused to find that the mainstream media and alternative media’s reports on topics and events were sometimes totally opposite.
I listened to NPR and the BBC all day sometimes but they started to become boring because they repeated themselves so much, and I started to notice that they didn’t go very in depth compared to the channels on YouTube, where you could find much more detailed reporting on anything you wanted to know about.
After hearing interviews with John Perkins who wrote a book called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and also being aware of another book called The Big Short, I had started to become skeptical of mainstream media’s take on current events, especially since the 2008 economic shakeup that eventually led to my own layoff.
It was the expatiated FED meeting in Washington D.C. in April 2016 when my understanding abut everything fully switched.
That moment was when the red pill hit me.
I became fully aware that the media was controlled, or colluding, because that entire weekend and that entire day, not a word was mentioned about it on any mainstream site. Only around 8pm, on that day, did NPR include a brief mention of it in their hourly news update, and said nothing of substance about it or mention it’s historic nature.
I don’t know what happened at that meeting because it’s all secret, but one thing was clear, the alternative media was reporting about it as soon as it was announced and the mainstream media didn’t mention it until after it was over, and they didn’t given any details or information even compared to independent people on YouTube channels.
Over the following days weeks and months my perception changed. I went from believing in the goodness of the media and the government, and their willingness to report and act to protect me and every other citizen, to understanding that all of history and everything every taught to me and almost every political belief I had ever had was wrong. I realized that my grandparents’ and parents’ generations went to WW2 and Vietnam because of corporate interests. I realized that the same people that killed JFK were probably connected to the same people that carried out 911 and even in the time of Obama were still in places of power. I realized that the war in Syria and the entire Arab Spring were just more engineered regime change schemes to give more power to international corporations with the full protection and participation of the Pentagon… etc. etc. etc.
That day that the FED meeting wasn’t mentioned in the media was the day that changed my life forever.
Mike Maloney released yesterday some interesting analysis of this week’s Federal Reserve activity and is hypothesising that something ominous may be occurring behind closed doors.
On Monday of this week, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors held an impromptu meeting using expedited (some use the vernacular “emergency”) procedures. The purpose was to discuss monetary policy. Thereafter, Chairwoman Yellen visited the President at the White House for another irregular meeting. Interestingly, both meetings were closed door in nature and passed largely under the mainstream media radar.
A google search of the Yellen-Obama meeting produces many largely identical articles containing what Mike refers to as “fluff”; meaning simply that they lack substances and convey only the simple idea that the two discussed the economy.
What the White House meeting overshadowed was the actual Federal Reserve Board of Governors meeting on the 11th, held under expedited procedures as indicated on the Fed’s website above. The purpose of that meeting was stipulated as being to review and determine advance and discount rates to be charged by the Federal Reserve Banks – or in other words, set monetary policy. The press always reports on these meetings. As indicated on the Federal Reserve’s website, this meeting was scheduled last Thursday, April 7th. Again however, an attempt to google this board meeting largely produces results about the White House meeting. Googling “Fed Governor Meeting” produces largely results about the April 6th Federal Reserve Board of Governors meeting and notably, more information about the White House meeting again. As a consequence, we do not know what was said at these meetings – in particular the board meeting of the 11th. One thing that is known however is that the invocation of “expedited procedures” is unusual.
Moving over to the White House website one can find a one paragraph press release pictured below. The release generically describes the Yellen-Obama meeting to be about “near and long-term growth outlook, the state of the labour market, inequality and potential risks to the economy” which seems to be the only information that the press has reported on.
You probably heard that last week, President Obama and Vice-President Biden met with Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen behind closed doors. That fact alone should have raised eyebrows and for those in-the-know it probably did, for as a matter of normal security protocols, meetings or appearances both of the President and Vice-President in one place and at the same time are strictly limited for security purposes. From this one fact alone one may deduce that the meeting was about “serious matters” but the question is: what exactly?
A number of regular readers here have shared various articles addressing this various question, and thus I share them with the wider readership here for your consideration.
First of all, there is the admission of Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo to having comitted some deep financial “improprieties”:
Just about every major banker and finance minister in the world is meeting in Washington, DC, this week, following two rushed, secretive meetings of the Federal Reserve and another instantaneous and rare meeting between the Fed Chair and the president of the United States. These and other emergency bank meetings around the world cause one to wonder what is going down. Let’s start with a bullet list of the week’s big-bank events:
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors just held an “expedited special meeting” on Monday in closed-door session.
The White House made an immediate announcement that the president was going to meet with Fed Chair Janet Yellen right after Monday’s special meeting and that Vice President Biden would be joining them.
The Federal Reserve very shortly posted an announcement of another expedited closed-door meeting for Tuesday for the specific purpose of “bank supervision.”
A G-20 meeting of finance ministers and central-bank heads starts in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, too, and continues through Wednesday.
Then on Thursday the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund meet in Washington.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta just revised US GDP growth for the first quarter to the precipice of recession at 0.1%.
US banks are widely expected this week to report their worst quarter financially since the start of the Great Recession.
The European Union’s new “bail-in” procedures for failing banks were employed for the first time with Austrian bank Heta Asset Resolution AG.
Italy’s minister of finance called an emergency meeting of Italian bankers to engage “last resort” measures for dealing with 360-billion euros of bad loans in banks that have only 50 billion in capital.
On Monday Sept. 17th, Christine Blasey Ford’s high school yearbooks suddenly disappeared from the web. I read them days before, knew they would be scrubbed, and saved them. Why did I know they would be scrubbed? Because if roles were reversed, and Christine Blasey Ford had been nominated for the Supreme Court by President Trump, the headline by the resistance would be this:
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND THE DRUNKEN WHITE PRIVILEGED RACIST PLAYGIRLS OF HOLTON-ARMS.
And it would be an accurate headline. That’s why the yearbooks have been scrubbed. They are a testament to the incredible power these girls had over their teachers, parents and the boys of Georgetown Prep, Landon and other schools in the area. In the pages below, you will see multiple photos and references to binge drinking and the accompanying joy of not being able to remember any of it.
These yearbooks are, therefore, relevant to the national investigation now being conducted in the media, in homes, and in the halls of Congress. And they should not have been scrubbed. If Brett Kavanaugh’s yearbooks are fair game, so are these.
And you will wonder while reading them, why the hell did the faculty approve of these yearbooks? Why did the parents take out paid ads in these yearbooks? Animal House had nothing on the infamous “Holton party scene”.
The same people, Republicans and Democrats, who lied through their teeth for an invasion of Iraq in 2003, are doing it again for an invasion of Russia, sometime soon, so as to ‘defend’ ‘democracy’. The US has by now swallowed up virtually all lands surrounding Russia, at least in Europe, the latest being Ukraine, and is placing its missiles now on and near Russia’s borders, which is to Russians like would be to Americans if Russia had swallowed up Canada and were placing its missiles there. But the lying holier-than-thou US Establishment accuses Russia of being ‘aggressive’ when Russia holds war-games on and near its borders in order to prepare for a US-NATO invasion, which actually looks increasingly likely to them every day — and not because of ‘Russian propaganda’, but because of the US Government’s actions.
Ever heard of an ex-president going around trash talking their predecessor, much less calling him and his supporters Nazis?
What a totally insane state of affairs in the United States that this is acceptable behavior and that the media pushes it. We understand though that these people are most likely traitors, desperate and scared. They will lie and gaslight the people until their very end.
Obama Condemns Trump, “Nazi Sympathizers” In Fiery Speech Warning Of “Dangerous Times”
You spied on their reporters, seized phone records and personal emails and declared James Rosen an enemy of the state. Holder himself signed the secret search warrant application. https://t.co/UURshaCAaV
This is a really dumb thing to say when @BarackObama’s Administration let an actual Nazi prison guard live in New York during both of his terms as President and @realDonaldTrump forcibly kicked that actual Nazi out of the country to face Justice this year. https://t.co/x3jSIiVIgW
Former President Obama has come under fire for what many have viewed as a hypocritical condemnation of President Trump during a Friday acceptance speech for his Ethics in Government award at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
In particular, critics are slamming Obama for his comments regarding Trump’s criticism of the press – while casually minimizing his own actions against journalists and whistleblowers:
It shouldn’t be Democratic or Republican to say that we don’t threaten the freedom of the press because they say things or publish stories we don’t like. I complained plenty about Fox News, but you never heard me threaten to shut them down or call them enemies of the people. -Barack Obama
Except Obama did much, much more than that…
In addition to prosecuting more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined, the Obama administration targeted then-Fox News journalist James Rosen as a “criminal co-conspirator” for protecting his sources in a DOJ leak investigation.
And while Obama’s defenders have attempted to downplay his actions, the overwhelming consensus appears to be that the former President is a massive hypocrite.
A prominent Yemeni journalist who throughout the war has been instrumental in getting images and information out of the country ahead of Western journalists has photographed and examined fragments from one of the exploded missiles found at the site of the US-Saudi coalition airstrike on a school bus in Yemen, which left as many as 50 people dead and 63 injured — the vast majority of which were children.
The image of the missile fragment, believed to be among those that scored a direct hit on the bus full of children traveling through Dahyan market in Saada province last Thursday, was uploaded by Sanaa-based Hussain Albukhaiti and quickly spread online over the weekend. It appears to be a US-made MK-82 guided bomb produced by Lockheed Martin.
Ben Norton, an American journalist among the first to track down publicly available government contract information showing the MK-82’s likely origins, said of the bomb fragment imagery: “Yemeni journalists found this fragment of the bomb Saudi Arabia dropped on a school bus full of children in Yemen. It’s a US-made MK-82 guided bomb, which has been used in previous attacks on Yemeni civilians. The cage code on the bomb is Lockheed Martin’s.“