Rachel Maddow and madcow disease of neoliberal MSM
Classic case study of projection: DNC pushed Bernie Sanders under the bus and invented Russiagate story to
cover this up; intelligence agencies joined as they want continuation of Cold War 2. Attempt to entrap Trump with Russian ties
followed; British and Ukrainian intelligence joint in.
McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. The term refers
to U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) and has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare,
lasting from the late 1940s through the 1950s.
It was characterized by heightened political repression and a campaign spreading fear of Communist influence on American institutions
and of espionage by Soviet agents.
...In the early 21st century, the term is used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, and demagogic
attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.
Russiagaters now represent an interesting new "for profit" sect. (opensociet.org
May 08, 2019). That's why Mueller report can't shake their convictions, it just increase their zeal:
AARON MATÉ: So we’ve just been through this two-year ordeal with Russiagate. It’s in a new phase now with
Robert Mueller rejecting the outcome that so many were expecting, that there would be a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Your sense
of how this whole thing has gone?
GABOR MATÉ: What’s interesting is that in the aftermath of the Mueller
thunderbolt of no proof of collusion, there were articles about how people are disappointed about this finding.
Now, disappointment means that you’re expecting something and you wanted something to happen, and it didn’t happen. So
that means that some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested
in it. It wasn’t just that they wanted to know the truth. They actually wanted the truth to look a certain way. And
wherever we want the truth to look a certain way, there’s some reason that has to do with their own emotional needs and not
just with the concern for reality.
And in politics in general, we think that people make decisions on intellectual grounds based on facts and beliefs. Very
often, actually, people’s dynamics are driven by emotional forces that they’re not even aware of in themselves. And I,
really, as I observed this whole Russiagate phenomenon from the beginning, it really seemed to me that there was a lot of
emotionality in it that had little to do with the actual facts of the case.
... ... ...
What does it say about American society that so many people are actually enrolled in believing that this man could
be any kind of a savior? What does that say about the divisions and the conflicts and the contradictions and the genuine
problems in this culture? And how do we address those issues?
... ... ...
I mean there was a massive denial of the actual dynamics in American society that led to the election of this
traumatized and traumatizing individual as President, number one.
... ... ...
GABOR MATÉ: So even if it’s true what the Russians have even if it’s the worst thing that’s alleged
about the Russians is true, it’s not even on miniscule proportion of what America has publicly acknowledged it has done all
around the world. And so this rage that we project, then, and this bad guy image that we project onto the Russians, it’s
simply a mirror a very inadequate mirror of what America publicly and openly and repeatedly does all around the world.
Now, you may think that’s a good thing to do. I’m not arguing about that. I’m not arguing politics. All I’m saying
is projection is when we project onto somebody else the things that we do ourselves, and we refuse to deal with the
implications of it. So there’s denial and then there’s projection.
And then, there’s just something in people. I can tell you well, your mother can tell you this that in relationships
it’s always easier to see ourselves as the victims than as the perpetrators. So there’s something comforting about seeing
oneself as the victim of somebody else. Nobody likes to be a victim. But people like to see themselves as victims because
it means they don’t have to take responsibility for what we do ourselves.
AARON MATÉ: I can relate to that, too.
GABOR MATÉ: Yeah. I’m just saying the effect of somebody else. So this functions beautifully in
politics. And populist politicians and xenophobic politicians around the world use this dynamic all the time. That whether
it’s Great Britain, or whether it’s France with their vast colonial empires, they’re always the victims of everybody else.
The United States is always the victim of everybody else. All these enemies that are threatening us. It’s the most powerful
nation on earth, a nation that could single handedly destroy the earth a billion times over with the weapons that are at
its disposal, and it’s always the victim.
So this victimhood, there is something comforting about it because, again, it allows us not to look at ourselves.
And I think there was this huge element of victimhood in this Russiagate process.
Noam Chomsky on Mass Media Obsession with Russia & the Stories Not Being Covered in the Trump Era
(“The Resistance With Keith Olbermann”, GQ, December 2016)
KEITH OLBERMANN: The nation and all of our freedoms hang by a thread. And the military apparatus of
this country is about to be handed over to scum who are beholden to scum, Russian scum. As things are today, January 20th
will not be an inauguration but rather the end of the United States as an independent country
(“The Rachel Maddow Show”, MSNBC, March 2017)
RACHEL MADDOW: But the important thing here is that that Bernie Sanders lovers page run out of Albania,
it’s still there. Still running. Still operating. Still churning this stuff out. Now. This is not part of American
politics. This is not, you know, partisan warfare between Republicans and Democrats. This is international warfare against
(“All In With Chris Hayes”, MSNBC, February 2018)
JERROLD NADLER: Imagine if FDR had denied that the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor and didn’t
react, that’s the equivalent.
CHRIS HAYES: Well, it’s a bit of a different thing. I mean—
JERROLD NADLER: No, it’s not.
CHRIS HAYES: They didn’t kill anyone.
JERROLD NADLER: They didn’t kill anyone, but they’re destroying our country, our democratic process.
CHRIS HAYES: Do you really think it’s on par?
JERROLD NADLER: Not in the amount of violence, but I think in the seriousness it is very much on par.
This country exists to have a democratic system with a small D, that’s what the country’s all about, and this is an attempt
to destroy that.
(“AM Joy”, MSNBC, February 2018)
ROB REINER: We have been invaded in such a subtle way because we don’t see planes hitting the
buildings. We don’t see bombs dropping in Pearl Harbor. But we have been invaded as Malcolm [Nance] points out. We are
under attack, but we don’t feel it. But it’s like walking around with high blood pressure and then all of a sudden you’re
not aware of it and you drop dead.
So it’s insidious, and it has affected our blood stream. And if we don’t do something about it – and that’s why, guys
like John Brennan and James Clapper are running around with their hair on fire because they’re trying to wake people up to
tell them: We have to do something about it. We have to protect ourselves and if we don’t, our 241 years of democracy and
self-governance will start to collapse.
GABOR MATÉ: And the assumption, that even if you take all the things that Russia was charged with
in this whole Russiagate narrative over the last two and a half years, and if you multiply it by a hundred times, even
then, you could not have possibly destroyed the United States. Even then, what is our self image if we think we’re that
weak, that that kind of external interference could undermine everything that you believed this country has built over the
last few centuries?’
So it shows to me a real shock reaction. And what has been shocked here is our beliefs in what this country is about.
And again, as I said before, it’s in a sense more comforting. It’s frightening, but at the same time more comforting to
see the problem as coming from the outside than to search for it with amongst ourselves and within ourselves.
AARON MATÉ: How about then the aspect of this that puts so much hope into Robert Mueller? Because
Robert Mueller was supposed to be our savior.
GABOR MATÉ: First of all, if we actually look at who Mueller is, who is he?
He’s a man who, amongst many others, was 100 percent convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass discussion.
(FBI Director Robert Mueller, Congressional Testimony, February 2003)
ROBERT MUELLER: As Director Tenet has pointed out, Secretary Powell presented evidence last week that
Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and willfully attempting to evade and deceive the
international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical or
GABOR MATÉ: So given the line supported by Mueller led to the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqi
people and thousands of Americans, and has incurred costs that we all are fully aware of in terms of rise in terrorism and
embroilment in multiple wars and situations, it takes an act of powerful historical amnesia for people to believe that this
man is going to be our savior. That’s the first point. Just incredible historical amnesia number one.
Number two, America, if you can judge by its TV shows, is very much addicted to the good guy/bad guy scenario. So that
reality is not complex. And it’s not subtle. And it’s not a build up of multiple dynamics, internal and external. But,
basically, there’s evil and there’s good. And evil is going to be cut out by the good and destroyed by it. And that’s
really how the American narrative very often is presented.
Now, the same thing is projected into politics. So now if there’s a bad guy called Putin and his puppet called Trump,
then there has to be a good guy that is going to save us from it. Some guy on a white charger that’s going to move in here,
and is silver haired, patrician looking man who’s going to find the truth and rescue us all, which again is a projection of
people’s hopes for truth outside of themselves onto some kind of a benevolent savior figure.
Needless to say, when that savior figure doesn’t deliver, then we have to argue that maybe he was bought off or corrupt
or stupid himself or insufficient himself. Or that there’s something secret that has yet to be uncovered that some day will
come to the surface that Mueller himself was unable to discover for himself.
But, again, this projection of hope onto some savior figure. Rather than saying, okay, there’s a big problem here. We’ve
elected a highly traumatized grandiose, intellectually unstable, emotionally unstable, misogynist, self aggrandizer to
power. Something in our society made that happen. And let’s look at what that was. And let’s clear up those issues if we
can. And let’s look at the people on the liberal side who, instead of challenging all those issues, put all their energies
into this foreign conspiracy explanation. Because to have challenged those issues would have meant looking at their own
policies, which tended in the same direction.
Rather than looking at how under the Clinton, they’ve jailed hundreds of thousands of people who should never have been
in jail. Looking at how under the Bushes and under Obama, there was this massive transfer of wealth upwards. Instead of
asking why Barack Obama gets $400,000 for an hour speech to Wall Street, which means that maybe our faith in how our system
operates needs to be shaken a bit so we can actually look at what’s really going on, let’s just put our attention on some
foreign devil again.
... ... ...
GABOR MATÉ: ....How did the
Democratic elite deliberately try to marginalize the progressive candidate?
Like if he lacks discretion, let’s assume that Russia did leak those Democratic e mails. Let’s assume that. We don’t
know that they did. But we don’t know that they didn’t either. Let’s assume that they did. Which is the greater assault on
American democracy? The fact that the Russians leaked the document? Or that the American national Democratic leadership
deliberately tried to marginalize one of their own candidates?
... ... ...
GABOR MATÉ: Let me just interrupt to say that if I were those people, then, then quite apart from the
shock defense that we’ve already talked about, it’d be so much more convenient for me to go to the Russia narrative than to
say publicly, you know what? We screwed up. We actually tried to undemocratically interfere with the Democratic
nomination. We didn’t pay attention to the people that were really hurting in the society because of our policies. We as
the press gave this man all kinds of attention that he never deserved and never merited because he was interesting news and
... ... ...
AARON MATÉ: And there’s a material incentive to do it. Because as you’ve talked about, if you’re the Democrats and
you look at the lessons of the election, you saw that people rejected your neoliberal economic legacy, that means you have
to start challenging the powerful corporate sectors that you’ve been representing for a long time, actually posing real
alternative policies to Donald Trump.
If you do that, though, you risk losing your privileged status within the power structure. And the same thing if
you’re in the media and you identify with that faction of the power structure.
... ... ...
Rachel Maddow NeoMcCartyism hysteria set her in history books as a parody of Dr. Goebbels. Sadly, she used to have a a very large audience,
which was over 3 million viewers at the peak. For two years a cloud of illegitimacy hung over the Trump presidency and for two years
the establishment media, most especially MSNBC and CNN, maniacally fire hosed the American people with fake news to smear the president
as a Russian spy. But of all those guilty of spreading this dishonest hysteria, no one came close to Rachel MadCow (Nolte
Russia Hoax Queen Rachel Maddow's Ratings Take 20% Dive
Night after relentless
night, over two-plus years, Maddow kept her suckers on the hook by weaving from whole cloth a conspiracy tale about Trump being owned
by Putin. And with this tale came the promise that Trump’s removal from office was always right around the corner, and that Robert
Mueller would be the deliverer — the angel who would end the nightmare of a terrible national mistake known as the Trump presidency.
Because this hysteria was everywhere (except in the conservative media that got everything right), there was no way to warn Maddow’s
suckers that they were in fact suckers, that like a cult leader promising the end of the world, she was hustling them, lying to them,
and enriching herself in the process to the tune of about $10 million a year.
Maybe now, though, the Cult of Maddow is cracking. I doubt it, but there is some hope in the latest numbers…
...And it was all bullshit, a con, a fever swamp of desperate dot-connecting backed by maniacal talking heads and unhinged “experts”
screaming about treason! and indictments! and bombshells! and walls closing in!
Everyone at fake news MSNBC, marginally less fake news NBC, and totally fake news CNN — hosts, guests, legal experts and national
security analysts — should be told, Clean out your lockers. Put all your things in cardboard cartons. If you need to go back, you
will be escorted by security.
Instead, they are adamantly refusing to take back their years of lies about Trump and Russian collusion. This is not a time to
let bygones by bygones.
What makes it even sadder is to watch all of the people who vested their journalistic credibility into what proved to
be a complete and total fraud and scam continue to try to cling to some vestige of credibility by continuing to spin conspiracy
theories that are even more reckless and more unhinged than the ones to which we’ve been subjected for three years. [Emphasis added]
The great journalist and writer Matt Taibbi wrote … over the weekend, and I agree with him completely, that as humiliating
as the media debacle was leading up to the Iraq War, what they did over the last years in the Trump-Russia story makes all that look
like a pimple — even though obviously the Iraq war was much more destructive because it led to the deaths of hundreds of
thousands of people. The errors and lies and falsehoods and recklessness and speculation that we’ve been subjected to over
and over and over that Robert Mueller just definitively debunked is far more humiliating, journalistically, far more unjustifiable,
journalistically. [Emphasis added]
Who knows where it will lead to. It’s ratcheted up tensions between the two most dangerous nuclear arm powers in the world.
Greenwald compared MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who has drummed up the Trump-Russia collusion narrative for almost three years, to former
New York Times journalist Judith Miller, whose reporting ahead of the Iraq War claimed definitively that Hussein had WMDs.
Miller’s reports were used by the Bush administration to justify invading Iraq at the time.
“Rachel Maddow and MSNBC are the Judy Millers of this story, except unlike Judy Miller who was scapegoated for doing things that
her male colleague did and had her career destroyed, Rachel Maddow will continue to make $10 million a year for NBC because she’s their
most valuable brand and there will be no reckoning and consequences for this story that the media got radically, fundamentally, and
deliberately wrong for almost three years now,” Greenwald said.
Following an independent investigation by Robert Mueller, the Trump campaign was found to have
colluded with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election, and Trump has been cleared of obstruction of justice claims.
Her rambling, long-winded, partisan-driven drivel finance came to the screeting halt, like previous Senator McCarthy campaign.
Being thefact that neoliberal MSM cheered for, covered for, and lied for 8 years of Obama and his administration, now they they for
almost three years pushed Russian collusion hoax in best McCarthyism tradition, poisoning relations between two countries for a generation.
What are people supposed to think about the neolibral MSM and Rachel MadCow? Hopefully they will losing viewers and newsprint subscribers
but that's not enough. MC lobby will provide them enough money to continue to ingite this neo-McCarthyism hysteria. No.
they should be brought ot the court of justice for the attempt to stage a color revolution against legitimatly elected President.
This is sedition, plain and simple:
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order.
Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority.
Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are
seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.
Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from
one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition
of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition
of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.
In the USA, the Fourth Estate (the neoliberal MSM) has become a Fifth Column, neo-Nazi plotters dedicated to the overthrow of our
elected government if that government is headed by Donald Trump. That's why this inarticulate and unattractive Schiff is the neoliberal
MSM's favorite of the month. This fact alone indicates how desperate the Deep State is to depose Trump.
As bad as Hillary's E-Mail problems were it isnt 1/2 as bad as the FBIs and Obama's DOJ actions to spy on Trump and later to launch
color revolution against him
She was/is not alone in her hysterics. NYTimes chant: Trump's a Russian Stone's a Russian Manafort's a RussianKushner's a Russian
Flynn's a Russian Carter Page's was also deafening.
Perhaps Maddow is just sad that there's no longer official justification to intimidate and harass those who choose not to wear
masks, something that leftists have enjoyed doing for the best part of a year.
The notion that people who don't wear masks are a "threat" is of course completely ludicrous since the COVID-19 virus particle
is 1,000 times smaller than the holes in the mask anyway.
After Texas ended its mask mandate, COVID cases dropped to a
record low and a similar pattern was observed in Florida and South Dakota.
Lordflin 46 minutes ago (Edited)
She would need to rewire her brain to have a thought that was not programmed into her...
What a mindless shill... first that singer... what's her name... and now this creature...
What is the effect ZH is going for here exactly...?
takeaction 36 minutes ago (Edited)
Rachel...Pelosi...Schumer...Swalwell.....Cuomo (Both of them) Lemon, Anderson, Fauci, AOC, Maxine, etc.
With or without a mask...
takeaction 18 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
All calm....Gorgeous weather.....78 today.
Hamilcar 28 minutes ago remove link
Branch Covidians like Madcow "Love F$#%ing Science".
And by "science" they mean believing whatever braindead politicians or left-wing corporate media make up as they go along without
any critical analysis and hysterically denouncing any evidence that contradicts the narrative as heresy.
It's going to be fun when all these people become the object of universal mockery they deserve. In a JUST world they would
be severely punished though.
Lordflin 24 minutes ago
I have always been impressed by the willingness of those who know virtually nothing of the sciences to believe almost anything
if it is told to them in the name of science...
signer1 9 minutes ago
To quote Mark Twain, "It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled".
Citxmech 18 seconds ago
Apparently, it's also easier to get people to believe illogical arguments by telling them it's "science" than it is to get
them to actually think critically about the stupid shlt they're being asked to believe.
toiler4fiat 26 minutes ago
Madcow, like [neo]liberalism, is a disease. You can't repair a damaged brain like you can't turn a pickle into a cucumber.
Former FBI Director James Comey testified to Congress last Wednesday that he did not
remember much about what was going on when the FBI deceived the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) Court into approving four warrants for surveillance of Trump campaign
aide Carter Page.
Few outsiders are aware that those warrants covered not only Page but also anyone Page was
in contact with as well as anyone Page's contacts were in contact with – under the
so-called two-hop surveillance procedure. In other words, the warrants extend coverage two
hops from the target – that is, anyone Page talks to and anyone they, in turn, talk
At the hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsay Graham reviewed the facts (most
of them confirmed by the Department of Justice inspector general) showing that none of the
four FISA warrants were warranted.
Graham gave a chronological rundown of the evidence that Comey and his "folks" either
knew, or should have known, that by signing fraudulent FISA warrant applications they were
perpetrating a fraud on the court.
The "evidence" used by Comey and his "folks" to "justify" warrants included Page's
contacts with Russian officials (CIA had already told the FBI those contacts had been
approved) and the phony as a three-dollar bill "Steele dossier" paid for by the
Two Hops to the World
But let's not hop over the implications of two-hop surveillance , which apparently remains
in effect today. Few understand the significance of what is known in the trade as "two-hop"
coverage. According to a former NSA technical director, Bill Binney, when President Barack
Obama approved the current version of "two hops," the NSA was ecstatic – and it is easy
to see why.
Let's say Page was in touch with Donald Trump (as candidate or president); Trump's
communications could then be surveilled, as well. Or, let's say Page was in touch with
Google. That would enable NSA to cover pretty much the entire world. A thorough read of the
transcript of Wednesday's hearing, particularly the Q-and-A, shows that this crucial two-hop
dimension never came up – or that those aware of it, were too afraid to mention it. It
was as if Page were the only one being surveilled.
Here is a sample of The New York Times 's typical coverage
of such a hearing:
"Senate Republicans sought on Wednesday to promote their efforts to rewrite the
narrative of the Trump-Russia investigation before Election Day, using a hearing with the
former F.B.I. director James B. Comey to cast doubt on the entire inquiry by highlighting
problems with a narrower aspect of it.
"Led by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary
Committee spent hours burrowing into mistakes and omissions made by the FBI when it applied
for court permission to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in 2016 and
2017. Republicans drew on that flawed process to renew their claims that Mr. Comey and his
agents had acted with political bias, ignoring an independent review that debunked
the notion of a plot against President Trump."
Flawed process? Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz pinpointed no few
than 17 "serious performance failures" related to the four FISA warrant applications on Page.
Left unsaid is the fact that Horowitz's investigation was tightly circumscribed. Basically,
he asked the major players "Were you biased?" And they said "No."
Does the NYT believe we were all born yesterday? When the Horowitz report was
released in early December 2019, Fox News' Chris Wallace found those serious performance
failures "pretty shocking." He quoted an
earlier remark by Rep. Will Hurd (R,TX) a CIA alumnus:
"Why is it when you have 17 mistakes -- 17 things that are misrepresented or lapses --
and every one of them goes against the president and for investigating him, you have to say,
'Is that a coincidence'? it is either gross incompetence or intentionality."
Throughout the four-hour hearing on Wednesday, Comey was politely smug – a hair
short of condescending.
There was not the slightest sign he thought he would ever be held accountable for what
happened under his watch. You see, four years ago, Comey "knew" Hillary Clinton was a
shoo-in; that explains how he, together with CIA Director John Brennan and National
Intelligence Director James Clapper, felt free to take vast liberties with the Constitution
and the law before the election, and then launched a determined effort to hide their tracks
Trump had been forewarned. On Jan. 3, 2017, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY),
with an assist from Rachel Maddow, warned Trump not to get crosswise with the "intelligence
community," noting the IC has six ways to Sunday to get back at you.
Three days later, Comey told President-elect Trump, in a one-on-one conversation, what the
FBI had on him – namely, the "Steele Dossier." The media already had the dossier, but
were reluctant (for a host of obvious reasons) to publish it. When it leaked that Comey had
briefed Trump on it, they finally had the needed peg.
New Parvenu in Washington
After the tête-à-tête with Comey on Jan. 6, 2017, newcomer Trump didn't
know what hit him. Perhaps no one told him of Schumer's warning; or maybe he dismissed it out
of hand. Is that what Comey was up to on Jan. 6, 2017?
Was the former FBI director protesting too much in his June 2017 testimony to the Senate
Intelligence Committee when he insisted he'd tried to make it clear to Trump that briefing
him on the unverified but scurrilous information in the dossier wasn't intended to be
It took Trump several months to figure out what
was being done to him.
Trump to NYT: 'Leverage' (aka Blackmail)
In a long Oval Office interview
with the Times on July 19, 2017, Trump said he thought Comey was trying to hold the
dossier over his head.
" Look what they did to me with Russia, and it was totally phony stuff. the dossier Now,
that was totally made-up stuff," Trump said. "I went there [to Moscow] for one day for the
Miss Universe contest, I turned around, I went back. It was so disgraceful. It was so
"When he [Comey] brought it [the dossier] to me, I said this is really made-up junk. I
didn't think about anything. I just thought about, man, this is such a phony deal. I said,
this is – honestly, it was so wrong, and they didn't know I was just there for a very
short period of time. It was so wrong, and I was with groups of people. It was so wrong that
I really didn't, I didn't think about motive. I didn't know what to think other than, this is
really phony stuff."
The Steele dossier, paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign
and compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, includes a tale of Trump cavorting
with prostitutes, who supposedly urinated on each other before the same bed the Obamas had
slept in at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel.
Trump told the Times : "I think [Comey] shared it so that I would think he had it
out there. As leverage."
Even with that lesson in hand, Trump still proved virtually powerless in dealing with the
National Security State/intelligence community. The president has evidenced neither the skill
nor the guts to even attempt to keep the National Security State in check.
Comey, no doubt doesn't want to be seen as a "dirty cop," With Trump in power and Attorney
General William Barr his enforcer, there was always the latent threat that they would use the
tools at their disposal to expose and even prosecute Comey and his National Security State
colleagues for what the president now knows was done during his candidacy and presidency.
Despite their braggadocio about taking on the Deep State, and the continuing
investigations, it seems doubtful that anything serious is likely to happen before Election
Day, Nov. 3.
On Wednesday, Comey had the air of one who is equally sure, this time around, who will be
the next president. No worries. Comey could afford to be politely vapid for five more weeks,
and then be off the hook for any and all "serious performance failures" – some of them
Thus, a significant downside to a Biden victory is that the National Security State will
escape accountability for unconscionable misbehavior, running from misdemeanors to
insurrection. No small thing.
Sen. Graham concluded the hearing with a pious plea: "Somebody needs to be held
accountable." Yet, surely, he has been around long enough to know the odds.
Given his disastrous presidency, either way the prospects are bleak: no accountability for
the National Security State, which is to be expected, or four more years of Trump.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This
originally appeared at Consortium
"... The DemoRats have never been a party dedicated to peace; the only ones thinking that are the walking bong-holes who assuage their cognitive dissonance by telling themselves that. Both the demorats and their willing accomplices 'across the aisle' have led us into constant war for nearly eight decades. Lilliputian Big enders and Little enders all. ..."
"... Screw the war mongers and the MIC. ..."
"... If you read the article, it's obvious that [neo]liberals/whores are the apogee of hypocrisy. ..."
"... Perpetual war is about $$$. It knows no party. Never has and never will. ..."
Feral, yes; rabid, absolutely; smart... not so much. Why is anyone surprised?
The DemoRats have never been a party dedicated
to peace; the only ones thinking that are the walking bong-holes who assuage their cognitive dissonance by telling themselves
that. Both the demorats and their willing accomplices 'across the aisle' have led us into constant war for nearly eight decades.
Lilliputian Big enders and Little enders all.
Yup. It's always about the money. As Fitts would say, that screeching you hear is the cash flow drying up for the rentiers.
The murdering of women and children be damned. Hillary's demonic cackle is but the grotesque cherry on top:
I just cannot see why the US public -- better said, some of the US public. -- fall for
that torrent of verbal diarrhoea that Maddow regularly gushes forth on TV about all things
The shite that she so regularly spews out is patently untrue and clearly propagandistic.
Time and time again, the content of "The Rachel Maddow Show" (Why "show" FFS? Is it because
that is what it is -- a distraction, an entertainment vehicle for the uncritical masses?) has
repeatedly been shown to be untrue, but never an apology from Maddow.
Oh, what a surprise! Her paternal grandfather's family name was Medvedev, a Four-by-Two
who fled the Evil (Romanov) Empire and set up shop in the "Land of the Free".
Something that has often puzzled me is this: If the Russian Empire was such a "Prison of
Nations", all crushed by the autocratic state, how come Western Europe and the USA is
swarming with the descendants of the Tsar's former Jewish subjects?
To be fair to Maddow -- though I see no reason why I should be, for she is a lying cnut --
her family background is not really kosher: her mother hails from Newfoundland and is of
English/Irish descent, and one of her grandmother's forebears were from the Netherlands.
Furthermore, Maddow says that she had a conservative Catholic upbringing. I suppose that's
why she's now a liberal lesbian. And guess what: she's a Rhodes Scholar with an Oxford
"... There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly. ..."
"... Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence of the enemy system'? ..."
"... a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities. With a great deal of outside effort and resources. ..."
"... His "playbook" is useful to outside powers that want to overthrow governments they don't like. Especially those run by "dictators" not brutal enough to shoot the protesters down. ..."
Once I'd seen this mention of The Russian Playbook (aka KGB, Kremlin or Putin's Playbook), I
saw the expression all over the place. Here's an early – perhaps the earliest – use
of the term. In October 2016, the Center for Strategic and International studies (" Ranked #1 ") informed us of the "
Kremlin Playbook "
with this ominous beginning
There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their
positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has
experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same
time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly.
Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode
the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence
of the enemy system'?
Well, to these people, to ask the question is to answer it: can't possibly be disappointment
at the gap between 2004's expectations and 2020's reality, can't be that they don't like the
total Western values package that they have to accept, it must be those crafty Russians
deceiving them. This was the earliest reference to The Playbook that I found, but it certainly
wasn't the last.
What can we know about The Playbook? For a start it must be written in Russian, a language
that those crafty Russians insist on speaking among themselves. Secondly such an important
document would be protected the way that highly classified material is protected. There would
be a very restricted need to know; underlings participating in one of the many plays would not
know how their part fitted into The Playbook; few would ever see The Playbook itself. The
Playbook would be brought to the desk of the few authorised to see it by a courier, signed for,
the courier would watch the reader and take away the copy afterwards. The very few copies in
existence would be securely locked away; each numbered and differing subtly from the others so
that, should a leak occur, the authorities would know which copy read by whom had been leaked.
Printed on paper that could not be photographed or duplicated. As much protection as human
cunning could devise; right up there with
the nuclear codes .
And so on. It's all quite ridiculous: we're supposed to believe that Moscow easily controls
far-away countries but can't keep its neighbours under control.
There is no Russian Playbook, that's just projection. But there is a "playbook" and it's
written in English, it's freely available and it's inexpensive enough that every pundit can
have a personal copy: it's named "
From Dictatorship To Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation " and it's written by
Gene Sharp (1928-2018) .
Whatever Sharp may have thought he was doing, whatever good cause he thought he was assisting,
his book has been used as a guide to create regime changes around the world. Billed as
"democracy" and "freedom", their results are not so benign. Witness Ukraine today. Or Libya. Or
Kosovo whose long-time leader has just been indicted for numerous crimes .
Curiously enough, these efforts always take place in countries that resist Washington's line
but never in countries that don't. Here we do see training, financing, propaganda, discord
being sown, divisions exploited to effect regime change – all the things in the imaginary
"Russian Playbook". So, whatever he may have thought he was helping, Sharp's advice has been
used to produce what only the propagandists could call "
model interventions "; to the "liberated" themselves, the reality is poverty , destruction ,
Reading Sharp's book, however, makes one wonder if he was just fooling himself. Has there
ever been a "dictatorship" overthrown by "non-violent" resistance along the lines of what he is
suggesting? He mentions Norwegians who resisted Hitler; but Norway was liberated, along with
the rest of Occupied Europe, by extremely violent warfare. While some Jews escaped, most didn't
and it was the conquest of Berlin that saved the rest: the nazi state was killed . The
USSR went away, together with its satellite governments in Europe but that was a top-down
event. He likes Gandhi but Gandhi wouldn't have lasted a minute under Stalin. Otpor was greatly aided by NATO's war
on Serbia. And, they're only "non-violent" because the Western media doesn't talk much about
the violence ;
"non-violent" is not the first word that comes to mind in this video of Kiev 2014 . "Colour revolutions" are
manufactured from existing grievances, to be sure, but with a great deal of outside assistance,
direction and funding; upon inspection, there's much design behind their "spontaneity". And,
not infrequently, with mysterious sniping at a expedient moment – see Katchanovski's
research on the "Heavenly Hundred" of the Maidan showing pretty convincingly that the
shootings were " a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right
organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as
Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have
had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit
of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and
codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many
shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it
only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities.
With a great deal of outside effort and resources.
My take on Tucker and Maddow: both serve those who write their paychecks, but one of the
two bosses is a better businessman.
Tucker does not duplicate Hannity which lets them serve different (if overlapping)
segments of the audience. Showing Paralimpil and Gabbard to the viewers did not lead to any
major perturbation in American politics, but it lets his viewer feel that they are better
informed than the fools who watch Maddow. And it helps that to a degree they are.
I get that Tucker invites good a reasonable people on his show and gives voice space where
they would not otherwise get it. That is deliberate.
I bet you that the stats show that the demented monotone oozing out of MSNBC and CNN etc
has been a serious turn off for a sector of audience that is well informed and exercise
critical faculties. That is exactly what Tucker needs to pay for his program as I would be
fairly sure these people are Consumers of a desirable degree and advertisers like Tucker's
formula and Fox Bosses like Tuckers income generator.
I don't think it is more complex than that and his bosses will entertain most heresies as
long as the program generates advertiser demand for that time slot.
So Tucker is OK and he is reasonable and he will interview a broad spectrum. Good for him.
But he smooths the pillow and caresses the establishment arse.
"... One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia paid the Taliban to kill GIs as an attempt to pre-empt the findings into Russiagate's origins. ..."
"... But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool's errand in Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their "own resources." As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from abroad. ..."
"... Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is complete, when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
"... If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to drink for the rest of us. ..."
"... I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed unhinged -- actually, well over the top. ..."
O n Friday The New York Times featured a report based on anonymous intelligence
officials that the Russians were paying bounties to have U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan with
President Donald Trump refusing to do anything about it. The flurry of Establishment media
reporting that ensued provides further proof, if such were needed, that the erstwhile "paper of
record" has earned a new moniker -- Gray Lady of easy virtue.
Over the weekend, the Times ' dubious allegations grabbed headlines across all media
that are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have
been the main objective. To keep the pot boiling this morning, The New York Times' David
Leonhardt's daily web piece
, "The Morning" calls prominent attention to a banal
article by a Heather Cox Richardson, described as a historian at Boston College, adding
specific charges to the general indictment of Trump by showing "how the Trump administration
has continued to treat Russia favorably." The following is from Richardson's newsletter on
"On April 1 a Russian plane brought ventilators and other medical supplies to the
United States a propaganda coup for Russia;
"On April 25 Trump raised eyebrows by issuing a joint statement with Russian President
Vladimir Putin commemorating the 75th anniversary of the historic meeting between American
and Soviet troops on the bridge of the Elbe River in Germany that signaled the final defeat
of the Nazis;
"On May 3, Trump called Putin and talked for an hour and a half, a discussion Trump
called 'very positive';
"On May 21, the U.S. sent a humanitarian aid package worth $5.6 million to Moscow to
help fight coronavirus there. The shipment included 50 ventilators, with another 150 promised
for the next week;
"On June 15, news broke that Trump has ordered the removal of 9,500 troops from
Germany, where they support NATO against Russian aggression. "
Historian Richardson added:
"All of these friendly overtures to Russia were alarming enough when all we knew was that
Russia attacked the 2016 U.S. election and is doing so again in 2020. But it is far worse
that those overtures took place when the administration knew that Russia had actively
targeted American soldiers. this bad news apparently prompted worried intelligence officials
to give up their hope that the administration would respond to the crisis, and instead to
leak the story to two major newspapers."
Hear the siren? Children, get under your desks!
The Tall Tale About Russia Paying for Dead U.S. Troops
Times print edition readers had to wait until this morning to learn of Trump's
statement last night that he was not briefed on the cockamamie tale about bounties for killing,
since it was, well, cockamamie.
Late last night the president tweeted: "Intel just reported to me that they did not find
this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or the VP. "
For those of us distrustful of the Times -- with good reason -- on such neuralgic
issues, the bounty story had already fallen of its own weight. As Scott Ritter pointed out
"Perhaps the biggest clue concerning the fragility of the New York Times ' report
is contained in the one sentence it provides about sourcing -- "The intelligence
assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan
militants and criminals." That sentence contains almost everything one needs to know
about the intelligence in question, including the fact that the source of the information is
most likely the Afghan government as reported through CIA channels. "
And who can forget how "successful" interrogators can be in getting desired answers.
Russia & Taliban React
The Kremlin called the Times reporting "nonsense an unsophisticated plant," and from
Russia's perspective the allegations make little sense; Moscow will see them for what they are
-- attempts to show that Trump is too "accommodating" to Russia.
A Taliban spokesman called the story "baseless," adding with apparent pride that "we" have
done "target killings" for years "on our own resources."
Russia is no friend of the Taliban. At the same time, it has been clear for several years
that the U.S. would have to pull its troops out of Afghanistan. Think back five decades and
recall how circumspect the Soviets were in Vietnam. Giving rhetorical support to a fraternal
Communist nation was de rigueur and some surface-to-air missiles gave some substance to
But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool's errand in
Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat
back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their "own
resources." As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from
Besides, the Russians knew painfully well -- from their own bitter experience in
Afghanistan, what the outcome of the most recent fool's errand would be for the U.S. What point
would they see in doing what The New York Times and other Establishment media are
breathlessly accusing them of?
CIA Disinformation; Casey at Bat
Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is
complete, when everything the American public believes is false."
Casey made that remark at the first cabinet meeting in the White House under President
Ronald Reagan in early 1981, according to Barbara Honegger, who was assistant to the chief
domestic policy adviser. Honegger was there, took notes, and told then Senior White House
correspondent Sarah McClendon, who in turn made it public.
If Casey's spirit is somehow observing the success of the disinformation program called
Russiagate, one can imagine how proud he must be. But sustained propaganda success can be a
serious challenge. The Russiagate canard has lasted three and a half years. This last gasp
effort, spearheaded by the Times , to breathe more life into it is likely to last little
more than a weekend -- the redoubled efforts of Casey-dictum followers notwithstanding.
Russiagate itself has been unraveling, although one would hardly know it from the
Establishment media. No collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Even the sacrosanct
tenet that the Russians hacked the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks has been disproven
, with the head of the DNC-hired cyber security firm CrowdStrike
admitting that there is
no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked -- by Russia or
anyone else .
U.S. Attorney John Durham. (Wikipedia)
How long will it take the Times to catch up with the CrowdStrike story, available
since May 7?
The media is left with one sacred cow: the misnomered "Intelligence Community" Assessment of
Jan. 6, 2017, claiming that President Putin himself ordered the hacking of the DNC. That
"assessment" done by "hand-picked analysts" from only CIA, FBI and NSA (not all 17 intelligence
agencies of the "intelligence community") reportedly is being given close scrutiny by U. S.
Attorney John Durham, appointed by the attorney general to investigate Russiagate's
If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and
law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility
of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to
drink for the rest of us.
Do not expect the media to cease and desist, simply because Trump had a good squelch for
them last night -- namely, the "intelligence" on the "bounties" was not deemed good enough to
present to the president.
(As a preparer and briefer of The President's Daily Brief to Presidents Reagan and HW
Bush, I can attest to the fact that -- based on what has been revealed so far -- the Russian
bounty story falls far short of the PDB threshold.)
Rejecting Intelligence Assessments
Nevertheless, the corporate media is likely to play up the Trump administration's rejection
of what the media is calling the "intelligence assessment" about Russia offering -- as Rachel
Maddow indecorously put it on Friday -- "bounty for the scalps of American soldiers in
I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed
unhinged -- actually, well over the top.
The media asks, "Why does Trump continue to disrespect the assessments of the intelligence
community?" There he goes again -- not believing our "intelligence community; siding, rather,
In other words, we can expect no let up from the media and the national security miscreant
leakers who have served as their life's blood. As for the anchors and pundits, their level of
sophistication was reflected yesterday in the sage surmise of Face the Nation's Chuck Todd, who
Aaron Mate reminds us, is a "grown adult and professional media person." Todd asked guest John
Bolton: "Do you think that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did
help him win the election, and he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?"
"This is as bad as it gets," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday, adding the aphorism
she memorized several months ago: "All roads lead to Putin." The unconscionably deceitful
performance of Establishment media is as bad as it gets, though that, of course, was not
what Pelosi meant. She apparently lifted a line right out of the Times about how Trump
is too "accommodating" toward Russia.
One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia as a reflection of the need
to pre-empt the findings likely to issue from Durham and Attorney General William Barr in the
coming months -- on the theory that the best defense is a pre-emptive offense. Meanwhile, we
can expect the corporate media to continue to disgrace itself.
Caitlin Johnstone, typically,
pulls no punches regarding the Russian bounty travesty:
"All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile, but a special
disdain should be reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the
essential task of creating an informed populace and holding power to account. How much of an
unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and uncritically parrot
the completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity? How
much work did these empire fluffers put into killing off every last shred of their dignity?
It boggles the mind.
It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the Western world will
uncritically parrot whatever they're told to say by the most powerful and depraved
intelligence agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of
self-awareness that Russia and China are bad because they have state media.
Sometimes all you can do is laugh."
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-years as a CIA analyst he led the Soviet
Foreign Policy Branch and prepared The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon,
Ford, and Reagan. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Aaron , June 30, 2020 at 12:33
If anything, all roads lead to Israel. You have to consider the sources, the writers,
journalists, editors, owners, and rich people from which these stories come. This latest
ridiculous story will certainly help Trump, so the sources of these Russia stories are
actually fans of Trump, they love his tax cuts, he helps their revenue streams, and he's the
greatest friend and Zionist to Israel so far and also Wall Street. I think most Americans can
understand that Putin doesn't possess all of the supernatural all-encompassing powers and
mind-controlling omnipotence that Pelosi and her ilk attribute to him. That's why at his
rallies, when Trump points to where the journalists are and sneers at them calling them
bloodsuckers and parasites and all that, the people love it, because of stuff like this. It's
like saying "look at those assholes, those liberal journalists over at CNN say that you voted
for me because of Vladimir Putin?!" It just pisses off people to keep hearing that mantra
over and over. So it's a gift to Trump, it helps him so much. And seeing that super expensive
helicopter flying around the barren rocky slopes of the middle east, seems like it's out of
some Rambo movie. And like Rambo, the tens of thousands of American servicemen that were
sacrificed over there, and still commit suicides at a horrific rate, have always been treated
by the architects of these wars that only helped the state of Israel, as the expendables.
Whether it's a black life, a soldier fighting in Iraq, a foreclosed on homeowner by Mnuchin's
work, or a brainwashed New York Times subscriber, we don't seem to matter, we seem to feel
the truth that to these people were are indeed expendable. The question to answer I think is,
not who is a Russian asset, but who is an Israeli asset?
Andrew Thomas , June 30, 2020 at 12:04
Great reporting as usual, Ray. But special kudos for the NYT moniker 'Gray lady of easy
virtue.' I almost laughed out loud. A rare occurrence these days.
Michael P Goldenberg , June 30, 2020 at 10:45
Thanks for another cogent assessment of our mainstream media's utter depravity and
reckless irresponsibility. They truly have become nothing more than presstitutes and enemies
of the people.
Bob Van Noy , June 30, 2020 at 10:42
"It's all over but the shouting" goes the idiom and I think that is true of Russiagate,
especially, thank all goodness, here at Robert Parry's Journalistic site!
I have a theory that propaganda has a lifetime but when it reaches a truly absurd level,
it's all over. Clearly, we've reached that level Thanks to all at CN
evelync , June 30, 2020 at 10:33
You call Rachel Madcow "unhinged", Ray ..well, yes, I'm shocked at myself that there was a
time that I tuned in to her show .
Sorry Ms Madcow you've turned yourself into a character from Dr Strangelove
The key threats – climate change, pandemics, nuclear war – and why we continue
to fail to address these real things while filling the airwaves instead with the tiresome
russia,russia,russia mantra – per Accam's razer suggests that it serves very short term
interests of money and power whoever whatever the MICIMATT answers to.
"Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is
complete, when everything the American public believes is false." "
Who exactly was the "we" Casey was answering to each day?
I know it wasn't me or the planet or humanity or anyone I know.
Bill Rice , June 30, 2020 at 10:20
If only articles like this were read by the masses. Maybe people would get a clue. Blind
patriotism is not patriotic at all. Skepticism is healthy.
torture this , June 30, 2020 at 09:54
It's a shame that VIPS reporting is top secret. It's the only information coming from
people familiar with the ins and outs of spy agencies that can be trusted.
GeorgeG , June 30, 2020 at 09:45
You missed the juicy stuff. See: tass.com/russia/1172369 Russia Foreign Ministry: NYT article
on Russia in Afghanistan fake from US intelligence. Here is the kicker:
The Russian Foreign Ministry pointed to US intelligence agencies' involvement in Afghan
"Should we speak about facts – moreover, well-known [facts], it has not long been a
secret in Afghanistan that members of the US intelligence community are involved in drug
trafficking, cash payments to militants for letting transport convoys pass through, kickbacks
from contracts implementing various projects paid by American taxpayers. The list of their
actions can be continued if you want," the ministry said.
The Russian Foreign Ministry suggested that those actions might stem from the fact that
the US intelligence agencies "do not like that our and their diplomats have teamed up to
facilitate the start of peace talks between Kabul and the Taliban (outlawed in Russia –
"We can understand their feelings as they do not want to be deprived of the above
mentioned sources of the off-the-books income," the ministry stressed.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:08
Affirmative Ray, two of my old comrades who were SF both did security on CIA drug flights
back in the day, and later on both while under VA care decided to die off God I miss them,
great guys and honest souls.
DH Fabian , June 30, 2020 at 09:41
One point remains a mystery. Why would anyone think that when the US invades a country,
someone would need to pay the people of that country a bounty to fight back?
Mark Clarke , June 30, 2020 at 09:27
If Biden wins the presidency and the Democrats take back the Senate, Russiagate will
strengthen and live on for many years.
Al , June 30, 2020 at 12:11
All to deflect from Clinton's private server while SOS, 30,000 deleted emails, and the
sale of US interests via the Clinton Foundation.
Zedster , June 30, 2020 at 12:56
That, or we learn Chinese.
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 09:08
Another interesting aside is that Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop funding Terrorists" bill went
nowhere in Congress. So it's Ok for us and our Arab allies to fund them, but not the
Russians? Maybe we should go back to calling them the Mujahideen?
Thomas Scherrer , June 30, 2020 at 12:10
Preach, my child.
And aloha to the last decent woman in those halls.
Do you not think that the timing of all this (months after the report was allegedly
presented to Trump) is an attempt to stop Trump from signing an agreement with the Taliban
that will allow him to withdraw American troops from that country?
Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 08:58
Great article Ray, but I have to question whether Durham will fulfill his role and get to
the bottom of the origins of RussiaGate. If he actually does name names and prosecute, how
will the MSM cover it? What will Ms. Madcow have to say? Ever since the fizzling failure of
the Epstein investigation, I have had my doubts about Barr and his minion Durham. I hope I'm
wrong. Time will tell.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:24
I think on here I can talk about this issue you brought up Scott, on other places when I
tried to have a rational discussion on the matter, I got shouted down, well they tried
I highly suggest to any readers of this here on Consortium to get Gore Vidal's old book,
Imperial America, and also watch his old documentary, THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA.
Here is the point of it,
"Officially we have two parties which are in fact wings of a common party of property with
two right wings. Corporate wealth finances each. Since the property party controls every
aspect of media they have had decades to create a false reality for a citizenry largely
uneducated by public schools that teach conformity with an occasional advanced degree in
-GORE VIDAL, The United States of Amnesia
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party and it has two right wings:
Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in
their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more
corrupt -- until recently and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments
when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is
no difference between the two parties."
? Gore Vidal
Others have pointed out the same like this,
"Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and
the ruling party is the business party."
? Noam Chomsky
"In the United States [ ] the two main business-dominated parties, with the support of the
corporate community, have refused to reform laws that make it virtually impossible to create
new political parties (that might appeal to non-business interests) and let them be
effective. Although there is marked and frequently observed dissatisfaction with the
Republicans and Democrats, electoral politics is one area where notions of competitions and
free choice have little meaning. In some respects the caliber of debate and choice in
neoliberal elections tends to be closer to that of the one-party communist state than that of
a genuine democracy."
? Robert W. McChesney, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies is a foolish
idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can
throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in
policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other
party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately
the same basic policies."
? Carroll Quigley [1910 – 1977 was an American historian and theorist of the evolution
of civilizations. He is remembered for his teaching work as a professor at Georgetown
University, for his academic publications.]
Teddy Roosevelt, whose statue is under attack in NYC, had this to say,
"The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a
closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This
crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business
privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from
-THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912
I suggest also that you look up on line this article, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Our Fake
by Prof. Stephen H. Unger at Columbia, here is his concluding thought,
"The drift toward loss of liberty, unending wars, environmental degradation, growing economic
inequality can't be stopped easily, but it will never be halted as long as we allow corporate
interests to rule our country by means of a pseudo-democracy based on the two-party
With this all in mind, and if your my age, you might recall about how over the past more then
50 years, no matter which party gets in power, nothing of any significance changes, the wars
continue, the transfer of wealth to the few, and the erosion of basic civil liberties
continues pretty well unabated.
Trump is surrounded by neo-cons and I expect nothing will happen to change anything. I would
get into how most called liberals are hardly that, but in reality neo-cons, but I've said
enough for now, when you consider the statements I shared, then the Matrix begins to come
Grady , June 30, 2020 at 08:01
Not to mention the potential peace initiative with Afghanistan and Taliban that is
looming. Peace is not profitable, so who has the dual interests in maintaining protracted war
in a strategic location while ensuring the poppy crop stays the most productive in the world?
It seems said poppy production under the pre war Taliban government was minimal as they
eliminated most of it. Attacking the Taliban and thwarting its rule allowed for greater
production, to the extent it is the global leader in helping to fulfill the opiate demand.
Gary Webb established long ago that the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, has
somewhat of a tradition in such covert operations and logic would dictate they're vested
interest lies in maintaining a high yield crop while feeding the profit center that is the
MIC war machine. While certainly a bit digressive, the dots are there to connect.
Paul , June 30, 2020 at 07:54
My friend, I love your columns. Thank you, you have been one of the few sane voices on
Russiagate from the beginning.
Sadly most Americans and most people in the world will not receive these simple truths you
are telling. (not their fault)
We will continue our fight against the system.
Peace, Paul from South Africa
Voice from Europe , June 30, 2020 at 07:38
Don't think this will be the last Russiagate gasp whoever becomes the next president.
The 'liberal democrats' believe their own delusions and as long as they control the MSM, they
won't stop. Lol.
Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:29
You should read my reply to Scott, most of these Democrats are not liberals, but neo-cons
who just liberal virtue signal while in reality supporting the neo-con agenda. I hate it how
the so called alternative or independent media abuse terms and words, which obscures
realities. Anyway, take a look at my reply and the quotes I shared.
"Definition of liberal, one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox,
traditional, or established forms or ways, progressive, broad-minded, . willing to respect or
accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas, denoting a political
and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free
? Derived from Webster's and the Oxford Dictionaries
"Liberal' comes from the Latin liberalis, which means pertaining to a free man. In
politics, to be liberal is to want to extend democracy through change and reform. One can see
why that word had to be erased from our political lexicon."
? Gore Vidal, "The Great Unmentionable: Monotheism and its Discontents," The Lowell Lecture,
Harvard University, April 20, 1992.
Once again I would like to compliment Mr McGovern on his magnificently Biblical
appearance. That full set would do credit to any Old Testament prophet.
I see him as the USA's own Jeremiah.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:12
Seeing that picture of Johnson's sad, wicked bloodhound features really, really makes me
wish I had had a chance to be outside his tent pissing in. I'd have been careful to drink as
many gallons of beer as possible beforehand.
Although it would have been better, from a humanitarian pont of view, just to set fire to
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:10
"Historian Richardson "
Clearly a serious exaggeration.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:09
Ah, the Chinook! The 60-year-old helicopter that epitomises everything Afghan patriots
love about the USA. It's big, fat, slow, clumsy, unmanoeuvrable, and may carry enough US
troops to make shooting it down a damaging political blow against Washington.
Vivek , June 30, 2020 at 05:43
What do you make of Barbara Honeggar's second career as a alternative story peddler?
CNfan , June 30, 2020 at 03:43
A brilliant piece, with a deft touch depicting the timeless human follies running our
foreign policy circus. Real-world experience, perspective, and courage like Ray's were the
dream of the drafters of our 1st Amendment. And ending with Caitlin's hammer was effective.
As to who benefits? I suspect the neocons – our resident war-addicts and Israeli
assets. Paraphrasing Nancy, "All roads lead to Netanyahu."
So,Russia what will do in next Upcoming Years during these covid-19.
Realist , June 30, 2020 at 02:54
Ray, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has embraced these allegations against
Russia as the gospel truth and has threatened to seek revenge against Putin once he occupies
the White House.
He said Americans who serve in the military put their life on the line. "But they should
never, never, never ever face a threat like this with their commander in chief turning a
blind eye to a foreign power putting a bounty on their heads."
"I'm quite frankly outraged by the report," Biden said. He promised that if he is elected,
"Putin will be confronted and we'll impose serious costs on Russia."
This is the kind of warmongering talk that derailed the expected landslide victory for the
Queen of Warmongers in 2016. This time round though, Trump has seemingly already swung and
badly missed three times in his responses to the Covid outbreak, the public antics attributed
to BLM, and the Fed's creation of six trillion dollars in funny money as a gift to the most
privileged tycoons on the planet. In baseball, which will not have a season in spite of the
farcical theatrics between ownership and players, that's called a "whiff" and gets you sent
back to the bench.
According to all the pollsters, Donnie's base of white working class "deplorables" are
already abandoning his campaign–bigly, prompting the none-too-keen Biden to assume that
over-the-top Russia bashing is back in season, especially since trash-talking Nobel Laureate
Obama is now delivering most of the mute sock puppet Biden's lines. It was almost comical to
watch Joe do nothing but grin in the framed picture to the left of his old boss during their
most recent joint interview with the press. This dangerous re-set of the Cold War is NOT what
the people want, nor is it good for them or any living things.
DH Fabian , June 30, 2020 at 10:18
Biden already lost 2020 -- in spite of the widely-disliked Trump. This is why Democrats
began working to breath life back into Russia-gate by late last year, setting the stage to
blame Russia for their 2020 defeat. We spent the past 25 years detailing the demise of the
Democratic Party (replaced by the "New Democrat Party"), and it turned out that the party
loyalists didn't hear a word of it.
John A , June 30, 2020 at 02:15
As a viewer from afar, in Europe, I find it mindboggling how the American public seem to
believe all this nonsense about Russia. Have the people there really been that dumbed down by
chewing gum for the eyes television and disgusting chemical and growth h0rmone laced food?
Sad, sad, sad.
Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:17
John, I think there is something to what you say about dumbing down. I recall Albert Jay
Nock lamenting, in about 1910, how dreadfully US education had already been dumbed down
– and things have been going steadily downhill ever since.
But I don't think we can quite release the citizenry from responsibility on account of
their ignorance. (Isn't it a legal maxim that ignorance is not an excuse?)
There is surely deep down in most people a sly lust for dominance, a desire to control and
forbid and compel; and also a quiet satisfaction at hearing of inferior foreigners being
harmed or killed by one's own "world class" armed forces.
TS , June 30, 2020 at 11:14
> As a viewer from afar, in Europe, I find it mindboggling how the American public seem
to believe all this nonsense about Russia.
May I remind you that most of the mass media in Europe parrot all this nonsense, and a
large segment of the public swallows it?
Charles Familant , June 30, 2020 at 00:50
Mr. McGovern has not made his case. To his question as to why Taliban militants need any
additional incentive to target U.S. troops in Afghanistan, it is not far-fetched to believe
these militants would welcome additional funds to continue their belligerency. Waging war is
not cheap and is especially onerous for relatively small organizations as compared to major
powers. What reason would Putin have to pay such bounty? The increase in U.S. troop
casualties would provide Trump an additional rationale to bring the troops home, as he had
promised during his campaign speeches in 2015 and 2016. This action would be a boon to his
re-election prospects. Putin is well aware that if Biden wins in November, there is little
likelihood of the hostility in Afghanistan or anywhere else being brought to an end. But,
more to the point, the likelihood of U.S. sanctions against Russia being curtailed under a
Biden presidency is remote. To what he deemed rhetorical, Mr. McGovern asks how successful
were U.S. interrogators of such captured Taliban in the past, I remind him that there were
opposing views regarding which techniques were most effective. Might not these interrogators
have, in the present case, employed more effective means? Finally, it should not even be a
question as to why any news agency does not reveal its sources. But in this case, the New
York Times specifically mentions that the National Security Council discussed the
intelligence finding in late March. Further, if it is true that Trump, Pence et al ignored
the said briefs of which the administration was well aware, this should be no surprise to any
of us. Case in point: how long did it take Trump to respond to the present pandemic? One
telling observation: Mr. McGovern says that Heather Cox Richardson is "described as a
historian at Boston College.' She is not just "described as a historian" Mr. McGovern, she IS
a historian at Boston College; in fact, she is a professor at that college and has authored
six scholarly works that have been published as books, the most recent of which in March of
this year by the Oxford University Press. Mr. McGovern states that the points Richardson made
her most most recent newsletter as "banal." I see nothing banal in that newsletter, but
rather a list of relevant factual occurrences. Finally (this time it really is final), Mr.
McGovern employs the use of sarcasm to discount what Richardson and others have contended
regarding this most recent expose. And seems to give more credibility to the comments made by
Trump and his cohorts, as though this administration is remarkable for its integrity.
Sam F , June 30, 2020 at 11:05
Plausible interest does not make unsupported accusations a reality. What bounties did the
Have you forgotten that the US set up Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with weapons to attack the USSR
Zhu , June 30, 2020 at 00:34
Come December this year, which losing party will blame which scapegoat? Russia? China? The
Man in the Moon? It must be a hard decision!
Zhu , June 30, 2020 at 00:31
Unfortunately, bad ideas and conspiracy fictions rarely disappear completely. But that
Afghans need to be paid to kill invaders is the dumbest conspiracy fiction yet.
Thomas Fortin , June 29, 2020 at 21:31
Excellent report Ray, as usual.
Interesting note here, I watched The Hill's Rising program, and listened to young
conservative Saagar say, although he does not believe that Russia-gate is credible, he made
the statement that Russia is supplying the Taliban weapons and wants us to get out of
Afghanistan, and that is considered a fact by all journalists!
Saagar is a bit conflicted, he does not, but does believe the gods of intelligence, like so
many did with the Gulf of Tonkin so long ago, I remember that all too well.
As I look out upon the ignorant masses and useful idiots who strain at those Confederate and
other monuments, while continuing to elect the same old people back into office who continue
the status quo, its a bit discouraging. We were told so long ago about our current situation,
"It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a
populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy
attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments
of their own debasement and ruin." [James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817]
As a historian of some sort and educational film maker, I do my best to educate people,
though its a bit overwhelming at times how ignorant and fascist brain-washed most are.
Monroe, like the other founders knew the secret of maintaining a free and prosperous
republic, from the same piece, "Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to
preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote
intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties."
George Carlin got it right about why education "sucks", it was by design, so our work is cut
out for us.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what
never was and never will be."
GMCasey , June 29, 2020 at 21:25
Why would Putin even bother? America and its endless wars is doing itself in. Afghanistan
is said to be," the graveyard of empires." It was for Alexander the Great -- –it was
for Russia and I suppose that it will be for America too -- -
DW Bartoo , June 29, 2020 at 20:50
Ray, I certainly hope that Durham and Barr will not wait too long a time to make public
the truth about Russiagate.
Indeed, certain heads should, figuratively, roll, and as well, the whole story about who
was behind the setting up of Flynn needs to, somehow, make it through the media flack.
Judge Sullivan's antics having been rather thoroughly shot down, though the media is
desperately trying to either spin or ignore the reality that it was not merely Flynn that
Sullivan was hoping to harm, but also the power of the executive branch relative to the
The role of Obama and of Biden who, apparently, suggested the use of the Logan Act as the
means to go after Flynn, who we now know was intentionally entrapped by the intrepid FBI,
need to be made clear as well.
Just as with the initial claims that torture was the work of "a few bad apples", when
anyone with any insight into such "policy" actions had to have known that it WAS official
policy (crafted by Addington, Bybee, and Yoo, as it turned out, directed to do so by the Bush
White House), so too, must it be realized that it was not some rogue agents and loose
cannons, but actual instructions "from above", explicit or implicit, that "encouraged" the
behavior of those who spoke of "Insurance" policies designed to hamper, hinder, and harm the
Clearly, I am no fan of Trump, and while I honestly regard the Rule of Law as essentially
a fairytale for the gullible (as the behavior of the "justice" system from the " qualified
immunity" of the police, to the "absolute immunity" of prosecutors, judges, and the political
class must make clear,to even the most giddy of childish believers in U$ purity, innocence,
and exceptionalism, that the "law" serves to protect wealth and power and NOT the public), I
should really like to consider that even in a pretend democracy, some things are simply not
to be tolerated.
Things, like torture, like fully politicized law enforcement or "intelligence" agencies,
like secret court proceedings, where judges may be lied to with total impunity and actual
evidence is not required. As well as things like a media thoroughly willing to requrgitate
blatant propaganda as "fact" (while having, again, no apparent need of genuine evidenc), or
other things like total surveillance, and the destruction of habeas corpus.
One should like to imagine that such things might concern the majority.
Yet, a society that buys into forever wars, lesser-evil voting, and created Hitler like
boogeymen, that countenances being lied into wars and consistently lied to about virtually
everything, is hardly likely to discern the truth of things until the "Dream" collapses into
personal pain, despair, and Depression.
Unless there is an awakening quite beyond that already tearing down statues, but yet still
, apparently, unwilling to grasp the totality of the corruption throughout the entire edifice
of "authority", of the total failure of a system that has no real legitimacy, except that
given it by voters choosing between two sides of the same tyranny, it may be readily
imagined, should Biden be "victorious", that Russiagate, Chinagate, Irangate, Venezuelagate,
and countless other "Gates" will become Official History.
In which case, this is not a last gasp, of Russiagate, but a new and full head of steam
for more of the same.
How easy it has been for the lies to prevail, to become "truth" and to simply disappear
the voices of those who ask for evidence, who dare question, who doubt.
How easy to co-opt and destroy efforts to educate or bring about critically necessary
There are but a few months for real evidence to be revealed.
If Durham and Barr decide not to "criminalize policy differences", as Obama, the
"constitutional scholar", did regarding torture, then what might we imagine will be the
future of those who have an understanding of even those lies long being used, and with recent
additions, for example, to torture Julian Assange?
All of the deceit has common purpose, it is to maintain absolute control.
If Russiagate is not completely exposed, for all that it is and was intended to be, then
quaint little discussions about elite misbehavior will be banished from general awareness,
and those who persist in questioning will be rather severely dealt with.
Antonia , June 30, 2020 at 11:43
ABSOLUTELY. Well said. NOW where to make the changes absolutely necessary?
Zalamander , June 29, 2020 at 18:47
Thanks Ray. There are multiple reasons for the continued existance of Russiagate as the
Democratic party has no real answers for the economic depression affecting millions of
Americans. Neoliberal Joe Biden is also an exceptionally weak presidential candidate, who
does not even support universal healthcare for all Americans like every other advanced
industrialized country has. That said, the Dems are indeed desperate to deflect attention
away from the Durham investigation, as it is bound to expose the total fraud of Crossfire
Sam F , June 29, 2020 at 18:16
Thanks, Ray, a very good summary, with reminders often needed by many in dealing with
This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media
"... To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral. ..."
"... "Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials," tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi. ..."
"... "So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?" ..."
"... "It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," ..."
"... On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow going so far as to describe it as Putin offering bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have actually happened. ..."
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based
in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on
Whenever one sees a news headline ending in
"US Intelligence Says", one should always mentally replace everything that comes before it with "Blah blah blah we're probably lying."
"Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill Troops, US Intelligence Says", blares the
latest viral headline from the New York Times . NYT's unnamed sources
allege that the GRU "secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan -- including
targeting American troops", and that the Trump administration has known this for months.
To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof
are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies
want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout
mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral.
In a post-Iraq-invasion world, the only correct response to unproven anonymous claims about a rival government by intelligence
agencies from the US or its allies is to assume that they are lying until you are provided with a mountain of independently verifiable
evidence to the contrary. The US has far too extensive a record of lying
about these things for any other response to ever be justified as rational, and its intelligence agencies consistently play a foundational
role in those lies.
Voices outside the mainstream-narrative control matrix have been calling these accusations what they are: baseless, lacking in
credibility, and not reflective of anything other than fair play, even if true.
"Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials,"
tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi.
"So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied
about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?"
tweeted author and analyst Jeffrey Kaye.
"It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine
for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," tweeted author and analyst Max Abrams.
It is true, as many have been pointing out, that it would be fair play for Russia to fund violent opposition the the US in Afghanistan,
seeing as that's exactly what the US and its allies have been doing to Russia and its allies in Syria, and did to the Soviets in
Afghanistan via Operation Cyclone . It is also true
that the US military has no business in Afghanistan anyway, and any violence inflicted on US troops abroad is the fault of the military
expansionists who put them there. The US military has no place outside its own easily defended borders, and the assumption that it
is normal for a government to circle the planet with military bases is a faulty premise.
But before even getting into such arguments, the other side of the debate must meet its burden of proof that this has even happened.
That burden is far from met. It is literally the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. The New York Times has an extensive
history of pushing for new wars at every opportunity,
including the unforgivable
Iraq invasion , which killed a million people, based on lies. A mountain of proof is required before such claims should be seriously
considered, and we are very, very far from that.
I will repeat myself: it is the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. I will repeat myself again: it is the US intelligence
community's job to lie to you. Don't treat these CIA press releases with anything but contempt.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
A US judge
dismissed a defamation lawsuit by One America News Network against MSNBC over Rachel Maddow's
claims that OAN was "literally" Russian propaganda, ruling that her segment was merely "an
opinion" and "exaggeration." OAN sued the liberal talk show host and MSNBC for defamation,
demanding over $10 million in damages, back in September 2019. The lawsuit was based on the
July 22 episode of The Rachel Maddow Show, where Maddow launched a scathing broadside against
the conservative television network, labeling it "the most obsequiously pro-Trump right
wing news outlet in America" and "really literally paid Russian propaganda."
In the segment, Maddow cited a story by The Daily Beast's Kevin Poulsen about OAN's Kristian
Rouz, who has previously contributed to Sputnik as a freelance author. Toeing the general US
mainstream line on the Russian media, be it Sputnik or RT, Poulsen branded the Russian news
agency "the Kremlin's official propaganda outlet" and said Rouz was once on its
"payroll." Shortly after MSNBC's star talent peddled the claim, OAN rejected the
allegations as "utterly and completely false. " The outlet, which is owned by the
Herring Networks, a small California-based family company, said that it "has never been
paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government," with its only funding
coming from the Herring family.
In their bid to win the case, Maddow herself, MSNBC, Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal
Media did not address the accusation itself - namely, that her claim about OAN was false - but
opted to invoke the First Amendment, insisting that the rant should be protected as free
with Maddow, the California district court defined Maddow's show as a mix of "news and
opinions," concluding that the manner in which the progressive host blurted out the
accusations "makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the
contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact." h
The court said that while Maddow "truthfully" related the story by the Daily Beast,
the statement about OAN being funded by the Kremlin was her "opinion" and
"exaggeration" of the said article.
While the legal trick helped Maddow to get off the hook without ever trying to defend her
initial statement, conservative commentators on social media wasted no time in pointing out
that dodging a payout to OAN literally meant admitting that Maddow was not, in fact, news.
Maddow won a lawsuit brought against her because the Judge found her show was "opinion," that is, her show isn't one that
shares actual facts with viewers.https://t.co/T1bgdSfc0P — Essential Cernovich (@Cernovich) May 22, 2020Q
Just like Alex Jones’ defense in his divorce and custody proceedings: “I’m an entertainer”
Biden’s binder full of women (@Wallflowerface) May 22, 2020Q
So if she makes any statement(s) on air about being factual, then don’t we have an excellent appeal? — Mortimer Cinder
Block (@LeonardPGoldst1) May 22, 2020Q
W ith Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders spooking the Democratic establishment, The
Washington Post Friday reported damaging information from intelligence sources against
Sanders by saying that Russia is trying to help his campaign.
If the story is true and if intelligence agencies are truly committed to protecting U.S.
citizens, the Sanders campaign would have been quietly informed and shown evidence to back up
Instead the story wound up on the front page of the Post , "according to people
familiar with the matter." Zero evidence was produced to back up the intelligence agencies'
"It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken," the Post reported.
That would tell any traditional news editor that there was no story until it is known.
Instead major U.S. media are again playing the role of laundering totally unverified
"information" just because it comes from an intelligence source. Reporting such assertions
without proof amounts to an abdication of journalistic responsibility. It shows total trust in
U.S. intelligence despite decades of deception and skullduggery from these agencies.
Centrist Democratic Party leaders have expressed extreme unease with Sanders leading the
Democratic pack. Politicoreported
Friday that former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's entry into the race is explicitly to stop
Sanders from winning on the first ballot at the party convention.
A day after The New York Times
reported , also without evidence, that Russia is again trying to help Donald Trump win in
November, the Post reports Moscow is trying to help Sanders too, again without
substance. Both candidates whom the establishment loathes were smeared on successive days.
In a Tough Spot
The Times followed the Post report Friday by making it appear that Sanders
himself had chosen to make public the intelligence assessment about "Russian interference" in
But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement after
the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on
Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that Russia is trying to
help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even disloyalty to) U.S.
intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin.
So politician that he is, and one who is trying to win the White House, Sanders told the
"I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear:
Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. In 2016,
Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that
they are doing it again in 2020."
The Times quoted Sanders as calling Russian President Vladimir Putin an "autocratic
thug." The paper reported Sanders saying in a statement: "Let's be clear, the Russians want to
undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand
firmly against their efforts and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our
Responding to a cacophony of criticism that Sanders' supporters are especially vicious
online, as opposed to the millions of other vicious people online, Sanders attempted to use
Russia as a scapegoat, the way the Clinton campaign did in 2016. He said: "Some of the ugly
stuff on the Internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real
But no matter how strong Sander's denunciations of Russia, his opponents will now target him
as being a tool of the Kremlin.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached firstname.lastname@example.org
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
Let`s face it,even though Bernie is a moderate Social Democrat,at best.He`s the only one
capable of beating "the Orange"version of Hitler.But he sounds as if the DNC,big wigs,decide
to deny him the nomination;he`d go along with it.Just like before;when he even campaigned for
the"Crooked One(Hillary).I guess we`ll see.
Kim Dixon , February 24, 2020 at 04:31
The most-important element missed in this piece is this: Sanders is helping the DNC and
the MIC gin up fear of, and hatred for, the only other nuclear superpower on earth.
If you were around during the McCarthy years, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the '73
Arab/Israeli war, and all the other almost-Armageddon crises of Cold War One, you know that
nothing could be stupider and more-dangerous than that. The missiles still sit in their
silos, waiting for the next early-warning misunderstanding or proxy-war miscalculation to
send them flying.
Sanders lived through it all. He's supposed to be the furthest-Left pol in Congress. So
how can he possibly advocate for anything but detente and disarmament?
SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:18
I would really like to support Bernie, but statements like this make me shake my head.
It's more a reflection of America today I guess. Politicians believe to a man (or woman) that
they must put the hate on Putin and Russia or they have no chance. It doesn't matter that the
Russia garbage is 100% false. And, I don't mean they 'interfered' only a little there was
nothing, nothing at all. Even Trump has to go along with this propaganda. I don't know how
anyone can believe this idiotic (and incredibly dangerous, as you point out) rubbish at this
point. But you can't call your friends blanking morons.
J Gray , February 25, 2020 at 02:55
I think he successfully dodged a bullet but set himself up to offer comprehensive election
reform if he pulls out a victory .
or it is an early sign that he, the DNC & MIC are coming to terms. It doesn't have
that ring to it to me, like when Trump called for regime-change war in Venezuela &
defunding schools to build a space army. That was a clear on-the-record sell-out & got
him off the Impeachment hook the next day. Similar to when the Clinton signed the Telecom Act
to get off his.
They are still coming after Sanders too hard w/their McCarthiast attacks to feel like he
is siding with them. I think he has to do this because they are bundling his movement,
Venezuela and Russia into the new Red Scare.
"#JoeLauria's piece in #ConsortiumNews is excellent. He calmly sets out #Sanders'
political dilemma. The latest line from US intelligence agency stenographer media like
#NYTimes is that #Russians are helping both #Trump and Sanders because they simply want to
sow discord and cynicism about US democracy , they do not care who wins. #CaitlinJohnstone
neatly satirises this by writing a spoof article claiming that US intelligence agencies have
discovered #Bloomberg is being helped by Russians because he has two Russian
It has reached the point , as Lauria shows, where any criticism of such US MSM nonsense
leaves the speaker open to the allegation that he is soft on/ naive about/complicit in
Russian election meddling. Without being a Trump supporter, one can understand Trump's rage
and contempt for what is going on .
Justin Glyn. Consortium News. Joe Lauria. Tony Kevin"
Tony Kevin , February 23, 2020 at 21:32
Sanders and Trump will survive this Deep State manipulation and attempted blackmail . They
will see off the Clintonistas and Deep State moles, and will go on to fight a tough but fair
election. Americans are sick of Russophobia.
jack , February 24, 2020 at 15:25
agreed – the Russiagate psyop is past its shelf life – BUT Deep State will
carry on – it's a global entity and they're into literally everything – no idea
how any known, normal governing structure can deal with it
Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the
MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the
Dfnslblty , February 23, 2020 at 09:07
Front page drama plus zero evidence began long ago with 'anonymous sources said "!
Complete lack of accountability on the part of the sources and on the part of the
Thus we receive a "reality teevee " potus , and we are pleased to be hypnotised and
A true revolution would demand CN-quality reportage and reject msm pablum.
JohnDoe , February 23, 2020 at 03:43
It's enough to look at the news on mainstream media to understand who's, as usual,
meddling in the elections. In the latest period for the first time I saw a lot of
enthusiastic comments and articles about Bernie Sanders. It's clear they are pushing him. But
why those who isolated him in during the primaries against Clinton are now supporting him?
It's obvious, that they want to get rid of Elizabeth Warren, first push ahead the weaker
candidates, then they'll switch their support towards another candidate, probably
delia ruhe , February 23, 2020 at 00:14
Well, thank you Joe Lauria! I am in trouble in several comment threads for suggesting that
the intel community is at it again, trying to ruin two campaigns by identifying the
candidates with Putin and the Kremlin. Now I can quote you. Excellent piece, as usual.
Deniz , February 22, 2020 at 22:44
Imagine Sanders and Trump, putting their differences aside and declaring war on the deep
state during a debate. They have the same enemies.
The same people who planted Steele's dirty dosier are going to try to steal Sanders
election from him. It wont be Trump and the Republicans who rigs the election against
SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:21
Trump actually seemed to want to help Bernie a bit (well, he keeps calling him 'Crazy
Bernie as well). He put out some tweet calling this latest rubbish, Hoax #7. But Bernie would
rather say something stupid, like 'I'm not a friend of Putin he is' talk about 5-year
Deniz , February 25, 2020 at 00:49
Its disappointing. Sanders heart seems to be in the right place, but when it comes time to
face the sinister forces that run the country for their own benefit, he will be absolutely
This will never end.
No president will ever change anything.
The deep state tentacles will eventually kill us all.
I am going to go and enjoy what's left.
Marko , February 22, 2020 at 20:24
" But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement
after the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on
anonymous sources Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that
Russia is trying to help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even
disloyalty to) U.S. intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin. "
I suspect that Sanders was given a classified briefing a month ago , which he couldn't
disclose to the public. If so , and given that he didn't make this clear immediately after
being accused of withholding this information , he has only himself to blame for the
resulting "bad look".
JWalters , February 22, 2020 at 19:06
The corporate media has revealed itself to be a monopoly behind the scenes, working in
unison to trash Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Even though Gabbard is only at a few
percent in the polls, her message is potentially devastating to the war profiteers who own
America's Vichy MSM.
"Congressman Oscar Callaway lost his Congressional election for opposing US entry into WW
1. Before he left office, he demanded investigation into JP Morgan & Co for purchasing
control over America's leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in
favor of his corporate and banking interests, including profits from US participation in the
war * profiteerstory. * blogspot. * com/p/war-profiteers-and-israels-bank.html
Thankfully, there is still a free American press, of which Consortium News is a stellar
elmerfudzie , February 22, 2020 at 13:25
The CIA and DIA (it has about a dozen agencies under it and is much larger than any other
Intel agency) are supposed to monitor threats to our national security, that originate
abroad. Aside from a few closed door sessions with a select group of congresspersons, our
Intel agencies have practically no real democratic oversight and remain, for all intents and
purposes, a parallel government(s) well hidden from public view. In particular how they are
financed and what their actual annual budgets really are. How these agencies every managed to
seep into any electioneering process what so ever, is beyond me, since they are all
intentionally very surreptitious- by design. We ask questions and these Intel agencies are
quick to tout the usual phrase; that subject area is secret and needs to be addressed in
closed session, blah, blah, blah. Of course "secrecy" translates into, we do what we want
when we want and use information any way we want because our parallel governments represent
the best example(s) of a perpetual motion machine that does not require outside monitoring.
The origins of these "parallel entities" can be traced to the Rockefeller brothers and their
associated international corporations. There's the rub folks. Our citizens at large will
never overtake for the purposes of real monitoring, this empire and elephant in the room,
directly. However we do have one avenue left and it requires a rank and file demand from the
people to their state representatives demanding two long standing issues, they remain
unresolved and until a solution is found, will permit dark powers to side step every level of
The first is true campaign finance reform and the second is assigning, or rather, removing
the status of person-hood to corporate entities. The Rockefeller's used their corporate power
and wealth to influence legislative, judicial and executive bodies. They cannot help but do
as the puppet master commands! Be it some form of, corporatism, fascism, feudalism, monarchy,
oligarchy, even bankster-ism or any other "ism We as citizens at large must make every effort
to again, obtain true campaign finance reform and remove the lobbying presence inside the
beltway. Today, the corporate entity has risen to a level that completely overtakes and
smothers any authentic democratic representation, of and by the people. Originally (circa the
early1800's) American corporations were permitted to exist and papers were drawn based on the
specific duties they were about to perform, this for the benefit of the local community for
example, building a bridge. Once the job was completed, the incorporation was either
liquidated or remanded over to the relevant governing body for the purposes of reevaluating
the necessity of re-certifying the original incorporation papers. Old man Rockefeller changed
the governance and oversight privilege by forcing and promulgating legislation(s) such as
limited liability clauses, strategies to oppose competition, tax evasion schemes and
(eventually) assigning person-hood to corporate entities, thus creating a parallel government
within the government. It all began in Delaware and until we clear our heads and assign names
to the actual problems, as I've itemized here, our citizenry will never experience the
freedom to fashion our destiny. Please visit TUC radio's two part expose' by Richard
Grossman. It will help CONSORTIUMNEWS readers to understand just what a monumental task is
ahead for all of us. Work for a fair and equitable future in America, demand campaign finance
reform and kick the hustling lobbyists out of our government. Voters being choked to death
with senseless debates and useless candidates.
Jeff Harrison , February 22, 2020 at 12:36
The real threats to our democracy are our unaccountable surveillance state and the craven
politicians in Washington, DC. And, no, Ben, we can't keep our republic because we don't have
a sufficient mass of critical thinkers to run it. If we did, this kind of BS, having been
shot full of holes once, wouldn't get any air.
Alan Ross , February 22, 2020 at 10:37
Sanders may win the nomination and the election but he cannot get a break from some
purists on the left. His reaction may have been quite astute. When Sanders says that we
should station troops on the borders of Russia or arm the Ukrainians, then you can say he
really is anti-Russian. I have not heard all that he has said, but what I have heard sounds
so much like hot air put out by a left politician trying to deal with the ages-old
establishment and right wing smear that he is a pawn of the commies, a fellow traveler, a
pinko, and now an agent of a foreign power, a Russian asset and so on. There is real
criticism of Sanders, but his statements about Putin and Russia do not add up to much.
Skip Scott , February 22, 2020 at 09:51
Anyone who is still under the influence of the MSM hypnosis of RussiaGate, led by Rachel
Madcow, needs to think long and hard about this latest propaganda campaign. The real message
here is unless you support corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B, you are a tool
of the "evil Rooskies". And the funny thing is, Sanders is "weak tea" when it comes to issues
of war and peace, and the feeding of the war machine at the government trough with no
The purpose of this BIG LIE of the "Intelligence" agencies is to make it impossible for
someone to be against the Forever War without being tarred as a "Foreign Agent", or at least
a "useful idiot", of the "EVIL ROOSKIES". To simply want peaceful coexistence on its own
merits is impossible.
Imagine if Sanders dared to mention that Putin enjoys substantial majority support inside
Russia, and seeks peaceful coexistence in a multi-polar world, instead of calling him an
"autocratic thug". Often for politicians, speaking the truth is a "bridge too far". I wonder
if Sanders (like Hillary) finds it necessary to hold "private" positions that differ from his
"public" positions? Or does he really believe his own BS?
I had not seen Mr Joe Lauria's article when I commented on Mr Ben Norton's story, but my
reply could fit here as well.
The idiot American public dismays me. To them, the "MSM news" and "celebrity gossip reports"
are equal and both to be wholeheartedly believed.
There is no point in trying to educate a resistant public in the differences between data and
gossip -- public doesn't care.
I weep for what we have lost -- a Constitution, a nation of free thinkers. My heart breaks
for the world's people, and what my country tries to do to them, with only a few resistant
other countries confronting and challenging America.
It is so difficult to know the truth of a situation and yet to know that almost no one
(statistically speaking) believes you.
Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:04
A better distinction might be, concerning the intelligence of the American public, the one
Chomsky has used, rooted in Ancient Greek culture, that between KNOWLEDGE and OPINION.
Americans, of course, have OPINIONS about everything, but little KNOWLEDGE about much of
anything. And it seems their idea of FREEDOM is related to, bound up with, their having
OPINIONS about virtually EVERYTHING.
So much for our being a HIGHER life form.
We're in the process of destroying EVERYTHING, not just HIGHER LIFE FORMS [us], but all
flora and fauna, water and air on the planet–as I said, EVERYTHING. To paraphrase from
memory a citation by Perry Anderson from the work of heterodox Italian Marxist, Sebastiano
Timpanaro, "What we are witnessing is not the triumph of man over history, but the victory of
nature over man."
Tony , February 22, 2020 at 07:40
The Trump administration has pulled out of the INF missile treaty citing totally unproven
claims of Russian violations.
It also looks like allowing the START treaty on strategic nuclear missiles to lapse if we do
not stop it.
And so, in what sense would Putin want Trump to get re-elected?
Van Jones of CNN once described the original allegations of Russian meddling in US
elections as a 'great big nothing burger'.
Sounds right to me.
Sam F , February 22, 2020 at 07:24
When the secret agencies and mass media stop manipulating public opinion, despite their
oligarchy masters' ability to control election results anyway, we will know that they no
longer need deception to control the People. Simple force will do the job, with a few
marketing claims to assist in hiring goons to suppress any popular movement. Democracy is
completely lost, and the pretense of democracy will soon follow.
michael , February 22, 2020 at 07:03
Another foray into domestic politics by the CIA, with anonymous sources and no evidence
shown (as no evidence exists). Perhaps the CIA (which probably works for Putin, or Bloomberg,
or anyone who pays them best, but they are loyal to the US dollar only; and maybe heroin?) is
even now making up another Chris Steele/ Fusion GPS/ CrowdStrike dossier, getting that
Russian caterer to the Kremlin to pump out clickbait and sink both Trump and Sanders. Because
RUSSIANS!!! are "genetically driven" to interfere in American democracy. Next we'll have the
DNC (CIA) pushing Superpredator tropes such as "this enormous cohort of black and Latino
males" who "don't know how to behave in the workplace" and "don't have any prospects." With
this Clintonian (and Biden and Bloomberg) mindset, America will be increasing incarceration
once again. That $500,000 bribe the Clintons took from Putin in 2010 when Hillary was
Secretary of State probably plays a role.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Mark Esper have surprisingly noted that China,
not Russia, is America's #1 concern: "America's concerns about Beijing's commercial and
military expansion should be your concerns as well." Since Bill Clinton's Chinagate fiasco in
1996, Communist China, for a measly $million or so in illegal campaign donations, gained
permanent trade status, took millions of American jobs, and suddenly were allowed access to
advanced, even military technologies. This was the impetus for China's rise to be the
strongest nation in the world. There are no doubt statues of the Clintons all over China, and
soon to Hunter Biden, if his Chinese backed hedge funds do well. There are some rumors that
Bloomberg has transacted business with China, although doubtful he tried to build a hotel in
Beijing or Moscow, or the CIA would be all over it (for a cut)!
Realist , February 24, 2020 at 00:22
Esper is a dangerously deranged man who seems, at least to me, to be telegraphing his
intent, and certainly his desire, to get into a kinetic war with both Russia and China
(Washington already has most of the hybrid war tactics already fully operational), unless
English usage has changed so drastically that insults, overt threats and unrestrained bombast
are now part of calm, rational cordial diplomacy. I would not be surprised if neocon
mouthpieces like Esper are not secretly honing their rhetorical style to emulate the
exaggerated volume and enunciation of der ursprüngliche Führer.
Ma Laoshi , February 22, 2020 at 06:04
"So politician that he is" -- isn't this already on the slippery slope towards double
standards, that is, would say Hillary get a similar pass for making McCarthyite statements
like this? Isn't a dispassionate reading of the situation that Bernie is an inveterate
liar , and moreover specializing in the particular brand of lies that could get us all
into nuclear war? Whether it's character or merely age, haven't we seen enough to conclude
that Mr. Sanders would be much weaker still vis-a-vis the Deep State than Donald Trump turned
out to be?
For those without a dog in this fight, shouldn't it cause great merriment if the various
RussiaGaters devour each other? Mr. Sanders has seen for years that the "muh Putin" hoax will
be turned against him whenever needed. If he nonetheless persists, doesn't that show his
resignation that his role in this election circus is a very temporary one, like in '16? How
was that definition of insanity again?
If you want to fix America, then the Empire and Zionism are your enemies; so is the Dem
party that is inextricably wedded to these forces. Play along with them and–well what
can you expect.
aNanyMouse , February 22, 2020 at 13:29
Yeah, and Bernie sucked up to the Dem brass on the impeachment crap, even tho Tulsi had
the stones to at least abstain. How sad.
GMCasey , February 21, 2020 at 22:33
KNOCK IT OFF! The only person I am voting for President is the only one who is capable -- and
that is Bernie Sanders.
And really, with NATO breaking the agreement where they agreed to NOT go up to Russia's
border : it is getting very sad and embarrassing to be an American because the elected ones
make agreements and yet break so many. What with Turkey and Israel and Saudi Arabia trying to
disrupt the area, I am sure that Russia is too busy to bother disrupting America . Lately
America seems to disrupt itself for many ridiculous reasons. I am sorry that the gossip rags,
which used to be important newspapers have failed in supporting their First Amendment right
of Free speech . I just finished reading "ALL the Presidents Men. " What has happened to you,
Washington Post, because as a newspaper, you really used to be somebody. Please review your
past and become what you once were, a real genuine news source.
Sam F , February 23, 2020 at 09:18
Wikipedia: "In October 2013, the paper's longtime controlling family, the Graham family,
sold the newspaper to Nash Holdings, a holding company established by Jeff Bezos, for $250
million in cash."
Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:37
One of the craziest ongoing media phenomena, prevalent in the Impeachment Hearings, is the
repeated claim that RUSSIA IS AT WAR WITH UKRAINE.
What kind of "Higher Life Form" enthusiastically EATS IT'S OWN SHIT?
Sam F , February 21, 2020 at 22:10
Mass media denouncing politicians based upon "information" from secret agencies are
propaganda operations, and should be sued for proof of their claims. But of course the
judiciary are tools of oligarchy as much as the mass media. No one has constitutional rights
in the US under our utterly corrupt judiciary, only paid party privileges.
Eddie S , February 21, 2020 at 21:55
Hmmm.. so those oh-so-clever Russkies (I mean they MUST-BE if they were able to outwit ALL
the US politicos -- who are immersed in the US political culture 24/7 as well as having
grown-up in this country and having billions of $ to spend -- in 2016 with a mere $100k of
Facebook ads) messed-up this time! They're supporting OPPOSING candidates, effectively
canceling-out their efforts ? Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a
vastly exaggerated distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated
by a sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence
There is NO "intel"; plenty of un-intel, shameless mendacity from these info=dictators
zionazi NYT and Wapoop drivel; hopefully the insouciant public is starting to see what a sham
these rats are. Hearst outdistanced.
Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 10:45
"Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a vastly exaggerated
distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated by a
sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence
Exactly. Shame on Hillary Clinton and all who view the electorate with such disdain as to
have pushed this propaganda on us for the last three years, and continue to do so, obviously.
If either Hillary Clinton or the "sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic
military & intelligence community" had any integrity at all, they would have beaten Trump
handily in 2016, just as they condescendingly told us they would. They did not, though, and
have been outraged to have been exposed as the frauds they are ever since.
When your political party is nothing more than a marketing scheme designed to fool the
population, that population will turn on you. Imagine that. And no amount of Russia-gating
will save you. Shame on all who would continue this charade.
John Drake , February 21, 2020 at 21:33
Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad
Ruskies are trying to help. One week its Trump, the next it is Sanders. Frankly on the face,
it sounds like bad intel to me.
But fortunately I am a regular reader of this site and Ray McGovern; and know it's all, to
put it politely , disinformation; or less politely a pile of diarrhea invented by Hillarybots
after a really really bad election day three years ago.
The only thing that disturbs me is the way Bernie buys into this Russiagate thing himself.
Maybe you all could send him a trove of articles debunking the whole mess, especially Ray and
Fred Dean , February 23, 2020 at 03:52
When Durham starts indicting people and the story of the Deep State coup against the
President becomes common knowledge, Bernie's statements on Russiagate will be a liability.
Trump's people are digging up whatever videos they can of Bernie talking smack about
Trump/Russia. It is a crack in Bernie's armor and we can expect Trump to exploit. Bernie has
been such a toadie to the DNC. He cowers to the Democratic establishment because he fears
they will pull his credentials to run as a Democrat.
OlyaPola , February 23, 2020 at 08:08
"Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad
Ruskies are trying to help."
Output is a function of framing and consequently the intelligence community/opponents are
helping others including the Russians who encourage such help by doing nothing.
KiwiAntz , February 21, 2020 at 21:26
What a shambolic mess of a Nation that America is! Nothing more than a Billionaire's
Banana Republic? A International laughingstock ruled by a Oligarchy, masquerading as a
Democracy? And if all else fails to get rid of Bernie Saunders by vote rigging or
gerrymandering or other nefarious acts of sabotage with Superdelegates stealing the
nominations then resurrect the bogus Russiagate Conspiracy, a ridiculous failed & faked
experiment to gaslight, spook & confuse the population again? Wouldn't it be delicious if
Russiagate was actually TRUE, it would be payback for the USA, a Nation that meddles in the
affairs & politics of every other Country on Earth, overthrowing & regime changing
everyone who doesn't "bend the knee" to America, the most corrupt & evil Nation on Earth
since Nazi Germany! I've never seen a more propagandised or mindf**ked People on Earth than
the American people! It must be soul destroying to live in this Country & have to put up
with this nonsense, day in, day out?
Ian , February 22, 2020 at 02:47
Yes, it is. Living with the infuriating unreality and militaristic worldview that is so
cultivated here takes a personal emotional and intellectual toll. No place is perfect, but
when I travel to Europe I feel a weight lifted.
Broompilot , February 22, 2020 at 03:50
Kiwi you may have a point.
ML , February 22, 2020 at 09:19
Yep. But for those of us with our critical thinking skills intact, we won't let it be soul
destroying, Kiwi. Still, the daily crapload of bs we are fed in the "legacy" press is
aggravating beyond the beyonds. Cheers, fellow Earthling.
Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 11:09
I hear you, KiwiAntz. It IS soul destroying to withstand this onslaught of disinformation
each and every day. There is a rhythm to it that is undeniable, too. One can almost predict
when the next propaganda hit will come, as here – after their latest would-be savior,
Mike Bloomberg, imploded on live TV, and with Bernie looking more and more inevitable.
Our reality in the US today is that we have to fight against our own media to approach
anything resembling a reasonable discussion about what is important to vast majorities (mean
tweets and fake memes aren't it) or to champion candidates who display even the slightest
integrity. But, of course, it is not 'our' media. It is 'theirs.' And they will continue to
abuse us with it until we reject it completely.
robert e williamson jr , February 23, 2020 at 20:31
I see things pretty clearly for what they are and the billionaire democrats are heading
for a train wreck and I hate to admit I cannot look away.
Trump is just another self serving U.S. president leaving a stain in America's underwear
adding to the humongous pile of America's dirty laundry.
When the demographics finally dictate it change will come and likely not before. On that
note I wold like to reach out here. Justin King, who goes as Beau on the net runs a site
called the Fifth Column News and does a ton of informative and educational videos on many
various topics. .
If you go to youtube, search and watch each of the videos I'm about to list here you stand
to learn quite a lot about how Americans got screwed by the two party system without really
realizing it. Plenty of blame to go around , no doubt though. You will also learn of the
changing demographics in American politics. Many of the poor, minorities and youth of the
country are coming into politics for they stand to lose everything if they don't change the
Feb 11 2020 runs 6:21 minutes and seconds- Search terms, Beau Lets talk about the parties
switching and the party of trump
Feb 15 2020 runs 4:11 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about dancing left and dancing
Feb 20 2020 runs 10:44 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about misunderstanding Bernie's
This last video is a long video by Justin's standards. Most of his videos are under 7
Much thanks to CN this site and the Fifth Column New site give me strength and bolster my
courage by allowing me to know that there are those of us who know what gong on and know
things must change.
"... CNN concluded that "America's Russia nightmare is back." Maddow was ecstatic, bleating "Here we go again," recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff firing off that Trump was "again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling." Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts, another writer said , "'Let the Voters Decide' doesn't work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again." The NYT fretted , "Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation's intelligence agencies." John Brennan (after leaking for a while, most boils dry up and go away) said , "we are now in a full-blown national security crisis." The undead Hillary Clinton tweeted , "Putin's Puppet is at it again." ..."
"... But it's still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred, saying , "Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters." ..."
"... The world's greatest intelligence team can't seem to come up with anything more specific than "interfering" and "meddling," as if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken." ..."
"... Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it. Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden's skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free claim "something something social media" again? ..."
"... Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That's where the old story fell apart. The dossier wasn't true. Michael Cohen never met the Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don't read much anyway, so just make claims. You'll never really prosecute or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all in for you. ..."
"... The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt role in the electoral process. When that didn't work out and Trump was elected, they pivoted and drove us to the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them. Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means. ..."
"... The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. ..."
The Russians are back, alongside the American intelligence agencies playing deep inside our elections. Who should we fear more?
Hint: not the Russians.
On February 13, the election security czar in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
briefed the House Intelligence Committee that the Russians were meddling again and that they favored Donald Trump. A few weeks
earlier, the ODNI
briefed Bernie Sanders that the Russians were also meddling in the Democratic primaries, this time in his favor. Both briefings
remained secret until this past week, when the former was leaked to the New York Times in time to smear Trump for replacing
his DNI, and the latter leaked to the Washington Post ahead of the Nevada caucuses to try and damage Sanders.
Russiagate is back, baby. Everyone welcome Russiagate II.
You didn't think after 2016 the bad boys of the intel "community" (which makes it sound like they all live together down in Florida
somewhere) weren't going to play their games again, and that they wouldn't learn from their mistakes? Those errors were in retrospect
amateurish. A salacious
built around a pee tape? Nefarious academics
befriending minor Trump campaign staffers who would tell all to an Aussie ambassador trolling London's pubs looking for young, fit
Americans? Falsified FISA applications when it was all too obvious even Trumpkin greenhorns weren't dumb enough to sleep with FBI
honeypots? You'd think after influencing
85 elections across the globe since World War II, they'd be better at it. But you also knew that after failing to whomp a bumpkin
like Trump once, they would keep trying.
Like any good intel op, you start with a tickle, make it seem like the targets are figuring it out for themselves. Get it out
there that Trump offered
Wikileaks' Julian Assange a pardon if he would state publicly that Russia wasn't involved in the 2016 DNC leaks. The story was all
garbage, not the least of which because Assange has been clear for years that it wasn't the Russians. And there was no offer of a
pardon from the White House. And conveniently Assange is locked in a foreign prison and can't comment.
Whatever. Just make sure you time the Assange story to hit the day after Trump pardoned numerous high-profile, white-collar criminals,
so even the casual reader had Trump = bad, with a side of Russian conspiracy, on their minds. You could almost imagine an announcer's
voice: "Previously, on Russiagate I "
Then, only a day after the Assange story (why be subtle?), the sequel hit the theaters with timed leaks to the NYT and
WaPo . The mainstream media went Code Red (the CIA has a long
history of working with the media to influence elections).
concluded that "America's Russia nightmare is back." Maddow was ecstatic,
bleating "Here we go again," recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff
firing off that Trump was "again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling." Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts,
said , "'Let the Voters Decide' doesn't work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again." The
fretted , "Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation's intelligence agencies." John Brennan (after leaking for
a while, most boils dry up and go away)
said , "we are now in a
full-blown national security crisis." The undead Hillary Clinton
tweeted , "Putin's Puppet is at it again."
It is clear we'll be hearing breaking and developing reports about this from sources believed to be close to others through November.
Despite the sense of desperation in the recycled memes and the way the media rose on command to the bait, it's intel community 1,
But it's still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself
assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred,
saying , "Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters."
Sanders handed Russiagate II legs, signaling that he'll use it as cover for the Bros' online shenanigans, which were called out
at the last debate. That's playing with fire: it'll be too easy later on to invoke all this with "Komrade Bernie" memes in the already
wary purple states. "Putin and Trump are picking their opponent,"
opined Rahm Emanuel to get that ball rolling.
Summary to date: everyone is certain the Russians are working to influence the election (adopts cartoon Russian accent) but who
is the cat and who is the mouse?
Is Putin helping Trump get re-elected to remain his asset in place? Or is Putin helping Bernie "I Honeymooned in the Soviet Union"
Sanders to make him look like an asset to help Trump? Or are the Russkies really all in because Bernie is a True Socialist
agent, the Emma Goldman of his time (Bernie's old enough to have taken Emma to high school prom)? Or is it not the Russians but the
American intel community helping Bernie to make it look like Putin is helping Bernie to help Trump? Or is it the Deep State saying
the Reds are helping Bernie to hurt Bernie to help their man Bloomberg? Are Russian spies tripping over American spies in caucus
hallways trying to get to the front of the room? Who can tell what is really afoot?
See, the devil is in the details, which is why we don't have any.
The world's greatest intelligence team can't seem to come up with anything more specific than "interfering" and "meddling," as
if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS
reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to
help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even
Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit
"It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."
Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it.
Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets
are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden's skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free
claim "something something social media" again?
If you're going to scream that communist zombies with MAGA hats are inside the house , you're obligated to provide a little
bit more information. Why is it when specifics are required, the
response is always something like "Well, the Russians are sowing distrust and turning Americans against themselves in a way that
weakens national unity" as if we're all not eating enough green vegetables? Why leave us exposed to Russian influence for even a
second when it could all be shut down in an instant?
Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That's where the old story fell
apart. The dossier wasn't true. Michael
Cohen never met the
Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don't read much anyway, so just make claims. You'll never really prosecute
or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all
in for you. After all, they managed to convince a large number of Americans Trump's primary purpose in running for president
was to fill vacant hotel rooms at his properties. Let the nature of the source -- the brave lads of the intelligence agencies --
legitimize the accusations this time, not facts.
It will take a while to figure out who is playing whom. Is the goal to help Trump, help Bernie, or defeat both of them to support
Bloomberg? But don't let the challenge of seeing the whole picture obscure the obvious: the American intelligence agencies are once
again inside our election.
The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt
role in the electoral process. When that didn't work out and Trump was elected, they
pivoted and drove us to
the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them.
Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means.
The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. But they have
learned much from those mistakes, particularly how deft a tool a compliant MSM is. This election will be a historian's marker for
how a decent nation, fully warned in 2016, fooled itself in 2020 into self-harm. Forget about foreigners influencing our elections
from the outside; the zombies are already inside the house.
Money quote: "The Deep State and the media appear to believe that we are fooled by these
fraudulent investigations. We are not fooled. We are tired of the lies and the arrogance."
"... For the Deep State, hiding and destroying evidence of guilt is standard operating procedure. They simply report a "glitch" that destroyed the key evidence and that's the end of it. Or, they simply redact the portions of the record that would expose the truth. To my memory, no one ever suffers any consequences for this. Even now, Director Wray and others are tenaciously withholding evidence. ..."
"... When Anthony Weiner's laptop was found to contain over 340,000 Hillary emails in a file named "insurance", the FBI did not rejoice about finally getting the 'lost' email. No, they hid the discovery for weeks until a New York agent threatened to go public. Then, quite miraculously, Peter Strzok found a way to very quickly examine 340,000 messages and found that there was nothing at all that was incriminating. No rational person would believe that. ..."
"... The dirty cops are so confident in their ability to deceive the public that they just announced that the FISA court reforms will be managed by David Kris. Kris has been a defender of FBI misconduct and he attacked Devin Nunes for telling the truth about the FISA court. They don't even care about the appearance of fairness. They do what they want. ..."
"... Because there was nothing, and because it was known from the start that, " there is no big there, there ", the Mueller Team used several irrelevant legal actions to prolong the belief that they were closing in on Trump. Mueller arranged for their media partner, CNN, to film the early morning swat team raid on 67 year old Roger Stone's home. It was very dramatic and very un-necessary. Also, some small-time Russian troll farms were indicted so that the word "Russia" could fill the news, prolonging the desired myth. One of the indicted firms did not even exist. The others did not appear to favor any one candidate and much of their activity was after the election ..."
"... Mueller led a 40 million dollar investigation looking for a crime. That effort failed at finding any collusion, but it did play a role in the Democrats winning a majority in the House of Representatives. That then enabled another investigation of an imaginary crime for political purposes. A scripted hearsay 'whistleblower' submitted lies that allowed Adam Schiff to continue his own campaign of lies. You know the rest of the story. Trump is being falsely charged for doing what Biden bragged about doing. ..."
Many government officials with long entrenched power are unwilling to give up any of that
power. In their minds, they have a right to control our lives as they see fit, with complete
indifference to our wishes. To avoid rebellion, they need to hide this fact as much as
possible. They want the citizens to believe the lie that we are a nation of laws with equal
justice under the law. To advance this lie, they have staged many theatrical productions that
they call "investigations". They try to give us the impression that they want to expose the
facts and punish wrongdoing.
Most of the big 'investigations' in the news in recent years have not been at all what they
pretended to be. The sham investigations of Hillary's email, or the Clinton Foundation, or
Weiner's laptop, or Uranium One, or Mueller's witch hunt, or Huber's big nothing, or the IG's
whitewash, or the Schiff-Pelosi charades, have all been premeditated deceptions.
three types of investigations that call for different deceptions by the Deep State.
The first type is the rare honest investigation . Examples would be the attempt to find
the truth about Fast and Furious (Obama's
gunrunning operation), or the IRS scandal (Obama's
weaponizing of government). In response to real investigations, the criminals do two
things lie and hide evidence. Key evidence, even if it is under subpoena, just disappears.
In the IRS case, Lois Lerner's relevant email and the email of 6 others involved in the
scheme was just "lost". The IRS "worked tirelessly" to find the email, but hard drives
had been destroyed and back-up drives were missing, so the subpoenaed evidence could
not be provided.
For the Deep State, hiding and destroying evidence of guilt is standard operating
procedure. They simply report a "glitch" that destroyed the key evidence and that's the end
of it. Or, they simply redact the portions of the record that would expose the truth. To my
memory, no one ever suffers any consequences for this. Even now, Director Wray and others
The second type of 'investigation' is when the Deep State pretends to investigate the
Deep State . In these 'investigations' the outcome is known in advance, but the script calls
for pretending, sometimes for years, that it an honest investigation is underway.
There was nothing about the Hillary investigations that had anything to do with finding
facts. The purpose from the beginning was exoneration. Key witnesses were given immunity
and many were allowed to attend each other's interviews. There were no early morning swat
team raids to gather evidence. Evidence was destroyed with no consequences.
When Anthony Weiner's laptop was found to contain over
340,000 Hillary emails in a file named "insurance", the FBI did not rejoice about
finally getting the 'lost' email. No, they hid the discovery for weeks until a New York
agent threatened to go public. Then, quite miraculously, Peter Strzok found a way to very
quickly examine 340,000 messages and found that there was nothing at all that was
incriminating. No rational person would believe that.
The dirty cops are so comfortable about getting away with lies like this that Huber can
announce that he found no corruption, when it is readily apparent that he did not interview
key witnesses . He even turned away whistleblowers
who wanted to submit evidence. A real investigator, Charles Ortel, could have given Huber a
long list of Clinton Foundation crimes
. Like the Weiner laptop fake investigation, you don't find crimes if you don't really look
The dirty cops are so confident in their ability to deceive the public that they
just announced that the FISA court reforms will be managed by David Kris. Kris has been a
FBI misconduct and he attacked Devin Nunes for telling the truth about the FISA court.
They don't even care about the appearance of fairness. They do what they want.
investigations have proven to be flimsy exonerations of Deep State criminality. Any
honest observer can see that there was a carefully organized plan by top officials to
control the outcome of the Presidential election. This corrupt plan involved lying to the
FISA court, illegal surveillance and unmasking of citizens and conspiring with media
partners to make sure lies were widely circulated to voters. The government conspirators
and the majority of the media were functioning as nothing more than a branch of Hillary's
campaign. That's a lot of power aimed at destroying Trump.
To an IG investigator, this monumental scandal was presented to us as nothing to be very
concerned about. Yes, a few minor rules were inadvertently broken and there did appear to
be some bias, but there was no reason at all to think that bias effected any actions. If
the agencies involved make a training video and set aside a day for a training meeting,
then that should satisfy us completely.
The third type of investigation involves investigating an imaginary crime for political
reasons . The Mueller investigation and the impeachment investigation are two examples of
this. Probably as a justification for illegal surveillance they were already doing, the
conspirators pretended that there was powerful evidence that Trump was colluding with Putin
to win the election. Lies about this issue propelled the country into 3 years of stories
about nothing stories and investigations about something that never happened. Never in the
history of nothing has nothing been so thoroughly covered.
Because there was nothing, and because it was known from the start that, "
is no big there, there ", the Mueller Team used several irrelevant legal actions to
prolong the belief that they were closing in on Trump. Mueller arranged for their media
partner, CNN, to film the early morning swat
team raid on 67 year old Roger Stone's home. It was very dramatic and very
un-necessary. Also, some small-time Russian
troll farms were indicted so that the word "Russia" could fill the news, prolonging the
desired myth. One of the indicted firms did not even exist. The others did not appear to
favor any one candidate and much of their activity was after the election .
Mueller led a 40 million dollar investigation looking for a crime. That effort
failed at finding any collusion, but it did play a role in the Democrats winning a majority
in the House of Representatives. That then enabled another investigation of an imaginary
crime for political purposes. A scripted hearsay 'whistleblower' submitted lies that
allowed Adam Schiff to continue his own campaign of lies. You know the rest of the story.
Trump is being falsely charged for doing what Biden bragged about doing.
The Deep State and the media appear to believe that we are fooled by these fraudulent
investigations. We are not fooled. We are tired of the lies and the arrogance.
We are increasingly angry that there is a double standard of justice in this country. There
is a protected class of people who are not prosecuted for their crimes. This needs to end.
The sheeple are easily led including the opposition sheeple. Two quick examples:
1. In the email scandal, Hillary was guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, of violating the
FOIA by conducting all State Department business via a personal email She was guilty. Yet her
team, listen up sheeple, her team made it about whether or not classified information was
transmitted. This is a gray area which could be defended. She knew she was guilty of the FOIA
violation because it was the whole reason the server was set up in the first place. Yet she
got away with it because everyone focused on the classifications of emails which was a gray
2. In the Weiner / Abedin laptop matter, it is and was illegal for any of these emails to
be on a personal computer. Again, guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet again everyone
focused on what was in the emails and not the fact that just possessing the emails was
illegal. So the FBI was able to say nothing new here and let it drop. If another group such
as the US Marshals was in charge of this investigation, Weiner / Abedin would have been fully
charged with possessing these emails. They would have been pressured to reveal why it was
named Insurance and have been asked to cut a deal.
The purpose of show trials is to fool those that don't pay attention. There are millions
of US citizens that get their news from their neighbor or a narrow set of information that is
disseminated by media that parrot their providers verbatim without challenge. Such people are
quite regularly fooled and some vote.
The double standard justice system in America is appalling and even worse than communists.
Americans really don’t have any credit to criticize communist countries. The ruling
class is no better than them.
The media and ruling classes have tried decades to brainwashed the mass to believe that
the less or even not corrupted.
They could have never pulled off the JFK assassination had the internet existed back in
1963. Time for the Epstein *********** to be posted on the internet. Even the asleep would
realize the unimaginable evil that has been controlling this world for millenia.
I am not sure about that,,we have the net now,,and although there are many of us that pay
attention and figure out their crimes and hoax's,,,,they still get away with them,,,,,,NASA
still gets 59 million a day to fake the space program,,,
Why not? They pulled off 9/11. And what do we have? The same as with the JFK murder.
People still arguing over how it was done, and ignoring the obvious, historically established
now, of who benefited and why. Grassy knoll, 2nd shooter, or directed energy weapons or
explosives, internet or not, still chasing the tail.
1 day ago Maddow is really a propagandist. She really isn't a journalist. Because her
credibility and ratings have gone south because so many of the big stories she has been obliged
to push have been fake from the get-go. People start to notice that after a while. You can't
fool all of the people all of the time as Abe observed. 1 day ago It has been determined to
have been a fabrication. It is not just controversial. Maddow may be spot on in fooling her
drooling sycophants, but facts seldom ever interfere with her fairy tales and TDS motivated
hours ago Rational Agent:
The CIA told the FBI that the material in the Steele dossier is merely Internet gossip and bar
room talk. This is in the inspector general's report (issued Dec 9) and public testimony under
oath before Congress (Dec 11).
There were several agents in the FBI who were disturbed about the unverified nature of this
material, and they were overruled by other agents and their supervisors and this material was
then presented to the FISA court four times in the knowledge that it was unverified but the
court was told it was verified. That is also in the inspector general's Report and public
The result of this misconduct was that the head judge of the FISA court Rosemary Collyer,
issued on Dec 16 an unprecedented and angry public rebuke of the FBI for repeatedly deceiving
the court about the veracity of the Steele dossier.
Enough for you? 1 day ago With apologies to Bob Dylan:
"A man (or woman) sees what he (she) wants to see and disregards the rest."
If you're tuned into cable 'news' at 9 p.m. eastern time looking for objective journalism,
well, good luck with that. Cuomo is probably the best bet; he offers a little bit. 1 day ago I think the
apology should be to Paul Simon?
Not withstanding that, your point is well made. Not much in the way of great thought on the
telly at that time on any station. 1 day ago Independents
view Rachael Maddow, Chris Cuomo and Sean Hannity as hate peddlers who spin, lie and twist
every single issue to fit their fantasy of how the world exists. I cannot imagine how anyone
with a brain or any semblance of logic could be a regular viewer of these hate mongers. If one
does a cursory analysis of the predictions these people have made over the past couple of
years, you will quickly see how ridiculous and wrong they have been. The bigger problem is that
they represent their news organizations and only add to the distrust and declining reliance
that rational folks have of the Media. 2 days ago [she is]
Just another CIA mouthpiece. 2 days ago Maddow is
being sued by the One America News Network for stating the latter were 'really, literally'
Maddows is furiously back pedalling, not standing by what she said. This speaks volumes.
Maddows is evil. 2 days ago The Steele
dossier is trash. A joke. Comprehensively discredited. Only the wilfully blind or deluded would
believe otherwise. Proof that [neo]liberalism is a form of mental illness. 1 day ago If it is all
propaganda, then we are truly living in a post-truth world. In this world there are no facts,
only competing narratives. This allows us to sink into fact-free thinking and rely only on our
prejudices (or our "gut") to determine our preferences. 2 days ago " The case against Maddow is
far stronger. When small bits of news arose in favor of the dossier, the franchise MSNBC host
pumped air into them. At least some of her many fans surely came away from her broadcasts
thinking the dossier was a serious piece of investigative research, not the flimflam,
quick-twitch game of telephone outlined in the Horowitz report. She seemed to be rooting for
The Horowitz team didn't attempt an independent fact-check of the dossier, opting instead to
report what the FBI had concluded about the document. Unflattering revelations pop up at every
turn in the 400-page-plus report. It reveals that the CIA considered it a hodgepodge of
"internet rumor"; that the FBI considered one of its central allegations -- that former Trump
attorney Michael Cohen had traveled to Prague for a collusive meeting with Russians -- "not
true"; that Steele's sources weren't quite a crack international spy team. After the 2016
election, for instance, Steele directed his primary source to seek corroboration of the claims.
"According to [an FBI official], during an interview in May 2017, the Primary Sub-source said
the corroboration was 'zero,'" reads the report.
The ubiquity of Horowitz's debunking passages suggests that he wanted the public to come
away with the impression that the dossier was a flabby, hasty, precipitous, conclusory charade
of a document.
... ... ...
The case for Maddow is that her dossier coverage stemmed from public documents,
congressional proceedings and published reports from outlets with solid investigative
histories. She included warnings about the unverified assertions and didn't use the dossier as
a source for wild claims. There is something fishy, furthermore, about that Mueller
footnote regarding the "tapes." In their recent book on the dossier, "
Crime in Progress ," the Fusion GPS co-founders wrote that Steele believes the document is
The case against Maddow is far stronger. When small bits of news arose in favor of the
dossier, the franchise MSNBC host pumped air into them. At least some of her many fans surely
came away from her broadcasts thinking the dossier was a serious piece of investigative
research, not the flimflam, quick-twitch game of telephone outlined in the Horowitz report. She
seemed to be rooting for the document. Rachel Maddow rooted for the Steele dossier to be true.
Then it fell apart. - The Washington Post
And when large bits of news arose against the dossier, Maddow found other topics more
She was there for the bunkings, absent for the debunkings -- a pattern of misleading and
In an October edition of the podcast "Skullduggery," Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News
Maddow on her show's approach to Russia. Here's a key exchange:
Isikoff: Do you accept that there are times that you overstated what the evidence was and
you made claims and suggestions that Trump was totally in Vladimir Putin's pocket and they
had something on him and that he was perhaps a Russian asset and we can't really conclude
Maddow: What have I claimed that's been disproven?
Isikoff: Well, you've given a lot of credence to the Steele dossier.
Maddow: I have?
Isikoff: Well, you've talked about it quite a bit, I mean, you've suggested it.
Maddow: I feel like you're arguing about impressions of me, rather than actually basing
this on something you've seen or heard me do.
After some back and forth about particulars of the Mueller report and the dossier with
Isikoff, Maddow ripped: "You're trying to litigate the Steele dossier through me as if I am the
embodiment of the Steele dossier, which I think is creepy, and I think it's unwarranted. And
it's not like I've been making the case for the accuracy of the Steele dossier and that's been
the basis of my Russia reporting. That's just not true."
Asked to comment on how she approached the dossier, Maddow declined to provide an
on-the-record response to the Erik Wemple Blog. Rachel Maddow rooted for the Steele dossier to
be true. Then it fell apart. - The Washington Post
Rachel Maddow: 'I don't necessarily want to hear from the White House on almost anything' 2
hours ago She's the left's version of Hannity or Tucker. This is not a good thing to be.
10 hours ago So
many have been brainwashed by this woman. She is a total disgrace. In fact MSNBC in its
entirety is a disgrace. Scandal after scandal. Lie after lie. Propaganda. Hit pieces on
progressives. AWOL on what is actually happening to the middle and working class. But Maddow is
not alone. She lies and makes things up and freely slanders and smears and so does the weekend
linebacker, Reid, who not only lies and then makes up further lies to cover up the original
lies. 11 hours ago We all know the liberal mainstream media lies a lot. We've come to expect
it. That's why CNN's ratings are perpetually in the toilet. But this Rachel Maddow doesn't seem
to be able to do anything but lie. Well, that's the left. Any lying, cheating behavior is
acceptable if it's directed against Trump. 12 hours ago (Edited) The
plain truth is that Russia did indeed attempt interference with the 2016 election, but its
phishing expeditions and social media placements did not come remotely close to "flipping" the
election to Trump -- indeed, it cannot be documented that a single vote was altered or voter
registration list tampered with. The totality of Russian interference pales in comparison to
what the United States has done and continues to do to foreign elections on a regular basis --
indeed, to what it did to Russia's in the 1990's to ensure Boris Yeltsin's election.
Another plain truth: the Mueller Report was a stunning blow to the Democratic Party
establishment and the media and a victory for Trump, the extent of which is still to be
determined, no matter how you try to spin it. Democrats and their media allies were willing to
take at face value and without further evidence the pronouncements of people like John Brennan
and other national security figures who had lengthy, documented histories of lying to the
American people and the press. Skepticism went out the window because the spooks were telling
the Democrats and the media what they wanted to hear. Rachel Maddow and MSNBC are the Judy
Millers of this story, and the rest of the media just ran with it.
The ramifications of that miscalculation are still playing out. Senate conviction of Trump
on ANY basis is now dead letter for the remainder of this election cycle because the Democrats'
credibility and motives have been blown sky-high -- no small feat given Trump's historic levels
of mendacity! It is why the public isn't getting behind the current effort even though Trump
has literally been caught red-handed. But the Democratic establishment was just SO eager to
blame it all on Russia, so they could exonerate themselves for their horrible strategies and
worse policies that led to the 2016 debacle and fend off challenges from the progressives! What
have they accomplished instead? Handing Trump a second term.
7 hours ago Rachel Maddow has "Hillary Clinton 2016" branded on her ace. She is totally
owned by the corporate liberal establishment.
14 hours ago If this version of events is true then the Steele
dossier was one of the most successful Russian intelligence operations since 1917 or anyway
1991. It up-ended the American government for three full years, and is still having a
deleterious impact even after being proven false. And deliciously, it was all paid for by
Hillary Clinton and the DNC!
that TV network OAN had filed a lawsuit against Rachel Maddow for the time the host said that
OAN "really, literally is paid Russian propaganda."
Now, Maddow finds herself having to come up with a defense for her statement in court.
And she has also apparently hired Lionel Hutz as her legal adviser.
Culttture , her lawyers argued in a recent motion that " the liberal host was clearly
offering up her 'own unique expression' of her views to capture what she saw as the
'ridiculous' nature of the undisputed facts. Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential
statement 'of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false."
Oh, it's capable of being proved false, alright. Maddow had previously claimed, on
air, about one of OAN's reporters:
"In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America is really
literally is paid Russian propaganda," and added, "Their on-air politics reporter ( Kristian
Rouz) is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government."
The testimony of UC Santa Barbara linguistics professor Stefan Thomas Gries, however, stands
at odds with Maddow's defense. Gries said: "It is very unlikely that an average or
reasonable/ordinary viewer would consider the sentence in question to be a statement of
In other news, @RANDCorporation report
firmly establishes that Van Gogh was a Russian Agent. May be, the dastardly Kremlin plot
drove him to cut his ear off?.. At any rate, NATO is now on alert. pic.twitter.com/9k9j5K9rx1
The USA desperately need another resource-rich country to loot and can't find suitable
candidate other then Russia. So MIC prostitute Madcow is just a dog of war. The USA
deperately need another resource-rich country to loot and can't find sutable candiadate othe
There is no credible analyst not shackled to the MIC trough who ventures such
an analysis beyond of course GE's W-2 harpie, Rachel Maddow.
The Western elites have long decided. WW3 is coming. In recent years, the Russians have
repeatedly tried to get this message through the western Mediadrome, but to little
The job of the GE spokespeople (Maddow et al) is diversionary/ preparatory spadework i.e.
to drill with numbing repetition into the American consciousness who the enemy is. And you
can bet the enemy is not who signs their paychecks. Their employers though happen to be OUR
Thus we find ourselves in the odd position of having Russia's top general attempting to
shout through the Maddow racket that our two nations are on a collision course for war.
Strange messenger. Or maybe not. They want to live too.
Russia is in demographic collapse. It lacks the human capital to exploit even its own vast
resource trove. The western banking system is over-leveraged. The imaginary numbers have
gotten too big. Its 'denominator of the real' badly needs shoring up.
Russian resource wealth, Iran's massive South Pars LNG field are viewed with watering eyes
as prolongations of the doomed Ponzi. Europe is energy-poor, geriatric and overrun with
Islamic jihadists. With all due respect, who would want it at this late stage? At best, it is
a funding source --and a battleground-- for WW3.
Meanwhile the Ponzi is ravenous and never sleeps. No growth - negative interest rates is a
bell-ringer for WW3. The alternative is deflationary collapse. Maddow's been mysteriously
cranked up again: Rushah Rushah!
So we find ourselves in another Goebellian shift: accuse the opposition of your own
ulterior motives. They have no designs on us. Our overlords have designs on them.
Americans are just the People in the middle, hostages in a sense yet seemingly feared
enough that our minds are still worth battling over. Trump's affinities are too populist.
He's a dodgy helmsman for the massive undertaking of a world war where the people are only to
be galvanized, not consulted.
Far from a duteous seat-warmer, he's a leader who squeaked through. The Oval Office is no
place for leaders. It was thought to have been neutered of all that leadership malarkey
post-JFK. Trump's not enough to hold back the MIC. No POTUS is. He either must depart the job
or be compromised into executing the plan. But he's a bad Lieutenant. They'll never be
comfortable with him.
Then some evil, diseased mind had an epiphany. Don't just Get Trump! Get a twofer! Get
Trump and Russah! Weld them together for one kill-shot. Collusion means no daylight and one
bullet. Yes, there's a genius to it, a very sick genius.
B, great article as usual but disappointed that you didn't write about the latest sanctions
Another act of WAR by the US. These sanctions now cover the comoany, Allseas, laying the
pipeline to Germany. They ceased operations and will not complete the project and Gazprom
does not have the expertise. Would love to see your
analysis on that.
The NYT propaganda, true to form and loyal to Dem Russophobes just one more attempt to
This is maddening. These crazies are looking for war on Russia. Are the American people
stupid enough to give that consent?
My NYT site has the title "Russia Is a Mess. Why Is Putin Such a Formidable Enemy?"
---- 1 ----
Under Mr. Putin, Vladislav Surkov, a longtime Kremlin adviser, wrote in Nezavisimaya Gazeta,
a Moscow newspaper, earlier this year, Russia "is playing with the West's minds."
Also its own.
---- 2 ----
All the same, said Gleb Pavlovsky, a political scientist who worked for more than a decade as
a Kremlin adviser, Russia under Mr. Putin still reminds him of a sci-fi movie exoskeleton:
"Inside is sitting a small, weak and perhaps frightened person, but from the outside it looks
---- 3 ----
Whatever its problems, Mr. Surkov, the Kremlin adviser, said, Russia has created "the
ideology of the future" by dispensing with the "illusion of choice" offered by the West and
rooting itself in the will of a single leader capable of swiftly making the choices without
China, too, has advocated autocracy as the way to get results fast, but even Xi Jinping,
the head of the Chinese Communist Party, can't match the lightening speed with which Mr.
Putin ordered and executed the seizure of Crimea. The decision to grab the Black Sea
peninsula from Ukraine was made at a single all-night Kremlin meeting in February 2014 and
then carried out just four days later with the dispatch of a few score Russian special forces
officers to seize a handful of government buildings in Simferopol, the Crimean capital.
If true, the resources committed to "Crimea takeover" were comparable with what Israel
committed to assassinate one person, Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, dispatching a team of 33 to Dubai in
January 2010. Wasn't the superior productivity the strength of the West?
And this is not a joke. Putin is a maniac for balanced budgets, and compared to the
expansive American style, the resources committed by Syria were minuscule. And by all
accounts, spend well.
REUTERS. Oct 2, 2015 - U.S. President Barack Obama warned Russia on Friday that its
bombing campaign against Syrian rebels will suck Moscow into a "quagmire," after a third
straight day of air raids in support of President Bashar al-Assad. <<-- Obama was well
aware that Russia committed a very small number of troops, and smallish air force that his
military expert were describing as obsolete. Russia could not be many times more effective
than USA, could it?
No sign of Obama's predicted 'quagmire' as Russia's ... https://www.washingtonpost.com
› world › 2016/09/30
Sep 30, 2016 - BEIRUT -- In the year since Russia began conducting airstrikes in support of
the Syrian government, the intervention has worked to secure two ...
That explains the next quote from today NYT
---- 4 ----
"Maybe he's holding small cards, but he seems unafraid to play them," said Michael McFaul, a
former United States ambassador to Moscow and now a scholar at Stanford. "That's what makes
Putin so scary."
Seems that Establishment scours most elite universities, Harvard, Yale, Stanford , Princeton
etc. for the dumbest possible graduates. I know from private sources that not all graduates
are dumb, many are actually brilliant. Does it occur to McFaul that boldness in playing small
cards is even worse than playing large card? Russia (and Assad's partisans in Syria) had to
do something well that USA (in government supporters in Afghanistan) did not do at all or did
Just as was true when the Mueller investigation closed
without a single American being charged with criminally conspiring with Russia
over the 2016 election, Wednesday's issuance of the long-waited report from the
Department of Justice's Inspector General reveals that years of major claims and narratives
from the U.S. media were utter
Before evaluating the media component of this scandal, the FBI's gross abuse of its power
– its serial deceit – is so grave and manifest that it requires little effort to
demonstrate it. In sum, the IG Report documents multiple instances in which the FBI – in
order to convince a FISA court to allow it spy on former Trump campaign operative Carter Page
during the 2016 election – manipulated documents, concealed crucial exonerating evidence,
and touted what it knew were unreliable if not outright false claims.
If you don't consider FBI lying, concealment of evidence, and manipulation of documents in
order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign to be a major scandal,
what is? But none of this is aberrational: the FBI still has its headquarters in a building
named after J. Edgar Hoover – who constantly blackmailed elected officials with dossiers
and tried to blackmail Martin Luther King into killing himself – because that's what
these security state agencies are. They are out-of-control, virtually unlimited police state
factions that lie, abuse their spying and law enforcement powers, and subvert democracy and
civic and political freedoms as a matter of course.
In this case, no rational person should allow standard partisan bickering to distort or hide
this severe FBI corruption. The IG Report leaves no doubt about it. It's brimming with proof of
FBI subterfuge and deceit, all in service of persuading a FISA court of something that was not
true: that U.S. citizen and former Trump campaign official Carter Page was an agent of the
Russian government and therefore needed to have his communications surveilled.
This is from 2016 election cycle but still relevant. Money quote: "Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's
faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all
the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. "
Despicable neoliberal MSM do not like to discuss real issue that facing people in 220 elections. They like to discuss personalities.
Propagandists of Vichy left like Madcow spend hours discussing Ukrainegate instead of real issues facing the nation.
"... Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue. ..."
"... If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste. But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome. ..."
"... Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose. ..."
"... "Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog). ..."
"... But then it dawned on me: antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important, why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it? ..."
"... Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either. ..."
"... They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic mistake. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free traders disappear from our public discourse. ..."
Donald Trump has promised to make deregulation one of the focal points of his presidency. If Trump is elected, the trend
toward rising market concentration and all of the problems that come with it are likely to continue.
We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government and the magic of markets to justify ignoring the problem.
If Clinton is elected, it's unlikely that her administration would be active enough in antitrust enforcement for my taste.
But at least she acknowledges that something needs to be done about this growing problem, and any movement toward more aggressive
enforcement of antitrust regulation would be more than welcome.
"We'll hear the usual arguments about ineffective government" which has been amply demonstrated during the last 7 years by negligible
enforcement of anti-trust laws.
Once again we have a stark 'choice' in this election...one party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just
get rid of them. Like flipping a coin: heads, the predator class wins; tails, we lose.
Vote third party to register your disgust and to open the process to people who don't just represent the predator class.
"Vote third party to register your disgust..." and waste the opportunity, at least in a few states, to affect the national
outcome (in many states the outcome is not in doubt, so, thanks to our stupid electoral college system, millions of voters could
equally well stay home, vote third party, or write in their dog).
Thomas Frank: "I was pleased to learn, for example, that this year's Democratic platform includes strong language on antitrust
enforcement, and that Hillary Clinton has hinted she intends to take the matter up as president. Hooray! Taking on too-powerful
corporations would be healthy, I thought when I first learned that, and also enormously popular. But then it dawned on me:
antitrust enforcement is largely up to the president and his picked advisers. If Democrats really think it is so damned important,
why has Clinton's old boss Barack Obama done so very, very little with it?"
One party who won't enforce existing laws and another who will just get rid of them...a distinction without a difference.
Who do you prefer to have guarding the chicken house...a fox or a coyote? Sane people would say, 'neither.'
Yes and Clinton supporters attacked Sanders over this during the primaries.
Josh Mason thinks a Clinton administration may push on corporate short-termism if not on anti-trust. We'll see, but seeing
as the Obama administration didn't do much I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary doesn't either.
Economists have said for thirty years that free trade will benefit the US. Increasingly the country looks like a poor non-industrialized
third world country. Why should anyone trust US economists?
They ignored the housing bubble, don't seem to understand the connection between manufacturing and wealth (close your eyes
and imagine your life with no manufactured goods, because they are all imported and your economy only produces a few low value-added
raw materials such as timber or exotic animals) then you will see that allowing the US to deindustrialize was a really, world-historic
Trust in experts is what has transformed the US from a world leader in 1969 with the moon landing to a country with no high
speed rail, no modern infrastructure, incapable of producing a computer or ipad or ship.
Trump_vs_deep_state will outlive Trump and the people's faith in economists will only be restored after the next financial
collapse if all of the financial sector is liquidated, all the universities and think tanks go bankrupt and the know-nothing free
traders disappear from our public discourse.
"I am at a loss to see what motive the Kremlin might have to commit murders on foreign
soil during the buildup, let alone the enactment, of a sporting event that is of mammoth
chauvinist significance to Russia."
"The most obvious motive for these attacks would surely be from someone out to embarrass
the Russian president, Vladimir Putin – someone from his enemies, rather than from his
friends or employees. But once again we have no clue."
"... Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races. ..."
"... 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'" ..."
"The American people are sick and tired of establishment politics and economics, and by the way, a little bit tired of corporate
media as well," Sanders told Maddow in an interview taped in Burlington, Vermont.
Maddow pressed Sanders for specifics on how he would change the media if he were president. "What's the solution to corporate
media?" she asked.
"We have got to think of ways the Democratic party, for a start, starts funding the equivalent of Fox television," Sanders
answered. Of course, MSNBC is a corporate media outlet that is widely seen as a Democratic version of Fox News because of the perceived
sympathies of many of its political talk shows.
Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty
more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races.
He then claimed that bringing that pressure to bear would be difficult, since corporate ownership makes it harder for news outlets
to cover issues in a way that conflicts with the interests of top executives. "MSNBC is owned by who?" Sanders asked. "Comcast, our
overlords," Maddow responded with a chuckle.
"All right, Comcast is not one of the most popular corporations in America, right?" Sanders said. "And I think the American people
are going to have to say to NBC and ABC and CBS and CNN, 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap
opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'"
Adding to his useful Russophrenia , Bryan
MacDonald has coined " Putophrenia ": "A condition
where the sufferer believes Vladimir Putin is a crazed Russian nationalist who wants to destroy
the West, and simultaneously, is, together with his cronies, robbing Russia blind & hiding
all the dosh in the same West." These two neatly point up the absurdities of the Western
I thought I understood this and many other things about the journalism business at a young
age. I even knew everything that "off the record" entails -- really knew, as if it were a
religious tenet -- before I hit junior high. I thought I was an expert.
Then I read Manufacturing Consent .
The book came out in 1988 and I read it a year later, when I was nineteen. It blew my
Along with the documentary Hearts and Minds (about the atrocities of
the Vietnam War) and books like Soul on Ice, In the Belly of the Beast,
and The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Manufacturing Consent taught me
that some level of deception was baked into almost everything I'd ever been taught about modern
I knew nothing about either of the authors, academics named Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky.
It seemed odd that a book purporting to say so much about journalism could be written by
non-journalists. Who were these people? And how could they claim to know anything about this
This was the middle of the George H. W. Bush presidency, still the rah-rah Top Gun eighties. Political earnestness was extremely uncool. America was awesome
and hating on America was sad. Noam Chomsky was painted to me as the very definition of uncool,
a leaden, hectoring bore.
But this wasn't what I found on the page. Manufacturing Consent is a
dazzling book. True, like a lot of co-written books, and especially academic books, it's
written in slow, grinding prose. But for its time, it was intellectually flamboyant, wild
The ideas in it radiated defiance. Once the authors in the first chapter laid out their
famed propaganda model, they cut through the deceptions of the American state like a buzz
The book's central idea was that censorship in the United States was not overt, but covert.
The stage-managing of public opinion was "normally not accomplished by crude intervention" but
by the keeping of "dissent and inconvenient information" outside permitted mental parameters:
"within bounds and at the margins."
The key to this deception is that Americans, every day, see vigorous debate going on in the
press. This deceives them into thinking propaganda is absent. Manufacturing
Consent explains that the debate you're watching is choreographed. The range of argument
has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear it.
This careful sham is accomplished through the constant, arduous policing of a whole range of
internal pressure points within the media business. It's a subtle, highly idiosyncratic process
that you can stare at for a lifetime and nonetheless not see.
American news companies at the time didn't (and still don't) forbid the writing of
unpatriotic stories. There are no editors who come blundering in, red pen in hand, wiping out
politically dangerous reports, in the clumsy manner of Soviet Commissars.
Instead, in a process that is almost 100 percent unconscious, news companies simply avoid
promoting dissenting voices. People who are questioners by nature, prodders, pains in the ass
-- all good qualities in reporting, incidentally -- get weeded out by bosses, especially in the
bigger companies. Advancement is meanwhile strongly encouraged among the credulous, the
intellectually unadventurous, and the obedient.
As I would later discover in my own career, there are a lot of C-minus brains in the
journalism business. A kind of groupthink is developed that permeates the upper levels of media
organizations, and they send unconscious signals down the ranks.
Young reporters learn early on what is and is not permitted behavior. They learn to
recognize, almost more by smell than reason, what is and is not a "good story."
Chomsky and Herman described this policing mechanism using the term "flak." Flak was defined
as "negative responses to a media statement or program."
They gave examples in which corporate-funded think tanks like The Media Institute or the
anti-communist Freedom House would deluge media organizations that ran the wrong kinds of
stories with "letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits" and other kinds of
What was the wrong kind of story? Here we learned of another part of the propaganda model,
the concept of worthy and unworthy victims . Herman and Chomsky defined
the premise as follows:
A propaganda system will consistently portray people abused in enemy states as worthy
victims, whereas those treated with equal or greater severity by its own government or clients
will be unworthy.
Under this theory, a Polish priest murdered by communists in the Reagan years was a "worthy"
victim, while rightist death squads in U.S.-backed El Salvador killing whole messes of priests
and nuns around the same time was a less "worthy" story.
What Herman and Chomsky described was a system of informal social control, in which the
propaganda aims of the state were constantly reinforced among audiences, using a
Here and there you might see a dissenting voice, but the overwhelming institutional power of
the media (and the infrastructure of think-tanks and politicians behind the private firms)
carried audiences along safely down the middle of a surprisingly narrow political and
One of their examples was Vietnam, where the American media was complicit in a broad
self-abnegating effort to blame itself for "losing the war."
An absurd legend that survives today is that CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, after a two-week
trip to Vietnam in 1968, was key in undermining the war effort.
Cronkite's famous "Vietnam editorial" derided "the optimists who have been wrong in the
past," and villainously imparted that the military's rosy predictions of imminent victory were
false. The more noble course, he implied, was to face reality, realize "we did the best we
could" to defend democracy, and go home.
The Cronkite editorial sparked a "debate" that continues to the present.
On the right, it is said that we should have kept fighting in Vietnam, in spite of those
meddling commies in the media.
The progressive take is that Cronkite was right, and we should have realized the war wasn't
"winnable" years earlier. Doing so would have saved countless American lives, this thinking
These two positions still define the edges of what you might call the "fairway" of American
The uglier truth, that we committed genocide on a fairly massive scale across Indochina --
ultimately killing at least a million innocent civilians by air in three countries -- is
pre-excluded from the history of that period.
Instead of painful national reconciliation surrounding episodes like Vietnam, Cambodia,
Laos, the CIA-backed anti-communist massacres in places like Indonesia, or even the more recent
horrors in Middle Eastern arenas like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, we mostly ignore
narrative-ruining news about civilian deaths or other outrages.
A media that currently applauds itself for calling out the lies of Donald Trump (and they
are lies) still uses shameful government-concocted euphemisms like "collateral damage." Our new
"Democracy Dies in Darkness" churlishness has yet to reach the Pentagon, and probably never
In the War on Terror period, the press accepted blame for having lost the most recent big
war and agreed to stop showing pictures of the coffins coming home (to say nothing of actual
scenes of war deaths).
We also volunteered to reduce or play down stories about torture ("enhanced interrogation"),
kidnapping ("rendition"), or assassination ("lethal action," or the "distribution matrix").
Even now, if these stories are covered, they're rarely presented in an alarmist tone. In
fact, many "civilian casualties" stories are couched in language that focuses on how the
untimely release of news of "collateral damage" may hinder the effort to win whatever war we're
in at the time.
"After reports of civilian deaths, U.S. military struggles to defend air operations in war
against militants," is a typical American newspaper headline.
Can you guess either the year or the war from that story? It could be 1968, or 2008. Or
As Manufacturing Consent predicted -- with a nod to Orwell, maybe --
the scripts in societies like ours rarely change. 1
When it came time for me to enter the journalism business myself, I discovered that the
Chomsky/Herman diagnosis was mostly right. Moreover, the academics proved prescient about
future media deceptions like the Iraq War. Their model predicted that hideous episode in
But neither Herman nor Chomsky could have known, when they published their book in 1988,
that the media business was going through profound change.
As it turned out, Manufacturing Consent was published just ahead of
three massive revolutions. When I met and interviewed Chomsky for this book (see Appendix 2 ), we
discussed these developments. They included:
1. The explosion of conservative talk radio and Fox-style news products. Using point of view
rather than "objectivity" as commercial strategies, these stations presaged an atomization of
the news landscape under which each consumer had an outlet somewhere to match his or her
political beliefs. This was a major departure from the three-network pseudo-monopoly that
dominated the Manufacturing Consent period, under which the country
debated a commonly held set of facts.
2. The introduction of twenty-four-hour cable news stations, which shifted the emphasis of
the news business. Reporters were suddenly trained to value breaking news, immediacy, and
visual potential over import. Network "crashes" -- relentless day-night coverage extravaganzas
of a single hot story like the Kursk disaster or a baby thrown down a
well, a type of journalism one TV producer I knew nicknamed "Shoveling Coal For Satan" --
became the first examples of binge-watching. The relentless now now now
grind of the twenty-four-hour cycle created in consumers a new kind of anxiety and addictive
dependency, a need to know what was happening not just once or twice a day but every minute.
This format would have significant consequences in the 2016 election in particular.
3. The development of the Internet, which was only just getting off the ground in 1988. It
was thought it would significantly democratize the press landscape. But print and broadcast
media soon began to be distributed by just a handful of digital platforms. By the late 2000s
and early 2010s, that distribution system had been massively concentrated. This created the
potential for a direct control mechanism over the press that never existed in the Manufacturing Consent era. Moreover the development of social media would amplify
the "flak" factor a thousandfold, accelerating conformity and groupthink in ways that would
have been unimaginable in 1988.
Maybe the biggest difference involved an obvious historical change: the collapse of the
One of the pillars of the "propaganda model" in the original Manufacturing Consent was that the media used anti-communism as an organizing
The ongoing Cold War narrative helped the press use anti-communism as a club to batter
heretical thinkers, who as luck would have it were often socialists. They even used it as a
club to police people who weren't socialists (I would see this years later, when Howard Dean
was asked a dozen times a day if he was "too left" to be a viable candidate).
But the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet empire took a little wind
out of the anti-communist religion. Chomsky and Herman addressed this in their 2002 update of
Manufacturing Consent, in which they wrote:
The force of anti-communist ideology has possibly weakened with the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the virtual disappearance of socialist movements across the globe, but this is easily
offset by the greater ideological force of the belief in the "miracle of the market "
The collapse of the Soviets, and the weakening of anti-communism as an organizing principle,
led to other changes in the media. Manufacturing Consent was in
significant part a book about how that unseen system of informal controls allowed the press to
organize the entire population behind support of particular objectives, many of them foreign
But the collapse of the Wall, coupled with those new commercial strategies being deployed by
networks like Fox, created a new dynamic in the press.
Media companies used to seek out the broadest possible audiences. The dull third-person
voice used in traditional major daily newspapers is not there for any moral or ethical reason,
but because it was once believed that it most ably fulfilled the commercial aim of snatching as
many readers/viewers as possible. The press is a business above all, and boring third-person
language was once advanced marketing.
But in the years after Manufacturing Consent was published the new
behemoths like Fox turned the old business model on its head. What Australian tabloid-merchant
Rupert Murdoch did in employing political slant as a commercial strategy had ramifications the
American public to this day poorly understands.
The news business for decades emphasized "objective" presentation, which was really less an
issue of politics than of tone.
The idea was to make the recitation of news rhetorically watered down and unthreatening
enough to rope in the whole spectrum of potential news consumers. The old-school anchorperson
was a monotone mannequin designed to look and sound like a safe date for your daughter:
Good evening, I'm Dan Rather, and my frontal lobes have been removed .
Today in Libya
Murdoch smashed this framework. He gave news consumers broadcasts that were pointed,
opinionated, and nasty. He struck gold with The O'Reilly Factor, hosted
by a yammering, red-faced repository of white suburban rage named Bill O'Reilly (another Boston
The next hit was Hannity & Colmes, a format that played as a
parody of old news. In this show, the "liberal" Colmes was the quivering, asexual, "safe date"
prototype from the old broadcast era, and Sean Hannity was a thuggish Joey Buttafuoco in makeup
whose job was to make Colmes look like the spineless dope he was.
This was theater, not news, and it was not designed to seize the whole audience in the way
that other debate shows like CNN's Crossfire were.
The premise of Crossfire was an honest fight, two prominent pundits
duking it out over issues, and may the best man (they were usually men) win.
The prototypical Crossfire setup involved a bombastic winger like
Pat Buchanan versus an effete liberal like New Republic editor Michael
Kinsley. On some days the conservative would be allowed to win, on some days the liberal would
score a victory. It looked like a real argument.
But Crossfire was really just a formalized version of the artificial
poles of allowable debate that Chomsky and Herman described. As some of its participants (like
Jeff Cohen, a pioneering media critic who briefly played the "liberal" on the show, about whom
we'll hear more later) came to realize, Crossfire became a
propagandistic setup, a stage trick in which the "left" side of the argument was gradually
pushed toward the right over the years. It was propaganda, but in slow motion.
Hannity & Colmes dispensed with the pretense. This was the
intellectual version of Vince McMahon's pro wrestling spectacles, which were booming at the
time. In the Fox debate shows, Sean Hannity was the heel, and Colmes was the good guy, or
babyface. As any good wrestling fan knows, most American audiences want to see babyface
The job of Colmes was to get pinned over and over again, and he did it well. Meanwhile
rightist anger merchants like Hannity and O'Reilly (and, on the radio, Rush Limbaugh) were
rapidly hoovering up audiences that were frustrated, white, and often elderly. Fox chief Roger
Ailes once boasted, "I created a network for people 55 to dead." (Ailes is now dead
This was a new model for the media. Instead of targeting the broad mean, they were now
narrowly hunting demographics. The explosion of cable television meant there were hundreds of
channels, each of which had its own mission.
Just as Manufacturing Consent came out, all the major cable channels
were setting off on similar whale hunts, sailing into the high demographic seas in search of
audiences to capture. Lifetime was "television for women," while the Discovery Channel did well
with men. BET went after black viewers. Young people were MTV's target audience.
This all seems obvious now, but this "siloing" effect that spread across other channels soon
became a very important new factor in news coverage. Fox for a long time cornered the market on
conservative viewers. Almost automatically, competitors like CNN and MSNBC became home to
people who viewed themselves as liberals, beginning a sifting process that would later
A new dynamic entered the job of reporting. For generations, news directors had only to
remember a few ideological imperatives. One, ably and voluminously described by Chomsky and
Herman, was, "America rules: pay no attention to those napalmed bodies." We covered the worthy
victims, ignored the unworthy ones, and that was most of the job, politically.
The rest of the news? As one TV producer put it to me in the nineties, "The entire effect
we're after is, 'Isn't that weird?'"
Did you hear about that guy in Michigan who refused to mow his lawn even when the town
ordered him to? Weird! And how about that drive-thru condom store that opened in Cranston,
Rhode Island? What a trip! And, hey, what happened in the O.J. trial today? That Kato Kaelin is
really a doof! And I love that lawyer who wears a suede jacket! He looks like a cowboy!
TV execs learned Americans would be happy if you just fed them a nonstop succession of
National Enquirer –style factoids (this is formalized today in
meme culture). The New York Times deciding to cover the O.J. freak show
full-time broke the seal on the open commercialization of dumb news that among other things led
to a future where Donald Trump could be a viable presidential candidate.
In the old days, the news was a mix of this toothless trivia and cheery dispatches from the
front lines of Pax Americana. The whole fam could sit and watch it without getting upset (by
necessity: an important principle in pre-Internet broadcasting is that nothing on the air,
including the news, could be as intense or as creative as the commercials). The news once
designed to be consumed by the whole house, by loving Mom, by your crazy right-wing uncle, by
your earnest college-student cousin who just came home wearing a Che T-shirt.
But once we started to be organized into demographic silos, the networks found another way
to seduce these audiences: they sold intramural conflict.
The Roger Ailes types captured the attention of the crazy right-wing uncle and got him
watching one channel full of news tailored for him, filling the airwaves with stories, for
instance, about immigration or minorities committing crimes. Different networks eventually rose
to market themselves to the kid in the Che T-shirt. If you got them in different rooms watching
different channels, you could get both viewers literally addicted to hating one another.
There was a political element to this, but also not. It was commerce, initially. And
reporters stuck in this world soon began to realize that the nature of their jobs had
Whereas once the task was to report the facts as honestly as we could -- down the middle of
the "fairway" of acceptable thought, of course -- the new task was mostly about making sure
your viewer came back the next day.
We sold anger, and we did it mainly by feeding audiences what they wanted to hear. Mostly,
this involved cranking out stories about people our viewers loved to hate.
Selling siloed anger was a more sophisticated take on the WWE programming pioneered in
Hannity & Colmes . The modern news consumer tuned into news that
confirmed his or her prejudices about whatever or whoever the villain of the day happened to
be: foreigners, minorities, terrorists, the Clintons, Republicans, even corporations.
The system was ingeniously designed so that the news dropped down the respective silos
didn't interfere with the occasional need to "manufacture" the consent of the whole population.
If we needed to, we could still herd the whole country into the pen again and get them backing
the flag, as was the case with the Iraq War effort.
But mostly, we sold conflict. We began in the early nineties to systematically pry families
apart, set group against group, and more and more make news consumption a bubble-like, "safe
space" stimulation of the vitriolic reflex, a consumer version of "Two Minutes Hate."
How did this serve the needs of the elite interests that were once promoting unity? That
wasn't easy for me to see, in my first decades in the business. For a long time, I thought it
was a flaw in the Chomsky/Herman model. It looked like we were mostly selling pointless
But it now seems there was a reason, even for that.
The news media is in crisis. Polls show that a wide majority of the population no longer has
confidence in the press. Chomsky himself despairs at this, noting in my discussion with him (at
the end of this book) that Manufacturing Consent had the unintended
consequence of convincing readers not to trust the media.
There are many ways of mistrusting something, but people who came away from Manufacturing Consent with the idea that the media peddles lies misread the book.
Papers like the New York Times, for the most part, do not traffic in
The overwhelming majority of commercial news reporting is factual (with one conspicuous
exception I'll get into later on), and the individual reporters who work in the business tend
to be quite stubborn in their adherence to fact as a matter of principle. (Sadly, in the time
it's taken to write this book, even this has begun to change some). Still, people should trust
most reporters, especially local reporters, who tend to have real beats (like statehouses or
courts), have few of the insular prejudices of the national media, and don't deserve the
elitist tag. The context in which reporters operate is most often the problem.
Now, more than ever, most journalists work for giant nihilistic corporations whose editorial
decisions are skewed by a toxic mix of political and financial considerations. Without
understanding how those pressures work, it's very difficult for a casual news consumer to gain
an accurate picture of the world.
This book is intended as an insider's guide to those distortions.
The technology underpinning the modern news business is sophisticated and works according to
a two-step process. First, it creates content that reinforces your pre-existing opinions, and,
after analysis of your consumer habits, sends it to you.
Then it matches you to advertisers who have a product they're trying
to sell to your demographic. This is how companies like Facebook and Google make their money:
telling advertisers where their likely customers are on the web.
The news, basically, is bait to lure you into a pen where you can be sold sneakers or bath
soaps or prostatitis cures or whatever else studies say people of your age, gender, race,
class, and political persuasion tend to buy.
Imagine your Internet surfing habit as being like walking down a street. A man shouts: "Did
you hear what those damned liberals did today? Come down this alley."
You hate liberals, so you go down the alley. On your way to the story, there's a storefront
selling mart carts and gold investments (there's a crash coming -- this
billionaire even says so!).
Maybe you buy the gold, maybe you don't. But at the end of the alley, there's a red-faced
screamer telling a story that may even be true, about a college in Massachusetts where
administrators took down a statue of John Adams because it made a Hispanic immigrant
"uncomfortable." Boy, does that make you pissed!
They picked that story just for you to hear. It is like the parable of Kafka's gatekeeper,
guarding a door to the truth that was built just for you.
Across the street, down the MSNBC alley, there's an opposite story, and set of storefronts,
built specifically for someone else to hear.
People need to start understanding the news not as "the news," but as just such an
individualized consumer experience -- anger just for you.
This is not reporting. It's a marketing process designed to create rhetorical addictions and
shut any non-consumerist doors in your mind. This creates more than just pockets of political
rancor. It creates masses of media consumers who've been trained to see in only one direction,
as if they had been pulled through history on a railroad track, with heads fastened in
blinders, looking only one way.
As it turns out, there is a utility in keeping us divided. As people, the more separate we
are, the more politically impotent we become.
This is the second stage of the mass media deception originally described in Manufacturing Consent .
First, we're taught to stay within certain bounds, intellectually. Then, we're all herded
into separate demographic pens, located along different patches of real estate on the spectrum
of permissible thought.
Once safely captured, we're trained to consume the news the way sports fans do. We root for
our team, and hate all the rest.
Hatred is the partner of ignorance, and we in the media have become experts in selling
I looked back at thirty years of deceptive episodes -- from Iraq to the financial crisis of
2008 to the 2016 election of Donald Trump -- and found that we in the press have increasingly
used intramural hatreds to obscure larger, more damning truths. Fake controversies of
increasing absurdity have been deployed over and over to keep our audiences from seeing larger
We manufactured fake dissent, to prevent real dissent.
"... "Manufacturing Consent," Taibbi writes, "explains that the debate you're watching is choreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear it" (p. 11). ..."
"... Americans were held captive by the boob tube affords us not only a useful historical image but also suggests the possibility of their having been able to view the television as an antagonist, and therefore of their having been able, at least some of them, to rebel against its dictates. Three decades later, on the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and portable tablets, the workings of which are so precisely intertwined with even the most intimate minute-to-minute aspects of our lives that our relationship to them could hardly ever become antagonistic. ..."
"... The massive political revolution was, going all the way back to 1989, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and then of the Soviet Union itself -- and thus of the usefulness of anti-communism as a kind of coercive secular religion (pp. 14-15). ..."
"... our corporate media have devised -- at least for the time being -- highly-profitable marketing processes that manufacture fake dissent in order to smother real dissent (p. 21). ..."
"... And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid. ..."
"... For Maddow, he notes, is "a depressingly exact mirror of Hannity . The two characters do exactly the same work. They make their money using exactly the same commercial formula. And though they emphasize different political ideas, the effect they have on audiences is much the same" (pp. 259-260). ..."
Matt Taibbi's Hate Inc . is the most insightful and revelatory book about American
politics to appear since the publication of Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal almost four
full years ago, near the beginning of the last presidential election cycle.
While Frank's topic was the abysmal failure of the Democratic Party to be democratic and
Taibbi's is the abysmal failure of our mainstream news corporations to report news, the
prominent villains in both books are drawn from the same, or at least overlapping, elite social
circles: from, that is, our virulently anti-populist liberal class, from our
intellectually mediocre creative class, from our bubble-dwelling thinking class.
In fact, I would strongly recommend that the reader spend some time with Frank's What's the
Matter with Kansas? (2004) and Listen, Liberal! (2016) as he or she takes up
And to really do the book the justice it deserves, I would even more vehemently recommend
that the reader immerse him- or herself in Taibbi's favorite book and vade-mecum ,
Manufacturing Consent (which I found to be a grueling experience: a relentless
cataloging of the official lies that hide the brutality of American foreign policy) and, in
order to properly appreciate the brilliance of Taibbi's chapter 7, "How the Media Stole from
Pro Wrestling," visit some locale in Flyover Country and see some pro wrestling in person
(which I found to be unexpectedly uplifting -- more on this soon enough).
Taibbi tells us that he had originally intended for Hate, Inc . to be an updating of
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent (1988), which he first read
thirty years ago, when he was nineteen. "It blew my mind," Taibbi writes. "[It] taught me that
some level of deception was baked into almost everything I'd ever been taught about modern
American life .
Once the authors in the first chapter laid out their famed propaganda model [italics
mine], they cut through the deceptions of the American state like a buzz saw" (p. 10). For what
seemed to be vigorous democratic debate, Taibbi realized, was instead a soul-crushing
simulation of debate. The choices voters were given were distinctions without valid
differences, and just as hyped, just as trivial, as the choices between a Whopper and a Big
Mac, between Froot Loops and Frosted Mini-Wheats, between Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, between
Marlboro Lites and Camel Filters. It was all profit-making poisonous junk.
"Manufacturing Consent," Taibbi writes, "explains that the debate you're watching is
choreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed long before you get to hear
it" (p. 11). And there's an indisputable logic at work here, because the reality of
hideous American war crimes is and always has been, from the point of view of the big media
corporations, a "narrative-ruining" buzz-kill. "The uglier truth [brought to light in
Manufacturing Consent ], that we committed genocide of a fairly massive scale across
Indochina -- ultimately killing at least a million innocent civilians by air in three countries
-- is pre-excluded from the history of the period" (p. 13).
So what has changed in the last thirty years? A lot! As a starting point let's consider the
very useful metaphor found in the title of another great media book of 1988: Mark Crispin
Miller's Boxed In: The Culture of TV . To say that Americans were held captive by
the boob tube affords us not only a useful historical image but also suggests the possibility
of their having been able to view the television as an antagonist, and therefore of their
having been able, at least some of them, to rebel against its dictates. Three decades later, on
the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and portable tablets, the workings
of which are so precisely intertwined with even the most intimate minute-to-minute aspects of
our lives that our relationship to them could hardly ever become antagonistic.
Taibbi summarizes the history of these three decades in terms of three "massive revolutions"
in the media plus one actual massive political revolution, all of which, we should note, he
discussed with his hero Chomsky (who is now ninety! -- Edward Herman passed away in 2017) even
as he wrote his book. And so: the media revolutions which Taibbi describes were, first, the
coming of FoxNews along with Rush Limbaugh-style talk radio; second, the coming of CNN, i.e.,
the Cable News Network, along with twenty-four hour infinite-loop news cycles; third, the
coming of the Internet along with the mighty social media giants Facebook and Twitter.
The massive political revolution was, going all the way back to 1989, the collapse of
the Berlin Wall, and then of the Soviet Union itself -- and thus of the usefulness of
anti-communism as a kind of coercive secular religion (pp. 14-15).
For all that, however, the most salient difference between the news media of 1989 and the
news media of 2019 is the disappearance of the single type of calm and decorous and slightly
boring cis-het white anchorman (who somehow successfully appealed to a nationwide audience) and
his replacement by a seemingly wide variety of demographically-engineered news personæ
who all rage and scream combatively in each other's direction. "In the old days," Taibbi
writes, "the news was a mix of this toothless trivia and cheery dispatches from the frontlines
of Pax Americana . The news [was] once designed to be consumed by the whole house . But once we
started to be organized into demographic silos [italics mine], the networks found
another way to seduce these audiences: they sold intramural conflict" (p. 18).
And in this new media environment of constant conflict, how, Taibbi wondered, could public
consent , which would seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from conflict,
still be manufactured ?? "That wasn't easy for me to see in my first decades in the
business," Taibbi writes. "For a long time, I thought it was a flaw in the Chomsky/Herman
model" (p. 19).
But what Taibbi was at length able to understand, and what he is now able to describe for us
with both wit and controlled outrage, is that our corporate media have devised -- at least
for the time being -- highly-profitable marketing processes that manufacture fake dissent in
order to smother real dissent (p. 21).
And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam
job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid.
Or pretty much so. Taibbi is more historically precise. Because of the tweaking of the
Herman/Chomsky propaganda model necessitated by the disappearance of the USSR in 1991 ("The
Russians escaped while we weren't watching them, / As Russians do ," Jackson Browne presciently
prophesied on MTV way back in 1983), one might now want to speak of a Propaganda Model 2.0.
For, as Taibbi notes, " the biggest change to Chomsky's model is the discovery of a far
superior 'common enemy' in modern media: each other. So long as we remain a bitterly-divided
two-party state, we'll never want for TV villains" (pp. 207-208).
To rub his great insight right into our uncomprehending faces, Taibbi has almost
sadistically chosen to have dark, shadowy images of a yelling Sean Hannity (in lurid FoxNews
Red!) and a screaming Rachel Maddow (in glaring MSNBC Blue!) juxtaposed on the cover of his
book. For Maddow, he notes, is "a depressingly exact mirror of Hannity . The two characters
do exactly the same work. They make their money using exactly the same commercial formula. And
though they emphasize different political ideas, the effect they have on audiences is much the
same" (pp. 259-260).
And that effect is hate. Impotent hate. For while Rachel's fan demographic is all wrapped up
in hating Far-Right Fascists Like Sean, and while Sean's is all wrapped up in despising Libtard
Lunatics Like Rachel, the bipartisan consensus in Washington for ever-increasing military
budgets, for everlasting wars, for ever-expanding surveillance, for ever-growing bailouts of
and tax breaks for and and handouts to the most powerful corporations goes forever
Oh my. And it only gets worse and worse, because the media, in order to make sure that their
various siloed demographics stay superglued to their Internet devices, must keep
ratcheting up levels of hate: the Fascists Like Sean and the Libtards Like Rachel must be
continually presented as more and more deranged, and ultimately as demonic. "There is us and
them," Taibbi writes, "and they are Hitler" (p. 64). A vile reductio ad absurdum has
come into play: "If all Trump supporters are Hitler, and all liberals are also Hitler," Taibbi
writes, " [t]he America vs. America show is now Hitler vs. Hitler! Think of the
ratings! " The reader begins to grasp Taibbi's argument that our mainstream corporate media are
as bad as -- are worse than -- pro wrestling. It's an ineluctable downward spiral.
Taibbi continues: "The problem is, there's no natural floor to this behavior. Just as cable
TV will eventually become seven hundred separate twenty-four-hour porn channels, news and
commentary will eventually escalate to boxing-style, expletive-laden, pre-fight tirades, and
the open incitement to violence [italics mine]. If the other side is literally Hitler,
[w]hat began as America vs. America will eventually move to Traitor vs. Traitor ,
and the show does not work if those contestants are not eventually offended to the point of
wanting to kill one another" (pp. 65-69).
As I read this book, I often wondered about how difficult it was emotionally for
Taibbi to write it. I'm just really glad to see that the guy didn't commit suicide along the
way. He does describe the "self-loathing" he experienced as he realized his own complicity in
the marketing processes which he exposes (p. 2). He also apologizes to the reader for his not
being able to follow through on his original aim of writing a continuation of Herman and
Chomsky's classic: "[W]hen I sat down to write what I'd hoped would be something with the
intellectual gravitas of Manufacturing Consent ," Taibbi confesses, "I found decades of
more mundane frustrations pouring out onto the page, obliterating a clinical examination" (p.
I, however, am profoundly grateful to Taibbi for all of his brilliantly observed anecdotes.
The subject matter is nauseating enough even in Taibbi's sparkling and darkly tragicomic prose.
A more academic treatment of the subject would likely be too depressing to read. So let me
conclude with an anecdote of my own -- and an oddly uplifting one at that -- about reading
Taibbi's chapter 7, "How the News Media Stole from Pro Wrestling."
On the same day I read this chapter I saw that, on the bulletin board in my gym, a poster
had appeared, as if by magic, promoting an upcoming Primal Conflict (!) professional
wrestling event. I studied the photos of the wrestlers on the poster carefully, and, as an
astute reader of Taibbi, I prided myself on being able to identify which of them seemed be
playing the roles of heels , and which of them the roles of babyfaces .
For Taibbi explains that one of the fundamental dynamics of wrestling involves the invention
of crowd-pleasing narratives out of the many permutations and combinations of pitting
heels against faces . Donald Trump, a natural heel , brings the goofy
dynamics of pro wrestling to American politics with real-life professional expertise. (Taibbi
points out that in 2007 Trump actually performed before a huge cheering crowd in a
Wrestlemania event billed as the "battle of the billionaires." Watch it on YouTube!
The mainstream corporate media, on the other hand, their eyes fixed on ever bigger and
bigger profits, have drifted into the metaphorical pro wrestling ring in ignorance, and so,
when they face off against Trump, they often end up in the role of inept prudish
pearl-clutching faces .
Taibbi condemns the mainstream media's failure to understand such a massively popular form
of American entertainment as "malpractice" (p. 125), so I felt more than obligated to buy a
ticket and see the advertised event in person. To properly educate myself, that is.
I have stopped watching broadcast "news" other than occasional sessions of NPR in the car.
I get most of my news from sources such as this and from overseas sources (The Guardian,
Reuters, etc.). I used to subscribe to newspapers but have given them up in disgust, even
though I was looking forward to leisurely enjoying a morning paper after I retired.
I was brought up in the positive 1950's and, boy, did this turn out poorly.
Matt Taibbi is an American treasure, and I love his writing very much, but we also need to
ask, Why hasn't another Chomsky (or another Hudson), an analyst with a truly deep and
wide-ranging, synthetic mind, appeared on the left to take apart our contemporary media and
show us its inner workings? Have all the truly great minds gone to work for Wall Street? I
don't have an answer, but to me the pro wrestling metaphor, while intriguing, misses
something about the Fourth Estate in America, if it indeed still exists. And that is, except
for radio, there is a distinct imbalance between the two sides of the MSM lineup. On the
corporate liberal side of the national MSM team you have five wrestlers, but on the
conservative/reactionary side you have only the Fox entry. Because of this imbalance, the
corruption, laziness, self-indulgence, and generally declining interest in journalistic
standards seems greater among the corporate liberal media team, including the NYT and WaPo,
than the Fox team.
I'm not a fan of either Maddow (in her current incarnation) or Hannity, but Hannity,
perhaps because he thinks he's like David, often hustles to refute the discourse of the
corporate liberal Goliath team. Hannity obviously does more research on some topics than
Maddow, and, perhaps because he began in radio, he puts more emphasis on semi-rationally
structured rants than Maddow, who depends more on primal emotion, body language, and
Hollywood-esque fear-inducing atmospherics.
I'd wager that in a single five-minute segment there will often be twice as many rational
distinctions made in a Hannity rant than in a Maddow performance. In addition, for the last
three years Hannity has simply been demonstrably right about the fake Russiagate propaganda
blitz while Maddow has been as demonstrably wrong from the very beginning as propaganda
industry trend-setter Adam Schiff. So for at least these last three years, the Maddow-Hannity
primal match has been a somewhat misleading metaphor. The Blob and the security state have
been decisively supporting (and directing?) the corporate liberal global interventionist
media, at least regarding Russia and the permanent war establishment, and because the
imbalance between the interventionist and the non-interventionist MSM, Russia and Ukraine are
being used as a wedge to steadily break down the firewalls between the Dem party, the intel
community, and the interventionist MSM. If we had real public debates with both sides at
approximately equal strength as we did during the Vietnam War, then even pro wrestling-type
matches would be superior to what we have now, which is truthy truth and thoughtsy thought
coming to us from the military industrial complex and monopolistic holding companies. If
fascism is defined as the fusion of the state and corporations, then the greatest threat of
fascism in America may well be coming from the apparent gradual fusion of the corporate
liberal MSM, the Dem party elite, and the intel community. Instead of an MSM wrestling match,
we may soon be faced with a Japanese-style 'hitori-zumo' match in which a sumo wrestler
wrestles with only himself. Once these sumo wrestlers were believed to be wrestling with
invisible spirits, but those days are gone . http://kikuko-nagoya.com/html/hitori-zumo.htm
Today's Noam Chomksy? Chomsky was part of the machine who broke ranks with it. His MIT
research was generously funded by the Military Industrial Complex. Thankfully, enough of his
latent humanity and Trotskyite upbringing shone through so he exposed what he was part of. So
I guess today that's Chris Hedges, though he's a preacher at heart and not a semiotician.
I don't believe the media environment as a whole leans corporate Dem/neoliberal.
T.V. maybe, but radio is much more right wing than left (yes there is NPR and Pacifica,
the latter with probably only a scattering of listerners but ) and it's still out there and a
big influence, radio hasn't gone away. So doesn't the right wing tilt of radio kind of
balance out television? (not necessarily in a good way but). And then there is the internet
and I have no idea what the overall lean of that is (I mean I prefer left wing sites, but
that's purely my own bubble and actually there are much fewer left analysis out there than
The whole review is good, but this extract should be quoted extensively:
While Frank's topic was the abysmal failure of the Democratic Party to be democratic and
Taibbi's is the abysmal failure of our mainstream news corporations to report news, the
prominent villains in both books are drawn from the same, or at least overlapping, elite
social circles: from, that is, our virulently anti-populist liberal class, from our
intellectually mediocre creative class, from our bubble-dwelling thinking class.
In short, stagnation and self-dealing at the top. What could possibly go wrong?
Three decades later, on the other hand, the television has been replaced by iPhones and
and then goes on to spend most of the article talking about television. I'd say television
is still the main propaganda instrument even if many webheads like yours truly ignore it
(I've never seen Hannity's show or Maddow's–just hear the rumors). Arguably even
newspapers like the NYT have been dumbed down because the reporters long to be on TV and join
the shouting. And it's surely no coincidence that our president himself is a TV (and WWE)
star. Mass media have always been feeders of hysteria but television gave them faces and
voices. Watching TV is also a far more passive experience than surfing the web. They are
selling us "narratives," bedtime stories, and we like sleepy children merely listen.
This rave review has inspired me to add this to my to-read non-fiction queue. Currently
reading William Dalrymple's The Anarchy, on the rise of the East India Company. Next up: Matt
Stoller's Goliath. And then I'll get to Taibbi. Probably worth digging up my original copy of
Manufacturing Consent as well, which I read many moons ago; time for a re-read.
May I suggest Stephen Cohen's "War with Russia?" if it's not already on your list? In
focusing on the danger emerging from the new cold war, seeded by the Democrats, propagated by
corporate media (which he thinks is more dangerous than the first), Cohen clarifies the
importance of diplomacy especially with one's nuclear rivals.
Us rubes knew decades ago about pro wrestling. There was a regional circuit and the hero
in one town would become the villain in another town. The ones to be surprised were like John
Stossel, who got a perforated eardrum from a slap upside the head for his efforts at
in-your-face journalism with a wrestler who just wouldn't play along with his grandstanding.
Somewhere, kids cheered and life went on.
I was watching old clips of the 'Fred Friendly Seminars' on YouTube. IMHO any channel that
produced a format such as this would be a ratings bonanza. Imagine a round table with various
media figures (corporate) left, (corporate) right, and independent being refereed by a
host-moderator discussing topics in 'Hate, Inc.'. In wrestling it's called a Battle Royale.
The Fourth Estate in a cage match!
And the smothering of real dissent is close enough to public consentto get the goddam
job done: The Herman/Chomsky model is, after all these years, still valid.
This is important, if people don't want to be naive about what democracy buys. Democracy
in the end is a ritual system to determine which members of an elite would win a war without
actually having to hold the war. Like how court functions to replace personal revenge by
determining (often) who would win in a fight if there were one, and the feudal system
replaced the genocidal wars of the axial age with the gentler warfare of the middle ages
which were often ritual wars of the elite that avoided the full risk of the earlier wars.
That, I think, is important -- under a democracy, the winner should be normally the winner
of the avoided violent conflict to be sustainable. Thus, it's enough to get most people to
consent to the solution, using the traditional meaning of consent being "won't put up a fight
to avoid it". If the choices on the table are reduced enough, you can get by with most people
simply dropping out of the questions.
Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit
It shouldn't be a surprise that we've moved to "faking dissent" -- it's the natural
evolution of a system where a lot of the effective power is in the hands of tech, and not
just as in the early 20th century, how many workers you have and how many soldiers you can
If you don't like it, change the technology we use to fight one another. We went from
tribes to lords when we switch from sticks to advanced forged weapons, and we went from
feudalism to democracy when we had factories dropping guns that any 15 year old could use
(oversimplifying a bit). Now that the stuff requires expertise, you'd expect a corresponding
shift in how we ritualize our conflict avoidance, and thus the organization of how we control
communication and how we organize our rituals of power.
Aka, it's the scientists and the engineers who end up determining how everything is
organized, and people never seem to bother with that argument, which is especially surprising
that even hard-core Marxists waste their time on short-term politics rather than the tech
I'd be curious whether Taibbi thought about the issue of the nature of the technology and
whether there are technological options on the horizon which drive the conflict in other
directions. If we had only kept the laws on copyright and patent weaker, so that the
implementation of communicative infrastructure would have stayed decentralized
Tabby's "manufacturing fake consent" was really the whole punchline – the joke's on
us. Hunter S. Thompson, another of Taibbi's heroes, is, along with Chomsky, speaking to us
through MT. Our media is distracting us from social coherence. Another thing it is doing
(just my opinion) is it is overwhelming us to the point of disgust. Nobody likes it. And we
protect ourselves by tuning it out. Turning it off. Once the screaming lunatics marginalize
themselves by making the whole narrative hysterical, we just act like it's another family
fight and we're gonna go do something else. When everyone is screaming, no one is
I have tried to read Hate Inc. and Taibbi's Griftopia but one of my main issues with
Taibbi's writing is his lack of notes, references, or bibliography, etc. in his books. In
skimming Hate Inc. it seems like a book I would enjoy reading, however my personal value
system is that any book without footnotes, endnotes, citations, or at minimum a bibliography
is just an opinion or a story. At least Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal has a section for End
Notes/References at the end of the book. Again just my personal values.
I am from Greater Boston, far, far from flyover country (which I imagine begins in Yonkers
NY), but I sure grew up with pro wrestling as part of the schoolyard discourse. I certainly
knew it was as much of a family affair as Disney on Ice and have trouble believing he thought
otherwise though I will not impugn his honesty. I am very grateful to the author for taking
the time to write this, but is it possible for a male who grew up in the US to be as deeply
embedded in the MSNBC demo as he claims to be?
Seriously, how is it possible for a male raised in the US to not at least have some
working familiarity with pro wrestling? My family along with my community was very close to
the national median income–do higher income boys really not learn about WWF and
Seriously, rich kids, what was childhood like? I know you had music lessons and sports
camps, what else? Was it really that different?
aye. in my blue to white collar( and back to blue to no collar) upbringing, wrestling was
never a thing. it was for the morons who couldn't read. seen as patently absurd by just about
everyone i knew. and this in klanridden east texas exurbia
wife's mexican extended familia oth luche libre is a big thing that all and sundry talked
about at thanksgiving. less so these days possibly due to the hyperindiviualisation of media
(and,btw, in my little world , horseshit is a good thing)
Even allowing for my lefty-liberal bias, I do not see how it is possible to equate Fox
Noise and MSNBC, or Hannity and Maddow, as "both-sides" extremists. Fox violates basic
professional canons of fairness and equity on a daily basis. MSNBC occasionally does, but is
quick to correct errors of fact. Hannity is a thuggish outer-borough New York schmuck without
much education or knowledge of the world. Maddow is an Oxford Ph.D. and Rhodes Scholar. It is
one of the evil successes of the right-wing news cauldron to have successfully equated these
two figures and organizations.
Huh? MSNBC regularly makes errors of omission and commission with respect to Sanders. They
are still pushing the Russiagate narrative. That's a massive, two-year, virtually all the
time error they have refused to recant.
The blind spots of people on the soi-disant left are truly astonishing.
'Hannity is a thuggish outer-borough New York schmuck without much education or knowledge
of the world. Maddow is an Oxford Ph.D. and Rhodes Scholar '
oh, well, then – end of conversation! i mean, god knows, it'd be a cold day in hell
before a rhodes scholar, or even someone married to one, would ever lead us astray down the
rosy neoliberal path to hell, while, at the same time, under the spell of trump derangement
syndrome, actually attempt to revive the mccarthy era, eh?
Actual drugs are being used to hinder debate as well as emotional drugs like hate.
They can't trust agency to be removed by words and images alone – the stakes are too
Now all of you go take a feel good pill and stop complaining!
I've been impressed with Taibbi's work, what I've read of it, but ironically this very
article contains a quote from him which exemplifies the problem: his casual assertion that
the US committed "genocide" in Indochina. Even the most fervent critics of US policy didn't
say this at the time, for the very good reason that there was no evidence that the US tried
to destroy a racial, religious, ethnic or nationalist group (the full definition is a lot
more complex and demanding than that). He clearly means that the US was responsible for lots
of deaths, which is incontestable. But the process of endless escalation of rhetoric, which
this book seems to be partly about, means that everything now has to be described in the most
extreme, absurd or apocalyptic tones, and at the top of your voice, otherwise nobody takes
any notice. So any self-respecting war now has to be qualified as "genocide" or nobody will
take any notice.
Rachel Maddow's trademark pouty-face got a workout as she strained to imagine " what the
thing is that Durham might be looking into." Yes, that's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside
an enigma, all right with a sputtering fuse sticking out of it.
... ... ...
Over in the locked ward of CNN, Andy Cooper and Jeff Toobin attempted to digest the criminal
investigation news as if someone had ordered in a platter of shit sandwiches for the green room
just before air-time. Toobin pretended to not know exactly who the mysterious Joseph Misfud
was, and struggled to even pronounce his name
... ... ...
As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own
historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud
and a scoundrel and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a
criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has
happened before in history.
It looks as though liberals may never learn that just because they disagree with someone's
opinion, it doesn't automatically make them a tool of the Russian government. And leading the
charge of liberals disseminating Russiagate nothingburgers, of course, continues to be Rachel
Conservative television network One America News (OAN) is suing Rachel Maddow for $10
million after she referred to the network as "paid Russian propaganda" . OAN filed the
defamation suit in federal court in San Diego, according to AP . OAN is a small, family owned
conservative network that is based in San Diego and has received favorable Tweets from the
President. It is seen as a competitor to Fox News.
OAN's lawsuit claims that Maddow's comments were retaliation after OAN President Charles
Herring accused Comcast of censorship. The suit said that Comcast refuses to carry its channel
because "counters the liberal politics of Comcast's own news channel, MSNBC."
It was about a week after Herring e-mailed a Comcast executive when Maddow opened her show
by referring to a Daily Beast report that claimed an OAN employee also worked for Sputnik News,
which has ties to the Russian government. Maddow said: "In this case, the most obsequiously
pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their
on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that
Except Maddow, likely still upset from spending 3 years trying to promulgate a Russian hoax
that didn't exist, didn't quite get her facts straight. Big surprise.
OAN said in its lawsuit that while reporter Kristian Rouz was associated with Sputnik News,
he worked solely as a freelancer for them and was not a staff employee of OAN. And the lawsuit
includes a statement from Rouz stating that while he has written some 1,300 articles over the
past 4 and a half years for Sputnik, he has "...never written propaganda, disinformation, or
unverified information." Skip Miller, OAN's attorney stated:
"One America is wholly owned, operated and financed by the Herring family in San Diego.
They are as American as apple pie. They are not paid by Russia and have nothing to do with
the Russian government. This is a false and malicious libel, and they're going to answer for
it in a court of law."
The lawsuit included an August 6th letter from an NBC Universal attorney who stated that
"OAN publishes content collected or created by a journalist who is also paid by the Russian
government for writing over a thousand articles. Ms. Maddow's recounting of this arrangement is
substantially true and therefore not actionable."
"... Anyone read Ronan Farrows "War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence"? In one passage he describes a meeting at the State Department where they are complaining that nobody is interested in their policy prescriptions and decide that the problem is that they need some graphs. They all turn to Farrrow and look at him as he is the youngest in the meeting and figure he is the only one who would know how to do that. "Ageism" he thought. ..."
"... The problem with the mainstream media calling out Trump is that this is like the pot calling a kettle black. Trump is awful, sure. But so is the corporate media with its pro-war and neoliberal economic agenda. ..."
"... As Ian Welsh notes, the press is Trump's enemy, not the servant of the people: https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-press-is-trumps-enemy-not-the-lefts-friend/ ..."
"... RussiaRussiaRussia has been very profitable, not only personally for the talking heads in the intelligence community but for the press. Removing clearance not only hits the talking heads in the wallet, it disrupts the relation between the press and its network of anonymous sources. ..."
"... Re 2), there seems to be an element of induced demand to support the preponderance of repetitive coverage, somewhat akin to the dopamine manipulation in video games and on social media websites. Bug and feature. ..."
This author is right. I do not know if you would call what the media did a form of virtue-signalling or whatever but the net
effect is a demonstration that the media is into coordinated campaigns. I do not think that people have forgotten the "This Is
Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy" Sinclair script a few months ago. This is just more of the same.
I don't even know why they act so b***-hurt when Trump attacks their honesty. In the last few months I have seen them call him
a traitor, a gay-bitch, they have called for a military coup to unseat him, they have begged for the deep state to rescue them,
they have elevated people who are responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers to the ranks of noble heroes of
the Republic. As far as I am concerned, they have made their own bed and now they can lay in it, even if they have to share it
with Donald J. Trump.
Yesterday when I looked at the NYT online, the big featured graphic in the center of the page, typically a photo, was a rotating
feed of Trump tweets, in headline-sized text. It struck me as a new low in the pathetic Trump-media feedback loop. It's all a
game of "made you look!"
Yeah, they probably got a summer intern to do that.
Anyone read Ronan Farrows "War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence"? In one passage he describes a meeting at the State Department where they are complaining that nobody is interested in their
policy prescriptions and decide that the problem is that they need some graphs. They all turn to Farrrow and look at him as he
is the youngest in the meeting and figure he is the only one who would know how to do that. "Ageism" he thought.
The problem with the mainstream media calling out Trump is that this is like the pot calling a kettle black. Trump is awful, sure. But so is the corporate media with its pro-war and neoliberal economic agenda.
A case could be made that independent media like Naked Capitalism is doing a key public service. Not the corporate media though,
whose main objective is always to maximize advertising revenues and to impose the views of its owners, the very rich, on society.
1) The best justification for giving officials formally out of government clearance on either side of the revolving
door is that you may need to call on them for advice. It seems to me that this incentivizes "intelligence" over wisdom. And for
wisdom, long experience plus open sources should be enough. (For example, if you want to call in an ex-official on North Korean
nukes, they don't really need to know the details of the latest weaponry, or Kim's weight gain, or whatever. That can be explained
to them by the customer , as needed. What's really needed is an outside voice -- the role played by an honest consultant
-- plus wisdom about power relations on the Korean peninsula. No need for clearance there.)
2) RussiaRussiaRussia has been very profitable, not only personally for the talking heads in the intelligence community but
for the press. Removing clearance not only hits the talking heads in the wallet, it disrupts the relation between the press and
its network of anonymous sources.
Enquiring Mind, August 18, 2018 at 9:02 pm
Re 2), there seems to be an element of induced demand to support the preponderance of repetitive coverage, somewhat
akin to the dopamine manipulation in video games and on social media websites. Bug and feature.
AARON MATÉ: When it comes to Russiagate, there have been too many embarrassing media
stories to count. And somehow, after nearly three years of this, the most discredited
journalists are finding new ways to discredit themselves. The latest is Lawrence O'Donnell of
MSNBC. Speaking another prominent conspiracy theorist, Rachel Maddow, O'Donnell shared this
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL : This single source close to Deutsche Bank has told me that the Trump
– Donald Trump's loan documents there show that he has co-signers. That's how he was able
to obtain those loans. And that the co-signers are Russian oligarchs.
RACHEL MADDOW : What? Really?
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL : That would explain, it seems to me, every kind word Donald Trump has
ever said about Russia and Vladimir Putin, if true.
AARON MATÉ: Well it turns out, it's not true, or at least, there's no evidence for
it. According to MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell's "information came from a single source who has not
seen the bank records." And so, O'Donnell had to retract his story after less than 24
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: I should not have said it on air or posted it on Twitter. I was wrong to
do so. This afternoon, attorneys for the president sent us a letter asserting the story is
false. They also demanded a retraction. Tonight, we are retracting the story.
AARON MATÉ: But in the process of walking back his story, O'Donnell also said
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: Saying 'if true' as I discussed the information was simply not good
enough. I did not go through the rigorous verification and standards process here at MSNBC
before repeating what I heard from my source.
AARON MATÉ: That's about as dubious a claim as Lawrence O'Donnell's retracted one.
When it comes to the Trump-Russia story, the idea of "a rigorous verification and standards
process" at MSNBC is a joke. The bulk of this network's output for more than two years has been
innuendo and conspiracy theories about a non-existent Trump-Russia plot and a massive Russia
This also was not the first time that MSNBC has used the 'if true' caveat to put something
on air. Take the time Lawrence O'Donnell himself speculated that Vladimir Putin orchestrated a
chemical weapons attack in Syria to distract the media from his ties to Donald Trump.
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL: If Vladimir Putin, if, if, if Vladimir Putin masterminded the last week
in Syria, he has gotten everything he could have asked for . Go ahead. Do a small chemical
attack. Nothing – nothing like the big ones you've done in the past. Just big enough to
attract media attention so that my friend in the White House will see it on TV. And then Donald
Trump can fire some missiles at Syria that will do no real damage, and then the American news
media will change the subject from Russian influence in the Trump campaign and the Trump
transition and the Trump White House. It's perfect.
AARON MATÉ: By the way that was in April 2017 -- more than two years ago. Fast
forward to say, July 2018, when MSNBC's Chris Hayes brought on liberal writer Jonathan Chait to
ponder if Donald Trump has been a Russian military intelligence asset since 1987.
CHRIS HAYES: In a new cover story for New York Magazine, Writer Jonathan Chait argues we
have not allowed ourselves to consider the full range of possibilities. Chait lays out what
could be considered the worst-case scenario for Trump-Russia collusion, that Donald Trump has
been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987.
AARON MATÉ: Then there's Rachel Maddow. I don't know, take your pick. How about,
Putin may use the pee tape & other kompromat to force Trump into withdrawing US troops near
RACHEL MADDOW : And here's the question. Is the new president going to take those troops
out? After all the speculation, after all the worry, we are actually about to find out if
Russia maybe has something on the new president? We're about to find out if the new president
of our country is going to do what Russia wants once he's commander-in-chief of the U.S.
military starting noon on Friday. What is he going to do with those deployments?
AARON MATÉ: Trump didn't withdraw those troops. How about also, Vladimir Putin got
Trump to hire Paul Manafort as his campaign manager.
RACHEL MADDOW: I mean, take the view from Moscow. If you know a guy who needs a presidential
campaign manager, how about our friend Paul? Right? From the Russian's point of view, who would
be the better choice to run Donald Trump's presidential campaign? From our perspective in the
United States, Paul Manafort made no sense. Who's he? From the Russian perspective, he'd be the
AARON MATÉ: Speaking of hiring decisions, there was also Vladimir Putin getting Trump
to hire Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State.
RACHEL MADDOW: Rex Tillerson – who Donald Trump had never met, had never had anything
to do with before, had never laid eyes on before. How did Rex Tillerson get that job? He must
have come very highly recommended – by someone. [MSNBC screen shows Putin with
AARON MATÉ: By the way, when Trump later fired Rex Tillerson, Maddow blamed that on
Putin as well. So you get the picture. Lawrence O'Donnell's story was not MSNBC's first glaring
error. Before this one, there was just no accountability for them. But the biggest problem here
is not that these stories are embarrassing the cable news hosts and pundits who promote them.
The Trump- Russia conspiracy theory has degraded journalism, and seriously undermining the
actual resistance to Donald Trump.
Think about what a gift it is for Trump that his media critics constantly validate his
claims about fake news. And it's an even bigger gift to Trump that his media and political foes
have spent the bulk of their air time on a moronic conspiracy theory, instead of his actual
policies, and the damage that they do.
So the Russiagate conspiracy theory has done serious damage. And it will continue to do so
unless there is some minimal accountability for the people who promote it and profit from it.
Because when you think about the fact that MSNBC hosts and others are still doing this –
still promoting the Russiagate conspiracy theory, and still calling themselves journalists in
the process – well, this is my response.
"Do you really think they spend $400 on a hammer?"
That line comes straight out
of a movie . Didn't I tell you American get their reality from their Plato's Cave
I briefly worked in a machine shop that did DoD contract work. We would buy washers by the
pound from the hardware store down the street, heat seal them individually into little
plastic baggies with the part number printed on them, and then sell them to the Navy for $50
Yeah, the military pays $400 each, if not a good deal more, for their hammers.
To focus exclusively on weapons is to focus on the wrong aspect of a nation's strength. I
always find it funny in a very sadistic manner that the Outlaw US Empire is constantly
declared to be the richest nation on the planet when it has at minimum 30 Million people well
below the far too low poverty line, millions more mal-nourished, millions more kept in a
state of ignorance, and with a wealth disparity problem of an enormous magnitude where 3 men
own as much wealth as the bottom 50% of the population, or @165 Million people.
What all that and more not included spells out to me is that the Outlaw US Empire is the
planet's most Dysfunctional nation.
Russia in stark contrast as clearly shown by Putin's speech I linked to above is striving
very hard to overcome the dysfunctions applied to it by outside actors and the previous
system in ways only Bernie Sanders is promoting while Trump and the neoliberals from both
political parties continue to do the exact opposite by striving to escalate the
The message being sent to Americans by the Current Neoliberal Oligarchy is Get Out; We
Don't Need You! as they fight tooth & nail to destroy what little remains of the pathetic
to begin with welfare state, while dumbing-down education and promoting carcinogenic
foodstuffs. Putin's contrasting message: Come Here! I Welcome You! Here are the many
inducements to become Russian and fulfill your abilities and destiny! No! It's not a pipe
dream; read his speech! One of the most important factors in a nation's strength is the
opportunities it provides for its citizens and how well that collective cares for itself via
the mediums of government and culture. In that respect, IMO, the USA is in the worst shape
its ever been due to its insane level of moral corruption.
Putin's trolling points directly at that last sentence. It's his way of pounding his shoe
on the podium and saying We'll bury you all while smiling wryly. Moreover, other national
leaders are beginning to abandon the dysfunctional Outlaw US Empire as they find it
irrational and impossible to deal with.
The same goes for the EU with its similar domineering neoliberal nature. Putin was correct
about the demise of Liberalism. What needs to rise up and replace it is a mother-like
humanistic social order that cares for and provides opportunities to fulfill one's abilities
while also paying close attention to the condition of the planet that supports us.
Ok, lets clear this misunderstanding up. The nuclear missile is not hypersonic and Putin
never sold these weapons as "super weapons" ala Trump. That's an ungenerous reading. A while
back, Putin gave a speech before the parliament in which he detailed some new weapons
The point of it all was to highlight the foolish and dangerous assumptions on which
aggressive Western policy towards Russia rest. One of these assumptions is that the US could
launch a first strike against Russia and be safe from retaliation behind it's ABM screen. In
reality, that system is incapable of stopping any significant number of current ballistic
warheads and that further, Russia was now fielding systems that can circumvent or penetrate
that defense easily.
He listed several of these systems. Two were hypersonic, the kinzhal and avangard. Another
was the new ICBM, RS-28 Sarmat. It is powerful enough to send the warheads into orbit. From
there they no longer follow a strict ballistic path and can circle the earth to any target
they choose, making them impossible to predict and defend against. It is a concept tried in
the early 70's but then withdrawn called fobos.
The last of the strategic weapons were based around the new miniaturized nuclear reactor
that had just been perfected. It is being applied to a cruise missile and a sub-torpedo
concept. The nuclear cruise missile will have practically unlimited range, but it will be
subsonic not hypersonic.
Clue for the clueless: "Secret weapons" are only useful for surprise attacks... sucker
punches. Defensive weapons intended to deter attacks only work as a deterrence if they are
advertised. The very fact that Putin announced the existence of the new weapons is in and of
itself proof that those weapons are intended to deter aggression, not be used aggressively.
The corollary to this fact is that if the United States really does have secret weapons
like attack sharks with frickin` laser beams on their heads, then those are intended as
offensive first strike weaponry.
Why is it that Americans are proud of being seen as the most offensive people on the
planet? Arguing for the existence of super secret weapons is arguing for Americans being the
biggest scumbag villains alive. It is strange that many Americans don't get that.
Super-secret weapons don't deter and defend, their secrecy can only surprise America's
This is part and parcel of why I am always arguing that Americans are literally mentally
The article about how many intelligence officials (retired) now work for the corporate press
is misleading. It does not take into account the "undeclared" operatives such as Anderson
Cooper and Rachael Maddow. Cooper went to work for the CIA and they out him in his job,
Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar, a trained apparatchik for the elites.
This is nothing new, after WWII, when the press was most compliant and the CIA was formed
the press was "taken over" by the newly reforming and consolidating of deep state power.
There was Operation Mockingbird which was exposed long ago but nothing changes if they get
caught they just reorganize and continue.
"... So, at last, buried deep within the Times story, is the source for its claim that Russia is behind everything. So, what is the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), and who is behind it? ..."
"... If you go to Wikipedia, you find it was founded by George Weidenfeld, a famous London publisher, lifelong Zionist and friend to, among others, Angela Merkel, Kurt Waldheim (yes, that Kurt Waldheim) and too many Israeli politicians and military figures to count. When he died in 2016, he was granted the singular honor by Israel of burial at the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. Before his death, he founded a chair for Israel Studies at University of Sussex, for the purpose of countering criticism of Israel . ..."
"... Weidenfeld died at the age of 96 in 2016. During the last few years of his life, he emphasized that he regarded Israel studies as explicitly political. ..."
"... ISD partners with and receives funding from a number of private social media multinational corporations, including Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft. It also has ties to numerous governmental agencies around the world, including the US State Department, a plethora of NGOs and several US and UK neoliberal think tanks, like the Brookings Institution, as well as charitable foundations ranging from The Carnegie Corporation to the Open Societies Foundation (founder: George Soros). All in all, ISD is deeply tied to groups promoting the global status quo. Many of them also take a confrontational stance when it comes to Russia , while ignoring any bad actions by Israel, Saudi Arabia, and, of course, the United Sates. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, a policy model that advocates the control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector, has been a dominant ideology since the 1980s. It rests on two main planks. Firstly, by increased competition that is achieved through deregulation and the opening up of domestic markets and, secondly, through privatization and limits on the ability of government to run fiscal deficits and accumulate debt, the paper – dated June 2016 - explained. [...] ..."
"... The IMF authors also state that the costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent and such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda. They further argue that increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. ..."
"... I'm just dumbfounded at how many people have thrown out their reasoning skills and bought into the Russian propaganda nonsense. ..."
"... But you don't have a right to say whatever you want about Israeli politics, stooge. ..."
"... Nice. I like to remind people of that time when Putin came before congress and told them to vote against Obama's Iran treaty and got a standing ovation. ..."
"... totally nuts. "Team Putin", "I long for...Putin in the Hague", "...watched Rachael Maddow...", someone dissing Caitlin Johnstone because she's Australian, "Dorsey and Gabbard and Assad and Putin, they're all in the same boat", "Russians actually showed up in Sweden and offered to pay immigrants to act out a riot." ..."
Of course, Trump is blamed as well, because he and Putin are best buds. And what they want, apparently is "far-right wing nationalism"
to spread across the entire globe.
To dig beneath the surface of what is happening in Sweden, though, is to uncover the workings of an international disinformation
machine, devoted to the cultivation, provocation and amplication of far-right, anti-immigrant passions and political forces. Indeed,
that machine, , underscores a fundamental
irony of this political moment: the globalization of nationalism.
The central target of these manipulations from abroad -- and the chief instrument of the Swedish nationalists' success -- is
the country's increasingly popular, and virulently anti-immigrant, digital echo chamber.
A New York Times examination of its content, personnel and traffic patterns illustrates how foreign state and nonstate actors
have helped give viral momentum to a clutch of Swedish far-right web sites.
Russian and Western entities that traffic in disinformation, including an Islamaphobic think tank whose former chairman is
now Mr. Trump's national security adviser, have been crucial linkers to the Swedish sites, helping to spread their message to
Beyond the fact that these bare-faced allegations in the Times article about Russia's influence in spreading right wing nationalism
are not supported by any, well, facts, is the reality that Sweden, just as in the United States has a long history of nationalist
and nativist movements.
An article in The Harvard Political Review, dated
February 11, 2017 , sums up nicely the factors that have led to the ascendancy of right wing nationalism in Europe.
These right nationalist campaigns, including those of Brexit and Trump, have run on two fundamental ideas currently trending
in many western countries: uplifting the poor working class in a crippling globalized economy, and constricting immigration from
the Middle East. Although the political clashes in culture and economics seems to be the major driving forces of the rise of the
far right, there is another factor at work. The economy and immigration concerns have only been political speaking points disguising
the true catastrophe of modern politics: the loss of the general public's trust in institutions .
Two and a half years later, however, The New York Times is having none of those squishy nuanced arguments. It focuses its narrative
primarily on Putin and Russia as the source of rising right wing nationalism.
At least six Swedish sites have received financial backing through advertising revenue from a Russian- and Ukrainian-owned
auto-parts business based in Berlin, whose online sales network oddly contains buried digital links to a range of far-right and
other socially divisive content.
Writers and editors for the Swedish sites have been befriended by the Kremlin. And in one strange Rube Goldbergian chain of
events, a frequent German contributor to one Swedish site has been implicated in the financing of a bombing in Ukraine, in a suspected
Russian false-flag operation.
The distorted view of Sweden pumped out by this disinformation machine has been used, in turn, by anti-immigrant parties in
Britain, Germany, Italy and elsewhere to stir xenophobia and gin up votes, according to the
, a London-based nonprofit that tracks the online spread of far-right extremism.
So, at last, buried deep within the Times story, is the source for its claim that Russia is behind everything. So, what is
the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), and who is behind it?
If you go to Wikipedia, you find it was founded by George Weidenfeld, a famous London publisher, lifelong Zionist and friend
to, among others, Angela Merkel, Kurt Waldheim (yes, that Kurt Waldheim) and too many Israeli politicians and military figures to
count. When he died in 2016, he was granted the singular honor by Israel of burial at the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. Before his
death, he founded a chair for Israel Studies at University of Sussex, for the purpose of
countering criticism of Israel .
Weidenfeld died at the age of 96 in 2016. During the last few years of his life, he emphasized that he regarded Israel
studies as explicitly political.
Teaching the subject, he said, was "very important" in universities "with an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic presence." Weidenfeld's
comments indicate that he conflated criticism of Israel as a state with bigotry against Jews.
ISD partners with and receives funding from
a number of private social media multinational corporations, including Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft. It also has ties
to numerous governmental agencies around the world, including the US State Department, a plethora of NGOs and several US and UK neoliberal
think tanks, like the Brookings Institution, as well as charitable foundations ranging from The Carnegie Corporation to the Open
Societies Foundation (founder: George Soros). All in all, ISD is deeply tied to groups promoting the global status quo. Many of them
also take a
confrontational stance when it comes to
Russia , while ignoring any bad actions by Israel, Saudi Arabia, and, of course, the United Sates.
Obviously, it's become a reflexive response by the corporate and legacy media in the US to blame Russia for all our troubles regarding
race and political polarization, as if none of these problems existed before Trump assumed office. Certainly, I agree Trump's actions
have enabled right wing extremists and exacerbated racial tensions in our country, but neither he nor Russia created the problems
of racism and xenophobia that have been with us since the beginning of American history. To continue to harp on Russia as the sole
bad actor in foreign and domestic affairs around the world is ludicrous, especially as it ignores the underlying factors that are
driving right wing nationalism: increasing poverty, massive wealth and income inequality (which has arguably
surpassed the levels that existed
prior to the Great Depression ) and the increasing efforts in the media to divide people from one another along racial and ethnic
No one who benefits from these levels of income and wealth inequality wants to point out the real reason why populist/nationalist
movements are attracting more and more followers. As always, it's the economy, stupid. A
2016 study conducted
by the IMF , hardly a bastion of radical leftists, makes this point very clear:
Instead of delivering growth, some neoliberal policies have increased inequality and have not delivered as expected, according
to a 2016 report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Neoliberalism, a policy model that advocates the control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector,
has been a dominant ideology since the 1980s. It rests on two main planks. Firstly, by increased competition that is achieved
through deregulation and the opening up of domestic markets and, secondly, through privatization and limits on the ability of
government to run fiscal deficits and accumulate debt, the paper – dated June 2016 - explained. [...]
The IMF authors also state that the costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent and such costs epitomize the trade-off
between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda. They further argue that increased inequality in
turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth.
Obviously, that isn't the reality that the powers that be in our country want to promote - not at all. It might give people the
idea that, instead of living in a democracy, we are actually governed by puppets of wealthy and powerful corporations that are squeezing
us dry to benefit their bottom lines. Those in control of our two major parties much prefer disinformation, such as the promotion
of the conspiracy theory that our former Cold War adversary bears most, if not all, of the blame for everything bad happening in
our country, from the election of Trump to gun violence to political polarization. Telling the truth would be harmful to their interests.
These same powerful and wealthy interests would risk the takeover of governments around the world by fascist and right wing authoritarian
regimes, rather than change existing policies that favor unfettered capitalism and globalism, policies that are
literally threatening our future on this planet.
In short, expect more truthiness like this from the Times and other media outlets when it comes to explaining the causes of right
wing nationalism here and abroad:
As the 2018 elections approached, Swedish counterintelligence was on high alert for foreign interference. Russia, the hulking
neighbor to the east, was seen as the main threat. After the Kremlin's meddling in the 2016 American election, Sweden had reason
to fear it could be next.
"Russia's goal is to weaken Western countries by polarizing the debate," said Daniel Stenling, the Swedish Security Service's
counterintelligence chief. "For the last five years, we have seen more and more aggressive intelligence work against our nation."
But as it turned out, there was no hacking and dumping of internal campaign documents, as in the United States. Nor was there
an overt effort to swing the election to the Sweden Democrats , perhaps because the party, in keeping with Swedish popular opinion,
has become more critical of the Kremlin than some of its far-right European counterparts.
Instead, security officials say, the foreign influence campaign took a different, more subtle form: helping nurture Sweden's
rapidly evolving far-right digital ecosystem.
Oh those subtle Russkies! How they manage the time to destroy the democracies of every country on earth is beyond me, but then,
I'm not a reporter for The New York Times.
But blaming the rise of far right nationalism on Russia is definitely a major point as it diverts attention from the many and
varied causes for it which goes to the very heart of the globlist neoliberal capitalist order. Just as a side note, academia is
one of the important stalwarts in the diversion as they are gladly producing phony studies of tweets, etc which confirm these
BTW, the idea that Russia was responsbile for the rise of white nationalism and racism goes back a while now. There were a
few diaries on TOP that got a lot of attention claiming Putin had a major hand in Charotsville when it occurred.
I am surprised by the continued insistence that Russia is making "divisions" over BLM. It is an obvious attempt to minimalize
America racism, and also to marginalize BLM and smear it as Russian lackies (shades of the Civil Rigths movement and MLK). This
originally caused some anger within Black activists so the narrative became that Russians were pushing both pro-BLM and anti-BLM
messages (although wink wink, we know the Russians are really anti-Black).
doing neoliberalism, they've just switched the type of market. It looks like a good fit if you are looking at tanking the labor
market. Import cheap, disempowered labor to create the market that you want.
I was going to say something about how Globalists are really pushing immigration too far. It would be better to rise the standard
of living in your colonies and vassal states, but that would cost money and dilute control, so instead you import them and shift
to domestic colonialism.
Inserting large, non-assimilated populations into democratic states IS a problem to many people. Loss of self governance -
"We didn't get a say in this.", loss of a national or cultural identity - which becomes white vs non-white, it rigs the labor
market and promotes inequality via a two tiered economic system.
But that IMF quote jumped out at me, and they're still doing neoliberalism, but they're doing it to crush labor markets instead
of opening markets or tapping international labor markets. It fits well within neoliberal ideology.
Rubio is saying that Russian bots are spreading the Clintons killed Epstein crap on Twitter. Seriously? But he says nothing
about Trump who retweeted a tweet saying that the Clintons killed Epstein. Or s lil Marco calling Trump a Russian bot?
Then there's this one.
HeyRussians, writing here on an AMERICAN platform, I have a constitutional right to say whatever I want about American or
Russian politics. No one is forcing you to read what I say. Stop with the demands for censorship. Russian "sovereignty" does
not extend to Twitter.
totally nuts. "Team Putin", "I long for...Putin in the Hague", "...watched Rachael Maddow...", someone dissing Caitlin Johnstone
because she's Australian, "Dorsey and Gabbard and Assad and Putin, they're all in the same boat", "Russians actually showed up
in Sweden and offered to pay immigrants to act out a riot."
Rubio is saying that Russian bots are spreading the Clintons killed Epstein crap on Twitter. Seriously? But he says nothing
about Trump who retweeted a tweet saying that the Clintons killed Epstein. Or s lil Marco calling Trump a Russian bot?
Then there's this one.
HeyRussians, writing here on an AMERICAN platform, I have a constitutional right to say whatever I want about American
or Russian politics. No one is forcing you to read what I say. Stop with the demands for censorship. Russian "sovereignty"
does not extend to Twitter.
totally nuts. "Team Putin", "I long for...Putin in the Hague", "...watched Rachael Maddow...", someone dissing Caitlin Johnstone
because she's Australian, "Dorsey and Gabbard and Assad and Putin, they're all in the same boat", "Russians actually showed
up in Sweden and offered to pay immigrants to act out a riot."
totally nuts. "Team Putin", "I long for...Putin in the Hague", "...watched Rachael Maddow...", someone dissing Caitlin Johnstone
because she's Australian, "Dorsey and Gabbard and Assad and Putin, they're all in the same boat", "Russians actually showed
up in Sweden and offered to pay immigrants to act out a riot."
@snoopydawg The Hillbots, not the Rooskies, are all in for restricting "hate speech", which means anybody who disagrees
with them. Talk about xenophobia. Dems have this in spades, as well as more than a few Repugnants. We are being outmaneuvered
away from peaceful co-existence to Russia ruins everything.
Orange man bad is corollary to RussiaRussiaRussia.
Rubio is saying that Russian bots are spreading the Clintons killed Epstein crap on Twitter. Seriously? But he says nothing
about Trump who retweeted a tweet saying that the Clintons killed Epstein. Or s lil Marco calling Trump a Russian bot?
Then there's this one.
HeyRussians, writing here on an AMERICAN platform, I have a constitutional right to say whatever I want about American
or Russian politics. No one is forcing you to read what I say. Stop with the demands for censorship. Russian "sovereignty"
does not extend to Twitter.
@snoopydawg guaranteeing American constitutional rights? But I thought the current Democratic talking point is that the
big tech monopolies are private companies so they can censor and misinform with impunity. Does McFail also concede that we have
a right to privacy on that wonderful "AMERICAN" platform?
It's hilarious this was Obama's ambassador to Russia. I didn't think you were supposed to hate the people, culture, and government
of the country to whom you had been assigned as a diplomat.
Rubio is saying that Russian bots are spreading the Clintons killed Epstein crap on Twitter. Seriously? But he says nothing
about Trump who retweeted a tweet saying that the Clintons killed Epstein. Or s lil Marco calling Trump a Russian bot?
Then there's this one.
HeyRussians, writing here on an AMERICAN platform, I have a constitutional right to say whatever I want about American
or Russian politics. No one is forcing you to read what I say. Stop with the demands for censorship. Russian "sovereignty"
does not extend to Twitter.
saying about Russia were instead directed at Israel? AIPAC would be in front of congress daily to get people to stop saying
Misfud is the guy who told Papadapoulus that Russia had Hillary's emails who then 'got drunk and blabbed it to the Dutch ambassador'
who then told someone in the FBI who then decided to open an investigation into the Trump campaign. I just read that this information
about Misfud has come to the intelligence committee's attention. So I'm sure that any day now we will be told to forget everything
we've been told about how Trump colluded with Russia right? Any day...yup...congress is going to tell us that the two year long
propaganda campaign that they have been pushing on us was false. Just like Trump said it was. Any..day..
#7 guaranteeing American constitutional rights? But I thought the current Democratic talking point is that the big tech
monopolies are private companies so they can censor and misinform with impunity. Does McFail also concede that we have a right
to privacy on that wonderful "AMERICAN" platform?
It's hilarious this was Obama's ambassador to Russia. I didn't think you were supposed to hate the people, culture, and
government of the country to whom you had been assigned as a diplomat.
Has been a big promoter of Russiagate for years, since near the beginning. How do I know he's working with the Clintons? Longtime
Clinton ally and co-chair of the Hillary Clinton Transition Team, Neera Tanden, repeatedly cites him as a source of validity for
Russiagate in this video. You can make a drinking game out of how many times she says "Marco Rubio."
Has been a big promoter of Russiagate for years, since near the beginning. How do I know he's working with the Clintons?
Longtime Clinton ally and co-chair of the Hillary Clinton Transition Team, Neera Tanden, repeatedly cites him as a source of
validity for Russiagate in this video. You can make a drinking game out of how many times she says "Marco Rubio."
The economy and immigration concerns have only been political speaking points disguising the true catastrophe of modern
politics: the loss of the general public's trust in institutions.
Years ago in a sociology class, I learned that 5 components are necessary for a functioning society: family, education, religion,
an economic structure, and a political system. These 5 elements are interrelated, so when one goes awry, other parts are affected.
It is no secret that our political system is broken and our economic system (neoliberalism) is cracking. Many mainstream churches
are losing membership, being replaced by non-affiliated ones. For a couple of decades public education has been the enemy due
to right-wing conservatives, hoping to replace this system with private and home schooling. Public universities are in their crosshairs,
too. Of course, all these malfunctioning components affect the basic structure of a society: the family. I'm afraid we're in for
a bumpy ride, before the air is cleared.
5 components are necessary for a functioning society: family, education, religion, an economic structure, and a political system.
Corporate owns all of them, save the family, but they're working on it...
Education - completely corporate dominated with public acquiescence.
Political - Think tanks create policy for sponsored talent to ratify
Religion - Atheism, Megachurches, televangelists, political activity, NGOs as slush funds
Economic - Private FED, banks, ratings institutions, bailed out by stakholder bail-in
Family - 2 worker families, tv as baby sitter, mobile phones
Seriously, corporate owns or can significantly disrupt all 5 pillars of a functioning society. It's rather terrifying.
The economy and immigration concerns have only been political speaking points disguising the true catastrophe of modern
politics: the loss of the general public's trust in institutions.
Years ago in a sociology class, I learned that 5 components are necessary for a functioning society: family, education,
religion, an economic structure, and a political system. These 5 elements are interrelated, so when one goes awry, other parts
are affected. It is no secret that our political system is broken and our economic system (neoliberalism) is cracking. Many
mainstream churches are losing membership, being replaced by non-affiliated ones. For a couple of decades public education
has been the enemy due to right-wing conservatives, hoping to replace this system with private and home schooling. Public universities
are in their crosshairs, too. Of course, all these malfunctioning components affect the basic structure of a society: the family.
I'm afraid we're in for a bumpy ride, before the air is cleared.
5 components are necessary for a functioning society: family, education, religion, an economic structure, and a political
Corporate owns all of them, save the family, but they're working on it...
Education - completely corporate dominated with public acquiescence.
Political - Think tanks create policy for sponsored talent to ratify
Religion - Atheism, Megachurches, televangelists, political activity, NGOs as slush funds
Economic - Private FED, banks, ratings institutions, bailed out by stakholder bail-in
Family - 2 worker families, tv as baby sitter, mobile phones
Seriously, corporate owns or can significantly disrupt all 5 pillars of a functioning society. It's rather terrifying.
of word, but I think in any society larger than a tribe you have to have some kind of common ground, a common belief system
- cultural mores and values. If you look at secular humanism and atheism as religion or belief system, it completely fits.
Politics and science are near religions for many people at this point in time, IMO, replete with priests, choirs, dogma, and
Politics and science are also highly material at this point in time. Values are predicated on profits and social control and
ideas are nothing more than mechanistic computations. If you suggest something that costs profits or removes social control, or
you offer ideas that say we're in anything but a mechanistic, dead, dumb universe, you're blaspheming.
I'd say they did a pretty fine job of creating new religions and belief systems, and they are every bit as dogmatic and stupid
as their big boss man in the sky predecessors.
@The Voice In the Wilderness
Kamala seems so much more passionate about displacing blame onto Russia for structural US racism than about fighting the
disenfranchisement of black and brown citizens, including the many she gleefully sent to prison.
She said that Russian bots were helping push what Tulsi said about her and they spread the "taking a knee" when it was Kaepernick
who started it. Kamillary for this BS! She hired Hillary's campaign team as well as her lawyers. Hillary got people to go to the
Hamptons for a Harris fundraiser.
Trump is a student of Hitler & a disciple of Putin, with whom he's had several secret conversations with Putin giving him
advice. Putin certainly knows how to make troublesome people disappear while keeping enough distance to claim plausible deniability
& may have given Trump some tips on how to do the same (assuming Trump hadn't already learned that from his ample experience with
A disciple? A student of Hitler? Seriously where do people come up with this sh*t? And why do others agree with that person?
SMDH. I can't understand how anyone can believe this.
@The Voice In the Wilderness
. . . didn't take my tip seriously. The lady on the other end of the line was all ears about the assault rifles stamped "US ARMOURY"
that I reported being hidden in the garage of where I had lived, as well as something I had never seen that might have been a
grenade launcher due to the size of the barrel.
However, when she found out I was the "estranged" wife of the person who possessed them, she actually told me my tip would
not go any further because "estranged" wives can't be believed.
No way in hell I was going to report it while I was still living there. I did it after going into hiding almost a thousand
miles away. Our son and I remained in hiding for 6 years, until the ex also almost killed the next love of his life in front of
a neighbor. We were freed by that neighbor's testimony and a 99 year prison sentence for retaliation (he held her at gunpoint
too after being released on no bond for assaulting her because his dad was buddies with the local judge). But yeah, ex wives lie.
Now I know: If you see something, say not a goddamned thing because you won't be believed anyway.
Further, Trump's ex-wife brought this up - if I remember correctly - 20, or more, years ago. It was from an interview in Vanity
Fair. You can dredge it up online if you want. The Vanity Fair site was where I read it years ago.
I don't think Trump was planning a presidential bid back in the day, so the revelation of Trump's reading material wasn't quite
the bombshell then. Curious? Yes, even then. Hardly surprising if you've followed Trump's antics over the decades.
Further, Trump's ex-wife brought this up - if I remember correctly - 20, or more, years ago. It was from an interview in
Vanity Fair. You can dredge it up online if you want. The Vanity Fair site was where I read it years ago.
I don't think Trump was planning a presidential bid back in the day, so the revelation of Trump's reading material wasn't
quite the bombshell then. Curious? Yes, even then. Hardly surprising if you've followed Trump's antics over the decades.
"... "I can report absolutely that the Durham investigators have now obtained an audiotape deposition of Joseph Mifsud, where he describes his work, why he targeted George Papadopoulos , who directed him to do that, what directions he was given, and why he set that entire process of introducing Papadopoulos to Russia in motion in March of 2016, which is really the flashpoint the starting point of this whole Russia collusion narrative," Solomon told Fox News' Sean Hannity. ..."
"... You can't save the Russian collusion narrative, if you can't find any real Russians anywhere in the story. The FBI under James Comey will then be seen as having engaged in an operation to entrap people, and "Russian agents" turn out to be fakes working for the FBI and who were making fake offers of Russian help to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... Mifsud turning out to be a fake Russian agent working for the FBI ..."
"... To have to admit that the story was actually right, while they themselves were still peddling the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, would be a most bitter pill for many of these 'legitimate' news outlets to swallow. ..."
"... And yet when it comes to recent developments about Mifsud, a key player in this Trump-Russia collusion narrative, many mainstream reporters appear indifferent at best, or outrightly hostile at worst to these latest developments. ..."
"... While many of these mainstream media reporters have been desperately trying to find some way to save the Trump/Russian collusion narrative, the last thing they want to have to report is that the supposed key Russian agent that started this whole Spygate thing wasn't really a Russian agent, but was instead an FBI asset pretending to be a Russian agent. ..."
While many mainstream media journalists have been
spinning fantasies for more than two years, based on Russian collusion stories being handed to
them by anonymous sources, crack reporter John Solomon of The Hill has been pursuing real leads
and uncovering actual evidence.
Now, Solomon is reporting that an audiotape
containing professor Joseph Mifsud's deposition has been given to both U.S. Attorney John
Durham's investigators and to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"I can report absolutely that the Durham investigators have now obtained an audiotape
deposition of Joseph Mifsud, where he describes his work, why he targeted George Papadopoulos , who
directed him to do that, what directions he was given, and why he set that entire process of
introducing Papadopoulos to Russia in motion in March of 2016, which is really the flashpoint
the starting point of this whole Russia collusion narrative," Solomon told
Fox News' Sean Hannity.
"I can also confirm that the Senate Judiciary Committee has also obtained the same
deposition," he said.
So I'm wondering why Solomon appears to be the only mainstream reporter pursuing this Mifsud
I suspect it's because many DNC Media outlets, after having fallen deeply and passionately
in love with the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, are reluctant to call attention to something that
would be the final nail in its coffin.
The last thing the mainstream media wants right now would be for Mifsud to go on the record
with both Durham's investigative team and with Congress to say he was working for the FBI and
was only pretending to be a Russian agent.
If Mifsud was an FBI asset sent to entrap Papadopoulos, then there are no real Russian
agents anywhere in this entire Trump-Russia collusion story.
Foreign policy advisor to US President Donald Trump's election campaign, George
Papadopoulos goes through security at the US District Court for his sentencing in Washington,
DC on Sept. 7, 2018. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images)
Ponder what that means for a minute.
You can't save the Russian collusion narrative, if you can't find any real Russians
anywhere in the story. The FBI under James Comey will then be seen as having engaged in an
operation to entrap people, and "Russian agents" turn out to be fakes working for the FBI and
who were making fake offers of Russian help to the Trump campaign.
Some of these news media outlets are still - at this late date - claiming there's some life
left in the Russian collusion narrative. Mifsud is literally the last dying hope for these
people that somewhere in all of this there is a real Russian asset and real collusion. They
literally need Mifsud to be a real asset of the Putin government. And if Mifsud goes on the
record to officially affirm he was working for the FBI, then the media's last dying hope is
To hear the mainstream media tell it, Mifsud turning out to be a fake Russian agent
working for the FBI is a "conspiracy theory" created by "right-wing zealots" such as Reps.
Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
To have to admit that the story was actually right, while they themselves were still
peddling the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, would be a most bitter pill for many of these
'legitimate' news outlets to swallow.
Which likely explains why Solomon appears to be just about the only mainstream reporter
pursuing the Mifsud story. If there are any other major news outlet reporters out there avidly
pursuing the facts about Mifsud and his reported contacts and testimony to Justice Department
investigators, they're being pretty quiet about it.
What are the mainstream news reporters who are ignoring the Mifsud story telling themselves,
"I can't pursue this new information on Mifsud, because it's taking the story where I
don't want it to go!"?
That's a thought process that happens only to a political activist disguised as a reporter.
No real reporter would ever think that way.
And yet when it comes to recent developments about Mifsud, a key player in this
Trump-Russia collusion narrative, many mainstream reporters appear indifferent at best, or
outrightly hostile at worst to these latest developments.
While many of these mainstream media reporters have been desperately trying to find some
way to save the Trump/Russian collusion narrative, the last thing they want to have to report
is that the supposed key Russian agent that started this whole Spygate thing wasn't really a
Russian agent, but was instead an FBI asset pretending to be a Russian agent.
These selfsame media reporters have spent more than two years mocking the idea that Mifsud
is an FBI asset as something straight out of the right-wing fever swamp of convoluted nonsense
conspiracy theories. This is why so many political activists masquerading as journalists are
desperately hoping that somehow the Mifsud story will just go away and die on its own.
My instinct says they're going to be massively disappointed soon.
The only one's ever colluding with the Russians was Hillary the "******* Rotten" Clinton,
Obongo "the One" and the usual suspects (Comey,Clapper,Brennan,Lynch,) et.al .. FBI/DOJ/CIA Rats, British UN-intelligence,Australian &
Ukraine interference. The DNC server was never hacked by Russians but copied, the
Steele/Fusion GPS dossier was a work of worn out fiction that was originally put together in
2007 and used against McCain.
Russian agent Mifsud working with Papadopoulos to get Hillary emails claimed by
DNC/Crowdstrike/Perkins Coie hacked by Russians before destroyed by Hillary under subpoena,
just a FBI paid actor to keep the narrative going and covering up illegal spying on Trump,
NSA 702 "about" querries by private contractors ang gov. violating FISA which happened much
Conservative treehouse does a better job than just about anywhere else I've seen of tying
that all together. But, if they are correct about this, as they've been correct about a lot
of things, it won't change anything or matter at all. None of these people will ever be
indicted, much less spend a single day in jail. Sad, but true. In a year and a half trump
will most likely be gone, and all of this will be memory holed.
Most Democrats still adhere to the Trump - Russia collusion narrative. And they wonder why
some Leftists like Roseanne Barr admit 'Democrats have gone insane.' An opinion shared by
most of the rest of the country. And yet public speeches by Trump are enthusiastically
attended by thousands - a story very much minimized by these same "news" outlets.
Those Democrats exist within a media bubble (95% of press outlets - online, too) working
for the Deep State (99% are Democrats) that misinforms them. Perhaps they are intentionally
self-duped. Though it remains shocking how deeply deluded they are.
They adhere to the hoax because they knew it was a hoax to begin with.
The dems have never been sincere calling people racist, sexist, Hitler, then Russian or
Assad stooges, etc.
Their Saul Alinsky tactic is to shriek incessantly, always accuse, never take the
defensive because your position is indefensible. You can't argue why offering open borders
and free health care to 7 billion people is rational.
That is why the violence is so important to them, and so important to keep concealing the
deep state/democratic crime syndicate.
The progressives will happily embrace the worst criminal behavior by our government as
JUSTIFIED to depose the devil incarnate Trump.
There is only one principle...winning. The law is THEIR weapon devised to punish their
enemies and control their minions. All means are justifiable to the ends, and the vast
majority of those "serving" in government have no hesitancy in abusing their power to fulfill
the larger agenda.
They will have proof and undeniable facts...to no avail because those charged with the
prosecution of their own, will NOT.
More sensationalism... how many articles are you going to post saying the spygate
situation is about to blow up? I would love for it to happen but unlike the libtards hanging
on Rachel Maddow's every word... when I hear the walls are closing in for over 2 or 3 months
straight... I start to call ********... Give up the sensationalism Tyler... it's straight up
MSM flavor ********.
Certainly CNN put on a debate that was superior to MSNBC in every way. There weren't any
horrid technical problems like microphone failures, and the moderation was superior, too.
(Jessica's comment to Alia might as well have been made to Maddow, in her silo: " I can think
of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections.")
I hate to say it, but corporate Democrats along with those who Maddow has totally
brainwashed are still true believers in the entire lie. You cannot get through to these
people, they will not come to terms with the fact that they've been hoodwinked and bamboozled
for the last three years. They read it in WaPo and the NYTimes and heard it on NPR so it's
For the next 40 years these people will be writing essays, books and giving talks about
how the evil Russians interfered in our democracy [sic] to elect their preferred president.
It's maddening and perhaps beyond hope.
Rob , July 25, 2019 at 17:18
To your point, the NYT is warning that Russia will interfere AGAIN in the next election.
They take it as a given that they interfered in the last one, and so do many, if not most, of
their readers, notwithstanding the absence of evidence. This is a full-on, non-stop
propaganda effort. Facts will not get in the way.
anon4d2 , July 25, 2019 at 20:37
So we need evidence that Russia
1. Is interfering on both sides of every controversy;
2. Is representing the majority of the US better than the incumbents; or
3. Is plotting with Holland to take over the universe with UFOs and occult powers;
But perhaps it is better to concentrate on the influence of Israel, which is fact.
Drew Hunkins , July 26, 2019 at 10:24
“This is a full-on, non-stop propaganda effort. Facts will not get in the
That's a great article Ray. Thank you!
Now I am wondering if there is any chance you could take apart Rachel Maddow's report on
Monday night. I confess I turned her off about half way through it, because I couldn't stand
listening to her lies. But she was going on about how Russia gave wikileaks the DNC stuff and
how some new evidence proves it.
I wondered at the time why she was doing this again, but now I understand – it was
because of the Judge and I think word must have come down to trash Assange (she did have some
nasty things to say about him). None of what I heard made sense to me or why it was taking up
so much of her hour so I turned back to NPR, but the vehemance of her lies (she was pushing
this version pretty hard) stuck with me.
So could you write something about this please? If not on CN maybe you could give us a
link to another web site or broadcast that discusses what she is doing and the damage she is
Thanks again for your efforts to keep this story straight.
Joe Tedesky , July 16, 2019 at 15:52
Finally after proving that she was the worst possible presidential candidate the
Democrat's could have ever endorsed our anointed one Madam Hillary left her wandering party
with the oversold ominous Russia Gate fiasco to waste this country's easily distracted
valuable time with. This waste of time should be criminally prosecuted for all the disruption
it has caused. Such a parting spectacle of arrogance it is that Hillary Clinton left her
struggling party with these multiple claimed allegations without evidence filled nonsensical
accusations of Russian collusion that the country is even more divided than ever due too even
more unreal false flag issues for it's citizenry to deal with. Where in this Hillary created
event is Patriotism to be found? Like where is love of country even considered when releasing
upon the world such a mean spirited compromise driven hoax? When it comes to this issue of
Russia Gate Investigation the wrong party is being investigated.
Skip Scott , July 17, 2019 at 07:20
I think you might be giving Hillary too much credit as being the "creator" of RussiaGate.
She was certainly on board, but I think it is most likely John Brennan's baby.
For the evil ones leading our so-called "intelligence" agencies, there is no patriotism,
only power. They are servants of an empire that goes beyond our borders. They seek global
dominance for the Oligarchy at any cost. Patriotism is for us "little" folk. For them it is a
quaint notion to be used to manipulate the proles.
Al Pinto , July 16, 2019 at 09:43
The DNC and MSM sold, and sold well, the Russiagate to the general public. Does it really
matter, if the "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has now come
apart at the seams"? Neither the DNC, nor the MSM will report/mention either of the court
case, pretty much a blackout for the general public.
Even, if these court cases are widely reported, do you really believe that the majority of
the people would change their mind? After almost three years, there's no way that these
people will change their mind. The only change that widely reporting these court cases would
result in is, that Trump and HRC supporters would hate each other even more.
This Russiagate will be with us pretty much forever, it'll morph in to accusing people of
being Russian agents and/or Russian Bots. We already see this taking place and just wait,
until next year. It's not going to be pretty
DW Bartoo , July 16, 2019 at 12:17
I do not know where you got the CNN story, ML, though it appears you got it straight from
From RT (today, at 11AM Eastern time)
"CNN has released a new 'exclusive' report, accusing Julian Assange of conspiracy with
Russia (including RT) to meddle in the 2016 US election.
Citing a report compiled by a private Spanish security company – but not providing
any of it – the network basically rehashed the entirety of the Russiagate conspiracy on
The whole article is well worth a gander, as the Dem-media attempt goose up the drivel for
what they hope will be a slam dunk (most fowl).
Apparently, the Dem-leaning MSM has no intention of letting go the lucrative idiocy of
'Russia-did-it! with the angry assistance of Awful Assange.
The MSM is not bound, of course, by the legal constraints now judicially imposed upon
Mueller and other government agents, so they can claim and conflate whatever they wish.
Thus, Skip Scott's very legitimate concerns, about the amnesia memory hole, may well be
assuaged by a media hell-bent on slathering lipstick on this particular pig as they attempt,
once again, to launch it into perpetual orbit,
at least until after Assange is locked away for the rest of his life.
Perhaps getting Assange and continuing to demonize Russia is far more important to certain
"interests", than is the other service of Russiagate, the saving of private-public Hillary's
reputation of being the permanent victim of vast conspiracies as official history. She may
now be relegated to the hoary realm of legend and myth. (Which may be the best that wannabees
may hope for, short of making the ultimate "great" career move.)
The two-fer-one deal may be unraveling, at least in part.
Getting Assange must be the real deep state/media deal.
ML , July 16, 2019 at 16:07
Hey DW, yes, it was on CNN yesterday. It was ridiculous. Full of lies and spin. Today, I
didn't see it still there, but it might have been hiding in the shadows on that sorry site.
Can't stand to spend more than about 5 minutes there, just to see what they're lying and
obfuscating about any given day
Skip Scott , July 17, 2019 at 07:42
I hope you are right and that we are witnessing the death throes of empire. I also hope
for some kind of retribution for the masters and their evil servants.
I can't watch the world news at all, but even local news goes to the "national" desk to
torture those of us just interested in what's going on locally. I walk out of the room or
push the mute button. I don't have any TV at home, but I have been caregiving an elderly
uncle for the past 2-1/2 yrs at his place. I don't know who is more demented, my uncle or
Liberals had better wake up now to realize that Russiagate was all a hoax perpetrated by
Clinton and cronies because she lost the 2016 election. I'm ashamed to say I voted for
Hillary – wow what a huge mistake on my part. Fortunately she did lose the election or
who knows where we'd be now. Don't get me wrong, Trump is an absolute nightmare but at the
very least you know where he is coming from. On the other hand Clinton , Obama and other
mainstream politicians are underhanded, secretive and subversive all while smiling and
selling us lie after lie We came, we saw, he died? What the hell kind of sick, deluded person
would say such a thing?
What Robert Mueller hasn't done is provide any public evidence of Russian collusion, which
was his mandate.
Show me the money. Where's the evidence? That's correct, show me the evidence. You know,
the evidence Mueller (or anyone else has) Donald Trump committed treason as John Brennan
says, and is guilty of collusion with Putin, as Hillary Clinton says.
I mean, you can't can't show me where the evidence is because there isn't any. No pee
tapes, no smoking guns, no nothing. And that's a problem. A big problem, because it means the
entire Mueller spaghetti Western unraveled into something not even my cat is interested in
playing with. The yarn got no evidence.
Prove me wrong. Please. We know how this story ends and have from the beginning. There's
no evidence. It's bullshit. Yes, every word that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth is
bullshit. Problem is Trump's lies don't exonerate Clinton and Obama's lies. All the stuff
coming out of Comey, Clapper, and Brennan's mouths is bullshit too.
Even worse news for the Russiahoaxers is the recent revelation , documented in a lawsuit ,
that Ellen Ratner , sister of deceased Wikileaks' lawyer Michael Ratner, met with Assange in
the fall of 2016 and was told by him that Aaron and Seth Rich provided the DNC leaks to
Wikileaks. Ed Butowsky was made aware of this , with instructions by Ms. Ratner for him to
relay the information to the Rich family. When he did so , in December 2016 , he was told by
Joel Rich , Seth's father , that he was already aware of his sons' involvement.
This is no longer conspiracy talk , folks. Ed Butowsky is not dumb enough to make these
claims on court documents without knowing he can back them up. Shit is about to get real for
Mueller and the DNC.
"BREAKING: Lawsuit Outs Reporter Ellen Ratner as Source for Seth Rich Information" @
You can bet that the likes of Rachel Maddow will never change their tune on the subject
However, with the election season heating up, it might seem wise for them to
start singing a different tune altogether, such as Sanders and Warren are too radical to have
any chance of defeating Trump.
The saddest thing of all is that the Dems' fixation on Russia
and Putin is now coming back to bite them in the ass. Trump could not have asked for a better
The accusation played important role in unleashing neo-McCartyism campaign in the USA. So "The Moor has done his duty. The Moor
can go ...."
"... Russian information troll farm the Internet Research Agency spent just 0.05 percent as much on Facebook ads as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's campaigns combined in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, yet still reached a massive audience. While there might have been other Russian disinformation groups, the IRA spent $46,000 on pre-election day Facebook ads compared to $81 million spent by Clinton and Trump together, discluding political action committees who could have spent even more than that on the campaigns' behalf. ..."
"... So, the Lilliputian Russians, spending a pittance compared to the Goliaths of the Clinton and Trump campaigns, was the deciding factor in 2016? Bullshit. ..."
"... The pathetic and laughable U.S. intelligence community (aka IC) did not do a state-by-state breakdown of how these various social media campaigns operated in those states that swung the election to Trump. ..."
"... the IC is completely silent on the efforts of other countries, such as China and Israel. ..."
"... I had my own experience with Russian media influence, or the lack of such influence to be more precise. I was interviewed on Russia Today aka RT on March 4, 2017 to comment on Donald Trump's claim that the FBI had wiretapped Trump Towers. During that interview I noted that the Brits, not the FBI, were ones doing electronic surveillance of Trump. And how did the public and the media react to that bomb shell pronouncement by me? Crickets. No reaction. ..."
"... The crazy insistence that Russia grossly interfered in our 2016 election is a canard. Too bad the vast majority of America has bought into this absurd nonsense. Yes, there were groups linked to the Russian government that were pushing stories on social media. ..."
"... I think Iran/Contra was the watershed moment. The CIA became very politicized and the quality of analysis and spy trade craft declined significantly. John Brennan turned the place into a freak show. When you have "Dykes on Bikes" day at CIA Headquarters you know you have lost your way. ..."
"... Not only is the IC community discredited but so should most of the Democratic media operations and campaign advisors. ..."
Republicans and Democrats, along with almost all of the media, have accepted the lie that
the Russians engaged in unprecedented "interference" in the 2016 Presidential election. It is a
ridiculous proposition and is based on a presumption rather than actual evidence. The Intel
Community said it is true so, by definition, it must be true.
Let's focus on the actual numbers. How much money did the Russians spend? According to
Robert Mueller, $1.25
million per month . If you start that money clock in May of 2016, that means those pesky
Rookies spent $8.75 million. But let us be generous and add on the previous four months,
essentially starting the clock in January 2016 before the first primary votes. That brings the
total to $13 million.
Russian information troll farm the Internet Research Agency spent just 0.05 percent as much
on Facebook ads as
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's campaigns combined in the run-up to the 2016 U.S.
presidential election, yet still reached a massive audience. While there might have been other
Russian disinformation groups, the IRA spent $46,000 on pre-election day Facebook ads compared
to $81 million spent by Clinton and Trump together, discluding political action committees who
could have spent even more than that on the campaigns' behalf.
Trump and Clinton, when you factor in their various political action committees, spent
A fuller analysis of the spending on the major social media platforms was provided by
Surprisingly, Clinton's campaign was overall more active on Twitter and on Facebook than
Trump's , generating 19 percent more messages (11,475 messages by Clinton to 9,390 by Trump).
On Facebook, Clinton generated 500 more messages than Trump. While Trump's tweets seemed to
garner more news coverage, Clinton's campaign was actually substantially more active on social
media, generating 25 messages a day on average to Trump's 20.
Yet, Trump's social media following was larger than Clinton's . In November 2015, Clinton
had 1.7 million followers on Facebook. By Election Day that had grown to 8.4 million, a 394
percent increase. Trump had 4.2 million Followers on Facebook in November 2015. By Election
Day, that number jumped to 12.35 million, a 194 percent increase. So, while Clinton saw a
greater increase, Trump still had nearly 4 million more followers. . . .
All of this suggests that while Clinton's campaign was overall more active on its social
media accounts, it did not receive the same amount of attention and support on social media as
compared with Donald Trump. . . .
In the last months of the campaign, generally the focus shifted to voter registration and
then get-out-the vote efforts. Social media can be a useful starting place for helping give
supporters events and activities to do to be part of the campaign and to help with the effort
of winning the election. Although both campaigns, indeed, increased their calls-to-action in
the last two months of the campaign, Clinton beat Trump in volume of such messages on Facebook
and Twitter, producing a third more call-to-action type messages (See Figure 17). If we only
look at Facebook, however, Trump's campaign produced as many call-to-action type message as
Clinton in October.
When it came to asking people to vote, the Clinton campaign produced more than twice as many
messages asking for people to vote on election day on the two platforms (See Figure 18), but
most of that was on Twitter. On Facebook, both campaigns urged people to vote at the same rate,
but on Twitter, Clinton's campaign produces three times more appeals for votes than does
So, the Lilliputian Russians, spending a pittance compared to the Goliaths of the Clinton
and Trump campaigns, was the deciding factor in 2016? Bullshit.
The pathetic and laughable U.S. intelligence community (aka IC) did not do a state-by-state
breakdown of how these various social media campaigns operated in those states that swung the
election to Trump. Nor did the IC look back at the Russian and Soviet Union covert propaganda
efforts over the previous 90 years. If you are going to do a comparison you need to have a
benchmark. This is what we know for certain--Russia and its predecessor, the USSR, ran
comprehensive and continuous information operations in the United States, including computer
No one can say with any degree of certainty that what Russia did in 2016 was qualitatively
and quantitatively different. Also, the IC is completely silent on the efforts of other
countries, such as China and Israel. Nope, just accept on faith that the Russians committed an
attack worse than Pearl Harbor.
I had my own experience with Russian media influence, or the lack of such influence to be
more precise. I was interviewed on Russia Today aka RT on March 4, 2017 to comment on Donald
Trump's claim that the FBI had wiretapped Trump Towers. During that interview I noted that the
Brits, not the FBI, were ones doing electronic surveillance of Trump. And how did the public
and the media react to that bomb shell pronouncement by me? Crickets. No reaction.
The crazy insistence that Russia grossly interfered in our 2016 election is a canard. Too
bad the vast majority of America has bought into this absurd nonsense. Yes, there were groups
linked to the Russian government that were pushing stories on social media. The Chinese did the
same thing. So did the Israelis and the Brits. I am sure there are other countries who were
pushing their own agenda as well. But that is a truth American is too damn lazy to grasp.
Well, you're dead ass wrong. Shocker. I did not "leave" with a solid pension. I stayed four
years. No pension. But I did maintain clearances and continued to work with CIA, DIA and NSA
over the ensuing 25 years. My criticism is grounded in experience. I think Iran/Contra was
the watershed moment. The CIA became very politicized and the quality of analysis and spy
trade craft declined significantly. John Brennan turned the place into a freak show. When you
have "Dykes on Bikes" day at CIA Headquarters you know you have lost your way.
"...did not do a state-by-state breakdown of how these various social media campaigns
operated in those states that swung the election to Trump. "
Hilary's campaign staff didn't do this level of work when directing their own media efforts
either. At some point she, being the head of the campaign, should have been able to get
answers to the questions "what is the return for each advertising effort" and "what does that
do to the electoral vote count." Not only is the IC community discredited but so should most
of the Democratic media operations and campaign advisors.
Leda Cosmides at the University of California, Santa Barbara, points to her work with her colleague
John Tooby on the use of outrage to mobilize people: "The campaign was more about outrage than
about policies," she says. And when a politician can create a sense of moral outrage, truth
ceases to matter. People will go along with the emotion, support the cause and retrench into
their own core group identities. The actual substance stops being of any relevance.
Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth University who studies false beliefs,
has found that
when false information is specifically political in nature, part of our political identity, it
becomes almost impossible to correct lies.
... ... ...
As the 19th-century Scottish philosopher Alexander Bain
put it, “The great master fallacy of the
human mind is believing too much.” False beliefs, once established, are incredibly tricky to correct. A leader who lies
constantly creates a new landscape, and a citizenry whose sense of reality may end up swaying far more than they think possible.
"MSNBC and New York Times at odds over reporter appearances on Maddow" [
]. "New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet and MSNBC president Phil Griffin met last week
amid tensions between their two news organizations. But the lengthy lunch did not resolve the
issues at hand, according to four sources with knowledge of the sit-down. The executives remain
at an impasse. The specific issue is about television appearances by Times reporters on Rachel
Maddow's MSNBC show .
The dust-up dates back to May 30, when Vanity Fair caused a ruckus by
reporting that Times management wants reporters to 'steer clear of any cable-news shows that
the masthead perceives as too partisan.' 'The Rachel Maddow Show' is evidently one of those
shows [ incroyable! ] -- and Maddow is not happy about it.
The prime time host prides
herself on her support for newspaper journalists Complicating matters further: Numerous Times
reporters are also paid contributors to MSNBC and CNN. For example, Matthew Rosenberg and Mark Mazzetti of The Times, who are also paid by CNN, have both appeared on 'CNN Tonight' in recent
days. CNN declined to comment on the booking relationship with The Times."
impossible for me to understand how the beacons of integrity at the Times could appear in a
cesspit like The Rachel Maddow Show. T
So Russiagater was not fired. Madcow was promoted to more freely spead her "Madcow desease"
(Neo-McCarthysim actually) into unsuspecting public ...
"... Almost none of the "celebrity" tv journalists have earned one sniff of their regard by having a sufficient amount of smarts, insight, and humility it requires to deliver the news. Especially in trying times like these. ..."
"... She's a borderline conspiracy theorist and more of a star than a newswoman. ..."
"... In what alternate universe does Maddow even have a hint of non-bias? She is not a journalist. ..."
"... maddow is all about opinion, hers, and the one given out to msm by the dem party everyday. aka : the meme of the day. maddow is an partisan idiot. always was, always will be ..."
On Tuesday, NBC announced that its lineup of moderators will include Rachel Maddow of
MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show , Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News and Dateline
NBC, José Diaz-Balart of Noticias Telemundo and NBC Nightly News
Saturday , Savannah Guthrie of Today , and Chuck Todd of Meet the Press .
... ... ...
UltraViolet Action co-founder and executive director Shaunna Thomas praised the moderator
decision to the Cut. "NBC's decision to ensure that four out of the five moderators for the
first Democratic presidential primary debate are women or people of color is a huge win for
representation at the debates and a welcome change from the status quo," Thomas said in a
statement. She also stated that she hopes other networks follow suit.
Almost none of the "celebrity" tv journalists have earned one sniff of their regard by having
a sufficient amount of smarts, insight, and humility it requires to deliver the news.
Especially in trying times like these.
joaniesausquoi, 3 hours ago
Whattya got against Rachel, Cags?
Cags, 2 hours ago
She's a borderline conspiracy theorist and more of a star than a newswoman.
Daxter , 6 hours ago (Edited)
In what alternate universe does Maddow even have a hint of non-bias? She is not a
Having Rachel Maddow moderate is like having Sean Hannity moderate.
indigo710, 5 hours ago
maddow is all about opinion, hers, and the one given out to msm by the dem party
everyday. aka : the meme of the day. maddow is an partisan idiot. always was, always will
be . "lawer" is spelled "lawyer".
CNN, Maddow Ratings In Absolute Freefall After Russia Narrative Collapses
by Tyler Durden Tue, 06/04/2019 - 18:25 0 SHARES
Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print
Ratings for the anti-Trump media have taken an absolute nosedive ever since the Mueller report dispelled their multi-year narrative
that President Trump is a Kremlin agent.
Breitbart 's John Nolte, CNN's primetime ratings suffered a 16% collapse in May -
luring just 761,000 members of the resistance and captive airport audiences alike. Overall, the network's total day viewers dropped
to just 559,000.
As Nolte points out, "Fox News earned
three times as many primetime viewers (2.34 million) and more than twice as many total day viewers (1.34 million). What's more,
when compared to this same month last year, Fox lost none of its primetime viewers and only four percent of its total day viewers."
Do you have any idea just how low 761,000 primetime viewers is ?
How does a nationally known brand like CNN, a brand that is decades old, only manage to attract 761,000 viewers throughout
a gonzo news month in a country of over 300 million?
But his is just how far over the cliff CNN has gone CNN has lost almost all of its viewers, all of its moral authority, and
every bit of trust it once had . Over the past six years, as soon as Jeff Zucker took over, CNN got every major national story
exactly wrong, including
Hispanic George Zimmerman: The White Racist Killer
Hands Up, Don't Shoot
Trump Can't Win
Brett Kavanaugh: Serial Rapist
The KKKids from KKKovington High School
Trump Colluded with Russia
And in every one of those cases, CNN got it deliberately wrong because CNN is nothing less than a hysterical propaganda outlet,
a fire hose of
hate , violence
During the first quarter of 2019, prior to the release of the Mueller Report (which debunked the media's Russia Collusion Hoax
proved Trump did not obstruct justice), Maddow averaged 3.1 million nightly viewers. Last month, after the release of the
Mueller Report (which debunked the media's Russia Collusion Hoax and
proved Trump did not obstruct justice), she averaged only 2.6 million viewers. -
In other words, networks which bet the farm on the Mueller report finding collusion have lost all credibility and are now suffering
financially. Those such as Fox News 's Sean Hannity - who has consistently been right about the Russia hoax , are experiencing a
surge in viewership .
And as Nolte concludes, " Maddow is damaged goods, damaged beyond repair, a fool and a liar exposed beyond redemption. "
...what motive would they possibly have, these enormous corporate media conglomerates, and the transnational corporations that
own them, and these intelligence agencies, and their fronts and cutouts, and corporate lobbyists and PR firms, and councils, and
think tanks, and research institutes, to disinform the Western masses, or to manufacture an official narrative that allows them
to systematically stigmatize, marginalize, criminalize, deplatform, demonetize, and otherwise eliminate any type of speech they
deem to be "Russian disinformation," or "extremist content," or a "conspiracy theory," or simply too "dangerous," "divisive,"
or "confusing" to circulate among the general public?
No see? That makes no sense. That's just an example of the type of fascist disinformation these Putin-Nazi disinformationists
are trying to spread to confuse us to the point where we can't even concentrate long enough to think anymore, or parse the meaningless
jargon-laden nonsense they're trying to deceive us with, and just devolve into these Pavlovian imbeciles conditioned to respond
to specific trigger words, like "extremist," "terrorist," "fascist," "populist," "anti-Semitic," "Russians," "hackers," and whatever
other emotional stimuli we are being trained to instantly recognize and robotically react to like circus animals.
Or I don't know, maybe it isn't. I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say. Probably they've already got to me. I'd better get
back down into my anti-disinformation bunker, pull up The Guardian , or The Washington Post , or Der Spiegel
on my child-proof computer, and immerse myself in some objective journalism, before the Putin-Nazi spywhale makes its way up the
Landwehrkanal, takes control of what's left of my mind, and forces me into going out and trying to vote for Hitler or something.
I recommend you do the same, and I'll see you when this nightmare over.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published
by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel,
ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy,
Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or
"... I don' know what are the revenues of NYT or The Guardian, but I know that the US government spends 750 million a year on the Agency for Global Media (formerly Broadcasting Board of Governors). If you think US or France is under attack by warmongers, you can't imagine how many propagandists are these 750 million hiring in low-COL places like Serbia, Burma, Venezuela. ..."
"... The situation is even worse today as the CIA and Pentagon have massive propaganda budgets and have infiltrated the media at every level , the public is unaware that each day they are brainwashed by the MSM to support the agenda of the "deep State' and the MIC. ..."
"... No mention of the journalists as CIA assets who publish planted stories? Isn't Dr Udo Ulfkotte one who did that, repented, told all in his best-seller Bought Journalists, and as a warning to others unselfishly dropped dead of a heart attack within a couple of years? ..."
"... The best sentence was the one expressing the Establishment's collective faux shock that anything other than Russian spybots could be responsible for the serfs' rejection of the "two centrist parties" that have sponged up lobbyist money for 3 decades, cashing in on the globalist-Neoliberal economy, as rents rose and wages fell. ..."
"... Not too sure about the US even remaining important as a continent wide farm.. The aquifers in the West and Midwest are being inexorably drawn down to sustain the current rate of farming, so it's possible North America's value would primarily be as a source of pockets of human talent in the sciences and technologies. ..."
the hysteria emanating from the nyt, cnn and the rest of the msm is the result of a conscious
or subconscious grasp that socialism dying worldwide. the great ponzi scam of forcing future
generations to pay for the cookies and ice cream of the present generation has hit the math
of the complete dearth of unencumbered assets from which to emit more unpayable debt,
insufficient economic growth upon which to pretend the debt can be serviced forget about
repayment and the simple fact demographichs throughout the west are so negative the
government and public pension scheme blowup in the several years
the more intelligent members of the establishment know in their bones the jig is up. hence
the great and urgent need to turn up .lets over throw sovereign nations so the plunder model
..venezuela, syria, russia, china et al.can find more unencumbered assets to be brought into
the nyc, london orbit of banks from which new debt can be emitted.
the west is staring at its last decade of global rule, a rule that began 500 years ago. by
the 2030's finance, manufacturing and all the global power and prestige that goes with it
moves from ny, london to shanghai and moscow.
if the united states is lucky and remains intact, a giant IF, we may wind up as continent
size farm with a smidgen of non competitive industry here and there.
the west has only disinformation with which to go to war against the rising east. the
weapons of the west are powerful ONLY in their quantity. Russian weapons already are many
years beyond anything the pentagon has in the field and the gap is only increasing, ergo the
us treasury is forced to fight the battle using sanctions and other forms of restrictions, a
long term losing strategy irrespective of any short terms gains.
so, cj worry not, the disinformation campaign is backed by nothing but hot air and the
rage from being thwarted by china and russia as well as brave pipsqueakes like iran and
see it for what it is, transparent sound and fury signifying nothing
I don' know what are the revenues of NYT or The Guardian, but I know that the US government
spends 750 million a year on the Agency for Global Media (formerly Broadcasting Board of
Governors). If you think US or France is under attack by warmongers, you can't imagine how
many propagandists are these 750 million hiring in low-COL places like Serbia, Burma,
I don' know what are the revenues of NYT or The Guardian, but I know that the US
government spends 750 million a year on the Agency for Global Media (formerly Broadcasting
Board of Governors). If you think US or France is under attack by warmongers, you can't
imagine how many propagandists are these 750 million hiring in low-COL places like Serbia,
In 1917 US Congressman Calloway informed Congress that J.P. Morgan interests had purchased 25
of the nations leading newspapers and replaced their editors in order to control the mass
media for the benefit of the plutocrats/money interests who ran the country and who still do
. The situation is even worse today as the CIA and Pentagon have massive propaganda budgets
and have infiltrated the media at every level , the public is unaware that each day they are
brainwashed by the MSM to support the agenda of the "deep State' and the MIC.
See, half a century after McCarthy, wingers got their noses into some (not all) Soviet files,
and got to scream, nonstop and to this day, "See!@@#$% McCarthy was RIGHT!"
Betya in a half century, if we're still around, the same type people are going to get
nosing in some files somewhere and find incontrovertible evidence that: "See!@#%$%^^ The New
York Times was RIGHT!"
And then there's the evil Russian spywhale, which the disinformationists want us to
believe is just a harmless "therapy Beluga" for kids, but which has clearly been strapped
with some sort of monstrous, mind-controlling apparatus that enables the Kremlin to
remotely implant a host of dangerous "populist" ideas in the brains of defenseless
Norwegian fishermen, weaponizing them into a horde of neo-Odinist Viking berserkers who
will scream down out of Scandinavia and storm the EU Parliament in Brussels smelling of
akvavit and fermented shark.
You had me doing a cartoon spit-take with this beaut!
these enormous corporate media conglomerates, and the transnational corporations that
own them, and these intelligence agencies, and their fronts and cutouts, and corporate
lobbyists and PR firms, and councils, and think tanks, and research institutes, to
disinform the Western masses, or to manufacture an official narrative
No mention of the journalists as CIA assets who publish planted stories? Isn't Dr Udo
Ulfkotte one who did that, repented, told all in his best-seller Bought Journalists, and as a
warning to others unselfishly dropped dead of a heart attack within a couple of years?
" that enables the Kremlin to remotely implant a host of dangerous "populist" ideas in
the brains of defenseless Norwegian fishermen, weaponizing them into a horde of neo-Odinist
Viking berserkers who will scream down out of Scandinavia and storm the EU Parliament in
Brussels smelling of akvavit and fermented shark "
It isn't the akvavit that does it, but you can't do it without the akvavit.
And then there's the evil Russian spywhale, which the disinformationists want us to
believe is just a harmless "therapy Beluga" for kids, but which has clearly been strapped
with some sort of monstrous, mind-controlling apparatus that enables the Kremlin to
remotely implant a host of dangerous "populist" ideas in the brains of defenseless
Norwegian fishermen, weaponizing them into a horde of neo-Odinist Viking berserkers who
will scream down out of Scandinavia and storm the EU Parliament in Brussels smelling of
akvavit and fermented shark.
I had a good laugh at the Spy Whale schtick. One look at the thing, and you get the
idea it should've been in a Pink Panther movie.
Made up shit that only a mind of a child could believe.
The best sentence was the one expressing the Establishment's collective faux shock that
anything other than Russian spybots could be responsible for the serfs' rejection of the "two
centrist parties" that have sponged up lobbyist money for 3 decades, cashing in on the
globalist-Neoliberal economy, as rents rose and wages fell.
The serfs have to love that. How
could they not embrace it? Only spybots beaming up doom-and-gloom messages from halfway
around the globe could persuade the thick-headed serfs that the part-time / churn / gig
economy is anything but nirvana.
@paraglider I think
you're probably right about the inevitable collapse of the West as the dominant global power.
Not too sure about the US even remaining important as a continent wide farm.. The aquifers
in the West and Midwest are being inexorably drawn down to sustain the current rate of
farming, so it's possible North America's value would primarily be as a source of pockets of
human talent in the sciences and technologies.
Also Russia has been making some progress, but unless that continues it may not reach the
level of competitiveness in science, industry and domestic product to be any more than a
junior partner to China.
Whatever happens, a sea change in history seems unavoidable and it won't be what our
present rulers think it will. I don't pretend to think I can reliably predict what is
I used to know Russian disinformation when I saw it because it was obvious when it came from
the USSR. Then the MSM peddled it as authentic as when, in response to Soviet deployment of
IRBM in Europe, pinkos magically appeared to protest the American deployment of similar
weapons. It was well funded too as Brezhnev had serious oil revenues to finance both his
military and his disinformation campaigns and the USSR had 125% of America's population and a
satellite Eastern Europe to boot.
Now I am to believe a motheaten "Russia' with less than half the US population, a hostile
Ukraine and no Eastern European satrapies is able to exert more 'influence' in the West than
the mighty USSR. Yet those same 'pinkos' would have me believe a castrated Russia is an
existential threat. Come on!
"... MSNBC is also that bastion of journalistic integrity that hired an exposed CIA mole, Ken Dilanian, to feed its viewers propaganda about "national security ..."
"... Now, the parties truly "meddling in America's democracy" should be very clear, although I can only scratch the surface here concerning the long history of media corruption and outright lies broadcast all the time. ..."
"... The criminal behaviour continues unabated. Lies and fraud abound. American behaviour worldwide is an embarrassment to any free thinking individual. They are a danger to all of us. ..."
"... Organisations like the BBC and all the rest of the corporate media are a greater threat to democracy than any foreign army or terrorist organisation. ..."
CNN rigged a poll to censor out nearly everyone under 45 years of age. Based on this nonsensical false sampling they claim Biden
is now in the lead.
MSNBC was caught making up false numbers to report, increasing Biden from an actual 25% approval to a magical 28%, just enough
to edge out Bernie Sanders. But this is a fraud, deliberate journalistic malfeasance at the highest levels. How could such a thing
MSNBC is also that bastion of journalistic integrity that hired an exposed CIA mole, Ken Dilanian, to feed its viewers propaganda
about "national security."
MSNBC also made hysterical, highly dangerous, and false claims about the Russians' ability and intention to shut down America's
electrical grid, a completely false story that was retracted as soon as it went out by the Washington Post. This kind of unhinged
war propaganda could lead the world straight to Armageddon.
Now, the parties truly "meddling in America's democracy" should be very clear, although I can only scratch the surface here
concerning the long history of media corruption and outright lies broadcast all the time.
The criminal behaviour continues unabated. Lies and fraud abound. American behaviour worldwide is an embarrassment to any
free thinking individual. They are a danger to all of us. We can start by removing them from Europe along with their so called
"allies". Here in the disunited UK T.May and her little gang of Tory millionaires should be top priority for political oblivion.
People worldwide urgently need to wake up to the sick joke that goes under the name of "American democracy".
Organisations like the BBC and all the rest of the corporate media are a greater threat to democracy than any foreign army
or terrorist organisation.
They need to be constantly exposed for what they are rather than actually suppressed or controlled. They can be safely left
to wither on the vine and decline into irrelevance. Social media and sites like this are a powerful antidote.
"... You know the ones: articles predicting whatever the news of the day will be The End of Democracy. Alongside The New York Times and The Washington Post , whose op-ed pages are pretty much a daily End of Days, practitioners include Chicken Little regulars Rachel Maddow , Lawrence Tribe, Malcolm Nance, David Corn, Benjamin Wittes, Charles Pierce, Bob Cesca, and Marcy Wheeler. ..."
"... We've gone from thinking the president is literally a Russian agent (since 1987, the last year your mom and dad dated!) to worrying the attorney general is trying to obstruct a House committee from investigating a completed investigation into obstruction by writing a summary not everyone liked of a report already released. But the actual content is irrelevant. What matters is there is another crisis to write about! The op-ed industry can't keep up with all the Republic-ending stuff Trump and his henchworld are up to. ..."
"... All persons with Russian-sounding names are Kremlin Agents(tm) *except* the alleged sources for The Dossier(tm). Those anonymous Russians can be trusted implicitly. ..."
"... Matt Tiabbi has a book out on hate, Hate Inc, and has done an excellent interview with Chris Hedges on RT. ..."
"... Rep. Eric Swalwell (D, California), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, before Mueller finished his investigation, on Hardball on MSNBC, Jan. 2019: ..."
"... Matthews: "Do you believe the president, right now, has been an agent of the Russians?" Swalwell: "Yes, I think there's more evidence that he is-" Matthews: "Agent?" Swalwell: "Yes. and I think all the arrows point in that direction, and I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that he's not." Matthews: "An agent like in the 1940s where you had people who were 'reds,' to use an old term, like that? In other words, working for a foreign power?" Swalwell: "He's working on behalf of the Russians, yes." ..."
"... One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some of his opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion: Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Comey, McCabe, the list goes on and on, often merely to make a buck. Even Watergate figures like Carl Bernstein and John Dean have demolished their own reputations, or what was left of them to begin with. If they only knew, or cared, how badly they look in hindsight. ..."
"... @MM: >>One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some of his opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion << ..."
"... These people don't care about "public opinion." They operate inside a circle-jerk echo chamber whose membership includes the powers dominating the culture, the media (both mainstream and social), the government, and, increasingly, the major corporations. In short, the bulk of what some call the Ruling Class. ..."
"... Facts, evidence, and truth have nothing to do with it. So an investigation, rigged though it was, nonetheless clears Trump of conspiring with Moscow, but the story becomes how Trump is guilty anyway. Orwell, a man well ahead of his time, had the whole thing figured out long ago. ..."
"... "Now tell me again it's all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'" On the issue of Trump/Russia collusion, it is, and always was, because we now know it started with the Clinton campaign and a now-discredited dossier. ..."
"... These are the people who we elect to "govern" us. If one looks back upon the 230 years or so during which this thing of ours has been in existence, the overwhelming majority of our elected officials (federal, state and local) have probably been, to one degree or another, narcissistic, mendacious and just generally dishonest incompetents. ..."
"... Lynch, Holder, Obama as silent as church mice. i:e who gave Comey his marching orders ? ..."
"... What "illegal things" were revealed in the Mueller report? Trump was trying to obstruct an INJUSTICE, i.e. the "soft coup" done by the anti-American, lawless leftist Dems. ..."
"... On the Big Ugly Lie*, what's their excuse? * Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election, an attack on par with Pearl Harbor and 9/11. ..."
You know the ones: articles predicting whatever the news of the day will be The End of
Democracy. Alongside TheNew York Times and TheWashington Post ,
whose op-ed pages are pretty much a daily End of Days, practitioners include Chicken Little
Maddow , Lawrence Tribe, Malcolm Nance, David Corn, Benjamin Wittes, Charles Pierce, Bob
Cesca, and Marcy Wheeler.
You'd have thought after almost three years of wrong predictions (no new wars, no economic
collapse, no Russiagate) this industry would have slam shut faster than a Rust Belt union hall.
You would have especially thought these kinds of articles would have tapered off with the
release of the Mueller Report. It turned out to be the opposite -- while Mueller found no
conspiracy and charged no obstruction, the dang report turns out to be chock-a-block with
hidden messages, secret road maps, and voices speaking in tongues (albeit only to Democrats)
We've gone from thinking the president is literally a Russian agent (since 1987, the last
year your mom and dad dated!) to worrying the attorney general is trying to obstruct a House
committee from investigating a completed investigation into obstruction by writing a summary
not everyone liked of a report already released. But the actual content is irrelevant. What
matters is there is another crisis to write about! The op-ed industry can't keep up with
all the Republic-ending stuff Trump and his henchworld are up to.
Help has arrived. Now anyone can write their own fear-mongering article, using this handy
tool, the op-ed-o-Matic. The GoFundMe for the AI-driven app version will be up soon, but for
now, simply follow these simple steps to punditry!
Start with a terrifying cliche. Here are some to choose from: There is a clear and
present danger; Dark clouds gather, the center cannot hold; It is unclear the Republic will
survive; Democracy itself is under attack; We face a profound/unique/existential
threat/crisis/turning point/test. Also, that "First they came for "
poem is good. Be creative; The Washington Post
calls the present state of things "constitutional nihilism." Snappy!
Be philosophical and slightly weary in tone,
such as "I am in despair as I have never been before about the future of our experiment in
self-rule." Say you're
sad for the state of the nation. Claim time is short, but there just may be a chance to
stop this. Add " by any means necessary."
Then choose a follow-on quote to reinforce the danger, maybe from: The Federalist Papers,
especially Madison on tyranny; Lincoln, pretty much anything about "the people, government,
test for our great nation, blah blah;" the Jack Nicholson character about not being able to
handle the truth; something from the neocons like Bill Kristol or Max Boot who now hate Trump.
Start with "even" as in " even arch conservative Jennifer Rubin now says "
After all that to get the blood up, explain the current bad thing Trump did. Label it "a
high crime or misdemeanor if there ever was one." Use some legalese, such as proffer, colorable
argument, inter alia, sinecure, duly-authorized, perjurious, and that little law book squiggly
thingy (18 USC § 1513.) Be sure to say "no one is above the law," then a dramatic hyphen,
then "even the president." Law school is overrated; you and Google know as much as anyone about
emoluments, perjury, campaign finance regulations, contempt, tax law, subpoenas, obstruction,
or whatever the day's thing is, and it changes a lot. But whatever, the bastard is obviously
guilty. Your standard is
tabloid-level , so just make it too good to be true.
Next, find an old Trump tweet where he criticized someone for doing just what he is doing.
That never gets old! Reference burning the Reichstag. If the crisis you're writing about deals
with immigration or white supremacy (meh, basically the same thing, right?), refer to
Include every bad thing Trump ever did as examples of why whatever you're talking about must
be true. Swing for the fence with lines like "seeks to destroy decades of LGBTQIXYZ progress"
or "built concentration camps to murder children." Cite Trump accepting Putin's word over the
findings of "our" intelligence community, his "very fine people" support for Nazi cosplayers,
the magic list of 10,000 lies, how Trump has blood on his hands for endangering the press as
the enemy of the people, and how Trump caused the hurricane in Puerto Rico.
And Nixon. Always bring up Nixon. The context or details don't matter. In case Wikipedia is
down, he was one of the presidents before Trump your grandpa liked for awhile and then didn't
like after Robert Redford showed he was a clear and present danger to Saturday Night Live, or
the Saturday Night Massacre, it doesn't matter, we all agree Nixon.
Focus on the villain, who must be unhinged, off the rails, over the edge, diseased, out of
control, a danger to himself and others, straight-up diagnosed
mentally ill , or under Trump/Putin's spell. Barr is currently the Vader-du-jour. The
New York Timescharacterized him as
"The transformation of William Barr from respected establishment lawyer to evil genius
outplaying and undermining his old friend Robert Mueller is a Grand Guignol spectacle." James
Comey went as far as
describing Trump people as having had their souls eaten by the president. That's not
hyperbole, it's journalism!
But also hold out for a hero, the Neo one inside Trumpworld who will rise, flip, or leak to
save us. Forget past nominees like the pee tape, Comey, Clapper, Flynn, Page, Papadopoulos,
Manafort, Cohen, Mattis, Kelly, Barr, Linda Sarsour (replace with Ilhan Omar,) Avenatti, and
Omarosa to focus on McGahn. He's gonna be the one!
Then call for everyone else bad to resign, be impeached, go to jail, have their old statues
torn down, delete their accounts, be referred to the SDNY, be smited by the 25th Amendment, or
have their last election delegitimized by the Night King. Draw your rationale from either the
most obscure corner of the Founding Founders' work ("the rough draft, subsection IIXX of the
Articles of Confederation addendum, Spanish language edition, makes clear Trump is unfit for
office") or go broad as in "his oath requires him to uphold the Constitution, which he clearly
is not doing." Like Nancy Pelosi, mention how Trump seems unlikely to voluntarily cede power if
he loses in 2020.
Cultural references are important. Out of fashion: Godfather memes especially about
who is going to be Fredo, 'bots, weaponize, Pussy Hats, the Parkland Kids, Putin homophobe
themes, incest "jokes" about Ivanka, the phrases the walls are closing in, tick tock, take to
the streets, adult in the room, just wait for Mueller Time, and let that sink in.
Things you can still use: abyss, grifter, crime family, not who we are, follow the money.
Also you may make breaking news out of Twitter typos. Stylistically anyone with a
Russian-sounding name must be either an oligarch, friend of Putin, or have ties to the Kremlin.
Same for anyone who has done business with Trump or used the ATM in the Deutsche Bank lobby in
New York. Mention Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez somewhere because every article has to mention AOC
Finally, your op-ed should end either with this House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler
quote, "The choice is simple: We can stand up to this president in defense of the country
and the Constitution and the liberty we love, or we can let the moment pass us by. History will
judge us for how we face this challenge" or, if you want to go old school, this one from
saying, "I really believe that we are in a crisis, a constitutional crisis. We are in a
crisis of confidence and a crisis over the rule of law and the institutions that have weathered
a lot of problems over so many years. And it is something that, regardless of where you stand
in the political spectrum, should give real heartburn to everybody. Because this is a test for
Crisis. Test. Judgment of history. Readers love that stuff, because it equates Trump's dumb
tweets with Lincoln pulling the Union together after a literal civil war that killed millions
of Americans in brother-to-brother conflict. As long as the rubes believe the world is coming
to an end, you might as well make a buck writing about it.
I pretty much lost all respect for the Washington Post during the last election. Each WaPo
anti-Trump op ed became increasingly apocalyptic until you imagined that the universe would
implode should he be elected. It was that silly.
But other media promote "end of the world as we know it "scenarios also. TAC included.
Seriously, if I read one more article about how flyover America is a drug infested,
impoverished wasteland inhabited by those not intelligent or ambitious enough to move to the
Drama draws readers and online traffic.
I guess it's up to the reader to sift through the competing narratives for the truth.
On the one hand, I agree that it's laughable and ridiculous -- this flood of apocalyptic
predictions and articles, wherein Trump, a juvenile buffoon who in fact does not even control
the government he nominally heads, is depicted as some kind of unprecedented threat to
democracy and Everything We Hold Dear.
I mean, OK, the judgment of the libs and neocons writing this stuff is clearly addled by
their irrational and rabid hatred for Trump. Still, are they really that stupid or is it just
that they are hopelessly dishonest? I lean toward the latter explanation.
That said, the abiding irony is that there is in fact a deepening crisis in this country.
It's about an increasingly dysfunctional democracy, a bitterly alienated and divided
citizenry, a set of ruling elites who despise a large percentage of their countrymen and have
contrived an economic and political system that enriches themselves while consigning the
despised percentage to permanent struggling status, a cultural establishment that rejects the
traditional Judeo-Christian values that built Western civilization and, Jacobin-style, is
busily overturning and replacing those values with their own would-be New Moral Order.
And so forth.
So yeah, there most definitely is a crisis and it might even be apocalyptic in dimension
and character. (Heck, it put Trump in the White House.) But the actual crisis is not the one
the fools are writing about. In fact, not only are they not writing about it -- they're in
large part responsible for it.
Like I said: an abiding irony. One for the history books.
Van Buren has apparently chosen to forget the apocalyptic rants from the right during the
Obama administration. As for today's alarmists, as I write this the Dow is down over 700
points due to Trump's foolish trade war, his administration is ignoring two centuries of
tradition by stonewalling Congress' legitimate oversight authority and John Bolton is trying
to provoke a war with Iran. Now tell me again it's all "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D, California), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, before
Mueller finished his investigation, on Hardball on MSNBC, Jan. 2019:
Matthews: "Do you believe the president, right now, has been an agent of the
Swalwell: "Yes, I think there's more evidence that he is-"
Swalwell: "Yes. and I think all the arrows point in that direction, and I haven't seen a
single piece of evidence that he's not."
Matthews: "An agent like in the 1940s where you had people who were 'reds,' to use an old
term, like that? In other words, working for a foreign power?"
Swalwell: "He's working on behalf of the Russians, yes."
The same congressman, who makes Joseph McCarthy look moderate, after Mueller completed his
investigation, on Fox News, Mar. 2019:
Cavuto: "Would you say the president is not a Russian agent?"
Swalwell: "The president acts on Russia's behalf, I don't need to see the Mueller report for
And this month, after he had annouced his presidential bid, on Face the Nation:
Brennan: "But I know you have been talking because you are also in an intelligence role on
that House committee saying a number of things that I want to quote back to you. Up until
this point you said when you were asked in January, 'do you believe the president right now
has been an agent of the Russians?' You said, 'yes,' you were asked again at the end of that
month by a questioner, 'I'm still not hearing any evidence that he's an agent of Russia.' And
you said, 'Yeah I think it's pretty clear it's almost hiding in plain sight.' The Mueller
report did not substantiate any conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Do you regret
prejudging the outcome?"
Swalwell: "No, actually I- I- I think I should have been louder."
And people say Denin Nunes politicized the House Intelligence Committee?
One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some of his
opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion: Brennan, Clapper,
Clinton, Comey, McCabe, the list goes on and on, often merely to make a buck. Even Watergate
figures like Carl Bernstein and John Dean have demolished their own reputations, or what was
left of them to begin with. If they only knew, or cared, how badly they look in
"Liberal journalists seem to think that Trump is either an ignorant oaf or an evil
You're missing the point, it's Trump's ignorance, his extreme sense of entitlement and
limitless ego that are a danger to our democracy. He doesn't understand the norms of
democracy, otherwise known as American principles. All he understands is what he wants and
his notion of American greatness, which has nothing to do with true American principles.
@MM: >>One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some
of his opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion <<
These people don't care about "public opinion." They operate inside a circle-jerk echo
chamber whose membership includes the powers dominating the culture, the media (both
mainstream and social), the government, and, increasingly, the major corporations. In short,
the bulk of what some call the Ruling Class.
In their minds, public opinion can be suppressed or at least controlled by their near
monopoly on major media. The stories they want told will get told. The stories they don't
want told will not get told. Except at more or less isolated right-wing websites and such
whose audience and reach are limited.
Facts, evidence, and truth have nothing to do with it. So an investigation, rigged though
it was, nonetheless clears Trump of conspiring with Moscow, but the story becomes how Trump
is guilty anyway. Orwell, a man well ahead of his time, had the whole thing figured out long
jhawk: "As I write this the Dow is down over 700 points."
This is the same Dow Jones that, even with today's drop is still 40% higher than it was
right before the 2016 election, correct?
"Now tell me again it's all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'" On the issue of Trump/Russia collusion, it is, and always was, because we now know it
started with the Clinton campaign and a now-discredited dossier.
These are the people who we elect to "govern" us. If one looks back upon the 230 years or
so during which this thing of ours has been in existence, the overwhelming majority of our
elected officials (federal, state and local) have probably been, to one degree or another,
narcissistic, mendacious and just generally dishonest incompetents. It seems that it's only
when we hit rock bottom and the country's very survival is at stake that the cream rises to
the top and the very best step to the plate, so given what we have in Washington now, maybe
we haven't reached that point–at least not yet.
This is a hoot. Little Pettie strikes again! Projecting his own myopia as always! His Greater
Leader, The Trumpster, and the sycophants who worship him daily (for a fee, of course) daily
tweets or shouts from a podium the impending doom of our nations due to hoards of the "other"
spreading disease and violence nationwide while supported by the great love of Evangelical
"Christians" who faith not merely predicts but yearns for the end of the world!!!
Can't quite tell. It is hypocrisy or grand delusions blooming brightly at TAC!
CT Farmer: "If one looks back upon the 230 years or so during which this thing of ours has
been in existence, the overwhelming majority of our elected officials have probably been, to
one degree or another, narcissistic, mendacious and just generally dishonest incompetents."
No doubt, I only picked on him because he represents the crappiest district in the Bay
Area, which I have personal experience on, and he's running for president on the "Trump is a
Russian agent" platform, which even Joseph McCarthy was too timid to attempt.
That's either saying something, or it's nothing. I could've quoted another presidential candidate who's claimed that law enforcement and
criminal justice in America is racist from top to bottom and front to back. Or I could've quoted a different presidential candidate who's stated unequivocally that
every human being, not just American citizen, is entitled to free education and health care,
without regard to cost or need.
Just a few thoughts about comments above: Who "yearns for the end of the world"?? Give names
please, stop slandering. What "illegal things" were revealed in the Mueller report? Trump was
trying to obstruct an INJUSTICE, i.e. the "soft coup" done by the anti-American, lawless
leftist Dems. The fact is that we are a nation of laws and illegals (no matter where they are
from, Mars, Supitor; whether they are green, purple, whatever color) are a threat to our
country. I heard report that about a third of the crimes in the USA are done by illegals, at
a cost of billions. Well, more crap from brain washed boobs above, but I'm done trying to
point them out ..
" you know, we're all at it, breathing apocalyptic fire and brimstone, left and right. No
point throwing stones at each other on this subject."
My thoughts, too. It's difficult to sift through the hype on all sides & find anything
solid. Outrage generates traffic, thoughtful discussion-not so much. So we end up with
clickbait & tabloids.
Sean: "Isn't it a bit rich to suggest that the outrage media started in 2016?"
That's a bit like saying because my neighbor ran over my dog, I'll then bulldoze his
house. Besides, the left and the press are supposed to be superior to the right and the unwashed
masses. They always fact-based, logical, reasonable, non-ideological, and consistent.
On the Big Ugly Lie*, what's their excuse?
* Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election, an attack on par with Pearl Harbor and
"... Their existence within the bubble enables them a to complete an unbridgeable detachment from the real world and an unflinching acceptance of belief in their own palpable absurdities. Madeleine Albright, John Bolton, Rachel Maddow are perhaps the archetypes. How can anyone who is not clinically insane think that the destruction of 500,000 deaths of Iraqi children due to the US embargo which took place between the two gulf wars, was "worth it." Well Madeleine Albright was okay with it, and she said as much. ..."
"... Maddow half-opportunist and half lunatic, along with Bolton a proven imbecile-lunatic were also a sub-species of the same pathology. ..."
"... The ruling institutions in the United States (not forgetting Saudi Arabia and Israel) have begun to take on the characteristics of a mafia state, and this to a slightly less degree in the rest of the empire. Ostensibly NATO – the capo – exists to protect the world from Russian/Chinese/Iranian "aggression" – whereas in fact NATO is a protection racket, which goes looking for trouble anywhere but the north Atlantic looking for hapless states to be 'whacked'. Libya and Yugoslavia come to mind. ..."
On Fox News Channel's May 2nd edition of "The Story with Martha MacCallum" was alleged, by the program host (at
2:45 in this video),
that one reason we must invade Venezuela (if we will) is that "People have lost 24 pounds" there. So (her point was), if we invade,
that's not evil, it's no coup, but instead it's humanitarian (presumably like it was in Iraq in 2003, when we invaded that country,
which likewise had never invaded nor threatened to invade the United States - it was raw international aggression, by our country,
Individuals who fall for a liar once, will typically fall for that liar again and again, without limit, because they are (for
whatever reason) prejudiced to trust him. But is this attempt, at "regime change" in Venezuela, yet another example of that, or
might it instead really be the case (this time) that (as this Fox host implies) to invade Venezuela will help the people there (gain
back that lost weight, etc.), not kill many of them and destroy their nation even worse than it already was?
May 11, 2019 7:44 PM
I think it would be true to say that the people who wish for, power, status and money, should be the last to be given it. They
appear afflicted by a virulent form of grotesque self-aggrandisement comparable to bulimia – they simply can't get enough; and
anyone who gets in their way will simply be swept aside. Such is the worldview and ideological disposition of the ruling elites
ensconsed in the command posts of the media, political and business institutions.
Their existence within the bubble enables them a to complete an unbridgeable detachment from the real world and an
unflinching acceptance of belief in their own palpable absurdities. Madeleine Albright, John Bolton, Rachel Maddow are perhaps
the archetypes. How can anyone who is not clinically insane think that the destruction of 500,000 deaths of Iraqi children due to
the US embargo which took place between the two gulf wars, was "worth it." Well Madeleine Albright was okay with it, and she said
Maddow half-opportunist and half lunatic, along with Bolton a proven imbecile-lunatic were also a sub-species of the same
pathology. Listening in particular to Albright I wonder if she is really 'human' in the generally understood meaning of the term.
I am even beginning to believe the theory of David Icke that she and the rest of them may be some form of alien taken reptilian
life which has assumed human form.
The ruling institutions in the United States (not forgetting Saudi Arabia and Israel) have begun to take on the
characteristics of a mafia state, and this to a slightly less degree in the rest of the empire. Ostensibly NATO – the capo –
exists to protect the world from Russian/Chinese/Iranian "aggression" – whereas in fact NATO is a protection racket, which goes
looking for trouble anywhere but the north Atlantic looking for hapless states to be 'whacked'. Libya and Yugoslavia come to
How this plays out is anyone's guess. History provides any number of instances of the self-righteousnes, stupidity and hubris
of ruling elites and the destruction which they imposed upon the world. But the difference between then and now is that the
stakes are now so much higher. The fall of the Roman empire did not result into the extinction of all life on earth; the fall of
the Anglo-Zionist empire may well do.
The power grid in this country is more likely to be jeopardized because it's out of date and woefully neglected by the scare-mongering,
Russia-baiting idiots in charge; more concerned with dominating the planet than keeping our infrastructure maintained. Maddow
could mention that, but I guess then she'd piss her bosses(the fuel industry &MIC) off.
There actually was a story about there being a fire at a prison in NY and the inmates going without heat during the polar vortex.
Needless to say, it wasn't Russia but good ol' American disregard for people who see as worthless and so they are dragging their
feet in fixing the problem, plus they are pepper spraying the families of the inmates who are protesting the conditions inside
the prison. We don't need to make out Russia to be the boogey man when we are better at being that for our own citizens.
She being a Rhodes Scholar, I often wonder if she wasn't recruited early on by the CIA. That's an investigation about collusion
between US corporate media and the deep state to influence US elections I'd like to see.
So who was it that said, "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle
is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"? Some guy named "Joseph"?
Rachel Maddow is a perfect example of what happens when you entrench yourself on the wrong side of the issues snuggling up
to those big corporate advertisers like big oil or Boeing before you know it you have painted yourself into a corner just like
fox news hosts as you make a complete fool of yourself sounding like a blithering idiot totally devoid of any shred of journalistic
integrity she is the old washed up sorcerer that has lost her power all she has left is a few old pieces of magic corn. she may
well indeed have the highest ratings but I don't believe the people are buying what she is trying to sell them!
How long until Jimmy Dore gets deplatformed? Anyone who rooted against Alex Jones is short-sighted. He was against the iraq
and afghan wars. He was the 1st to report the false flag in syria. He cried when Trump dropped that MOAB. Support Alex Jones!
This msnbc news is just how much American mainstream media are pure joke with zero credit😂. In the end, these "journalists"
owe their job to Russia, what would they do without it since they always talk about it😂😂😂😂😂
13:27 That's Senator John D. Rockefeller IV,
'Jay' Rockefeller. The Rockefeller family owns the world's biggest oil companies, ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhilips, the Amoco
in BP-Amoco all came from the companies created after the breakup of John D. Rockefellers' Standard Oil Trust.
I just figured out who/how they got to her: "Her paternal grandfather was from a family of Eastern European Jews (the original
family surname being "Medwedof")" Amazing how much that sounds like "Madoff", isn't it?
The huge elephant in the room is of course global weather engineering. None of our efforts to cut emissions will stop the current
climate collapse, until all weather-/geo-engineering programs have been terminated worldwide. We need to stop weather warfare
What would happen? An army of privileged entitled white men would go out in the 50 below weather and work 24/7 in deadly conditions
to fix it and have the power back up in hours, like they do every winter.. Just like the white men who put on wetsuits and dive
into literal lakes of shit and piss to clear the tampons and pads out of the grates and pumps in the sewer treatment plants so
the toilets of people like Maddow continue to function.. The people who are completely invisible to morons like Maddow.
"What if Russia cut the power while you were watching porn right before you came, and then you had blue balls forever?" That
line was the funniest in this whole video. Another one that had me laughing so hard was this: "So what's the purple area?"
Jimmy, I love your show and, even though I'm essentially conservative and think Trump is exactly the wrench needed to throw
into the works of the globalists who I believe almost took complete control of everything in 2016, I agree with you quite often
and share many of your videos with both far-leftist and right-wing nuts. That said, the fact of the matter is that a single international
ballistic missle loaded with a "nuclear" EMP device, exploded a couple hundred miles over the middle of our country, would totally
destroy the power infrastructure across our country and quite literally leave us in the dark ages for months. If this happened,
our country would be thrown total chaos and takeover by invasion would be very easy for any semi-powerful country who could get
here: Russia and China are basically it. I can't stand Rachel Maddow, but I have a feeling she may have been referring to this
extremely serious problem which, by the way, would cost very little to fix. Why we haven't fixed it, but continue to spend more
than what the fix would cost to stay Afghanistan every single month is beyond anything even resembling rational thought.
I'm from MN, you wouldn't believe how often I'm accused of being a Russian bot by coastal idiots. Note: Not everyone on the
coast is an idiot obviously but the idiots who say this always seem to live in CA or NY.
Are they SCREAMING to seem funny or is that the only way
#MAGA know how to communicate? This is like
that Guntfeld show on Fox but without a budget. Are we sure @jimmy_dore isn't actually @maddow in drag?
1/ If YouTube were to recommend your show, it'd be recommending the leading purveyor of now debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy
theories, falsehoods & innuendo of the last 2+ years. Here's a sample:
Aaron Maté 10:27 AM - 28 Apr 2019
2/ Just recently you were caught in real-time lying to your audience. You claimed Barr was handling the redactions by himself.
But the chyron -- on screen right below -- told viewers the truth, that Mueller was in fact "assisting" w/ the redactions:
Aaron Maté 10:29 AM - 28 Apr 2019
3/ There was that time in Jan 2017 when you speculated that Putin may use the pee tape & other kompromat to force Trump into
withdrawing US troops near Russia. How did that one turn out? pic.twitter.com/XuXXagyCNb
Aaron Maté 10:35 AM - 28 Apr 2019
4/ BTW, just last week you falsely said that "the one thing I refused to let myself think about" was that Putin had tapes of
Trump -- the very prospect you had previously floated to posit that Putin may blackmail Trump into withdrawing troops.
Aaron Maté 10:37 AM - 28 Apr 2019
5/ Who could forget that time this past winter when you seized on life-threatening cold temperatures to fear-monger that Russia
could kill Americans by knocking out their heat? pic.twitter.com/deo2H4SBBQ
Aaron Maté 10:40 AM - 28 Apr 2019
6/ There was that time when you explored the scenario under which Putin "gives orders" to his puppet Trump at an upcoming meeting.
Do you think Putin ordered Trump to stage a coup in Venezuela/try to kill the German-Russia gas pipeline/nix the INF treaty?
11/ Then there was that time when you lamented the suspension of US war games in Korea, and speculated that it was the fault
of Putin: pic.twitter.com/cuDgHyDQPs
Aaron Maté 10:50 AM - 28 Apr 2019
12/ Have we ever gotten to the bottom of your "New Scrutiny on Russians at Trump's Inauguration" in Jan 2017 -- aka a Russian
couple who posted video of their attendance? pic.twitter.com/HAieukFsWI
Aaron Maté 10:51 AM - 28 Apr 2019
13/ Based on this sample alone, dare I say that your coverage of Trump-Russia very much amounts to the "deliberate trafficking
in unreality": pic.twitter.com/2OXbHhUDHa
Aaron Maté 10:56 AM - 28 Apr 2019
14/ Looking back, do you think maybe that declaring that a fake Bernie Sanders fan page run out of Albania amounted to "international
warfare against our country" was perhaps a little hyperbolic? pic.twitter.com/5Meg0xLNqg
Aaron Maté 11:03 AM - 28 Apr 2019
15/ How about when you speculated that Maria Butina may have played a role in a secret Russian government plot to funnel money
to the NRA in order to influence the 2016 election? How did that one pan out?
Aaron Maté 1:46 PM - 28 Apr 2019
16/ How about when you said in 3/2017 that "if the American presidency right now is the product of collusion between the Russian
intelligence services & an American campaign... we need to start preparing for what the consequences are going to be if it proves
to be true." Did it? pic.twitter.com/RO71MGdICd
Aaron Maté 4:27 PM - 28 Apr 2019
17/ or when you falsely insinuated that activity in a Wikileaks grand jury was related to the Russian probe, even though the
WP article you briefly flashed on screen accurately noted it "is based on [Assange's] pre-2016 conduct, not the election hacks":
Aaron Maté 4:36 PM - 28 Apr 2019
18/ or when you recently claimed that the hashtag #Kids4Trump was part of a Russian effort "to destroy American democracy." How much contempt do you have for
American democracy to suggest that Russian trolls could "destroy" it? pic.twitter.com/WcuG1RibkB
Aaron Maté 6:35 PM - 28 Apr 2019
19/ Remember earlier where we saw you suggest that Russia chose Tillerson as Sec of State? How about also when you pondered
the same about Paul Manafort? "I mean, take the view from Moscow. If you know a guy who needs a presidential campaign manager,
how about our friend Paul?": pic.twitter.com/5xcFarXakV
Duped by Russians. apparently. 10:57 AM - 28 Apr 2019
Zunes wrote in Counterpunch (January 31, 2019) that Senator Harris has branded herself 'as a
progressive.' Rachel Maddow interviewed Senator Harris as she announced her bid for the
Presidency and extolled her virtues as indeed 'Progressive.' Zunes seems to question just how
progressive she really is if viewed through the lens of her first foreign policy vote in
January 2017 when 'she sided with President Trump in criticizing outgoing President Obama's UN
Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements.' It might be pointed out here that the
Senate Resolution co-sponsored by Senator Harris is one of 77 targeting Israel by the United
States as it makes Israel immune from illegal acts against the Palestinians. Harris' resolution
'challenges the United Nations on questions of international humanitarian law in territories
under foreign belligerent occupation.'
Back in 2017, because of this resolution, I made contact with Kamala about the rationale she
designed in challenging the United Nations 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its
corollary, proposing that territories under foreign occupation determine justice for the
occupier. Between 1955 and 2013, 77 resolutions have passed through US Presidents
representatives at the UNSC protecting Israel against charges of illegal actions relative to UN
authority. "Aside from the core issues -- refugees, Jerusalem, borders -- the major themes
reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its
neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations,
demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land;
its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the
1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War."
(Donald Neff, ifamericansknew.org)
Before I begin I would like to offer a source for virtually everything I say here with
Reading her resolution and the assumptions that she made suggests that the good Senator
has not read the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What other authority exists
now and has existed from 1948 to the present with 194 nations as signers including Israel, that
accepts the UDHR as the basis for universal agreement on human behavior and the rights of
Interestingly enough the origins of that UN declaration came out of Raphael Lemkin's work
based on his broad study of the true meaning of genocide, especially as it happened to the Jews
under Nazi Germany.
Cook is a Professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California
where he served for 13 years as Vice President for Academic Affairs before assuming his faculty
position in 2001. He serves this academic year as interim department chair. Prior to coming to
California, he served as a Dean of Faculty, Chair of Department of English and faculty member
at institutions large and small, public and private in four eastern states. More information is
available on his web site: www.drwilliamacook.com .
In some respects, the media has played the most disingenuous of roles. Areas of investigation that historically would have proven
irresistible to reporters of the past have been steadfastly ignored. False narratives have been all-too-willingly promoted and facts
ignored. Fusion GPS personally made a
series of payments to several as-of-yet-
unnamed reporters .
The majority of the mainstream media has represented positions of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Steele met with members of certain media with relative frequency. In
September 2016 ,
he met with a number of U.S. journalists for "The New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo! News, the New Yorker and CNN," according
to The Guardian. It was during this period that Steele met with Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News.
2016, Steele returned to New York and met with reporters again. Toward the end of October, Steele spoke via Skype with Mother
Jones reporter David Corn.
Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the unredacted
version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the intelligence
community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical pattern
that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken.
The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security for
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and
charged with one count of lying
to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment
alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time.
Ali Watkins likely received the undredacted FISA application on Carter Page from James Wolfe.
It appears probable that Wolfe leaked unredacted copies of the Page FISA application.
According to the indictment
, Wolfe exchanged 82 text messages
with Watkins on March 17, 2017. That same evening they engaged in a 28-minute phone call.
The original Page FISA application is 83 pages long, including one final signatory page.
In the public version of the application, there are 37 fully redacted pages. In addition to that, several other pages have redactions
for all but the header. There are only two pages in the entire document that contain no redactions.
Why would Wolfe bother to send 37 pages of complete redactions? It seems more than plausible that Wolfe took pictures of the original
unredacted FISA application and sent them by text to Watkins.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has repeatedly
stated that evidence within the FISA application
shows the counterintelligence agencies were abused by the Obama administration. Most of the mainstream media has known this.
Despite this, most major news organizations for over two years have promoted the Russia-collusion narrative. Despite ample evidence
having come out to the contrary, they have not admitted they were wrong, likely because doing so would mean they would have to admit
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
"... The Jimi Dore show is what the Daily Show used to be. ..."
"... NYTimes and Washington Post won the Pulitzer prizes for "thorough coverage" of 2016 Russia collusion ..."
"... The xenophobia towards Russia is higher than during the cold war. It's embarrassing imo. ..."
"... 14:52 Russian Troll farm: spends 15k on adds America: We lost the war we are no longer a sovereign nation ..."
"... Russiagate distracts from the very real Israelgate. #BDS ..."
"... so alex jones got banned from all platforms for being a conspiracy theorist while the MSM were pushing one for two years?! wow ..."
"... Pretty sure psychopaths will not feel embarrassment or humiliation, only rage and vengeance. ..."
"... CNN is actually a cult and It has a following. ..."
"... The funny thing about Dems claiming Trump wouldn't accept the result of the election - Cohen testified to Congress that Trump actually expected to lose and was running as a PR stunt. ..."
"... Keith Olbermann is Grandpa Maddow ..."
"... If somebody in power is after you, the feds will indict a ham sandwich... ..."
"... I kinda figured out myself that this Russia Gate was a load of lies and/or wishful thinking. Jimmy and his guests showed me that i wasn't wrong of nuts even. Thanks Jimmy, for hooking me up. ..."
"... We've known all along this has been a coup. This is not news to the informed. ..."
"... The Soviet Union moved from Russia, to the ruling class of DC and NYC. ..."
Now that Trump has agreed to go along with the war with Russia, they will back off on Trump and let him continue provoking
Russia in Syria, Venezuela and by flying US planes into Russian air space. Mueller helped Bush lie America into destroying Iraq.
US Empire wants military bases in more and more nations.
The funny thing about Dems claiming Trump wouldn't accept the result of the election - Cohen testified to Congress that Trump
actually expected to lose and was running as a PR stunt. LOL. Can't make this stuff up. The danger here is that the what really
happened was a deep state effort with mainstream media to overthrow a lawfully elected president of country. That's scarier than
any thing Trump may ever do.
I'm a conservative and have tremendous amount of respect for Jimmy Dore and Aaron Mate'. I may not agree with them on specific
policies but I know these two guys come from a sincere, honest place. I usually just blow off liberal rhetoric but I listen to
what Jimmy has to say. God bless them
FLYNN The FBI has concluded that Michael Flynn did not have any secret relationship with Russia and has cleared the retired
Lt. General of any wrongdoing. According to a U.S. intelligence official speaking with NPR, after reviewing the transcripts, FBI
agents found that Michael Flynn's forced resignation could only have been orchestrated from Obama insiders operating within the
"The FBI reviewed intercepts
of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn -- national security
adviser to then-President-elect Trump -- but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government,
U.S. officials said."
Another current U.S Intelligence official agreed with the FBI and told NPR , "there is no evidence of criminal
wrongdoing in the transcripts of of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey
Kislyak, The official also said there was "absolutely nothing" in the transcripts that suggests Flynn was acting under instructions
"or that the trail leads higher." "I don't think [Flynn] knew he was doing anything wrong," the official said. "Flynn talked about
sanctions, but no specific promises were made. Flynn was speaking more in general 'maybe we'll take a look at this going forward'
So why aren't we listening to the officials who actually HEARD the calls? Don't be fooled, this isn't about Flynn discussing
sanctions or anything else with Russia for that matter. This is about delegitimizing a president. There is a reason why Democrats
are still determined to investigate Flynn even though he has already resigned. They are using this as a way to prove that Trump
was "in with Russia" and therefore an illegitimate president. Democrats will stop at nothing to get Trump out of the White House.
They don't care how many lives they have to ruin.
Communists on the Left colluded with Soviet Russia for decades and infiltrated politics, academia, education, media. Now
that Russia doesn't represent a threat and is now a growing Christian democracy...they hate it.
Jimmy: they (the globalist elite) want to defeat all of us. We all (Progressives, Christians, Conservatives, people who love
their country ) are on the same boat. The globalists want to destroy all of us. They are against the nation state, against people
having their own culture and defending it, they are against Christians (look at the way Obama referred to Catholics who were attacked
in Sri Lanka (Easter worshippers)), they are against true democracy meaning against a government that has the true interest of
their citizens in mind not the interest of the elite that controls all branches of the government. I might disagree with your
socialist policies and particularly what you said about Venezuela (I am from Colombia and saw the disastrous policies of Chavez
and Maduro destroying that nation) but we all have a common enemy and the Right and the true Left should come together in this
Remember this is the Special Counsel Investigation, the "Ultimate" Investigation. Which is also the 3rd Investigation. We already
had the House & then the Senate Investigate Russia Collusion & both came up with NO Evidence. So they started as Special Counsel
Investigation which has now come up with the same Conclusion as they did🤔
I always believed in you when it came to Russia Jimmy. I don't agree with you on everything, but you and Kyle are definitely
one of the new progressives that didn't go off the deep end with this conspiracy.
And yes, exactly what Aaron says. I kinda figured out myself that this Russia Gate was a load of lies and/or wishful thinking.
Jimmy and his guests showed me that i wasn't wrong of nuts even. Thanks Jimmy, for hooking me up.
I used to respect Keith Olberman (and Rachael Maddow as well!) when they were criticizing Bush for lying us into a war over
a non existent weapons of mass destruction program. I think these living colostomy bags are promoted to their positions to undermine
legitimate criticism of the criminal dirtbags that run this nation. They were right about Bush Jr, wrong about Obozo - and of
The two of you are both great! I think so highly of Aaron, and the fact that he seems to have chosen Jimmy's show for his first
lengthy take on the "end of Russiagate" is telling! Both of you deserve our props and thanks for helping keep us ALL sane over
the past couple of years.
Re: my above link (you're welcome those of you who have problems with long URLs!):
Contrast Maddow's "Trump is making John Bolton act too nice" monologue with a recent
segment on Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight, conducted in the aftermath of last week's
attempt at a military coup by opposition leader Juan Guaido. Journalist Anya Parampil
appeared on the show and delivered a scathing criticism of the Trump administration's
heinous actions in Venezuela based on her findings during her recent visit to that country.
She was allowed to speak uninhibited and without attack, even bringing up the Center for
Economic and Policy Research study which found Trump administration sanctions responsible
for the deaths of over 40,000 Venezuelans, a story that has gone completely ignored by
western mainstream media.
Carlson introduced the interview with a clip from an earlier talk he'd had with Florida
Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, who supports direct military action to overthrow Maduro and
whose arguments Carlson had attacked on the basis that it would cost American lives and
cause a refugee crisis. Parampil said the media is lying about what's happening in
Venezuela and compared Guaido's coup attempt to a scenario in which Hillary Clinton had
refused to cede the election, banded together 24 US soldiers and attempted to take the
White House by force.
"I was there for a month earlier this year," Parampil said. "The opposition has no
popular support. Juan Guaido proved today, once again, that he will only ride in to power
on the back of a US tank. And what's more, we hear about a humanitarian crisis there,
Tucker, but what we never hear is that is the intended result of US sanctions that have
targeted Venezuelans since 2015, sanctions which according to a report that was released
just last week by the Center for Economic and Policy Research has led to the deaths of
40,000 Venezuelans, and will lead to the death of thousands more if these sanctions aren't
overturned. President Trump, if he truly cared for the Venezuelan people, and the American
people for that matter, he would end this disastrous policy. He would end the sanctions,
and he would look into John Bolton's eyes, into Elliott Abrams' eyes, into Mike Pompeo's
eyes, and say you are fired. You are leading me down a disastrous path, another war for
oil. Something the president said–he was celebrated by the American people when he
said Iraq was a mistake, and now he's willing to do it again."
"I believe in an open debate," Carlson responded. "And I'm not sure I agree with
everything you've said, but I'm glad that you could say it here. And you were just there,
and I don't think you'd be allowed on any other show to say that."
"No I certainly don't," Parampil replied. "And I really appreciate you giving me the
President Trump promised to drain the swamp, and he flooded his national security team
with that exact swamp
Maddow is the MSM version of a liberal. She's a DNC warmonger's warmonger - the blue flavor
warmonger to counter the red flavor warmonger. This became apparent 10 years ago. She is the
MSM version of a lefty. Not leftist really, just a 1969 Nixon to put up against all the late
model Bush Clinton Obama Trump lunatics.
I get paranoid real fast when unexpected URL difficulties arise. I cut/pasted your first
link, then one I found myself into a word processor, and both of them had a string of numbers
at the end. Different numbers! Finally learned those numbers were unnecessary and I had
something which worked.
I can sometimes navigate the internet, but I'm aware there are people out there who can
tie it in knots. Corporate meddling is becoming an issue as well. Yesterday or day before my
Firefox browser suddenly had all the addons disabled. The Mozilla company must have gotten an
earful, so they've half-fixed it. Now the addons are working again, but have a big warning
label on each and every one of them.
Back to Maddow. There are people who adore her, and I believe I've mentioned being taken
to task by one of them. Seems I hang out at "weird" sites like this one when I could be
getting ALL my news from Maddow - just as this person bragged about doing.
That's all there is to it. No corporate trackers (such as FB or IG adding crap onto the
end). That's as simple as they get, unfortunately, but still long enough to prompt me to
shorten it for Circe and those who apparently have major issues with links.
"... And now, months into 2019, we get to hear Maddow waxing eloquent about the innocent "human side" of none other than John Bolton. Of course, Maddow should first consider whether Bolton or his neocon ilk ever once paused to consider whether those they advocate dropping bombs on -- from Iraq to Syria to Libya to Yemen to Gaza to Venezuela -- are themselves actually human beings who simply wish to live out their daily lives in peace. ..."
"Just A Human Being": Rachel Maddow's Latest Resistance Hero
This is were three years of failed Russiagate conspiracy theorizing and fixation leads you
-- into the arms of fanatical endless war proponent John Bolton: "John Bolton God bless you,
good luck.." one can now hear on "resistance" network MSNBC prime time.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is now championing neocon national security adviser John Bolton's
"humanity" given he apparently went loose cannon this past week, vowing to confront Russia over
Venezuela even as his boss President Trump downplayed Moscow's role in the crisis after a
Friday phone call with Putin.
"This is what John Bolton, human being, thought his job was this week," Maddow said on her
show Friday night. Both Pompeo and Bolton had clearly gone a bit
rogue with their overly bellicose Venezuela comments, while Trump appeared to be more
restrained -- and for Maddow this was of course cause for championing the neocon
interventionist line: "Hey, John Bolton, hey, Mike Pompeo, are you guys enjoying your jobs
right now?" she questioned.
On Friday Trump had said following the phone call, Putin is "not looking at all to get
involved in Venezuela other than he'd like to see something positive happen in Venezuela, and I
feel the same way ."
Maddow, who once prided herself on slamming and deconstructing Bush-era regime change wars,
now finds Trump not jingoistic enough. She stridently questioned:
"How do you come to work anymore if you're John Bolton? Right, regardless of what you
thought about John Bolton before this, his whole career and his track record, I mean, just
think of John Bolton as a human being. This is what John Bolton, human being, thought his job
was this week."
She further cut to a clip of Bolton criticizing Russia's alleged military involvement in
Venezuela to prop up Maduro, because apparently uber-hawk Bolton is now a "fearless
truth-teller" in Maddow's world.
"You thought that was your job," Maddow said. "But it turns out not at all, not after
Vladimir Putin gets done with President Trump today."
It bears repeating that among the loudest right-leaning voices who joined the chorus of
leading establishment Democrat Russiagaters included previously forgotten about neocons who
were quickly rehabilitated by the "Resistance" -- David Frum, Max Boot, Robert Kagan, Bill
Kristol among them.
And then there was the nauseating phenomenon of watching liberals lionizing Trump-skeptical
Republican Congressional leaders like Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, and the late Sen. McCain.
Because it's awful, just awful! - that Trump might actually prefer peace to waging war in
multiple places... Restraint vs. war in multiple places? Maddow apparently advances the
humanity of those advocating the latter.
It amounted to, at times, a picture of a President at odds with the officials who this
week have called vociferously for a change in power in Caracas and have consistently declined
to rule out a US military intervention.
Trump has become frustrated this week as national security adviser John Bolton and others
openly teased military options and has told friends that if Bolton had his way he'd already
be at war in multiple places . --
And now, months into 2019, we get to hear Maddow waxing eloquent about the innocent
"human side" of none other than John Bolton. Of course, Maddow should first consider whether
Bolton or his neocon ilk ever once paused to consider whether those they advocate dropping
bombs on -- from Iraq to Syria to Libya to Yemen to Gaza to Venezuela -- are themselves
actually human beings who simply wish to live out their daily lives in peace.
How does MadCow remain employed. I'll hazard an answer. She's Jewish, a true jewess,
therefore untouchable, and she does a fine job dividing the dim witted public. Her head
reminds me of an hatchet. MadCow aka Hatchethead. She blows everybody.
Journalist Aaron Mate has eviscerated MSNBC's Rachel Maddow for peddling "Trump-Russia
conspiracy theories, falsehoods & innuendo," after Maddow threw a tantrum when YouTube
dared to recommend an RT video. Mate, a longtime skeptic of the mainstream media's beloved
'Russiagate' narrative, was the subject of a recent interview with RT. When MSNBC's
Russiagater-in-chief Rachel Maddow found out that YouTube's algorithm had actually suggested
the interview to viewers, she saw more Russian meddling and proclaimed the recommendation
"death by algorithm."
Mate unloaded on Maddow on Sunday, systematically destroying the MSNBC host for her two
years as "the leading purveyor of now debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy theories, falsehoods
& innuendo." Buckle up.
1/ If YouTube were to recommend your show, it'd be recommending the leading purveyor of
now debunked Trump-Russia conspiracy theories, falsehoods & innuendo of the last 2+
years. Here's a sample:
"Just recently you were caught in real-time lying to your audience," he began.
"You claimed Barr was handling the redactions by himself. But the chyron -- on screen right
below -- told viewers the truth, that Mueller was in fact 'assisting' w/ the
2/ Just recently you were caught in real-time lying to your audience. You claimed Barr was
handling the redactions by himself. But the chyron -- on screen right below -- told viewers
the truth, that Mueller was in fact "assisting" w/ the redactions: pic.twitter.com/rTSAABngp2
With Maddow seemingly content to lie on live television, it fell upon her show's producers
to flash the truth on viewers' screens.
Mate then recalled the time Maddow suggested that Russian President Vladimir Putin would use
the 'pee tape' (the most far-fetched allegation in the Democrat-commissioned, internet-sourced Steele
dossier) to force Trump into withdrawing US troops stationed near Russia. Of course, this never
happened, and Trump recently announced plans to ramp up deployments to Poland. A swing and a
miss for Maddow.
3/ There was that time in Jan 2017 when you speculated that Putin may use the pee tape
& other kompromat to force Trump into withdrawing US troops near Russia. How did that one
turn out? pic.twitter.com/XuXXagyCNb
Maddow contradicted herself on the 'pee tape' only last week, telling viewers she
"refused" to let herself "think about" the possibility of these tapes
4/ BTW, just last week you falsely said that "the one thing I refused to let myself think
about" was that Putin had tapes of Trump -- the very prospect you had previously floated to
posit that Putin may blackmail Trump into withdrawing troops. pic.twitter.com/xMC4uPrjSK
"Who could forget that time this past winter when you seized on life-threatening cold
temperatures to fear-monger that Russia could kill Americans by knocking out their heat?"
Mate continued, mocking Maddow's claim that the Kremlin could "kill the power" and
freeze Americans to death.
5/ Who could forget that time this past winter when you seized on life-threatening cold
temperatures to fear-monger that Russia could kill Americans by knocking out their heat?
"There was that time when you explored the scenario under which Putin 'gives orders' to
his puppet Trump at an upcoming meeting," Mate continued. "Do you think Putin ordered
Trump to stage a coup in Venezuela/try to kill the German-Russia gas pipeline/nix the INF
6/ There was that time when you explored the scenario under which Putin "gives orders" to
his puppet Trump at an upcoming meeting. Do you think Putin ordered Trump to stage a coup in
Venezuela/try to kill the German-Russia gas pipeline/nix the INF treaty? pic.twitter.com/cbSrGt2xR3
And that the existence of an Albanian Bernie Sanders fan page on Facebook was an act of
"international warfare against our country."
14/ Looking back, do you think maybe that declaring that a fake Bernie Sanders fan page
run out of Albania amounted to "international warfare against our country" was perhaps a
little hyperbolic? pic.twitter.com/5Meg0xLNqg
Despite peddling baseless conspiracies and flagrant Russophobia every night, Maddow remains
one of the US' most popular news anchors, and one of the best paid. The MSNBC host regularly
vies with Fox News' Sean Hannity for the top spot on the cable news ratings, and earns a cool
$7 million per year for her work.
Although Maddow has been perhaps the most fervent promoter of Russiagate hysteria on
television, her ratings have clumped after Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report put most of
her theories to bed last month. Maddow's show slipped from its number one position after the
report dropped, and lost half a million
viewers in the space of a week.
Mate, although reporting to a far smaller audience, has received an Izzy Award for his
"meticulous reporting" that "challenged the way the public was being informed about
the Mueller investigation."
While the MSM peddled tin-foil Trump-Russia collusion conspiracies for more than two years, one pundit
in particular stands head-and-shoulders above the rest;
s Rachel Maddow.
Night after night Maddow told lie after lie - promising her viewers Trump was
finished for one reason or another.
Maddow's propaganda rants are too numerous to count - however
's Aaron Maté is
currently in the middle of a
devastating Twitter takedown
highlighting some of the
most pathetic attempts to delegitimize the sitting president of the United States - after Maddow
article about YouTube recommending an
"... "Death by algorithm," a despondent Maddow commented. The video in question – an episode of On Contact, which is hosted by Pulitzer prize-winning American journalist Chris Hedges – features an interview with Canadian journalist Aaron Mate. A fierce critic of the Trump-Russia collusion theory promoted by mainstream media, Mate recently received an Izzy Award for his contrarian reporting on Russiagate. ..."
"... While Maddow was apparently horrified by the thought of impressionable Americans watching a video of two acclaimed journalists discussing current events, others were more perturbed by the MSNBC host's melodramatic tweeting. ..."
"... Actually, the entire premise of Maddow's outrage is highly suspect. The Washington Post report quietly notes that the RT video in question has accumulated "only about 55,000 views," and that the interview was by far from the most recommended Mueller-related video. "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" was recommended more than five million times, WaPo reported, while other channels, such as Fox and PBS NewsHour, received hundreds of thousands of recommendations for their Russiagate videos. ..."
"... In fact, the Washington Post story was so shaky that it had to issue a clickbait-deflating correction: An earlier version of their report had erroneously claimed that YouTube had recommended RT's take on the Mueller report more often than other networks' programming. ..."
Russiagate guru Rachel Maddow has caught wind of the latest Kremlin-linked outrage: YouTube recommended an RT video about the
Mueller report! And now social media users have lined up to laugh at her.
The MSNBC host ascended her Twitter pulpit to share a shocking Washington Post article
detailing how YouTube allegedly recommended an RT video "hundreds of thousands of times" to users seeking information
about the recently released report by special counsel Robert Mueller.
"Death by algorithm," a despondent Maddow commented. The video in question – an episode of On Contact, which is hosted
by Pulitzer prize-winning American journalist Chris Hedges – features an interview with Canadian journalist Aaron Mate. A fierce
critic of the Trump-Russia collusion theory promoted by mainstream media, Mate recently received an Izzy Award for his contrarian
reporting on Russiagate.
While Maddow was apparently horrified by the thought of impressionable Americans watching a video of two acclaimed journalists
discussing current events, others were more perturbed by the MSNBC host's melodramatic tweeting.
"This YouTube [video] is so much better than the war mongering conspiracy lunacy that comes from you. You should be
ashamed to smear good people & good content in such a base & McCarthyite way," replied one disappointed Twitter user.
Chris Hedges won a Pulitzer prize, Aaron Maté just won an Izzy. This YouTube is so much better than the war mongering conspiracy
lunacy that comes from you. You should be ashamed to smear good people & good content in such a base & McCarthyite way.
Others took issue with Maddow's bizarre suggestion that YouTube's algorithm could somehow bring about "death."
"'Death?' No one's lives were threatened by a conversation between two award winning journalists about the massive disinformation
campaign you're waged on the minds of suggestible Democrats. But they are endangered by the Cold War you've helped to stir up,"
Max Blumenthal, editor of the Grayzone Project, noted.
"Death?" No one's lives were threatened by a conversation between two award winning journalists about the massive disinformation
campaign you're waged on the minds of suggestible Democrats. But they are endangered by the Cold War you've helped to stir up.
Mate himself joined the chorus of criticism directed at Maddow.
"I was interviewed on RT by the Pulitzer-winning journalist Chris Hedges about Russiagate. YouTube recommended it. How fitting
then that the leading Russiagate conspiracy theorist calls this 'death by algorithm' – to a propagandist, dissent from orthodoxy
is 'death' indeed," he wrote.
I was interviewed on RT by the Pulitzer-winning journalist Chris Hedges about Russiagate. YouTube recommended it. How fitting
then that the leading Russiagate conspiracy theorist calls this "Death by algorithm" -- to a propagandist, dissent from orthodoxy
is "Death" indeed: https://t.co/dFa8B815js
Actually, the entire premise of Maddow's outrage is highly suspect. The Washington Post report quietly notes that the RT video
in question has accumulated "only about 55,000 views," and that the interview was by far from the most recommended Mueller-related
video. "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" was recommended more than five million times, WaPo reported, while other channels,
such as Fox and PBS NewsHour, received hundreds of thousands of recommendations for their Russiagate videos.
To make matters even less scary, YouTube disputed the article's core claims, which were originally made by media watchdog group
AlgoTransparency. YouTube said it could not reproduce the group's data allegedly showing that the RT video had been recommended hundreds
of thousands of times by the site's algorithm.
In fact, the Washington Post story was so shaky that it had to issue a clickbait-deflating correction: An earlier version
of their report had erroneously claimed that YouTube had recommended RT's take on the Mueller report more often than other networks'
WaPo runs with this fabricated imperial xenophobia -- all while contradicting and correcting its own claims!
In case after case, Maddow and others in corporate media used crafted language that was
speculation designed to appear as cold hard facts to the the viewer. This was no only bad
reporting, It was a conspiracy of sorts. Maddow regularly would say, "If Russia did this, it
would be an attack on the US..." Leaving the viewer with the impression that "Russia did
this!". Then she would go to stir the cauldron for war.. This rises to the level of a
Since when is Hilary Clinton on the left? Since when are the are e-mails of the democratic
party protected government secrets? Are the Afghanistan and Iraq war logs important? Is it
strange that after 18 long years of war there is no anti-war movement? Are the people
reporting on Cable News real journalists? Well done Aaron and Chris!
democrats would rather Turmp be president than Bernie, they will throw the election before
they let Bernie create change... but then even if he is elected, it wont do much good with
corporate shills in congress in senate
I enjoy listening to Aaron, a person of integrity and also a down to earth, interesting
journalist who has worked hard to uncover the truth on this subject and knows it backwards
and forwards. I like when he can't help but laugh at certain absurdities in mainstream media
coverage of Russiagate.
I've got to admit,I get a massive dopamine rush hearing these two
sane, intelligent, critical thinkers, skillfully dissect this convoluted quadrafuck that has
wasted some much of our precious time. I literally feel washed clean for a
Aaron Mate's courageous stance regarding Palestinians deserves all my respect and support.
His analysts of Rusiagate and all the fanfare associated with the so called investigations
seems most accurate.
"... Significantly, Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on December 11th, 2018 that "ad accounts linked to Russia" spent about $4,700 in advertising" to politically influence Americans during the 2016 presidential election season. ..."
The Mueller Report is now public, and our Mainstream Media have filled the airways with all sorts of commentaries and interpretations.
We know that - despite the very best efforts of the dedicated Leftist attorneys on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's staff - there
was absolutely no coordination between members of the Trump campaign, or any of his staffers, with Russians. No additional charges
have come as a result, other than accusations made earlier of "process crimes" (e.g. failure to report earnings on tax forms, failure
to report lobbying work, or not telling investigators what they demanded to hear -- "crimes" that practically every politician in
Washington has been guilty of at one time or another and would normally not cause much of a stir). None of these involved Russia.
Of course, that finding has not satisfied many Democrats or the unhinged Leftist crazies in the media, who continue to have visions
of "collusion" -- a kind of communications Alzheimers that has poisoned our media now for years. Thus, Representative Eric Swalwell
(who is one of nearly two dozen Democrats running for president) continues to assert that there was "collusion," as does the irrepressible
(and irresponsible) Adam Schiff: "it's there in plain sight," they insist, "if you just look hard enough, and maybe squint just a
bit -- or maybe have those specialized 3-D Russia glasses!"
Such political leaders -- along with those further out in the Leftist loonysphere like Representatives Maxine Waters and Alexandra
Ocasio-Cortes -- continue down their Primrose path of post-Marxist madness.
But beyond the collusion/coordination issue, the past couple of weeks have been filled with a swirling controversy concerning
what is called "obstruction of justice." And once again, the fundamental issues have been incredibly politicized. Special Counsel
Robert Mueller had an obligation, if he and his minions discovered "obstruction of justice," that is, concerted and illegal attempts
to obstruct the investigations by the president or his staff, to present charges to the Department of Justice. Yet, all he was able
to do was assemble a farrago of "he said/she said" instances, none of which rose to the level of criminal activity. Apparently President
Trump told a subaltern "I wish would you fire Mueller," or he wished in a speech in his joking style that "if the Russians had Hillary's
emails, they would release them," or he had a private conversation with Vladimir Putin when they met (as all national leaders do!),
or his son met with a Russian attorney who supposedly had some "dirt" on the Hillary Clinton campaign (which did not turn out to
be the reason for the Trump Tower meeting at all).
None of the ten or eleven cited instances came anywhere close to being actionable or criminal under settled law. In each instance
cited, the president's actions (or desires) fell within his purview and authority under Article II of the Constitution. And regarding
Trump's desire to fire Mueller, he was on solid legal ground; the Supreme Court in its 1997 decision, Edmonds vs. the United States
, declared that "inferior" officials, including an independent counsel, could be removed by presidential action as part of
his delegated powers . And, in any case, Mueller
was not dismissed.
Mueller had an obligation after examining these situations to make a finding; he did not. By so doing, by avoiding decisions and
stringing out such instances in an obviously political sense, he abdicated his responsibility and did his best to impugn Donald Trump
and his administration and thus offer grist for continued Democrat attacks on the president all the way through the 2020 election.
Mueller left it up to the Attorney General William Barr and Congress to decide how to proceed. And that is where we are today.
The one issue that both Democrats and most Republicans seem to agree on, the issue which both say is "proven conclusively" by
Mueller is that the Russians "attempted to interfere and did interfere" in our 2016 election.
Interesting, is it not, that the Republicans who zealously defend the president and attack the obviously political nature of the
Mueller Report would accept, as if on faith and without question, the accusations of Russian interference, also contained in the
Turn on Fox and watch, say, Martha MacCallum (e.g., "The Story," April 24, 2019) declare "we all know now without doubt that the
Russians tried to interfere" in our elections, or listen to most any GOP congressman repeat that same narrative with unquestioning
But that assertion - is it truly backed up factually? Where is the evidence, other than largely questionable information sourced
from our largely discredited intelligence agencies which, as we know, had a determined goal of overthrowing the president by any
Almost three years have passed from the first fake news that appeared in the media on the subject of "Russian collusion," a concerted
effort launched to discredit at first the Donald Trump candidacy and then sabotage his presidency, including his efforts to stabilize
As proof of Russian actions, the Mueller Report cites the indictments against twenty-five Russian citizens who were indicted for
attempted "interference" (those Russians are, let us add, quite conveniently out of the country and thus not prosecutable). When
those indictments were issued, Russia pointed out the flimsy, unsupported and transparently made-up nature of the charges, and demanded
that American authorities provide conclusive proof. Such requests were rebuffed.
In order to evaluate the evidence, the Russian government proposed reestablishing the bilateral expert group on information security
that the Obama Administration had terminated, which could have served as a platform for conversation on these matters. The American
side was also invited to send Justice Department officials to Russia to attend the proposed public questioning of the Russian citizens
named by Mueller. Additionally, Russia offered to publicize the exchanges between the two countries following the publication of
the accusations of cyberattacks, exchanges which were conducted through existing channels between October 2016 and January 2017.
Our government refused every offer.
A careful analysis, in fact, fails to show any substantial evidence of Russian cyberattacks and attempts to "subvert democracy."
By some estimates, possibly $160,000 -- a paltry sum -- was spent by the Russians during 2016 on social media activities in the United
States. Does anyone wish to discover and compare the amount the Chinese Communists or the Saudis would have expended during the same
period, for their continued influence and power in Washington and inside-the-Beltway?
It is helpful to examine the charges that have been made, some included in the Mueller Report and accepted blindly by most pundits
and politicians, both on the Left and by establishment conservatives.
The Russian government, via their embassy in Washington, has published
a 120 page "white paper,"
The Russiagate Hysteria: A Case of Severe Russiaphobia , responding to the accusations made against them since 2016. Obviously,
the Russian document has a particular viewpoint and very specific goal, but that should not deter us from examining it and evaluating
its arguments. (I have written on Russia and its relations with the United States on a number of occasions since 2015 and had pieces
published by The Unz Review , Communities Digital News , and elsewhere.
On my blog , "MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey," I have authored
a dozen columns addressing this question).
Here following I list twenty-one claims made regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election and in American domestic affairs.
I follow each claim with the Russian response and how others, as noted, have also responded. In most cases I retain the original
text, at times with my editing, but, in every case, with all the referenced sources.
These twenty-one claims should be examined more closely and more calmly, and the "Russophobic" hysteria we have experienced during
the past several years needs to be put aside for the sake of rational investigative inquiry -- and discovering how the Managerial
State and global elites have attempted a "silent coup" against what's left of our republic.
These claims and the responses deserve respectful consideration and detailed responses:
CLAIM: Russia "meddled" in the U.S. elections by conducting influence operations, including through social media.
All of the claims of Russian trolls that surfaced over the last few years (such as Russians using the Pokémon Go mobile
game and sex toy ads
to meddle in the elections
– ) are so preposterous and contradictory that they virtually disprove themselves.
Not to mention the absurdity of the whole notion of 13 persons and 3 organizations (whichever country they might represent)
charged on February 16, 2018, by Robert Mueller with criminally interfering with the elections, affecting in any way electoral
processes in a country of more than 300 million people.
It is telling that when pressed about the scope of the alleged influence campaign, representatives of American social media
companies give numbers, that even if they were valid (and there's no evidence of a connection to the Russian government), are
so minuscule as to be basically non-existent. For example, Facebook has identified 3,000 Russia-linked ads costing a total
of about $100,000. That's a
miniscule number of ads
and a fraction of Facebook's revenues, which totaled $28 billion. Facebook estimates that 126 million people might – the
emphasis is on the word "might" – have seen this content. But this number represents just 0.004% of the content those people
saw on the Facebook platform.
Significantly, Google CEO Sundar Pichai
to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on December 11th, 2018 that "ad accounts linked to Russia" spent
about $4,700 in advertising" to politically influence Americans during the 2016 presidential election season.
To further cast doubt on the allegations, an American watchdog group "Campaign for Accountability" ("CFA") admitted on September
4th, 2018, that it deliberately posted propaganda materials on Google disguised as "Russian hackers from the Internet Research
Agency" to check how they would be filtered for "foreign interference". Google officials then accused the CFA as having ties
to a rival tech company "Oracle". In other words,
corporate intrigues disguised
as "Russian interference".
As American media has admitted, out of several dozen pre-election rallies supposedly organized by Russians, Special Counsel
Mueller mentions in his indictment that only a couple actually appear to have successfully attracted anyone, and those that
did were sparsely attended and, almost without exception, in deep-red enclaves that
would have voted for Trump anyway
Amidst all the hysteria about the alleged Russian meddling it is worth reading various research studies which show, quoting
"The Washington Post", that it is Americans, in particular our intelligence service,
that peddle disinformation
and hate speech.
According to Graham Brookie, director of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, the scale and scope of domestic
disinformation is much larger than any foreign influence operation. And academics from the Harvard's Shorenstein Center on
Media, Politics and Public Policy document in their study that there had been major spikes in outright fabrication and misleading
information proliferating online before the 2018 U.S. election. A "significant portion" of the disinformation appeared to come
from Americans, not foreigners, the Harvard researchers said.
CLAIM:Russian hackers accessed computer servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked materials through Wikileaks
and other intermediaries
As President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin noted in his interview with NBC on June 5, 2017, when flatly denying
any allegations of Russia interfering in internal affairs of the U.S., that today's technology is such that the final internet
address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. It is possible
to set up any entity that may indicate one source when, in fact,
the source is completely different .
No evidence has been presented linking Russia to leaked emails. In fact, there are credible studies arguing that DNC servers
are much more likely to have been breached by someone with immediate and physical access. In 2017 a group of former officers of
the U.S. intelligence community, members of the "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" (VIPS), met with then-CIA Director
Mike Pompeo to present their findings.
Another counterargument to the "Russian hackers" claim is that the DNC files published by Wikileaks were initially stored under
the FAT (File Allocation System) method which is not related to internet transfers and can only be forwarded to an external device
such as a thumb drive.
It is also suspicious that the DNC prohibited the FBI from examining the servers. Instead, a third-party tech firm was hired,
"Crowd Strike", which is known for peddling the "Russian interference" claims. And soon enough it, indeed, announced that "Russian
malware" has been found, but again no solid evidence was produced.
According to the respected former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter,
the indictment by the Mueller
team on July 13, 2018 of the 12 supposed Russian operatives was
a politically motivated fraud . As Ritter explains, Mueller seems to have borrowed his list from an organizational chart of
a supposed Russian military intelligence unit, contained in a classified document from the NSA titled "Spear-Phishing Campaign
TTPs Used Against U.S. And Foreign Government Political Entities", which
was published by The Intercept online. As stated in that document, this is just a subjective judgement, not a known fact.
Ritter concludes, that this is a far cry from the kind of incontrovertible proof that Mueller's team suggests as existing to support
Moreover, it is telling that the indictment
was released just before the
meeting between President Putin and Trump in Helsinki on July 16, 2018, seemingly as if the aim was to intentionally derail the
CLAIM: Donald Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.
If the Mueller team, having all the resources of the U.S. government, after 22 months of work,
of dollars spent , more than 2800 subpoenas issued, nearly 500 search warrants and 500 witness interviews, didn't find any
evidence of "collusion", it is simply because there was never any. The whole claim of collusion was launched and peddled by the
same group of Democrats, liberal-leaning media and the so-called "Never Trump Republicans", as it became clear that Donald Trump
had real chances of winning the election. And later it morphed into a campaign to derail the newly-elected President agenda, including
his efforts to mitigate the damage done to U.S.-Russian relations.
CLAIM: Hacking of American political institutions was personally ordered by the Russian President Vladimir Putin.
This claim is based on nothing else but the infamous fraudulent
"Steele Dossier" , paid for by political opponents [i.e., the Hilary Clinton campaign] of Donald Trump, and
wild conjectures that "nothing in Russia happens without Putin's approval" .
Needless to say, zero proof is presented. By the same logic, nothing in the U.S. happens without the President's approval.
For example, is he also responsible for Edward Snowden? After all, Mr. Snowden was doing work for the U.S. intelligence services.
Or the deaths of all the civilians killed abroad by U.S. drone strikes? Every minute detail approved by the President?
CLAIM: Russia did not cooperate with the U.S. in tracing the source of the alleged hacking.
Russia has repeatedly offered to set up a professional and de-politicized dialogue on international information security only
to be rebuffed by the U.S. State Department. For instance, following the discussion between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald
Trump in Hamburg on July 7, 2017, Russia forwarded to the U.S. a proposal to reestablish a bilateral working group on cyber threats
which would have been a perfect medium to discuss American concerns. Moreover, during his meeting with Donald Trump in Helsinki
on July 17, 2018, Vladimir Putin offered to allow U.S. representatives to be present at an interrogation of the Russian citizens
who were previously accused by the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller of
being guilty of electoral interference.
Furthermore, in February 2019 the Russian government suggested publishing bilateral correspondence on the subject of unsanctioned
access to U.S. electronic networks, which was conducted between Washington and Moscow through the Nuclear Threat Reduction Centers
in the period from October 2016 to the end of January 2017.
Needless to say, all Russian offers were rejected. A conclusion is naturally reached that American State Department officials
have little interest in hearing anything that contradicts their own narrative or the discredited version of the CIA.
CLAIM: Russia is interfering in elections all over the world
No credible evidence has been produced not only of Russia's supposed meddling in the U.S. political processes, but to support
similar allegations made by the U.S. in respect to other countries. For example, former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster
insinuated that Russia was interfering in
the Mexican presidential elections of 2018. However, Mexican officials,
the president of the Mexican Senate Ernesto Cordero Arroyo, and Ambassador to Russia Norma Pensado
during a press conference in Moscow in February, 2018, debunked
this baseless claim.
Another example of fake news were reports saying that U.S.
was increasingly convinced that Russia hacked French election on May 9, 2017. However, on June 1, 2017, the head of the French
government's cyber security agency said no trace
was found of the claimed Russian hacking group behind the attack. On the other hand, the history of U.S. interfering in other
is well documented by American sources (see: ).
For example, a Carnegie Mellon scholar, Dov H. Levin, has scoured the historical record and
found 81 examples of U.S. election influence operations from 1946- to 2000. Often cited examples include Chile in 1964, Guyana
in 1968, Nicaragua in 1990, Yugoslavia in 2000, Afghanistan in 2009, Ukraine in 2014, not to mention Russia in 1996! And how else
could the current situation in Ukraine and Venezuela be described, with U.S. representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker openly pressuring
to support the incumbent , and Washington
possibly plotting a
coup in Caracas?
CLAIM: The lawsuit of the Democratic National Committee against the Russian Federation related to "interference in the election"
has a legal standing.
The DNC filed a civil lawsuit on April 20, 2018 against the Russian Federation and other entities and individuals. Named as
defendants in the lawsuit are the Russian Federation; the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (GRU); the
GRU operative using the pseudonym "Guccifer 2.0"; Aras Iskenerovich Agalarov; Emin Araz Agalarov; Joseph Mifsud; WikiLeaks; Julian
Assange; the Trump campaign (formally "Donald J. Trump for President, Inc."); Donald Trump, Jr.; Paul Manafort; Roger Stone; Jared
Kushner; George Papadopoulos; Richard W. Gates; and unnamed defendants sued as John Does 1–10. The DNC's complaint accuses the
Trump campaign of engaging in a racketeering enterprise in conjunction with Russia and WikiLeaks.
Even irrespective of the fact that there was no "interference" in the first place, the case has no legal standing. Exercise
of U.S. jurisdiction over the pending case with respect to the Russian Federation is a violation of the international law, specifically,
violation of jurisdictional immunities of the Russian Federation arising from the principle of the sovereign equality of states.
CLAIM: Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak was a spy.
In March of 2017 U.S. media
Sergey Kislyak a "top spy and spy-recruiter" This preposterous claim was based on nothing but his contacts with Trump confidant
Senator Jeff Sessions – carrying out work any ambassador would do. Per the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961,
among core diplomatic functions is ascertaining
by all lawful means conditions
and developments in the receiving state, and that certainly includes openly meeting leaders of Congress on Capitol Hill. Even
former CIA Director John McLaughlin
noted that Mr. Kislyak is an experienced diplomat, not a spy.
CLAIM: Russian Embassy retreat in Maryland was an intelligence base
Among the unlawful acts that U.S. administrations undertook was the expropriation of a legal Russian property in Maryland,
a summer retreat near the Chesapeake Bay under the pretext
it was used for intelligence gathering. But where is the supposed-treasure trove of alleged spy equipment that U.S. authorities
reportedly found there? Why not show them publicly to back up the claim? After the expropriation and the claims, not a word –
The retreat, "dacha" as Russians would call it, was bought by the former Soviet Union in 1972. Since then, it was used for
recreation, including hosting a children's summer camp and regularly entertaining American visitors. One of the more popular events
was the stop-over during the annual Chesapeake Regatta, completed with an expansive tour of the property. Presumably U.S. intelligence
services could have used this for years to inspect the property. Why was nothing ever mentioned before the Obama Administration
CLAIM: The meeting in Trump Tower in New York on June 9, 2016 between Trump campaign officials and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
was to discuss compromising materials that Russian had on Hillary Clinton.
to testimony provided to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Veselnitskaya focused on explaining the illicit activities
of U.S.-British investor Bill Browder, wanted in Russia for crimes, and brought attention to the adverse effects of the so-called
"Magnitskiy Act", adopted by U.S. Congress in 2012 and lobbied for by Browder.
CLAIM: Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, met with Russians in Prague to "collude".
It was reported in American media that the Justice Department special counsel had evidence that Donald Trump's personal lawyer,
Michael Cohen, secretly made a trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign to meet with Russian representatives,
a fact also mentioned
in the discredited "Steele Dossier". This was given as further evidence of "collusion". But Cohen vehemently denied this –
under oath. Passport records
that he never was in Prague. He was actually on vacation with his son at the supposed time. Given that he publicly turned
on his former boss and still denied the fact of ever going to Prague disproves this claim further.
CLAIM: Former member of the Trump campaign team Carter Page was a Russian intelligence asset.
According to members of Congress and journalistic investigations, the redacted declassified documents of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court)
show that the main source used by U.S. counterintelligence to justify spying on Mr. Page was the fraudulent so-called "Steele
Thus, Mr. Page for obvious reasons was not accused by the team of Robert Mueller of being involved in a "Russian conspiracy".
CLAIM: On August 22, 2018, The Democratic National Committee filed a claim with the FBI, accusing the "Russian hackers" of
infiltrating its electoral database.
Several days later members of the Democratic Party
admitted that it was a "false alarm", as it was simply a security check-up performed at the initiative of the Democratic Party's
affiliate in Michigan.
CLAIM: On August 8, 2018 U.S. Senator Bill Nelson accused Russia of breaching the infrastructure of the voter registration
systems in several local election offices of Florida.
Florida's Department of State spokesperson, Sarah Revell, stated on August 9, 2018, that Florida's government had not received
any evidence from competent authorities that Florida's voting systems or election records had been compromised. The U.S. Department
of Homeland Security and the FBI also
could not confirm in any manner the accusations.
CLAIM: In September, 2017 the U.S. media, referring to the Department of Homeland Security, accused Russia of "cyberattacks"
on electoral infrastructure in 21 states during the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.
On September 27, 2017, Wisconsin and California authorities stated that their electoral systems were not targeted by cyberattacks.
On November 12, 2017, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin said in a CBS interview that the "hackers' activity" had
no significant consequences and did not influence the outcome of the elections. And, indeed, the
source of those attacks was not clear.
CLAIM: Russia meddled in the Alabama 2017 Senate elections to help the Republican candidate.
the initial claims , it turned out that a group of Democratic tech experts decided to imitate so-called "Russian tactics"
in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate racе. Even more jarring is the fact that one participant in the "Alabama project", Jonathon
Morgan, is chief executive of "New Knowledge", a cyber security firm that
wrote a scathing account
of Russia's social media operations in the 2016 election that was released in 2018 by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Once
again, we have one of the main private sector players in hyping the Russian threat caught red-handed.
CLAIM: Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's presidential campaign chairman, was a secret link to Russian intelligence.
Trump's former campaign chairman was hit with two indictments from Mueller's office. However, even as American media notes,
both cases have nothing to do with Russia and stemmed from his years as a political consultant for the Ukrainian government and
his failure to pay taxes on the millions he earned, his failure to report the foreign bank accounts he used to stash that money,
and his failure to report his work to the US government. In his second case in Virginia,
he was also charged with committing bank fraud to boost his assets when the Ukraine work dried up.
In fact, serious concerns have been raised in the U.S. that it was Ukrainian officials who tried to influence the 2016 elections
by leaking compromising
materials on Mr. Manafort.
The Ukrainian connection is also prevalent in the case of money transferred to accounts of American politicians. For instance,
according to a "New York Times" article, Ukrainian billionaire Viktor Pinchuk
10 million dollars to the "Clinton Foundation while just 150 thousand dollars to the "Trump Foundation".
CLAIM: Russia compromised the Vermont power grid.
On December 31, 2016, "The Washington Post", accused "Russian hackers" of compromising the Vermont power grid. The local company,
"Burlington Electric", allegedly traced a malware code in a laptop of one of its employees. It was stated that the same "code"
was used to hack the Democratic Party servers in 2016. However, the "Wordfence" cybersecurity firm checked "Burlington Electric"
for hacking, and said that the malware code was openly available, for instance, on a web-site of Ukrainian hackers . The attackers
were using IP-addresses from across the world. "The Washington Post"
later admitted that conclusions on Russia's involvement were false.
CLAIM: Russian Alfa Bank was used as a secret communication link with the Trump campaign .
In October 2016 a new "accusation" appeared,
alleging that a message exchange between the Alfa Bank server and Trump organizations indicated a "secret" Trump – Russia
CLAIM: Russia cracked voter registration systems during the 2016 U.S. elections.
In July 2016 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security accused Russia of gaining unauthorized access to electronic voter registration
systems in Arizona. But on April 8, 2018, "Reuters",
referring to a high-ranking U.S. administration official, wrote there was no proof Russia had anything to do with the mentioned
CLAIM: Russian Embassy bank transactions were linked to "election interference".
American publication "Buzzfeed"
repeatedly claimed that U.S. authorities flagged Russian Embassy financial transfers as suspicious, many of them dated around
the 2016 election. In reality, the media outlet, by twisting the facts and placing them out of context, made routine banking transactions
– salary transfers, payments to contractors – look nefarious.
It is not
uncommon for embassy personnel to receive larger payouts, transfer or withdraw larger sums of money at the end of their work.
Furthermore, leaking of confidential banking information of persons and organizations protected by diplomatic immunity raised
concerns about the likely involvement of security services.
arrest in October 2018 of a U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network official, charged with leaking
information both about the Russian Embassy accounts and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, provides further proof to
the theory of political skullduggery.
* * *
Most of these responses have not been fully examined or addressed by major media, nor, for that matter, by Fox News, dominated
as it is by an almost instinctive Neoconservative Russophobia (the one possible exception being Tucker Carlson).
For the American Left, since the collapse of Communism and the growth of a traditionalist nationalism (under Vladimir Putin),
Russia has become a convenient target. When the Soviets were in power prior to 1991, the USSR was seen as a "progressive" presence
in the world, even if by the requirements of American politics the Left was forced to make ritualistic condemnations of the more
extreme elements of Soviet statecraft. Now that post-Communist Russia bans same sex marriage, glorifies the traditional family,
and the conservative Russian Orthodox Church occupies a special position of esteem and prominence, that admiration has turned
to fear and loathing. And that Russia and its president have been viewed as favorable to the hated Donald Trump doubly confirms
that hostility and targeting.
For the dominant Neoconservatives and many Republicans, contemporary Russia is seen as "anti-democratic," "reactionary," and
a threat to American world hegemony (and the refusal to bow to that hegemony, whether economically, politically, or culturally).
Indeed, as a major intellectual force, Neoconservatism owes much of its origins to Eastern European and Russia Jews, many of whose
ancestors were at direct odds with the old pre-1917 Tsarist state. That animus, those nightmares of pogroms and oppression, have
never completely subsided. A modern traditionalist, Orthodox Russia is viewed as antithetical to their more liberal, even Leftwing
ideas (e.g., increasing "conservative" acceptance of same sex marriage, "moderate" feminism, and a whole panoply of "forward looking"
views on civil rights issues -- all of which are present on Fox News.)
Memory of "the bad old days" has never disappeared.
None of this history should prevent a close examination of the current accusations against Russia, nor our search for the truth.
Much -- perhaps the future of Western civilization itself -- depends on it.
That was Neo-McCarthyim hysteria plain and simple; and it still is continuing as "FullOfSchiff" fqrse.
"... Can you think of a more vulgar and disgraceful manifestation of Trump-Russia media malfeasance than Rachel Maddow? Her deluded nightly conspiratorial rants may have been lucrative for MSNBC, but she fed viewers a complete fraud for three years. Now her show is undergoing a genuine existential crisis after Robert Mueller's exoneration of Trump . ..."
"... The harm Maddow inflicted is unforgivable and she should obviously resign, go into exile, and take up some other line of work: perhaps gardening. That said, she has also become something of a scapegoat. ..."
"... As contemptible as Rachel undoubtedly is, dwelling on her absolves the rest of the industry from acknowledging what really happened: a structural calamity of epic proportions, implicating almost all of them, which has utterly destroyed the reputation of the media writ large. And for good reason. ..."
"... (Brennan infamously declared Trump guilty of treason on Twitter following the Helsinki summit). ..."
"... Last week, Wheeler finally admitted her suspicion that the FBI may have just decided she is 'crazy.' Yes, sounds plausible. ..."
"... Sadly, all the media figures who might have been assigned to legitimate evidence-based inquiries were wrapped up in the never-ending Russia melodrama, based on the hunch that it would result in the revelation of treasonous collusion, followed by the arrest of Trump's family and his swift impeachment. None of this happened. So what was the point? ..."
"... Most disturbing of all is how otherwise-smart journalists and commentators lost their minds and integrity throughout the debacle. It was all a joke, a scam, and I've barely even scratched the surface here. It will take years to fully sift through the wreckage ..."
'Boom!': an autopsy of the
media after the Mueller bombshellDunking on Rachel Maddow may be fun, but she's far
from the sole perpetratorMichael
Tracey Rachel Maddow
Can you think of a more vulgar and disgraceful manifestation of Trump-Russia media
malfeasance than Rachel Maddow? Her deluded nightly conspiratorial rants may have been
lucrative for MSNBC, but she fed viewers a complete fraud for three years. Now her show is
undergoing a genuine existential crisis after Robert Mueller's exoneration of Trump .
The harm Maddow inflicted is unforgivable and she should obviously resign, go into exile,
and take up some other line of work: perhaps gardening. That said, she has also become
something of a scapegoat. It's convenient to disavow Maddow's excesses if you're a journalist
who wants to pretend that the media failures which gave rise to Trump-Russia weren't a
full-scale indictment of their entire profession. To act as though the misconduct was somehow
confined to one unhinged cable news personality would be a gross distortion.
As contemptible as Rachel undoubtedly is, dwelling on her absolves the rest of the industry
from acknowledging what really happened: a structural calamity of epic proportions, implicating
almost all of them, which has utterly destroyed the reputation of the media writ large. And for
Easy as it might be to pooh-pooh Maddow as some zany outlier, the undeniable reality is that
the sick conspiratorial mindset she embodied was thoroughly mainstream: it infected virtually
every sector of elite American culture, from journalism, to entertainment, to the professional
political class. Rachel is just the tip of the rotten iceberg.
Take, for instance, Keith Olbermann. Keith was the most influential host on MSNBC during the
George W. Bush years, when audiences ate up his furious denunciations of the Iraq War, which
scratched a genuine itch because of the prevailing pro-war media conformity of the time.
Olbermann gave voice to frustrated liberals who felt that their well-founded grievances were
not being represented in the popular media, and his style came to be emulated across the
industry (including by the host he recruited for a top spot on the network, Rachel Maddow.)
Then came the Trump era, when Olbermann's brain appeared to explode. He began recording
short video rants for GQ magazine, which rank among the most mind-bendingly deranged
content produced throughout the entire Russiagate ordeal. Please, just watch this unbelievable
screed from December 2016:
'We are at war with Russia,' Olbermann gravely proclaims. The inauguration of Donald Trump,
he prophesies, will mark 'the end of the United States as an independent country.' Anyone who
rejects this analysis is a 'traitor' says Olbermann, and in league with 'Russian scum.' His
recommendation is to thwart Trump via some harebrained Electoral College scheme where electors
are intimidated into violating their duty to vote according to the election outcome in their
respective states and districts.
I covered this attempted coup at the time, which failed, but was
supported by leading Democrats ranging from Hillary Clinton campaign communications
director Jennifer Palmieri to Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe; as well as Michael Moore,
Lawrence Lessig, Peter Beinart, DeRay McKesson, Paul Krugman, and Neera Tanden. Prominent
liberals had been melodramatically whinging for months about how appalled they were by Trump's
alleged propensity to violate 'norms,' but the next minute they turned around and demanded that
all norms governing the centuries-old Electoral College process be thrown out the window. The
wild propaganda promoted by Olbermann had become the standard, mainstream view among American
liberals: fundamentally corrupting their capacity to view subsequent political events with any
semblance of rationality.
Despite their truly insane offerings, focusing solely on demented opinionators like
Olbermann and Maddow still lets ostensibly 'neutral' journalists off the hook. The amount of
journalistic resources squandered on the Trump-Russia boondoggle, for instance by the New
York Times and the Washington Post , will never be fully quantified. Both newspapers
were lavished with Pulitzer Prizes and every other pointless accolade for their supposedly
intrepid journalism. Their constant 'bombshell scoops' routinely ricocheted across Twitter
before they were injected into the rest of the turbocharged media ecosystem, each one
breathlessly touted on cable news for hours at a time. The harsh truth is that most all of
these 'scoops' were predicated on a fiction. There was supposed to be a core conspiracy, which
was meant to explain why Trump associates kept getting caught in lies – why their
communications were extrajudicially intercepted, why they were surveilled on dubious pretenses.
But no underlying conspiracy was ever revealed. The whole thing was based on a fairytale.
Shouldn't the Times and WaPo therefore apologize and give back their Pulitzers?
Or at very least toss them in the dumpster.
Benjamin Wittes, the LawFare website guru and arguably the most lauded Twitter authority on
the Trump-Russia scam, became well-known for his fun slogan, 'BOOM!,' which he would gleefully
tweet every time a supposed bombshell article burst on the scene. Here's a Washington
story from October 21 last year headlined 'Special counsel examines conflicting accounts as
scrutiny of Roger Stone and WikiLeaks deepens,' which got the Wittes 'boom'
treatment. Wow, very dramatic! Sounds a lot like Mueller and his squad were closing in on Stone
as the evil mastermind behind some grand Trump-Russia conspiracy plot, given his suspicious
ties to WikiLeaks, right? The only problem is, when Stone was indicted three months later,
Mueller not only brought zero charges alleging Stone as party to any conspiracy, he
dispelled such notions.
All the correspondence cited in Mueller's indictment showed that
Stone had no
advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks releases or any privileged access to its operations. Roger
Stone was just doing what Roger Stone does best: bullshitting.
Stone was eventually charged by Mueller for making false statements, but again: none of
those statements pertained to a conspiracy cover-up. They pertained to the dirty trickster
being who he's been for decades: a fabulist who frequently misrepresents himself and gets in
stupid feuds with fellow political hucksters. The October 2018 story about which Wittes tweeted
'boom' ultimately had no real significance. Like so many other stories touted at the time as an
incredible BOMBSHELL, everyone got amped up over a total fantasy. The story had no serious
value, other than to temporarily scintillate now-discredited obsessives like Wittes.
Special scorn should be reserved for those in prominent media positions who ought to have
known better, but indulged day after day in conspiratorial nonsense anyway. Take Chris Hayes,
the popular 8pm MSNBC host, who unlike Maddow has a journalistic background (he was formerly
the Washington Editor of The Nation magazine). Theoretically, Hayes should have been imbued
with a greater sense of ingrained skepticism regarding CIA and FBI claims, which are what drove
the entire Trump-Russia investigation to begin with. He is also a genuinely intelligent person,
having (ironically) written the excellent Twilight of
the Elites (2012), a book which examined the propensity for upper-crust society to
engage in self-defeating groupthink.
But Hayes too ended up witlessly amplifying the most
obscene Russiagate antics – no doubt influenced by the pressure of having to turn in big
ratings every night. His shows were always brimming with security state spooks like John Brennan
, the former CIA Director and proven
fantasist . Brennan was eventually hired by NBC, becoming one of Hayes's colleagues
despite having played a central role in instigating the original Trump-Russia investigation in 2016 and inflaming its most
incendiary elements (Brennan infamously declared Trump guilty of treason on Twitter following
the Helsinki summit).
For further insight on the subject, Hayes generally turned to pseudo-journalistic figures
like Natasha Bertrand of The Atlantic , whose frenetically conspiratorial Russia
coverage has also proven to have been total bunk – as well as former prosecutors and
officials like Chuck Rosenberg, disreputable security state apparatchiks like former NSA
lawyer Susan Hennessey, and outright charlatans like purported 'intelligence expert' Malcolm
Nance. (Here's an example from 2016 of the esteemed Nance getting tricked by a Twitter
Hayes even went so far as to promote the theory that Trump had been colluding with
Russia since 1987, a story somehow featured on the cover of New
York magazine despite drawing on source material that literally originated with the
recently deceased, notorious madman Lyndon LaRouche. Hayes's descent into fact-free mania
culminated with his
declaration to Stephen Colbert on March 8 last year that Trump and his associates were
'super guilty' of collusion. Whoops!
While many once-respectable media figures like Hayes have seen their reputations inserted
directly into the toilet, maybe the most bizarre case of all is Marcy Wheeler, the independent
journalist known as @emptywheel .
Wheeler appeared on Hayes's first show after Mueller decisively cleared Trump of collusion
– you know, the central tenet of the Special Counsel's mandate. The fact that Hayes would
have Wheeler on at that moment – after the entire Trump-Russia drama was definitively
exposed as a ludicrous fantasy – showed that Hayes was committed to perpetuating the
deceit even in the face of all countervailing evidence, whether unconsciously or consciously.
That's because Marcy Wheeler is almost certainly a deluded basket case.
The most obvious evidence for this is Wheeler's sensational admission in July 2018 that she
burned a source to the FBI, voluntarily and proactively, thereby committing one of
journalism's mortal sins. Wheeler justified her demented action on numerous fronts. First, she
claimed that she possessed bombshell, smoking gun info that proved a Trump-Russia conspiracy,
and felt a patriotic duty to hand this over to the FBI – in retribution for what she
called Russia's 'attack' on the United States. Let's remember, shall we, that said attack at
most amounted to some Twitter bots, goofy Facebook memes, and spear-phished Gmail accounts:
John Podesta famously clicked on a phony link, which led to his emails being swiped. Hardly
9/11 or Pearl Harbor, wouldn't you say? However, those comparisons have been seriously made by
various prominent elected officials, including Rep.
Jerrold Nadler of New York, who would have presided over impeachment proceedings had things
panned out differently.
When pressed – even after the Mueller clearly asserted that no such Trump-Russia
conspiracy ever existed – Wheeler still refuses to divulge any details about the
extraordinary dispositive evidence she mysteriously claims to possess. Second, Wheeler further
justified her insane conduct by insisting she could literally be killed by some unknown
sinister alliance of Russians and Trump-backed mafia figures, or something ( I'm not making this up .).
Shamefully, Wheeler's outlandish assertions were treated as gospel by members of the media who
failed to apply even a modicum of critical scrutiny; Margaret Sullivan of the Washington
heralded Wheeler as following her conscience and wrote this about the supposed Russian hit
squad out to get her: 'Overly dramatic? Not really. The Russians do have a penchant for
disposing of people they find threatening.' Utter lunacy. Since the Mueller finding, Wheeler
has strangely not revealed any additional information about the nature of these would-be
Think about it. For months, Wheeler dangled cryptic hints about the explosive info that she
alone supposedly knew about, enthralling blog readers and Twitter followers – and earning
her major platforms not just on MSNBC but even the New York Times , where she
that contained blatant falsehoods. In the pages of the world's most influential newspaper, she
claimed that Mueller had been 'hiding' evidence showing Trump's participation in a Russia
conspiracy, and it would all come out once Mueller issued his final verdict. No dice.
Last week, Wheeler finally admitted her suspicion that the FBI may have just decided
she is 'crazy.' Yes, sounds plausible.
So much journalistic energy was wasted chronicling the ins-and-outs of the Russiagate
non-story. Imagine if instead that time was devoted to reporting in the public interest: like,
say, I don't know – investigating the militaristic think tanks which attempted to
undermine Trump's key diplomatic initiatives (such as North Korea), or how Trump was co-opted
by the Republican donor class, or his various actual corruptions that didn't happen to involve
any international espionage conspiracy.
Sadly, all the media figures who might have been
assigned to legitimate evidence-based inquiries were wrapped up in the never-ending Russia
melodrama, based on the hunch that it would result in the revelation of treasonous collusion,
followed by the arrest of Trump's family and his swift impeachment. None of this happened. So
what was the point?
Most disturbing of all is how otherwise-smart journalists and commentators lost their minds
and integrity throughout the debacle. It was all a joke, a scam, and I've barely even scratched
the surface here. It will take years to fully sift through the wreckage.
Ian: "It's a problem when conservatives cannot tell the difference between legitimate
inquiries into a president's conduct."
More whitewashing of Maddow's multi-year campaign of journalistic malpractice and public
Lovely it's a problem when conspiracy theorists masquerading as "broadcasters" speculate
about the President being a Russian agent and/or asset, engaging in espionage and treason,
all without evidence, call such claims legitimate inquiries, and then refuse to apologize
when such claims are thoroughly debunked by the Special Counsel.
Again, Barr quoting Mueller: "The investigation did not establish that members of the
Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow lost a whopping 20 percent of her audience after the release of the Mueller Report proved
she shamelessly deceived her audience for more than two years.
of this report -- you know, the one that exonerates President Trump of any and all allegations of Russia
collusion, is, arguably, the biggest news of the last two years -- and in the heat of this massive news cycle that
lands directly in Maddow's sweet spot, a huge chunk of her audience just up and disappeared.
For two years a cloud of illegitimacy hung over the Trump presidency and for two years the establishment media,
most especially MSNBC and CNN, maniacally fire hosed the American people with fake news to smear the president as a
Russian spy. But of all those guilty of spreading this dishonest hysteria, no one came close to Rachel Maddow.
Night after relentless night, over two-plus years, Maddow kept her suckers on the hook by weaving from whole cloth
a conspiracy tale about Trump being owned by Putin. And with this tale came the promise that Trump's removal from
office was always right around the corner, and that Robert Mueller would be the deliverer -- the angel who would end
the nightmare of a terrible national mistake known as the Trump presidency.
Because this hysteria was everywhere (except in the conservative media that got everything right), there was no
way to warn Maddow's suckers that they were in fact suckers, that like a cult leader promising the end of the world,
she was hustling them, lying to them, and enriching herself in the process to the tune of about $10 million a year.
Maybe now, though, the Cult of Maddow is cracking. I doubt it, but there is some hope in the latest numbers
On Monday March 18, four days before the Mueller Report proved her a liar, 2.977 million people tuned in to
Maddow's carnival bark.
This past Monday, the 25th, three days after the Mueller Report proved her a liar, only 2.513 million tuned in, a
loss of nearly 500,000 viewers.
Lawrence O'Donnell -- whose show immediately follows Maddow and who is almost as obsessed with deceiving his
audience about those damn, dirty Reds -- took a similar hit: a drop from 2.2 million to 1.845 million.
In my decade or so of media coverage, MSNBC has rarely pinged my radar. Who cares about an openly left-wing outlet
being openly left-wing? If CNN would stop its laughable pose as objective, that fake news network would probably
never hear from me again.
This thing with Maddow, though, is bigger because she's a snake oil saleswoman, a bunco artist, a grifter selling
vials of hope filled with lies. For years, and only as a means to stay in the ratings fight with Sean Hannity, Maddow
deliberately played millions and millions of people for suckers, for rubes She hustled them, lied to them, deceived
and hoaxed them in the most cynical way imaginable.
Mueller's got the goods, she promised, and Trump will be marched in cuffs out of the Oval Office, and you must
tune in every single night or you will miss
The Most Important Development Yet
And it was all bullshit, a con, a fever swamp of desperate dot-connecting backed by maniacal talking heads and
unhinged "experts" screaming about treason! and indictments! and bombshells! and walls closing in!
So is it possible, dare we dream The Truth has set as much as 20 percent of Maddow's gullible viewers free?
Or is this just more denial and avoidance by the Cult of Rachel. The Daily Beast (that first reported Maddow's
ratings dive) describes it
: "[I]t's also possible that the Mueller disappointment drove loyal viewers away in much the same way
that people avoid looking at their 401(k)s when the stock market is down."
My guess is that the suckers will be back. Maddow will pivot with a wrist flick and a never-mind right into the
next fever dream.
There's a market among neurotic leftists for the drug of delusional denial and the Hoax Queen's got an endless
Gene: "I think Rachel has a long way to go before she gets to 911 Trutherism, Sandy Hook and
Right, of course. Because those conspiracy theories pale in comparison and importance to
claiming the President is a Russian agent and/or asset, which was endorsed by a former CIA
head, a former DNI, high level officials in the FBI, who also spied on the opposition
campaign using a now totally discredited opposition research dossier, as well as every
Democratic candidate for President except maybe Tulsi.
That sort of thinking is well-grounded, happens every day in America, and has mainstream
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC screenshot)
Though she doesn't often bring it up these days, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow remembers how the
media abetted the Bush administration's lies justifying the 2003 Iraq invasion. That was when elite (in many cases
handpicked) journalists spent months serving as stenographers for the push to war, parroting every carefully crafted
leak without question. They dismissed skeptics as disloyal and spiked stories that would have raised questions about the
narrative. When they got caught, they declared "never again."
Yet with Rachel
Maddow as their poster child (along with David Corn, Luke Harding, Chris Hayes, the entire staff at CNN, and hundreds
more), journalists over the last two years repeated
their predecessors had made in 2003.
as fact because it came from a "source"
and told us to just trust them. They blurred the lines between first-hand knowledge, second- and third-hand hearsay, and
"people familiar with the matter" to build breaking news out of manure. They marginalized skeptics as "useful idiots."
(Glenn Greenwald, who called bull on Russiagate from the beginning, says MSNBC
him after he criticized Maddow. He'd
been a regular during the Bush and Obama years.)
They accepted negative information at face value and discarded information that did
not fit their pre-written narrative of collusion.
The Washington Post
never even ran a story about how its reporters came up
after working for months to prove that Michael Cohen met with Russian agents in Prague.
They went all in with salacious headlines, every story a sugar high. They purposefully
muddled the impact of an indictment versus an actual conviction. They conflated anyone from Russia with the Russian
government. They never paused to ask why there weren't "Sources: Trump is Innocent" stories that later needed to be
walked back; the errors were somehow all on one side. They became a machine as trustworthy as the politicians they
Though the wars across the Middle East the media helped midwife are beyond sin, the
damage done to journalism itself is far
this time around. With Maddow in the lead, journalists went a step further than just shoddy reporting, proudly declaring
their partisanship (once the cardinal sin of journalism) and placing themselves at the center of the story. In one
"In purely journalistic terms, this is
an epic disaster."
So there was Maddow, night after night in front of her serial killer burlap board,
Trump and Putin surrounded by blurry images of Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, she running twine between pins so
her viewers could keep up with her racing intellect. Anyone with a Russian-y surname "had ties to Putin," "connections
to Russian intelligence," or was at least an oligarch. She nurtured an unashamed crush on deep state clowns that the
Rachel Maddow of a few years back would have smirked at -- Brennan, Clapper, Comey.
She ignored or downplayed other news, devoting
percent of her airtime to Russiagate alone (Trump's Muslim visa ban got
less than 6 percent). She worked to convince Americans that the cornerstone of justice was not "innocent until proven
guilty" but "if there's smoke there's fire." She joined journalists in knowingly publishing material whose veracity they
doubted, centering on the
Maddow became Infowars. She moved beyond the simpleton advocacy journalism of Bush lie
peddling journo tools. She was going to save the country. So she created a story out of whole cloth that reinforced her
political beliefs and convinced people it was true. And it was all justified because the fate of the republic itself
hung in the balance. Any day now, Trump would peel off a rubber mask Scooby Doo-style to reveal that he was Putin all
And then, after years of being held together by the incantation "just wait for Mueller
Time," one day it all fell apart. The Mueller report summary was short, but it answered the most important question ever
asked about a president: Trump was not a Russian asset. There was no Russiagate, no conspiracy, collusion, cooperation,
or indictments, none to come and none sealed we didn't know about, and no treason or perjury charges over the Moscow
hotel or the Trump Tower meeting or anything else. The accusations were as explicit as was the conclusion. It. Did. Not.
The great progressive hope -- America was run by a Russian stooge -- was over and done.
Maddow's response? Break another cardinal rule of journalism and bury the lede. Okay, sure, Bill Barr
Mueller didn't find collusion if you wanna
believe that, but what matters now is that, even after Robert Mueller did not find evidence of obstruction he could
charge, and the FBI before him did not find any, and Bill Barr confirmed he did not find it, Maddow still
obstruction took place. And if only she could see the full Mueller report, she would explain it all to you. (Maddow is
a "day of action" for Americans to take to the streets and demand the report.) It wasn't the Russians; it was old man
Barr in the drawing room with the candlestick! Trump is guilty of failing to obstruct an investigation that cleared him!
Meanwhile, after waiting two years for Mueller, waiting two weeks for Barr to release
the report was unconscionable. But two days for Barr to write the summary was too fast, proof the fix was in. Trump
threatens the rule of law, but when the system works according to the law and the attorney general makes a lawful
decision, it's all an inside-job-cover-up-crisis.
for Maddow this week was a foreign
government-owned company resisting an old Mueller subpoena. The case is in front of a grand jury, so the public does not
know what company it is, what government is involved, what the case itself concerns, or whether it has any connection to
Trump, Russia, or the Spiders from Mars. But listening to Maddow spin it all out, it sounds VERY BIG.
Over the course of a recent evening, she tied what she dubbed The Mystery Case into
Watergate (the same court being used as in 1974 is about the only connection), and because the Watergate judge released
some grand jury testimony to help drive Nixon from office, this bodes ill for Trump keeping the dirt Rachel just knows
is there secret. It could break this wide open!
The whole oral manifesto was delivered Howard Beale-like in what seemed like one long
breath, with the certainty of someone who sees ghosts and is frustrated you can't see them too. It got so bad that
recently Maddow was
by her own
in real time.
It took the
New York Times
over a year after the Iraq war started to issue a mild "mistakes were made" kind of
. At some point with Russiagate,
many people will come to understand that there aren't more questions than answers. They'll abandon the straw man of
waiting for prosecutors to issue a magic Certificate of Exoneration because they'll understand that prosecutors end
things by deciding not to prosecute.
But it's hard to see Maddow returning to earth orbit. Instead of a reflective pause,
she is spinning ever-more complex and nonsensical conspiracy tales, talking faster and faster to cover the gaps in
logic. It is sad, but there are psychiatric terms for people who refuse to accept facts and insist they alone understand
a world you can't even see. Delusion. Denial. Psychosis. Obsession. Paranoia.
Maddow is a sad story. Others playing the cable news game never had her intellect
(looking at you, Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo). They were weekend Vichy, showbiz grifters. But Maddow believed. Her goal
was to end the Trump presidency on her own. And to do so, she devolved from what Glenn Greenwald
"this really smart, independent thinker
into this utterly scripted, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack."
There's a difference between being wrong once in a while (and issuing corrections) and
being wrong for two years on both the core point as well as the evidence. There is even more wrong with purposefully
manipulating information to drive a specific narrative, believing that the ends justify the means.
In journalism school, the first is called making a mistake. The second, Maddow's
offense, is called propaganda.
"Maddow's audience has dipped on her two days back on the air since Attorney General
William P. Barr reported that special counsel Robert Mueller had found no collusion between
Trump and Russia's efforts. Her audience of 2.5 million on Monday was 19% below her average
this year, and it went down further to 2.3 million on Tuesday, the Nielsen company said.
Meanwhile, her head-to-head competitor on Fox News Channel, Sean Hannity, saw his audience
soar on Monday to 4 million viewers, a 32% increase from his average. It slipped to 3.57
million on Tuesday. One of Trump's most prominent media fans, Hannity was to interview the
president on Wednesday's show."
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness