“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” - Plato
Seeking Truth in a World of Propaganda. Links do not necessarily indicate agreement with stories or perspectives.
Saturday, December 8, 2018
Thursday, December 6, 2018
FBI Knew Steele Dossier Was Bogus Before Using In FISA Application: Solomon
ORIGINAL LINK
via IFTTT
A string of emails quietly requested by House Republicans for declassification by President Trump may be the smoking gun that the FBI and DOJ committed egregious abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), according to The Hill's John Solomon.
The email exchanges - kept from Congressional investigators for over two years, "included then-FBI Director James Comey, key FBI investigators in the Russia probe and lawyers in the DOJ’s national security division," according to the report - and took place in early to mid-October of 2016, prior to the FBI successfully securing a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
The email exchanges show the FBI was aware — before it secured the now-infamous warrant — that there were intelligence community concerns about the reliability of the main evidence used to support it: the Christopher Steele dossier.
The exchanges also indicate FBI officials were aware that Steele, the former MI6 British intelligence operative then working as a confidential human source for the bureau, had contacts with news media reporters before the FISA warrant was secured. -The Hill
Two weeks after the FBI secured the FISA warrant using the Steele Dossier, Steele was fired by the FBI on November 1, 2016 for inappropriate communications with the news media.
Also withheld from both Congress and the general public until months later is the fact that Steele had been paid by Fusion GPS - an opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton and the DNC to dig up dirt on Donald Trump. Moreover, Steele absolutely hated Donald Trump.
And as Solomon notes; "If the FBI knew of his media contacts and the concerns about the reliability of his dossier before seeking the warrant, it would constitute a serious breach of FISA regulations and the trust that the FISA court places in the FBI."
That’s because the FBI has an obligation to certify to the court before it approves FISA warrants that its evidence is verified, and to alert the judges to any flaws in its evidence or information that suggest the target might be innocent. -The Hill
The FBI, however, went to extreme lengths to convince the FISA judge that Steele ("Source #1"), was reliable when they could not verify the unsubstantiated claims in his dossier - while also having to explain why they still trusted his information after having terminated Steele's contract over inappropriate disclosures he made to the media.
"Not withstanding Source1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate1's ties to Russia, based on Source1's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source 1s reporting herein to be credible"
On top of that, Bill Priestap told Congress that corroboration of the dossier was in its "infancy" when FISAs were being granted. An FBI unit found dossier was only "minimally" corroborated.
— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) July 22, 2018
Of course, none of this mattered to the FBI - which painted Carter Page in the most criminal light possible, as intended, in order to convince the FISA judge to grant the warrant. In order to reinforce their argument, the FBI presented various claims from the dossier as facts, such as "The FBI learned that Page met with at least two Russian officials" - when in fact that was simply another unverified claim from the dossier.
It flat out accuses Page of being a Russian spy who was recruited by the Kremlin, which sought to "undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election in violation of U.S. criminal law," the application reads.
ALERT: The declassified FBI warrant application attests to secret FISA court that "THE FBI LEARNED that Page met with at least two Russian officials during the trip,"as if FBI learned this independently,when in fact it's clear it relied on Clinton-paid dossier for the information
— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) July 22, 2018
FBI represented to a federal judge that investigators knew for certain that Carter Page met w/ Igor Sechin and Diveykin. Except, the FISA app acknowledges this intel came from Steele dossier. And FBI has acknowledged dossier was not verifieid. https://t.co/7ZstgwlVOh pic.twitter.com/NDYvBIhXB0
— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) July 21, 2018
Another approach used to beef up the FISA application's curb appeal was circular evidence, via the inclusion of a letter from Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (NV) to former FBI Director James Comey, citing information Reid got from John Brennan, which was in turn from the Clinton-funded dossier.
BREAKING: FBI's FISA warrant actually cites as "evidence" to spy on Carter Page/Trump campaign "Senate Minority Leader" Harry Reid's 2016 letter to Comey citing information he got from John Brennan who got it from the Clinton dossier -- talk about circular evidence!
— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) July 22, 2018
Meanwhile - current and former members of the US intelligence community continue to hinge their theories of Trump-Russia collusion on the Steele Dossier, despite Comey admitting that it was "salacious" and "unverified" during sworn testimony.
Most intelligence officials, such as former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, have embraced the concerns laid out in the Steele dossier of possible — but still unproven — collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Yet, 10 months after the probe started and a month after Robert Mueller was named special counsel in the Russia probe, Comey cast doubt on the the Steele dossier, calling it “unverified” and “salacious” in sworn testimony before Congress.
Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page further corroborated Comey’s concerns in recent testimony before House lawmakers, revealing that the FBI had not corroborated the collusion charges by May 2017, despite nine months of exhaustive counterintelligence investigation. -The Hill
Congressional investigators now want to question Comey about the October email string and whether it contributed to his assessment. According to Solomon, the newly requested email chain "provides the most direct evidence that the bureau, and possibly the DOJ, had reasons to doubt the Steele dossier before the FISA warrant was secured."
"If these documents are released, the American public will have clear and convincing evidence to see the FISA warrant that escalated the Russia probe just before Election Day was flawed and the judges [were] misled," one source told Solomon.
What's more, House GOP investigators now have a growing pile of evidence that some of the information inserted into a fourth and final application for the FISA - signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, was suspect - as evidence by hints by House Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes (R-CA) on Fox News's Sean Hannity TV show November 20. Nunes said that the declassification of the requested documents will "give finality to everyone who wants to know what their government did to a political campaign."
As Solomon bluntly puts it:
The bureau, under a Democratic-controlled Justice Department, sought a warrant to spy on the duly nominated GOP candidate for president in the final weeks of the 2016 election, based on evidence that was generated under a contract paid by his political opponent.
That evidence, the Steele dossier, was not fully vetted by the bureau and was deemed unverified months after the warrant was issued.
At least one news article was used in the FISA warrant to bolster the dossier as independent corroboration when, it fact, it was traced to a news organization that had been in contact with Steele, creating a high likelihood it was circular intelligence reporting.
And the entire warrant, the FBI’s own document shows, was being rushed to approval by two agents who hated Trump and stated in their own texts that they wanted to “stop” the Republican from becoming president.
No wonder Comey wanted a public testimony - where he wouldn't have to discuss any of this.
via IFTTT
Why Can The CIA Assassinate People?
ORIGINAL LINK
via IFTTT
Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future Of Freedom Foundation,
Given that we have all been born and raised under a regime that has the CIA, hardly anyone questions the power of the CIA to assassinate people.
The CIA’s power of assassination has become a deeply established part of American life.
Yet, the Constitution, which called the federal government into existence and established its powers, does not authorize the federal government to assassinate people.
If the proponents of the Constitution had told the American people that the Constitution was bringing into existence a government that wielded the power to assassinate people, there is no way that Americans would have approved the deal, in which case they would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation.
Under the Articles, the powers of the federal government were so weak, it didn’t even have the power to tax, much less the power to assassinate people. That’s because our American ancestors wanted it that way. The last thing they wanted was a federal government with vast powers.
In fact, the purpose of the Constitutional Convention was simply to amend the Articles of Confederation. During the 13 years of operating under the Articles, problems had arisen, such as trade wars between the states. The convention was intended to fix those problems with amendments to the Articles.
Instead, the delegates came out with an entirely different proposal, one that would call into existence a federal government that had more powers, including the power to tax.
Americans were leery. The last thing they wanted was a powerful central government. They had had enough of that type of government as British citizens under the British Empire. They believed that the biggest threat to people’s freedom and well-being lay with their own government. They believed that if they approved a federal government, it would become tyrannical and oppressive, like other governments had done throughout history.
They were especially concerned with the power of the government to murder people, including citizens. They knew that state-sponsored murder was the ultimate power in any tyrannical regime. When a government can kill anyone it wants with impunity, all other rights are effectively nullified. And our ancestors were sufficiently well-versed in history to know that tyrannical regimes were notorious for killing their own citizens, especially those people who challenge, criticize, or object to the tyranny.
The proponents of the Constitution told Americans that they had nothing to be concerned about. The Constitution wasn’t calling into existence a government with general powers to do anything it wanted. Instead, by the terms of the document that would be calling the federal government into existence, its powers would be limited to the few powers that were enumerated within the document. Thus, if a power wasn’t enumerated, it didn’t exist and, therefore, couldn’t be exercised. Since the Constitution wasn’t giving the federal government the power to murder people, it couldn’t exercise that power.
On that basis, our American ancestors approved the deal, but only on the condition that the Constitution would be immediately amended after approval with a Bill of Rights. To make sure that federal officials understood that they didn’t have the power to murder people, the Fifth Amendment was enacted. It prohibited the federal government from killing people without first according them due process of law. It’s worth noting that the protections of the Fifth Amendment are not limited to American citizens. The Amendment prohibits the federal government from murdering anyone, including people who are not U.S. citizens.
What is due process of law? It’s a phrase that stretches all the way back to Magna Carta in 1215, when the barons of England forced their king to acknowledge that his powers over them were limited. Magna Carta prohibited the king from killing British citizens in violation of the “law of the land,” a phase that evolved over the centuries into “due process of law.”
Essentially, due process means notice and hearing. It says to the government: “You cannot kill anyone unless you first give him formal notice of the particular criminal offense that you are claiming warrants killing him.” Then, after notice, there has to be fair trial in which the accused has the right to be heard. The Sixth Amendment ensured that people would have the right of trial by jury because our ancestors didn’t trust judges or tribunals.
And so it was that the American people lived in a society for more than 150 years in which the federal government lacked the power to assassinate people, which is really just a fancy word for murder. A governmental assassination is the state-sponsored killing of a person without notice and trial — that is, without due process of law.
The situation changed after World War II, when the federal government, in a watershed event, was converted from a limited-government republic into what is known as a “national-security state,” a type of governmental system that is inherent to totalitarian regimes. U.S. officials maintained that the conversion was necessary in order to confront the Soviet Union, a communist state, which itself was a national-security state. The idea was that in order to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War, it would be necessary for the United States to adopt, temporarily, its same type of national-security state system.
In 1947, the CIA was called into existence as part of this new national-security state. President Truman, the president who was responsible for the federal government’s conversion to a national-security state, intended for the CIA to be strictly an intelligence-gathering agency. But someone slipped a bit of nebulous language into the law that called the CIA into existence, which the CIA seized upon to justify the adoption of omnipotent powers, including the power to assassinate people with impunity, so long as the assassination was to protect “national security.” Needless to say, the CIA had the omnipotent power to make that determination.
As monumental as the conversion to a national-security state was, it was not done through a constitutional amendment. The Constitution continued to be the supreme law that governed the operations of the federal government, including the CIA. Thus, since the Constitution did not give the federal government the power to assassinate people and since the Fifth Amendment expressly prohibited the federal government from assassinating people, the U.S. Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary had the responsibility to declare the CIA’s power to assassinate people unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, however, in a national-security state power is everything and especially omnipotent power. Recognizing that as a practical matter, there would be no way that the federal judiciary could keep the CIA from assassinating people in the name of protecting “national security,” the federal courts went silent or even supportive.
In 1989 the Cold War ended. Yet, we still have a national-security state and we still have a CIA with the power to assassinate people, including Americans. Why is that?
via IFTTT
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
MSM Is Getting Weirder, More Frantic, And More Desperate By The Day
ORIGINAL LINK
via IFTTT
When even the Washington Post is saying your Russiagate article is bad journalism, your Russiagate article is really, really bad journalism.
In an article titled “The Guardian offered a bombshell story about Paul Manafort. It still hasn’t detonated.”, WaPo writer Pul Farhi draws attention to the fact that it has been a week since the Guardian published a claim that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort met repeatedly with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, without any evidence backing up the claim, using solely anonymous sources, and despite the claims contradicting known records of Assange’s guests at the Ecuadorian embassy. Criticism and demands for answers have been growing louder and louder from both friends and enemies of WikiLeaks, with new plot holes opening up in the Guardian’s narrative daily, and the scandal is now moving into mainstream awareness.
And the Guardian remains silent, with its editor-in-chief Katharine Viner refusing to utter so much as a peep of defense this entire time. The only comment the publication has issued has been repeated day after day verbatim to every news outlet which writes about this bizarre occurrence: “This story relied on a number of sources. We put these allegations to both Paul Manafort and Julian Assange’s representatives prior to publication. Neither responded to deny the visits taking place. We have since updated the story to reflect their denials.” Which is basically just implying that they can print any libelous nonsense they want about anyone if their denials aren’t sent to the proper email address on time.
This, clearly, is bananas.
Do these establishment smear merchants not realize how creepy, desperate and frantic they make themselves look when they crank out these hit pieces on anti-imperialist voices? This one HuffPo editor writes this empire smut all the time and doesn't even notice how freaky it looks. https://t.co/RQZFKxgsm2
— @caitoz
The Huffington Post has just published yet another brazen hit piece on University of Sheffield professor Piers Robinson. And when I say brazen, I mean really goddamn brazen. The entire article consists of nothing but senior HuffPo editor Chris York meticulously documenting the fact that a university professor is “heavily critical of western governments and media” who expresses skepticism of establishment narratives around 9/11, Syria, and Russia, and suggesting that it is bad and wrong for a university to employ anyone with dissenting views.
Even for a hit piece the article feels incredibly forced, ham-fisted and desperate. Reading it gives you the feeling as if York is leaning way into your personal space, pressing his face against your ear, and saying “You are not to believe the things that horrible man says about what is happening in your world. I will tell you what you are to believe about those controversial events. Big Brother is your friend. You love Big Brother.”
Which would be weird enough even without the fact that York has been personally targeting Robinson and other anti-imperialist voices with identical hit pieces over and over and over again this year. A senior HuffPo editor has published hit piece after hit piece after hit piece against a small group of academics and reporters who have very little influence compared to a mass media outlet, but still far too much for a virulent empire sentry like York.
And this is just what’s happening today. For the last two years the mass media machine has been behaving very, very strangely, and it isn’t getting better, it’s getting worse. Not since the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq have we seen mainstream media outlets trying to shove narratives down our throats so desperately and aggressively, and even then they were doing it for one very specific purpose.
This time around things are less clear-cut. I do not subscribe to the belief that the shift in behavior of the media is due to an establishment hatred of Trump; despite the rhetoric and the narratives, Trump has been protecting establishment interests just as reliably as his predecessors, and everyone who knows anything about Russiagate knows that it will never lead to the removal of Trump from office. A much more logical explanation is the need to manufacture support for the geopolitical agenda of isolating Russia and shoving it off the world stage to stop it from protecting China’s rise to superpower status, and in cold war the use of propaganda becomes even more important than in hot war. But I also think there’s more to it than that. I think a large part of the frantic urgency that we are seeing from the establishment propaganda machine is nothing other than an attempt to regain control of the narrative.
In 2016, for the first time ever, some things didn’t go as scripted for the propagandists and manipulators who pace the public into going along with plans laid that they never voted for by people they did not elect. Widespread internet access, alternative media, WikiLeaks, and discontent with the status quo converged and danced in such a way with one another in 2016 that a large number of people realized that the talking heads on their TV screens are lying to them all the time. An unacceptably large number of people.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. The unelected power establishment which rules over us depends on narrative control in order to rule, and if people do not trust the plutocrat-owned talking heads who are telling them what narratives to believe, there can be no control. In France we’ve been seeing uncontrollable protesters from across the political spectrum writing “We’ve chopped off heads for less than this” in graffiti on the Arc de Triomphe, which you may be certain has widened plutocratic eyes all around the world.
And that, I believe, is why the mass media has been behaving so strangely. For two years they have been reaching and leaning all over the place trying to regain control of the narrative like a novice ice skater trying to regain balance, and they are only getting closer to falling. Which probably makes the present moment the perfect time to give them a good shove. Spread truth about the mass media’s deceptions like the Guardian’s psyop against WikiLeaks, wake people up to what they’re trying to accomplish by herding people into partisan echo chambers, arresting Assange, censoring the internet, and marginalizing alternative media which provides dissident narratives.
The only thing keeping the many from rising like lions against the few to create a new world which benefits everyone is the establishment propaganda machine, and right now it is wildly off balance. Shove hard, and don’t stop shoving until it falls.
Arc de Triomphe still covered in graffiti this morning: 'We've chopped off heads for less than this' , 'Topple the Bougeoisie' , 'May 1968 December 2018'
________________________
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
via IFTTT
The View from the Trenches of the Alternative Media
ORIGINAL LINK
via IFTTT
What's scarce in a world awash in free content and nearly infinite entertainment content?
After 3,701 posts (from May 2005 to the present), here are my observations of the Alternative Media from the muddy trenches.
It's increasingly difficult to make a living creating content outside the corporate matrix. The share of advert revenues paid to content creators / publishers has declined precipitously, shadow banning has narrowed search and social media exposure and the expansion of free content and competing subscription-based publishing has made subscription services an increasingly tough sell.
The most effective ways to silence critics and skeptics is to 1) de-monetize their sites / platforms and 2) restrict their access to the public via shadow banning and search algorithm "adjustments." The two are related, of course; as audiences dwindle, so do revenues and opportunities to sell subscriptions or promote patronage.
The corporate media's lumping of all alternative media in with "fake news" and troll-farms has intentionally tarnished all alternative media, as undermining independent journalism and commentary is an essential part of unifying public opinion behind "approved" ideologically uniform narratives.
Significant swaths of the public get their "news" and commentary solely from social media (Facebook and Twitter, and to a lesser degree, Instagram) or a handful of corporate media (which included PBS/NPR). As these channels limit / delegitimize alternative media voices, the public's access to alternative analysis and commentary diminishes even further.
A few quasi-monopolistic corporations have effectively become gatekeepers: what's approved is allowed to be viewed / heard / read, what raises eyebrows effectively disappears.
It's become increasingly difficult to make a living writing books. Advances for established authors have fallen from $10,000 or $20,000 to $2,500 or $1,000, and in the academic publishing world, $1,000 may be the entire sum paid to the author for writing a book.
Are people reading fewer books as video and entertainment content expand exponentially? Perhaps. Or are people reading whatever is free rather than buying ebooks/print books? There are likely multiple factors at work, but the bottom line is the Pareto Distribution is visible in the "long tail" of thousands of content creators who receive very little in the way of earnings and a handful at the top of the distribution who capture the lion's share of all royalties and other income.
What's scarce in a world awash in free content and nearly infinite entertainment content? Fresh, independent insight is eternally scarce, and in a world in which almost everyone is selling a cover story to secure their spot at the corporate-state trough (or win the approval of their social-media "tribe"), authenticity is also scarce.
The economic-financial value of insight and authenticity are unknown; the market doesn't price these as it does commodities such as "news". It's left to individuals to assess and establish the economic-financial value independent journalism and commentary.
My new book Pathfinding our Destiny is available at a discount for the ebook and the print edition through December 15 ($5.95 ebook, $10.95 print). Read the first section for free in PDF format.
My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)
My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)
My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format.
My new book Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic is discounted ($5.95 ebook, $10.95 print): Read the first section for free in PDF format.
If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.
|
Thank you, J.P. B. ($5/month), for your wondrously generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.
|
Thank you, Erle H. ($52), for your outstandingly generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.
|
Go to my main site at www.oftwominds.com/blog.html for the full posts and archives.
via IFTTT
Monday, December 3, 2018
Top Ecuadorian Diplomat Destroys Guardian's Claim That Manafort Visited Assange
ORIGINAL LINK
via IFTTT
A former consul and first secretary at the Ecuadorian embassy in London has put the final nail in the coffin of credibility for The Guardian, refuting the paper's fantastical and wholly unsupported claim that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2013, 2015 and the spring of 2016 - a charge vehemently denied by all parties involved.
Fidel Narváez - who worked at Ecuador's London embassy from 2010 - 2018 has told The Canary that The Guardian's claim is entirely false. The Canary has also reviewed a copy of correspondence between the Guardian and Narváez in which he makes a formal complaint accusing the paper of fabricating an earlier story about a Kremlin plot to smuggle Assange to Russia.
Both WikiLeaks and Manafort have said they plan to sue The Guardian over the publication, with Manafort slamming the report as "totally false and deliberately libellous."
Narváez - initially consul and then first secretary at the embassy, told the Canary that to his knowledge, Manafort never visited the embassy while he was employed there. What's more, his account supports points made by The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald about visitation rights at the embassy.
It is impossible for any visitor to enter the embassy without going through very strict protocols and leaving a clear record: obtaining written approval from the ambassador, registering with security personnel, and leaving a copy of ID. The embassy is the most surveilled on Earth; not only are there cameras positioned on neighbouring buildings recording every visitor, but inside the building every movement is recorded with CCTV cameras, 24/7. In fact, security personnel have always spied on Julian and his visitors. It is simply not possible that Manafort visited the embassy.
The Guardian responded to Narváez's comments, stating:
"This story relied on a number of sources. We put these allegations to both Paul Manafort and Julian Assange’s representatives prior to publication. Neither responded to deny the visits taking place. We have since updated the story to reflect their denials."
This answer is counter to a statement made by Manafort following the story's publication, in which he said "We are considering all legal options against the Guardian who proceeded with this story even after being notified by my representatives that it was false."
Furthermore, Manafort's passport stamps also refute the Guardian's reporting, after the Washington Times reported that Manafort's three passports reveal just two visits to England in 2010 and 2012, which support his categorical denial of the "totally false and deliberately libelous" report in The Guardian, which said that Manafort visited Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy - ostensibly to coordinate on the WikiLeaks release of Hillary Clinton's emails.
WikiLeaks, meanwhile, bet The Guardian "a million dollars and its editor's head that Manafort never met Assange."
This is going to be one of the most infamous news disasters since Stern published the "Hitler Diaries".
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 27, 2018
No word on whether they've taken the organization up on its offer.
via IFTTT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)