Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Internet Buzzing After Julian Assange's Mother Implicates Seth Rich In DNC Leak

ORIGINAL LINK

The internet is buzzing with theories after Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange's mother, Christine Assange, tweeted - and then deleted - what many believe to be a suggestion that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich "leaked docs proving corruption." 

In response to the question "why did Julian publish damning docs against Hillary at such a crucial time which gave Humpty Dumpty Trump the upper hand?" Christine Assange replied "Its the duty of media to inform citizens about corruption," adding "a #DNC #Bernie supporter disgruntled with rigging leaked docs proving corruption." 

"What should Wikileaks should have done? Hold on to them till after the election to advantage #Hillary?" she continued, adding "You are shooting the messenger!

Many have pointed out that Mrs. Assange's the description fits that of Seth Rich, a Bernie Sanders supporter and DNC IT staffer who was slain on his way home from a local bar on July 10, 2016, five days after a forensics analysis indicated that the DNC emails were copied locally - which was the same day Romanian hacker "Guccifer 2.0" claims to have hacked the DNC, per the Washington Post. 

12 days after Rich's murder, on July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released thousands of emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee revealing that Bernie Sanders' campaign was undermined when the DNC and the Clinton campaign colluded to share questions before a debate. 

Of note, cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike reported on June 14, 2016 that Russia had infiltrated the DNC, after the DNC reported a suspected breach in April of that year. The DNC has received criticism for not allowing the FBI to analyze their servers for hacking, relying only on the Crowdstrike analysis performed by anti-Putin Russian expat Dmitri Alperovitch - a senior fellow on the very anti-Russia Atlantic Council. 

Christine Assange's supposed admission caused many on Twitter to note that her son, Julian Assange, "heavily implied" that Rich was a Wikileaks source in an August, 2016 interview on Dutch television when he brought up Assange in the context of WikiLeaks whistleblowers, and then nodded his head when asked directly if Rich was a source.

Deleted tweet

Christine Assange later deleted her controversial tweet, writing that people had wrongfully asserted "Julians mother confirms its #SethRich." 

She then cited former UK Ambassador Craig Murray and the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity, who all say the Russians did not hack the DNC. 

Deleted my tweet re @Wikileaks #DNCleak being an insider

As many are wrongfully asserting: "Julians mother confirms its #SethRich"

Replaced with 2 tweets citing sources

1) US Ambassador @CraigMurrayOrg

2) #VIPS - (US ) 'Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity'

— Mrs. Christine Assange (@AssangeMrs) August 21, 2018

#DNCLeak

"I know who leaked them.Ive met the person who leaked them & they are certainly not Russian. Its an insider. Its a leak NOT a hack"

CIA's Russia hacking claims dismissed as 'bulls***' by former UK ambassador Craig Murray https://t.co/MrDG63rrhX#Russiagate

— Mrs. Christine Assange (@AssangeMrs) July 14, 2018

#VIPS , a group of highly regarded former experienced senior US intelligence officers (Including CIA & NSA)

Debunk #Russiagate with forensic evidence

It was NOT the Russians!
It was a leak NOT hack! #DNCLeak#Wikileaks #Journalism#DNC#auspolhttps://t.co/9mrSQkwMez

— Mrs. Christine Assange (@AssangeMrs) August 19, 2018

Meanwhile, Twitter users have been left scratching their heads at the entire thing: 

@AssangeMrs Hi Mrs.Assange, I'm sure you're busy so i won't take much of your time. Yesterday i was Browsing twitter and Saw an Article, the Heading read Julian Assanges Mom Say's Seth Rich Was DNC Hacker. I Cannot find the article today but was wondering if it as Fake News? 😉

— LovingPotus45 (@LPotus45) August 21, 2018

Julian assange mother says it was #SethRich who gave the @DNC information to @wikileaks

— Boiling Crude (@BoilingCrude) August 21, 2018

Why isn’t anyone talking about Assange’s.mother saying Seth Rich was the one that leaked ...

— sandra gaeta (@gaeta54) August 20, 2018

Worst kept secret in the world! The mother of Julian Assange claims murdered #DNC staffer Seth Rich was the person behind the leaked DNC emails, not Russia.
Who killed #SethRich

— BLKSR71, CFA (@BLKSR71) August 20, 2018


via IFTTT

In Monsters We Trust: US Mainstream Media No Friend Of The American People

ORIGINAL LINK

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Over the course of his turbulent presidency, Donald Trump has accused various media companies, with special attention reserved for CNN, as being purveyors of ‘fake news.’ In one early-morning Tweet last year, he slammed the “FAKE NEWS media” as the “enemy of the people.”

Last week, over 300 US newspapers ran editorials on the same day – an event in itself that points to some high degree of collusion and groupthink - denouncing Trump's insensitive portrayal of them, as if the notion that journalists were not in the same sleaze league as lawyers, politicians and professional con artists never crossed anyone’s mind before. Even the peace-loving Mahatma Gandhi recommended “equality for everyone except reporters and photographers.” 

But is the MSM really an “enemy of the people?”

First, it cannot be denied that the US media, taken in all its wholesomeness, has been overwhelmingly consistent in its ‘style’ of reporting on Donald Trump, the 45th POTUS. And by consistent I mean unprecedentedly critical, misleading and outright aggressive in its guerilla coverage of him. If one is not convinced by the gloom-and-doom Trump stories featured daily in the Yahoo News feed, then a study by the Media Research Center (MRC) should do the job. From January 1 through April 30, evening news coverage of the US leader - courtesy of ABC, CBS and NBC - were 90 percent negative, which is pretty much the same incredible average revealed by MRC one year earlier.

The study looked at every one of the 1,065 network evening news stories about Trump and his administration during the first four months of 2018. Total negative news time devoted to Trump: 1,774 minutes, or about one-third of all evening news airtime. That’s pretty much the definition of a circle jerk.  

“Nearly two-fifths (39%) of the TV coverage we examined focused on Trump scandals and controversies, while 45 percent was devoted to various policy issues,” MRC wrote in its report.

Meanwhile, the farcical Russia ‘collusion’ story was consistently the main grabber — clocking in at 321 minutes, or nearly one-fifth of all Trump coverage. Of the 598 statements MRC calculated about Trump’s personal scandals, virtually all of them (579, or 97%) came out of the media wash cycle tarred and feathered.  

If this represents an orchestrated attack on the Commander-in-Chief, and in light of those numbers it would be difficult to argue it isn’t, the strategy appears to be falling flat. Despite, or precisely because of, the avalanche of negative media coverage, Trump’s popularity rating smashed the 50 percent ceiling in early August and continues to remain high.

In Monsters We Trust

Although it can be safely stated that the MSM is an entrenched and relentless enemy of Donald Trump, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an “enemy of the American people,” as Trump argues it is. Let’s be a bit more diplomatic and say it isn’t our friend.

One yard stick for proving the claim is to consider the steadily mounting concentration of media holdings. In 1983, 90 percent of US media were controlled by 50 companies; today, 90 percent is controlled by the Big Six (AT&TComcastThe Walt Disney Company21st Century FoxCBS and Viacom control the spoken and printed word from sea to shining sea). Although many people are aware of the monopolistic tendencies of the US mainstream media, it’s important to understand the level of concentration. It means the vast majority of everything you see and hear on any electronic device or printed publication is ‘democratically’ controlled by six average white guys and their shareholders.

However, keeping track of who owns what these days is practically impossible since the dozens of subsidiary companies that fall under each main company are themselves fiefdoms, each with their own separate holdings. In fact, the already short ‘Big Six’ list is already dated, since National Amusements, Inc. has gobbled up both Viacom and CBS, while 21st Century Fox merged with Disney this year. As for the 350 US newspapers that penned tortured editorials decrying Trump’s critical opinion of them, many of those ‘local’ publications get their marching orders from either the Hearst Communications or the Gannett Company on the East Coast.

Now, with this sort of massive power and influence lying around like dynamite, it stands to reason, or unreason, that the corporate and political worlds will succumb to the law of attraction and gravitation, forging powerful and impregnable relationships. It’s no secret that the politicians, our so-called ‘public servants,’ are mostly in the game to make a fast buck, while the corporations, desperate for ‘democratic representation’ to control regulation and market share, have an inexhaustible source of funds to secure it. Naturally, this oligarchical system precludes any sort of democratic participation from the average person on the street, who thinks just because he remembers to yank a lever once every several years he is somehow invested in the multibillion-dollar franchise.

As far as media corporations being ‘private enterprises’ and therefore free to demolish the freedom of speech (even censoring major media players, like Infowars, simply because they whistle to a different political tune), that is quickly becoming revealed as nothing more than corporate cover for state-sponsored machinations.

“In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship,” writes Caitlin Johnstone.

“Because legalized bribery in the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations has given wealthy Americans the ability to control the US government’s policy and behavior while ordinary Americans have no effective influence whatsoever, the US unquestionably has a corporatist system of government.”

Meanwhile, it cannot be denied, from the perspective of an impartial observer, that the mainstream media is nearly always positioned to promote the government narrative on any number of significant issues. From the media’s unanimous and uncritical clamoring that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 (even the FBI has admitted it has no “hard evidence” that bin Laden carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon), to its gung-ho enthusiasm for the 2003 Iraq War, to the sycophantic cheerleading for a war in Syria, the examples of media toeing the government line are legion. And if US intel is in bed with Hollywood you can be damn sure they’re spending time in the MSM whorehouse as well.

Is it any surprise, then, that public trust in the US media is reaching all-time lows, while news consumers are increasingly looking to alternative news sites – themselves under relentless attack - to get some semblance of the elusive truth, which is the God-given right of any man? Truth is our due, and we should demand nothing less.

As Thomas Paine reminded the world in the face of a different foe: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value.” 



via IFTTT

Johnstone: How To Get Rid Of Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists

ORIGINAL LINK

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

Are you as sick and tired as I am of all those tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy nutters who express skepticism whenever the kind and beneficent US intelligence agencies bestow us with urgent information about a new country in need of regime change?

Do you want to get rid of that kooky fringe 74 percent of Americans who believe in a “Deep State” which controls the elected government?

Well you’re in luck, bucko! I happen to have compiled right here a list of six simple steps that our compassionate government and fearless media can take to rid America of these looney toon paranoid conspiracy theorists once and for all:

1. Stop fucking lying all the time.

Simple, right? Just stop lying and people will stop wondering how the narrative they’re being spoon fed by their politicians and the media differs from reality!

End the practice of defense and intelligence agencies collaborating with think tanks and unelected insiders to manufacture false narratives which are then promulgated by pundits and politicians of both mainstream parties to advance imperialist agendas. What will Alex Jones and Sputnik talk about if the voices of power start telling the truth all of a sudden instead of lying about the justifications for imperialist wars, excluding and censoring skeptics of establishment orthodoxies from the mainstream conversation, and being forthright about the massive and ubiquitous problems in America’s democratic system?

That’ll show those crackpots!

2. Try some actual fucking government transparency.

That’s right! Add government transparency into the mix and what will hostile non-state intelligence operatives like Julian Assange have to publish? I say we drive the WikiLeaks fake news complex right out of business by eliminating the immense veil of secrecy which shrouds so many levels of US government. That way when those annoying conspiracy kooks try to say we’re not being given the full story about the behavior of America and its allies, our leaders can just tell them “Uh, yes we are actually” and show unredacted documentation of all their behaviors.

How do you like that, Russian WikiLeaks? We are the WikiLeaks now!

3. Stop fucking killing people.

Of course, it’s hard to be transparent when you’re conducting countless military operations all over the planet at any given moment, so we’ll probably have to stop that too. We don’t want to give away the secret plans and locations of America’s brave servicemen and women, after all. Dedicate the US military to defending America’s own shores and close down the hundreds of US military bases which dot the world like freckles on a Scotsman, and the next time those paranoid conspiracy freaks start questioning what they’re being told they can just be shown the truth.

Not as much fun as drone bombing children, I’ll admit, but if we want to get serious about this conspiracy theory epidemic we’ve got to start somewhere.

4. Stop promoting fucking conspiracy theories.

I don’t like to be a Debbie downer, but when we’ve got news stories coming out every few days promoting theories about the US president conspiring with the Russian government, it gets a little difficult to tell people not to indulge in conspiracy theories. Unproven claims about powerful people conspiring together is the exact thing that a conspiracy theory is, and while I understand that these are authorized conspiracy theories, we can’t rely on these crazy loons to understand the distinction.

Better to lead by example and avoid trafficking in conspiracy theories altogether, in my opinion.

5. Stop being such fucking assholes.

If US intelligence agencies weren’t torturing people, they wouldn’t have to lie about torturing. If US intelligence agencies weren’t surveilling US citizens, they wouldn’t have to lie about their surveillance programs. If US intelligence agencies weren’t constantly committing horrific atrocities to protect the interests of the powerful from the powerless, everyone would trust them and you’d stop seeing all these ridiculous conspiracy theories about what those agencies have been up to.

Call me crazy, but I’ve got this wild notion that maybe if highly secretive defense and intelligence agencies weren’t inflicting unspeakable acts of depravity and degradation upon humanity all the time from behind the veil of government opacity, humanity would be less paranoid about them.

6. Maybe try some fucking democracy for once.

People are beginning to notice that no matter who they vote for they get the same exploitative neoliberal policies at home and the same murderous neoconservative policies abroad, which doesn’t do much to dispel those wacky notions about a permanent unelected government pulling the strings while the official elected government puts on a pretend democracy show every few years. It would probably be a good idea to do something about how America has the worst electoral system in the western world, how ordinary Americans have virtually no influence over US policy or behavior compared to wealthy Americans, and the way the rigidly-enforced two-party system necessarily creates an extortion scheme where both parties serve the same plutocratic interests but bully Americans into supporting one or the other under the threat of losing civil liberties.

And again, I hate to be a wet blanket, but those defense and intelligence agencies technically are unelected and technically do wield an immense amount of power, and technically do have an immense amount of influence over Washington, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the mainstream media, big oil, plutocratic interests, US allies, world trade, and countless major world events. By restoring power to the people instead of leaving it all in the hands of an elite class of secretive agencies and their plutocratic allies, people might feel like they have a bit more control over what’s going on in their country and won’t have to make up nonsensical stories about a “deep state”.

If we could pull these steps off, what will these conspiracy-mongering grifters have to sell to the naive populace? If everyone trusts their government and feels confident in the democratic process, who will believe stories about powerful unelected forces ruling over them?

You certainly wouldn’t have 74 percent of them subscribing to this absurd “deep state” conspiracy theory, that’s for sure.

*  *  *

Thanks for reading! My daily articles are entirely reader-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following me on Twitter, bookmarking my website, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalor buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.



via IFTTT

Monday, August 20, 2018

In Stunning Admission, Jack Dorsey Acknowledges Twitter's "Left-Leaning" Bias

ORIGINAL LINK

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted to CNN's Brian Stelter on Saturday what has been obvious for some time; Twitter employees have "more left-leaning" bias. And while that's not exactly a shocker, Dorsey waxed eloquent about the company's responsibilities, suggesting they operate in a neutral manner and not "according to political ideology or viewpoints."

"We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is...is more left-leaning," said Dorsey.

"We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology," @Jack told me. But he knows some people do not believe him. "I think we need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is left, is more left-leaning," he says... pic.twitter.com/1i8jJunhfz

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) August 18, 2018

Dorsey's CNN appearance was the latest stop in Twitter's rehabilitation road-show after evidence emerged that they had been "shadow banning" conservative users through a variety of methods; including hiding tweets from followers and hiding conservative users from search results.

At the same time, the company has had no qualms about banning people who resonate with conservatives - the latest victim of which was controversial independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone, whose account was 86'd after she tweeted "Friendly public service reminder that John McCain has devoted his entire political career to slaughtering as many human beings as possible at every opportunity, and the world will be improved when he finally dies.

*poof* Johnstone disappeared from the platform. 

Hours later - after word of her banishment began going viral and she published an article about what happened, Twitter finally restored Johnstone's account. She's now testing the fences with more of her unfiltered opinions on McCain, and is "Refusing to be bullied into self-censorship." 

John McCain is not a hero, he's a warmongering psychopath who deserves all the cancer in the world. Pass it on.

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) August 18, 2018

Last week, Twitter suspended Alex Jones for seven days over an "offending tweet" - a link to a video in which the InfoWars host told his followers to prepare "battle rifles" to defend themselves amid a conversation about social media censorship .

And recall in July 2016 that gay conservative Milo Yiannapoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for calling Ghost Busters reboot star Leslie Jones "barely literate," and tweeting "If at first you don't succeed (because your work is terrible), play the victim."

Jones complained, and *poof* - Milo was banished forever from the platform. Ghostbusters, meanwhile, lost $70 million and has a user-review score of 26% on Metacritic.

Peter Fonda, meanwhile, suggested in June that Barron Trump, the 12-year-old son of the President, be placed "in a cage with pedophiles" during a national conversation about separating migrant children from their families (which Obama did, a lot). Fonda got to issue a "just kidding, sorry" apology while keeping his (verified) account.

To review: Strongly dislike an "old guard" establishment Senator who sang "Bomb Iran" to warm up a crowd, or be a conservative and call an actress untalented when her movie bombs, and you're gone. 

Envision pedophiles raping the president's 12-year-old son in a cage - or suggest that Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is a "gash" (which he says is worse than a c*nt) who should be "pilloried in Layfayette Square naked and whipped by passersby while being filmed" - and Twitter has no problem with it. 

About that bias...

Are we to assume @Jack has done something about the type of employees caught on James O'Keefe's undercover sting, who were gushing over how they hunt down "redneck" Trump supporters and ensure their tweets don't reach anyone? 

"[T]hey just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it" - admitted former software engineer Abhinav Vadrevu. 

Although Twitter presents itself as politically neutral, it’s culture behind closed doors is one of blatant censorship and systematic bias. Watch closely @jack, because you know we are. FULL VIDEO: https://t.co/Tqrd4FBr2v pic.twitter.com/DBOIcEvX8W

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) January 11, 2018

Meanwhile, former "Direct Messaging Engineer" Pranay Singh (who is now a "Site Reliability Engineer") revealed one of the ways they do it: 

“Yeah you look for Trump, or America, and you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck. Then you look and parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then you look for stuff that matches that stuff.” -Pranay Singh

When asked if the majority of the algorithms are targeted against conservative or liberal users of Twitter, Singh said, I would say majority of it are for Republicans.”

So if Twitter is full of smug, angry, #resisting millennials - who have shown zero compunction about punishing conservatives by applying vastly disproportionate standards to liberals - how, exactly, is Jack going to ensure this doesn't happen? Some of these people genuinely believe they're in a war right now.

In the full Project Veritas video from the Twitter sting, Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Nora explains that Twitter doesn't have an official written policy that targets conservative speech, but rather they were following "unwritten rules from the top":

“A lot of unwritten rules, and being that we’re in San Francisco, we’re in California, very liberal, a very blue state. You had to be… I mean as a company you can’t really say it because it would make you look bad, but behind closed doors are lots of rules.”

“There was, I would say… Twitter was probably about 90% Anti-Trump, maybe 99% Anti-Trump.”

The full 15-minute video of O'Keefe's Twitter sting can be seen below: 

Dorsey will forgive us if we remain skeptical that the anti-conservative sentiment harbored by Twitter employees doesn't translate to their work. 

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: "We are not discriminating against any political viewpoint"

Jared Taylor: banned
Ricky Vaughn: banned
Gavin McInnes: banned
Alex Jones: suspended
...
Sarah Jeong: VERIFIED pic.twitter.com/SQl3IzGYQa

— Will Westcott (@westland_will) August 19, 2018


via IFTTT

Ongoing Purge Of Dissenting Voices Almost Claims Another Victim

ORIGINAL LINK

Authored by Elizabeth Lea Vos via Disobedient Media.

Since Julian Assange was gagged earlier this year, state-sponsored censorship has attempted to snuff out the light of independent and alternative media voices from across the political spectrum. In the first half of August, this process appeared to escalate drastically. As Disobedient Media reported earlier this week, outlets from Infowars to Telesur have faced the wrath of technocratic social media giants.

The escalation of establishment censorship has been stunning. Just last week, former State Department official and whistleblower Peter Van Buren's Twitter account was suspended under dubious circumstances. Consortium News wrote of his suspension:

"This week Van Buren had his Twitter account permanently shut down and seven years of his Tweets wiped from the record. Why? Because he challenged mainstream journalists who contested a Tweet from journalist Glenn Greenwald that mainstream reporters support America’s wars and help bring them about. One corporate journalist decided to silence Van Buren by complaining to Twitter, which, within two days, and with no due process, obliged."

Yesterday, independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone's Twitter account was suspended before being reinstated within hours after a massive public backlash.

As Caitlin wrote after her suspension was lifted, a wave of lesser-known accounts, both conservative and left-leaning, have also been suspended in what has become a massive social media purge of dissenting thought. Johnstone commented on Twitter's decision to reactivate her account, characterizing it as a tacit admission of a wrongful decision. This comment, in turn, appears to have led to a twelve-hour lockout.

In her article discussing the incident, Johnstone noted that the tweets and articles at issue were consistent with previous articles and sentiments which, though controversial, had not resulted in the termination of her account. She wrote:

"Interestingly, I’ve been saying this exact same thing repeatedly for over a year. An article I wrote about McCain in July of last year titled “Please Just Fucking Die Already” received a far more widespread backlash than this one, with articles published about it by outlets like CNN, USA Today and the Washington Post. Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar talked about me on The View. I was never once suspended or warned by any social media outlet or blogging platform at that time; it was treated as the political speech about a public figure that it clearly and undeniably is. The only thing that has changed since that time is the climate of internet censorship."

Disobedient Media spoke with Caitlin Johnstone, asking her what she believes motivated the marked escalation in censorship over the last few weeks. She told us:

"The Silicon Valley billionaires which coordinate extensively with the US government are plainly a part of the ruling alliance between plutocrats and secretive government agencies. That alliance, which some refer to as the deep state, depends on its ability to propagandize us effectively to manufacture support for the plutocratic agendas of war, exploitation, ecocide and domestic espionage. It needs to control the media in order to manufacture consent for those agendas (which no ordinary person would otherwise support), and the internet has given rise to media platforms which are much harder to control than the mainstream media.

So they’ve been working to quickly manufacture consent for internet censorship, beginning with widely reviled soft targets like Alex Jones and manipulating the conversation to a debate about who should be censored instead of a debate about whether a handful of plutocrats should be permitted to censor the dominant platforms that society uses to communicate at all. From there, their goal is plainly to squeaze all dissenting voices as far away from large audiences as possible, one by one.

But they work to manufacture consent because they need that consent. If they don’t have it, the mask of freedom and democracy falls away, people lose trust in the propaganda machine, and the media psyops upon which the ruling power establishment is built become impossible. People refused to give their consent to my banning, speaking out with one voice across all political factions, I was reinstated, and someone at Twitter was probably reprimanded. Even people who don’t like me much spoke up, because they know they’re next in line. They found a huge collective “NO” to this, and they used it, and it worked. And I find that very encouraging."

Accounts that rapidly challenged Johnstone's suspension included but were not limited to Matt Taibbi, Jimmy DoreMax BlumenthalGlenn GreenwaldJulian Assange, (whose account is currently run by his campaign) and many others, including this writer.

To provide additional context on Caitlin's suspension, we return to the infamous Shareblue and events earlier this month, when Disobedient Media and others who have reported on the fallacies surrounding Guccifer 2.0 became the subjects of a disingenuous smear piece penned by journalist Duncan Campbell.

That attack was rapidly amplified by none other than Caroline Orr, a writer and Editor of Shareblue, who spread the hit piece to her hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers, many of whom appear to be part of a massive botnet.

Similarly, Orr posted twitter threads lambasting Johnstone for her stance on John McCain, after which Johnstone documented a flood of attacks from obviously bot-net accounts. Orr's direct involvement in instigating Johnstone's suspension and in amplifying the doxx of Adam Carter was separated by fewer than two weeks.

In dispensing with the use of proxies, Orr provided a direct link between the attacks on Adam Carter, Caitlin Johnstone, and Shareblue. This raises a core question: why did a Shareblue Editor get her hands dirty in not one, but two occasions in such a brief span of time?

In the wake of the publication of Campbell's smear, Disobedient Media reminded readers that Shareblue is closely tied to Hillary Clinton, with The New York Times affectionately dubbing it ‘Hillary Clinton’s Outrage Machine’ in 2016. The organization is owned by Clintonite David Brock, who was reported to have run a multi-million dollar troll army in favor of Clinton in the lead-up to the 2016 US Presidential election. The New York Times explained:

"The Brock network includes his Media Matters for America watchdog website; two pro-Clinton “super PACs,” the opposition research outfit American Bridge and the pro-Clinton fact-checking and reporter-spamming operation Correct the Record; and Shareblue, which filled the need, Mr. Brock said, for a progressive outlet that spoke directly to the grass roots and which “was avidly and unabashedly pro-Hillary.”

"... Beyond creating a boisterous echo chamber, the real metric of success for Shareblue, which Mr. Brock said has a budget of $2 million supplied by his political donors, is getting Mrs. Clinton elected. Mr. Daou’s role is deploying a band of committed, outraged followers to harangue Mrs. Clinton’s opponents."

The Los Angeles Times described David Brock's other pro-Clinton Super PAC, Correct the Record:

"In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of trolling that already exists online... a paid army of “former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers” and others to produce online counterattacks."

The above descriptions of Correct The Record's paid troll armies and Shareblue's attempts at narrative control fit the description of the botnet that Johnstone described mass-reporting her at the instigation of Caroline Orr, who Tweeted:

"What does an Assad apologist look like? It looks like someone who would say John McCain deserves to die for his role in promoting US wars... but that Assad is just a family man who definitely hasn't slaughtered civilians."

Some of the botnet Tweets that followed Orr's attack, cited by Johnstone in her article on her suspension, are included here to visually illustrate the reality that this was a coordinated bot army at work.

The fact that the multitude of accounts attacking Caitlin not only lacked even ten followers, while also using an identical, copy-pasted message is a textbook example of botnet activity. In other words, these were not human beings reporting Johnstone: this was a mindless hive literally repeating the establishment line.

Such an occurrence is stunning, because it shows us in very plain terms that a botnet was deployed to silence an anti-war voice. These were not human beings used to mass-report and suspend Caitlin - it was a soulless digital faux-human army wielded by a the Editor of a Clintonite superPAC, the existence of which has been documented by numerous establishment media outlets and independent researchers.

In real time, we witnessed the establishment desperate attempt retake narrative control on social media, an aim which Caitlin often reminds us is at the core of the plutocratic control over public discourse and therefore control over policy and society.

It is also worth reiterating that, just as Russian election meddling allegations were a stale projecting of the DNC's very real rigging of the 2016 Democratic Primary race, the use of botnets to wield political influence has been projected onto Russia and conservatives to deflect from their use by Clinton sponsors. In fact, just prior to her suspension, Johnstone wroteregarding this manipulative tactic, stating:

"Manipulators particularly use projection as a tactic to hide what they’re doing to you in plain sight. A manipulator can have you chasing your tail by simply suggesting that you or others are doing what you are seeing them doing with your own eyes. DNC caught rigging the election? Oh no, it was actually Russia who rigged the election by catching the DNC rigging the election. See what I did there? It’s so dumb, but it works."

This author previously wrote that the plutocrat's intense abhorrence of Twitter botnets could be read in Jungian terms as the subconscious projection of the establishment’s shadow. That is, the more the elite protest about the use of bots on social media, the more they are likely to use such technologies and similar tools to attack the very human public that they continuously misidentify as inhuman bots.

One explanation for recent events is that, now that the unelected power structures has gagged Assange, his supporters and dissent in general are next in line to bear the brunt of the weight Assange carried singularly on his back for all these years, while trapped in a tiny embassy with a broken tooth and a frozen shoulder.

The truth is, we cannot shed light at this time on the specific motivations behind the steep escalation of censorship we've seen in the first half of August. However, we can very much theorize that it represents the next falling domino after the silencing of Julian Assange.

What we can state with certainty is that it represents a real example of information warfare. Whether we - writers and readers alike - recognize that we are on one side of a war is irrelevant. The establishment has not just taken up arms, it is deploying them against all of us.



via IFTTT

Sunday, August 19, 2018

What If Russiagate Is The New WMDs?

ORIGINAL LINK

Authored by Jack Hunter via The American Conservative,

Democrats, certain in their accusations of guilt, sound a lot like Republicans in 2002...

“The evidence against Trump and Russia is huge and mounting every day,” declared liberal celebrity activist Rosie O’Donnell at a protest in front of the White House last week.

“We see it, he can’t lie about it,” she added. “He is going down and so will all of his administration.”

“The charge is treason,” O’Donnell declared. Protesters held held large letters that spelled it out: T-R-E-A-S-O-N.”

O’Donnell is by no means alone in her sentiments. Trump’s guilt in “Russiagate” is now assumed by much of the American left, and reaches greater levels of fervor with every passing day.

This kind of partisan religiosity is not new.

In the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, conservative pundit Ann Coulter accused war opponents of “treason” and insisted of Saddam Hussein, “We know he had weapons of mass destruction.”

Coulter was confident and she wasn’t alone. Virtually the entire mainstream American right—from pundits like Coulter and Sean Hannity to President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress—was deeply invested in the notion that Hussein possessed WMDs and that the Iraq war was justified based on that unshakeable premise. This belief was so ingrained for so long that many excitedly rushed to pretend that chemical weapons discovered in Iraq as reported by the New York Times in 2014 were somehow the same thing as the “mushroom cloud” the Bush administration said Saddam was capable of.

Unfortunately for the right (and America, and the world), that premise turned out to be false. There were no WMDs. Today, only a minority of delusional, face-saving hawks and unreconstructed neoconservatives still parrot that lie.

And far from being “traitors,” Iraq war opponents today are considered to have been on the right side of history.

Now, “Russian collusion” could be becoming the new WMDs.

The post-2016 left’s most dominant narrative is arguably their deeply held belief—with all the ferocity and piety of yesterday’s pro-war conservatives—that Russia colluded with Trump’s campaign to undermine the presidential election. Many believe that the president and anyone who supports his diplomatic efforts like Senator Rand Paul are in the pocket of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I will meet not just with our friends, but with our enemies,” said Barack Obama in 2008, and he did just that with Putin, as has every other president in recent times.

But Trump-Russia relations have been spun into far-fetched conspiracy theories on the left. New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait recently went so far as to speculate that Trump has been a Russian agent since 1987, a cockamamie idea on par with the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes’ discredited conspiracy theory that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in cahoots.

It really was plausible that Iraq had WMDs in 2003 based on what our intelligence agencies knew, or purported to know. Today, it is feasible that American democracy really has Putin’s fingerprints on it based on things revealed by U.S. intelligence.

But isn’t it also possible that the left is reading far too much into Russiagate?

The Nation’s Aaron Maté believes liberals are overreaching, and that’s putting it mildly:

From the outset, Russiagate proponents have exhibited a blind faith in the unverified claims of US government officials and other sources, most of them unnamed. The reaction to special counsel Robert Mueller’s recent indictment of 12 Russian military-intelligence officers for hacking of Democratic party servers and voter databases is no exception. Mueller’s indictment is certainly detailed. Most significantly, it marks the first time anyone has been charged for offenses related to Russiagate’s underlying crime.

But while it is a major step forward in the investigation, we have yet to see the basis for the allegations that Mueller has lodged. As with any criminal case, from a petty offense to a cybercrime charge against a foreign government, a verdict cannot be formed in the absence of this evidence.

Then the irony kicks in. Maté continues, “The record of US intelligence, replete with lies and errors, underscores the need for caution. Mueller was a player in one of this century’s most disastrous follies when, in congressional testimony, he endorsed claims about Iraqi WMDs and warned that Saddam Hussein ‘may supply’ chemical and biological material to ‘terrorists.’”

Noting Mueller’s 2003 WMD testimony is not an attempt to undermine him or his investigation, something Maté also makes clear. But it does serve as an important reminder that “intelligence” can be flat-out wrong. It reminds us how these scenarios, which so much of Washington and the elite class fully endorse, can be looked back on as lapses of reason years later.

Mass psychology is real. Political classes and parties are not immune.

“Suppose, however, that all of the claims about Russian meddling turn out to be true,” Maté asks. “Hacking e-mails and voter databases is certainly a crime, and seeking to influence another country’s election can never be justified.”

He continues, “But the procession of elite voices falling over themselves to declare that stealing e-mails and running juvenile social-media ads amount to an ‘attack,’ even an ‘act of war,’ are escalating a panic when a sober assessment is what is most needed.”

The U.S. could have certainly used less hyperbole and more sobriety in 2002 and 2003.

And there’s good chance that when the history books are written about American politics circa 2018, much of Russiagate will be dismissed as more Red Scare than Red Dawn.

With Russia, as with WMDs, left and right have elevated slivers of legitimate security concerns to the level of existential threat based mostly on their own partisanship. That kind of thinking has already proven to be dangerous.

We don’t know what evidence of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia might yet come forth, but it’s easy to see how, even if this narrative eventually falls flat, 15 years from now some liberals will still be clinging to Russiagate not as a matter of fact, but political identity. Russia-obsessed liberals, too, could end up on the wrong side of history.

No one can know the future. Republicans would be wise to prepare for new, potentially damaging information about Trump and Russia that may yet emerge.

Democrats should consider that Russiagate may be just as imaginary as Republicans’ Iraq fantasy.



via IFTTT

Saturday, August 18, 2018

Seymour Hersh And The Death Of Journalism

ORIGINAL LINK

Authored by James Bovard via The American Conservative,

He won a Pulitzer for My Lai and cracked Abu Ghraib wide open. But this reporter is still a lonely breed.

Seymour Hersh, Reporter: A Memoir, Sy Hersh. Knopf, June 2018, 368 pages

When people are comforted by government lies, trafficking the truth becomes hellishly difficult. Disclosing damning facts is especially tricky when editors en masse lose their spines. These are some of the takeaways from legendary Seymour Hersh’s riveting new memoir, Reporter.   

Shortly before Hersh started covering the Pentagon for the Associated Press in 1965, Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, berated a group of war correspondents in Saigon: “Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you’re stupid. Did you hear that? Stupid.” Hersh was astonished by the “stunningly sedate” Pentagon press room, which to him resembled “a high-end social club.”

Hersh never signed on to that stenographers’ pool. He was soon shocked to realize“the extent to which the men running the war would lie to protect their losing hand.” Hersh did heroic work in the late 1960s and early 1970s exposing the lies behind the Vietnam War. His New Yorker articles on the My Lai massacre scored a Pulitzer Prize and put atrocities in headlines where they remained till the war’s end.   

Hersh’s 1974 expose on the CIA’s illegal spying on Americans helped spur one of the best congressional investigations of federal wrongdoing since World War II. (Many of the well-written reports from the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities remain regrettably relevant to the Leviathan in our time.) By the late 1970s, despite revelations of CIA assassinations and other atrocities, Hersh was chagrined that “[n]o one in the CIA had been prosecuted for the crimes that had been committed against the American people and the Constitution.” Welcome to Washington.

Any journalist who has been hung out to dry will relish Hersh’s revelations of editors who flinched. After Hersh joined the Washington bureau of the New York Times, he hustled approval for an article going to the heart of foreign policy perfidy. Bureau chief Max Frankel finally approved a truncated version of Hersh’s pitch with the caveat that he should run the story by “Henry [Kissinger] and [CIA chief] Dick [Helms].” Hersh was horrified: “They were the architects of the idiocy and criminality I was desperate to write about.” A subsequent Washington bureau chief noted that the Times “was scared to death of being first on a controversial story that challenged the credibility of the government.”

After Hersh exited the Times, snaring high-profile newshole became more challenging. When he pitched a piece to the New Yorker on the turmoil and coverups permeating the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, editor Robert Gottlieb told him to “go for it.” But as Hersh was exiting Gottlieb’s office, the editor added: “Sy, I just want you to know that I don’t like controversy.” Gottlieb had the wrong dude. Elsewhere in the book, Hersh slams a gutless specimen at Life magazine, “If there is a journalism hell, that editor belongs there;” he also clobbers the Times business section’s “ass-kissing coterie of moronic editors.” On the other hand, throwing a typewriter through a plate glass window would perturb even the paper’s non-moronic editors.  

Despite superb demolitions by Hersh and other reporters, the credibility of government agencies soon revived like a salamander growing a new tail. After Nixon was toppled, “the pendulum had swung back to a place where a president’s argument that national security trumps the people’s right to know was once again carrying weight with editors and publishers,” Hersh noted. A few weeks before the 9/11 attacks, New York Times columnist Flora Lewis, wrote that “there will probably never be a return to the… collusion with which the media used to treat presidents, and it is just as well.” But the collapse of the World Trade Center towers made the media more craven than at any time since Vietnam. Washington Post Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks complained that, in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, “There was an attitude among editors: ‘Look, we’re going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?’” 

Hersh’s career revived after 9/11 with a series of New Yorker exposés on the lies, failures, and shenanigans of the War on Terror. He soon “began to comprehend that 8 or 9 neoconservatives who were political outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States—with ease.” Hersh eventually concluded that “America’s neocons were a menace to civilization.” But, with the exception of his explosive work on Abu Ghraib and the torture scandal, his articles rarely received the attention they deserved. Hersh’s reports on the war on terror have been far more accurate and prescient than the vast majority of the stories touted by cable news, but he is rarely credited for his foresight.

In recent years, Hersh has been criticized for writing articles that rely too heavily on too few, and not altogether authoritative sources. After his articles on the killing of Osama Bin Laden (he presented an alternative scenario that questioned the Pentagon’s version of events) and  White House claims about a 2013 Syrian chemical weapons attack were rejected by American publications, he published them in London Review of Books and has continued to publish his gumshoe reporting there and in places like Germany’s Welt am Sonntag. In his book, Hersh declares that “insider sources” are “what every reporter needs.” But some of the sources he now relies on  may have long since retired or no longer have access to 24 karat insider information.

There are some excellent investigative journalists at New York TimesUSA Today, and elsewhere, but the most visible media venues have often ignored the most potentially damning stories. The mainstream media continues to pursue Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential campaign like Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick. At the same time, they almost completely ignore how U.S. government manipulations are paving the path to war with Iran. Most of the American media coverage of the Syrian civil war has been appalling, touting a fairytale of terrorist extremists as freedom fighters, and ignoring the flip-flops and contradictions in U.S. policy. In a 2013 interview, Hersh derided the American media’s fixation on “looking for [Pulitzer] prizes. It’s packaged journalism so you pick a target like are railway crossings safe and stuff like that.”

Reporting nowadays rarely penetrates the Leviathan’s armor. Fourteen years after Hersh broke Abu Ghraib, many of the details of the post- 9/11 torture scandal remain unrevealed. Could anyone imagine Liuetenant William Calley, who was convicted of mass murder for the 1968 My Lai carnage, subsequently becoming a favorite media commentator on military ethics, foreign policy, and democracy? No. But the main culprits in the torture scandal and coverup—from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to former CIA chief John Brennan—are all regularly touted these days as founts of wisdom. The veneration of Bush, Cheney, and Brennan is one of the starkest measures of the failure of journalism in our time.

Hersh’s Reporter has plenty of tips for journalists willing to vigorously hound government wrongdoing. But finding good venues for smoking guns may be more difficult now than ever. As Assistant Pentagon Secretary Sylvester scoffed at reporters in that 1965 Saigon briefing, “I don’t even have to talk to you people. I know how to deal with you through your editors and publishers back in the States.” Unfortunately, there are too many editors and publishers who would rather kowtow than fight.



via IFTTT

MoA - John Brennan Is No Match For Trump

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/08/john-brennan-is-no-match-for-trump-.html

We're All Lab Rats In The Largest-Ever Monetary Experiment In Human History

ORIGINAL LINK

Authored by Chris Martenson via PeakProsperity.com,

...and how do things usually work out for the rat?

There are ample warning signs that another serious financial crisis is on the way.

These warning signs are being soundly ignored by the majority, though. Perhaps understandably so.

After 10 years of near-constant central bank interventions to prop up markets and make stocks, bonds and real estate rise in price -- while also simultaneously hammering commodities to mask the inflationary impact of their money printing from the masses -- it’s difficult to imagine that “they” will allow markets to ever fall again.

This is known as the “central bank put”: whenever the markets begin to teeter, the central banks will step in to prop/nudge/cajole the markets back towards the “correct” direction, which is always: Up!

It’s easy in retrospect to see how the central banks have become caught in this trap of their own making, where they're now responsible for supporting all the markets all the time.

The 2008 crisis really spooked them. Hence their massive money printing spree to "rescue" the system.

But instead of admitting that Great Financial Crisis was the logical result of flawed policies implemented after the 2000 Dot-Com crash (which, in turn, was the result of flawed policies pursued in the 1990’s), the central banks decided after 2008 to double down on their bets -- implementing even worse policies.

The Largest-Ever Monetary Experiment In Human History

It’s not hyperbole to say that the monetary experiment conducted over the past ten years by the world’s leading central banks (and its resulting social and political ramifications) is the largest-ever in human history:

(Source)

This global flood of freshly-printed 'thin air' money has no parallel in the historical records. All around the world, each of us is part of a grand experiment being conducted without the benefits of either prior experience or controls. Its outcome will be binary: either super-great or spectacularly awful.

If the former, then no worries. We'll just continue to borrow and spend in ever-greater amounts -- forever. Perpetual prosperity for everyone!

But if things hit a breaking point, then you had better be prepared for some truly bad times.

Excessive money printing leads to the destruction of currency. Fiat money (like the US dollar, the Euro, the Yen, and every other world currency) is a social contract and has an associated set of related agreements. When that contract and those agreements are broken by reckless expansion of the currency base, things fall apart fast. We need look no further than current-day Venezuela to understand that.

It’s important to remember that money -- whether physical cash or in digital form, stocks, or bonds -- is just a claim on real wealth. Real wealth is land, clothes, food, oil…you know, real things.

We expect that our cash will be able to buy us the real things we want when we want them. We trust that our stocks give us an ownership stake in a real company producing real things for real profits. We rely on our bonds being re-paid in the future along with interest; but if not, we expect that our bond becomes a claim on valuable collateral.

Ideally, the money supply and the amount of real wealth should exist in balance. As money is a claim on "stuff", as economic output (i.e. "stuff") increases, than so should the claims. And vice-versa during periods of economic contraction.

But what happens when the claims start to far outweigh the real "stuff"? That's when things get precarious.

Note how dramatically the claims represented by just the S&P 500 index alone have quadrupaled since the start of 2009, driven by the central banks' quantitative easing programs:

(Source)

The flood of money unleashed by QE didn't result in vast amounts of new actual wealth being created (i.e. greater productive output per capita). But it did result in grotesquely-inflated financial asset prices that have helped to create the most profound wealth and income inequality seen in our lifetime (perhaps ever).

The Many Sins Of The Central Banks

The list of central bank-induced injustices is long. It reads like the rap sheet of a virulent psychopath: $trillions looted from savers and handed to the big banks and leveraged speculators, ruined pensions, shattered retirement dreams for millions, record amounts of debt in every corner of the global economy, and an increasingly unaffordable cost of living for everyone but the elite 1%.

“But we had to save the system!” cry the central bankers in their defense.

Even if that were the case (and I dispute whether the world is really better off for having saved Citibank et al.), that rescue should have ended back in mid-2009, at the latest.

But instead, the central banks ramped up their wanton ways in the years since the GFC. Did you know that their largest-ever printing spree happened over the past two years? (2016 to 2017):

The bigger the printing spree the bigger the fundamental distortions. In such a world, up becomes down, black becomes white, and right becomes wrong.

All of which means that fundamental analysis, has been all but useless as a predictor of prices. All that has mattered is the answer to the question: "How much will the central banks print next?"

In such an environment, there's no room for investors. It forces all of us to become speculators, trying to predict what a small cabal of bankers are thinking.

But among their very worst offenses has been the manipulation of sentiment. The prices of financial assets and commodities have become political and propaganda tools, which means that nothing can be left to chance. All prices have to send the "right" signals at all times, in the same way that certain news outlets pump a point of view endlessly. Repetition creates its own reality.

Because of the increasingly frequent (probably daily), interventions by central banks and their proxies, the financial markets have become ““markets””. They no provide us with any useful signals about the future or about the current health of the economy.

Instead, they only tell us what the authorities want us to hear.

To them, all that matters is strength and stability. As long as those conditions contine to be met for stocks, bonds and real estate prices, most people are content to let things ride and not probe too deeply.

But when this scam comes to its inevitable end, the crash will be spectacular when it arrives.

This reckoning is already way overdue.  At this point, we find ourselves in the odd positin of rooting for it to happen soon, as the potential energy in the system builds with every passing day. Our worry is that if the crash is delayed for much longer, its resulting carnage will be so large that it will be unsurvivable.

And while we mean that in the figurative sense for people’s portfolios, it's possible that the crash could become literally unsurvivable if the political “solution” to deflect blame away from the the central banks and their DC partners-in-crime is a kinetic war.

When viewed in that light, America's histrionic attempts to demonize Russia over the past few years begin to make frighteningly more sense.

It's Time To Talk Turkey

We've been vocal of late about the numerous signs that another great financial crisis is building. The gut-punch Turkey hit global markets with this week is just one example.

Yes, it will be painful to crash from here. But once the needed correction is underway, we'll have the opportunity to make the best of it.

We can pick up the pieces and begin building towards a future we can all believe in.

Yes, there's no avoiding the pain of taking our lumps for the the past mistakes we've made. But we don’t have to compound our misery by continuing to do more of exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. We simply need the courage to face the psychological burden of admitting to our prior failings.

That's doable.

It all starts with being honest with ourselves.

Look, we all know the world is finite. Infinite economic growth on a finite planet is an impossibility. We have all the data we need to make that conclusion. Every passing day where we pretend that’s somehow untrue or avoidable makes the eventual adjustment that much more wrenching.

It’s an intellectually simple exercise to conduct. But an emotionally impossible task for those whose internal belief systems would be hopelessly compromised by allowing that logic to penetrate their world view.

And so the future will be represented by two sorts of people: those able to face what’s coming head on and prepare accordingly, and those who can't.

I sincerely hope that you're not among those deterred from preparing by the last gleaming of today's glittering stock prices. We’re going to need as many prepared people as possible in the coming future.

And we may need them soon. The severe recent deterioration in the Emerging Markets threatens a contagion that could well start the next crisis.

Turkey is currently in a major currency crisis threatening to metastisize into a full-blown sovereign debt crisis. Defaults there will spill over into Europe’s banking system (which has made loads of shaky loans to Turkey), and from there cause domino effects throughout the rest of the world.

But Turkey isn't the weakest or the most worrying country faltering: Italy is stumbling, as is Brazil, and even China. But Asia ex-China is the real powderkeg. Their unserviceable debts dwarf everybody else.

In Part 2: The Emerging Market Threat, we detail out the specific concerns to watch for in the fast-unfolding Emerging Markets drama. Which countries pose the greatest threat? And how bad could things get if the contagion indeed spreads?

For years we have predicted that the next crisis will progress "from the outside in" as the weaker players succumb first. That appears to be what we are seeing now, and it's causing me to advance my own personal preparations.

I recommend you do the same.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)



via IFTTT

Friday, August 17, 2018

"Deeply Troubling" - Wall Street Journal Implores "What Was Bruce Ohr Doing?"

ORIGINAL LINK

The Wall Street Journal continues to counter  the  liberal mainstream media's Trump Derangement Syndrome, dropping uncomfortable truth-bombs and refusing to back off its intense pressure to get to the truth and hold those responsible, accountable (in a forum that is hard for the establishment to shrug off as 'Alt-Right' or 'Nazi' or be 'punished' by search- and social-media-giants).

And once again Kimberley Strassel  - who by now has become the focus of social media attacks for her truth-seeking reporting - does it again this morning, as she points out - hours after former CIA Director Brennan threw a tantrum over having his security clearance removed - that while Justice has released some damning documents - particularly on what Bruce Ohr was doing - much of the truth is still classified.

Via The Wall Street Journal,

What Was Bruce Ohr Doing?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department have continued to insist they did nothing wrong in their Trump-Russia investigation. This week should finally bring an end to that claim, given the clear evidence of malfeasance via the use of Bruce Ohr.

Mr. Ohr was until last year associate deputy attorney general.

He began feeding information to the FBI from dossier author Christopher Steele in late 2016 - after the FBI had terminated Mr. Steele as a confidential informant for violating the bureau’s rules. He also collected dirt from Glenn Simpson, cofounder of Fusion GPS, the opposition-research firm that worked for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and employed Mr. Steele. Altogether, the FBI pumped Mr. Ohr for information at least a dozen times, debriefs that remain in classified 302 forms.

All the while, Mr. Ohr failed to disclose on financial forms that his wife, Nellie, worked alongside Mr. Steele in 2016, getting paid by Mr. Simpson for anti-Trump research. The Justice Department has now turned over Ohr documents to Congress that show how deeply tied up he was with the Clinton crew - with dozens of emails, calls, meetings and notes that describe his interactions and what he collected.

Mr. Ohr’s conduct is itself deeply troubling. He was acting as a witness (via FBI interviews) in a case being overseen by a Justice Department in which he held a very senior position. He appears to have concealed this role from at least some superiors, since Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified that he’d been unaware of Mr. Ohr’s intermediary status.

Lawyers meanwhile note that it is a crime for a federal official to participate in any government matter in which he has a financial interest. Fusion’s bank records presumably show Nellie Ohr, and by extension her husband, benefiting from the Trump opposition research that Mr. Ohr continued to pass to the FBI. The Justice Department declined to comment.

But for all Mr. Ohr’s misdeeds, the worse misconduct is by the FBI and Justice Department.

It’s bad enough that the bureau relied on a dossier crafted by a man in the employ of the rival presidential campaign. Bad enough that it never informed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of that dossier’s provenance. And bad enough that the FBI didn’t fire Mr. Steele as a confidential human source in September 2016 when it should have been obvious he was leaking FBI details to the press to harm Donald Trump’s electoral chances. It terminated him only when it was absolutely forced to, after Mr. Steele gave an on-the-record interview on Oct. 31, 2016.

But now we discover the FBI continued to go to this discredited informant in its investigation after the firing—by funneling his information via a Justice Department cutout. The FBI has an entire manual governing the use of confidential sources, with elaborate rules on validations, standards and documentation. Mr. Steele failed these standards. The FBI then evaded its own program to get at his info anyway.

And it did so even though we have evidence that lead FBI investigators may have suspected Mr. Ohr was a problem.

An Oct. 7, 2016, text message from now-fired FBI agent Peter Strzok to his colleague Lisa Page reads: “Jesus. More BO leaks in the NYT,” which could be a reference to Mr. Ohr.

The FBI may also have been obtaining, via Mr. Ohr, information that came from a man the FBI had never even vetted as a source—Mr. Simpson. Mr. Steele had at least worked with the FBI before; Mr. Simpson was a paid political operative. And the Ohr notes raise further doubts about Mr. Simpson’s forthrightness. In House testimony in November 2017, Mr. Simpson said only that he reached out to Mr. Ohr after the election, and at Mr. Steele’s suggestion. But Mr. Ohr’s inbox shows an email from Mr. Simpson dated Aug. 22, 2016 that reads, in full: “Can u ring.”

The Justice Department hasn’t tried to justify any of this; in fact, last year it quietly demoted Mr. Ohr. In what smells of a further admission of impropriety, it didn’t initially turn over the Ohr documents; Congress had to fight to get them.

But it raises at least two further crucial questions.

First, who authorized or knew about this improper procedure? Mr. Strzok seems to be in the thick of it, having admitted to Congress interactions with Mr. Ohr at the end of 2016. While Mr. Rosenstein disclaims knowledge, Mr. Ohr’s direct supervisor at the time was the previous deputy attorney general, Sally Yates. Who else in former FBI Director Jim Comey’s inner circle and at the Obama Justice Department nodded at the FBI’s back-door interaction with a sacked source and a Clinton operative?

Second, did the FBI continue to submit Steele- or Simpson-sourced information to the FISA court? Having informed the court in later applications that it had fired Mr. Steele, the FBI would have had no business continuing to use any Steele information laundered through an intermediary.

*  *  *

Strassel concludes with the point that she and The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board have been hammering for months...

We could have these answers pronto; they rest in part in those Ohr 302 forms. And so once again: a call for President Trump to declassify.

It's time for things to get more serious than slaps on the wrist, firings, and self-inflicted black-eyes!

 

 

 



via IFTTT