Gabbard says calling Trump a Putin puppet is dangerous & stupid, Twitter calls her a Putin puppet

CAP

Democratic candidate for president and establishment-punching bag Tulsi Gabbard is taking heat on Twitter for daring to suggest that the Russiagate scandal could be pushing the US and Russia toward a dangerous new Cold War.

Gabbard tweeted that “short-sighted” politicians and media pundits who spend their time accusing Donald Trump of being in cahoots with Russia were helping bring about a new arms race because the accusations have led Trump to do“everything he can to prove he’s not [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s puppet — even if it brings us closer to nuclear war.”

In a sane world, journalists, pundits and even Gabbard’s fellow Democrats all understood exactly what she meant and took her point on board. Except, this is Twitter we’re talking about, so of course, she was eviscerated.

CAP

One of the first to pop in with a response was former CIA agent John Sipher who accused the Hawaii congresswoman of helping Russia and “playing their game.” Sipher himself once had his own moment of Twitter fame, back when he tweeted the classic question“How can one not be a Russophobe?

 

CAP

Some media folk got in on the action, too. CNN National Security analyst Susan Hennessey bravely stepped up with the bold take that Gabbard’s call for calm and better relations was “absurd.”

CAP

Washington Post columnist and fellow CNN analyst Josh Rogin accused Gabbard of blaming only Democrats and journalists for bad relations with Russia, while Bloomberg columnist Eli Lake had an interesting spin on things, suggesting Trump was playing “seven dimensional collusion.”

CAP

Then there were those that questioned Gabbard’s status as a Democrat, because she “doesn’t sound like” one. Presumably, in the age of Russiagate, Democrats are all supposed to be advocating for nuclear war?

Some were interested in the candidate’s contact with Russian nationals, asking the all-important questions like, how many Russians has she met on her trips abroad — and crucially, how many does she “still maintain contact” with today?

CAP

Some tweeters did take Gabbard’s side, however. Journalist Glenn Greenwald took aim at the likes of Hennessey who“mock” those who want to avoid heightening tensions with Russia as “treasonous weaklings.”

CAP

Independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone tweeted that the negative reaction to Gabbard’s tweet was a good example of how “narrative supersedes fact” and that while it was “undeniable” that Trump has escalated Russia tensions, pundits and Democrats who cling to the collusion story are still unwilling to believe it.

CAP

In an ironic twist, Trump himself retweeted a comment which seemed to be in support of Gabbard’s point, suggesting that Russiagate was designed to “bait” the US into taking a tougher line against Russia and created “a more dangerous world as a consequence.”

CAP

NELLIE OHR RESEARCHED TRUMP’S KIDS FOR FUSION GPS

By Chuck Ross

cap

  • Nellie Ohr, the wife of Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, told Congress in October that she investigated President Donald Trump’s children on behalf of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm behind the Steele dossier.

  • Ohr also testified that during a meeting in July 2016, Christopher Steele passed her husband materials from his infamous dossier.

  • Nellie Ohr, who worked as a contractor for Fusion GPS, looking into Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump’s business dealings and their travel.

The wife of a Justice Department official who worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 campaign told Congress in 2018 that one of her tasks at the opposition research firm was to research President Donald Trump’s children, including their business activities and travel.

Nellie Ohr, a former contractor for Fusion GPS, also told lawmakers during an Oct. 19 deposition that she recalls that Christopher Steele gave her husband, Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, materials from the infamous anti-Trump dossier funded by Democrats.

Ohr said during the testimony that Steele, who like her was a contractor for Fusion GPS, hoped that her husband would pass the materials to the FBI.

“My understanding was that Chris Steele was hoping that Bruce could put in a word with the FBI to follow up in some way,” Ohr testified to members of the House Oversight and House Judiciary Committees, according to transcripts confirmed by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Ohrs met with Steele and an unidentified British associate on July 30, 2016 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Bruce Ohr testified to Congress on Aug. 28 that the meeting covered three main topics. He said Steele claimed that a former official with Russia’s SVR claimed that the Kremlin had Trump “over a barrel.”

Steele also relayed information about Carter Page, the former Trump campaign adviser who Steele claims in his dossier met with two Kremlin insiders during a trip to Moscow in early July 2016. Page has denied Steele’s allegations, saying he did not meet with the two Kremlin officials.

cap

Steele, a former MI6 officer who operates out of London, also told Ohr that a lawyer for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska was investigating Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort over a business deal gone south. Steele reportedly worked at one point for one of Deripaska’s companies. The link is ironic given that Deripaska is considered a close ally of Vladimir Putin’s.

Nellie Ohr testified that the materials that were handed over were from the dossier but that she did not learn the information was contained in the dossier until much later. She testified that she did not see the complete dossier until it was published by BuzzFeed on Jan. 10, 2017.

“And you hadn’t seen it or its portions during the time that you were employed, correct?” one lawmaker asked.

“If I recall correctly, I may have seen…maybe a page or something of it at the breakfast,” Ohr replied.

Ohr, a trained Russian linguist, also detailed some of the topics she worked on for Fusion GPS, which was hired by the law firm that represented the Clinton campaign and DNC to investigate Trump.

One area of focus was Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump, President Trump’s two oldest children.

“But in terms of actually performing research, did you begin to break out President Trump’s family in terms of Melania Trump, all of his children? Were you doing independent research based off of each family member?” one lawmaker asked Ohr.

“I did some,” Ohr said. “As I recall, I did some research on all of them, but not into much depth.”

“How about Donald Trump Jr.? Did you do more in-depth research on Donald Trump Jr. than some of the others?” she was asked.

“I’m afraid it was relatively superficial. It was,” adding that, “I looked into some of his travels and you know not sure how much detail I remember, at this point.”

“Ivanka Trump?”

“I looked into some of her travels,” said Ohr.

The goal was “to see whether they were involved in dealings and transactions with people who had had suspicious pasts.”

Nellie Ohr also testified that she investigated any links between Russian oligarchs and the Trump real estate empire.

It is unclear whether Ohr shared any information that she gathered working for Fusion GPS with her husband, who served as associate deputy attorney general until he was reassigned in December 2017. There is also no indication that Ohr’s research of the Trump children wound up in the dossier, which the FBI used to obtain surveillance warrants against Carter Page.

Bruce Ohr met with Steele and Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson prior to the 2016 election. That conflicts with testimony given by Simpson as well as a memo released by Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (RELATED: Bruce Ohr Testimony Undercuts Adam Schiff’s Defense Of FBI)

Simpson testified to the Intelligence committee on Nov. 14, 2017 that he did not meet with anyone from the Justice Department or FBI until after the election. But Ohr testified that he met Simpson on Aug. 22, 2016.

Democrats on House Intelligence also claimed in a memo released last year that Ohr did not pass information he gleaned from Fusion GPS or Steele until after the election. But Ohr testified that he contacted top FBI officials almost immediately after his July 30, 2016 meeting with Steele.

cap

Ohr met with then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and his general counsel, Lisa Page. Ohr said that he debriefed the pair on his meeting with Steele.

Ohr met with FBI and Justice Department officials the following month. Involved in one of those meetings was Peter Strzok, the FBI’s lead investigator on the Trump-Russia probe. Strzok was fired in August 2018 over anti-Trump text messages that he exchanged with Page during the same period that he was working on the investigation.

Ohr also met with Justice Department lawyers Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad, both of whom currently work on the special counsel’s team.

Ohr served as the FBI’s back channel to Steele even after the bureau severed ties with the former spy in early November 2016. The FBI ended its relationship with Steele because he had talked to the press about his investigation of Trump. After Trump’s election win, Strzok and other FBI officials asked Ohr to maintain contact with Steele and report back to investigators.

They met or spoke at least 12 times through May 2017.

US media intensify pretext for ousting Trump

By Finian Cunningham

It’s no secret that since his election in 2016, powerful elements in the US political and media establishment have been running a non-stop campaign to remove Trump from the White House. Lately, the stakes have been raised.

Spearheading the media effort to defenestrate Trump are the New York Times and Washington Post. Both have been prominent purveyors of the “Russiagate” narrative over the past two years, claiming that Republican candidate colluded with Russian state intelligence, or at least was a beneficiary of alleged Russian interference, to win the presidency against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Congressional investigations and a probe by a Special Counsel Robert Mueller, along with relentless media innuendo, have failed to produce any evidence to support the Russiagate narrative.

Now, the anti-Trump media in alliance with the Democratic leadership, the foreign policy establishment and senior ranks of the state intelligence agencies appear to have come up with a new angle on President Trump – he is a national security risk.

Ingeniously, the latest media effort lessens the burden of proof required against Trump. No longer has it to be proven that he deliberately collaborated with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump could have done it “unwittingly,” the media are now claiming, because he is a buffoon and reckless. But the upshot, for them, is he’s still a national security risk. The only conclusion, therefore, is that he should be removed from office. In short, a coup.

Over the past couple of weeks, the supposed media bastions have been full of it against Trump. An op-ed in the New York Times on January 5 by David Leonhardt could not have made more plain the absolute disdain. “He is demonstrably unfit for office. What are we waiting for?”

Follow-up editorials and reports have piled on the pressure. The Times reported how the Federal Bureau of Investigation – the state’s internal security agency – opened a counterintelligence file on Trump back in 2017 out of concern that he was “working for Russia against US interests.”

That unprecedented move was prompted partly because of Trump’s comments during the election campaign in 2016 when he jokingly called on Russia to release Hillary Clinton’s incriminating emails. Never mind the fact that Russian hackers were not the culprits for Clinton’s email breach.

Then the Washington Post reported former US officials were concerned about what they said was Trump’s “extraordinary lengths” to keep secret his private conversations with Russia’s Putin when the pair met on the sidelines of conferences or during their one-on-one summit in Helsinki last July.

The Post claimed that Trump confiscated the notes of his interpreter after one meeting with Putin, allegedly admonishing the aide to not tell other officials in the administration about the notes being sequestered. The inference is Trump was allegedly in cahoots with the Kremlin.

This week, in response to the media speculation, Trump was obliged to strenuously deny such claims, saying: “I have never worked for Russia… it’s a big fat hoax.”

What’s going on here is a staggering abuse of power by the US’ top internal state intelligence agency to fatally undermine a sitting president based on the flimsiest of pretexts. Moreover, the nation’s most prominent news media outlets – supposedly the Fourth Estate defenders of democracy – are complacently giving their assent, indeed encouragement, to this abuse of power.

The Times in the above report admitted, in a buried one-line disclaimer, that there was no evidence linking Trump to Russia.

Nevertheless, the media campaign doubled down to paint Trump as a national security risk.

The Times reported on January 14 about deep “concerns” among Pentagon officials over Trump’s repeated threats to withdraw the US from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The reporting portrays Trump as incompetent, ignorant of policy details and habitually rude to American allies. His capricious temper tantrums could result in the US walking away from NATO at any time, the newspaper contends.

Such a move would collapse the transatlantic partnership between the US and Europe which has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years,” claimed the Times.

The paper quotes US Admiral James Stavridis, the former supreme allied commander of NATO, calling Trump’s withdrawal whims “a geopolitical mistake of epic proportion.”

“Even discussing the idea of leaving NATO — let alone actually doing so — would be the gift of the century for Putin,” added Stavridis.

The Times goes on to divulge the media campaign coordination when it editorialized: “Now, the president’s repeatedly stated desire to withdraw from NATO is raising new worries among national security officials amid growing concern about Mr Trump’s efforts to keep his meetings with Mr Putin secret from even his own aides, and an FBI investigation into the administration’s Russia ties.”

Still another Times report this week reinforced the theme of Trump being a national security risk when it claimed that the president’s Middle East policy of pulling troops out of Syria was “losing leverage” in the region. It again quoted Pentagon officials “voicing deepening fears” that Trump and his hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton “could precipitate a conflict with Iran”.

That’s a bit hard to stomach: the Pentagon being presented as a voice of sanity and peace, keeping vigilance over a wrecking-ball president and his administration.

READ MORE: Twitter erupts after NYT reveals FBI probe into Trump-Russia links that lead… nowhere

But the New York Times, Washington Post and other anti-Trump corporate media have long been extolling the military generals who were formerly in the administration as “the adults in the room.”

Generals H.R. McMaster, the former national security adviser, John Kelly, Trump’s ex-chief of staff, and James Mattis, the former defense secretary until he was elbowed out last month by the president, were continually valorized in the US media as being a constraining force on Trump’s infantile and impetuous behavior.

The absence of “the adults” seems to have prompted the US media to intensify their efforts to delegitimize Trump’s presidency.

A new House of Representatives controlled by the Democratic Party has also invigorated calls for impeachment of Trump over a range of unsubstantiated accusations, Russian collusion being prime among them. But any impeachment process promises to be long and uncertain of success, according to several US legal and political authorities.

Such a tactic is fraught with risk of failing, no doubt due to the lack of evidence against Trump’s alleged wrongdoing. A failed impeachment effort could backfire politically, increase his popularity, and return him to the White House in 2020.

Given the uncertainty of impeaching Trump, his political enemies, including large sections of the media establishment, seem to be opting for the tactic of characterizing him as a danger to national security, primarily regarding Russia. Trump doesn’t have to be a proven agent of the Kremlin – a preposterous idea. Repeated portrayal of him as an incompetent unwitting president is calculated to be sufficient grounds for his ouster.

When the Washington Post editorial board urges a state of emergency to be invoked because of “Russian meddling in US elections”, then the national mood is being fomented to accept a coup against Trump. The media’s fawning over the Pentagon and state intelligence agencies as some kind of virtuous bastion of democracy is a sinister signal for a military-police state.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

All corrupt on the Western front? Der Spiegel latest to fall from media mountaintops

See the source image

By Robert Bridge

Once again, a reporter has been accused of writing fake stories – over a span of years – reinforcing the suspicion that we are living in a post-truth world where words, to paraphrase Kipling, “are the most powerful drug.”

This week, Der Spiegel, the German news weekly, was forced to admit that one of its former star reporters, the award-winning Claas Relotius“falsified his articles on a grand scale.”

Indeed, it seems the disgraced journalist was motivated more by fiction writers John le Carre and Tom Clancy than by any media heavyweights, like Andrew Breitbart and Walter Cronkite.

Relotius, who just this month took home Germany’s Reporterpreis (‘Reporter of the Year’) for his enthralling tale of a Syrian teenager, “made up stories and invented protagonists,” Der Spiegel admitted.

All corrupt on the Western front? Der Spiegel latest to fall from media mountaintops

There is a temptation to rationalize Relotius’s multiple indiscretions, not to mention the failure of his fastidious employer to unearth them for so long, as an unavoidable part of the dog-eat-dog media jungle. After all, journalists are not robots – at least not yet – and we are all humans prone to poor judgment and mistakes, perhaps even highly unethical ones.

That explanation, however, falls short of explaining the internal forces battering away at the foundation of Western media, an institution built on the shifting sand of lies, disinformation and outright propaganda. And what is readily apparent to those outside of the Western media fortress is certainly even more apparent to those inside.

A good example is Russiagate. This elaborate myth, which has been peddled repeatedly and without an ounce of 100-percent real beef since the US election of 2016, goes like this: A group of Russian hackers, buying a few hundred social media memes for just rubles to the dollar, were able to do what all the Republican campaign strategists, and all the special interests groups, with all of their billions of dollars in their massive war chest, simply could not: keep Democratic voters at home on the couch come Election Day – a tactic now known as “voter suppression operations” – thereby handing the White House to Donald Trump on a silver platter. Or shall we say ‘a Putin platter’?

Capture

Don’t believe me? Here’s the opening line of a recent Washington Post article that should be rated ‘R’ for racist: “One difference between Russian and Republican efforts to quash the black vote: The Russians are more sophisticated, insidious and slick,” wailed Joe Davidson, who apparently watched too many Hollywood films where the Russkies play all of the villains. “Unlike the Republican sledgehammers used to suppress votes and thwart electorates’ decisions in various states, the Russians are sneaky, using social media come-ons that ostensibly had little to do with the 2016 vote.”

Meanwhile, Der Spiegel, despite being forced to come clean over the transgressions of Claas Relotius, will most likely never own up to its own factual shortcomings with regards to their dismal reporting on Russia.

For example, in an article published last year entitled ‘Putin’s work, Clinton’s contribution,’ the German weekly lamented that “A superpower intervenes in the election campaign of another superpower: The Russian cyber-attack in the US is a scandal.” Just like their fallen star reporter, Der Spiegel regurgitated fiction masquerading as news.

Capture

However, there is no need to limit ourselves to just media-generated Russian fairytales. The Western media has contrived other sensational stories, with its own cast of dubious characters, and with far greater consequences.

Consider the reporting in the Western media prior to the 2003 Iraq War, when most journalists were behaving as cheerleaders for military invasion as opposed to conscientious objectors, or at least objective observers. In fact, two reporters with the New York Times, Michael Gordon and Judith Miller, arguably gave the Bush administration and a hardcore group of neocons inside Washington, which had been pushing for a war against Saddam Hussein for many years, the barest justification it required for military action.

Just six months before the bombs started dropping on Baghdad, Gordon and Miller penned a front-page article in the Times that opened with this stunning claim: “Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.”

The article in America’s ‘paper of record’ then proceeded to build the case for military action against Iraq by quoting an assortment of anonymous senior administration officials, anonymous Iraqi defectors, and anonymous chemical weapons experts. In fact, much of the story was based on comments provided by one ‘Ahmed al-Shemri,’ a pseudonym for someone purported to have been connected to Hussein’s chemical-weapons program. The authors quoted the mystery man as saying: “All of Iraq is one large storage facility.”

Gordon and Miller also claimed their source had said that “he had been told that Iraq was still storing some 12,500 gallons of anthrax.” Several months later, just weeks before the US invasion of Iraq commenced, US Secretary of State Colin Powell invited the UN General Assembly to imagine what a “teaspoon of dry anthrax” could do if unleashed on the public.

Powell, who later said the testimony would be a permanent “blot” on his record, even shook a tiny faux sample of the deadly biological agent in the Assembly for maximum theatrical effect.

Shortly after the release of the Times piece, top Bush officials appeared on television and alluded to Miller’s story in support of military action. Meanwhile, UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq never found chemical weapons or the materials needed to build atomic weapons. In other words, the $1-trillion-dollar war against Iraq, which led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, was a completely senseless act of aggression against a sovereign state, which the US media helped perpetrate.

Aside from the question of whether readers really put much faith in these fantastic media stories, complete with pseudonymous characters and impossible to prove claims; there remains another question. Does the Western media itself believe its own stories?  The answer seems to be no, at least not always.

With regards to the Russiagate story, for example, an investigative journalism outfit, Project Veritas, caught a few Western journalists off-guard about their true feelings in relation to the claims against Russia, and their feelings in general about the state of the media.

“I love the news business, but I’m very cynical about it – and at the same time so are most of my colleagues, CNN Supervising Producer John Bonifield admitted, unaware he was being secretly filmed.

When pushed to explain why CNN was beating the anti-Russia drum on a daily basis, things became clearer: “Because it’s ratings,” Bonifield said. “Our ratings are incredible right now.”

In the same media sting operation, Van Jones, a prominent CNN political commentator who has pushed the anti-Russia position numerous times on-air, completely changed his tune when caught off-air and off-guard. “The Russia thing is just a big nothing burger,” he remarked.

This brings us back to the story of the fallen Der Spiegel journalist. It seems that a deep cynicism has taken hold in at least some parts of the Western media establishment. Journalists seem increasingly willing to produce extremely tenuous, fact-challenged stories, many of which are barely held together by a rickety composite of anonymous entities.

And why not? If their own media bosses are permitting gross fabrications on a number of major issues, not least of all related to Russia, and further afield in Syria, why should the journalists be forced to play by the rules?

Under such oppressive conditions, where the media appears to be merely the mouthpiece of the government’s position on a number of issues, those working inside this apparatus will eventually come around to the conclusion that truth is not the main priority. The main priority is hoodwinking the public into believing something even when the facts – or lack of them – point to other conclusions.

Thus, it is no surprise when we find Western reporters imitating the greatest fiction writers, because in reality that is what they have already become.

@Robert_Bridge

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Maddow’s latest crystal ball reading: Putin ‘ordered’ Trump to withdraw from Afghanistan

Capture

Rachel Maddow (R) and a US soldier in Afghanistan © AFP / Theo Wargo; Reuters / Shamil Zhumatov

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow – a pioneer of Putin-ate-my-homework journalism – has predictably mused that Donald Trump is considering pulling troops out of Afghanistan on the orders of Russia’s president. The evidence speaks for itself.

In a segment on her critically-acclaimed show, “Watch Me Scream ‘Russia’ Until I Dislocate My Jaw”, Maddow made an adroit observation of seismic proportions: Reports that Donald Trump is mulling a partial withdrawal from Afghanistan emerged only hours after Vladimir Putin said that the US keeps promising to leave the country but never does! In layman’s terms: Putin ordered Trump to pull troops out of Afghanistan, during a live broadcast? It seems Maddow believes that she decrypted their top-secret communications channel.

Capture

Apparently she cannot fathom that there may be any non-Putin related motives for leaving Afghanistan after 17 years. But in August, the MSNBC host accused Trump of “flip-flopping” after announcing that more US troops would be deployed to Afghanistan.

Capture

Capture

So Rachel Maddow opposes sending more troops to Afghanistan – but anyone who wants to withdraw US forces from the country is a Putin stooge. A daunting pickle, indeed.

As Vox pointed out at the time, Trump “spent years railing against the war in Afghanistan and calling for a US withdrawal from the country.” Before moving into the White House, he made it clear to lawmakers that his administration would not send US troops to fight abroad unless “absolutely necessary.”

ALSO ON RT.COMPutin: ‘US right to leave Syria, but no signs of pullout – remember Afghanistan’

Maddow’s other celebrated Russiagate hits include having a stroke – live on television – after discovering that Russia shares a border with North Korea. She also famously revealed that Rex Tillerson was hand-picked by Putin to serve as Secretary of State – you know, the guy who allegedly called Trump a “f*cking moron”.

Imagine Maddow’s on-air meltdown if Trump really does withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Psyop which saw Democrats pose as Russians ahead of Alabama poll swept under carpet (VIDEO)

Psyop which saw Democrats pose as Russians ahead of Alabama poll swept under carpet (VIDEO)

A $100,000 Democrat psyop to fake Russian interference in an Alabama election was brushed aside by the US media as nonconsequential. But the alleged Russian operation of similar cost is treated as a Pearl Harbor-like attack.

The controversial social media operation, launched to undermine Republican candidate for Senate Roy Moore, was exposed by the New York Times this week.

The newspaper said it was an experiment which had little if any consequence on the outcome of the 2017 vote, which Democrat Doug Jones won by a less than 2-percent margin.

ALSO ON RT.COMTwitterstorm as bombshell Russiagate report suggests SEX TOYS penetrate US democracy

 

RT’s Murad Gazdiev wonders why a false flag operation involving Russia is not a bigger scandal for the US media. After all, they eagerly reported Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election, which is claimed to have a similar budget, as a major crime or even an act of war on par with Pearl Harbor.

Watch the video and take a guess.

 

Russia! The gift that keeps giving for the BBC, even on the streets of France

Russia! The gift that keeps giving for the BBC, even on the streets of France

Luxembourg’s artist Deborah de Rebortis (C) and a group of women dressed as “Marianne”, December 15, 2018 © AFP / Valery Hache

By Robert Bridge

Given the rash of conspiracy theories leveled against Russia of late, it is no surprise that the BBC is deep-sea fishing for a Kremlin angle to explain the protests against the government of French President Emmanuel Macron.

Dear failing leaders of France, are basement-level ratings getting you down? Are violent riots spooking the tourists? Are running street protests at the height of the holiday season placing a drag on consumer spending? Have no fear because the BBC is here with a one-size fits all bogeyman to explain virtually everything. Please have a seat because the name alone will send shock waves of bone-chilling fear surging through your entire body.

This new and improved beast of burden to explain every uprising, lost election, accident and wart, popularly known as ‘Russia’ – a strategy rebuked by none other than President Putin as “the new anti-Semitism” – provides craven political leaders with a ready-made alibi when the proverbial poo hits the fan. Yes! It can even rescue Emmanuel Macron, who just experienced his fifth consecutive weekend of protests in the French capital and beyond.

Here is the real beauty of this new media product, which may just outsell Chanel No.5 this holiday season. Reporting on ‘Russia’ does not require any modicum of journalistic ethics, standards or even proof to peddle it like snake oil to an unsuspecting public.

Simply uttering the name ‘Russia’ is usually all it takes for the fairytale to grow wings, spreading its whimsical lies around the world. ‘Russia’ is truly the gift that keeps on giving!

Allow me to demonstrate how easy it is to apply. Just this weekend, BBC journalist Olga Ivshina was engaged in correspondence with a stringer in France. In an effort to explain what has sparked the French protests, Ivshina gratuitously tossed out some live ‘blame Russia’ bait.

“And maybe some Russian business is making big bucks on it,” the BBC journalist solicited in an effort to conjure up fake news out of thin air. “Maybe they are eating cutlets out there en masse, for example. Or maybe the far-right are the main troublemakers?”

ALSO ON RT.COMBBC endorses reporter’s actions seeking to find Russian influence in Yellow Vest protestsWhen the question only managed to elicit an uncomfortable laugh from the stringer, the nonplussed BBC journalist exposed more trade secrets than was probably advisable. In fact, what followed seems to have been the only nugget of truth to emerge from the discussion.

Ivshina confided that she was looking for various angles” since the broadcaster, like a modern day Dracula flick, was “out for blood.

When RT reached out to BBC for some explanation, the British broadcaster reasoned that since the French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian had “spoken publicly about media reports of a possible Russian influence in the protests, it was perfectly reasonable for our correspondent to raise the subject.”

It also said the finished report did not mention a “possible connection with Russia at all.”

At this point, it is only natural to ask if such a knee-jerk anti-Russia bias in other news events – for example, the Skripal affair – demands that the BBC mindlessly toe the government line instead of, oh, I don’t know, pursuing the truth. A naïve question, of course, but please humor me.

Suffice it to recall that before any evidence was presented to the public in the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, British Prime Minister Theresa May declared it was “highly likely” that Russia was to blame.

That reckless comment was then launched around Planet Google by the Western leaders and their laptop media without further ado, not to mention a little thing called evidence. At the very least, you would expect the British people to demand much more for their tax pounds which fund the BBC.

Do you see how easy and effective this type of journalism is? The basis for the claims of ‘Russian interference’ by the French foreign minister should sound very familiar. Echoing claims of ‘Russian meddling’ in the 2016 US presidential elections through the use of social media, the minister pulled the very same rabbit out of his hat to suggest why hundreds of thousands of French citizens were suddenly out on the street, protesting against the unpopular policies of a former investment banker turned president.

As Bloomberg reported: “France opened a probe into possible Russian interference in the Yellow Vest protests, after… about 600 Twitter accounts known to promote Kremlin views began focusing on France, boosting their use of the hashtag #giletsjaunes.”

Keep in mind that the purchase of a few hundred Facebook ads is how the US Democratic Party – itself the focus of a number of potentially-criminal activities, as revealed by WikiLeaks – has attempted to explain the failure of Hillary Clinton to beat the Republican maverick Donald Trump in the race to the White House, as well as conceal its many wrongdoings.

Never mind that a Facebook executive admitted that Russia-linked posts had negligible impact on that part of the US brain that is responsible for pulling levers and making independent choices on election day.

Meanwhile, the recent and very explosive comment by Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, further confirms that the claim of Russian interference in the US political system was a well-done nothing burger.

“We undertook a very thorough investigation, and… we now know that there were two main ad accounts linked to Russia which advertised on Google for about $4,700 in advertising,” Pichai told a stone-faced US congressional probe last week.

Screen Shot 2018-12-17 at 4.56.02 PM

Back to the French streets, with some unavoidable sarcasm.

Of course, the French would never think of protesting against Emmanuel Macron’s aggressive neo-liberal policies, which have subjected the French people to painful austerity measures at the same time that the French government has embraced an open door immigration policy.

The only explanation that makes any sense – at least for those whose careers depend upon it, that is – is that the Russians monkeyed with the French mentality, causing Macron’s popularity rating to plunge, while at the same time inducing the French to take to the streets en masse.

The problem with that media narrative, first tossed out by a French minister without any evidence and then regurgitated by an obedient media, is that so many people are willing to accept it at face value. Or perhaps I underestimate the intelligence of the average news consumer and such a comment actually helped spur the French protesters into action for being taken as fools. We can always dream.

@Robert_Bridge

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

New York’s new Attorney General promises to ‘use every area of the law’ to investigate Trumps

New York’s new Attorney General promises to ‘use every area of the law’ to investigate Trumps

New York City’s incoming attorney general Letitia James speaking at an anti-Trump rally in 2017 © Reuters / Mike Segar

New York’s incoming Attorney General has threatened President Trump with legal warfare, saying she will “use every area of the law” to investigate the president and his family.

Democrat Letitia James tied her campaign to the anti-Trump #resistance early on, accusing the president of money laundering and promising to find out “whether he’s engaged in conspiracy and whether or not he’s colluded, not only with Putin, but also with China, as well.”

The familiar message clearly has found a receptive crowd, as James defeated Republican challenger Keith Wofford last month.

Speaking to NBC News on Tuesday, James kept up her anti-Trump crusade. “We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well,”James said. “We want to investigate anyone in his orbit who has, in fact, violated the law.”

As for the specifics, James promised to look into Trump’s real estate holdings in New York City, as well as the much-publicized meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in 2016. President Trump reportedly told Special Counsel Robert Mueller last month that he didn’t know the meeting had taken place, CNN reported.

“Taking on President Trump and looking at all of the violations of law I think is no match to what I have seen in my lifetime,” James told NBC.

Whatever about the real-estate probe, James’ investigation into the Trump Tower meeting, and into “conspiracy” and “collusion” is unlikely to turn over any new evidence. Mueller has been investigating Trump’s alleged connections to Russia for over a year-and-a-half now, and has thus far come up empty handed.

Still, James told NBC that she believes Mueller is “closing in on this president” and that “his days are going to be coming to an end shortly.”

James may have spoken with #resistance fervor on NBC, but her pledge to investigate Trump is not a radical move for a New York Attorney General.

Her predecessor, Barbara Underwood, already has dozens of cases pending against Trump, including an investigation into his charity and lawsuits to block the rollback of net neutrality and environmental regulations. Underwood, in turn, has continued the anti-Trump pushback of disgraced former AG Eric Schneiderman, whom she replaced in May after he resigned over sexual assault allegations.

Underwood continued Schneiderman’s investigation of Trump’s charity, the Trump Foundation, accusing the charity in a lawsuit last year of “unlawful political coordination” with Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Schneiderman had also overseen an investigation into Trump University for alleged illegal business practices.

On Twitter, James’ fighting words were celebrated by the anti-Trump crowd, but decried by conservatives. “When Letitia James says she is going to investigate someone to look for a crime, that is a crime,” said one. “It goers (sic) against the Constitution.”

Capture

If a death threat isn’t a ‘violation’ of Twitter’s rules on abuse, what is?

By Neil Clark

If a death threat isn’t a ‘violation’ of Twitter’s rules on abuse, what is?

Yesterday, I received a death threat. I reported it to Twitter Support, but they said there was no violation of its rules on abuse.

It’s another example of the double standards of the social media giant and how, if you don‘t have officially-approved ‘victim’ status, you won’t get protection.

The account’s name is ‘ironstowe’. His Twitter title is ‘Not My President.’ At 22.40 on December 10, he sent me the following tweet from New York, USA.

Screen Shot 2018-12-12 at 11.45.39 AM

The message was quite clear. Saddam was killed. Bin Laden was killed. Putin will be killed and then it’ll be the turn of ‘the likes’ of me.

The tweet came in response to one of mine in which I reminded people of what we were told about Iraqi WMDs in 2002/3, and compared the hysteria then with the anti-Russian hysteria today. It had quite impact, getting over 1,170 retweets and almost 2.5k likes.

But clearly ‘ironstowe’ didn’t like it, despite the politician he claims to be a ’big supporter’ of, Barack Obama, being a critic of the Iraq War.

His tweet spoilt what should have been a happy day for me as it was my wedding anniversary. Receiving it caused me great distress and made me very angry.

Screen Shot 2018-12-12 at 11.48.12 AM

But as shocking as the communication was, it’s the response of Twitter that is the most outrageous part of the whole story. I reported the tweet, as indeed did many of my followers, but Twitter said, just a couple of minutes later, that having reviewed my report “carefully”, they found that “there was no violation of the Twitter Rules against abusive behavior”. I wrote back to appeal, but their response was the same. They weren’t interested.

ALSO ON RT.COM‘Twitter gives green light to death threats against anti-war voices,’ claims journalist Neil Clark

Yet, the Twitter rules they linked to in their email to me clearly states, in the section marked ‘Violence,’ that “You may not make specific threats of violence or wish for the serious physical harm, death, or disease of an individual or group of people.”

This is exactly what ironstowe did. But he escaped censure and is still tweeting today as if nothing had happened.

Just imagine if an account holder from Russia had sent such a tweet to a journalist from CNN. I’ve absolutely no doubt that they’d have been suspended within minutes. Think of all the so-called ‘Russian bots’ who have been culled in recent months just for being Russians. Think of the anti-war commentators who have been suspended or banned from Twitter, for doing far less than ‘ironstowe‘.

Screen Shot 2018-12-12 at 11.49.50 AM

It’s not the first time I’ve been sent threats via Twitter and the company has failed to act. Less explicit, but no less chilling was one I received from ‘HoagsObjects’/America 1st’ on September 24. I had tweeted earlier that day in support of Russia’s decision to supply S-300 air defence missiles to Syria to protect it from Israeli attacks. ‘HoagsObjects’ menacing response was “I hope to meet you in person one day.”

I reported the tweet, but again, Twitter said there was no violation. ‘HoagsObjects’ pinned tweet, by the way, declares “Truth! Palestine never existed.”

In the summer, I was the subject of another disturbing tweet from Idrees Ahmad, a lecturer at the University of Stirling, tweeting under the handle @im_PULSE.

It read: “It’s July 2018, Neil Clark hits his head against a sharp object, and sh*t oozes out”.

Screen Shot 2018-12-12 at 11.51.46 AM

Among those who ‘liked’ the tweet was the shady black-list compiling ‘PropOrNot’ organisation, who also retweeted it, and the Kent-based troll account Don Quixote’s Horse’ @Quixote’s Horse, which smears foreign policy dissidents while courageously blocking them so they can’t respond.

Again, Twitter did nothing. It’s clear that its rules are only applied selectively. Narratives are the important thing.

Ahmad is a strong supporter of Western-backed regime change in Syria. I oppose intervention. If an opponent of Western policy had sent Ahmad the same tweet, I’ve little doubt they’d have been booted off the platform post-haste. Just imagine too if a left-wing supporter of Jeremy Corbyn had sent such a disgusting tweet to a Blairite Labour MP. It would have been all over the newspapers. But I’m not a member of the officially-designated ‘victim’ groups. I am a critic of Western foreign policy, a socialist and a regular on RT. So I’m fair game.

Screen Shot 2018-12-12 at 11.52.35 AM

Political censorship appears to be taking place under the guise of ‘implementing‘ Twitter rules, while genuine offenders are given a free pass.

Asa Winstanley reports that the Electronic Intifada was ordered by Twitter to delete a tweet linking to a story about Israel’s commando raid into Gaza last month.

Screen Shot 2018-12-12 at 11.53.46 AM

Screen Shot 2018-12-12 at 11.54.38 AM

In August, the anti-war writer Caitlin Johnstone had her Twitter account temporarily suspended for violating the rules “against abusive behavior” for a tweet about the pro-war Senator John McCain. Her tweet read: “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.”

You might agree/disagree with the sentiment Caitlin expressed, but it was clearly not a death threat, unlike ironstowe’s tweet to me.

Screen Shot 2018-12-12 at 11.55.29 AM

Another person to be banned permanently from Twitter recently is Peter Van Buren, a former State Department whistleblower. He tweeted: “I hope a MAGA guy eats your face” to journalist Jonathan Katz, who had called him “a garbage human being”. Katz reported him for “promoting violence.”

But was van Buren’s tweet any worse than the one ironstowe sent to me, and for which he escaped with impunity?

Screen Shot 2018-12-12 at 11.56.29 AM

Twitter loses credibility if its rules are not applied equally across the board. Politics should not come into its policing policies.

Being a supporter of US Empire, the state of Israeli military actions, or regime-change operations in Syria shouldn’t mean you’re exempt from disciplinary procedures. And being an anti-war activist who opposes neocon policies shouldn’t mean you get no protection or are given a ‘red card’ when you’ve done nothing wrong. I would welcome a discussion with Jack Dorsey on these important issues.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

FRANCE ‘INVESTIGATING’ IF THE RUSSKIES ARE SECRETLY BEHIND YELLOW VEST PROTESTS

France 'Investigating' If The Russkies Are Secretly Behind Yellow Vest Protests

The media is furious Russian media is covering these protests

Chris Menahan | Information Liberation – DECEMBER 10, 2018

If the last two years have taught us anything, it’s that Western governments can dodge all responsibility for their failed leadership by blaming all domestic strife on the Russkies.

From Bloomberg, “France to Probe Possible Russian Influence on Yellow Vest Riots”:

France opened a probe into possible Russian interference behind the country’s Yellow Vest protests, after reports that social-media accounts linked to Moscow have increasingly targeted the movement.

According to the Alliance for Securing Democracy, about 600 Twitter accounts known to promote Kremlin views have begun focusing on France, boosting their use of the hashtag #giletsjaunes, the French name for the Yellow Vest movement. French security services are looking at the situation, Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said Sunday in a radio interview with RTL.

Russia has been criticized for using social media to influence elections in the U.S. and elsewhere. Attempts to use fake news reports and cyberattacks to undercut the 2017 campaign of French President Emmanuel Macron failed, but Russian-linked sites have pushed questionable reports of a mutiny among police, and of officers’ support for the protests.

The media is furious Russian media is covering these protests.

There was supposed to be a blackout to help Macron put these rioters down like dogs!

Screen Shot 2018-12-10 at 10.53.16 AM

It was only around two weeks ago when the media was hyperventilating over Trump “gassing children” on our border in a repeat of the Holocaust.

Screen Shot 2018-12-10 at 10.56.23 AM

While Trump was attacked for using tear gas on foreign invaders, Macron’s army firing off some 10,000 tear gas canisters — so many canisters they reportedly nearly ran out — is “defending liberal democracy!”

“An investigation is now underway,” Le Drian said. “I will not make comments before the investigation has brought conclusions.”

The Twitter accounts monitored by the alliance usually feature U.S. or British news. But the French protests “have been at or near the top” of their activity for at least a week, according to Bret Schafer, the alliance’s Washington-based social media analyst. “That’s a pretty strong indication that there is interest in amplifying the conflict” for audiences outside France.

The Alliance for Securing Democracy is a unit of the German Marshall Fund of the U.S., which monitors pro-Kremlin activity.

The assertion of police dissatisfaction — which doesn’t appear to be supported by facts — resembles other Kremlin-backed disinformation campaigns that have tried to engender mistrust in Western governments and show that liberal democracies are in decline, Schafer says.

Just ignore the fact liberal democracies are in decline the world over — they’ve actually never been stronger!

The “Alliance for Securing Democracy” and their entirely fraudulent Hamilton 68 dashboardwas started by Bill Kristol, CIA officials and other Democrat neocons and they refuse to identify any of the alleged “Russian trolls” they claim to be tracking.

Any “journalist” who cites their dashboard as a legitimate source is not a journalist but a government propagandist.

The future our “liberal” rulers want is one where all non-establishment media is censored into oblivion and all popular revolts against their rule are pawned off on the Russkies.

Everyone you see in these videos are just Russian bots.

Buzzfeed “journalist” Ryan Broderick last week blamed the protests entirely on a Facebook algorithm change which favored local news:

Screen Shot 2018-12-10 at 10.59.46 AM.png

Screen Shot 2018-12-10 at 11.00.57 AM

These people are insane.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑