Find us on Facebook too.
Now Youtube/Google censors anyone who says the same things about the 2020 election. We are no longer allowed to discuss politics or election results openly by corporate-CONTROLLED media that is in bed with the government/Democrat Party.
He further admits the claim, that Assange had instructed or asked him to access computers in order to find any such recordings, is false.
A major witness in the United States’ Department of Justice case against Julian Assange has admitted to fabricating key accusations in the indictment against the Wikileaks founder.
The non-stop, self-serving gloating of people I generally agree with: Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Maté, Michael Tracey, et al. is unprofessional and distasteful. They are wallowing in Maddow and FoxNews territory now.
Russiagate is a grey area, not black and white, and I do not believe we have the full story. Just recall all the redactions. By focusing on other people’s “conspiracy theories” the self-imposed limits of these journalists are not centered on what actually happened, but merely on gamesmanship: proving somebody else’s claim wrong. That is always distracting and a dead end, perhaps a complete waste of time for all concerned.
Greenwald’s latest makes this bold claim, its headline:
“Robert Mueller Did Not Merely Reject the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theories. He Obliterated Them.”
But, by the article’s conclusion Greenwald equivocates a bit:
One can debate whether it’s unethical for a presidential campaign to have dirt about its opponent released by a foreign government, [YES: LET’S DEBATE THAT] though anyone who wants to argue that has to reconcile that with the fact that the DNC had a contractor working with the Ukrainian government to help Hillary Clinton win by feeding them dirt on Trump and Manafort, as well as a paid operative named Christopher Steele (remember him?) working with Russian officials to get dirt on Trump.
Yeah. It’s ALL unethical. Lock them all up. How did Democratic Party crimes make Republican Party crimes suddenly legitimate? That is the slippy slope to hell.
Greenwald also makes a few sloppy assumptions. He accepts as Gospel:
1. “Russia” hacked the DNC server. Our own NSA whistleblowers determined that impossible based on the forensic evidence. Mueller continues to push this discredited claim undermining his own credibility.
2. That Robert Mueller was objective and had no interest in protecting Trump despite being a “conservative Republican,” as well as helping to cover up the 9/11 attacks.
Greenwald et al. should know full well that only cover-up artists get appointed to “investigate” the crimes of high officials in this country. It is a 100% certainty, going back at least to the Warren Commission. Also see: Iran/Contra. The full truth is seldom revealed about anything that could undermine confidence in the American system.
There may have been a Russian “hack” of John Podesta’s email account, a phishing scam, but then again I have seen zero evidence to date that “Russia” means the GOVERNMENT of Russia, with any evidence linking that government to the crime which would stand up in an actual court. That’s the problem with this trial by media: the “facts” are never established, challenged, buttressed; they just languish in a sea of half-truths and drivel. Whether any given set of Russian hackers are loyal to Vladimir Putin or to the almighty dollar is an open question.
We do know that the super-genius Second Son of Trump, Eric, admitted in 2014:
“We have all the funding we need out of Russia.”
Do you?
Donald Trump Jr. himself famously said in 2008 that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
Would this Russian money appear on Trump’s secret tax returns? Did Robert Mueller ever get a look at those returns? Did he ever follow up on this money trail at all?
Just yesterday, in Greenwald’s own publication, I read quite a bit about Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and his own set of Russian connections.
During the campaign, Manafort stayed in touch with these contacts through Konstantin Kilimnik, a longtime employee who previously ran Manafort’s office in Kiev. The FBI assessed that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence, the report says.
…
Manafort also met with Kilmnik in the United States twice during the campaign and gave him campaign-related information. [Why?] And Kilmnnik passed on a message from Yanukovych, who was in exile in Russia, about a peace plan that would have allowed Russia to control eastern Ukraine.
After Trump won the election, Kilimnik wrote to Manafort that the plan would need U.S. support and that it could use a “very minor wink” from Trump.
That’s a quid pro quo.
If that doesn’t constitute some greyness, Glenn, then I don’t know what to tell you. Things are not so cut and dry as some would like to pretend.
There are a few must-see shows going around these days. I’ve posted extensively on Orphan Black. Black Mirror is another. Humans. The Strain will be the subject of an upcoming review. Mr. Robot should join their ranks.
This is an odd take on technology, revolution, and mental illness. Elliot is a freak, an oddball who seems to be on medication in every scene. He turns unreliable by the end of Season One, but not before taking down the financial system and inflicting quite a bit of damage on “Evil Corp.”
I love the revolutionary spirit, the cult like hacker collectives, the skullduggery. It’s a paranoid thriller with twists you cannot see coming.
One thing that sets it apart–for good or bad–is the unconventional framing of the shots. This show takes lots of cognitive work to follow. It may give you a headache, particularly if you attempt to watch…
View original post 157 more words
NY Times today goes on an incredible journey, providing zero evidence, but lots of claims. Some of it may be true. The Guccifer 2 entity may have been a Russian intelligence operation, connected to the indictments of 12 people by Mueller this week. See what you think, and try and hack your way through all the anti-Russian, anti-Putin propaganda they just had to throw in there as standard (mind control) practice.
PS.
They even go to lengths to dismiss the “murdered DNC staffer” by not even giving him a name, which was Seth Rich. Assange mentioned Rich as a possible source for the documents, but this has been attacked as a “conspiracy theory” and unthinkable ever since. Rich was murdered in a “robbery” according to the official story… where absolutely nothing was actually stolen.
The Guardian keeps popping up in an unflattering light.
Democrats have peddled a series of blatant conspiracy theories for the past year. This exposes a number of them.
These tensions only stand to worsen in a political climate in which diplomacy with Russia is seen as a weakness, and in which challenging it through sanctions and militarism is one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement. Conflict with a nuclear power may threaten the future annihilation of many, but it offers immediate benefits for some.
America’s sham of a “democracy” is exposed as a fraud daily.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].
From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:
-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and
-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”
June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: On the same day, “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.
Political Film Blog 