by O Society Nov 29, 2018
Not everyone is stupid. People notice things.
For example, I noticed this article yesterday.
It is “going viral” because it tells people something they want to hear; namely, there’s a smoking gun which connects Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin. Collusion.
144k views as of now according to the counter.
Problem is the story is bullshit. Their source is “we heard it from some guy in the bushes.”
And yet, the story is published in the Guardian, which if you aren’t aware, is the UK equivalent of the New York Times. They started in 1821. Yes, that’s 200 years ago. Their slogan is “the world’s leading liberal voice.”
And yet, this Assange/ Manafort story by Luke Skywaker and Tonya Harding is as fake as a three dollar bill.
If the “mainstream media” did not publish this sort of scat in the first place, Trump would not be able to call the news “fake” and have real people listen to him.
And yet, many people still believe magical bullshit, though we’ve been lied to over and over, not only about Russiagate and weapons of mass destruction.
It’s an appeal to authority. Been around reporting the news for 200 years. Sounds legit.
That said, the Luke Harding guy who wrote this article might not be a journalist.
Want to know how we know this story is bullshit? Obvious plant bullshit at that…
This same world-famous newspaper, The Guardian, obtained the embassy logs of Assange visitors 6 months ago.
Guardian reporters did not find Manafort’s name in these visitor logs back in May. Hence, they know full well Manafort did not go to the Ecuadorian embassy.
The Guardian reporters assumed their audience forgot they already went through the embassy logs and ruled out a relationship between Assange and Manafort.
I’m not Seymour Hersh or even Inspector Clouseau.
I wasn’t even trying to debunk this article. Just minding my own business, reading the paper and – bam! Saw it and happened to remember we already looked at this embassy log in the Guardian.
There are liars and assets working at the corporate mainstream media outlets. The big newspapers. It isn’t just Fox News. It’s The Guardian, NY Times, CNN, all of them. Mockingbird is one name for it.
Luke “Tonya” Harding got a “viral story” out of this. But just like the “17 Intelligence Agencies,” he lied. Intentionally. To further his narrative. What narrative you ask?
The got myself a NYTimes #1 Bestseller cashing in on imaginary TrumPutin collusion narrative!
Well, it all started off on the wrong foot. The first I ever heard of this TrumPutin collusion stuff was the presidential debate.
In it, Hillary Clinton comes right out and says “all 17 US intelligence agencies conclude Putin did it and Trump is Putin’s puppet.” Oct 19, 2016
I am not going to defend Donald Trump. He’s indefensible. Give him a cigarette and blindfold. Waterboard him at Guantanamo. Whatever. He’ll get what he deserves. Karma. OK?
The first actual public evidence of Russiagate was this ICA.
The very first page of this famous ICA (page #6 in PDF) says:
“Scope This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. “
So… Hillary Clinton lied.
C’mon now. She is Secretary of State. She’s seen a million of these ICAs. So she knows there is no reason for someone in the Coast Guard (which is one of the 17 agencies) to look at this kind of intelligence, much less have an opinion on it, much less say it is true. No reason.
There is no explanation other than she is lying on Oct 19, 2016 about the 17 intelligence agencies agreeing “Putin and Trump did it together.” She knows better.
Furthermore, every major newspaper in the US echoed Hillary Clinton’s lie with credulity. The first retraction I finally s upaw of it in the NYTimes happened 7 months after the ICA was public.
Published in January, but it’s July by the time someone at the NYTimes actually reads the first page of the ICA and discovers Hillary is wrong. It’s only 3. Seriously?
By then, it is too late. Anyone and everyone who wants to believe already believes Putin and Trump did it.
During this time, any attempt I made at being skeptical was met by the same reply: “But ALL 17 intelligence agencies say it is true! You think you know more than all of them do?!?”
I’ve been called a Russian bot and troll and a useful idiot and worse. No skepticism allowed. Just authority. Believe us.
Yet my position is still the same: Russiagate started with a lie. And unless some evidence magically appears to show Putin and Trump colluded and rigged the election, it’s still a lie.
Go look it up at the fact checkers. Politifact. Despite the obvious contradiction, they still pretend it’s true no matter what 17 = 4
Groupthink. It isn’t just the Trumpets doing it.
Some one asked how to make me become a groupthinker. Here’s how you can change my mind about Russiagate:
Back to matter at hand: the Guardian had the embassy logs at least 6 months ago, so they knew Manafort wasn’t there.
“Paul Manafort is not stupid,” he said. “I would assume that if he’s lying, he’s doing it because there is something very big he’s trying to hide from the prosecutors. Very big. We don’t know what that is, at least we don’t on the outside here. But I would also assume that, while his chances of going to jail for a much longer time have definitely gone up, it is also possible that his chances of getting a pardon have also gone up, if he’s doing something to serve the interests of those around the president.”
Which means this Luke Duke Harding at the Guardian is probably another MI6 asset, just like his friend with the golden shower tapes, Christopher Steele.
You should watch the Where’s the Collusion video to see Luke Tonya Harding take one in the knee…
Hillary Clinton makes up lies about Trump colluding with Putin. Maybe it’s just a politician with a campaign lie. So what?
Not this one. We’re still taking about this one 2 years later. This one isn’t just name calling during a debate.
The media put out all sorts of stories, like this one in the Guardian, to make up for their part in helping Hillary elect Trump by giving him unlimited coverage.
The gawdddam list is as long as my arm! These charges could have been used to remove Trump from office.
Now, none of it sticks. Why?
Because Russiagate was a fraud from the beginning. Trump’s minions will make this Mardi Gras when they hear there was no collusion.
Here’s another UK paper on this subject today:
GROWING CALLS FOR GUARDIAN EDITOR-IN-CHIEF TO RESIGN AFTER THE PAPER PUBLISHES MASSIVE ‘FAKE NEWS’ STORY
by November 28, 2018 — The Canary
There are growing calls for the Guardian‘s editor-in-chief to resign as the paper faces accusations of publishing a major “fake news” story about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on 27 November. Citing anonymous sources, the Guardian article accused Assange of holding “secret talks” with Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort. The allegation could strengthen efforts to extradite Assange to the US, where he may face the death penalty.
“BET THE GUARDIAN A MILLION DOLLARS”
In response, WikiLeaks is preparing to sue the Guardian for running the story. The independent publisher has also offered the Guardian a million dollars to prove the article is true:
Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper’s reputation. @WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange. https://t.co/R2Qn6rLQjn
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 27, 2018
Although WikiLeaks denied the accusation publicly beforehand, the Guardian did not initially include it.
The “Guardian”‘s Luke Harding wrote to former lawyer Melinda Taylor just hours before publication. WikiLeaks then tweeted Harding’s email publicly, outing the “Guardian”‘s fake news disaster prior to publication. The “Guardian” didn’t include the denial and ran regardless.
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 27, 2018
Hours later, the media outlet added in WikiLeaks’ denial along with a series of changes to the content and headline, introducing uncertainty to the allegation. Within the article, theGuardian isn’t notifying its readers of any of the updates.
NO EVIDENCE, LITTLE DETAIL
It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed.
This story is totally false and deliberately libelous. I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him. I have never been contacted by anyone connected to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly.
The Guardian offers no evidence that the meetings took place, nor any exact dates for when they allegedly happened. The media outlet alleges one meeting happened simply at some point in 2013, another some time in 2015, and one in March 2016.
In a little over four hours, the article – or “fake news” as WikiLeaks called it – hadreceived over 87,000 shares.
The allegation comes soon after US court documents indicated that the US has prepared an indictment against Assange. That’s despite a UN body ruling that the UK government is arbitrarily detaining the WikiLeaks founder. The UN body has called for the Conservative-led government to stop persecuting Assange and give him compensation. Still, Australian-born Assange has remained ‘detained‘ in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for six years.
“GAPING HOLES AND HIGHLY SKETCHY ASPECTS”
On social media, prominent commentators denounced the Guardian’s behaviour:
In sum, the Guardian published an article today that it knew would explode into all sorts of viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly sketchy aspects to the story. That’s a media pattern we’ve seen over and over in this story. https://t.co/1s9E3trp5f
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 27, 2018
— Mark Curtis (@markcurtis30) November 27, 2018
This article has received 101,000 hits already. If it’s fake news, as it appears to be, it’s an appallingly reckless and destructive example https://t.co/Lg0U68YgKC
— Media Lens (@medialens) November 27, 2018
THE DEEPER SIGNIFICANCE
The Guardian‘s fresh accusation against Assange feeds into a narrative from the US security services. The US intelligence services and much of the political and media establishment claim that Trump, Assange and Russia worked together to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election.
In the new piece, the Guardian presents that widely disputed allegation as outright fact. Harding and Collyns claimed that “months” after the alleged meeting in March 2016:
WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.
But forensic evidence has previously pointed to a leak from inside the Democratic Party, not a Russian hack.
During the presidential campaign, WikiLeaks released a huge bank of emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server. In response to the damaging release, the US intelligence community – along with the corporate media – maintains that Russia hacked the DNC. Former FBI director James Comey, meanwhile, has claimed that Russia passed the emails to WikiLeaks through a proxy.
But Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a group of former intelligence officials, produced independent forensic analysis. And this backs up WikiLeaks’longstanding claim that the emails were leaked, not hacked. In short, the person behind the release “copied 1,976 megabytes of data in 87 seconds”, which is faster than possible with a hack. VIPS co-founder Ray McGovern, who analysed Russia at the CIA for decades, expands:
The evidence that we have now is forensic… You would wonder why the people composing that CIA, FBI, NSA document… didn’t do any forensics…
The document from the US intelligence community also contained no evidence. McGovern and William Binney, who was a high-ranking NSA official for 30 years, have insisted since 2016 that this was because the signs point to a leak, not a hack.
CAN WE TRUST THE INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP, WIKILEAKS, AND RUSSIA?
In the new piece, the Guardian writes:
But the last apparent meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
What’s often ignored in the corporate media is that Mueller’s record on facts does not bode well. Enabling the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Mueller made false testimonies before congress, on camera:
On 11 February 2003, Mueller testified before congress:
as Director Tenet has pointed out, Secretary Powell presented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical, or radiological material.
Trump may be a monster, but the Democratic establishment and the US intelligence services are hardly trustworthy either. Neither is the Guardian, seemingly publishing a major fake news story linking Assange to Trump. Contrary to accusations that Assange colludes with Trump and Russia, WikiLeaks has published stories damaging governments across the world, including Russian ally Iran, Kenya and China, as well as the UK far right.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are among the organisations backing Assange (now an Ecuadorian citizen) and calling for the UK government to protect him from extradition to the US.
The former WikiLeaks editor is facing war from a permanent political class angry at the uncomfortable truths Assange has revealed. We must resist the establishment’s attempt at trial-by-media of Assange, before it’s too late.
The Guardian had not responded to The Canary‘s request for comment at the time of publication.
And finally, here’s the moment we’ve all been waiting for:
It can’t be the fault of the Guardian – be it Luke Duke Tonya Harding or his editor – because we all know whose fault it must be… wait for it… we must scapegoat all our mistakes on whom?
That’s correct. It was Russia.
Alex Finley writing at Politico says it was Russia.
Luke Harding wrote this fake news story because Vlad the Impaler Putin made him do it. To discredit himself.
Yes, that’s how this game is played. Anything I don’t like is Russia.
Pimple on your arse? It was Russia.
Your football team lost Sunday? It was Russia.
You woke up to find you manufactured a story in the Guardian?
It was Russia.
Pssttt… wanna know who Alex Finley is?