The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post Reply
User avatar
LeJizzOfMatoub
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 7:55 am
Karma: 162

The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by LeJizzOfMatoub » Fri May 19, 2017 8:38 am

According to an unsubstantiated article by the Washington Post, anonymous CIA officials have confirmed that the Russian government hacked the United States election to favor Donald Trump. Though it’s entirely possible the Russian government attempted to influence the election, the Post has been widely criticized — for the second time in a month — for its failure to follow basic journalistic practices. Nevertheless, the narrative is sticking.

But the outlet’s behind-the-scenes relationship with the CIA is nothing new. In 2013, a conflict of interest arose shortly after Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, purchased the newspaper. As the Nation reported at the time:

“[Jeff Bezos] recently secured a $600 million contract from the CIA. That’s at least twice what Bezos paid for the Post this year. Bezos recently disclosed that the company’s Web-services business is building a ‘private cloud’ for the CIA to use for its data needs.”
As this occurred, a petition calling on the Washington Post to disclose its new ties to the CIA when reporting on the agency garnered 30,000 signatures. According to the RootsforAction petition:

“The Post often does reporting on CIA activities. The coverage should include full disclosure that the owner of the Washington Post is also the main owner of Amazon — and Amazon is now gaining huge profits directly from the CIA.”
Robert McChesney of the Institute for Public Accuracy pointed out the glaring conflict of interest:

“If some official enemy of the United States had a comparable situation—say the owner of the dominant newspaper in Caracas was getting $600 million in secretive contracts from the Maduro government—the Post itself would lead the howling chorus impaling that newspaper and that government for making a mockery of a free press. It is time for the Post to take a dose of its own medicine.”

In its most recent article on the CIA’s claims of a Russian hack, the Post made no mention of its ties to the CIA. But while this connection calls into serious question the validity of a newspaper that claims to be a purveyor of “great journalism,” the connections are not enough to prove nefarious collaboration.

Unfortunately, however, history reveals actual collusion between the CIA and news outlets, including the Washington Post.

In 1977, Carl Bernstein, a former Post journalist, wrote about the CIA’s efforts to infiltrate the news media, often with the assistance of top management at the papers. In total, Bernstein reported, over 400 journalists were involved:

“Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go?betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without?portfolio for their country…In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.”
Though Bernstein failed to name the Post as an offender in his article, according to Tim Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, the CIA worked directly with the Washington Post, among many other outlets. In his comprehensive history of the CIA, Legacy of Ashes, Weiner wrote of the CIA’s first official chief, Allen Dulles:

“Dulles kept in close touch with the men who ran the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nation’s leading weekly magazines. He could pick up the phone and edit a breaking story, make sure an irritating foreign correspondent was yanked from the field, or hire the services of men such as Time’s Berlin bureau chief and Newsweek’s man in Tokyo.”
He continued:

“It was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press. American newsrooms were dominated by veterans of the government’s wartime propaganda branch, the Office of War Information.”
Dulles’ tenure lasted throughout the 1950s, and in 1954, for example, papers like the Washington Post and the New York Times promoted the narrative that Guatemala’s democratically-elected leader had ties to the Soviet Union and needed to be dealt with accordingly. The American news media helped create public support for a coup covertly backed by the CIA (interestingly, the Times also recently came out with an anonymously-sourced article claiming the CIA has determined Russia hacked the election). At the time, Frank Wisner, chair of the CIA’s Directorate of Plans — and whom Bernstein named as a key operator in the CIA’s relationship with news outlets — directly praised the Post’s piece.

Given this historical relationship, it’s no surprise that the Post and CIA have worked together in more recent decades.

In the 1990s, then-CIA Director Bill Casey appointed a man named Max Hugel as chief of the clandestine service, a small department within the CIA. But some agents disagreed with the appointment. Weiner explained:

“They dug up dirt on him, fed it to the Washington Post, and forced him out in less than two months.”
Whether or not the Post knew it was being used as a tool of intrigue by agents within the CIA is of little consequence. At best, they acted as “useful idiots” for schemers within the agency; at best, they knowingly aided the internal machinations of a spy agency.

The Post again served as a platform for warring factions within the CIA during the Bush years, when agents rebelled against Porter Goss, the director who replaced George Tenet after he resigned. Goss had vowed to repair the agency’s broken reputation but angered other agents with his seemingly radical approach. According to Weiner, agents took to the Los Angeles Times to criticize Goss (the Los Angeles Times recently faced backlash after one of its journalists was caught sharing stories with CIA agents before publication). The agents also took to the Washington Post to smear Goss:

“John McLaughin, who had held the agency together as acting director after Tenet’s resignation, delivered another riposte. The CIA was not ‘a dysfunctional and rogue agency,’ he wrote in the Washington Post. ‘The CIA was not institutionally plotting against the president.’”

Weiner notes that “in all the years that the agency had been battered in the press, never had the director been attacked in print, on the record, by the most senior veterans of American intelligence.”
The CIA also used its power in the media to silence a story published in the 1990s regarding the agency’s potential involvement in drug trafficking and the emergence of crack cocaine in black communities. Journalist Gary Webb had written an explosive investigative piece linking the agency to Contra fighters and the domestic drug market. Though the piece had shortcomings and reported on some already known information, as Peter Kornbluh of the Columbia Journalism Review noted, it was able to “revisit a significant story that had been inexplicably abandoned by the mainstream press, report a new dimension to it, and thus put it back on the national agenda where it belong[ed].”

Six weeks after the story broke, the CIA’s PR machine struck back. The Intercept notes the “CIA watched these developments closely, collaborating where it could with outlets who wanted to challenge Webb’s reporting.”

The Intercept summarized the account of Nicholas Dujmovic, who was a staffer at the CIA Directorate of Intelligence at the time:

“The agency supplied the press, ‘as well as former Agency officials, who were themselves representing the Agency in interviews with the media,’ with ‘these more balanced stories,’ Dujmovic wrote. The Washington Post proved particularly useful. ‘Because of the Post‘s national reputation, its articles especially were picked up by other papers, helping to create what the Associated Press called a “firestorm of reaction” against the San Jose Mercury News.’ Over the month that followed, critical media coverage of the series (‘balanced reporting’) far outnumbered supportive stories, a trend the CIA credited to the Post, The New York Times, ‘and especially the Los Angeles Times.’”
Given the CIA’s history of using media to accomplish both internal and external political goals, it’s possible — though admittedly wholly unconfirmed — this Post piece on Russia serves as yet another example of the clandestine agency using the paper as a tool to achieve its own ends.

Regardless, the Post continues to treat anonymous statements from the agency as fact, leading the way as countless other mainstream outlets parrot their narrative. Though it’s possible Russia did attempt to intervene in the U.S. election, there is little reason to trust information from an outlet with a history of collaborating with the agency spreading these claims.

Should any actual evidence of Russian hacking be produced, however, it’s likely the Post will be among the first to let us know.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-2 ... being-told

Wow i thought it was just SJW journalists freaking out, but it's deeper than that.

Image
Alan should hire a real admin to fix the board and sack the commie mod.

User avatar
JeanV.
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:07 am
Karma: 0

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by JeanV. » Fri May 19, 2017 9:48 am

LeJizzOfMatoub wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 8:38 am
According to an unsubstantiated article by the Washington Post, anonymous CIA officials have confirmed that the Russian government hacked the United States election to favor Donald Trump. Though it’s entirely possible the Russian government attempted to influence the election, the Post has been widely criticized — for the second time in a month — for its failure to follow basic journalistic practices. Nevertheless, the narrative is sticking.
Just the first paragraph is a wonder of disinformation to behold.

• It affirms out of thin air the WP is unreliable (unsubstantiated, failure journalistic practices)
• tries to sow doubt on the reality of Russian hacking, simply calling it "possible"
• while the following text is a frontal assault on the CIA

Meanwhile, the facts are that, under oath in front of a Senate hearing committee,

the heads of both the NSA and FBI, not the CIA, confirmed the Russian hacking.

It's not just "entirely possible", it's the sworn opinion of the US topmost law enforcement officials.


After that, it's your call: trust the Russians and Tyler Dyrden, or the US law enforcement agencies.

Life is a choice, comrade.

:lol:
Trump, Merkel, Brexit, La Pine, Grillo: the suicide of the West

User avatar
LeJizzOfMatoub
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 7:55 am
Karma: 162

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by LeJizzOfMatoub » Fri May 19, 2017 11:19 am

JeanV. wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 9:48 am
• It affirms out of thin air the WP is unreliable (unsubstantiated, failure journalistic practices)
Assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof, isn't great journalism.
JeanV. wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 9:48 am
• tries to sow doubt on the reality of Russian hacking, simply calling it "possible"
It's a healthy attitude when dealing with assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof.
JeanV. wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 9:48 am
• while the following text is a frontal assault on the CIA
You should have read the whole article and its sources, dummy!
To begin with, CIA officials are professional, systematic liars; they lie constantly, by design, and with great skill, and have for many decades, as have intelligence officials in other agencies.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

You bring up the FBI and the NSA to try to confuse the issue ? No problemo!

The NSA:
Image

The FBI:



Comey testifying under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3rd:


COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something like that -- without an appropriate purpose.

I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.

It's not happened in my experience.
Videotaped testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee blows apart the phony narrative New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt wove on Tuesday, which resulted in Mueller’s appointment. Schmidt’s only sources were anonymous. They claimed that on Feb. 14th, the day after National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned, Trump had asked Comey to end an investigation into Flynn’s connections to Russia.

And of course, it was an anonymous source who leaked the memo to the New York Times.


Image
Alan should hire a real admin to fix the board and sack the commie mod.

User avatar
JeanV.
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:07 am
Karma: 0

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by JeanV. » Fri May 19, 2017 12:53 pm

LeJizzOfMatoub wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 11:19 am
bla bla bla bla

Assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof, isn't great journalism.

bla bla bla bla

It's a healthy attitude when dealing with assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof.

bla bla bla bla

CIA bad

bla bla bla bla

Comey bad

bla bla bla bla

anonymous source New York Times.
Dude, your long, long post is just a Hindenburg: long and full of hot air.

Basically, all you've got to say is just two sentences.

-1- the WP and NYt did not name their sources, and
-2- the law enforcement agencies were not always forthright

Well, duh.


-1- Sources the world over routinely ask not to be quoted to avoid reprisals at their jobs.

However, its part and parcel of journalism to cross-check what sources tell them.

Reputable media do not publish anonymous claims unless they are satisfied with some evidence

Which is where your attempt at conflating anonymous and unsubstantiated fails.


-2- When official agencies misstate facts, it's almost always in the name of "raison d'État"

Like the NSA denying what Snowden revealed or Reagan with the contra affair.

There is simply not a sizable record of law enforcement agencies trying to play politics.

While politicians do try to use law enforcement agencies to play politics: Bush/Cheney WMDs.



And thanks for recycling a pic I introduced to the nice world of FF/TTH, but I just sank your Bismarck.


Image
Trump, Merkel, Brexit, La Pine, Grillo: the suicide of the West

User avatar
Mikgof
Posts: 605
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:26 am
Karma: 70

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by Mikgof » Sat May 20, 2017 12:34 am

JeanV. wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 9:48 am
LeJizzOfMatoub wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 8:38 am
According to an unsubstantiated article by the Washington Post, anonymous CIA officials have confirmed that the Russian government hacked the United States election to favor Donald Trump. Though it’s entirely possible the Russian government attempted to influence the election, the Post has been widely criticized — for the second time in a month — for its failure to follow basic journalistic practices. Nevertheless, the narrative is sticking.
Just the first paragraph is a wonder of disinformation to behold.

• It affirms out of thin air the WP is unreliable (unsubstantiated, failure journalistic practices)
• tries to sow doubt on the reality of Russian hacking, simply calling it "possible"
• while the following text is a frontal assault on the CIA

Meanwhile, the facts are that, under oath in front of a Senate hearing committee,

the heads of both the NSA and FBI, not the CIA, confirmed the Russian hacking.

It's not just "entirely possible", it's the sworn opinion of the US topmost law enforcement officials.


After that, it's your call: trust the Russians and Tyler Dyrden, or the US law enforcement agencies.

Life is a choice, comrade.

:lol:

There is no doubt about Russian hacking of the electoral process. 17 intelligence agencies say so. Even if Trump and his fans are correct and it's all a conspiracy against him, even they aren't denying that the Russians did hack the French election. And if a country hacks one country and its election, it's reasonable to assume that they hacked another country, especially when all of that country's intelligence services say that that is exactly what happened.

And why exactly would there be a conspiracy against Trump? If they wanted to get rid of him, his all too obvious lack of intelligence, minuscule attention span ( at the forthcoming NATO conference they're having to limit speeches to 2 minutes so as to keep Trump listening, because of his too short attention span,) would be sufficient to get rid of him. His breaking of the Emoluments Clause from day one of his presidency or his nepotism would also suffice. The first two aren't crimes (although they ought to be) and the last two are crimes just about anywhere else in the Democratic world. Who needs a conspiracy when he can already be arrested for at least two crimes.


In all fairness though, just supposing it is all a conspiracy. The only reason that I can think of, is that for nepotism and self aggrandisement, Trump could spend the rest of his life in prison, but if collusion with an adversary could be proven, then that is treason, and treason brings with it the death penalty for someone in the highest office. Who wants Trump dead so badly that they'd orchestrate such a wide-ranging and risky conspiracy?
Alternative facts: Ignorance is Strength.

User avatar
LeJizzOfMatoub
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 7:55 am
Karma: 162

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by LeJizzOfMatoub » Sat May 20, 2017 6:14 am

Mikgof wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 12:34 am

There is no doubt about Russian hacking of the electoral process. 17 intelligence agencies say so.

Hillary Clinton said so.
“We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... /92514592/

But if you pay for a subscription to the WA Post (or refresh the page then stop it loading before it's complete), you can read that:
JAMES R. CLAPPER JR., FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE:
As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office. Following an extensive intelligence reporting about many Russian efforts to collect on and influence the outcome of the presidential election, President Obama asked us to do this in early December and have it completed before the end of his term.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... bf9713d854
The Macron leaks weren't like the Podesta leaks, there was strictly no compromising informations inside, it was released too late to make a difference, it was a very suspicious leak.

Wikileaks warned it was fishy as soon as they received it:

Image


Meanwhile, honest observers are starting to call bullshit:
This latest Trump-Russia leak smells like a coup attempt
The latest Trump-Russia leak suggests that there is a sustained effort to remove him from office.
Trump has been sloppy and made many mistakes but this is tantamount to a coup.
The attempts to push Trump out of office may be illegal.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/16/this-lat ... ntary.html
Kucinich: 'Deep State' Trying to 'Destroy The Trump Presidency'
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said Americans must put party politics aside and acknowledge that the federal government is "under attack from within."

Kucinich said the "deep state" within the bureaucracy is trying to "destroy Donald Trump's presidency."

He said there is a "politicization" of intentionally nonpartisan agencies that has resulted in leaks to the press and a "threat to our republic."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/17/d ... ys-hannity
Alan should hire a real admin to fix the board and sack the commie mod.

User avatar
LeJizzOfMatoub
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 7:55 am
Karma: 162

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by LeJizzOfMatoub » Sat May 20, 2017 6:33 am

JeanV. wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 12:53 pm


-1- Sources the world over routinely ask not to be quoted to avoid reprisals at their jobs.

However, its part and parcel of journalism to cross-check what sources tell them.

Reputable media do not publish anonymous claims unless they are satisfied with some evidence

Which is where your attempt at conflating anonymous and unsubstantiated fails.
Michael Schmidt, the New York Times “journalist” behind the alleged “Trump-Comey Memo”, told Brian Williams that he has NOT seen the memo Comey allegedly wrote.

Schmidt stumbled over his words as he commented to Williams, “Someone that had seen [the memo] had recounted details to me.”

Well, duh.
Alan should hire a real admin to fix the board and sack the commie mod.

User avatar
JeanV.
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:07 am
Karma: 0

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by JeanV. » Sat May 20, 2017 6:36 pm

LeJizzOfMatoub wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 6:33 am
Michael Schmidt, the New York Times “journalist” behind the alleged “Trump-Comey Memo”, told Brian Williams that he has NOT seen the memo Comey allegedly wrote.

Schmidt stumbled over his words as he commented to Williams, “Someone that had seen [the memo] had recounted details to me.”
Sometimes, your retort are so off mark I think you're just trying anything to see if I'll bite.

Yes, a journalist was unlikely to be shown an actual memo amomg top FBI members.

At this stage anyway. Once the Trump circus downward spiral will accelerate, who knows?

:twisted:
Trump, Merkel, Brexit, La Pine, Grillo: the suicide of the West

nappybonesapart5
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:00 am
Karma: 24

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by nappybonesapart5 » Sat May 20, 2017 6:42 pm

jv as your history dupe , hindenburg was full of cold hydogen not hot air
votez pour le Pen and make Vichy grate again

User avatar
JeanV.
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:07 am
Karma: 0

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by JeanV. » Sat May 20, 2017 8:11 pm

nappybonesapart5 wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 6:42 pm
jv as your history dupe , hindenburg was full of cold hydogen not hot air
When I was typing hot air, I was wondering who would pick on the hydrogen technicality.

Betrayed by my own history dupe.

Tu quoque, Nappy-Brutus!

:mrgreen:
Trump, Merkel, Brexit, La Pine, Grillo: the suicide of the West

User avatar
JohnB
Posts: 284
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:36 pm
Karma: 25

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by JohnB » Sat May 20, 2017 8:31 pm

nappybonesapart5 wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 6:42 pm
jv as your history dupe , hindenburg was full of cold hydogen not hot air
Image

User avatar
LeJizzOfMatoub
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 7:55 am
Karma: 162

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by LeJizzOfMatoub » Sun May 21, 2017 2:20 am

JeanV. wrote:
Fri May 19, 2017 12:53 pm



-1- Sources the world over routinely ask not to be quoted to avoid reprisals at their jobs.

However, its part and parcel of journalism to cross-check what sources tell them.

Reputable media do not publish anonymous claims unless they are satisfied with some evidence
JeanV. wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 6:36 pm
LeJizzOfMatoub wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 6:33 am
Michael Schmidt, the New York Times “journalist” behind the alleged “Trump-Comey Memo”, told Brian Williams that he has NOT seen the memo Comey allegedly wrote.

Schmidt stumbled over his words as he commented to Williams, “Someone that had seen [the memo] had recounted details to me.”
Sometimes, your retort are so off mark I think you're just trying anything to see if I'll bite.

Yes, a journalist was unlikely to be shown an actual memo amomg top FBI members.

At this stage anyway. Once the Trump circus downward spiral will accelerate, who knows?


Ok we made YUGE progress here.
And it wasn't the first time Michael Schmidt got a story wildly wrong thanks to his anonymous sources.

Now i wanna hear you say:

"The New York Times isn't a reputable media."

Then we'll deal with the Washington Post.
Alan should hire a real admin to fix the board and sack the commie mod.

User avatar
JeanV.
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:07 am
Karma: 0

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by JeanV. » Sun May 21, 2017 1:45 pm

LeJizzOfMatoub wrote:
Sun May 21, 2017 2:20 am
A- However, its part and parcel of journalism to cross-check what sources tell them.
Reputable media do not publish anonymous claims unless they are satisfied with some evidence
B- Yes, a journalist was unlikely to be shown an actual memo amomg top FBI members.
My dear matoubmasse, I ask you as an elder brother to a mildy retarded sibling:

do you actually understand what you read? Are you aware of your false dichotomies?


Reports by witnesses IS evidence. Not actually seeing a memo does not invalidate the evidence.

Good journalism implies assessing the source credibility and cross-checking with other sources.


And trying to invalidate journalism just because you don't like the news is beyond funny.

:lol:
Trump, Merkel, Brexit, La Pine, Grillo: the suicide of the West

User avatar
Mikgof
Posts: 605
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:26 am
Karma: 70

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by Mikgof » Sun May 21, 2017 3:37 pm

LeJizzOfMatoub wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 6:14 am
Mikgof wrote:
Sat May 20, 2017 12:34 am

There is no doubt about Russian hacking of the electoral process. 17 intelligence agencies say so.

Hillary Clinton said so.
“We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... /92514592/

But if you pay for a subscription to the WA Post (or refresh the page then stop it loading before it's complete), you can read that:
JAMES R. CLAPPER JR., FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE:
As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office. Following an extensive intelligence reporting about many Russian efforts to collect on and influence the outcome of the presidential election, President Obama asked us to do this in early December and have it completed before the end of his term.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... bf9713d854
The Macron leaks weren't like the Podesta leaks, there was strictly no compromising informations inside, it was released too late to make a difference, it was a very suspicious leak.

Wikileaks warned it was fishy as soon as they received it:

Image


Meanwhile, honest observers are starting to call bullshit:
This latest Trump-Russia leak smells like a coup attempt
The latest Trump-Russia leak suggests that there is a sustained effort to remove him from office.
Trump has been sloppy and made many mistakes but this is tantamount to a coup.
The attempts to push Trump out of office may be illegal.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/16/this-lat ... ntary.html
Kucinich: 'Deep State' Trying to 'Destroy The Trump Presidency'
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said Americans must put party politics aside and acknowledge that the federal government is "under attack from within."

Kucinich said the "deep state" within the bureaucracy is trying to "destroy Donald Trump's presidency."

He said there is a "politicization" of intentionally nonpartisan agencies that has resulted in leaks to the press and a "threat to our republic."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/17/d ... ys-hannity

Trump's presidency was doomed from the start. He's a narcissistic congenital idiot. From day one he was wallowing in self-pity about his inaugural crowd size. Even if he was correct a normal person would have said "I won. Live with it bitches." Not Trump though. He always has to be the best. He even lies about the number of floors in Trump tower. If there is a conspiracy, it will only speed up his demise. A moron got into office purely because he wasn't Hillary Clinton. While it gives the rest of the world a bloody good laugh, it's not really the best way of running a country. Saying that though I do hope that he is found innocent of these claims. 4 or 8 years of lulz are far better than a few months of chaos.
trump-inauguration-crowd-1484943564224-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg
Alternative facts: Ignorance is Strength.

User avatar
LeJizzOfMatoub
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 7:55 am
Karma: 162

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by LeJizzOfMatoub » Mon May 22, 2017 8:24 am

JeanV. wrote:
Sun May 21, 2017 1:45 pm

Reports by witnesses IS bla bla bla long like a day without bread bla bla bla.
Funny thing: the last time Michael Schmidt was condemned for his shitty anonymous sources, it was about muslim terrorists and Hillary.
I have two major and rather simple questions: How did this happen? And how can The Times guard against its happening again?
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... ic-editor/
But using the same methods to smear Trump, no problemo! The article about the memo probably saved his reputation in the leftist circles.

Let's have another look at what JeanV call GOOD journalism, assessing the source credibility and cross-checking with other sources:




:lol:
Alan should hire a real admin to fix the board and sack the commie mod.

User avatar
JeanV.
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:07 am
Karma: 0

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by JeanV. » Mon May 22, 2017 10:45 am

LeJizzOfMatoub wrote:
Mon May 22, 2017 8:24 am
JeanV. wrote:
Sun May 21, 2017 1:45 pm
Reports by witnesses IS bla bla bla long like a day without bread bla bla bla.
Funny thing: bla bla bla lol
What IS funny, my dear matoubmasse, is that you're recycling my methods toward you:
JeanV. wrote:
Sun May 21, 2017 1:36 pm
Long, long bla bla to just say this: (big) intelligence community (not yet proved) communication between Russians and Trump campaign.
Well done, boyo!

Even if you're staying muddle-headed idolizing Trump, at least you're learning tactics.


:lol:
Trump, Merkel, Brexit, La Pine, Grillo: the suicide of the West

User avatar
JohnB
Posts: 284
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:36 pm
Karma: 25

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by JohnB » Mon May 22, 2017 12:17 pm

There is nothing to see there.

Democrats are falling for fake news about Russia
Why liberal conspiracy theories are flourishing in the age of Trump.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/155 ... ise-mensch

Image

President Donald Trump is about to resign as a result of the Russia scandal. Bernie Sanders and Sean Hannity are Russian agents. The Russians have paid off House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz to the tune of $10 million, using Trump as a go-between. Paul Ryan is a traitor for refusing to investigate Trump’s Russia ties. Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand was a secret Russian agent charged with discrediting the American conservative movement.

These are all claims you can find made on a new and growing sector of the internet that functions as a fake news bubble for liberals, something I’ve dubbed the Russiasphere. The mirror image of Breitbart and InfoWars on the right, it focuses nearly exclusively on real and imagined connections between Trump and Russia. The tone is breathless: full of unnamed intelligence sources, certainty that Trump will soon be imprisoned,

Image

User avatar
JeanV.
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:07 am
Karma: 0

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by JeanV. » Mon May 22, 2017 12:48 pm

JohnB wrote:
Mon May 22, 2017 12:17 pm
There is nothing to see there. Democrats are falling for fake news about Russia
"nothing to see there"? So,

• Flynn and Sessions never had inappropriate discussions with the Russian ambassador.

• CIA and NSA reports of Russian hacking and meddling in the US election are nil

• the FBI has spent 6 months x n agents worth of manpower to investigate nothing


Riiiiight.

:roll:
Trump, Merkel, Brexit, La Pine, Grillo: the suicide of the West

User avatar
LeJizzOfMatoub
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 7:55 am
Karma: 162

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by LeJizzOfMatoub » Tue May 23, 2017 4:42 am

JeanV. wrote:
Mon May 22, 2017 10:45 am

What IS funny, bla bla bla


Well done bla bla bla

Even if bla bla bla
Image

Image
Alan should hire a real admin to fix the board and sack the commie mod.

User avatar
JeanV.
Posts: 1503
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:07 am
Karma: 0

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by JeanV. » Tue May 23, 2017 9:28 am

LeJizzOfMatoub wrote:
Tue May 23, 2017 4:42 am
Image
Dang!

If you can't see the difference between these two situations, you're really dumb.


And/or a Trump devotee.

:lol:
Trump, Merkel, Brexit, La Pine, Grillo: the suicide of the West

User avatar
LeJizzOfMatoub
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 7:55 am
Karma: 162

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by LeJizzOfMatoub » Tue May 23, 2017 11:07 pm

Bla bla bla DemocratV!



Alan should hire a real admin to fix the board and sack the commie mod.

User avatar
LeJizzOfMatoub
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 7:55 am
Karma: 162

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by LeJizzOfMatoub » Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:10 am

JeanV. wrote:
Sun May 21, 2017 1:45 pm
LeJizzOfMatoub wrote:
Sun May 21, 2017 2:20 am
A- However, its part and parcel of journalism to cross-check what sources tell them.
Reputable media do not publish anonymous claims unless they are satisfied with some evidence
B- Yes, a journalist was unlikely to be shown an actual memo amomg top FBI members.
My dear matoubmasse, I ask you as an elder brother to a mildy retarded sibling:

do you actually understand what you read? Are you aware of your false dichotomies?


Reports by witnesses IS evidence. Not actually seeing a memo does not invalidate the evidence.

Good journalism implies assessing the source credibility and cross-checking with other sources.


And trying to invalidate journalism just because you don't like the news is beyond funny.

:lol:

Well it looks like i was right to invalidate your precious leftist journalists :lol:
‘In the main, it was not true’: Comey denounces New York Times story

In his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI director James B. Comey said that a controversial New York Times story in February about alleged contacts between Trump intimates and Russian officials was bogus. “In the main, it was not true,” he said.

“The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it,” said Comey during questioning from Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho). “And we don’t call the press and say, ‘Hey, you got that thing wrong.’ ”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/er ... 0667bbb53a
Alan should hire a real admin to fix the board and sack the commie mod.

User avatar
alan B'stard M P
Posts: 3213
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 5:18 pm
Karma: 66

Re: The CIA, Washington Post, And Russia: What You're Not Being Told

Post by alan B'stard M P » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:07 am

Richard Nixon is looking good

Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest