The attempted Clinton-CIA coup against Donald Trump

[Tom Scully]

To repeat Paul's post above by former UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, on Wikileaks and the DNC hack.

...........
It simply is beyond credulous that all these whistleblowers are lying and/or are subject to a Russian operation.

The actual controversy unfolding in the U.S. appears to have been turned on its ear.

Winners Trump, Manafort, Bannon, Exxon Mobil, and by extension, Putin are now the victims in the scenario advanced here by Paul Rigby.

The word of the impeccable Craig Murray is gospel and thus Trump's declaration that there is nothing to see
here, move on.....is not the least bit curious or troubling despite Manafort's background, Trump's serial praising
of Putin accompanied by a declaration of Putin's superior leadership and results compared to Obama's, contradiction by Trump of his son's description of numerous business partners of Russia coupled with Trump's refusal to release any tax returns, even those more than three years old, and the icing on the cake....this weekend's trial balloon of Tillerson's appointment as secretary of state are justification in this Trump as CIA victim claim for Trump to be contemptuously dismissive of any investigation of Russian interference in the recent presidential campaign in the U.S.

http://time.com/4108198/donald-trump-60-minutes-putin/
Here's the Deal With That Putin 60 Minutes Episode Trump Mentioned
Charlotte Alter @charlottealter Nov. 11, 2015
......
Donald Trump argued that he understands Russian leader Vladimir Putin because they both were featured on a September episode of the TV news show 60 Minutes."I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates," he said, then he seemed to reference the show's ratings. "We did well that night."
.......

But both Trump and Fiorina's remarks weren't entirely on the mark. Trump and Putin did not meet in a "green room" for the show, which does not have the typical off-stage waiting area for guests that a talk show has.
In fact, they weren't even on the same continent. Trump was interviewed by CBS's Scott Pelley in his New York City penthouse for the season premiere of the hour-long docu-series, while Charlie Rose travelled to Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin....

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pres...than-obama
Trump: Putin's 'doing a better job' than Obama July 28, 2016
.......

Trump on Wednesday said he does not know Putin personally despite previously remarking the pair have met.
"I never met Putin," he said during a press conference at his Miami-area hotel. "I don't know who Putin is." ....

http://www.nbc26.com/newsy/mapping-donal...ins-russia
Mapping Donald Trump's Many Ties To Vladimir Putin's Russia
Zach Toombs
2:55 PM, Jul 27, 2016
.......
But numbers do tell us one thing for sure: Of all the countries polled on the U.S. presidential candidates, only one favored Trump and it shouldn't be a surprise. ....

http://www.nbcnews.com/card/pence-its-in...ma-n645106
Pence: It's 'Inarguable' That Putin Is a Stronger Leader Than Obama
Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence agreed Thursday with Donald Trump's assertion that authoritarian Russian president Vladimir Putin has been a better leader than the current sitting U.S. president.
"I think it's inarguable that Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in his country," Pence said in an interview with CNN. "And that's going to change the day Donald Trump becomes president." ....
......In a press conference Thursday morning, Hillary Clinton said Trump's praise for Putin "is not just unpatriotic and insulting to the people of our country, as well as to our commander in chief, it is scary."
Sep 8 2016, 4:58 pm ET

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/m...mir-putin/
Pence denies he's said 'Putin is a better leader' than Obama
By Daniella Diaz and Kate Grise, CNN
Updated 2:07 AM ET, Wed October 5, 2016

(CNN) Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine attacked both Donald Trump and Mike Pence for their praise of Vladimir Putin during Tuesday's vice presidential debate."You guys love Russia," Kaine said. "Gov. Pence said inarguably Vladimir Putin is a better leader than President (Barack) Obama."

Pence denied the charge, saying: "That is absolutely inaccurate. I said he's been stronger on the world stage."
In fact, Pence told CNN's Dana Bash in September: "I think it's inarguable that Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country."
Trump has repeatedly praised Putin as well, saying at NBC's "Commander-in-Chief Forum" last month, Putin "has very strong control over a country," even if he does not agree with the way the country is governed.

Read More


"Now, it's a very different system, and I don't happen to like the system," Trump said. "Certainly, in that system, he's a been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader." .....

It is always interesting to watch the discernment in real time of contributors posting under their own names.
I frequently remind myself that I am what I post and hopefully the reminder influences me to post more reasonably.

[David Guyatt]

Tom, the argument here which you touched on but only very briefly in passing, is whether Wikileaks and Julian Assange are Russian fronts and knowingly laundered Russian hacked emails from the DNC to influence the election.

Would, you, therefore, please be kind enough to provide solid evidence that this charge has any merit whatsoever?

Thank you.

[Tracy Riddle]

Craig Murray and Assange are going to have to present some evidence that the emails were leaked by a disgruntled insider. Otherwise, we still have "no evidence."
What we do know is that the Wikileaks were timed to help Trump, with a steady, daily drip of releases in October.

Prominent pro-Putin analyst Sergei Markov was jubilant at Trump's win and told the Guardian: "maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks."

Here's what Trump said at a rally in July:
"I will tell you this, Russia: If you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

[Tom Scully]

Tom, the argument here which you touched on but only very briefly in passing, is whether Wikileaks and Julian Assange are Russian fronts and knowingly laundered Russian hacked emails from the DNC to influence the election.

Would, you, therefore, please be kind enough to provide solid evidence that this charge has any merit whatsoever?

Thank you.

David, it seems to me that Assange is more defensive than he was 4-1/2 months ago. This is understandable if
he is being falsely accused by the most formidable intelligence and military force on the planet and more so if he
believed the U.S. democrat associated details he disclosed were a product of Russian government sponsored hacks.

Without a transparent investigation I do not know whether Assange was a witting tool of the Russian government. I want to think he was taken advantage of as he was simply doing what he always has; sharing
secrets of the powerful.

In my last post I did not intend to accuse Assange of supporting Russian interests as a primary or an intended
consequence of his disclosures. I think it likely he was indifferent about his disclosure having the effect of
helping the Trump campaign.

I already stated my misgivings about Trump's resistance to even the questions being asked.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1607/29/acd.02.html
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Sources: FBI Investigating Hack of Clinton Campaign Data; Trump Campaigns In Denver; Trump: Now The Gloves Come Off; How Trump Voters Viewed Democratic Convention; Julian Assange On DNC Hack; Trump Ties Putin; Arrest Made In San Diego Police Shooting; Remembering Fallen Sheriff's Deputy. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired July 29, 2016 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


.....COOPER: There is word today of a new FBI investigation into an alleged cyberhack of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee server which is said to be similar to the hack of the DNC committee or Democratic National Committee. Do you have any knowledge of this latest hack or if you do, any intention to publish any information obtained from it?

ASSANGE: I can't comment on anything that might reflect on sourcing or even to rule things in or rule things out. But I will just say and this is public information. It's not coming from me privately that there has been multiple hacks of the DNC over the last two years.

The DNC and the RNC have been Swiss cheese in terms of their security. And the DNC had been notified quite some time ago that that is the case and it has legal responsibilities that must carry out to notify its donors to be aware that their confidentiality has been breached by a hack.

Now, the e-mails that we published are a separate question to the various hacks that they could in community and state. We have not connected those e-mails to a hack of the DNC and no one else has connected them. There are other documents that are published by the few smoking gun and gawker that have been connected to the hack.

COOPER: I'm not even going to go bother to ask you about your sources because obviously you're not going to reveal your sources. You don't do that. But U.S. officials have said that they have, I'm quoting a little doubt was the term that Russian hackers were behind this. They haven't said it definitively.

Do you know -- I mean, again, I'm not asking you who did it, but do you know who did the hacking of the DNC server that got you the information? Do you know who provided you with these e-mails?

ASSANGE: We just -- as a matter of policy we don't go anywhere near commenting on sources, ruling things in ruling things out because it provides extra information that might be used to track down sources. But I can say that yesterday, James Clapper, the head of the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, stated that there was a lot of media hyper ventilation and "They didn't know enough about to ascribe motivation regardless of who it might have been." So, I mean, those kinds of statements are coming out of the man responsible for overseeing all U.S. intelligence agencies.

COOPER: There is a question whether you have a personal animus toward Hillary Clinton. You criticized her on a number of national security front policy issues.

[21:30:00] Obviously, she is obviously made statements against WikiLeaks. You gave an interview to the British network ITV back in June. You're suggesting that you're more concerned about Clinton at least in terms of press freedom than Donald Trump. Do you stand by that? Is this based on a personal animus?

ASSANGE: It is false reporting. You can go back and look at ITV interview. I never said that I wanted to do harm to Hillary Clinton, anything like that. It was the presenter that used that word. And in New York Tmes, it's, you know, that this candidate in this race now. So it -- there's lots of facts. No one was trying to get us in and then out.

COOPER: You see the question of anger that you're interfering in the U.S. election, you say this is what you're -- that your readers are American and therefore it's OK?

ASSANGE: Well, it's what our readers demand. It is also our based on principles that the publication of the true information and thus an important qualifier. True information about modern human institutions allows us to understand what they're doing and therefore to reform them. If we don't understand what our institution is doing we have no hope to reform them whatsoever.

COOPER: Julian Assange, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

ASSANGE: Thank you, Anderson.

[Paul Rigby]

Washington Post-CIA connections destroy Post's "election-hack" claim

By Jon Rappoport

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/...ack-claim/

"The CIA says" is never a great way to start a sentence. But that's the basis of the latest charge that Russia hacked the US presidential election.

Members of Congress have now been secretly briefed by the CIA on "the Russian affair," and media, led by the Washington Post, are running with the story that Russia influenced the US election on the side of Trump.

Until and unless the denizens of Langley decide to show specific and convincing evidence for their claim, this is disinformation.

It's easy to assemble a circumstantial case. But each case has to be judged on its own merits, and the devil is in the details. If we aren't privy to those details in the "Russian affair," no judgement is possible. Of course, major media outlets don't seem bothered by that. They're happy to cite the CIA as an authority---conveniently ignoring the fact that people in the intelligence field are taught to lie. It's their stock in trade.

You might remember the Washington Post's role in defaming and destroying Gary Webb, who, in 1996, published a series of articles in the Mercury News about the CIA seeding black Los Angeles neighborhoods with crack cocaine. The Post basically asked the CIA whether the charge was true, and when the Agency denied it, the Post attacked Webb as a "fake news" reporter. The same Washington Post is now leading the campaign to tie the Russian government to Hillary Clinton's defeat. And the Post, once again, is using unproven statements from the CIA to back up their claim.

I could go on and on about the Post and its historic CIA ties. But now, right now, the owner of the Post is Jeff Bezos, who also owns Amazon. And Amazon has a $600 million contract to provide the CIA cloud computing services.

Boom.

Ordinarily, that would be called a fatal conflict of interest, whenever the Post opens up its yap about the CIA in any context.

However, mainstream news outlets, the very big ones, don't go around criticizing each other's ownerships; so the Bezos-CIA relationship is conveniently ignored and left "in the past."

An honest lead paragraph on the current Russia-CIA-Trump allegations in the Post, however, would start this way:

"Our paper is owned by Jeff Bezos, and Jeff is making $600 million to provide the CIA with computing services, so take everything below with a grain of salt the size of Langley."

Going one step further, Amazon and the CIA are both in the data-collecting business. What are the chances that Amazon, in the interest of "national security," has been sharing its massive customer data with the CIA and other US intelligence agencies?

This should lead to another conflict-of-interest statement from the Washington Post: "As you read any article in our paper, keep in mind that our owner may be data-mining you and passing the information to the CIA. Have a nice day."

Am I being too hard on Amazon? Do they have the basic guts to stand up to the intelligence community and resist its demands? Here is what author Norman Solomon had to say about that in 2014 (Huffington Post):

"Amazon's trajectory into the CIA's spooky arms may be a bit more than just corporate eagerness to land a lucrative contract. In late 2010 - amid intense public interest in documents that WikiLeaks was posting to illuminate U.S. actions overseas - Amazon took a notable step. As the Guardian reported at the time, Amazon 'pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in reaction to heavy political pressure.'

"It didn't take much for Amazon to cave. 'The company announced it was cutting WikiLeaks off ... only 24 hours after being contacted by the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland security,' the Guardian noted."

Let's see. In 2010, Amazon cuts off WikiLeaks, proving its willingness to cave to the intelligence community.

In 2013, Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, buys the Washington Post.

In 2016, during the presidential campaign, WikiLeaks releases tons of email data exposing Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and associated players.

In 2016, after Clinton loses, the CIA---now Amazon's business partner, and by extension, the Washington Post's business partner---tells the Post that Russia influenced the election on behalf of Trump, and also implies/asserts that Russian hackers supplied Wikileaks with those tons of email data...

And the Washington Post accepts what its business partner, the CIA, is saying at face value and then leads the charge to blame Russia for handing the election to Trump.

The Post doubles down and absurdly accuses numerous sites and blogs of being a) "fake" and b) conscious or unconscious dupes of the Russian government.

A nice neat package.

Who exactly is the fake news outlet?

[Paul Rigby]

Stop the CIA Coup

The Deep State versus Donald Trump

by Justin Raimondo

December 12, 2016

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/...A.facebook

The CIA is up to its old tricks: overthrowing a democratically elected government. Only this time it's our government.

As they are now legally allowed to do ever since the law against covert CIA propaganda in the United States was repealed, the Agency has leaked to the Washington Post reports via anonymous third parties of its alleged assessment of a Russian campaign to hand Donald Trump the White House:

"The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

"Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, according to US officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton's chances.

"'It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,' said a senior US official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to US senators. "That's the consensus view."

The reaction of the Trump transition team was swift and cutting: "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and Make America Great Again.'"

This reference to the "intelligence failure" that led us into the most disastrous war in our history is not mere rhetoric: if you'll recall, there was plenty of dissent within the intelligence community over the Bush administration's conclusion that Iraq had WMD, and was getting ready to deploy, but this was stripped from the public documents. Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby made several trips to Langley to browbeat analysts into submission and give the administration the talking points they wanted to justify the invasion.

It's important to note that this leak was published just as President Obama announced he was ordering a full-scale review of the intelligence: the Washington Post story was an effort to get out ahead of that and put the CIA's conclusions on the record before the review could be made public. This is obliquely alluded to in the Post's story:

"The CIA presentation to senators about Russia's intentions fell short of a formal US assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior US official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency's assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered." [emphasis added]

As we get down into the weeds, these unspecified "minor disagreements" seem a bit more major than the reporters at the Post would have us believe:

"Intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior US official said. Those actors, according to the official, were one step' removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees."

What does it mean to be "one step removed" from the Russian intelligence apparatus? Well, it means anything the CIA wants it to mean: it is clearly a subjective judgment, akin to the "criteria" by which the web site propornot.com identifies "Russian agents": if you hold certain views, you must be "Putin's puppet." Another similarity to the propornot scam is that the "officials" cited throughout the Post piece are anonymous: we don't know their motives, their positions, or whatever other information is necessary to evaluating their credibility.

What is missing from the Post's story is any evidence: it is simply a series of assertions, offered without proof of any kind. That the Democrats, the warmonger wing of the GOP, and the media (or do I repeat myself?), are seizing on this was all too predictable. What separates this out from the usual rhetorical overkill that has characterized this election season is that it is being invoked as a reason for the Electoral College to vote for someone other than President-elect Trump.

"Ex"-CIA analyst Bob Baer the unofficial media spokesman for the Deep State is calling for "a new election," although he wants to "see the forensics first." (Guess what, Bob, there are no reliable "forensics"!). John Dean, White House counsel under former president Richard Nixon, "called for the intelligence report on Russia's role to be made available to the 538 members of the electoral college before 19 December, when they formally vote to elect the next president." Retiring Senate minority leader Harry Reid accused the FBI of covering up the intelligence assessment, and called on director Comey to resign. The "progressive" Twitterverse lit up with hysterical accusations of "treason," and not so subtle hints that the Electoral College must repudiate Trump.

Meanwhile, former British diplomat Craig Murray threw a monkey wrench into the coup plotters' campaign by asserting what I've been saying in this space all along: that publication of the DNC and John Podesta emails weren't hacks, but rather were leaks. Murray, a close associate of Julian Assange, had this to say to the Guardian:

"Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims bullshit," adding: They are absolutely making it up.'

"'I know who leaked them,' Murray said. I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

"'If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA's statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States. America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it's not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever."

Of course we had to go to the British media in order to read this.

Let's be clear about what we actually know and, just as importantly, what we don't know about the WikiLeaks email releases:

1) There is not a lick of evidence that the Russians, or anyone else, "hacked" the DNC/Podesta emails. That is, we don't know if someone used electronic means to obtain them, or if it was an insider, i.e. a person with access who subsequently turned them over to WikiLeaks

2) It is nearly impossible to trace the source of a hack using "scientific," i.e. purely technical, means. As cyber-security expert Jeffrey Carr puts it, the methods of the professional cyber-security industry are essentially what he calls "faith-based attribution." Furthermore, the methodology that firms such as CrowdStrike used in supposedly uncovering the "Russian hackers" in the DNC case are classic examples of confirmation bias and laughably inadequate.

3) Julian Assange denies that the Russians are the source of the emails, and although he refuses to identify the person or persons responsible, someone he has worked closely with and his known to have his confidence, Craig Murray, is now telling us that it wasn't a hack, it was an insider who leaked the documents. That this is being steadfastly ignored in the American media is hardly surprising: after all, it was WikiLeaks that exposed the "mainstream" media's active collaboration with the Clinton campaign, and the media was clearly in Clinton's camp.

4) A key element of the CIA campaign is that the Republican National Committee was also hacked by the same Russian spooks, and yet nothing was posted on WikiLeaks Note how this assumes the premises of the conspiracy theorists: that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC/Podesta emails and that WikiLeaks is merely an extension of the Kremlin. Also note that the Republican National Committee denies it was hacked, and furthermore please note the fact that Colin Powell's emails were indeed posted by DC Leaks, along with routine emails from various GOP operatives that had no particular significance.

So what is going on here?

When Trump supporters opined that the "Deep State" would never allow the populist real estate mogul to take office, I was skeptical. This seemed to me like a made-for-television movie script rather than a real possibility: after all, what could they actually do, aside from using force to prevent him from taking the oath of office?

However, as the campaign progressed, and the Clintonites became progressively more unhinged in their attacks on Trump, the Russian angle became more prominent: former acting CIA Director Mike Morell's accusation that Trump is an "unconscious agent" of the Kremlin, and "not a patriot," seemed over the top at the time, but in retrospect looks more like it was laying the groundwork for the current CIA-driven propaganda campaign.

But why would the CIA, in particular, have a special aversion to Trump? Marcy Wheeler, whose analytical abilities I respect despite our political disagreements, has this to say:

"First, if Trump comes into office on the current trajectory, the US will let Russia help Bashar al-Assad stay in power, thwarting a 4-year effort on the part of the Saudis to remove him from power. It will also restructure the hierarchy of horrible human rights abusing allies the US has, with the Saudis losing out to other human rights abusers, potentially up to and including that other petrostate, Russia. It will also install a ton of people with ties to the US oil industry in the cabinet, meaning the US will effectively subsidize oil production in this country, which will have the perhaps inadvertent result of ensuring the US remains oil-independent even though the market can't justify fracking right now.

"The CIA is institutionally quite close with the Saudis right now, and has been in charge of their covert war against Assad."

The Saudis, having given millions to the Clinton Foundation, along with their Gulf state allies, were counting on a Clinton victory. The CIA has a longstanding relationship with Riyadh, and together they have been working assiduously to not only overthrow Assad in Syria but to forge a "moderate" Sunni alliance that will effectively police the region while establishing the Saudis as the regional hegemon. This was the Clintonian strategy while Hillary was at the helm of Foggy Bottom: Libya, Syria, the alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, are all examples of this utterly disastrous "Sunni turn."

Trump represents a threat to this grand design, and therefore has to be stopped by whatever means necessary. His desire to "get along with Russia," his opposition to regime change in Syria, his critique of the Libyan misadventure, his foreign policy stance in general all this meant that he would come to power and "drain the swamp" of the CIA and the State Department.

The irony here is that the accusation leveled at Trump that his historic victory represents a successful attempt by a foreign power to take control of the White House is a classic case of projection. What we are witnessing is a joint CIA-Saudi operation to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States.

In a recent speech given on his "victory tour," Trump said the following:

"We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments. Our goal is stability not chaos."

For the whole of its existence, the CIA has been in the business of toppling regimes that didn't bow to Washington's dictates, from Guatemala to Iran to Chile and on and on. The production of chaos is their whole reason for existing. Trump would effectively put them out of business. No wonder they want to destroy him.

We have heard much about how the CIA "assessment" needs to be made public, at least partially: of course, the details will never be published so that ordinary Americans can see them. It's the old "we have to protect sources and methods" excuse. But cries from both those who support the CIA and the few skeptics for an "investigation" into the charges are simply playing into the hands of the Langley crowd. For an investigation assumes that the premises of the CIA's case that WikiLeaks is a Russian front, that the emails were actually hacked rather than leaked, and that there is some validity to the assertion that Trump is a "Russian puppet," as Mrs. Clinton put it are anything other than the basis of a smear campaign designed to undermine our democratic institutions. We might as well have an "investigation" into "Pizza-gate" or the belief that the moon landing was faked.

Yes, we do need an investigation into this brazen attempt by the CIA to subvert our democratic institutions, and undermine the office of the President. When Trump takes the oath of office, the very first thing he must do is to launch that probe and clean house at the CIA. The cancer of subversion that is festering at the core of the national security bureaucracy must be excised, and Trump is just the man to do it.

[Paul Rigby]

"The Russians Did It" & That Pesky $600 Million CIA Contract with the Washington Post

By Jay Guy

11 December 2016

http://ipatriot.com/russians-pesky-600-m...gton-post/

Before you read one sentence of alarmist "the Russians did it" from your liberal rag of choice in the mainstream media this morning, may I briefly remind you: The CIA has a $600M deal with the Washington Post. Period. Full stop. Pause and think about the implications of that sentence for a moment.

As was discovered (and subsequently buried by the mainstream media) during the summer of 2014, the Washington Post ceased being a news organization when it took $600 million from the CIA and became it's official/unofficial mouthpiece. As described at the time by the anything-but-conservative Huffington Post:

"The Post is supposed to expose CIA secrets. But Amazon is under contract to keep them. The Post a new $600 million "cloud" computing deal with the CIA.

The situation is unprecedented. But in an email exchange early this month, Washington Post executive editor Martin Baron told me that the newspaper doesn't need to routinely inform readers of the CIA-Amazon-Bezos ties when reporting on the CIA. He wrote that such in-story acknowledgment would be "far outside the norm of disclosures about potential conflicts of interest at media organizations."

The liberal mouthpiece continued with it's, in this case correct, analysis of the clear conflict of interest between the CIA and a "news" organization which clearly clouds any reporting it may do related to the CIA…you know, stories like "the Russians did it" which was only reported by the Washington Post and cites "anonymous sources".

"The Washington Post s refusal to provide readers with minimal disclosure in coverage of the CIA is important on its own. But it's also a marker for an ominous pattern combining denial with accommodation to raw financial and governmental power a synergy of media leverage, corporate digital muscle and secretive agencies implementing policies of mass surveillance, covert action and ongoing warfare."

Folks, freedom-loving Americans love the brave ladies and gentleman at the CIA. Rightful skepticism at the "reporting" of the Washington Post has nothing to do with the competence and patriotism of the CIA and it's brave agents. However, when a story is clearly and obviously planted in the news cycle by the mouthpiece of the CIA, a story which has no proof, no logic, is denied by the FBI, and simply doesn't pass the smell test, let's call a spade a spade: the "Russians did it" is liberal, planted fake news at it's finest.

[Paul Rigby]

Fox Contributor Judy Miller Calls Investigation Of Russian Hacking Obama's "Tar Baby" Gift To Donald

Published on Dec 11, 2016


[video=youtube_share;AwQSxZGxyrk]http://youtu.be/AwQSxZGxyrk[/video]

[Paul Rigby]

NYT reporter who sold the world on WMDs, Judith Miller, is now pushing the "Russian election hack"

By Alex Christoforou

The Duran

12 December 2016

http://theduran.com/nyt-reporter-sold-wo...lie-video/

The same Iraq war playbook is being dusted off in order to sell a ridiculous information war based on the equally ridiculous notion that Russia hacked the US elections in Trump's favor…and at the expense of Hillary Clinton.

All the lies are in place.

Politicians like McCain and Graham are hitting talk show circuit, warning about a "dictator" threatening American democracy.

"Fake news" is the new Patriot act, a dumbed down catchphrase used to rally support while curbing citizens' freedoms.

The US president is ordering a secret investigation, results pending before inauguration day.

The CIA is leading the charge by misleading. Anonymous sources are today's "Ahmed Chalabi."

American "values" are under attack. Retaliation first, fact later. The "DNC hack" is Colin Powell's "anthrax" moment. Saddam is Putin. Iraq is Russia. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have become Weapons of Cyber Destruction (WCD).

…And Judith Miller is back. Ready sell another conflict, cyber or hot, to an American public fattened up on a diet of "Russian aggression".

Miller seems to always pop up to corroborate CIA propaganda.

[Paul Rigby]

Clinton Campaign, Top Democrats Call For Intel Briefing, Commission Ahead Of Electoral College Vote

by Tyler Durden

Dec 12, 2016 1:59 PM

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-12...llege-vote

Update: The push to delegitimize the election results continued after a trio of top Senate Democrats called for a nonpartisan commission to investigate allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Sens. Ben Cardin (Md.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Patrick Leahy (Vt.), the top Democrats on the Foreign Relations, Intelligence and Judiciary committees, back the creation an independent commission with 18 months to report its findings The Hill reports.

"The American people deserve a nonpartisan, transparent, public investigation into this insidious attack on our democratic institutions," Cardin said. "As a nation it's time to get to the bottom of it and learn what we can do to prevent it from ever happening again."

The commission would be tasked with investigating allegations of Russian cyber attacks, trying to identify those responsible and recommending responses and future measures to prevent interference in U.S. elections.

Feinstein added that the commission would determine if Russian hacks tried to undercut Hillary Clinton, the Democrat presidential nominee, or "undermine our democratic system."

"This bipartisan commission will help identify the specific actors' responsible and recommend a possible course of action to prevent this from ever happening again," she said.

The panel, according to the Democratic senators, would have access to both classified and unclassified information, as well as the ability to subpoena officials about Russian activities tied to the presidential race.

Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, added on Monday lawmakers must "rise above the fray and engage in a serious, independent, and bipartisan investigation."

"This is larger than any one candidate or any one election," he said. "This is about protecting our democracy now, and going forward."

Of course, none of these calls would have been made had Trump lost the election, and in fact he would have been crucified by the press for daring to question the outcome of the vote.

* * *

Earlier:

And there it is.

Just as we first laid out on Saturday following Friday night's shock "report" that the CIA had concluded Russia had intervened in the presidential election on behalf of Trump, which we quickly assessed had all the marks of a "soft coup" attempt, and which culminated most recently with a report that up to 10 electors had requested a briefing on "Russian Interference" before the presidential vote, moments ago none other than the Clinton campaign, by way of its top political adviser John Podesta, said the campaign is supporting an effort by members of the Electoral College to request an intelligence briefing on foreign intervention in the presidential election, Politico reported.

In his statement released on Monday, Podesta said "The bipartisan electors' letter raises very grave issues involving our national security," and added that "electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed."

"Each day that month, our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump. Despite our protestations, this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in the campaign. We now know that the CIA has determined Russia's interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American."

Podesta's statement is the first public statement from the Clinton campaign raising questions about the legitimacy of Donald Trump's victory.

It follows the previously reported open letter from 10 presidential electors, including Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine, requesting an intelligence briefing ahead of the Dec. 19 vote of the Electoral College.

Why this push is curious, is because during today's briefing Press Secretary Josh Earnest explicitly stated that "US intel agencies didn't detect any malicious cyberactivity "that interfered w the casting and counting of ballots" on Nov. 8", a narrative at odds with that concocted by the WaPo, in its interpretation of what the CIA allegedly concluded in its "secret" assessment, which thenbegs the question: who is lying?

Shortly after Podesta's statement, the Democratic National Committee disseminated a Politico story that revealed the electors' call for a briefing. Two Democratic members of Congress have also suggested the Electoral College should take an active role in reassessing, or stopping, a Trump presidency.

It was unclear which particular agency would provide the briefing, if it was permitted, especially in light of reports that there has been a shcism between the CIA and FBI in their interpretation of whether Russia had indeed intervened directly to push for a Trump election.

While so far no proof has been provided by the CIA substantiating its claim, we doubt one will be forthcoming. After all as the WaPo itself reported some time ago, citing an official, "the intelligence community is not saying it has definitive proof' of such tampering, or any Russian plans to do so." In other words, there is merely "extrapolation" based on a personal biases to reach a desired, goalseeked outcome, without any factual validation whatsoever.

However, it is likely that should the Clinton Campaign's request for a "breifing" be granted, that it would lead to a dramatic split among the already polarized US nation. As to whether the Electoral College would ultimately vote against Trump, we leave it up to readers to consider the possible, and very damaging for the US, consequences.