The CIA’s Absence of Conviction 329

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.

I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
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.”

But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.

It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.

In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?

Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.

Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.

In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.

The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.


Signed First Editions of Sikunder Burnes are now available direct from this blog! You can leave a message naming the dedication you want. Sold at cover price of £25 including p&p for UK delivery or £29 for overseas delivery. Ideal Christmas presents!!


Signing Instructions

Liked this article? Please share using the links below. Then View Latest Posts

329 thoughts on “The CIA’s Absence of Conviction

1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Carlos Medina de Rebolledo

    JOURNALISM IN USA is showing its ugliest face since last elections. If those “journalists” should start studying my first profession, at a Journalist school I should never pass them to be one of us. Not only The New York Times, of biased by leftist reporters, remember Herbert Matthews, that Marxist propagandist for communist parties side in the Spanish civil war and for Fidel Castro´s revolution, but also trying to convince American people that extreme radical Democrats are good for America.
    In my opinion, journalist profession is to forget, if American Journalist Schools don´t analyse and sanction by a formal declaration what has happened.

  • Jessy S

    Why don’t you go on American television and actually name the source that is behind the DNC Leaks? That will kill this false narrative for good.

    • Joseph Ahner

      Because they would never get another source. That is how you kill sources or at the very least get them thrown in jail.

    • JC4PM

      Sorry, frustrating I know, but journalists and publishers MUST protect their sources or they will dry up or be arrested.

    • MarkinLA

      Technically speaking, releasing those e-mails to Wikileaks is a crime. The establishment would make a show-trial out of it to scare any future leakers.

  • B

    C’MON, EVERYONE KNOWS THE “LEAKER” IS EDWARD SNOWDEN! Don’t focus on the “whistleblower,” FOCUS on the CRIMES!!!”

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      He is certainly the most likely leaker as he was set up for the same fate as fellow hacker Gareth Williams, and once he fled for his life, ending up in Russia, Hillary made out that he had been a Russian spy all along, and refused to reset the bottom with Moscow.


      • Joseph Ahner

        One problem with that there theory. Snowden was not an insider at the DNC. This information came from a leak within the DNC. How could Snowden have accessed this information much less known where to look for it from Russia?

        • Guy St Hilaire

          Wasn’t there a man that worked for the DNC that was murdered /assassinated ,during the election period ?Seth Rich I believe his name was.

        • Dave Douglass

          NSA captures close to 100% of domestic communications in the USA, right?
          Many FBI agents have access to the NSA database (at least the part that’s not classified).
          Rumor I heard is that two New York City FBI field agents (not intelligence analysts) who are fans of Breitbart – specifically, readers of Steve Bannon’s “Clinton Cash” – took it on themselves to go into the NSA database, pull eMails associates with Podesta and other DNC types, and release them through one or more cutouts.

    • kerri

      The CIA trained Bin Laden and gave him an army…the CIA trained and put Saddam Hussein in power…they trained al Qaeda Isis Mujahideen…they were involved in ruby ridge and Waco …I trust nothing the CIA says anymore.

  • DH Martinski

    And why exactly do you think Julian Assange would be willing the implicate Russia, the only country willing to give him sanctuary? It all depends on who you choose to believe. If you choose not to believe U.S. intelligence agencies, and instead to believe Assange (who is clearly biased by Russia’s aiding him) or Craig Murray (who is not at all involved), then this article makes total sense. But if you believe that the CIA might be better at gathering intelligence (considering they have literally thousands of assets around the globe and spend 100% of their time collecting and analyzing intelligence data) then it is a reasonable conclusion that Russia was, in fact, involved. Furthermore, you cannot simply flip-flop your opinion of U.S. intelligence (from believing them to not believing them and then back again) depending on whether they support your political opinion. This same author supported the FBI findings about Clinton’s personal emails not two months before this information came out. It is also very relevant that the CIA came to these conclusions more than a month before (italics) the election, and then sat on the information until now. How can you claim that it’s been fabricated to benefit Democrats if it’s been released after (italics) the election in which the Democratic candidate lost?

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      I see Snowden getting back at the USA for having betrayed him, and I just see Assange as a pawn in the process as Russia is in no way to help him even if it wanted to.

      I do believe that the CIA has been on top of Snowden ever since he escaped its grasp, but it hardly spends all of its assets on such matters.

      And I don’t flip-flop about anything it does. Just follow the facts, like its assassinating all kinds of domestic troublemakers when it still couldn’t shoot straight when it came to Castro et al.

      • lysias

        The CIA didn’t just kill “domestic troublemakers” in the U.S. I would not call JFK, RFK, and MLK “troublemakers”. Nor John Lennon for that matter.

    • Salford Lad

      CIA and FBI Intelligence Services are worthless, as is the NSA. Too much ‘noise’ to analyse correctly.
      All proven by their failure to detect 9/11.

      • Trowbridge H. Ford

        The CIA only failed in predicting what the 19 followers of Osama were up to. Tenet et al. were convinced that they were hijackers who should be caught red-handed by its 15 unarmed agents, only to find out that they were suicide bombers, as Yale senior Suzanne Jovin apparently predicted in her senior thesis, and was brutally murdered for attempting to.

        I can write all kind of successes the Agency, Bureau and NSA have achieved. I just don’t have the tin\me, money and inclination.

    • Joseph Ahner

      I do not believe that the CIA is good at it’s job anymore. It’s employees who have been shown on television in recent years seem to struggle with basic operational terms and their results seem to be compromised by political bias.

    • dina Schrader

      Julian Assange is not in sanctuary in Russia.. He is in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. So @DH Martinski you are wrong. One who gave Julian Assange information was an aide of Hillary.. And this aide Seth was murdered.

  • Doug Harvey

    WaPo has been at it for the entire duration of the Cold War, especially egregious in 1963-64 for obvious reasons. Only difference is that it’s getting pretty blatant. 2016: The Year of Blatancy.

  • Salford Lad

    please do not use foul and abusive language on this site.It is frequented by widows ,orphans and ladies of a delicate nature.No ruffianly language is admissible.

  • sunshine702

    I would like to remind everybody that Podesta’s password was: [email protected] Confirmed by Wikileaks. Yeah only the Russians could be sophisticated enough to crack that!/sarcasm.

    Don’t worry these Globalist mouthpiece newpapers are losing money hand over fist. No one trusts them anymore!!

    The New York Times lost $40 million on 2011. It is beating that record by losing $14 million in the first quarter this year.

  • jerry

    To my knowledge Assange never said it wasn’t the Russians; he said it wasn’t the Russian GOVERNMENT.

  • JC4PM

    I recall a couple of years ago, Assange met with a member of Putin’s domestic nemesis, Pussy Riot, who visited him in the embassy. They got on well it seems. Why the hell would Assange meet her if he was just a Kremlin stooge? While writing this comment, I noticed that Pussy Riot has ratted on him accusing him of being ‘connected’ to Russia but that say more about the former’s pro-Western allegiances than it does about Assange. My original point stands.

    The fact is Assange is a libertarian and he doesn’t just focus on the West. A few years back, he commissioned an excellent documentary, Mediastan, about press freedoms, or rather the lack of them, in Russia’s backyard, the central Asian Stans. Why would he do that if he’s a Kremlin stooge?

  • Guy St Hilaire

    Come on guys , put on your Sherlock Holmes hat and get to work .Stop being armchair investigators .

  • Brad

    Hi Craig,

    Would you mind clarifying something please?

    There are 2 leaks in question, i think
    1. DNC – email server
    2. Podesta – gmail

    The DNC emails are claimed by the CIA etc to have been hacked by Fancy Bear etc, and Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility and shared some docs to prove he/she had access

    It does look as though Podesta’s gmail account was hacked by spear fishing, eg see this email trail showing the email trail which appeared to lead up to the hack –

    So both of those sound like they were the result of “hacks” rather then “leaks”.

    Can you please explain how that fits into your explanation that the emails were “leaked” by an insider?


    • m89

      according to assange there are both dnc hacks–by a range of actors, AND dnc leak–which is wikileaks’ source. He says there is a deliberate conflation of the 2 by certain people.

    • sZULU

      They were different sources

      DNC was a leak,
      I dont know if this part is real I actually saw something that implied it was an Outlook PST

      podesta was via an exploit known as Mirai
      the interesting thing about Mirai is that its author published the source code around October
      since the Russians wouldnt have had it or access to it in time to gather that intel, so its not Russians

  • Reluctant Writer

    I suppose the question is should Trump be allowed to run this country when he can barely express himself like a five-year-old child, therefore assuming his mental ability to be about the same age. When asked about his lack of participation in the intelligence briefings, he replied: “I don’t have to be told — you know, I’m, like, a smart person.” – The Washington Post

    And so, the CIA seems to be trying to prevent baby Trump from taking over the country. Is it a problem that they are hanging on to the one ‘lie’ which could help them in this attempt? Do the means justify the end? I think this question always depends on what the ‘end’ is.

    • Name

      should Trump be allowed to run this country
      is largely to be decided by the electors, as prescribed by law. Electors are party hacks, so I assume only a few will rebel against the pressure of social expectation.

      Even if something further happens that tears down Trump, Pence is the more likely electors choice.

      That produces a federal trifecta of congress, presidency, scotus with reliably fascist intent.
      If any readers possess low income and wealth, then fleeing to a blue or purple state would be wise, since the reddest states already persecute and murder the poor by taxation, health risks, legal and financial crippling, etc.

      Women not yet past menopause should do the same.

      when he can barely express himself like a five-year-old child, therefore assuming his mental ability to be about the same age
      Trump’s mental functioning is substandard by whatever cause, which possibly is extreme inability to concentrate enforced by habit of age.

    • Enderby

      Trump won after running a year long high concept campaign on issues that the bipartisan establishment and their media lackeys have suppressed debate about for decades. Can the US government actually put the interests of America 1st, or do they have to pursue the con job of globalism and wreck the nation? The American voter was finally given a chance to weigh in on the failed policies of open borders, “free trade” and perpetual war – policies implemented by “experts” that have devastated the quality of life in the US and destroyed hope for the future for most citizens while enriching the greedy few.
      But oh yeah, this 70 year old successful business executive and well known man of the people must really be a baby, because the lying propaganda mouthpieces of the establishment told you he is. Please….
      If you support the globalist schemes and think that American sovereignty must be weakened, then argue the case. But you know that globalism is a scam, so you have no arguments, and resort to name calling.

  • Name

    multiple initial facts are incorrect. Glaringly, “DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie” is not true. (Disclaimer: I voted for Sanders, and came to realize the weaknesses in his campaign, and still “would” favor Sanders.)

    did you, Craig, read any podestamails? I recommend reading the “raw” tab (link) to reduce bias effect of the highlighting

  • Nan Davis

    I am an American who is disgusted by our CIA, FBI, current administration (and Bush’s), and US and international media which pushes propaganda like this fake news story..
    that the Russians hacked email leaks. In any case, why is the FBI not investigating what was revealed WITHIN the leaks. Sounds like a conflict of interest. For someone like me, it is obvious that there is something shadowy and dark behind this. I will not mention the names, but there was a published meeting of the hierarchy of the DNC the week after the election with a notable globalist who funds many globalist/ left wing organizations. It appears they came up with some plans that are now being acted upon. Podesta himself admitted to losing one phone and we know Huma’s husband was using a shared computer. There are so many ways that the emails could have been purloined. The corporate elite do not like it that Trump is president, and that is all there is to it. I say…leave our election and the Russians alone. We need no more wars. Our intelligence has proven to be wrong (Benghazi and Iraq). The USA voted overwealmingly for Trump against most media and many Republicans clobbering him. He doing an excellent job.

    • Name

      why is the FBI not investigating what was revealed WITHIN the leaks
      I sampled the Podesta mails considered most outrageous by alt-cucks sites. Even among those outrageous mails, most perpetrated horrors along the lines of arranging restaurant reservations. (Perhaps I should know which DC restaurants serve frog legs. Otherwise, it seems that those green frogs get hoppy over almost nothing.)
      Some mails were hoaxes, in not actually being from wikileaks.
      Of those mails that I found to be worst, none containing closure were worse than noxious insider politics.

      Did you read any of the mails? Do you have FBI or similar level of investigatory work experience? (I do not.)

    • Name

      corporate elite do not like it that Trump is president
      Typing that must have hurt.
      Did you mean that the corporate elite doesn’t like a Presidential administration 100% (including Trump, though omitting Ben Carson, if he’ll be confirmed) occupied by the corporate elite?
      You might want to research your theory.
      (I can’t really apologize for occasionally succumbing to sarcastic response when so terribly tempted.)

    • Name

      notable globalist
      Russian oligarchs?
      global oil execs?
      Chinese real estate moguls?
      Saudi developers? (throwing gay people off roofs according to RW MSM)
      German bankers?

      I wonder if The Podesta Globalist was the same as any of the above Trump globalist buddies?

    • Name

      Our intelligence has proven to be wrong (Benghazi and Iraq).
      Benghazi was a (minor?) CIA operation. Obviously, CIA didn’t want that exposed immediately after the consulate outpost attack. Beyond that, I don’t recall reading of specifically CIA reports.

      Before invasion of Iraq, intelligence reported no nuclear processing gear. However, I think I once read circa 2008 that a few processing tubes were dug up in the desert.
      Otherwise, initial intelligence summary was partially correct. IIRC the military found ancient (stale?) chemical weapons. IIRC, also it was old tech (mustard?) Archaeologists had to be hired to read the Sumerian labels (ha, just joking)

      I was resisting temptation… ugh.

    • Name

      Trump’s tweetnouncements are highly contradictory, but
      One of Trump’s abridged manifestos consists of bombing countries for “our” oil (“Our” is a plural noun, so does “our” refer to the Trump clan?)
      Trump wants to bomb Iran. (I don’t empathize with Trump, knowing that all national level Republicans – seated or evicted – except Paul and Amash are emotionally consumed by this fetish)
      Iran has oil, so maybe they’re first on the bombing list?

      Trump might be tweetnouncing right now that the bombing plan is off.

  • Prefer to remain Anonymous

    I am here in America watching this false narrative progress. Why would they make up this story? We have our electoral college voting on Friday 12/19/16 and there is speculation that they are attempting to change the way the electoral college votes by presenting this narrative to them. The power structure wants Hillary. If this happens there might very well be civil war in America. Stay tuned.

  • CWP

    There is a good rebuttal to this. It comes from the New York Observer. The writer is an ex-intelligence officer who has been harshly and equally critical of Assange, Snowden, Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump. Interestingly enough, the Observer is owned by Trump’s son-in-law, but that has not stopped him from going after Trump, as a perusal of the archives will show.

    I realize that this version has a definite point of view, along with a claim to have met the DNC insider who allegedly released the information to Wikileaks. I find both versions to be credible, even though they are diametrically opposed. Not having access to either Craig Murray’s source(s) or John R. Schindler’s source(s), I have no way of deciding who’s telling the truth, or in fact whether either of you really know what the truth is.

    In any case, one way I’ll judge Mr. Murray’s version is by the tenor of any responses to this post of mine. As a matter of disclosure, I am a former Democrat who soured on Hillary Clinton and therefore didn’t vote for her, but who also regarded Trump as too critically flawed to support. So I cast a write-in vote, and have no ego interest in which version of events is accurate.

      • MarkinLA

        Notice how he conveniently says that how they deduced it was Russia can’t be divulged due to national security concerns? So we just have to take this guys word for it. Kind of reminds you of all the lies the CIA used in the past to goad us into cluster-Fs like the Bay of Pigs or Vietnam.

        • CWP

          I agree with you about that, and have argued as much. But Mr. Murray claims to have met the source, and that the source was not a Russian but a DNC insider. He didn’t make the argument you did (and which I’ve made elsewhere), but rather contends that the Russians weren’t involved. Mr. Schindler claims that the case for Russian involvement is rock solid. If this doesn’t matter, then why are we batting it around, anyway?

  • Diana in USA

    What a bloody circus. The CIA is running around with its pants down, all while pointing fingers at the FBI. The DNC and the Clinton’s have been scapegoating the Russians for months. Long before the elections, the Clinton’s and DNC started the rumor mill going that “the Russians might interfere with the elections”. After the election, Clinton claimed the FBI was at least partially to blame for her losing because Director Comey reopened the investigation into her emails before the election ended. And now there’s all this infighting going on?

    With the FBI (who let’s face it is far from spotless either) weighing in, I can’t help thinking this might be some sort of distraction. We do know the Republican senate just a few days ago passed a bill to “counter foreign propaganda”, which of course names Russia and includes any American (not controlled by the State) outlet that’s deemed by our ever so above board and honest politicians, as “working with the enemy.” And let’s not forget Julian Assange for whom we’ve not received any legitimate or verifiable proof of life in well over a month. One of the last known visitors to the Ecuadorian Embassy was mummified Skull and Bones John Kerry, who if memory serves was one of the people named in one of Assanges final tweets.

    Pay close attention to the Orwellian legislation these swine are quickly and quietly sneaking through, that combined with Assange being MIA for so long – the writing on the wall seems pretty obvious.

  • Jacqueline

    It is relevant that John Brennan, the CIA director is a Muslim. He is known for stupidity. When being appointed CIA director, he had to ask the PRESIDENT ” where do we stand”? on an important question. THE FBI SAID THE CIA HAD NO EVIDENCE OF PERSON WHO EXPOSED PODESTA’S DAMAGING EMAILS.

  • Charles

    Re: “Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition.” — The US is ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers and foreign hackers when it is their own wrongdoing being exposed. If Republicans colluded with Russia to hack or in someway interfere with the elections–where a Republican candidate might win–why expose themselves through investigation and prosecution? Why shoot themselves in the foot? It does not compute.

  • Sam

    We live in dangerous times
    The neocons have been planning a war with russia for a while. Trump would probably scupper their plans as he is not one of them so they may find an excuse to attack Russia prior to 20th Jan
    Dr Udo Ulfkotte warned of this a couple of years ago
    In an interview with Russia Today, Ulfkotte said that it was “not right” what he had done, and that his fear was that politicians were actively driving the world toward war:

    “it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do, and have done in the past, because they are bribed to betray the people not only in Germany, all over Europe. … I am very fearful of a new war in Europe, and I don’t like to have this situation again, because war is never coming from itself, there is always people who push for war, and this is not only politicians, it is journalists too. … We have betrayed our readers, just to push for war. … I don’t want this anymore, I’m fed up with this propaganda. We live in a banana republic, and not in a democratic country where we have press freedom…”

  • Sam
    Everything I have been getting from BEHIND THE CURTAIN seems to be spot on. The overall plan is to deny Trump a victory if there is a record surge of voters and Wikileaks promises new releases every week until the election. Plan B is to call the election a FRAUD and deny Trump to take office. Now 99% of newspapers endorsed Hillary so the media will portray whatever Obama directs them to these days.

  • Brian Brennan

    Please try and get on Mainstream news with this story. If unsuccessful ‘as they more than likely will not want this info going out to the masses’ at least make Trump aware so he can share this with the world.
    Thank you for your courage and honesty.

  • Pete Ludwig

    The UK ambassador to Uzbekistan claims to know the leaker, but won’t say who they are. If it was an inside job, it’d be from a DNC staffer in the USA. How does this guy know them? And please explain Trump’s INSANE love for all things Russia, appointing a guy with highest Russian civilian honors as Secretary Of State? And this was told to a Russian news agency? Is this an exercise in recognizing gaslighting when you see it? Because all the red flags are up.

  • Stephen

    Excellent article. I believe what we are seeing is this: the establishment is terrified that President elect Trump will really “drain the swamp.”

  • Procopius

    You were doing fine until you asked why the CIA didn’t arrest the perpetrators. The CIA does not have arrest powers. What they do is grab people off the street, basically kidnap them, and take them to a place where friendly authorities will either take custody or will legitimize sending the victim to the U.S. were he can be arrested. That, after all, is why Julian Assange does not want to go to Sweden — he expects the Swedes, after “questioning” him, will forcibly deport him to the U.S., where he will be arrested for espionage and held without trial for many years.

  • john Castillo

    My hypothesis is that Putin wanted Trump to win, not Bernie or Hillary, in order to make it easier to drill for oil in Russia and it’s ARCTIC regions. That Trump and the rest of the Republicans are Deniers of human caused global warming/climate change and are backed by the fossil fuel industry and want more extraction of fossil fuels would appeal to Putin and Russia’s oil tycons, just as it would appeal to U.S. oil tycons. It would be natural for Putin, Trump, the Republican party and the oil tycons to want to help each other. All they had to do was get assistance from Assange, white nationalists, the minority voter suppression machine and white racism.

  • Adam Sadler

    Ironically, the “news” sources doing the loudest crying over fake news are the ones most guilty of it. Dangerous fake news is not the obvious fake news. It is the news that skews the truth…ignores the truth…prints a biased side of what is true. Readers are not duped by blatant biases, but if you read/hear a slightly biased version of the news often enough, many will tend to believe it. If you search the top 10 news sources in America today under the heading of Russia/US election, you’ll find outrage and innuendo, but you won’t find any basis for it, just biased, bitter assertions.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Comments are closed.