Seeing Through the Lies – US Edition 186

The Guardian newspaper has taken the art of obfuscation, false implication and the subtler forms of journalistic lying to new heights in its very extensive coverage of the Roger Stone sentencing saga. It has now devoted fourteen articles in the last fortnight to this rather obscure episode of American political history. Yet in not one of those articles – nor in more than a dozen articles about the Stone case that preceded it over the last few months – has the Guardian informed its readers what Stone was actually convicted of doing.

Stone was convicted of giving false testimony and misleading the FBI, because he claimed to be a conduit between Wikileaks and Trump when he was not. There was no conduit between Wikileaks and Trump. Stone was also convicted of witness intimidation, because once his fantasies got him into trouble he tried to browbeat my friend Randy Credico into backing up his tale.

The Guardian has, in a feat of some skill, contrived to give its readers the impression that Stone has been convicted for Trump/Wikileaks links, when that is in fact the precise opposite of the truth.

Stone has been convicted for fabricating the existence of Trump/Wikileaks links, of which there were none.

The Guardian has hung its entire corporate personality on Clinton identity politics and its entire financial survival on building a new online customer base among the Clinton electorate in the USA. When even the New York Times had to admit the Mueller report utterly failed to substantiate Clinton’s inane claims that the Russians had caused Clinton’s election defeat, even when a judge dismissed the DNC’s lawsuit against said Russians as being supported by no viable evidence whatsoever, even when the entire world derided the Guardian’s massive front page lie about Paul Manafort visiting Assange in the Embassy, the Guardian has persisted in reporting as fact the preposterous conspiracy theory that its heroine was thwarted from attaining supreme power by the evil machinations of Vladimir Putin.

To maintain this stance in the face of all factual evidence requires great skill and dexterity from Guardian journalists. Fortunately for the Guardian it does not lack for fantasist Russophobe fabricators like Luke Harding or for more subtly corrupt spinners like David Smith, who last week wrote of Stone that “He was the sixth former Trump aide to be convicted in cases arising from the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.”

The oleaginous David Smith omitted to note what any half honest human being would consider a very pertinent fact – that not one of those convictions had anything at all to do with Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, being either entirely unrelated tax and corruption matters turned up while trawling, or as with Stone being questions of process. Stone’s case is unique in that not only did his conviction not relate to any Russian interference, it was for promoting precisely the same ludicrous fantasy that the Guardian is promoting. It was illegal for Stone to persist in telling his lies on oath; there is no legal bar to the Guardian promoting the same Trump/Wikileaks/Russia fantasy ad nauseam.

Yet we have the spectacle of Julian Assange standing before a judge facing extradition to the United States and up to 175 years in jail for “espionage”, when everything Wikileaks has ever published has a 100% record for truth and accuracy.

To finish with Stone, the ludicrous vindictiveness of the prosecutors in pushing for a seven to nine year jail sentence for an offence that was really no more than wasting investigators’ time with his fanatasies, was rightly called out by Donald Trump. The notion that Roger Stone threatened witnesses is problematical. Randy Credico, the only person Stone was convicted of threatening, has written to the judge asking for Stone not to be jailed and making plain he did not feel threatened. He had known Stone for years and was used to his blustering talk, which Randy never took as intended to be a serious threat.

To consider those DNC leaks published by Wikileaks in which Roger Stone claimed falsely to have a part. What the leaks did reveal was the foul play and machinations of the DNC machinery in cheating Bernie Sanders out of the nomination – including jiggling the ordering of primaries specifically to give Hillary “momentum”, and giving Hillary debate questions in advance. Nobody should be surprised to see the same tactics being deployed against Bernie Sanders – whom I should be clear I support strongly – yet again.

The “muddle” that led to CIA-linked Pete Buttigieg being able to claim victory in Iowa, for a crucial five days before the official tallies showed Bernie had in fact won was, I strongly suspect, merely a portent of what is to come. The fact the app that “misfired” was designed by four ex-Clinton staffers working for a company chaired by a Buttigieg team member is indicative of what we can expect over the next few months. The right have yet to decide on their champion to thwart Bernie. Buttigieg and Klobuchar are enjoying moments in the sun of media approval, and the DNC have now changed the rules to allow Bloomberg into future debates. That the Clintonites who have been deriding Sanders as not a Democrat, will actually switch to support Republican billionaire Bloomberg against Sanders, is something I expect to see play out over the next month as it becomes clear that neither Buttigieg nor Klobuchar can stop Bernie.

Here in the UK, I predict Bloomberg supporting Guardian editorials by April.

Still more sinister, the zionist propaganda machine has started to ramp up its attacks on Bernie. In Iowa the AIPAC linked Democrats pressure group Democratic Majority for Israel sprayed money on TV ads attacking Bernie. It is a sign of the times that Bernie Sanders, bidding to become the first Jewish President of the United States, is attacked and undermined by extreme zionists because of his entirely reasonable views on Israel/Palestine.

Despite all of which, opinion polls show Bernie with a clear lead heading towards the Nevada primary. I remain cautiously hopeful that the degree of cheating required to stop Bernie gaining the nomination would simply be too much to hide, and that the Wikileaks DNC revelations may ultimately, by showing up the dirty tricks last time, help Bernie to power this time. We should, however, never underestimate the resources of the financiers and the security state which will be deployed against Bernie in the next few months. It is going to be a fascinating year in US politics. Either the Democrats will pick a right wing standard bearer and lose to Trump, or Bernie will become President. I do not share the general fatalism on the left which deems the latter impossible.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

186 thoughts on “Seeing Through the Lies – US Edition

1 2 3
        • glenn_uk

          Perhaps, rather, one law for the poor and rich alike, which prohibits them equally from sleeping under bridges, begging in the street and stealing bread. (Paraphrased somewhat from Anatole France)

          • Patricia Ormsby

            No, Glenn. There are soldiers doing hard time for unwittingly sharing classified information via social media, while Mrs. Clinton was exonerated by James Comey, because it was just a careless mistake to have her own server and be using it for official business, and oops some classified stuff slipped through.

          • David

            a lot of her mails were retrospectively reclassified as not sensitive allegedly, according to later reports (in order to minimise her exposure). Serious infosec experts considered that it was ‘highly likely’ that China + world got real intel.

            there is no security in obscurity

            according to this article about shutting down the CIA (they have also been leaking classified stuff for political reasons recently)


            keep this one thing in mind. As I point out in that article, it is not a crime in the United States to divulge classified information, it is not per se a crime. The espionage act does not make divulgence of classified information a strict liability crime, you have to prove actual damage or recklessness regarding actual damage, but we do have some laws that are strict liability crimes. For example, the comments statute, affectionately known in the business as the 10 & 10, meaning you violate it, you get ten years and a 10,000 dollar fine. It’s a serious law. Except, that John Brennan and Clapper both have obviously, without doubt, violated the comments statute, 18 US Code 798 with regards to The New York Times and The Washington Post

            so on that basis, Hillary might be able to run for vice-pres on the Bloomberg cash for Prez ticket?

          • glenn_uk

            “The Daily Caller” is your source? Founded by Republican stooge and Fox “News” host Tucker Carlson and a Dick Cheney aid, this is nothing but a CPAC outlet for innuendo and lies, half truths and smears.

            Haven’t you got any actual evidence that “oops some classified stuff slipped through”, since that was the claim made with no qualifications whatsoever?

          • David

            goodd-game, glenn_UK, look it up y’sen, s’not my job to convict Hillary, it is her job to show a clean pair of heels, if she wishes to remain in the game in our current climate

            it was previously reported that there was classified (before it was de-classified) data, allegedly. I mean who knows as bit-bleacher was used /sarc, and agencies are now involved , and they are good at retrospective cleaning

            I like Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller, – he is one of those rare people with an accurate world view, who then shares it.
            This “accurate POV” is something that you have to search for , in this day and age – when just John Sergeant alone out of all the myriad BBC hacks gets around to supporting Julian Assange, with his signature. I certainly avoid the gun-pron for patriots only at the DC, but read carefully and you might learn summat.

            Have a great weekend, if you exist and are not simply a state-bot!
            surely you can exonerate her Hilaryness from any scurrilous accusations, or it’s sadly arkancide for your avatar

          • glenn_uk

            D: “goodd-game, glenn_UK, look it up y’sen, s’not my job to convict Hillary, it is her job to show a clean pair of heels, if she wishes to remain in the game in our current climate

            Au contraire, David – a person has to be proven guilty under our concept of justice, it is not incumbent on an accused individual to prove themselves innocent.

            Your answer is a long but resounding “no” – you have no evidence whatsoever for your accusations, just the regurgitated slurs that have been rattling around the right-wing echo chamber for decades.

            As you might recall, Clinton was subjected to many hours of questioning in front of Select Committee accusers over these charges, and is probably _the_ most investigated state official in US history. They found absolutely nothing to pin on her, and the FBI categorically cleared her.

            Nevertheless, it makes people like you happy to continue to promote the far-right lie that she’s guilty bang to rights. Evidence? Shmevidence. You don’t need no stinking evidence, right?

            It’s always sad but wryly amusing to see far-right blow-hards crumple like a cheap suit, when asked to actually substantiate the propaganda they would happily promote all day.

  • michael norton

    Britain has committed itself to buying a new generation of nuclear warheads to replace Trident, which will be based on US technology. The decision was revealed by Pentagon officials who disclosed it before an official announcement has been made by the U.K. government.

    The revelation has dismayed M.P.s and experts who question why they have learned of the move – which will cost the U.K. billions of pounds – only after the decision has apparently already been made?
    everything is about MIC

  • Antonym

    Ex-DHS veteran Phil Haney was recently found death due to a gun wound in suspicious circumstances. He was a nuisance to US deep state as he exposed their going soft on Sunni Arab Wahhabism already in 2008, just 7 years after 9/11. Motive according to me: the Anglo-Arab oil in U$ trade in return for protection pact . Good for US / UK arms sales, keep the US dollar afloat, counter Shia / Iranians. Here is the interview with Haney:
    The gist: in 2008 the Bush (deep) State department pressured DHS to discontinue checking suspicious people funded by KSA entering the USA. Later on Obama guys just erased the whole database and put Haney 9x through the wringer. No price too high to keep the US $ afloat, not even domestic terror attacks. The dollar is key for the FED’s Quantitative Easing without any caution. That in turn enables deep state to take unlimited CIA / Mil “budgets”.

  • On the train

    Thankyou from the bottom of my heart Craig for what you did yesterday, and for what you have done for years to try to get the word out about the frightening treatment of Julian Assange. You are a hero.

  • John Cowan

    Despite strongly agreeing with almost everything you say in the posts I’ve read so far (and finding your style extremely refreshing), I wish to register my unhappiness with the phrase “CIA-linked”. It’s true that there are people who say Buttigieg is a CIA asset, but I have not yet seen any arguments for it better than “He’s too clean” and “Isn’t it obvious?” As such, smuggling a serious charge into an adjective is little better than innuendo.

    Call him “McKinsey-linked”. That is a matter of public record, and every bit as damning, in my opinion.

    By the way, Bloomberg is a lifelong Democrat (so was Trump, actually) who ran for mayor as a Republican in order to bypass the punishing Democratic primary. In general, NYC is a one-party town, but it’s a party without party discipline (as the current national primaries show). “I don’t belong to any organized political party: I am a Democrat.” –Will Rogers

1 2 3

Comments are closed.