VS massamedia krijgen van jetje na demoniseren Bernie Sanders (democratisch presidentskandidaat VS)

Nadat Bernie Sanders de Washington Post (WaPo) volkomen terecht verweet een haatcampagne tegen hem te voeren, hebben de massamedia in de VS belachelijk en hysterisch gereageerd op deze beschuldiging........ Lullig voor die media, maar belangrijke ex-vertegenwoordigers van die media zijn het helemaal zat en hebben 'een dik boek opengetrokken' over hun ex-werkgevers en hun voormalige collega's.

Met voorbeelden geeft men aan dat deze massamedia, zonder uitzondering in handen van plutocraten of investeringsgroepen, zich onderwerpen aan zelfcensuur, men weet prima welke onderwerpen wel of niet genoemd kunnen worden, censuur die de eigenaren verwachten van hun werknemers...... Caitlin Johnstone, de schrijver van het hieronderopgenomen artikel zegt niets over de zelfcensuur die zogenaamde onafhankelijke journalisten zich opleggen, over berichten die regeringen wel of niet kunnen schaden, ook die zijn er voldoende......*

Zo is er zelden of nooit commentaar in de reguliere westerse media op ingrepen van de VS elders, of het nu gaat om illegale oorlogen, staatsgrepen of ronduit massamoorden begaan middels drones, aanvallen op verdachte mensen, die minstens recht hebben op een eerlijk proces....... Ronduit VS terreur waarbij bovendien meer dan 90% van de vermoorden niet eens werden verdacht, dus veelal vrouwen en kinderen.......

Gelukkig ziet ook Caitlin Johnstone, de schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel, dat langzaam maar zeker een kentering van zaken, plaatsvindt. Zo gelooft het grootste deel van de VS bevolking terecht niet dat de uitbater van een kindermisbruiknetwerk, Jeffrey Epstein, zichzelf het leven heeft benomen (voor berichten over Epstein, klik op het label met zijn naam direct onder dit bericht).

Johnstone concludeert m.i. terecht dat de propaganda-oorlog, gevoerd in de reguliere massamedia steeds minder effect heeft op de publieke opinie, al verwacht ik niet dat er daarom snel verandering zal komen in die propaganda, eerder valt te vrezen wat we nu al zien: de brengers van het echte nieuws, de alternatieve media worden meer en meer gedemoniseerd door de reguliere westerse massamedia en westerse politiek, waarbij steeds meer platforms worden geweerd van het internet........ De volgende stap is het strafrechtelijk vervolgen van de alternatieve media, waarbij het eindelijk duidelijk zal worden wat een smerig spel media en politiek spelen en dat gesteund door multinationals, de financiële maffia en het militair-industrieel complex........

AUGUST 17, 2019 AUTHOR: CAITLIN JOHNSTONE

Mass Media’s Phony Freakout Over Bernie’s WaPo Criticism Is Backfiring

After days of ridiculous, hysterical garment rending by mass media talking heads in response to Senator Bernie Sanders’ utterly undeniable assertion that The Washington Post has displayed unfair bias against his campaign, people with extensive experience in the mainstream press who are fed up with the lies are beginning to push back. Hard.

Former MSNBC producer Jeff Cohen has published an article in Salon titled “Memo to mainstream journalists: Can the phony outrage; Bernie is right about bias”. Cohen details his experience with the way corporate media outlets keep a uniform pro-establishment narrative running throughout all their coverage without their staff having to be directly told to to do this by their supervisors (though sometimes that happens, too). He writes as follows:

“It happens because of groupthink. It happens because top editors and producers know — without being told — which issues and sources are off limits. No orders need be given, for example, for rank-and-file journalists to understand that the business of the corporate boss or top advertisers is off-limits, short of criminal indictments.

“No memo is needed to achieve the narrowness of perspective — selecting all the usual experts from all the usual think tanks to say all the usual things. Think Tom Friedman. Or Barry McCaffrey. Or Neera Tanden. Or any of the elite club members who’ve been proven to be absurdly wrong time and again about national or global affairs.”

Cohen’s exposé follows the phenomenal segment recently aired on The Hill‘s show Rising, in which former MSNBC star Krystal Ball and her co-host Saagar Enjati both detailed their experience with the way access journalism, financial incentives, prestige incentives and peer pressure were used to push them each toward protecting establishment narratives in their respective mainstream media careers. Ball said at one point she was literally called into the office and forbidden from doing any critical Hillary Clinton coverage without prior approval in the lead-up to the 2016 election, saying that in mainstream journalism jobs “you are aware of what you’re going to be rewarded for and what you’re going to be punished for, or not rewarded for.”

“It’s not necessarily that somebody tells you how to do your coverage, it’s that if you were to do your coverage that way, you would not be hired at that institution,” Enjati said. “So it’s like if you do not already fit within this framework, then the system is designed to not give you a voice. And if you necessarily did do that, all of the incentive structures around your pay, around your promotion, around your colleagues that are slapping you on the back, that would all disappear. So it’s a system of reinforcement, which makes it so that you wouldn’t go down that path in the first place.”

Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi has also jumped in to push back against the absurd denials of bias from the establishment media, publishing a new article titled “The Campaign Press: Members of the 10 Percent, Reporting for the One Percent–Media companies run by the country’s richest people can’t help but project the mindset of their owners.” Taibbi, an award-winning journalist with lots of experience in the news media industry, writes that pro-establishment narratives are advanced in mainstream press not because some explicit order is handed down by a media-owning oligarch, but because “We all know what takes will and will not earn attaboys in newsrooms.”

Matt Taibbi

✔@mtaibbi

Why the Sanders media beef is legit: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/bernie-sanders-washington-post-media-complaint-872349/ …

The Campaign Press: Members of the 10 Percent, Reporting for the One Percent

Apart from being described as a lying faux-Leninist Russian stooge who wants to elect Trump, what does Sanders have to complain about?

rollingstone.com

2,475

5:56 PM - Aug 16, 2019

Taibbi writes the following:

“The news media is now loathed in the same way banks, tobacco companies, and health insurance companies are, and it refuses to understand this. Mistakes like WMDs are a problem, but the media’s biggest issue is exactly its bubble-ness, and clubby inability to respond to criticism in any way except to denounce it as misinformation and error. Equating all criticism of media with Trumpism is pouring gasoline on the fire.

“The public is not stupid. It sees that companies like CNN and NBC are billion-dollar properties, pushing shows anchored by big-city millionaires. A Vanderbilt like Anderson Cooper or a half-wit legacy pledge like Chris Cuomo shoveling coal for Comcast, Amazon, AT&T, or Rupert Murdoch is the standard setup.”

Taibbi is correct. Trust in the mass media continues to plummet, and these stupid, nonsensical hissy fits they throw whenever criticized are only making it worse.

What cracks me up most about all this is that the faux outrage over Sanders’ criticisms of The Washington Post was completely unnecessary for everyone involved. They could have just ignored it and let the news churn bury it, but they’re so insulated in their little echo chambers that they seriously believed they could get the public rallying to their defense on this. The general consensus was something like “Ah ha! Bernie did that media-criticizing thing that we all agreed nobody’s allowed to do anymore! We’ve got him this time, boys!”

And all they accomplished in doing this was giving honest journalists an opportunity to inform the public about the insider tricks of their trade. You may be absolutely certain that the information that has been given to the public by Cohen, Ball, Enjati and Taibbi will remain in high circulation throughout the Sanders campaign in response to the increasingly shrill torrent of establishment smears, breaking the spell of mainstream media trust for all who view it.

Currie Dobson@Ventuckyspaz

More than two thirds of Americans don’t believe Epstein died by suicide

Only 29% of Americans believe Epstein died by "suicide" showing that the establishment's narrative control isn't working anymore#EpsteinSuicideCoverUp#EpsteinMurder #EpsteinCoverUphttp://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2019/americans_say_murder_more_likely_than_suicide_in_epstein_case …

Americans Say Murder More Likely Than Suicide in Epstein Case

Americans aren’t buying that disgraced financier and convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein killed himself in jail last weekend.

rasmussenreports.com

424

11:30 PM - Aug 16, 2019

All these damning insider criticisms of the mainstream American press are coming out at the same time a new Rasmussen poll finds that less than one third of the US population believes the story they’re being told by the corporate media about the highly suspicious death of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Despite the mass media’s mad push to tar anyone questioning the official narrative about Epstein as a loony “conspiracy theorist”, only 29 percent of those surveyed reported that they believed Epstein had committed suicide as they’ve been told, while 42 percent believe he was murdered. Never in my life have I seen such a widespread and instantaneous rejection of an establishment-promulgated narrative in the United States.

This is hugely significant. The entire imperial oppression machine is held together with aggressive plutocratic propaganda; the ability of the ruling class to manipulate the way people think, act and vote is the only thing stopping the public from using the power of their numbers to force real changes and create a new system that is not built upon endless war, ecocide and exploitation. The mass media propaganda engine is now at its weakest and most vulnerable point ever, and the narrative managers’ attempts to regain control are only exposing them more severely.

Power is the ability to control what happens. Absolute power is the ability to control what people thinkabout what happens. Our rulers are rapidly losing this absolute power.

People are waking up.

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon

Become a Patron

=================================
* Zo liet gevierd 'journalist' Max van Weezel op Radio1 al eens weten, dat hij zich goed voor kan stellen bepaalde berichten niet te brengen........

De Russiagate samenzweringstheorie dient de machthebbers.........

Alan Macleod schreef afgelopen vrijdag een artikel op FAIR, waarin hij uitlegt hoe de Russiagate samenzweringstheorie de machthebbers dient, ook al valt de Trump administratie onder die machthebbers, die zoals je begrijpt geen baat heeft bij de hysterie die de democraten hebben losgemaakt in de VS....

Met veel voorbeelden toont Macleod aan dat politiek en media deze Russiagate complottheorie dag in dag uit aan de mens 'voeren......' (lees: de bevolking hersenspoelen met een dikke leugen) Overigens, zelfs al zou je dit belachelijke complot geloven, moest er de laatste bijna 2 jaar toch wel wat twijfel zijn ontstaan over beweringen als dat Rusland de Brexit, of het Catalaanse referendum zou hebben gewonnen. Op deze plek stelde ik al een minstens een maand voordat deze 2 claims in de media verschenen, dat het niet ondenkbaar zou zijn, als men Rusland de schuld zou geven van deze 2 zaken en verdomd dat is precies wat er gebeurde......

Overigens de oplettende lezer, kijker, luisteraar moet toch minimaal getwijfeld hebben over de claim dat Rusland de verkiezingen in de VS voor Trump had gewonnen, zeker gezien de bedragen die Rusland daarvoor gebruikt zou hebben, bedragen die volkomen in het niets wegzakken bij de enorme bedragen waarmee de campagnes werden gevoerd......

Lees hoe Macleod fijntjes de boosaardige hysterie en complottheorie blootlegt, wellicht ten overvloede, echter als je ziet hoe deze uiterst ronduit belachelijke samenzweringstheorie telkens weer wordt herhaald, kan het geen kwaad een feitelijke uitleg te geven en aan te tonen dat de democratische partij voor het grootste deel is verworden tot een corrupte, rechtse partij met oorlogshitsers! (waar een groot deel van de aanhangers deze koers van harte steunt, maar vergeet niet dat ook deze aanhang werd en wordt voorgelogen door de vips in de democratische partij, figuren als Hillary Clinton en Obama en dat uiteraard gesteund door een groot deel van de reguliere media in binnen- en buitenland....) 

Jammer dat Macleod in zijn laatste woorden stelt dat Rusland als de VS probeert haar invloed te doen gelden op verkiezingen elders, daar is geen nanometer bewijs voor, terwijl er voor VS bemoeienis met verkiezingen elders honderden meters aan bewijs voorhanden is......

How the Russiagate Conspiracy Benefits Those in Power

July 27, 2018 at 1:55 pm

Written by Alan Macleod

(FAIR) — To the shock of many, Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential elections, becoming the 45th president of the United States. Not least shocked were corporate media, and the political establishment more generally; the Princeton Election Consortium confidently predicted an over 99 percent chance of a Clinton victory, while MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow (10/17/16) said it could be a “Goldwater-style landslide.”

The election of Donald Trump came as a shock to many (Independent, 11/5/16). 

Indeed, Hillary Clinton and her team actively attempted to secure a Trump primary victory, assured that he would be the easiest candidate to beat. The Podesta emails show that her team considered even before the primaries that associating Trump with Vladimir Putin and Russia would be a winning strategy and employed the tactic throughout 2016 and beyond.

With Clinton claiming, “Putin would rather have a puppet as president,” Russia was by far the most discussed topic during the presidential debates (FAIR.org, 10/13/16), easily eclipsing healthcare, terrorism, poverty and inequality. Media seized upon the theme, with Paul Krugman (New York Times, 7/22/16) asserting Trump would be a “Siberian candidate,” while ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden (Washington Post, 5/16/16) claimed Trump would be Russia’s “useful fool.”

The day after the election, Jonathan Allen’s book Shattered detailed, Clinton’s team decided that the proliferation of Russian-sponsored “fake news” online was the primary reason for their loss.

Within weeks, the Washington Post (11/24/16) was publicizing the website PropOrNot.com, which purports to help users differentiate sources as fake or genuine, as an invaluable tool in the battle against fake news (FAIR.org, 12/1/16, 12/8/16). The website soberly informs its readers that you see news sources critiquing the “mainstream media,” the EU, NATO, Obama, Clinton, Angela Merkel or other centrists are a telltale sign of Russian propaganda. It also claims that when news sources argue against foreign intervention and war with Russia, that’s evidence that you are reading Kremlin-penned fake news.

The Washington Post (11/24/16) was one of the first media outlets to blame the election results on Russian “fake news.” 

PropOrNot claims it has identified over 200 popular websites that “routinely peddle…Russian propaganda.” Included in the list were Wikileaks, Trump-supporting right-wing websites like InfoWars and the Drudge Report, libertarian outlets like the Ron Paul Institute and Antiwar.com, and award-winning anti-Trump (but also Clinton-critical) left-wing sites like TruthDig and Naked Capitalism. Thus it was uniquely news sources that did not lie in the fairway between Clinton Democrats and moderate Republicans that were tarred as propaganda.

PropOrNot calls for an FBI investigation into the news sources listed. Even its creators see the resemblance to a new McCarthyism, as it appears as a frequently asked question on their website. (They say it is not McCarthyism, because “we are not accusing anyone of lawbreaking, treason, or ‘being a member of the Communist Party.’”) However, this new McCarthyism does not stem from the conservative right like before, but from the establishment center.

That the list is so evidently flawed and its creators refuse to reveal their identities or funding did not stop the issue becoming one of the most discussed in mainstream circles. Media talk of fake news sparked organizations like Google, Facebook, Bing and YouTube to change their algorithms, ostensibly to combat it.

However, one major effect of the change has been to hammer progressive outlets that challenge the status quo. The Intercept reported a 19 percent reduction in Google search traffic, AlterNet 63 percent and Democracy Now! 36 percent. Reddit and Twitter deleted thousands of accounts, while in what came to be called the “AdPocalypse,” YouTube began demonetizing videos from independent creators like Majority Report and the Jimmy Dore Show on controversial political topics like environmental protests, war and mass shootings. (In contrast, corporate outlets like CNN did not have their content on those subjects demonetized.) Journalists that questioned aspects of the Russia narrative, like Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Maté, were accused of being agents of the Kremlin (Shadowproof, 7/9/18).

The effect has been to pull away the financial underpinnings of alternative media that question the corporate state and capitalism in general, and to reassert corporate control over communication, something that had been loosened during the election in particular. It also impels liberal journalists to prove their loyalty by employing sufficiently bellicose and anti-Russian rhetoric, lest they also be tarred as Kremlin agents.

Thomas Friedman (Morning Joe, 2/14/18) pointedly compared email hacking to events that the US responded to with major wars. 

When it was reported in February that 13 Russian trolls had been indicted by a US grand jury for sharing and promoting pro-Trump and anti-Clinton memes on Facebook, the response was a general uproar. Multiple senior political figures declared it an “act of war.” Clinton herself described Russian interference as a “cyber 9/11,” while Thomas Friedman said that it was a “Pearl Harbor–scale event.” Morgan Freeman’s viral video, produced by Rob Reiner’s Committee to Investigate Russia, summed up the outrage:  “We have been attacked,” the actor declared; “We are at war with Russia.” Liberals declared Trump’s refusal to react in a sufficiently aggressive manner further proof he was Putin’s puppet.

The McCarthyist wave swept over other politicians that challenged the liberal center. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein refused to endorse the Russia narrative, leading mainstream figures like Rachel Maddow to insinuate she was a Kremlin stooge as well. After news broke that Stein’s connection to Russia was being officially investigated, top Clinton staffer Zac Petkanas announced:

Jill Stein is a Russian agent.

Jill Stein is a Russian agent.

Jill Stein is a Russian agent.

Jill Stein is a Russian agent.

Jill Stein is a Russian agent.

Jill Stein is a Russian agent.

Jill Stein is a Russian agent.

Jill Stein is a Russian agent.

“Commentary” that succinctly summed up the political atmosphere.

In contrast, Bernie Sanders has consistently and explicitly endorsed the Russiagate theory, claiming it is “clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and intends to be involved in 2018.” Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (11/12/17) asking its readers, “When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals respond?” The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.

Outlets like Slate (5/11/18) warned of a sinister connection between Black Lives Matter and Russia.

It is not just politicians who have been smeared as Russian agents, witting or unwitting; virtually every major progressive movement challenging the system is increasingly dismissed in the same way. Multiple media outlets, including CNN (6/29/18), Slate (5/11/18), Vox (4/11/18) and the New York Times (2/16/18), have produced articles linking Black Lives Matter to the Kremlin, insinuating the outrage over racist police brutality is another Russian psyop. Others claimed Russia funded the riots in Ferguson and that Russian trolls promoted the Standing Rock environmental protests.

Meanwhile, Democratic insider Neera Tanden retweeted a description of Chelsea Manning as a “Russian stooge,” writing off her campaign for the Senate as “the Kremlin paying the extreme left to swing elections. Remember that.” Thus corporate media are promoting the idea that any challenge to the establishment is likely a Kremlin-funded astroturf effort.

The tactic has spread to Europe as well. After the poisoning of Russian double agent Sergei Skripal, the UK government immediately blamed Russia and imposed sanctions (without publicly presenting evidence). Jeremy Corbyn, the pacifist, leftist leader of the Labour Party, was uncharacteristically bellicose, asserting, “The Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence and our response must be both decisive and proportionate.”

The British press was outraged—at Corbyn’s insufficient jingoism. The Sun‘s front page (3/15/18) attacked him as “Putin’s Puppet,” while the Daily Mail (3/15/18) went with “Corbyn the Kremlin Stooge.” As with Sanders, the fact that Corbyn endorsed the official narrative didn’t keep him from being attacked, showing that the conspiratorial mindset seeing Russia behind everything has little to do with evidence-based reality, and is increasingly a tool to demonize the establishment’s political enemies.

The Atlantic Council published a report claiming Greek political parties Syriza and Golden Dawn were not expressions of popular frustration and disillusionment, but “the Kremlin’s Trojan horses,” undermining democracy in its birthplace. Providing scant evidence, the report went on to link virtually every major European political party challenging the center, from right or left, to Putin.

From Britian’s UKIP to Spain’s Podemos to Italy’s Five Star Movement, all are charged with being under one man’s control. It is this council that Facebook announced it was partnering with to help promote “trustworthy” news and weed out “untrustworthy” sources (FAIR.org, 5/21/18), as its CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with representatives from some of the largest corporate outlets, like the New York Times, CNN and News Corp, to help develop a system to control what content we see on the website.

“We are at war,” Morgan Freeman assures us on behalf of the Committee to Investigate Russia. 

 

The utility of this wave of suspicion is captured in Freeman’s aforementioned video. After asserting that “for 241 years, our democracy has been a shining example to the world of what we can all aspire to”—a tally that would count nearly a century of chattel slavery and almost another hundred years of de jure racial disenfranchisement—the actor explains that “Putin uses social media to spread propaganda and false information, he convinces people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their political process.”

The obvious implication is that the political process and media ought to be trusted, and would be trusted were it not for Putin’s propaganda. It was not the failures of capitalism and the deep inequalities it created that led to widespread popular resentment and movements on both left and right pressing for radical change across Europe and America, but Vladimir Putin himself. In other words, “America is already great.”

For the Democrats, Russiagate allows them to ignore calls for change and not scrutinize why they lost to the most unpopular presidential candidate in history. Since Russia hacked the election, there is no need for introspection, and certainly no need to accommodate the Sanders wing or to engage with progressive challenges from activists on the left, who are Putin’s puppets anyway.

The party can continue on the same course, painting over the deep cracks in American society. Similarly, for centrists in Europe, under threat from both left and right, the Russia narrative allows them to sow distrust among the public for any movement challenging the dominant order.

For the state, Russiagate has encouraged liberals to forego their faculties and develop a state-worshiping, conspiratorial mindset in the face of a common, manufactured enemy. Liberal trust in institutions like the FBI has markedly increased since 2016, while liberals also now espouse a neocon foreign policy in Syria, Ukraine and other regions, with many supporting the vast increases in the US military budget and attacking Trump from the right.

For corporate media, too, the disciplining effect of the Russia narrative is highly useful, allowing them to reassert control over the means of communication under the guise of preventing a Russian “fake news” infiltration. News sources that challenge the establishment are censored, defunded or deranked, as corporate sources stoke mistrust of them. Meanwhile, it allows them to portray themselves as arbiters of truth. This strategy has had some success, with Democrats’ trust in media increasing since the election.

None of this is to say that Russia does not strive to influence other countries’ elections, a tactic that the United States has employed even more frequently (NPR, 12/22/18). Yet the extent to which the story has dominated the US media to the detriment of other issues is a remarkable testament to its utility for those in power.

By Alan Macleod / Republished with permission / FAIR.org / Report a typo
========================================
Zie ook:
'Grapperhaus (CDA minister) lanceert een veelomvattende strategie tegen spionage en sabotage door 'buitenlandse staten''

'Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump'

'Volkskrant en Nieuwsuur Fake News over 'Russische hacks.....''

'VS sluit een nucleaire aanval niet uit als een mogelijke reactie op een 'cyberaanval.......''

'FBI, de spin in het Russiagate web........'

'Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election'

'Russiagate, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen........' 

'Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump'

'Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media'

'CIA chef Pompeo waarschuwt voor complot van WikiLeaks om de VS op alle mogelijke manieren neer te halen....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Russische 'hacks' door deskundigen nogmaals als fake news doorgeprikt >> Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence'

'Rusland krijgt alweer de schuld van hacken, nu van oplichters Symantec en Facebook....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

''Russiagate' een verhaal van a t/m z westers 'fake news.....''

'Rusland zou onafhankelijkheid Californië willen uitlokken met reclame voor borsjt.......'

'Clinton te kakken gezet: Donna Brazile (Democratische Partij VS) draagt haar boek op aan Seth Rich, het vermoorde lid van DNC die belastende documenten lekte'

'Pompeo (CIA opperhoofd met koperen fluit): heeft alle aanwijzingen dat Rusland de midterm verkiezingen zal manipuleren......'

'CIA deed zich voor als het Russische Kaspersky Lab, aldus Wikileaks Vault 8.....' (zie ook de andere links onder dat bericht)

'Kajsa Ollongren (D66 vicepremier): Nederland staat in het vizier van Russische inlichtingendiensten....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

 'Ollongren gesteund door Thomas Boesgaard (AD), 'Rusland verpakt het nepnieuws gekoppeld aan echt nieuws.....' Oei!!'

'Wall Street Journal wil punt achter Russiagate'

'FBI beweert dat Lesin, de oprichter van RT, zichzelf heeft doodgeslagen....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'Massamedia VS vergeven van CIA 'veteranen', alsof die media nog niet genoeg 'fake news' ofwel leugens brengen........'

'Rusland heeft niets van doen met manipulaties van de VS presidentsverkiezingen via Facebook, wel maakt Facebook meer kapot dan je lief is.......'

''Russiagate' een complot van CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton en het DNC...........'

'Flashback: Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016 Election'

'FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information'

''Russiagate': Intel-raport over Russische bemoeienis met verkiezingen opgebouwd met leugens en is politiek gemotiveerd, aldus Matlock, voormalig VS ambassadeur in Moskou'