Blijkbaar
vond The Guardian het gebrachte artikel daarna zelf ook dubieus, daar
men de tekst heeft aangepast, zonder daar echter melding van te
maken. In de aangepaste tekst wordt nu gesproken over anonieme, niet
te controleren bronnen....... De schrijver van het Guardian
propagandistische artikel, Luke Harding, stelde in het artikel dat
Manafort meermaals werd gezien in de Ecuadoraanse ambassade en dat
één keer 'zelfs met 2 Russen....'
Met het
Guardian artikel toonde Harding zogenaamd aan dat Assange contacten
had met de Russen en dat die na het hacken van de DNC server, de emails van Hillary Clinton zouden
hebben doen toekomen aan WikiLeaks, ofwel één van 'de
smoking guns' in het Russiagate sprookje..... Kortom de Russen en
Assange zouden hebben samengespannen om Clinton haar presidentschap
door de neus te boren.....
Uiteraard
gebruiken ook de democraten in de VS het fantasie verhaal van Harding om te
stellen dat Assange en Rusland de presidentsverkiezingen van hen
hebben gestolen, terwijl echte deskundigen en ingewijden uitvoerig
stellen, dat de emails werden gelekt vanuit het campagneteam van
Clinton, waar de naam Seth Rich telkens weer opduikt......
Seth Rich
was medewerker van het campagneteam, hij was zwaar gefrustreerd over
de smerige spelletjes van Clinton en de top van haar campagneteam, om de voorverkiezing in 2016 van Bernie Sanders te stelen........ Sanders was
de tweede belangrijke democratische kandidaat voor het presidentschap
in de VS. Zelfs Obama gaf toe dat e.e.a door het campagneteam werd gelekt naar WikiLeaks....*
Rich
werd vermoord, kort nadat de mails waren gelekt naar WikiLeaks, volgens de politie ging het om een roofmoord, waarbij Rich vreemd genoeg niet werd beroofd
en zelfs dure sieraden niet werden gestolen........ De poging om Sanders buiten
spel te zetten is gelukt, zoals we al en paar jaar weten.
Manafort
heeft ontkent dat hij zelfs maar één keer met Assange heeft
gesproken en Assange heeft The Guardian gedreigd met een proces
wegens laster...... De bedoeling in het hele Russiagate verhaal is
dan ook Assange als spion neer te zetten, ofwel hij heeft geen recht op bescherming zoals dit het geval zou moeten zijn met (onderzoeks-) journalisten, waarbij WikiLeaks wordt weggezet als een staatsvijandig
vehikel van de Russen...... Waarmee de democraten dan de schuld van het
verlies van de verkiezingen in de schoenen schuiven van WikiLeaks,
haar oprichter Assange en uiteraard de Russen.....**
Met
artikelen als die van Harding in The Guardian moet de publieke opinie
voorbereid worden op het uit de Ecuadoraanse ambassade zetten van
Assange en de arrestatie van deze journalist, die zich met niets anders dan
zijn werk bezighield, dit in sterke tegenstelling tot het overgrote deel van de
journalisten, die voor de reguliere westerse (massa-) media
werken.......
Deze
media hebben i.p.v. Assange te steunen, een taak van onafhankelijke mediaorganen en hun journalisten, hem zwart gemaakt in de publieke opinie,
waarbij zelfs werd gesteld dat Assange alleen de Ecuadoraanse
ambassade in vluchtte, om publiciteit te genereren.... Gelukkig voor
Assange werd ook die belachelijke claim doorgeprikt, toen per
ongeluk stukken werden gepubliceerd waaruit bleek dat de VS een
aanklacht heeft opgesteld voor Assange en op grond waarvan Assange
een lange gevangenisstraf te wachten staat.......
The
Guardian ging zelfs zover dat het een VN panel met experts
belachelijk probeerde te maken, die stelden dat het totaal
onwettelijk was dat Assange niet zonder gearresteerd te worden de
ambassade zou kunnen verlaten.....
De
schrijver van het artikel hieronder, Jonathan Cook, haalt ook Glenn
Greenwald aan, waar het om de claim gaat dat Manafort Assange zou
hebben bezocht. Deze stelt dat het onmogelijk is om ongezien de
Ecuadoraanse ambassade binnen te komen, daar Londen propvol camera's
hangt en de Ecuadoraanse ambassade, sinds Assange daar binnen
vluchtte, van alle kanten in de gaten werd en wordt gehouden, niet alleen
door camera's, de politie, maar ook door journalisten......
Als
Manafort inderdaad in de ambassade zou zijn geweest, volgens The
Guardian 3 keer, in 2013, 2015 en 2016, zouden daar zeker bewijzen
voor zijn.......
Intussen is The Guardian gekomen met een volgens deze fake news brenger nog betere fundering van de (ongefundeerde) beschuldigingen aan het adres van Assange (en WikiLeaks) en zijn zogenaamde verbintenis met Rusland, ook nu weer geen enkel bewijs....... Assange zal en moet hangen en in dit geval door een mediaorgaan dat stelt onafhankelijk te zijn en haar berichtgeving dubbel zou checken..... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Lees het
artikel van Cook, eerder gepubliceerd op Creative Commons en door mij
overgenomen van Anti-Media, waarin Cook verder nog aandacht besteedt aan het nep-journalistenforum Bellincat (daaronder nog een kort artikel en video van een interview van Aby Martin met Randy Credico aangaande de zaak Assange):
The Guardian Continues to Escalate Its Vilification of Julian Assange
The
Guardian did not make a mistake in vilifying Assange without a shred
of evidence. It did what it is designed to do.***
November
29, 2018 at 2:11 pm
Written
by Common
Dreams
(CD) — It
is welcome that finally there has been a little pushback, including
from leading journalists, to the Guardian’s long-running
vilification of Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks.
Reporter
Luke Harding’s latest article, claiming that
Donald Trump’s disgraced former campaign manager Paul Manafort
secretly visited Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London on three
occasions, is so full of holes that even hardened opponents of
Assange in the corporate media are struggling to stand by it.
Faced
with the backlash, the Guardian quickly – and very quietly – rowed
back its
initial certainty that its story was based on verified facts.
Instead, it amended the text, without acknowledging it had done so,
to attribute the claims to unnamed, and uncheckable, “sources”.
The
propaganda function of the piece is patent. It is intended to provide
evidence for long-standing allegations that Assange conspired with
Trump, and Trump’s supposed backers in the Kremlin, to damage
Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race.
The
Guardian’s latest story provides a supposedly stronger foundation
for an existing narrative: that Assange and Wikileaks knowingly
published emails hacked by Russia from the Democratic party’s
servers. In truth, there is no
public evidence that
the emails were hacked, or that Russia was involved. Central actors
have suggested instead that the emails were leaked from within the
Democratic party.
Nonetheless,
this unverified allegation has been aggressively exploited by the
Democratic leadership because it shifts attention away both from its
failure to mount an effective electoral challenge to Trump and from
the damaging contents of the emails. These show that party
bureaucrats sought to rig
the primaries to
make sure Clinton’s challenger for the Democratic nomination,
Bernie Sanders, lost.
To
underscore the intended effect of the Guardian’s new claims,
Harding even throws in a casual and unsubstantiated reference to
“Russians” joining Manafort in supposedly meeting Assange.
Manafort
has denied the
Guardian’s claims, while Assange has threatened to sue the
Guardian for libel.
‘Responsible for Trump’
The
emotional impact of the Guardian story is to suggest that Assange is
responsible for four years or more of Trump rule. But more
significantly, it bolsters the otherwise risible
claim that
Assange is not a publisher – and thereby entitled to the
protections of a free press, as enjoyed by the Guardian or the New
York Times – but the head of an organisation engaged in espionage
for a foreign power.
The
intention is to deeply discredit Assange, and by extension the
Wikileaks organisation, in the eyes of right-thinking liberals. That,
in turn, will make it much easier to silence Assange and the vital
cause he represents: the use of new media to hold to account the old,
corporate media and political elites through the imposition of far
greater transparency.
The
Guardian story will prepare public opinion for the moment when
Ecuador’s rightwing government under President Lenin Moreno forces
Assange out of the embassy, having already withdrawn most of his
rights to use digital media.
It
will soften opposition when the UK moves to arrest Assange
on self-serving
bail violation charges and
extradites him to the US. And it will pave the way for the US legal
system to lock Assange up for a very long time.
For
the best part of a decade, any claims by Assange’s supporters that
avoiding this fate was the reason Assange originally sought asylum in
the embassy was ridiculed by corporate journalists, not least at the
Guardian.
Even
when a United Nations panel of experts in international law ruled in
2016 that Assange was being arbitrarily – and unlawfully –
detained by the UK, Guardian writers led efforts to discredit the UN
report. See here and here.
Now
Assange and his supporters have been proved right once again. An
administrative error this month revealed that the US justice
department had secretly
filed criminal charges against
Assange.
Heavy surveillance
The
problem for the Guardian, which should have been obvious to its
editors from the outset, is that any visits by Manafort would be
easily verifiable without relying on unnamed “sources”.
Glenn
Greenwald is far from alone in noting that
London is possibly the most surveilled city in the world, with CCTV
cameras everywhere. The environs of the Ecuadorian embassy are
monitored especially heavily, with continuous filming by the UK and
Ecuadorian authorities and most likely by the US and other actors
with an interest in Assange’s fate.
The
idea that Manafort or “Russians” could have wandered into the
embassy to meet Assange even once without their trail, entry and
meeting being intimately scrutinised and recorded is simply
preposterous.
According
to Greenwald: “If Paul Manafort … visited Assange at the Embassy,
there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof
demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of
that.”
Former
British ambassador Craig Murray also points
out the
extensive security checks insisted on by the embassy to which any
visitor to Assange must submit. Any visits by Manafort would have
been logged.
In
fact, the Guardian obtained the
embassy’s logs in May, and has never made any mention of either
Manafort or “Russians” being identified in them. It did not refer
to the logs in its latest story.
Murray:
The problem with this latest fabrication is that [Ecuador’s President] Moreno had already released the visitor logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these ‘Russians’ are in the visitor logs … What possible motive would the Ecuadorean government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort?Furthermore it is impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security – would not know the identity of these alleged ‘Russians’.
No fact-checking
It
is worth noting it should be vitally important for a serious
publication like the Guardian to ensure its claims are unassailably
true – both because Assange’s personal fate rests on their
veracity, and because, even more importantly, a fundamental right,
the freedom of the press, is at stake.
Given
this, one would have expected the Guardian’s editors to have
insisted on the most stringent checks imaginable before going to
press with Harding’s story. At a very minimum, they should have
sought out a response from Assange and Manafort before publication.
Neither precaution was taken.
I
worked for the Guardian for a number of years, and know well the
layers of checks that any highly sensitive story has to go through
before publication. In that lengthy process, a variety of
commissioning editors, lawyers, backbench editors and the editor
herself, Kath Viner, would normally insist on cuts to anything that
could not be rigorously defended and corroborated.
And
yet this piece seems to have been casually waved through, given a
green light even though its profound shortcomings were evident to a
range of well-placed analysts and journalists from the outset.
That
at the very least hints that the Guardian thought they had
“insurance” on this story. And the only people who could have
promised that kind of insurance are the security and intelligence
services – presumably of Britain, the United States and / or
Ecuador.
It
appears the Guardian has simply taken this story, provided by spooks,
at face value. Even if it later turns out that Manafort did visit
Assange, the Guardian clearly had no compelling evidence for its
claims when it published them. That is profoundly irresponsible
journalism – fake news – that should be of the gravest concern to
readers.
A pattern, not an aberration
Despite
all this, even analysts critical of the Guardian’s behaviour have
shown a glaring failure to understand that its latest coverage
represents not an aberration by the paper but decisively fits with a
pattern.
Glenn
Greenwald, who once had an influential column in the Guardian until
an apparent, though unacknowledged, falling out with his employer
over the Edward Snowden revelations, wrote a series of baffling
observations about the Guardian’s latest story.
First,
he suggested it
was simply evidence of the Guardian’s long-standing (and
well-documented) hostility towards Assange.
“The
Guardian, an otherwise solid and reliable paper, has such a pervasive
and unprofessionally personal hatred for Julian Assange that it has
frequently dispensed with all journalistic standards in order to
malign him.”
It
was also apparently evidence of the paper’s clickbait tendencies:
“They
[Guardian editors] knew that publishing this story would cause
partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news
outlets would hyperventilate over it, and that they’d reap the
rewards regardless of whether the story turned out to be true or
false.”
And
finally, in a bizarre tweet, Greenwald opined, “I hope the story
[maligning Assange] turns out true” – apparently because
maintenance of the Guardian’s reputation is more important than
Assange’s fate and the right of journalists to dig up embarrassing
secrets without fear of being imprisoned.
The reason it will be so devastating to the Guardian if this story turns out false is because the Guardian has an institutional hatred for Assange. They've proven they'll dispense with journalistic standards for it. And factions within Ecuador's government know they can use them.
Deeper malaise
What
this misses is that the Guardian’s attacks on Assange are not
exceptional or motivated solely by personal animosity. They are
entirely predictable and systematic. Rather than being the reason for
the Guardian violating basic journalistic standards and ethics, the
paper’s hatred of Assange is a symptom of a deeper malaise in the
Guardian and the wider corporate media.
Even
aside from its decade-long campaign against Assange, the Guardian is
far from “solid and reliable”, as Greenwald claims. It has been
at the forefront of the relentless, and unhinged, attacks on Labour
leader Jeremy Corbyn for prioritising the rights of Palestinians over
Israel’s right to continue its belligerent occupation. Over the
past three years, the Guardian has injected credibility into the
Israel lobby’s desperate efforts to tar Corbyn as an anti-semite.
See here, here and here.
Similarly,
the Guardian worked tirelessly to promote Clinton and undermine
Sanders in the 2016 Democratic nomination process – another reason
the paper has been so assiduous in promoting the idea that Assange,
aided by Russia, was determined to promote Trump over Clinton for the
presidency.
The
Guardian’s coverage of Latin America, especially of populist
leftwing governments that have rebelled against traditional and
oppressive US hegemony in the region, has long grated with analysts
and experts. Its especial venom has been reserved for leftwing
figures like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, democratically elected but
official enemies of the US, rather than the region’s rightwing
authoritarians beloved of Washington.
The
Guardian has been vocal in the so-called “fake news” hysteria,
decrying the influence of social media, the only place where leftwing
dissidents have managed to find a small foothold to promote their
politics and counter the corporate media narrative.
The
Guardian has painted social media chiefly as a platform overrun by
Russian trolls, arguing that this should justify ever-tighter
restrictions that have so far curbed critical voices of the dissident
left more than the right.
Heroes of the neoliberal order
Equally,
the Guardian has made clear who its true heroes are. Certainly not
Corbyn or Assange, who threaten to disrupt the entrenched neoliberal
order that is hurtling us towards climate breakdown and economic
collapse.
Its
pages, however, are readily available to the latest effort to prop up
the status quo from Tony Blair, the man who led Britain, on false
pretences, into the largest crime against humanity in living memory –
the attack on Iraq.
That
“humanitarian intervention” cost the lives of many hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis and created a vacuum that destabilised much of
the Middle East, sucked in Islamic jihadists like al-Qaeda and ISIS,
and contributed to the migrant crisis in Europe that has fuelled the
resurgence of the far-right. None of that is discussed in the
Guardian or considered grounds for disqualifying Blair as an arbiter
of what is good for Britain and the world’s future.
The
Guardian also has an especial soft spot for blogger Elliot Higgins,
who, aided by the Guardian, has shot to unlikely prominence as a
self-styled “weapons expert”. Like Luke Harding, Higgins
invariably seems ready to echo whatever the British and American
security services need verifying “independently”.
Higgins
and his well-staffed website Bellingcat have taken on for themselves
the role of arbiters of truth on many foreign affairs issues, taking
a prominent role in advocating for narratives that promote US and
NATO hegemony while demonising Russia, especially in highly contested
arenas such as Syria.
That
clear partisanship should be no surprise, given that Higgins now
enjoys an “academic” position at, and funding from, the Atlantic
Council, a high-level, Washington-based think-tank founded to drum up
support for NATO and justify its imperialist agenda.
Improbably,
the Guardian has adopted Higgins as the poster-boy for a supposed
citizen journalism it has sought to undermine as “fake news”
whenever it occurs on social media without the endorsement of
state-backed organisations.
The
truth is that the Guardian has not erred in this latest story
attacking Assange, or in its much longer-running campaign to vilify
him. With this story, it has done what it regularly does when
supposedly vital western foreign policy interests are at stake – it
simply regurgitates an elite-serving, western narrative.
Its
job is to shore up a consensus on the left for attacks on leading
threats to the existing, neoliberal order: whether they are a
platform like Wikileaks promoting whistle-blowing against a corrupt
western elite; or a politician like Jeremy Corbyn seeking to break
apart the status quo on the rapacious financial industries or
Israel-Palestine; or a radical leader like Hugo Chavez who threatened
to overturn a damaging and exploitative US dominance of “America’s
backyard”; or social media dissidents who have started to chip away
at the elite-friendly narratives of corporate media, including the
Guardian.
The
Guardian did not make a mistake in vilifying Assange without a shred
of evidence. It did what it is designed to do.
=============================
Zie ook het volgende artikel plus begeleidende video, waarin ook al onterecht beschuldigingen over contacten met Assange en de aanklachten tegen het Trump team, WikiLeaks en Rusland aangaande 'Russiagate', een beschuldiging die speciaal aanklager Mueller nooit rond gaat krijgen.
Het gaat hier om Randy
Credico (politiek- en mensenrechtenactivist, programmamaker en komiek), hij wordt door Mueller beschuldigd van banden met WikiLeaks..... (zien beste bezoeker!)
EXCLUSIVE:
Subject of Mueller Investigation
Exposes Roger Stone,
Wikileaks' Role
In
this exclusive interview, Abby Martin speaks with Randy Credico
on his role in the Russia investigation, his upcoming interview with
Robert Mueller, and his relationship with Trump campaign advisor
Roger Stone.
With
never before revealed details about Stone and the Mueller
investigation, Credico details his long-standing ties to the
political operative and answers the hard questions about his alleged
coordination with Wikileaks.
The
interview highlights the larger context of the multi-front assault on
Julian Assange, Wikileaks and the future of press freedom.
======================================
**
Vergeet niet dat de Obama administratie al lang bezig was om de
Russen te demoniseren, dit onder andere t.b.v. het militair-industrieel complex en waarmee de VS en haar oorlogshond de NAVO ook in Oekraïne aan de grens met Rusland zou komen te staan........
Zo hebben Hillary Clinton en de CIA de opstand in Oekraïne op poten
gezet, een opstand waarvan de opzet was een staatsgreep te ontketenen
tegen de democratisch gekozen regering Janoekovytsj...... Deze 'grap'
(een specialiteit van de VS) heeft de VS maar 'liefst' 4 miljard
dollar gekost.......
*** Deze toegevoegde tekst later overgenomen van Common Dreams, daar deze niet op Anti-Media werd genoemd en de extra vermelding terecht is (m.i.).
*** Deze toegevoegde tekst later overgenomen van Common Dreams, daar deze niet op Anti-Media werd genoemd en de extra vermelding terecht is (m.i.).
PS: geeft door mensen, er kan niet genoeg feiten worden weergegeven tegenover de enorme berg leugens (met heel veel 'fake news, of anders gezegd: 'nepnieuws') waaruit het kwaadaardige sprookje Russiagate bestaat.
Zie wat betreft het Steele dossier, een spil in de leugens die men 'Russiagate' is gaan noemen, de volgende berichten:
'Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump' en: 'Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van aankoop Steele dossier over Trump........'Zie ook:
'Julian Assanges vervolging is de genadeklap voor klokkenluiders en (echte) journalisten'
'Chelsea Manning blijft voor onbepaalde tijd in de gevangenis'
'VN heeft eerder de 'detentie' van Assange al als onwettig verklaard'
'Julian Assange gearresteerd, een flagrante schending van de persvrijheid!'
'Arrestatie Julian Assange: een aanfluiting voor internationale regels en een enorme aanval op onafhankelijke journalistiek'
'Julian Assange, valse beschuldigingen, Big Brother en VS steun voor terrorisme'
'Democraten deden zich voor als Russen in false flag operatie om Roy Moore (Republikein) zwart te maken tijdens verkiezing.....'
'Der Spiegel, groot bestrijder van 'fake news' bracht zelf jarenlang dit soort 'nieuws''
'Russiagate: de westerse massamedia gebruiken propaganda om het volk te manipuleren, precies waar ze Rusland van beschuldigen'
'BBC: Rusland 'misbruikt humor' om Russiagate te ontkrachten..... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'
'Russiagate en Assange: The Guardian wordt nu zelfs door collega's voor zot uitgemaakt'
'WikiLeaks belooft The Guardian 1 miljoen dollar als het haar leugens i.z. Assange en Russiagate kan bewijzen.......'
''Banden van Trump met Rusland' gebaseerd op FBI operatie om VS 'burger' (CIA) in Iran vrij te krijgen......'
'Russiagate? Britaingate zal je bedoelen!'
'New York Times 'bewijzen' voor Russiagate vallen door de mand......'
'Facebook gebruikte 'fake news' beschuldiging om de aandacht voor schandalen af te leiden'
'Politico rapport bevestigt: Russiagate is een hoax'
'De Israëlische manipulatie van de VS presidentsverkiezingen, gaat veel verder dan wat men Rusland in de schoenen schuift.....'
'FBI, de spin in het Russiagate web........'
''Russiagate' een complot van CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton en het DNC...........'
''Russiagate' een verhaal van a t/m z westers 'fake news.....''
'Russiagate sprookje ondermijnt VS democratie en de midterm verkiezingen'
'Britse en VS manipulaties van verkiezingen en stimulatie van conflicten middels psychologische oorlogsvoering' (voor VS manipulaties van verkiezingen elders, liggen er 'metersdikke' dossiers, o.a. in te zien op WikiLeaks)
'FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information'
'Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election'
'Murray, ex-ambassadeur van GB: de Russen hebben de VS verkiezingen niet gemanipuleerd'
''Russische manipulaties uitgevoerd' door later vermoord staflid Clintons campagneteam Seth Rich......... AIVD en MIVD moeten hiervan weten!!'
''Russiagate': Intel-raport over Russische bemoeienis met verkiezingen opgebouwd met leugens en is politiek gemotiveerd, aldus Matlock, voormalig VS ambassadeur in Moskou'
'Mocking Trump Doesn’t Prove Russia’s Guilt'
'CIA deed zich voor als het Russische Kaspersky Lab, aldus Wikileaks Vault 8.....'
'WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia'
'Hillary Clinton en haar oorlog tegen de waarheid........ Ofwel een potje Rusland en Assange schoppen!'
'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!'
'VS 'democratie' aan het werk, een onthutsende en uitermate humoristische video!'
'Flashback: Clinton Allies Met With Ukrainian Govt Officials to Dig up Dirt on Trump During 2016 Election'
'Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media'
'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, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen........'
'Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht............' (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende twee artikelen: 'Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie' en 'Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary')
'Clinton te kakken gezet: Brazile (Democratische Partij VS) draagt haar boek op aan Seth Rich, het vermoorde lid van DNC die belastende documenten lekte'
'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!!'
'RT America één van de eerste slachtoffers in een heksenjacht op westerse alternatieve media en nadenkend links......'
'Rusland zou onafhankelijkheid Californië willen uitlokken met reclame voor borsjt.......'
'Alarm Code Geel: Lara Rense (NOS) voedt Rusland-haat'
''Russiagate' een nieuwe ongelooflijke aanklacht van de Democraten.......'
'VS demoniseert Russiagate critici als Jill Stein.....'
'De Russiagate samenzweringstheorie dient de machthebbers.........'
=========================================
En terzijde:
'Facebook gebruikte 'fake news' beschuldiging om de aandacht voor schandalen af te leiden'
'Trump (Republikeinen) wint de midterm verkiezingen, alsook de Democraten, het verschil voor mensen elders in de wereld, die onder VS terreur moeten leven, is nul komma nada.......'
'The Attack on ‘Fake News’ Is Really an Attack on Alternative Media'
'The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media “Fake News” Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq'
'Mediaorgaan Sinclair dwingt 'TV ankers' propaganda op te lezen (Sinclair bedient rond de 70% van de VS bevolking van 'lokaal nieuws')'
'Ex-CIA agent legt uit hoe de VS schaduwregering en deep state werken, ofwel de machinaties achter de schermen......'
'New York Times: eerste Israëlische inval in Gazastrook sinds 2014 >> fake news!'
'Noord-Koreaans 'bedrog met nucleaire deal' is fake news o.a. gebracht door de New York Times'
''Fake News' misbruikt door dictaturen en de reguliere (massa-) media'
'Twitter weert waarheid: Paul Craig Roberts in de ban, Roberts >> de grote criticus van de illegale oorlogen die de VS voert'
