Russia hacked
Ever since the deep state Democratic party candidate Hillary Clinton lost the U.S. presidential election to Republican underdog and anti-establishment figure Donald Trump, we've been hearing almost daily stories in mainstream news about Russia's infiltration into the 2016 election process. Like other MSM outlets, CNN has been very creative in the ways it pushes this narrative (for example using an illustration from the famous video game Fallout 4 in one of their hacking stories).

In short the story goes something like this: The old bogeyman Russia is here once again, this time directly threatening the democratic process of the most democratic country in the whole democratic Western world! Evil mastermind Putin himself ordered a notorious "influence campaign" by unleashing his army of internet trolls to spread fake news against poor Hillary. Then he reminded the FSB to use plenty of bear references with Russian IP addresses and Moscow time zones while hacking the DNC emails. After that Putin passed these emails, the content of which the MSM never honestly covered, to Wikileaks, thus allowing Trump to win the election — voilà!

Interestingly, the proof for this narrative was based on the stories propagated by anonymous intelligence sources from the depths of the very swamp Trump planned to drain. Surely they didn't have an ax to grind?

Fast forward nine months and how does the Russia story look now? Well, since the mainsteam media has been responsible for spreading this narrative, we should listen to what they themselves have to say about it. A week ago Project Veritas started releasing a series of undercover videos called American Pravda, where CNN staffers unknowingly spill the truth about Russia-Trump collusion for the whole world to see.

CNN — Very fake news!

In part 1 we see CNN supervising producer John Bonifield talking to an undercover Project Veritas journalist about nonexistent ethics in journalism, the importance of ratings, the ongoing witch-hunt against president Trump, and how their Russia narrative is "mostly bullshit":
Undercover Journalist: "But honestly, you think the whole Russia shit is just bullshit?"

John Bonifield: "Could be bullshit. I mean, it's mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don't have any giant proof. Then they say, "well there's still an investigation going on." I don't know, if they were finding something we would know about it. They way these leaks happen, they would leak it. They'd leak. If it was something really good, it'd leak."
Bonifield says the main reason CNN is doing news coverage on Russia is because of the "incredible ratings" it provides. According to him CNN president Jeff Zucker told reporters during a meeting to stop writing about climate accords, and instead to "get back to Russia". He explains how making money is more important than ethics (and facts) in journalism:
Journalist: "So I understand it's all ratings, right?"

Bonifield: "It's a business. The people are like media has an ethical... But all the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school, you're just like, that's adorable. That's adorable. This is a business."
Bonifield also points out that the narrative is hypocritical, because "we try to swing their elections, our CIA is doing shit all the time, we're out there trying to manipulate governments."

He doesn't think there's any real evidence against President Trump to justify the persecution:
Bonified: "I haven't seen any good enough evidence to show that the President committed a crime.

I know a lot of people don't like him and they'd like to see him get kicked out of office.... but that's a lot different than he actually did something that can get him kicked out of office." [...]

"I just feel like they don't really have it but they want to keep digging. And so I think the President is probably right to say, like "look, you are witch hunting me. You have no smoking gun, you have no real proof.""
Watch American Pravda part 1 here:

In the meantime CNN withdrew a poorly made Russiagate story and forced three journalists who were behind the retracted article to resign. The article claimed, without proper evidence, that connections between Trump's transition team member Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment fund were under Senate investigation. Contrary to CNN's claims, they didn't withdraw the story because of "journalistic standards", but because of the possibility of $100-million libel suit.

Then Project Veritas released their second video, this time starring CNN political commentator Anthony Kabe "Van" Jones. Van Jones tells the undercover journalist exactly what kind of substance the Russia story is made of:
Undercover journalist: "What do you think is going to happen this week with the whole Russia thing?"

Van Jones: "The Russia thing is just a big nothing-burger. "
Yet acknowledging this fact hasn't stopped him from waving the Russophobia card on CNN:
Van Jones: "Cyber war is real war. So you have an active attack on our country, and you have the president elect who cannot find himself to say that this is wrong, and it needs to stop."
Watch American Pravda part 2 here:

Even though these videos were trending on social media and the CNN scandal was commented on even by President Trump, the mainstream media has paid very little attention to them. CNN defended its producer Bonifield in a short statement and said that "Diversity of personal opinion is what makes CNN strong, we welcome it and embrace it." Apparently this "diversity" includes the right to spread disinformation against Trump and his voters while knowing that it is disinformation. That's the US mainstream media for ya.

On June 27th White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders encouraged journalists during a press briefing to watch the first part of the Project Veritas CNN videos:
"I think it's the constant barrage of fake news that is directed at this president, probably, that has garnered a lot of his frustration. You point to that report; there are multiple other instances where that outlet that you referenced has been repeatedly wrong and had to point that out or had to correct it. There's a video circulating now — whether it's accurate or not, I don't know — but I would encourage everyone in this room and, frankly, everybody across the country to take a look at it. I think if it is accurate, I think it's a disgrace to all of media, to all of journalism."

The third and final video (so far) was released on June 30th. In this video we see CNN associate producer Jimmy Carr repeating what Bonifield said about ratings earlier: "It's decisions made by people higher than me and if they go wow, your ratings are soaring right now, keep up what you're doing. Well, what we're doing is Russia, ISIS, London terror, shooting in Chicago, that's it."

Nothing is better for ratings than good old-fashioned fear mongering, I guess. Carr shares also some insight into the fair, unbiased and impartial mindset of MSM journalists when it comes to President Trump:
Undercover journalist: "CNN is impartial, right?"

Jimmy Carr: "In theory."

Journalist: "What's the view of Trump in the media circle and places?"

Carr: "On the inside, we all recognize he is a clown, that he is hilariously unqualified for this, he's really bad at this and that he does not have America's best interests. We recognize he's just f*cking crazy."

"Here's the deal, this is a man who's not actually a Republican... He just adopted that because that was the party he thought he could win in. He doesn't believe anything that these people believe." [...]

"90% of us are on board with just the fact that he's crazy." [...]

Journalist: "Would it be fair to question the intellect of the American voter?"

Carr: "Oh no, they're stupid as shit."
This is how the mainstream media views the American public. This is their derogatory attitude which ensures that there's zero possibility for impartial news coverage about Trump or Russia. It's the same mindset that was behind the lies about Saddam's WMDs, and the same attitude that is right now explaining how it's totally logical for the elected president of Syria to attack his own people with illegal chemical weapons, just when he's about to win the war against Western-backed jihadis. You already heard it straight from horse's mouth: there's no ethics in journalism, it's just business.

So I hope by now everyone has figured out, that this whole Russia schtick is fake news. This same "mostly bullshit" material is being circulated all around the global corporate media. In U.S. vassal countries, the media basically copy-and-pastes most of the Trump stories from their American role models.

The main reason for the entire story is the fact that Russia still stands as an immovable object against the U.S. deep state's geopolitical plans.

And it's obviously not just CNN publishing this rubbish. In recent days both the NY Times and Associated Press have retracted their claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump."

In reality, this 'truth' was reached by the CIA, NSA and FBI's "hand-picked" analysts. Robert Parry wrote on Consortium News:
The reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment was admitted in May by President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama's CIA Director John Brennan in sworn congressional testimony.

Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a "special intelligence community assessment" (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, "a coordinated product from three agencies - CIA, NSA, and the FBI - not all 17 components of the intelligence community," the former DNI said. Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 assessment on alleged Russian hacking were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and NSA.

Yet, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you "hand-pick" the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did.
Indeed, it was Hillary Clinton who originally started spreading the "all 17 agencies" claim during an election debate last year. Wikileaks tweeted back then that Clinton's claim "may be the biggest, most immediately disprovable wopper ever intentionally made during a debate."

And thus in less than a year the whole story of "Russia interfering the election" has crumbled.

So what's the real story?

It was very convenient for Hillary to blame Russia for hacking the Democratic National Committee email servers. This fake narrative served four goals:
  1. it directed attention away from the details in the leaked material that exposed Clinton as corrupt war harpy
  2. it gave leverage for the deep state against Trump
  3. it strengthened the justification for the ongoing anti-Russian policies
  4. it deflected attention away from the fact that Hillary lost because she is a corrupt war harpy, and a majority of American voters know it.
The fact that when information is leaked about an organization, the most likely culprit is someone from inside the organization who has easier access to the desired material and very probably an ax to grind. Isn't it strange that the mainstream media hasn't really investigated this most obvious possibility?

The leaked emails also proved that the DNC basically rigged the primary election against Bernie Sanders and so violated its own charter and bylaws. The DNC was developing strategies, such as coordinating super-PACs on Hillary's side, to ensure her nomination. Unexpectedly this exasperated many Bernie Sanders donors and supporters who ended up filing a lawsuit against DNC and its former chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and likely turned many of them against Clinton.

The DNC lawyers had an interesting thing to say in the courtroom about how the DNC views its own rules of impartiality:
"We could have voluntarily decided that, 'Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way," DNC's lawyer Bruce Spiva told a Florida court. [...]

The defendants' lawyers also argued the suit is based on an "internal rule" which cannot be enforced, and that the term "impartial" can't be defined.
It's much more probable that someone in the DNC just didn't like that the deck was stacked for Clinton and against Sanders, and was tired of the corruption surrounding the Democratic National Committee leadership.

seth rich

Seth Rich
27-year-old DNC voter database employee Seth Rich was shot around 4:20 am on July 10, 2016 near his home in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of DC. Police concluded that he had been killed in an attempted robbery, yet his property such as wallet, credit cards, and cell phone weren't stolen. He was shot less than a week after the initial DNC emails were released to Wikileaks.

Many have suspected that Seth Rich was the DNC leaker.

In fact Wikileaks has announced a $20,000 reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich. When interviewed for the Dutch Niewsurr TV-channel, Julian Assange himself hinted that Seth Rich may have been the leaker and that his death was an assassination:

Julian Assange: "Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often significant risks. There was a 27-year old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."

Host: "That was just a robbery wasn't it?"

Assange: "No. There's no finding."

Host: "What are you suggesting?"

Assange: "I am suggesting that our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."

Host: "But was he one of your sources, then?"

Assange: [nodding his head] "We don't comment on who our sources are."

Host: "But why make the suggestion?"

Assange: "Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity."

Host: "But it's quite something to suggest a murder... that's basically what you're doing."
Why would Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, bring forth Seth Rich's murder as an example of risks that their sources take and even announce a reward for solving this crime, if Rich was just some random DNC worker who got shot in an attempted robbery?

But there's no doubt that leaking this kind of information can be very dangerous to Wikileaks sources.

In one of the leaked emails Clinton's creepy campaign chairman John Podesta expressed his enthusiasm for "making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it", to which campaign manager Robby Mook replied how he would "love an example being made."

Interestingly, Seth Rich had also questioned voting ballot integrity (for good reasons!) during the 2015 Election Data Summit, and seemed like someone who had serious concerns about the transparency of the election process, and therefore might well have leaked this kind of material.

Recently former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich joined many others in questioning Seth Rich's murder. He said during a Fox News interview:
We have this very strange story now of this young man who worked at the Democratic National Committee, who apparently was assassinated, at four in the morning, uh having given Wikileaks something like [...] 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody is investigating that.
As we've noticed, there's huge discrepancy in media coverage between the Seth Rich and Russian hackers stories. Both can't be true at the same time, so ask yourself which one makes more sense.

Whoever leaked that material was a true patriot. But the MSM isn't interested in asking serious questions about Seth Rich's murder or revealing the truth about the allegations against Russia, they're too busy keeping their ratings up and making money. So the job of bringing the truth (or as close to it as we can get) to the public falls increasingly on the alternative media, like