Comment: See also: What does the Donald have in store for the Fed?

Comment: US threat of sanctions don't appear to carry the weight they used to... thanks to Russia, with love.

Comment: In an op-ed, RT deputy editor-in-chief Kirill Karnovich-Valua reveals the details of Twitter's suggested advertising campaign for RT:

The RT and Twitter teams held a number of direct negotiations, during which we brainstormed potential media strategy ahead of American elections in 2016. The first meeting dates back to as early as April 2016, and involved senior marketing and news partnerships managers from Twitter.

The main idea pitched by Twitter to RT was "to take a stand." The more money RT spent, the bigger the reach to American voters that Twitter would provide. At the meeting, the RT team was shown an in-depth presentation giving background into Twitter's advantages as a platform of choice for the election.

The custom presentation provided an insight into just how big a conversation Twitter was expecting on its platform around the much-anticipated US vote. Among the shared data, the RT team was presented statistics on how Twitter users were reacting to each of three main contenders at the time - Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

So, clearly RT was a valued customer for Twitter just last year, and RT hasn't changed any of its journalistic style since then. This is just about Twitter showing very clearly to anyone paying attention that they aren't actually a private company but merely a tool of propaganda for the elites. People on social media are justifiably blasting Twitter for its "classic corporate cowardice" and its attack on free speech and freedom of expression:


Update 10/27: It appears that Twitter never "informed" the US government that it pushed RT to purchase a large ad campaign from Twitter before the 2016 election. That should make it interesting when Twitter execs sit down in front of Congress next week. There might be some pointed questions!

The reaction to Twitter's decision has led some observers to point out that its a part of a continuous attack on free speech. Former US diplomat Jim Jatras tells RT:

"It is not even so much RT but what does this say about what the American government, the American agencies and now these social media companies are willing to do to compromise information coming to the American people?"

Mark Almond, director of the Crisis Research Institute at Oxford points out how the need to control information reveals how little trust the government has in the people that elected them and their ability to think for themselves:

"Those politicians in the Congress who have the social media platforms like Twitter and Google and Facebook a little bit in fear of them... are actually also damaging their own political standing because essentially they are saying to the American voter that you're so gullible and foolish that a tiny amount of money targeted in some way can control your minds and turn your votes."

The Kremlin has responded by saying the ban is motivated by a "deep prejudice" against Russian media. It's hard to argue with them on that point. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said the move as a result of pressure from US establishment and security services, while another Russian official, Konstantin Kosachev, deleted his Twitter account in protest and said the company had become "highly politicized." Meanwhile, RT has released Twitter's presentation and offer in full.

Comment: This too is a nothing-burger, although it's understandable why US conservatives have hung their hat on it: their Democratic opposition, with the backing of the Deep State establishment, have used 'ties with Russia' as a vehicle with which to bash Trump and keep him in line, thus keeping the US Empire on course (towards its total destruction, but they don't know that).

Putin explained - in plain, simple, non-hysterical language - what this uranium deal is actually about in his recent speech at Valdai 2017 (where leaders from around the world in the fields of politics, media and business met to discuss future global governance without the US, which has apparently lost its mind).

The US and Russia made arrangements in the early 90s to 'civilize' their nuclear warheads by selling it to each other for use in nuclear power plants. This way, the process could be openly monitored. The only Clinton connection to this overarching deal is that Slick Willy happened to be president at the time. There's no scandal here. It's being 'scandalized' now because all things Russia are 'bad'.

The vast majority of political news coming out of the US these days is - to again borrow a phrase from Putin - paranoid political schizophrenia.

Comment: It's no accident that this report comes out as Russia and Syria are wiping ISIS off the map. The US is coming face-to-face with its failed strategy to destroy Syria and are grasping at straws to maintain their position.

See also:

• Zakharova: "A child is pretty much murdered under the camera lights" - Swedish doctors denounce White Helmets snuff films
• Seymour Hersh: There Was No Chemical Weapon Attack On Khan Sheikhoun
• Fake News: Eviscerating the New York Times' 'Sarin Gas' Propaganda

Update (Oct. 28): The investigators admit in their report that the "integrity of the scene was devalued" after the alleged crater was "subsequently filled with concrete" by the terrorists occupying the area. As the Russians point out, the accounts on which it is based are culled from anonymous research centers, open-source information and so-called 'independent experts,' which lack any convincing proof to support their findings.

In separate commentary, the ministry questioned why repeated requests by the Syrian government for the UN team to share not only the lab results, but also the actual samples stored in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) laboratory, were only partially fulfilled following months of negotiations.

While it was provided with lab results, the biochemical samples which had allegedly been collected at the site were never sent to Damascus.

"Apart from that, the OPCW Technical Secretariat constantly dodges answering the question, whether it received the samples allegedly taken at the scene of the Khan Shaykhun incident by the British and French. According to Convention [on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons], these samples should be presented to the country, where they were collected," the statement reads further.

Such discrepancies in the process not only violates Syria's rights as a member of OPCW, but raise serious questions about the impartiality of the UN and the OPCW investigation team, Russia's Foreign Ministry said.

"There's only one conclusion - as the US and their 'like-minders' continue to escalate the situation with the Syrian 'chemical dossier,' more and more glaring examples of the 'double standards' in their approach towards Syria at the UNSC and OPCW platforms," the statement adds.

Damascus has also rejected the report's findings, charging that it apparently "came in implementation of the instructions of the US administration and Western countries to exert more political pressures and threats to Syria's sovereignty," Sana reported citing a source at Foreign and Expatriates Ministry.

"Syria strongly condemns the direct and indirect accusations against it which were included in this report and the previous one since they represent a falsification of the truth and distortion of all accurate information about what happened in Khan Shaykhun."

Moscow said it would provide a "more detailed analysis" next week, after carefully studying the report. The ministry promised to issue a response on the possible extension of JIM's current mandate which is due to expire on November 16.
...
Western nations have meanwhile welcomed the conclusions of the report. The findings were promptly praised by US officials as adamant and "impartial" proof of the alleged crimes attributed to Syria's President Bashar Assad.

"Time and again, we see independent confirmation of chemical weapons use by the Assad regime," Nikki Haley, the US envoy to the UN said in a statement.

Britain, on Friday, urged the UNSC to impose sanctions on Syria: "A robust international response is now essential to hold those responsible for the Khan Shaykhun attack to account... It now falls on the Security Council to act on these findings and to deliver justice," British Ambassador Matthew Rycroft told reporters.

China's reaction, however, appeared to be more guarded: "We hope the conclusion of any investigation should be grounded on solid and reliable evidence, conforms to the principle of professionalism, objectiveness, and justice and will stand the test of history," Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang's told reporters Friday.

US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert:

This new report confirms unequivocally what the United States and many in the international community have stated publicly for many months - that the Assad regime carried out the heinous April 4 attack killing approximately 100 innocent Syrian civilians, including many children, and injuring hundreds more. The [UN] Security Council must send a clear message that the use of chemical weapons by anyone will not be tolerated, and must fully support the work of the impartial investigators.

Confirmation bias at its best.

Comment: See also:

• FEC complaint filed: DNC broke election law, didn't properly disclose Trump-Russia dossier funding
• Another lie? Killary claims she didn't know about Trump dossier until after its publication