OF THE
TIMES
"The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future."How convenient, "national security": the last refuge of liars and scoundrels. Next we're regaled with something called 'key judgments'. These are apparently plucked out of thin air as zero evidence is offered to substantiate them.
"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."The first thing that stands out here is that the report assumes that the American public had faith in the US democratic process before the election, or that the USA actually has a real 'democratic process'. Clearly the US government is completely out of touch with the thoughts and feelings of the average US citizen with regards to the country's political process and the presidential election. A poll conducted back in May 2016 found 55% of Americans felt helpless about the 2016 presidential election. Only 13% said the two-party system works, while 38% considered it seriously broken. Another poll conducted in early October found that 40% of the public had lost faith in American democracy.
"the tobacco epidemic is one of the biggest public health threats the world has ever faced, killing around 6 million people a year. More than 5 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke."But like any other claim promulgated by the established health authorities, it is wise to question whether there is actually any truth to it. Bear in mind, it is these same authorities which recommend a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet (and we have seen how detrimental that has been to the general population's health). It is also those same people who would recommend treating chronic illness with synthetic pharmaceutical drugs, or the complete removal of entire organs (again, clearly not a successful approach). Anyone who pays attention can see that the authorities clearly don't care about people's health because they are more concerned with profit margins. So in this context rational inquiry demands that we look into whether tobacco is really 'all that bad'.
...SOTT is one of the accused organizations in a PropOrNot report referenced by the Post, which, contrary to Fake News' claim that the report had not been published, was available on the Internet well before Fake News ran. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, SOTT's tax returns are publicly available and transparent, such that allegations of Russian government support due would have been known as false given even casual inquiry by your publication. ...As our readers know, and as emphasized by our attorney above, SOTT.NET is TOTALLY reader supported and anyone can view our non-profit tax returns to verify this claim. We don't carry ANY paid advertising and we are beholden to no one except YOU, the reader, and our consciences (something that seems to be seriously in want at MSM news sites.) Obviously, we may have a legal battle ahead of us and that means we need your support more than ever as we sail into these turbulent waters of attempts to totally stifle free speech. With your help, we won't go down without a fight!
Your identification of SOTT as a "fake news site" and as an agent for Russian propaganda designed to undermine American democracy is defamatory per se. You accuse SOTT of spreading "Russian-backed phony news to outcompete traditional news organizations for audience." These serious allegations have caused and will continue to cause great harm to SOTT, including but not limited to damage to policy impact and reputation, diversion of scarce reporting and managerial resources to respond to concerned inquires and debunk this smear, loss of readers, and damage to the site's financial sustainability. Moreover, writers and editors associated with SOTT face ridicule, emotional distress, loss of reputation, and risk to future career advancement, including for example, difficulty passing background and security checks. ...
Your article did not provide even a single example of "fake news" allegedly distributed or promoted by SOTT or indeed any of the other 200-plus sites on the PropOrNot blacklist....