The Lost Journalistic Standards of Russia-gate

Exclusive: The Russia-gate hysteria has witnessed a widespread collapse of journalistic standards as major U.S. news outlets ignore rules about how to treat evidence in dispute, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

A danger in both journalism and intelligence is to allow an unproven or seriously disputed fact to become part of the accepted narrative where it gets widely repeated and thus misleads policymakers and citizens alike, such as happened during the run-up to war with Iraq and is now recurring amid the frenzy over Russia-gate.

The New York Times building in Manhattan. (Photo credit: Robert Parry)

For instance, in a Russia-gate story on Saturday, The New York Times reported as flat fact that a Kremlin intermediary “told a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, that the Russians had ‘dirt’ on Mr. Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton, in the form of ‘thousands of emails.’” The Times apparently feels that this claim no longer needs attribution even though it apparently comes solely from the 32-year-old Papadopoulos as part of his plea bargain over lying to the FBI.

Beyond the question of trusting an admitted liar like Papadopoulos, his supposed Kremlin contact, professor Joseph Mifsud, a little-known academic associated with the University of Stirling in Scotland, denied knowing anything about Democratic emails.

In an interview with the U.K. Daily Telegraph, Mifsud acknowledged meeting with Papadopoulos but disputed having close ties to the Kremlin and rejected how Papadopoulos recounted their conversations. Specifically, he denied the claim that he mentioned emails containing “dirt” on Clinton.

Even New York Times correspondent Scott Shane noted late last month – after the criminal complaint against Papadopoulos was unsealed – that “A crucial detail is still missing: Whether and when Mr. Papadopoulos told senior Trump campaign officials about Russia’s possession of hacked emails. And it appears that the young aide’s quest for a deeper connection with Russian officials, while he aggressively pursued it, led nowhere.”

Shane added, “the court documents describe in detail how Mr. Papadopoulos continued to report to senior campaign officials on his efforts to arrange meetings with Russian officials, … the documents do not say explicitly whether, and to whom, he passed on his most explosive discovery – that the Russians had what they considered compromising emails on Mr. Trump’s opponent.

“J.D. Gordon, a former Pentagon official who worked for the Trump campaign as a national security adviser [and who dealt directly with Papadopoulos] said he had known nothing about Mr. Papadopoulos’ discovery that Russia had obtained Democratic emails or of his prolonged pursuit of meetings with Russians.”

Missing Corroboration

But the journalistic question is somewhat different: why does the Times trust the uncorroborated assertion that Mifsud told Papadopoulos about the emails — and trust the claim to such a degree that the newspaper would treat it as flat fact? Absent corroborating evidence, isn’t it just as likely (if not more likely) that Papadopoulos is telling the prosecutors what he thinks they want to hear?

Former Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos.

If the prosecutors working for Russia-gate independent counsel Robert Mueller had direct evidence that Mifsud did tell Papadopoulos about the emails, you would assume that they would have included the proof in the criminal filing against Papadopoulos, which was made public on Oct. 30.

Further, since Papadopoulos was peppering the Trump campaign with news about his Russian outreach in 2016, you might have expected that he would include something about how helpful the Russians had been in obtaining and publicizing the Democratic emails.

But none of Papadopoulos’s many emails to Trump campaign officials about his Russian contacts (as cited by the prosecutors) mentioned the hot news about “dirt” on Clinton or the Russians possessing “thousands of emails.” This lack of back-up would normally raise serious doubts about Papadopoulos’s claim, but – since Papadopoulos was claiming something that the prosecutors and the Times wanted to believe – reasonable skepticism was swept aside.

What the Times seems to have done is to accept a bald assertion by Mueller’s prosecutors as sufficient basis for jumping to the conclusion that this disputed claim is undeniably true. But just because Papadopoulos, a confessed liar, and these self-interested prosecutors claim something is true doesn’t make it true.

Careful journalists would wonder, as Shane did, why Papadopoulos who in 2016 was boasting of his Russian contacts to make himself appear more valuable to the Trump campaign wouldn’t have informed someone about this juicy tidbit of information, that the Russians possessed “thousands of emails” on Clinton.

Yet, the prosecutors’ statement regarding Papadopoulos’s guilty plea is strikingly silent on corroborating evidence that could prove that, first, Russia did possess the Democratic emails (which Russian officials deny) and, second, the Trump campaign was at least knowledgeable about this core fact in the support of the theory about the campaign’s collusion with the Russians (which President Trump and other campaign officials deny).

Of course, it could be that the prosecutors’ “fact” will turn out to be a fact as more evidence emerges, but anyone who has covered court cases or served on a jury knows that prosecutors’ criminal complaints and pre-trial statements should be taken with a large grain of salt. Prosecutors often make assertions based on the claim of a single witness whose credibility gets destroyed when subjected to cross-examination.

That is why reporters are usually careful to use words like “alleged” in dealing with prosecutors’ claims that someone is guilty. However, in Russia-gate, all the usual standards of proof and logic have been jettisoned. If something serves the narrative, no matter how dubious, it is embraced by the U.S. mainstream media, which – for the past year – has taken a lead role in the anti-Trump “Resistance.”

A History of Bias

This tendency to succumb to “confirmation bias,” i.e., to believe the worst about some demonized figure, has inflicted grave damage in other recent situations as well.

Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations on Feb. 5. 2003, citing satellite photos which supposedly proved that Iraq had WMD, but the evidence proved bogus.

One example is described in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2006 study of the false intelligence that undergirded the case for invading Iraq in 2003. That inquiry discovered that previously discredited WMD claims kept reemerging in finished U.S. intelligence analyses as part of the case for believing that Iraq was hiding WMD.

In the years before the Iraq invasion, the U.S. government had provided tens of millions of dollars to Iraqi exiles in the Iraqi National Congress, and the INC, in turn, produced a steady stream of “walk-ins” who claimed to be Iraqi government “defectors” with knowledge about Saddam Hussein’s secret WMD programs.

Some U.S. intelligence analysts — though faced with White House pressure to accept this “evidence” — did their jobs honestly and exposed a number of the “defectors” as paid liars, including one, who was identified in the Senate report as “Source Two,” who talked about Iraq supposedly building mobile biological weapons labs.

CIA analysts caught Source Two in contradictions and issued a “fabrication notice” in May 2002, deeming him “a fabricator/provocateur” and asserting that he had “been coached by the Iraqi National Congress prior to his meeting with western intelligence services.”

But the Defense Intelligence Agency never repudiated the specific reports that were based on Source Two’s debriefings. Source Two also continued to be cited in five CIA intelligence assessments and the pivotal National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002, “as corroborating other source reporting about a mobile biological weapons program,” the Senate Intelligence Committee report said.

Thus, Source Two became one of four human sources referred to by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his United Nations speech on Feb. 5, 2003, making the case that Iraq was lying when it insisted that it had ended its WMD programs. (The infamous “Curve Ball” was another of these dishonest sources.)

Losing the Thread

After the U.S. invasion and the failure to find the WMD caches, a CIA analyst who worked on Powell’s speech was asked how a known “fabricator” (Source Two) could have been used for such an important address by a senior U.S. government official. The analyst responded, “we lost the thread of concern as time progressed I don’t think we remembered.”

Washington Post’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt.

A CIA supervisor added, “Clearly we had it at one point, we understood, we had concerns about the source, but over time it started getting used again and there really was a loss of corporate awareness that we had a problem with the source.”

In other words, like today’s Russia-gate hysteria, the Iraq-WMD groupthink had spread so widely across U.S. government agencies and the U.S. mainstream media that standard safeguards against fake evidence were discarded. People in Official Washington, for reasons of careerism and self-interest, saw advantages in running with the Iraq-WMD pack and recognized the dangers of jumping in front of the stampeding herd to raise doubts about Iraq’s WMD.

Back then, the personal risk to salary and status came from questioning the Iraq-WMD groupthink because there was always the possibility that Saddam Hussein indeed was hiding WMD and, if so, you’d be forever branded as a “Saddam apologist”; while there were few if any personal risks to agreeing with all those powerful people that Iraq had WMD, even if that judgment turned out to be disastrously wrong.

Sure, American soldiers and the people of Iraq would pay a terrible price, but your career likely would be safe, a calculation that proved true for people like Fred Hiatt, the editorial-page editor of The Washington Post who repeatedly reported Iraq’s WMD as flat fact and today remains the editorial-page editor of The Washington Post.

Similarly, Official Washington’s judgment now is that there is no real downside to joining the Resistance to Trump, who is widely viewed as a buffoon, unfit to be President of the United States. So, any means to remove him are seen by many Important People as justified – and the Russian allegations seem to be the weightiest rationale for his impeachment or forced resignation.

Professionally, it is much riskier to insist on unbiased standards of evidence regarding Trump and Russia. You’ll just stir up a lot of angry questions about why are you “defending Trump.” You’ll be called a “Trump enabler” and/or a “Kremlin stooge.”

However, basing decisions on dubious information carries its own dangers for the nation and the world. Not only do the targets end up with legitimate grievances about being railroaded – and not only does this prejudicial treatment undermine faith in the fairness of democratic institutions – but falsehoods can become the basis for wider policies that can unleash wars and devastation.

We saw the horrific outcome of the Iraq War, but the risks of hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia are far graver; indeed, billions of people could die and human civilization end. With stakes so high, The New York Times and Mueller’s prosecutors owe the public better than treating questionable accusations as flat fact.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and

110 comments for “The Lost Journalistic Standards of Russia-gate

  1. Jodi
    December 2, 2017 at 09:10

    We are seeing the same thing with the dubious “sonic attacks” in Cuba. No evidence, no known weapon, no motive, no perpetrator, just people with a random list of symptoms – not all the same – and no named sources, just unnamed officials. Even articles that debunk it still refer to them as “attacks”. Since Cuba has pretty much proved the claims to be bogus, they are now inferring that Russia did it …

  2. Jay
    December 1, 2017 at 15:54

    All involved with politics are a bunch of liars PERIOD…..

  3. polistra
    November 30, 2017 at 07:01

    Collapse of standards? Paid journalists have always been criminals. In earlier times they openly and proudly proclaimed their criminality. The only thing that’s new is the front of legitimacy. Even the front isn’t recent; it started around 1950.

  4. Wm. Boyce
    November 28, 2017 at 12:08

    Sad to say, Consortium News isn’t doing the journalism needed to be done on the revealing of Trump – Russia connections. I now go to the Intercept for stories like this one:

  5. Virginia
    November 24, 2017 at 10:22

    On Internet access see:
    Imagine! An ‘alternative internet’ not ‘completely in the hands of Facebook & Google’

  6. Daniel
    November 23, 2017 at 12:01

    We are living in a time of severe tribalism, when TPTB are working feverishly to destroy universal standards of practice with ‘whose side are you on?’ shaming and demonization – a dangerous game meant to destroy independent thought, ostracize those who prefer reality-based discovery and analysis and, most importantly, destroy criticism/skepticism of elite narratives. We are so far down this rotted, corrupted rabbit hole that TPTB cannot now risk an honest accounting of their actions/tactics. Any who would dare try to expose them must be destroyed. And they have a lot of means to ensure this destruction.

    So…Duck and cover? Become a full-time activist? These polar-extreme options seem to be the only choices left for anyone who values critical thinking. God help us.

  7. Al Pinto
    November 23, 2017 at 09:50

    Let’s say that the NYT is right and Russia did meddle with the US elections last year. Whatever they are accused doing, they did not do it openly, pretty much an alleged clandestine operation. I don’t believe it, but let’s just go along with it…
    What gives the US right to openly meddle with other countries election? For example:



    “The U.S. State Department last week called for grant applications from media outlets in Hungary based outside Budapest. One goal of the $700,000 program is to “improve the quality of local traditional and online media and increase the public’s access to reliable and unbiased information.”

    Hungary is member of the EU and the NATO. One would say that there’s no need for influencing the elections in a member country, but evidently, that’s not the case. No wonder that the Hungarian Government protesting against the US intent to meddle in its upcoming election. Unfortunately, a small country does not generate much interest. The referenced NYT article intends to discredit the Hungarian Government by citing press freedom, limited ownership of the media outlets, etc. This quote cracks me up:

    “Practically all major newspapers published outside Budapest are now in the hands of pro-government publishers, some of whom also own television or radio stations.”

    NYT, are you certain that you are talking about Hungary? The sentence is probably more suitable for the US than Hungary…

  8. November 23, 2017 at 06:50

    There is more to the panic coverage than Russia Gate. It hate to mention it because it is a relief to see Consortium News and not see (again, I hate to mention it, but it does show MSM’s worthlessness) sex and supposed sex scandals. These scandals should not be allowed to be scandals when they are clearly taking us away from the most important and affecting issues of the day. The real damage is not in those “scandals” but in wars, murders, taxes removed from the rich in favor of taxing the poor, net neutrality, censorship, leak prosecutions, natural-resource theft, global warming, disaster assistance, health insurance, women’s health, just plain health and on and on.
    I have to think the GOP is delighted. This may not have been a GOP plan from the start but I am catching the whiff of Karl Rove type manipulation – the concept: weaken the opposition by using their own strengths (liberals? progressives? feminists? #MeToo’s?) against them and Roger Stone’s cynical pile-on manipulations, and Bannon’s, et all.
    These so-called journalists in the MSM have lost their heads, or maybe they are all kiddies who’ve never had a news head (hed) to lose. Just dumb judgement calls and dumb attention sets.

  9. Colonel (Ret) B.J,Marshall
    November 23, 2017 at 00:57

    The reality is that so-called “journalists” and “Intelligence Analysts” have ignored the fundamental principles of their profession. This categorises them as “Political Hacks” and means their reputations are totally diminished! The test of the value of the INTREP was its value as a basis for military action. Those who were involved in the decision to give it credibility for the reason to launch a military operation, stand indicted for the manslaughter, if not murder, of the soldiers (both sides) who were killed in action or wounded in action during the ensuing war. Politicians declare war, but never fight them! When they stuff up on the reasons for or strategy of war, they should be indicted for their incompetence. The military do not create the conditions leading to armed conflict, who does? The answer is obvious!

  10. Anonymot
    November 22, 2017 at 15:04

    One of the obligatory forerunners of a dictatorship is a compliant press. The press then becomes the state’s press. Contrarians disappear. That will surprise those who still think we have a free and open “democracy”.

    Part of the program in the run up stage is to sow Diversion, Dissension and Divisiveness. Our MSM is becoming pretty good at that with everything from sexual dementia like the charges against 80% of those accused, judged and fired (Weinstein levels deserve it,) the Clintons failure to just get out of the loser’s box and go back to Arkansas, the N Korea hysteria, the anti-Russian hysteria, the elevation of slumdogs like the Jenners, the Kardashians, the Paris Hiltons to front page news every time one of them farts, the investigations, etc., etc. We are staring fascism in the face and most don’t even recognize it. I’m glad that you do. Thank you.

  11. November 22, 2017 at 14:42

    The frenzy being whipped up no over Russiagate is nothing to what will come down when The Excess of Evil (u.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia) decide to begin the destruction of Iran.

  12. RussianTrollsky
    November 22, 2017 at 07:33

    Putin is the president of Russia, therefore all Russian have Kremlin ties. ipso facto all Russians are Russian bots.

  13. Wm. Boyce
    November 22, 2017 at 01:26

    Amazing, this board believes that Trump is to be believed! No, the Mafia leads the U.S. now and you can expect the worst. Elephant parts slaughtered in Africa or elsewhere – these people are the worst.

    • Joe Tedesky
      November 22, 2017 at 02:57

      William, I believe there are no good sides to root for. Joe

  14. Joe Tedesky
    November 21, 2017 at 17:40

    I never thought that the revolution in America could be fought to any successful conclusions either with violent militias or from within a grassroots movement, but now I can clearly see, that if this corrupted government is to be brought down, then it maybe done quite well with ‘sexual harassment charges’. Who would have ever thunk it?

    • Joe Tedesky
      November 22, 2017 at 00:04

      Gordon Duff, tells it like it is….

      “As few as 500 individuals govern the planet. They don’t “rule” anything, however. Though most are elected officials and a mix of equally corrupt “tin pot” dictators, none have real power. There are no elections that can’t be rigged, what is going on now in America is proof of that.

      Where the proof is, however, points no fingers at Russia. The proof is how the press, the police agencies, congress, all marching in lock-step, follow totally fake narratives on behalf of, well, on behalf of what or who?”


      This whole atmosphere of one witch hunt after another coupled with the advent of what will be remembered as the ever infamous ‘fake news era’, is an example of a overly hubris beast bred through deception which is now feasting upon it’s own as the Empire spirals down into it’s own abyss of it’s own making. From Truman’s front porch Churchill christened the start of the ‘Cold War’, and now after 71 years of one terribly nonsensical conflict after another ending in failure we may finally be seeing the fraying of that sad bulldog’s declaration in support of more military spending as opposed to any consideration towards humanitarianism devoted to uplifting of our fellow brethren go by the wayside. Now, that the world has insisted upon it’s own maturity being recognized, the Empire is languishing in it’s own sins of greed. If the U.S. should somehow get ahold of itself then the U.S. will join the rest of the world in a bilateral sovereign nation new world order, and if not then God help us all.

      • Sam F
        November 22, 2017 at 09:11

        That is a troubling article, echoing the dawning recognition that a government of gangs is all we have left.

      • Dave P.
        November 22, 2017 at 13:46

        Joe, thanks for the post. It is very chilling to read this very comprehensive article on what has been going on for six decades and where we are now. A must read article by Gordon Duff.

    • Joe Tedesky
      November 22, 2017 at 00:56

      Wayne Madsen never holds back, and if this article of his says nothing else it speaks to what news is being ignored while our swamp creatures in DC chase after nonexistent Russian hackers who never were to the point of ridiculousness of another kind. Get ready, because Madsen exposes a tale of a few stories of which you may have never heard of before.

  15. rosemerry
    November 21, 2017 at 17:09

    Just to compare the Russian policies and actions now with the shambles of 21st century USA, I’ve just read ‘On Surprise Russia Trip, Assad and Putin Talk Post-War Syria’ at

    which is from truthdig and well worth reading!

    • Gregory Herr
      November 21, 2017 at 21:11

      Thanks for this rosemerry. Can’t help but notice when a military objective responding to a real need is executed and followed through to conclusion with diplomatic competence. Contrast that with open-ended “objectives” not responsive to real needs and lacking regard for the opinions or concerns of others.

  16. fudmier
    November 21, 2017 at 15:14

    Google Executive Says New Algorithm Will Hide RT, Sputnik Articles

    “We are working on detecting and de-ranking those kinds of sites — it’s basically RT and Sputnik,” Schmidt said during a question and answer session at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada. “We are well of aware of it, and we are trying to engineer the systems to prevent [the content being delivered to wide audiences]. But we don’t want to ban the sites — that’s not how we operate.”
    Article “Since Papadopoulos was claiming something that the prosecutors and the Times wanted to believe – reasonable skepticism was swept aside”.
    i want to advise that access to Iran websites have been denied by my browser, I go next door and the internet explorer still allows it. The war is not against Iran or Germany, or Russia or China, or a nation state at all; instead against independent of the nation state of residence, control over all human activity is now in corporate hands. The wars in the middle east are about corporations taking someone’s oil and gas from them, or denying someone their right to produce and sell their oil.. We humans are under corporate seige just as were the colonist in 1776 when they did a who owns the government change. its much deeper than that.. and it is quite questionable how much longer Americans will be allowed to view and participate on consortiumnews. I wonder if one could call shopping a form of compulsive slavery?

    • Anna
      November 21, 2017 at 17:12

      “The war is not against Iran or Germany, or Russia or China, or a nation state at all; instead against independent of the nation state of residence, control over all human activity is now in corporate hands. The wars in the middle east are about corporations taking someone’s oil and gas from them, or denying someone their right to produce and sell their oil. We humans are under corporate siege..”
      The principled, intelligent, and independent-minded have been the most dangerous and hated enemies of psychopathic thieves-in-charge.
      The dam of indebtedness and mega-criminality in the US could burst any day. The scorpions cannot help themselves but to bite and kill and destroy. It is interesting that they are not able to protect their progeny because of the psychopathic urge for money and power.

    • CitizenOne
      November 21, 2017 at 22:48

      ” it is quite questionable how much longer Americans will be allowed to view and participate on consortiumnews”

      It is not only questionable but probable that there might not be a future for this website.

      Ajit Pai head of FCC is going to announce tomorrow that net neutrality is dead via passage by FCC of the “Restoring Internet Freedom” PNRM which will allow commercial interests (the same interest that brought us the last election) namely ISPs to simply delete any website that does not promote its commercial interests.

      That is correct. After tomorrow, the FCC will pass a rule which allows the major internet service providers to simply delete any website they feel does not further their bottom line.

      You ask is this really possible? Check out the news. It is happening and the Congress will not oppose it this time as they did before. Further it will prevent the FCC from ever again forever more from enacting net neutrality.rules guaranteeing internet access to websites which promote vies counter to the establishment.

      The other possible safe havens are already under attack as Facebook and Google set up firewalls against supposed “pro Russian” websites despite the facts they present thus ensuring the Russia Gate story will have no opposition.

      Bye bye internet. Good luck and good night.

      • CitizenOne
        November 21, 2017 at 23:03

        Hopefully this travesty of a sham of a regulatory agency hell bent on usurping the will of the people will see its day in court. I’m not optimistic about a court hearing since the Federal Courts have been just about been bought up by the republicans over the last decades.

        22 million of us including all of the robo-posts made by nefarious conservative bot sites with a uniform support for ending net neutrality have been placed on the FCC website but the FCC under Ajit Pai has marginalized every single one of them stating that repeat submissions are to be discounted has left it up to a numbers game for him. Robots versus us. All of us. Real people logging onto the FCC website to voice their very real human objections vs. the robots who unanimously support ending net neutrality.

        If you were ever concerned you might one day do battle with robots then your worst fears are now at hand. The Chairman of the FCC has decided to allow robots to chime in on whether or not we have a free internet or whether the robots should win.

      • Sam F
        November 22, 2017 at 09:21

        Serious regulation of information power is essential to the preservation of democracy. No one has a right to censor anyone, especially those who control information infrastructure or offer search services, etc. Similarly, no one has a right to others’ information and communications, nor to put unsolicited advertising in anyone’s private communications channels, whether those be mail or email, etc. These are essential constitutional rights trampled reflexively by our utterly corrupt judiciary, who represent money alone and are deeply and resolutely opposed to constitutional rights.

  17. john wilson
    November 21, 2017 at 15:02

    Somebody left the door open and ADL has got out again. Why don’t the nut house keepers keep a leash on this rsole?

  18. Anon
    November 21, 2017 at 14:31

    ADL’s periodic zionist claptrap.

  19. November 21, 2017 at 14:21

    Is Internet Censorship Coming? See Link Below.

    The US government claims the restrictions – which stop internet companies from privileging certain websites – are an unnecessary frustration

    8 hours ago

    • dahoit
      November 21, 2017 at 20:03

      Well.alleged died the in wool propagandists are saying that,which he won’t do,because he won’t be reelected.

  20. lizzie dw
    November 21, 2017 at 12:58

    The New York Times is a corporate rag/mouthpiece for the CIA. The print version is only good for kindling and the online version needs to be deleted the second one sees the NYT logo.

  21. Richard
    November 21, 2017 at 09:16

    >A danger in both journalism and intelligence is to allow an unproven or seriously disputed fact to
    >become part of the accepted narrative where it gets widely repeated and thus misleads policymakers

    So, Robert Parry yet again pushes the propaganda that presidents are misled – they want to do the good thing, they want to help Americans – and the world! – but they are led astray by people who – no doubt, harbor good intentions – but are misled.themselves.

    In short, if everyone had access to correct information, this world would be paradise!

    The plaintive cry of EVERY U.S. president: “I wanted to help people; I wanted to make everyone happy; but I was misled!” :(

    • Sam F
      November 21, 2017 at 09:53

      Mr. Parry is likely just giving embattled presidents the benefit of doubt to avoid prejudicing the outcome, and examining media deception a a separate problem, even for the hypothetical honorable leader.

      • Richard
        November 21, 2017 at 20:28

        Sam F, let me do the same with Trump, then. He genuinely believes Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East – head-choppers, like ISIS, spreading an extreme form of Islam – and is helping Saudi Arabia ILLEGALLY bomb Yemen, and impose a total blockade that may kill millions – and certainly IS killing hundreds of children weekly! – because he’s been totally misled – the same goes for the massive tax cuts for the super rich and corporations he’s introducing. Who’d be a president, ey? They do their best, and all people do is smear their good name. :”(

    • MarkU
      November 21, 2017 at 16:09

      I agree with you. I also distrust the way that all this stuff is “confirmation bias” or “groupthink” when anyone with even half a brain can see plainly that it is just bare-faced lies.

  22. November 21, 2017 at 07:26

    Stupid americans idiots ! You should know than Vladimir Putin and all honest people in this World don’t give a dam about all that American shit coming from US medias and politics. It is all BS. Humans who are not US Citizen should boycott everything made in that fucken America (including its Citizen. This until decent Americans will have cleaned up the mess of their stupid system…

  23. john wilson
    November 21, 2017 at 06:57

    Everything said here on this forum is true. Yes “they” are trying to stifle any kind of dissent both on sites like this one and any alternative broadcast and print media. We know “they” are liars, thieves, war mongers and criminals, BUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ??????????. We talk, write, bluster and huff and puff but in the end we are just like the mass of the sheep out there and take this assault on our lives lying down. At least the sheep don’t suffer any pain because they don’t know whats being done to them or in their name, but we “thinkers” on the other hand, can see the noose that we will surely find ourselves strangled by.

    • Skip Scott
      November 21, 2017 at 09:24

      It’s a good question, John. I’m certainly open to suggestions. Here’s some of my own.

      1. Don’t watch TV.
      2. Don’t buy anything from Amazon or Walmart. Buy from small business in your neighborhood. Vote with your wallet.
      3. Don’t be fooled into voting for the “lesser” of evils. Evil is still evil.
      4. Live simply that others may simply live.
      5. Barter and pay cash under the table whenever possible.
      6. Use credit unions, not big banks.
      7. Speak truth to power, and challenge anyone spouting propaganda (but maybe not at Thanksgiving dinner.)
      8. Support real news sites like this one.
      9. Grow a garden. (I prefer a peace garden, instead of a victory garden).
      10. Seek peace in yourself, and love your neighbor. Peace grows from the inside out.

      • November 21, 2017 at 15:33

        Ahh Skip…good advice but re your first point “Don’t watch TV.” I assume you’re in a district that doesn’t get RT…The first 15 min of Lee Camp’s monologue hits the bulls eye on the target board of MSM

        • Skip Scott
          November 21, 2017 at 16:09

          Hi Bob-

          We don’t have RT here, but I get to watch Lee Camp via the internet. TV in itself isn’t necessarily bad, but the endless commercials support mindless consumerism, and any MSM news outside local station programming is usually pure propaganda. Also, the amount of time the average person spends in front of the “boob Tube” is excessive, and would be better spent being more engaged with the world around him and his fellow citizens. I mostly read and listen to music for entertainment, and watch the occasional movie.

          • November 21, 2017 at 23:16

            …a commendable routine to keep sane, Skip…the fake news is frustrating and the real news is discouraging!

    • Sam F
      November 21, 2017 at 09:59

      The historically likely prerequisites for dumping the oligarchy include actual destruction of mass media facilities and the terrorizing of the rich. When we see that, we will know that reform is possible, and not before. This may occur after 40-80 years of isolation and defeat of the US abroad, and a series of economic collapses in the US. Unfortunately, those would be signs of health in the corrupted US.

    • Al Pinto
      November 21, 2017 at 14:03

      @John, quote:

      “BUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ??????????.”

      Not a darn thing and it looks hopeless. Congress, and politicians in general are controlled by the oligarchy, be that Zionists, plutocrats, etc., members. They will not change the status-quo and get rid of their privileged life.

      Yeah, I should stop reading CN and others, it’ll be better for my blood pressure…

    • Dave P.
      November 21, 2017 at 22:42

      John Wilson – May be, if enough people can be reached, a demonstration can be staged in Washington to fight against this censorship of all progressive media which is already being implemented at full speed. Of course I doubt very much if they will report such demonstration or event on the MSM.

  24. November 21, 2017 at 06:31

    A small point, but “confirmation bias” actually means searching out and believing information that supports beliefs you already held, while dismissing information that contradicts any prejudices you might have, no matter how strong that evidence might be. In other words: not doing the job required of the fourth estate for any nation to qualify as a true democracy.

  25. exiled off mainstreet
    November 21, 2017 at 03:25

    The evidence as reviewed by anyone not within the bubble of the yankee information system is clear that the whole “Russiagate” thing is a tissue of propaganda lies devoid of any factual basis. The closing sentence of the article says it all. The future of human life itself is being threatened by US regime groupthink on Russia.

  26. Peter Hill
    November 20, 2017 at 23:52

    I understand that a puppy mill has been discovered that has Kremlin DNA all over it!

    • Anna
      November 21, 2017 at 17:03

      You mean this one?- “Journalist Sara Carter Slams DOJ Attempt To Discredit FBI Informant And Stonewall Uranium One Investigation”
      “The FBI informant – outed five days ago as energy consultant William Campbell — was “threatened” by Obama admin AG Loretta Lynch to keep quiet, according to his attorney – former Reagan Justice Dept. official and former Chief Counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee Victoria Toensing. After Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-VA) demanded Campbell be allowed to testify in front of Congress, the gag order was lifted.
      Sessions And The DOJ are running Interference
      In a move which can only be interpreted as an effort to protect the FBI, the Obama administration and the Clintons, AG Jeff Sessions and several Justice Dept. officials have been casting doubt on the value of Campbell’s evidence, along with the need for a Special Counsel to investigate.”
      Yes, the Kremlin DNA is all over Clintons, Obama, and Mueller (the FBI)

  27. David G
    November 20, 2017 at 22:55

    Robert Parry’s account of Papadopoulos’s guilty plea reminds me in a way of the case of Zacarias Moussaoui.

    The Feds wanted to prove Moussaoui part of the 9/11 plot, but there was never any evidence for it; rather, it seems the other Islamists recognized him as too unbalanced and unreliable, and made sure to keep him out of it.

    He denied it for a while, preferring to boast about his own apocalyptic fantasies, but in the end he pleaded guilty to 9/11, and accordingly the fiction is now official history.

    (With the “material support” and conspiracy laws being as broad as they are, the prosecutors probably could have gotten him on things he actually did do, but that would have meant admitting they had been wrong and foregoing some 9/11 glory.)

    • tina
      November 20, 2017 at 23:51

      Am I the only one here who believes Donald J trump is on the up and up? He is draining the swamp, right? He is making us great once again. DJT never did Benghazi, and for sure he was not born in Kenya. And , he never , ever, had sexual relationships outside of a sanctioned marriage. I love my Dear Leader, let him grab my ………

      • dahoit
        November 21, 2017 at 19:25

        Sanctioned marriage?Before I met wife I had a few instances.You have hangups.

      • CitizenOne
        November 22, 2017 at 00:14

        Dear Leader.

        That is the term given to leaders in North Korea.

        Not sure we want to go there.

        Sure he is facing allegations of rape but never mind. Our Eagle eyed press will surely report on this.

        Enemy of the people or simply a money machine?

    • GMC
      November 21, 2017 at 07:36

      Geo. Papas is a mole for the Israelis. His job is to keep the heat on Russia and take the heat off of the real election/government thieves. There are many Geo. Papas’s in Washington, in fact Weaselton is nothing put Geo’s. Of course they grab a Greek to do the dirty work – as Democracy in Greece was nurtured there — a long time ago.

  28. CitizenOne
    November 20, 2017 at 22:31

    The real reason for the Russia Gate story was a need for the media to explain the results of the election which were not predicted by the polls. They could have blamed many internal reasons such as gerrymandering, corporate dark money, right wing domestic media outlets like Fox News, voter ID laws which disenfranchised voters, and a whole bunch of reasons why the main stream media supported Trump. Sunday Morning with Charles Osgood ran a fluff piece about devoted Trump fans with no counterbalance a week before the election. The CEO of CBS told his stock holders he was having fun supporting trump and raking in the cash from every Super PAC trying to defeat him. Trump received an estimated three billion dollars in free advertising from the main stream US media. They did so to extort the Super PACs out of their war chests trying to fight him and they profited handsomely from their efforts.

    They could have focused on James Comey’s reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton and Servergate eleven days prior to the election which DOJ warned FBI that reopening the case would be seen as election tampering.

    Mueller could be investigating all of these sources of election meddling but it won’t.

    Instead, an often used and tried and true propaganda tool was employed to divert attention away from all of these internal sources of election influence and thus ensure that they would never be examined under an umbrella of patriotism. The well worn tool was to blame a foreign enemy.

    When a foreign devil is cast as the central villain, it has the effect of squashing every other possible source of the crime. We saw, as Robert Parry points out that the main stream media rallied around a false flag that the foreign devil Iraqis under the devil himself Saddam Hussein was the chief orchestrator of 9/11 even though all of the evidence pointed to a Saudi extremist and ultra orthodox Wahhabi Muslim Osama Bin Laden who would have most certainly never associated himself with the secular state of Iraq under Saddam.

    The creation of a false narrative surrounding the attack on 9/11 as a justification for war with Iraq has had an enormous effect on the propagandists. They were able to turn a terrorist attack into a major military expenditure and parlay the propaganda into a war. Win win for the MIC. It is no surprise that they now are trying to re-focus and re-frame the election as caused by the Russians in an effort to reignite a major new cold war with the resulting expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars for new weapons platforms and and a significant boost in the defense budget.

    Perhaps in the future they will be able to frame any controversy as a threat from some foreign devil and gin up a war. They may even create controversy in order to justify a massive campaign to coax billions out of Uncle Sam.

    We can see Iraq in our rear view mirror. It was a lie boosted by our most respected news outlets based on lies about weapons of mass destruction etc. There has never been a retraction by those same media outlets in the light of not finding any of the things we went to war over.

    Is it any wonder now that they choose the same path being they have never been held to account for the last war? I think not.

    We can become deeply involved in the details of the veracity of claims the Russians influenced the elections and enact sanctions and other economic weapons designed to boost US defense contractors or we can see the forest through the trees.

    Until somebody in the media brings all of the other domestic reasons likely to have influenced the election into the mix and only focuses on a narrow and largely unproven allegation that “It was the Russians!” I will continue to remain convinced this is just Iraq War redo all over again. They got away with it once. Why shouldn’t we expect they will try it again. They have nothing to lose except our trust if only we look in our rear view mirror and see the forest through the trees.

    Unfortunately, they own the microphone and the megaphone. It has been shown that the population is largely gullible to this kind of propaganda. The population as a whole does not have a penchant for cross examination of the evidence. They seem to be swallowing the bait placed on the hook by the media propagandists.

    This isn’t the only time public opinion has been swayed by propaganda. The rise of the Tea Party was a propaganda tool designed to turn public anger over the economic collapse into a deregulatory bonanza for the rich. It worked. We all got mad at the government and taxes as though those were the real reasons for the fraudulent practices of big banks which precipitated the collapse of the securities markets. Nobody went to jail either. It was massively successful. Americans picked up their pitchforks and torches and marched on Washington as the media stoked the populist revolt against the government. Meanwhile the fat cats smoking cigars watched and smiled.

    We have to realize that our media is a very different animal than the liberal cabal it portrays itself as. That is just one more smokescreen designed to turn us to its will and obey. “Help us we are under attack by ourselves” is their cry. Nobody asks how a commercial press manages to be held hostage by forces within that somehow secretly control it. It makes no sense but given the decades of lies and propaganda a vast number of Americans have come to believe in it.

    Until we collectively come to question the logic of the propaganda we will be its victims over and over again as the rich grow richer.

    Right now they are sewing up the carpet around us as unlimited campaign money (dark money) is protected, the FCC figures out how to end the internet, the Supreme Court is stacked with conservatives who are corporate agents and the tax code is revised to give trillions to the richest who can pour all of their largess into a media and politicians who are hungry for money as it is the Oxygen they need to win elections and secure ever more profits.

    All of these efforts are designed to ensure that the most wealthy entities control our fate. If you think that the moral barrier of war will stop them you need to rethink that.

    • Annie
      November 20, 2017 at 23:29

      “… and a whole bunch of reasons why the main stream media supported Trump.” They did not! The reason Hillary lost was because she was not liked by many, and they should have backed Bernie, or another candidate. Many Blacks and Hispanics who came out to vote for Obama didn’t vote in this election, no doubt because they didn’t fare well under democratic rule the way they thought they would. The Dems no longer support what was once their base, the working people of this country. Now they have the 10%’ s interest at heart. She also didn’t really hit the campaign trail and was overly confident. Why are you blaming her loss on everything but her, or is this your imitation of her? I also thought it was highly suspicious that her campaign manager came out immediately after the DNC drop to say the Russians did it. They set this up from the beginning.

      Clinton Campaign Manager: Russian Hackers Timed Leak Of DNC Emails To Help Donald Trump [VIDEO]
      July 24, 2016 2016 Election, LGBT News, Politics
      Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook suggested Sunday that internal DNC emails leaked last week were an effort from the Russians to help Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

      “What’s disturbing to us is that experts are telling us Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually of helping Donald Trump,” Mook said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

      “I don’t think it’s coincidental that these emails were released on the eve of our convention.”

      Mook did not provide evidence that the Russians were trying to help Trump when pressed by CNN’s Jake Tapper to back up his charges, instead falling back on what “experts” were saying.

      • CitizenOne
        November 21, 2017 at 20:31


        I fear you have missed my entire point with your dismissal of the support Trump received from the media with three words. “They did not!”

        Surely you cannot expect folks to walk away from a major implication of how Trump won the election with a simple dismissal that they didn’t. Please provide some evidence that the media was in the least bit critical of Trump.

        As far as my assertion that they played a major part there is the fact that they provided him with an estimated two to three billion in free advertising as Trump was the darling of the media and was lavished with free advertising more than any other candidate.

        Trump bought ten million in advertising and yet he received two billion in free advertising according to this study.

        The free advertising provided by the media for Donald Trump was more than the free advertising given to Bush, Rubio, Sanders, Clinton and Crus combined!

        Not sure how you can so blithely state “They did not!”

        As long as folks are willing to look past facts in order to assert their favorite conspiracies then the full picture of election meddling in the last election will never be known.

        The media had a huge effect as well as all the other reasons I gave which you chose to ignore.

        Go back and read what I wrote and come up with some facts to refute it other than blind assertions like “They did not!”

        “They did not!” is an empty claim based on nothing until you can find some proof the media did not give Trump all the free advertising I know (as well as a whole bunch of other folks) he did based on evidence.

        How would you like it if somebody replied to all of your posts with “No, you are wrong!” and walked past all of the points of the post?

        • November 22, 2017 at 21:06


          • Anon
            November 22, 2017 at 22:00

            Even simpler to release your Shift Lock key. Emphasis is not argument.

        • jim
          November 28, 2017 at 10:38

          The Russians apparently gave Trump quite a bit of free advertising as well, but the quality of the advertising the media gave trump is especially telling.

    • Sam F
      November 21, 2017 at 06:18

      Yes, the US mass media are uniformly controlled by the zionist/WallSt/MIC oligarchy.

      The oligarchy controls our former democracy with campaign bribes, control of mass media to promote violence as patriotism, promiscuous surveillance, and militarized police. They have destroyed America and have spent all we could borrow on destruction for their personal gain. Only the destruction of the oligarchy can bring reform of the government or mass media.

      Eliminating US warmongering and domestic tyranny requires:
      1. Amendments to the Constitution to restrict funding of mass media and elections to individual contributions, limited and registered;
      2. Renegotiation of the NATO treaty to be purely defensive, or its repudiation;
      3. Undertaking foreign military action solely under UN auspices;
      4. Prosecution of US war criminals and corrupt politicians, and banning of lobbyists;
      5. Monitoring public officials and their families and associates for corruption during their lives;
      6. Repurposing about 80 percent of the military to building infrastructure in developing nations;
      7. Signing the treaty of Rome to submit to ICC jurisdiction in most matters.

      Getting there requires:
      1. Executive overreach to investigate and dismiss corrupt officials, hold new elections, etc;
      2. Infiltrating military/intel/police/national guard to deny enforcement to oligarchy during revolts;
      3. Starting new parties that truly represent members, and making coalitions to gain majorities;
      4. Boycotting all military companies and Israeli products, denouncing zionists and militarists;
      5. Refusing to take mortgages or keep large sums in banks or investments;
      6. Refusing to watch or pay for mass media;
      7. Campaigning for foreign rejection of US products, currency, and NATO.

      Executive overreach could in principle restore democracy. A dark horse candidate for president could throw out the entire Congress and judiciary for accepting campaign bribes, and (with advance planning) turn over the mass media temporarily to the universities. Then hold new elections on paper ballots, demand amendments to the Constitution restricting funding of elections and mass media to limited individual contributions, and laws defining mass media corporations, and repeat the purges until Congress does so without judicial obstruction.

      But we have seen how little a dark horse populist like Trump could do, whatever he may have intended. It is essential that such a candidate have a shadow government to move into place immediately, carefully monitor and purge the secret agencies and military of corrupt elements, as well as Congress and the judiciary, and demand laws establishing financial monitoring of all officials and their relatives and associates for life.

      This cannot happen while the mass media are controlled by oligarchy. Unfortunately, actual destruction of mass media and terrorizing of oligarchy by the poor will probably be seen before political action has any effect at all.

      • Bob Van Noy
        November 21, 2017 at 10:02

        Again Sam F, I’m compelled to support your thinking here. I’ve admired the process in South Africa called The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and believe it could be modified and could be most useful in dealing with America’s societal injustice. Your list is an excellent beginning

        • Sam F
          November 21, 2017 at 19:56

          Yes, the TRC run by bishop Tutu apparently achieved some reconciliation; the means by which civil strife was reduced would be worth more study.

      • Annie
        November 21, 2017 at 14:08

        Sam F I was not challenging the notion that the mass media isn’t beholden to certain interest groups, and therefore do not operate objectively, or push a propaganda line. What I did challenge about CitizenOne’s comment was his statement that during the 2016 presidential campaign the press supported Trump “… and a whole bunch of reasons why the main stream media supported Trump.” I also feel that Hillary Clinton, and democratic party were primarily responsible for their losses.

        • Sam F
          November 21, 2017 at 19:59

          I understand; your comment was worthwhile and interesting, and I agree.

        • CitizenOne
          November 21, 2017 at 20:58

          See my reply to your earlier reply to my post which laid out many claims of which one was a media bias favoring Donald Trump. If you don’t understand the mechanisms and motivations for this bias then you don’t understand we have a corporate media system with all of the bottom line strategy and tactics that drive the bottom line of any corporation.

          The news anymore does not give a damn about anything other than maximizing profit and they do that by carefully monitoring ratings and promoting any story that gets ratings and ignoring any story that does not. In an election season, they also look to the largest advertisers and find ways to get them to spend their money.

          The genius of the media in 2016 was to boost a “bait” candidate (Trump) with billions in free advertising (which is actually free for them too) in order to extort the republican Super PACs to spend tons of money in order to reverse the polls showing Trump was ahead. They created this Trump paper tiger in order to get rich. That is it. End of story. Hence the billions in free advertising had an end in mind.

          Here is how it works.

          Les Moonvies CEO of CBS said of Donald Trump’s campaign to his stockholders:

          “Man, this is pretty amazing. Who would have thought this circus would would come to town? It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. [Laughs] The money’s rolling in …. This is fun.”
          “We love having 16 Republican candidates throwing crap at each other. it’s great. The more they spend, the better it is for us, and go, Donald — keep getting out there, and this is fun.”

          Read: Les Moonves, CBS, and Trump: Is TV’s business model killing democracy?

          I would argue that it most definitely is killing democracy along with a whole bunch of other things you have obviously not considered but I urge you to consider them.

          I urge you to consider what has not been laid on a platter by others before you as the likely reasons the election was lost. The real reasons are not going to be talked about by anyone too much because it would reveal the true structure of the problem which nobody wants to do. Especially not the media. Why would they voluntarily implicate themselves as a major election influence and source of bias when doing so would lay bare their ambitions to get rich and hamper future aspirations to do the same in the future? They wouldn’t would they?

          You need to look at the evidence laid out here and examine the motives and opportunities the media had to cash in on an election democracy be damned. By their own admission democracy be damned.

          Not that the CBS executive chairman and CEO might vote for the Republican presidential frontrunner, but he likes the ad money Trump and his competitors are bringing to the network.

          “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS,” he said of the presidential race.

          So there you have it. A media CEO cough in revelry about raking in the cash inadvertently reveals his hand. Hence the stories of the billions of free advertising absolutely have been shown to finger the media which had bot motive and opportunity to influence the election for their economic gain.

          Motive and opportunity along with the confession of a major media CEO are all the evidence I need to present my case.

          Go ahead and present your “No they didn’t!” case.

          • Sam F
            November 22, 2017 at 08:43

            There is substantial consistency between these views, that the mass media supported Trump indirectly by giving his improprieties airtime, and the view that they supported any candidate for profit. Likely they had a sense of audience size and ad income increasing, even when airtime was not paid by Trump. Certainly “TV’s business model [is] killing democracy” whether or not it favors a candidate, because it gives control of government to money.

            This control of government and media by money must end. We must ensure that future mass media corporation funding is restricted to limited and registered individual contributions, and that they are required to balance political presentations and viewpoints at all administrative levels. Similar restrictions must be placed upon election finance, and government officials and their relatives and associates must be monitored financially during their lives.

    • Anna
      November 21, 2017 at 16:59

      “Mueller could be investigating all of these sources of election meddling but it won’t.”
      Mueller is heavily and directly implicated in the corruption; in a democracy, he should have been facing an investigation of treasonous activities.
      ” Mueller’s FBI knew… Key among the troubling revelations from The Hill is the undercover informant’s claim that Obama’s FBI, headed at the time by director Robert Mueller, knew that “Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow” – a deal which would eventually grant the Kremlin control over 20 percent of America’s uranium supply, as detailed by author Peter Schweitzer’s book Clinton Cash and the New York Times in 2015″.

    • dahoit
      November 21, 2017 at 19:10

      The media was supporting Trump?Hah.a good one.

      • CitizenOne
        November 21, 2017 at 21:38

        Read my replies to Annie and see if yo can come up with something better than “Hah”. The media most certainly was supporting Trump in order to extort all of the cash from an unprecedented “circus” of 16 republican candidates, which is the largest number of candidates ever and which represented the largest pile of cash ever spent on an election.

        Do you find it unthinkable that the media CEOs would not want to extract the maximum dollars out of all these candidates?

        Let me just entertain how they might do this.

        First, they wouldn’t want to support any of the republicans with large Super PACs. No no, that would eliminate the possibility of fleecing the one they supported.

        They needed to find a paper tiger they could boost in the news and which would attract lots of money in order to defeat the outsider.

        The media boosted Trump as much as it could and it worked. The Super PACs poured every dollar they had into defeating him. Where did they spend a large chunk of that money? Why at the media companies of course. Advertising on mass media is the primary way elections are won.

        There were additional incentivizers for the media. Citizens United and McCutcheon vs. FEC had unleashed the floodgates of dark money as hundreds of millions flowed into Super PACs. All this was for the taking by the media corporations but they needed to devise a strategy and a plan to extort all that cash out of the enormous playing field arrayed in front of their greedy little eyes.

        How do you extort cash from Super PACs? It is easy. Just put a well known entertainer and business man out there and provide him with a couple billion in free advertising and the other republican candidates will open their wallets and pour out the contents trying to defeat him.

        Simple, logical and very effective for the media.

        How else do you explain it? Trump only spent 10 million of his own money. A paltry sum. He had no Super PACs either. He was an unwelcome outsider and an enemy of every other republican candidate. Who paid his way?

        The answer is the media.

  29. Clif
    November 20, 2017 at 22:04

    The most immediately plausible explanation for me is that this is a strategy of the HRC democratic party. Motive, to deflect criticism and provide demonized proxy, simultaneously casting doubts on Trumps, while neutralizing the content of the actual emails. It’d be interesting to see where Mifsud’s money came from.

  30. November 20, 2017 at 21:59

    I added this well-written article to a large & growing collection on various aspects of the “Russian Hacking/Interference 2016 Election False Flag, etc.” narrative. The links are available here:

    I haven’t had a chance to organize them in an outline or put a timeline on it. My working theory is that this tale began as a CIA led false flag in Spring 2016, and continued growing as it was successfully used as a prop to boost military spending and fight independent media under the guise of “fake news”.

    • Anna
      November 21, 2017 at 16:51

      “My working theory is that this tale began as a CIA led false flag in Spring 2016, and continued growing as it was successfully used as a prop to boost military spending and fight independent media under the guise of “fake news”.
      Very plausible… This is perhaps the best explanation to the Russiagate.

  31. Annie
    November 20, 2017 at 21:53

    We wanted to go to war with Iraq, and so everyone fell into line, including the Congress and Senate. We have an agenda, and everyone falls into line, including the American people. I’m not surprised by this at all. I haven’t relied on mainstream media for information for 25 years, long before the war in Iraq. Nor have I trusted them for even longer. The media is in collusion with the government, and for the most part, maybe always has been. During WWII Walter Winchell and Westbrook Pegler pushed the lie that the merchant mariners fighting in that war, and who lost more men then any branch of the armed services, were operating for the Commies and sabotaging ships. Nothing to prove that to be the case, but nonetheless they continued these allegations. After WWII and McCarthy came along 83% of them were blacklisted. Most didn’t go back. I’m well aware of this story because it’s part of my family’s history. As a child the cowboys were the good guys and the Indians who owned the land initially, and were fighting back were the bad guys. I picked up the lie as a kid, and realized my country lies to me to make themselves look better, and to justify everything they do.

    Obviously there are real journalists out there, and always have been, but it’s nothing I believe to be the case with most.

    • john wilson
      November 21, 2017 at 06:39

      I’m not quite sure who you mean by “we” wanted to go to war etc, ANNIE. I hope you mean “they” wanted to go to war as I doubt most ordinary people didn’t want war, or at least were indifferent to the drum beat of war in a far away place.

      • Annie
        November 21, 2017 at 14:31

        Of course I mean our government, and to be honest I don’t remember a whole lot of Americans against it, and if they were they were relatively silent which we can no longer afford to do. I marched against that war many times and there was little coverage in the mainstream media, so the media supported it as well. . Papers like the NY Times was even pushing it.

      • Charles Jannuzi
        November 29, 2017 at 07:58

        For what it’s worth, I remember mainstream media reporting that up to 90% of the American public supported Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Of course they also thought Iraq was behind 9-11–something that the Bush administration helped perpetuate. My point is, much of the public really are ignorant emotional fools.

    • Gail Sanders
      November 22, 2017 at 21:42

      For me it started with the first Gulf War and I haven’t watched that crap since. Wolf making a name for himself reporting on the great Patriot missiles shooting down scuds but while that may have been good for morale we discovered later not a one hit a target.

  32. November 20, 2017 at 21:51

    Most MSM journalists are war criminals.

  33. November 20, 2017 at 20:53

    Excellent article by Mr. Parry. I believe today’s “journalism” has become corporate media propaganda pushers. See link below:
    October 23, 2016
    Are The Corporate Media Propaganda Pushers For The War Criminals?

    “The effective propagandist must be a master of the art of speech, of writing, of journalism, of the poster and of the leaflet. He must have the gift to use the major methods of influencing public opinion such as the press, film and radio to serve his ideas and goals, above all in an age of advancing technology.” Josef Goebbles

    There is overwhelming evidence that there are war criminals that plotted and planned a number of wars in various countries. [1] Yet, you won’t hear or see most of the corporate controlled media exposing the criminality of the powerful war perverts in our midst, or the victims of the war criminals and their war business….
    [read more at link below]

  34. mrtmbrnmn
    November 20, 2017 at 20:36

    The establishment media has blatantly and over-eagerly been engaging in criminal journalistic malpractice ever since they blindly and knee-jerkingly backed the Queen of You Owe and the biggest sorest loser of all time. It is distressing and depressing that the richest, fattest and most over-armed but under-informed country on the planet is populated by such a gullible public, inclined to believe their own lying eyes as if their brains have been snatched. Your continual efforts to enlighten the dimwits is honorable, Mr Perry, but most likely, alas, a forlorn hope. Futile. Woe is us!

    • Sam F
      November 21, 2017 at 05:50

      Actually the efforts of true journalists have great effect, in maintaining and broadening the base of informed citizens, that is the sole hope for the future. Even when we see the grave diseases of our culture, we can see in history that pressures build to a reverse of fortunes, and unforeseen developments control the longer term course of events. The results may be tragic, may improve only by degrees, but the injustices cannot continue.

      • Bob Van Noy
        November 21, 2017 at 09:38

        Sam F, Many thanks for your statement. I’ve followed your thinking on Justice long enough to know that it is well thought out and not the least bit trite. I’m counting on exactly what you mention about the slow but necessary progress toward something like “the truth”. I agree very much that injustice cannot continue. Slowly, but definitely, the Assassination Of President Kennedy is coming to light no matter how much TPTB try to prevent that from happening.
        Now that I think about it; rather like an “invisible hand”…

  35. Ivy Mike
    November 20, 2017 at 20:18

    Please, traditional American journalism died after 9-11 when it monolithically refused to question the facts put forward by the W administration to justify the beginning of more than a decade of senseless slaughter they still refuse to report on. P on the NYT and all the others conspiring with the government to help the American people maintain their willing ignorance.

  36. Realist
    November 20, 2017 at 20:04

    Robert, you have devoted so much text to the substance of what is an ongoing soft coup within the American government that you should write a book on the subject when the outcome becomes definitive. Of course, only one of the two outcomes would allow you to freely publish your ideas in this increasingly repressive country.

    • Zachary Smith
      November 20, 2017 at 23:07

      At some point the Big Corporate Media will start refusing to “review” subversive books, and Amazon will refuse to list it. Now how in the world will any such book get sold?

      Google searches are going to start making it hard to locate Russia Today ( articles.

      Google Executive Says New Algorithm Will Hide RT, Sputnik Articles

      “We are working on detecting and de-ranking those kinds of sites — it’s basically RT and Sputnik,” Schmidt said during a question and answer session at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada. “We are well of aware of it, and we are trying to engineer the systems to prevent [the content being delivered to wide audiences]. But we don’t want to ban the sites — that’s not how we operate.”

      Notice Schmidt didn’t mention Russia Insider ( on his “deny” list. There is a current story there which is beyond ugly, but it isn’t worth Google’s attention. (The Jews, The Poles, and the History of Western Ukraine) When I’m forced to use a Google Search on a neocon-senstitive topic like Syria or Ukraine, I’ve noticed that Google News will have the NYT or Bezos’ WP at the top of the results list if “they” have a version/slant on the story “they” want people to see first.

      Anyhow, that hiding of search results is already being used against some progressive sites, and how long until Consortium News joins and Eventually “they” are going to arrange things so Joe Sixpack won’t see any news stories which “they” don’t fully approve of.


      • Dave P.
        November 20, 2017 at 23:45

        Zachary Smith –

        “When I’m forced to use a Google Search on a neocon-senstitive topic like Syria or Ukraine, I’ve noticed that Google News will have the NYT or Bezos’ WP at the top of the results list if “they” have a version/slant on the story “they” want people to see first.”

        Yes. I have noticed the same. If you search articles on The Saker, RT, Sputnik News, NEO , and other progressive sites, articles of WP, NYT, or other sites appear on the top with completely untruthful opposite views appear on the top. Full Spectrum “Censorship” may be coming very soon. EU is also working on that. This is your so called “The Free West” now. What a shame!

      • Sam F
        November 21, 2017 at 05:39

        This mechanism of suppressing dissent is already in place:
        1. Amazon severely downlists every dissent of credible source;
        2. Google lists sources of pirated free digital copies of books of social criticism, marketed by Google associates. They ignore all complaints including Cease and Desist notices until actually sued;
        3. Google Books has hired many of the copyright pirates whose companies were closed by racketeering lawsuits, who formerly ran the free-PDF piracy operations that Google lists.

        So both Google and Amazon have fully organized and funded operations to offer free copies of books they wish to suppress, thereby eliminating sales by preventing cost recovery.

        The federal judiciary refuse to allow copyright racketeering lawsuits involving political dissent, and the usual agencies investigating such matters (IRS, HSI, FBI) refuse cooperation.

      • Realist
        November 21, 2017 at 05:57

        Yes, I’ve read that series to which you refer, Zachary. It is filled with hate and ethnic animus. Anyone encountering that as his introduction to Russia Insider will surely write that blog off as a source of objective, even-handed information, which is probably Google’s intent. Most of the news and opinion in Russia Insider, which sadly gets contaminated with the bigoted stuff, is as good quality as found in RT, Sputnik and Consortium News, from which many of its articles are drawn. Unz and the Saker are also known to delve into “Jewish issues” in great depth, which can, unfortunately be used by their critics in the MSM to discredit them as bigots and not sources of reliable information. Personally, I think that much of the turmoil throughout the Middle East has been contrived by Israel to serve their own selfish ends whilst using Washington and the American taxpayer as convenient tools. However, to actually state the obvious, especially repeatedly and at length, is like setting up housekeeping in Pripyat, Ukraine, because the rents are low with lots of vacancies. Don’t think there won’t be dire consequences. I think it’s why Robert, who is not suicidal, avoids addressing that elephant in the room.

        • Skip Scott
          November 21, 2017 at 08:56

          I suspect you are right Realist. Western capitalism and Zionism are intertwined; but if you mention Zionism you are immediately labeled an anti-semite, even though not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. Like you say, best to ignore the elephant in the room.

      • Peter Loeb
        November 25, 2017 at 07:15

        To Zachafry and others–


        “…deceits do not seem to be a very new thing in history.
        Persons and groups reaching for illicit power customarily
        assume attitudes of great moral rectitude to divert attention
        from the abandonment of their own moral stands of behavior.
        Deception of the multitudes becomes necessary to
        sustain power, and the deception of others rapidly
        progresses to deception of self. All conquest, aristocracies
        have followed such paths. It would be incredible if ours had
        not.”—Francis Jennings, THE INVASION OF AMERICA,
        p. ix

        Of course, most of us including those of us on the “left”, continue
        to cling to the myth that America is “unique”. As Jennings documents
        in his book (see Introduction and Chapter 1) it isn’t.

        —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

  37. Hide BehindhBehindhere have been wake up calls but they were ignored.
    November 20, 2017 at 20:00

    College journalism prof’s, verify, verify, verify, still remembered, and used for what today is not politicly correct publications, and my code even if on minor mental masturbation discussion.
    My Gramps rule,”Ask the questions, and then question the answers is part of what journalist are not taught today.
    Unasked my 3 college profs if they had ever held a position as journalist even if a minor local news publication; none had but they all had published papers upon education.
    Witnessed professional newscaster at University settings, fawned over like cult leaders, but not once were any realy grilled upon question of whose power were they allowed to speak or write for, the decision makers.
    Not the fault of todays” journalism grads, they went for a degree in order to make big bucks, not for an Education
    America’s journalism history has always been one where it was the people who were supposed to be educated well enough to know and then question the news copy or after reviewing politicos statement if he was a pure or not.
    Remember that even before US and for years afterward that it was not the major news prints that told the truth but the pamphleteers who did the digging.
    Always been a fight by public to sort out propaganda and lies since times back. And today our digital pa.phleteers are doing that job.
    They are usually under immense pressure, but then so were the ones of greatness of past.
    The ones who spoke both truth yo power and called up the stupidity and conformity of the masses, they gained our trust.

  38. Danny Weil
    November 20, 2017 at 19:44

    It is stunning to see Lawrence Wilkerson on The Real New Network coming out against Trump. Wilkerson was Powell’s right hand man and was in on the imperialist murder of children and old people, women and the poor, in the Middle East and elsehwere.

    Journalistic standards under capitalism?

    • November 22, 2017 at 02:40

      Actually it appears that Wilkerson is someone who isn’t afraid to critique the abuse of power (at least at this point in his career) no matter his past actions. He is not someone to blindly kiss the president’s bottom simply because that’s the convenient thing to do as a military guy. Whether I happen to agree or disagree on a particular analysis, I’ve found Wilkerson is one of the few ex-military who typically has something worthwhile to say. Critiquing him for critiquing Trump seems a rather strange “critique” indeed I must say, especially when then suggesting that such a critique has to do in some fashion with “journalistic standards.” It would appear (to use your words) that you must “stun” easily.

      Check his interview of Wilkerson with Abby Martin and then please give us your take on his “journalistic standards”:

    • Sunrise Skipper
      November 26, 2017 at 10:51

      Woh! Laurence Wilkerson has been one of the shining lights uncovering the dirt of the Iraq War, torture, etc created by the Bush mob. A bit of Internet search should reveal his bona fides.

  39. D.H. Fabian
    November 20, 2017 at 19:24

    The NYT has been a leader in selling the Russian Tale ever since the election. What has been most discouraging is the degree to which the media marketed to liberals have irresponsibly joined them. It has certainly kept public attention off of some of the most critically important issues, such as the increase of troops near the Russian border since Trump took office (potential US provocation of war).

    It’s interesting to see how the tale keeps changing. Consider this from the article here: “The New York Times reported as flat fact that a Kremlin intermediary “told a Trump campaign aide, George Papadopoulos, that the Russians had ‘dirt’ on Mr. Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton, in the form of ‘thousands of emails.’” In fact, this is merely a re-telling of the part of the Russian Tale that was already dealt with last July.

    That’s when it was first reported that Trump’s publicist (Ron Goldstone) thought that attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya would be able to provide “some dirt” on Hillary Clinton, so he arranged a meeting between Veselnitskaya and Trump Jr. (note: Veselnitskaya is not a “government operative” nor a “Kremlin intermediary,” but a Russian attorney who had worked with a former program concerning US adoptions of Russian orphans.) A meeting was arranged (in New York), which Veselnitskaya had been told would concern that adoption program. It was a very brief (and, to Veselnitskaya, puzzling) introductory meeting (with at least two witnesses). The fact of the meeting was then wildly spun by the Trump campaign people into claims about “dirt of Clinton.”

    Stayed tuned for the next chapter of the Russian Tale.

  40. dahoit
    November 20, 2017 at 19:06

    Trump is the best choice for the POTUS,all the choice’s was poison.

  41. November 20, 2017 at 19:05

    When your salary’s at stake, everything else is, “So what?’

    Still, to paraphrase a US senator, “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about a real pile of corpses.”

  42. Mark K
    November 20, 2017 at 18:59

    Why does anyone believe that Steele’s sources , a top foreign ministry official and a former top level intelligence operative still active in the Kremlin isre telling the truth when they spilled Putin’s long-standing Secret plans to make a Trump President . I mean the story that they told is ridiculous. ( If they even exist, Top secret and all that old boy, very hush-hush ; take my word for it)They obviously are directly in the top-tier is of the Russian government. I am supposed to believe that they turned traitoron Russia and revealed the secret plans to disrupt the American election? Or were they feeding Steal a line that he was happy to get. I’m sure Christopher Steele till is buying a lot of Christmas presents this year. That poor Carter Page has really been screwed by this.

    • D.H. Fabian
      November 20, 2017 at 19:33

      What makes Democrats think Putin is a naive fool when his own record proves otherwise? Those who have actually followed Russian news through the years were well aware that Putin knew both Clinton and Trump signaled worsening international relations. In an era of nuclear proliferation, this presents a grave danger to all life. Remember, the Russian government and economy collapsed back in the 1990s, and they have been working on rebuilding. The last thing they wanted was increased tensions with the potential of war. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been throwing out Cold War accusations against each other for “colluding with” (meaning… who knows?) Russia while in reality, Russia hasn’t been involved at all.

      • Skip Scott
        November 21, 2017 at 08:44

        Yes, I believe you are correct. The Russians under Putin have been at least somewhat successful in rebuilding their economy, despite the USA and it’s vassals’ efforts to undermine them. They want a return to the pillaging of Russia they were enjoying under Yeltsin. Powerful people like Browder are pissed, and they are the source of the demonization of Putin. If any real evidence of Russian government involvement ever emerges I’ll eat my words, but for now all I see is smoke and mirrors.

        • occupy on
          November 21, 2017 at 12:27

          Remember that name “Browder”. And remember that name “Papadopoulis.” Their connection is the epitome of the neocon, (zionist), behind-the-curtain chess schemes to bring down Russia – the only super power that stops Israel from having its way completely in the Middle East.

          • Martin
            November 21, 2017 at 12:49

            Putin’s mentor is the arch Judeo supremacist Rabbi Marcus Wolf, the long time head of the STASI. Russia is just another of the Zionist shiksa bitches.

          • Anon
            November 22, 2017 at 21:47

            Martin, you must be referring to Rasputin, revived by sinister spirits in Transylvania, controlled by Martians. Otherwise we will need your theory as to why a zionist mentor would want Russia to intervene in the Mideast.

      • rosemerry
        November 21, 2017 at 17:05

        This is what amazes me. The conceit of the US media and many of the “leaders”, mainly in the Democratic Party this time, who think that Vladimir Putin, who is ruling a vast nation and making agreements, decisions, visits, deals, meeting hundreds of officials in so many countries, seemingly able to treat “enemies” courteously and get dissenting leaders to discuss issues including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel as well as Syria, Iraq, Iran, is involved in their pathetic version of democratic elections.

    • Bill
      November 23, 2017 at 21:40

      The Steele Dossier is garbage, just read it and it smells bad. And where’s the supporting evidence? There isn’t any.

  43. DRG
    November 20, 2017 at 18:41

    Excellent reporting. Difficult for the truth to get through when the MSM is owned or beholden to the Jewish/Israel Lobby which provokes endless wars to increase the footprint of Israel into Syria and virtually all of its neighbors after dispossessing Palestine.

    • Erik G
      November 20, 2017 at 19:15

      Yes, the US mass media are no longer a service to democracy, but a conspiracy against democracy.
      Once more CN provides an essential counterpoint to the mass media propaganda.

      Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
      While Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

    • November 20, 2017 at 22:10

      Yes, because … stockholder owned companies are owned by no particular lobby … they’re just mindless capitalists. It’s the almighty dollar that’s the controller.

      • Sam F
        November 21, 2017 at 05:26

        Actually the US mass media are almost completely controlled by zionists and their opportunist followers. More than 60% of the largest US newspapers are directly controlled by people with Jewish names, apparently zionists, and the rest are controlled by advertising companies, non-jewish zionists, etc. It is the same with other mass media, as can be quickly determined by their editorial policies. Any fair investigation by an individual is sufficient to verify this, and the resulting purely zionist political orientation of the mass media is known to every responsible citizen who cares for the truth.

        Pretending otherwise would be foolish, in most cases zionist opportunism, or zionist propaganda.

    • Abe
      November 21, 2017 at 20:20

      George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy resources.

      Papadopoulos’ LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute. The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.

      The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the neoconservative think tank in 2014.

      In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications.

      In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist movement embraced by the Israeli “settler” movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should focus on its “stalwart allies” Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to “contain the newly emergent Russian fleet”.

      In another op-ed published in Ha’aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.

      In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.

      Israel’s coming planned military assault on Lebanon and Syria has a lot to do with natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.

      Among its numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242, Israel annexed the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981.

      Geopolitical researcher F. William Engdahl has discussed the energy resources in the Golan Heights, Israel, and Trump

      Engdahl notes “we might find ourselves in another war for oil in of all places the Golan Heights, this one a war involving Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon’s Hezbollah on one side and Israel and Rex Tillerson’s 68 nation ‘anti-ISIS coalition’ on the other side, another senseless war over control of oil.”

Comments are closed.