Connect with us

Latest

News

Staff Picks

The AP Leak and Hillary’s Victory Night

AP’s announcement of Hillary Clinton’s victory on the eve of the California primary contradicts the whole essence of democracy.

Kevin Henderson

Published

on

856 Views

On June 6th, 2016,  a modern political heist was viewed by thousands of Americans on the Internet in real time.

The moment I saw the AP’s “breaking story”, via a Zero Hedge post, I had a sinking feeling in my heart, the kind I get watching burning skyscrapers crumble into their footprints. A crime of the political season was taking place. In a few minutes, the MSN spin machine would wash the dirt away and declare the crime “official.” I wrote the following notes the night of June 7th, unable to find the Californian primary results that were supposed to matter. California is, of course the primary where, years ago, Bobby Kennedy pulled off a surprising win and was then shot to death. California has had special primary baggage ever since (indeed, Clinton made a strange reference to Kennedy in a previous campaign), and was perhaps the perfect place for the DNC and willing assistants at AP and other media allies to pull a full blown heist in under twenty minutes.

Whoever did this timed the act to make California’s vote moot before the day of the primary. According to the newswires, this was an astonishing success.

The first post that appeared from AP was around 8pm on June 6th, the night before  the primaries. AP’s article was then shared on Zero Hedge. The full  AP “story” has apparently disappeared down a Memory Hole, but you can read it here.

This article was brazen propaganda, and something new:  A declaration of fait accompli victory the night before a single June 7th primary vote was cast.

The AP story is peculiar.  The theme is past tense and capital-H Historic — the final confirmation of the first woman presidential nominee ever. It reads like it was written by the Clinton campaign itself, or a DNC lackey; it certainly does not read like the product of a neutral news organization:

“Campaigning as the loyal successor to the nation’s first black president, Clinton held off a surprisingly strong challenge from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. He mobilized millions with a fervently liberal message and his insurgent candidacy revealed a deep level of national frustration with politics-as-usual, even among Democrats who have controlled the White House since 2009.” Keep in mind this is a day before the CA primary.

According to AP, this pre-primary “victory story” was based entirely on anonymous interviews with some or many “Super Delegates”, all of whom apparently whispered their secrets to loyal AP operatives.

I knew that within the seconds the AP meme would spread to CNN, Fox News, ABC/NBC/CBS, the New York Times, and Washington Post, as indeed it did. Within an hour it was everywhere.

This was a new variety of sleazy campaign tricks for a political candidate, and a propaganda coup for the AP.  Why not just leak a proclamation of something, let the wires pick it up, and then, voilá, declare victory the night before?

Late night on the 6th, The New York Times, Politico, Huffington Post and various other Clinton supporters, many with established financial and PR interests in the investment (I mean candidate) were smugly proclaiming victory. Very interestingly, the talking points raised in the AP “story”, and similar prose in the New York Times and Politico, re-appeared, in very similar language, in Hillary’s “Acceptance Speech” the next night.  The agitprop wasn’t subtle: This is the First Woman President; this is Historic; Sanders had done a good job “mobilizing millions”; that, hey, it was tough for those tough but loveable Bernie-Bots to lose; but the Democrats must forget the differences between Sanders and Clinton and “Come Together, Right Now”. (Incredibly, a HuffPo editorial brought a deceased John Lennon into this fiasco.)

The next afternoon, Hillary’s campaign declared “History Made” on her Twitter feed, and prepared to present the speech. She’d won New Jersey, you see. Not a single vote from California had been counted.

Hilary Clinton’s “Victory Speech” the evening of June 7th was quite a performance: planned, big-time, with the usual ugly color scheme typical of whitehouse.gov presentations.

There was a pre-game, so to speak, for a few minutes.

There was no way to tell how many people were in the mid-sized auditorium, but at least half seemed to be stacked up behind the podium. A young woman sang The Star Spangled Banner, as though this were Inauguration Day, seven months in advance. The people behind the podium began to wave little American flags – doubtlessly dispensed by a patriotic gnome backstage. The lights dimmed – this was show business after all. Over loudspeakers come the voices of unknown supporters, interspersed with “classic” quotations from that great successor of all humanitarians, Hillary Clinton.

The lights came up and The Great Leader beamed in what appeared to be a joyous emotional orgasm, but Hillary’s eyes were peculiar. Behind the smiles I heard the voice of a woman who, upon learning that Gaddafi had been ritually murdered, happily exclaimed “We came, we saw, he died”.

Her demeanor displayed a forgone conclusion:  Hillary Clinton is already the President!

Then there was a bit of a letdown – Hillary started to speak and the microphone was off.  A sound person attempted to find a fader on a mixing board. Then there was a scream of feedback, but Hillary didn’t even wince. She knew. This was her moment. The sound stayed bad for the entire thing; the engineer couldn’t balance the levels. With all of their Clinton Cash, between the chintzy flags and bad sound (not to mention previous choice of IT professionals for private servers) this was a typically cheap public Clinton production: Hot dogs, not caviar, for the troops.

I can’t report on the Speech, because I record sounds myself, and there are some voices that really grate on you. When Hillary gets that self-righteous bullhorn going, we must follow Dante and abandon the wife of the boy from Hope. However, one can observe the aesthetics of the thing. The narcissism of our current Great Leader is well documented, but Hillary is something else. She took credit for many vague successes and appropriated the triumphant struggles of everything from feminism to the civil rights movement. And she promised her followers, without a hint of $300,000 G-Sachs irony, hey, we’re really gonna go after those big banks. Best of all, Hillary talked “street”: “I’ve got your back,” she thundered. With enough drinks in them, the audience, along with Beltway cronies getting tanked right now, might actually believe this.

Reflecting on the above, I wonder if Trump even has a chance. He’s got a million topics to grill Hillary over (Iraq, an FBI indictment, Benghazi, Libya, Syria, targeting victims of her husband’s sexual harassment, etc.). Every American should read Roger Morris’ “Partners in Power” (1996) and learn about dozens more. “Crooked Hillary” is no mere libel — there are public records of too many things.

But in spite of Trump’s talent for hard debate and asking politically incorrect questions, I wonder if Trump is a mere amateur compared to this Clinton Cosa Nostra. The Clintons not only have their cash, via the Clinton Foundation, Goldman Sachs, Soros, and other banks and philanthropists, but they also have the willing support and love of all the media who participated in the heist last night – from the BBC/ABC/NBC/CBS, to Politico and the Huffington Post, etc. The Clintons have powerful friends who will control the echo chamber.

For millions of Americans of all shades of political grey, and for the democratic process in this country, the Clintons and AP showed complete contempt.

It’s interesting to speculate on some Clinton protegés who might end up with high ranks in a Hillary Clinton administration.

This week, Victoria Nuland was speaking to some Senators about some kind of alternate world in which the evil Russians are winning the propaganda wars over issues like “U.S. Assets in Ukraine.”

To the average American, such topics make little sense. The average American is concerned with obtaining or keeping a decent job, or receiving another paycheck of any kind. Many worry about the next couch to crash on. Russia is far away and generally not considered important business, certainly not to anyone with a life who’s trying to survive.

Victoria Nuland, political mastermind that she is, was actually telling the Senators what a shame it is that Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, et al, cannot compete with Russia Today (RT).  Nuland was among the masterminds who helped engineer the tragic civil wars/coups in Libya and the Ukraine.

[Off topic: If I could address the Congress on behalf of millions of American viewers: perhaps it’s not that RT is the perfect propaganda machine; perhaps instead RT is a) aesthetically more interesting than CNN, b) insults the viewer’s intelligence way, way less than CNN.]

State department types, along with the CIA and other Responsibility to Protect-ors,  are encouraging NATO allies to conduct “war games” and stir up anti-Russian sentiment in the likes of Latvia, while installing missiles right up to the Russian border. Provoking the Russian Bear seems insane and pathetic to most people, and I wonder if anyone outside a drunk tank inside the Beltway takes it seriously.

(Paul Craig Roberts has described this crazy rhetoric here).

Neo-liberal neo-cons like Victoria Nuland are the folks who may well get the keys to the castle in a Hillary presidency. Not only do neo-cons behave irresponsibly;  they are often arrogant and ignorant, a particularly bad combo in foreign affairs with a nuclear state like Russia which is armed to the teeth. Consequences, to the neo-cons,  are for the little people. As Nuland said, “f*ck the EU!”

There were still no California results on midnight of the 7th. The DNC, one assumes, had all night to process and perhaps fix any, ahem, “unfortunate” outcomes. They did such a great job suppressing voters in Arizona, Kentucky, Nevada, and New York, the DNC certainly can’t call itself unskilled in this line of work. Indeed, later news stories reported this to have been the case in California.

So-called left-liberals made a real stink over voter suppression when the Bush-era Republicans did it.

I hope the Sanders campaign will continue their difficult and noble struggle. Unfortunately, Sanders supporters will face the cops in DNC-run Philly, along with probable armies of paid provocateurs.  Still, despite the help of generous friends like the AP, the Clinton campaign in 2016 will be no cakewalk. There are too many scandals; we are living in strange and interesting times.  Finally, I don’t see Hillary’s support numbers planting flags on Mount Everest any time soon. The Clintons had to pull off this 24 hour California fiasco to silence a 74 year old Socialist Senator from Vermont, who fills real venues with really impassioned supporters, most of whom actually believe in something more than power, money, and the Clinton’s patron saint, Machiavelli.

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

Why Trump revoked former CIA Director’s security clearance

John Brennan loses his security clearance under suspicion that he was monetizing intelligence – this claim put forth by Senator Rand Paul.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

On Wednesday August 15, 2018, President Trump revoked former CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance. The announcement was a significant story on Fox News as shown here:

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

President Trump […] revoked the security clearance for former CIA Director John Brennan, the White House announced Wednesday, in the first decision to come from a review of access for several top Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders read a statement on behalf of the president during the start of the press briefing, saying Brennan “has a history that calls his credibility into question.”

The statement also claimed Brennan had been “leveraging” the clearance to make “wild outbursts” and claims against the Trump administration in the media.

The President has a constitutional responsibility to protect classified information and who has access to it, and that’s what he’s doing is fulfilling that responsibility in this action,” Sanders said Wednesday.

A further report and video on this matter noted that John Brennan was the first of a fairly significant number of former Obama-era intelligence officials whose security clearances are under review for possible revocation. These agents are shown below:

Naturally, the group targeted for review is crying foul and pushing the narrative that “Trump is afraid of us and what we know…”, though this does not bear up under the scrutiny of a nearly two-year investigation that has revealed absolutely no sign of a collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian agencies.

The curious nature of American government and politics is worth noting here. In addition this newspiece raises a question:

Why are former intelligence agents allowed to keep their security clearances upon termination of their employment?

This is very strange. When corporate employees in a secured firm are fired or resign or retire, their security clearances are revoked immediately. This is how a company protects its information from falling into competitor’s hands or even to hostile powers beyond the corporate world. It is standard operating procedure.

But when the US Intelligence services are concerned, this is apparently not happening. It is very surprising to see the names on this consideration list.

This concern was shared by a healthy number of Republican Senators, as reported by CNN:

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, the chamber’s second-ranking Republican, said Thursday he doesn’t understand why former employees have access to classified information at all.

He said he hardly believes Brennan was assisting the Trump White House — a reason given for why some former intelligence community employees can maintain their security clearance — and that Trump’s concern has been individuals monetizing their access to classified information for personal gain.

“Unless there is some justification not to,” Cornyn said, suggesting it might be worth having all former employees lose their clearances when they are done being in office.

And he wasn’t the only one. Of the public statements made by Republican senators, more sounded supportive of the President than against.

While President Trump’s reasoning for revoking Mr. Brennan’s clearance is well-explained, it seems very peculiar that such an issue would even exist at all.

A more detailed report is shown in the video below. This is a far more serious issue than even the US networks are revealing.

Continue Reading

Latest

Can America Ever Come Together Again?

The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org:


If ex-CIA Director John Brennan did to Andrew Jackson what he did to Donald Trump, he would have lost a lot more than his security clearance.

He would have been challenged to a duel and shot.

“Trump’s … performance in Helsinki,” Brennan had said, “exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was … treasonous.”

Why should the president not strip from a CIA director who calls him a traitor the honor and privilege of a security clearance? Or is a top-secret clearance an entitlement like Social Security?

CIA directors retain clearances because they are seen as national assets, individuals whose unique experience, knowledge and judgment may be called upon to assist a president in a national crisis.

Not so long ago, this was a bipartisan tradition.

Who trashed this tradition?

Was it not the former heads of the security agencies — CIA, FBI, director of national intelligence — who have been leveling the kind of savage attacks on the chief of state one might expect from antifa?

Are ex-security officials entitled to retain the high privileges of the offices they held, if they descend into cable-TV hatred and hostility?

Former CIA chief Mike Hayden, in attacking Trump for separating families of detained illegal immigrants at the border, tweeted a photo of the train tracks leading into Auschwitz.

“Other governments have separated mothers and children” was Hayden’s caption.

Is that fair criticism from an ex-CIA director?

Thursday, The New York Times decried Trump’s accusation that the media are “the enemy of the people.”

“Insisting that truths you don’t like are ‘fake news’ is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists ‘the enemy of the people’ is dangerous, period,” said the Times.

Fair enough, but is it not dangerous for a free press to be using First Amendment rights to endlessly bash a president as a racist, fascist, sexist, neo-Nazi, liar, tyrant and traitor?

The message of journalists who use such terms may be to convey their detestation of Trump. But what is the message received in the sick minds of people like that leftist who tried to massacre Republican congressmen practicing for their annual softball game with Democrats?

And does Trump not have a point when he says the Boston Globe-organized national attack on him, joined in by the Times and 300 other newspapers, was journalistic “collusion” against him?

If Trump believes that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post are mortal enemies who want to see him ousted or impeached, is he wrong?

We are an irreconcilable us-against-them nation today, and given the rancor across the ideological, social and cultural chasm that divides us, it is hard to see how, even post-Trump, we can ever come together again.

Speaking at a New York LGBT gala in 2016, Hillary Clinton said: “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … Some of those folks … are irredeemable, but … they are not America.”

When Clinton’s reflections on Middle America made it into print, she amended her remarks. Just as Gov. Andrew Cuomo rushed to amend his comments yesterday when he blurted at a bill-signing ceremony:

“We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great.” America was “never that great”?

Cuomo’s press secretary hastened to explain, “When the president speaks about making America great again … he ignores the pain so many endured and that we suffered from slavery, discrimination, segregation, sexism and marginalized women’s contributions.”

Clinton and Cuomo committed gaffes of the kind Michael Kinsley described as the blurting out of truths the speaker believes but desperately does not want a wider audience to know.

In San Francisco in 2008, Barack Obama committed such a gaffe.

Asked why blue-collar workers in industrial towns decimated by job losses were not responding to his message, Obama trashed these folks as the unhappy losers of our emerging brave new world:

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

These clingers to their Bibles, bigotries and guns are the people the mainstream media, 10 years later, deride and dismiss as “Trump’s base.”

What Clinton, Cuomo and Obama spilled out reveals what is really behind the cultural and ideological wars of America today.

Most media elites accept the historic indictment — that before the Progressives came, this country was mired in racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, and that its history had been a long catalog of crimes against indigenous peoples, Africans brought here in bondage, Mexicans whose lands we stole, migrants, and women and gays who were denied equality.

The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.

For such as these, Trump cannot scourge the media often enough.

Continue Reading

Latest

Are the mainstream U.S. ‘news’ media evil?

Mainstream media refuses to give airtime to intelligence professionals who can prove the current Russia-DNC narrative is a complete fabrication.

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

Eric Zuesse, published originally by The Saker:


William Binney, the U.S. National Security Agency’s former technical director for global analysis, has, for the past year, been globe-trotting to investigate the actual evidence regarding the official Russiagate investigations, and he finds that the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, who is prosecuting Russia’s Government, can only accuse Russian officials, not convict any of them on at least the important charges, because conclusive evidence exists and has already been made public online, making clear that the important accusations against those officials are false. However, Binney can’t get any of the U.S. major ‘news’ media’s interest in this fact, nor even into openly discussing it with them. Apparently, they don’t want to know. Binney is knocking on their doors, and they refuse to answer.

Patrick Lawrence, at the non-mainstream U.S. newsmedium Consortium News, headlined on Monday August 13th, “‘Too Big to Fail’: Russia-gate One Year After VIPS Showed a Leak, Not a Hack” and he reported what Binney has found and has been trying to get the major U.S. ‘news’media to present to the American public.

The “VIPS” there is Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and they are 17 whistleblowing former high officials of the CIA, NSA, State Department, and other U.S. officials with top secret national-security clearances, who jointly signed and published on 24 July 2017, their report, which likewise was at Consortium News, “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence”, in which they confirmed the validity of a 9 July 2017 report that had been published by Elizabeth Vos of Disobedient Media . com, which was titled “New Research Shows Guccifer 2.0 Files Were Copied Locally, Not Hacked” and which I then reported in more ordinary language seven days later under the headline “Russiagate Exposed: It’s a Fraud”. I quoted there the analysis’s basic finding “that the DNC computer network which the media tells us and the DNC tells us was hacked by the Russians, … was physically accessed by someone within close proximity of the DNC” and not outside the United States (Russia or anywhere else). The original research-report had been done by an anonymous person who called himself “the forensicator,” and he had sent it to Adam Carter, another highly technically knowledgeable person, who happened to be at Disobedient Media, and who then worked with Vos to prepae her article on it.

Binney, as the nation’s now-retired top NSA expert in the analysis of such matters, then followed up, during the past year, in order to probe more deeply, by contacting various individuals who had been involved behind the scenes; and Patrick Lawrence’s article was a report of what Binney had found. It’s this:

The forensic scientists working with VIPS continued their research and experiments after VIPS50 was published. So have key members of the VIPS group, notably William Binney, the National Security Agency’s former technical director for global analysis and designer of programs the agency still uses to monitor internet traffic. Such work continues as we speak, indeed. This was always the intent: “Evidence to date” was the premise of VIPS50. Over the past year there have been confirmations of the original thesis and some surprises that alter secondary aspects of it. Let us look at the most significant of these findings.

At the time I reported on the findings of VIPS and associated forensic scientists, that the most fundamental evidence that the events of summer 2016 constituted a leak, not a hack, was the transfer rate—the speed at which data was copied. The speed proven then was an average of 22.7 megabytes per second. …

The fastest internet transfer speed achieved, during the New Jersey–to–Britain test, was 12.0 megabytes of data per second. Since this time it has emerged from G-2.0’s metadata that the detected average speed—the 22.7 megabytes per second—included peak speeds that ran as high as 49.1 megabytes per second, impossible over the internet. “You’d need a dedicated, leased, 400–megabit line all the way to Russia to achieve that result,” Binney said in a recent interview. … That remains the bedrock evidence of the case VIPS and others advance without qualification. “No one—including the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA—has come out against this finding,” Binney said Monday. …

The identity of Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be a Romanian hacker but which the latest Mueller indictment claims is a construct of the GRU, Russian military intelligence, has never been proven. The question is what G–2.0 did with or to the data in question. It turns out that both more, and less, is known about G–2.0 than was thought to have been previously demonstrated. This work has been completed only recently. It was done by Binney in collaboration with Duncan Campbell, a British journalist who has followed the Russia-gate question closely.

Peak Speed Established

Binney visited Campbell in Brighton, England, early this past spring. They examined all the metadata associated with the files G–2.0 has made public. They looked at the number of files, the size of each, and the time stamps at the end of each. It was at this time that Binney and Campbell established the peak transfer rate at 49.1 megabytes per second. … “Now you need to prove everything you might think about him,” Binney told me. “We have no way of knowing anything about him or what he has done, apart from manipulating the files. …

The conclusions initially drawn on time and location in VIPS50 are now subject to these recent discoveries. “In retrospect, giving ‘equal importance’ status to data pertaining to the locale was mistaken,” Ray McGovern, a prominent VIPS member, wrote in a recent note. “The key finding on transfer speed always dwarfed it in importance.” … 

How credible are those indictments in view of what is now known about G–2.0?

Binney told me: “Once we proved G–2.0 is a fabrication and a manipulator, the timing and location questions couldn’t be answered but really didn’t matter. I don’t right now see a way of absolutely proving either time or location. But this doesn’t change anything. We know what we know: The intrusion into the Democratic National Committee mail was a local download—wherever ‘local’ is.” That doesn’t change. As to Rosenstein, he’ll have a lot to prove.”

However, yet another technically knowledgeable analyst of the available evidence, George Eliason, claims that to assert that there were only “leaks” and not also “hacks” would clearly be wrong, because there were both. On August 14th, he bannered at Washington’s Blog, “Beyond The DNC Leak: Hacks and Treason” and he wrote:

There were multiple DNC hacks. There is also clear proof supporting the download to a USB stick and subsequent information exchange (leak) to Wikileaks. All are separate events.

Here’s what’s different in the information I’ve compiled.

The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.

I’ll show why the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.

The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.

At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to State Department servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. I have already clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators.

This gives some credence to the Seth Rich leak (DNC leak story) as an act of patriotism. If the leak came through Seth Rich, it may have been because he saw foreign Intel operatives given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential election. No political operative is going to argue with the presumed president-elect over foreign policy. The leaker may have been trying to do something about it. I’m curious what information Wikileaks might have.

Eliason’s analysis doesn’t support Robert Mueller’s indictments any more than the others do. All are essentially incompatible with the accusations (including ones which now have become also indictments) from Mueller. Moreover, as Patrick Lawrence noted, “Indictments are not evidence and do not need to contain evidence. That is supposed to come out at trial, which is very unlikely to ever happen. Nevertheless, the corporate media has treated the indictments as convictions.” Maybe that’s the biggest crime of all.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending