The Russia Hoax - Not

nohero said:

This is their transcript of that video, and it's Aaron Mate explaining things. What is the "bombshell" which we're supposed to learn from him in this?

SCANDAL_-The-OPCW-Syria-Cover-up-exposed-by-Investigative-Journalist-Aaron-Mate.pdf (actvism.org)

That the final report was altered and not written by those who did the original inspection.

That multiple people (such as Robert Fisk) who were on the ground in Syria had a problem with the premise that chlorine gas was used.  Fisk talked to a doctor at the scene who said it was NOT chlorine gas.

Those on the original team who complained that their findings were changed were removed from the investigation.  They were replaced by a group who did not go to Syria but who wrote the report according to mainstream narrative.

That there was a big cover-up and the final report was not written by those who actually inspected the site (03/2019).

That Wikileaks exposed some of the coverup--that what was being said publicly was different that what was said privately.  Also a BBC podcast that repeated the Bellingcat disinformation.

Multiple journalistic lapses 

There is a statement of concerned signed by at least 5 former OPCW employees

A US delegation visted the Hauge and lobbied to get the report to reflect the mainstream narrative. 

There has been attacks on the whistleblowers to try to discredit them (Bellingcat  published a fake letter)

There is a suppressed toxicology report that says it was NOT chlorine gas.

The mainstream media ignores this story. 

. . . and more.


nan said:

If you don't express the views held by your mainstream media position, you will be fired.  If you support Big Oil, there might be some mainstream media venue to seek another job.  If you focus on the fact that we have an oligarchy instead of a democracy, your choices are limited except for Substack, Patreon, or something else self-funded.  That's the reality. 


This in itself all gray zone propaganda.


nan said:

drummerboy said:

"research", (appropriately scare quoted) is finding people on the internet that you agree with.

Mate's research on this is the best on the planet.  I don't know how anyone can listen to the video I posted and still think there was a chemical attack.  He has multiple sources and evidence - it's not just Aaron Mate who protested about this. The mainstream media ignores the story, but that's on them -- and further shows how they lie or ignore certain narratives in favor of those that promote endless war. 

Which planet?


sbenois said:

Which planet?

Uranus 


jamie

Jun 20, 2022 at 1:39pm Edited

nan said:

If you don't express the views held by your mainstream media position, you will be fired. If you support Big Oil, there might be some mainstream media venue to seek another job. If you focus on the fact that we have an oligarchy instead of a democracy, your choices are limited except for Substack, Patreon, or something else self-funded. That's the reality.

This in itself all gray zone propaganda.

=========================================

This did not come from the Grayzone.   It came from the multiple people who used to work in the mainstream news and were fired because they would not fall in line.  Examples include Chris Hedges, Ed Schultz and more.  

It also came from Noam Chaomsky


Yeah, I can't disagree with Nan too much here, except for giving any credit all to Top Scum Tucker Carlson.

You rarely see any strongly disparate views on the MSM. You almost never see anyone from labor. While I see no reason to ever see Glenn Greenwald on CNN, there are plenty of other voices they can find to give some balance to the conventional wisdom that dominates our discourse.

But that's what you get with our terrible first amendment. We're stuck with a profit driven, corporate controlled media til the end of time.


This came out yesterday in the New York Times.  I have never liked Bret Stephens, but I give him credit for writing this apology and for admitting that the Trump-Russia scandal was a hoax.  He also makes insightful remarks about privilege and  the failure of voter shaming. 

I Was Wrong About Trump Voters

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/bret-stephens-trump-voters.html

Nor were they impressed by Trump critics who had their own penchant for hypocrisy and outright slander. To this day, precious few anti-Trumpers have been honest with themselves about the elaborate hoax — there’s just no other word for it — that was the Steele dossier and all the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media, that flowed from it.

nan said:

This came out yesterday in the New York Times.  I have never liked Bret Stephens, but I give him credit for writing this apology and for admitting that the Trump-Russia scandal was a hoax.  He also makes insightful remarks about privilege and  the failure of voter shaming. 

I Was Wrong About Trump Voters

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/bret-stephens-trump-voters.html

Nor were they impressed by Trump critics who had their own penchant for hypocrisy and outright slander. To this day, precious few anti-Trumpers have been honest with themselves about the elaborate hoax — there’s just no other word for it — that was the Steele dossier and all the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media, that flowed from it.

Reread that carefully -- He's calling the Steele dossier an elaborate hoax, not the hacking of the DNC or what you're calling "Russiagate" more broadly.

For that matter, go back and re-read every interaction I've had with you on "Russiagate" and see if you ever see me talking about the Steele Dossier. You'll find hardly anything, because I withheld judgment about it until it could be further verified, which it never was.


nan said:

This came out yesterday in the New York Times.  I have never liked Bret Stephens, but I give him credit for writing this apology and for admitting that the Trump-Russia scandal was a hoax.  He also makes insightful remarks about privilege and  the failure of voter shaming. 

I Was Wrong About Trump Voters

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/bret-stephens-trump-voters.html

Nor were they impressed by Trump critics who had their own penchant for hypocrisy and outright slander. To this day, precious few anti-Trumpers have been honest with themselves about the elaborate hoax — there’s just no other word for it — that was the Steele dossier and all the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media, that flowed from it.

you need to be bit a bit more careful with your sources as mr. bedbug (look it up) is probably the dumbest NYT columnist.

no mean feat.


PVW said:

nan said:

This came out yesterday in the New York Times.  I have never liked Bret Stephens, but I give him credit for writing this apology and for admitting that the Trump-Russia scandal was a hoax.  He also makes insightful remarks about privilege and  the failure of voter shaming. 

I Was Wrong About Trump Voters

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/bret-stephens-trump-voters.html

Nor were they impressed by Trump critics who had their own penchant for hypocrisy and outright slander. To this day, precious few anti-Trumpers have been honest with themselves about the elaborate hoax — there’s just no other word for it — that was the Steele dossier and all the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media, that flowed from it.

Reread that carefully -- He's calling the Steele dossier an elaborate hoax, not the hacking of the DNC or what you're calling "Russiagate" more broadly.

For that matter, go back and re-read every interaction I've had with you on "Russiagate" and see if you ever see me talking about the Steele Dossier. You'll find hardly anything, because I withheld judgment about it until it could be further verified, which it never was.

He is saying the whole thing was a hoax and he's apologizing to Trump voters.  If he thought there was any truth to a part of it, he would have put that in. 

I know you can't let go but you need to. 


drummerboy said:

nan said:

This came out yesterday in the New York Times.  I have never liked Bret Stephens, but I give him credit for writing this apology and for admitting that the Trump-Russia scandal was a hoax.  He also makes insightful remarks about privilege and  the failure of voter shaming. 

I Was Wrong About Trump Voters

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/bret-stephens-trump-voters.html

Nor were they impressed by Trump critics who had their own penchant for hypocrisy and outright slander. To this day, precious few anti-Trumpers have been honest with themselves about the elaborate hoax — there’s just no other word for it — that was the Steele dossier and all the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media, that flowed from it.

you need to be bit a bit more careful with your sources as mr. bedbug (look it up) is probably the dumbest NYT columnist.

no mean feat.

I can't stand Bret Stephens--I don't even remember why but I know he was one of the worst.  But, I will give credit where credit is due.  Lots of really smart people were fooled by Russiagate, so intelligence may not be all it's cracked up to be. 


nan said:

PVW said:

Reread that carefully -- He's calling the Steele dossier an elaborate hoax, not the hacking of the DNC or what you're calling "Russiagate" more broadly.

For that matter, go back and re-read every interaction I've had with you on "Russiagate" and see if you ever see me talking about the Steele Dossier. You'll find hardly anything, because I withheld judgment about it until it could be further verified, which it never was.

He is saying the whole thing was a hoax and he's apologizing to Trump voters.  If he thought there was any truth to a part of it, he would have put that in. 

I know you can't let go but you need to. 

In that column, Stephens includes a link to his "Steele dossier is a hoax" column from last year. It's not the first time he wrote that.  If you read the earlier column, he get some significant facts wrong.

More important, the whole "Russiagate" concern wasn't relying on Steele's notes, but columnists like Stephens have decided to "rewrite history" like that.


If Nan can't point me to a column where Stephens says that the claim that Russia hacked the DNC was a hoax, then I stick by my earlier claim that she's misreading what Stephens is saying here.


nohero said:

nan said:

PVW said:

Reread that carefully -- He's calling the Steele dossier an elaborate hoax, not the hacking of the DNC or what you're calling "Russiagate" more broadly.

For that matter, go back and re-read every interaction I've had with you on "Russiagate" and see if you ever see me talking about the Steele Dossier. You'll find hardly anything, because I withheld judgment about it until it could be further verified, which it never was.

He is saying the whole thing was a hoax and he's apologizing to Trump voters.  If he thought there was any truth to a part of it, he would have put that in. 

I know you can't let go but you need to. 

In that column, Stephens includes a link to his "Steele dossier is a hoax" column from last year. It's not the first time he wrote that.  If you read the earlier column, he get some significant facts wrong.

More important, the whole "Russiagate" concern wasn't relying on Steele's notes, but columnists like Stephens have decided to "rewrite history" like that.

Do you seriously think the Steele Dossier is real?  


PVW said:

If Nan can't point me to a column where Stephens says that the claim that Russia hacked the DNC was a hoax, then I stick by my earlier claim that she's misreading what Stephens is saying here.

Like I said, you won't let it go.  He's calling the whole thing a hoax.  More people will follow soon.  It will be a joke.   


nan said:

nohero said:

In that column, Stephens includes a link to his "Steele dossier is a hoax" column from last year. It's not the first time he wrote that.  If you read the earlier column, he get some significant facts wrong.

More important, the whole "Russiagate" concern wasn't relying on Steele's notes, but columnists like Stephens have decided to "rewrite history" like that.

Do you seriously think the Steele Dossier is real?  

Your question has nothing to do with my comment about Stephens or the column being discussed. 


nan said:

Like I said, you won't let it go.  He's calling the whole thing a hoax.  More people will follow soon.  It will be a joke.   

Except he didn't. I mean, you can claim his words are different than what they are if you like, but we can all see his actual words just a few posts above. Is this like when you read about the 14,000 casualties in the Donbas over eight years and still don't understand that it includes people killed by separatists?


nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

In that column, Stephens includes a link to his "Steele dossier is a hoax" column from last year. It's not the first time he wrote that.  If you read the earlier column, he get some significant facts wrong.

More important, the whole "Russiagate" concern wasn't relying on Steele's notes, but columnists like Stephens have decided to "rewrite history" like that.

Do you seriously think the Steele Dossier is real?  

Your question has nothing to do with my comment about Stephens or the column being discussed. 

Ok, I'll take that as a "yes."   Pathetic. 


PVW said:

nan said:

Like I said, you won't let it go.  He's calling the whole thing a hoax.  More people will follow soon.  It will be a joke.   

Except he didn't. I mean, you can claim his words are different than what they are if you like, but we can all see his actual words just a few posts above. Is this like when you read about the 14,000 casualties in the Donbas over eight years and still don't understand that it includes people killed by separatists?

His column is not about proving bits and pieces of Russiagate.  You are trying to make it that by calling for an inventory of key points.  If he's apologizing to Trump voters for believing in the Russiagate hoax, he's not saying any part of it is real. 


nan said:

His column is not about proving bits and pieces of Russiagate.  You are trying to make it that by calling for an inventory of key points.  If he's apologizing to Trump voters for believing in the Russiagate hoax, he's not saying any part of it is real. 

Nowhere does he say "Russiagate." He does say "Steele Dossier." If you want to keep on insisting on words that aren't there, I guess I can't stop you, but this is another example of your trouble understanding the sources you cite.


PVW said:

nan said:

His column is not about proving bits and pieces of Russiagate.  You are trying to make it that by calling for an inventory of key points.  If he's apologizing to Trump voters for believing in the Russiagate hoax, he's not saying any part of it is real. 

Nowhere does he say "Russiagate." He does say "Steele Dossier." If you want to keep on insisting on words that aren't there, I guess I can't stop you, but this is another example of your trouble understanding the sources you cite.

We will have to agree to disagree.  You need to hang on to the "Russians hacked the DNC" myth as it's the basis of the "Putin is a madman who wants to conquer the world" Disney villain concocted by the Mind of Putin Scholars Club (NATO/Atlantic Council/CIA).

My sources support the emptiness and danger of this approach. 


Trump’s 2016 campaign chair, Paul Manafort, has written a book, and to sell it, he gave a long interview to Mattathias Schwartz of Insider. In the interview, Manafort admitted what the Senate Intelligence Committee said in their report about Russian interference in the 2016 election…..he gave internal polling data from the Trump campaign to Konstantin Kilimnik, who, according to the Senate report, was a Russian intelligence agent. Manafort had previously denied this story.

Manafort told Schwartz that he was not trying to swing the election but hoped to convince pro-Russian oligarchs to do business deals with him by showing that he had access to Trump and that Trump could beat Democratic presidential candidate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Manafort says he didn’t know kilimnick worked for Russian intelligence….kilimnick will obviously claim that people hate Russians these day and will not believe him… 


Jaytee said:

Trump’s 2016 campaign chair, Paul Manafort, has written a book, and to sell it, he gave a long interview to Mattathias Schwartz of Insider. In the interview, Manafort admitted what the Senate Intelligence Committee said in their report about Russian interference in the 2016 election…..he gave internal polling data from the Trump campaign to Konstantin Kilimnik, who, according to the Senate report, was a Russian intelligence agent. Manafort had previously denied this story.

Manafort told Schwartz that he was not trying to swing the election but hoped to convince pro-Russian oligarchs to do business deals with him by showing that he had access to Trump and that Trump could beat Democratic presidential candidate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Manafort says he didn’t know kilimnick worked for Russian intelligence….kilimnick will obviously claim that people hate Russians these day and will not believe him… 

There was no evidence that Konstantin Kilminik was a Russian agent.  

Accused Russian 'spy' Kilimnik refutes US intel claims and exposes key Mueller falsehood

In an exclusive interview, key Russiagate figure Konstantin Kilimnik responds to evidence-free allegations that he is a Russian spy who shared Trump polling data in 2016.

https://mate.substack.com/p/accused-russian-spy-kilimnik-refutes


Two unidentified officials told NBC News that U.S. intelligence "has developed new information" about Kilimnik "that leads them to believe" (emphasis added) that he passed on the polling data to Russia. But these sources "did not identify the source or type of intelligence that had been developed," nor "when or how" it was received.

nan said:

There was no evidence that Konstantin Kilminik was a Russian agent.  

Accused Russian 'spy' Kilimnik refutes US intel claims and exposes key Mueller falsehood

In an exclusive interview, key Russiagate figure Konstantin Kilimnik responds to evidence-free allegations that he is a Russian spy who shared Trump polling data in 2016.

https://mate.substack.com/p/accused-russian-spy-kilimnik-refutes

Well, duh.


Why does it take a spy to share polling data?


ridski said:

Two unidentified officials told NBC News that U.S. intelligence "has developed new information" about Kilimnik "that leads them to believe" (emphasis added) that he passed on the polling data to Russia. But these sources "did not identify the source or type of intelligence that had been developed," nor "when or how" it was received.

nan said:

There was no evidence that Konstantin Kilminik was a Russian agent.  

Accused Russian 'spy' Kilimnik refutes US intel claims and exposes key Mueller falsehood

In an exclusive interview, key Russiagate figure Konstantin Kilimnik responds to evidence-free allegations that he is a Russian spy who shared Trump polling data in 2016.

https://mate.substack.com/p/accused-russian-spy-kilimnik-refutes

Well, duh.

Yeah, they don't have real evidence. 


Evidence doesn't matter.  We have previously established that the less the evidence, the greater the likelihood that an allegation is true.  Or maybe that only applies to the CIA?


tjohn said:

Why does it take a spy to share polling data?

The polling data was nothing secret.  It was numbers from Real Clear Politics.  It was not some special secret numbers.  It was never used to influence the election in any way.  

Kilimnik was a business associate of Paul Manafort and worked with him in Ukraine.  He has a Russian passport so the media went nuts about him thinking he was the real deal spy.  The Muller report said he seemed to have some "ties" to Russian intelligence but they never explained what "ties" meant.  That's not a clear term.  No evidence was shown.

In January 2019, Manafort said he gave polling data to Kilimnik (see above).  The Muller report verified that this polling data had zero to do with any election interference.  

Then that Senete committe report said he was a Russia spy with no evidence. Muller has more access to information than this committee and he did not show that Kilimnik was a spy.  How did this report, with less access determine that?  They don't say. 

Here's the curious issue:  Kilimnik had deep contact with the US State Department when he was a regular visitor at the Ukraine embassy.  They never had a problem with him being a contact for the State Department--that's a bigger deal than just working for Paul Manafort.  If he were a spy, I'm guessing the US State Department would not have used him as a source at the Ukraine embasy.  He even translated during meetings with Victoria Nuland!   While she was trying to overthrow Ukraine! This was pointed out by journalist John Soloman, writing for the HIll. He also worked for some Republican Institute (IRI), funded by the US government. He was loved at this place and promoted to a top position.

His only documented government ties are to the US government.

If this guy was a Russian Spy than that's a huge problem for the US government who had this guy listening to top secret stuff for ten years.  That's a much bigger story than his getting some useless poll data. 

This is a podcast (not a video).  Listen starting at 43.48.  


The polling data was from trump’s campaign. Kilimnick is a Russian intelligence officer…with ties to Rick gates….spare me the blathering from the useful idiots 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Rentals

Sponsored Business

Find Business