Deep State and fake news media getting very worried

[TheGreenHornet]

Durham to interview clapper and dirty John Brennan.

It's Happening: Deep State and Fake News Media Getting Very Worried - Durham to interview Clapper and Dirty John Brennan

 

[CWayne]

Who told you they are worried?

 

[BULLDOG]

A more accurate title for your link would be
Crazy right wingers wish their enemies were getting very worried, but it doesn't seem to be happening.

 

[toobfreak]

Durham to interview clapper and dirty John Brennan.
It's Happening: Deep State and Fake News Media Getting Very Worried - Durham to interview Clapper and Dirty John Brennan

C'mon, Green! Can't you tell these two guys are as clean as the pure driven snow? Why I think one of them was my Sunday School teacher and the other my Minister! You can tell these shitstains are VERY worried. Not only was Hillary supposed to be president so they'd be protected, but now the idiot Left are jumping aboard like Bentdog and CWain to feign innocence and confidence! THEY GOT NUTTIN' TO HIDE!

What are the Left gonna do when Mueller falls through, Impeach-gate fizzles out and going into the election, Trump and Barr are laying out criminal charges on half the DNC! At this point, so many democrats are under investigation, they don't know which one to run as nominee!!!

 

[RealDave]

Deep State- hahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[TheGreenHornet]

How the deep state came to America................How the Deep State Came to America: A History

The deep state and the Death of JFK

Peter Dale Scott's meticulously documented investigation uncovers the secrets surrounding John F. Kennedy's assassination. Offering a wholly new perspective—that JFK's death was not just an isolated case, but rather a symptom of hidden processes—Scott examines the deep state of the 1960s

Scott offers a disturbing analysis of the events surrounding Kennedy's death, and of the "structural defects" within the American government that allowed such a crime to occur and to go unpunished. In nuanced readings of both previously examined and newly available materials, he finds ample reason to doubt the prevailing interpretations of the assassination. He questions the lone assassin theory and the investigations undertaken by the House Committee on Assassinations, and unearths new connections between Oswald, Ruby, and corporate and law enforcement forces.

Revisiting the controversy popularized in Oliver Stone's movie JFK, Scott probes the link between Kennedy's assassination and the escalation of the U.S. commitment in Vietnam that followed two days later. He contends that Kennedy's plans to withdraw troops from Vietnam—offensive to a powerful anti-Kennedy military and political coalition—were secretly annulled when Johnson came to power. The split between JFK and his Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the collaboration between Army Intelligence and the Dallas Police in 1963, are two of the several missing pieces Scott adds to the puzzle of who killed Kennedy and why.

Scott presses for a new investigation of the Kennedy assassination, not as an external conspiracy but as a power shift within the subterranean world of American politics. Deep Politics and the Death of JFK shatters our notions of one of the central events of the twentieth century.

 

[elongobardi]

No surprise. We know the left wing media has been lying for 3 years. It’s what they do best and they think it is a way to beat President Trump which shows how ignorant and pathetic they are just like there libtard followers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

How the deep state came to America................How the Deep State Came to America: A History

The deep state and the Death of JFK

Peter Dale Scott's meticulously documented investigation uncovers the secrets surrounding John F. Kennedy's assassination. Offering a wholly new perspective—that JFK's death was not just an isolated case, but rather a symptom of hidden processes—Scott examines the deep state of the 1960s

Scott offers a disturbing analysis of the events surrounding Kennedy's death, and of the "structural defects" within the American government that allowed such a crime to occur and to go unpunished. In nuanced readings of both previously examined and newly available materials, he finds ample reason to doubt the prevailing interpretations of the assassination. He questions the lone assassin theory and the investigations undertaken by the House Committee on Assassinations, and unearths new connections between Oswald, Ruby, and corporate and law enforcement forces.

Revisiting the controversy popularized in Oliver Stone's movie JFK, Scott probes the link between Kennedy's assassination and the escalation of the U.S. commitment in Vietnam that followed two days later. He contends that Kennedy's plans to withdraw troops from Vietnam—offensive to a powerful anti-Kennedy military and political coalition—were secretly annulled when Johnson came to power. The split between JFK and his Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the collaboration between Army Intelligence and the Dallas Police in 1963, are two of the several missing pieces Scott adds to the puzzle of who killed Kennedy and why.

Scott presses for a new investigation of the Kennedy assassination, not as an external conspiracy but as a power shift within the subterranean world of American politics. Deep Politics and the Death of JFK shatters our notions of one of the central events of the twentieth century.

Oswald was hardly a deep state.

 

[westwall]

Who told you they are worried?

Just listen to them on TV. Brennan especially is worried.

And he should be

 

[Zorro!]

A more accurate title for your link would be
Crazy right wingers wish their enemies were getting very worried, but it doesn't seem to be happening.

No. I think the post nails right on the head and I'm surprised that you aren't angrier at being lied to, mislead, and tricked into defending false positions by The Fake News Media.

These assholes even gave each other awards for this crap

WE NOW KNOW: PERPS & CHUMPS OF THE MSM (PULITZER PRIZE EDITION)

In his daily online Wall Street Journal column of December 16, James Freeman took up “Obama’s FBI and the press.” He opens his column in the spirit of accountability that animates this series:

“Thanks to a report from the Obama-appointed inspector general of the Justice Department, now everyone knows the truth about 2016. The Obama administration misled the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and wiretapped an American who supported the supported the presidential campaign of the party out of power. One of the many sad lessons is that no American can count on even the most celebrated members of the establishment press to shine a light on such abuses.”​

What everyone now knows:

By deliberately concealing exculpatory evidence, the Obama FBI, directed by James Comey, obtained a warrant from a court intended to counter foreign enemies and managed to turn the surveillance powers of the federal government against a U.S. citizen participating in our domestic politics, Carter Page.

Some of us have been concerned for a while about the abuses of the Obama FBI and their foundational challenge to free elections and a free society. Now it’s nice to see that even one of the New York Times columnists who enjoys tossing casual treason references at President Donald Trump is beginning to see the light.

“The inspector general’s report about the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation offered a hideous Dorian Gray portrait of the once-vaunted law enforcement agency,” admits Maureen Dowd in the 11th paragraph of her umpteenth column attacking Mr. Trump. She adds: “The F.B.I. run by Comey and Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was sloppy, deceitful and cherry-picking — relying on nonsense spread by Christopher Steele. ”
​

She’s referring to the British author of the now discredited “dossier” of smears paid for by Mr. Trump’s opponents. The FBI deliberately hid from the court that Mr. Steele’s own sources debunked his report.

Beyond Ms. Dowd, will the Times newsroom and that of the Washington Post now consider how they got this story so wrong for so long?​

That is a rhetorical question to which the answer is of course not.

“In 2018, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger presented Pulitzer Prizes in national reporting to the staffs of the Times and the Post.” Freeman quotes the prize citation:

For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.
​

They gave themselves a flippin AWARD for their blizzard of lies:

After special counsel Robert Mueller concluded his nearly two-year investigation and reported in March that he found no evidence of Trump collusion with Russia, the prize citation seemed to be in need of a rewrite. Now Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report undercuts more details in the reporting.​

From one of the prize-winning submissions — this Washington Post story dated February 28, 2017, by Tom Hamburger and Rosalind Helderman:

While Trump has derided the dossier as “fake news” compiled by his political opponents, the FBI’s arrangement with Steele shows that the bureau considered him credible and found his information, while unproved, to be worthy of further investigation… Steele was known for the quality of his past work and for the knowledge he had developed over nearly 20 years working on Russia-related issues for British intelligence.​

Well, not exactly:

Oops. The Post story elaborated that in 2016,

“Steele became concerned that the U.S. government was not taking the information he had uncovered seriously enough, according to two people familiar with the situation.”​

According to anyone familiar with the Horowitz report, the government should not have taken his information seriously at all.

Another Post classic that helped win the prize was the report published on May 22, 2017 [by Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima] that said Mr. Trump had asked intelligence officials

“to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.”​

Of course everyone knows now that Mr. Trump was asking them to state the plain fact that there was no collusion evidence. But according to the Post at the time:

“Current and former senior intelligence officials viewed Trump’s requests as an attempt by the president to tarnish the credibility of the agency leading the Russia investigation.”​

With the benefit of hindsight, it’s clear that the FBI deserved to have its credibility tarnished. Continued the Post:

“Senior intelligence officials also saw the March requests as a threat to the independence of U.S. spy agencies, which are supposed to remain insulated from partisan issues.”​

Is there anything more threatening than a powerful spy agency refusing to be accountable even to the duly-elected President of the United States? The Post saw things differently:

“’The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation,’ a former senior intelligence official said of the request to Coats.”​

No, it’s now clear that there truly was a lack of collusion evidence. The false statements were being made by former senior intelligence officials that the Fake News Folks were using as sources.

The Fake News New York Times:

Among the Times prize-winners was a report on April 22, 2017 [by Matt Apuzzo, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman and Eric Lichtblau]:

“Days after Mr. Comey’s news conference, Carter Page, an American businessman, gave a speech in Moscow criticizing American foreign policy. Such a trip would typically be unremarkable, but Mr. Page had previously been under F.B.I. scrutiny years earlier, as he was believed to have been marked for recruitment by Russian spies. And he was now a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Trump. Mr. Page has not said whom he met during his July visit to Moscow, describing them as ‘mostly scholars.’ But the F.B.I. took notice. Mr. Page later traveled to Moscow again, raising new concerns among counterintelligence agents. A former senior American intelligence official said that Mr. Page met with a suspected intelligence officer on one of those trips and there was information that the Russians were still very interested in recruiting him.”
​

The FBI shared all of their alleged concerns about Mr. Page’s Russian connections with the FISA court but did not share key information—including the fact that Mr. Page was working with the CIA! Is there any chance a FISA judge would have approved the FBI’s surveillance request on Mr. Page if his assistance to another arm of the federal government had been disclosed?

The full details on the Obama-Comey FBI’s abuse of power in 2016 are taking years to come to light, and not just because too many prize-winning media outlets failed to recognize them.

Where were the whistleblowers when America really needed them?

The Pulitzer Prize to the Times and the Post ranks in the hall of shame just below — but somewhere in the vicinity of — the 1932 Pulitzer awarded the Times’s Walter Duranty for the reporting that concealed the famine that killed millions in the Soviet Union. The Pulitzer board, by the way, has twice declined to withdraw the award to Duranty

 

[Superbadbrutha]

So the Deep State is anyone that doesn't like Trump or who isn't a Trump Humper.

 

[Hossfly]

So the Deep State is anyone that doesn't like Trump or who isn't a Trump Humper.

Yowsuh!