Flashback: See How The Media Spread Russian Hoax Lies As Obama Intel Agencies Created Them
Using a declassified document released this week, it has never been easier to see how the propaganda press partners with politicians to hoodwink the public and shape the political landscape.
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, released a 2020 Oversight Investigation and Referral report about a 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) titled, “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election.”
It showed that under the direction of former President Barack Obama, then-CIA Director John Brennan and a handful of intelligence agents slapped together an ICA in two weeks, soon after Hillary Clinton lost the election. The ICA was used as the foundation of the Russia collusion hoax — the lie that Trump and Russia together cheated to win the 2016 election.
But the ICA was a terrible foundation for such a claim, because it was hastily written and had sketchy sourcing, including the fabricated and now debunked Steele dossier; and a six-word fragment of a sentence that mentioned Trump out of context. The report shows that intelligence agents argued with Brennen, telling him not to use information that was substandard, unclear, of uncertain origin, biased, or implausible.
The Federalist’s Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway and Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland have an exclusive, must-read report with details on the strenuous objections high-level intelligence officers had to including the Steele dossier as a source for the ICA. Brennan included it anyway. Soon Obama and the propaganda press were passing off the suspect ICA report as solid proof of collusion.
With the HPSCI report in hand, rereading the corporate media articles that were used to spread the Russia hoax shows just how corrupt the media lies were. And instead of issuing correction notices, The New York Times and Washington Post are now doubling down on the hoax.
New York Times Then
The New York Times has written many pieces bolstering the Russia hoax and perpetuating the narrative.
A January 2017 piece by David Sanger uncritically repeats the exact claims that the HPSCI report proves were completely made-up propaganda.
“American intelligence officials have concluded that the president of Russia, Vladimir V. Putin, personally ‘ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election,’ and turned from seeking to ‘denigrate’ Hillary Clinton to developing ‘a clear preference for President-elect Trump. The conclusions were part of a declassified intelligence report, ordered by President Obama,’” NYT reported.
There is the reference to the sketchy ICA Obama ordered. We know that is propaganda because the newly released report shows Russia didn’t care who won the election but had reasons to prefer a Clinton victory.
Even so, in 2018, the New York Times and Washington Post received a shared Pulitzer Prize for their damaging, untrue reporting of what they call “Russiagate,” proving the worthless prize is awarded not for news, but for the best propaganda game.
New York Times Now
The New York Times is still running cover for the Russia collusion hoax today, perhaps because to report honestly on it would implicate its own newsroom in the conspiracy. One piece published this week said that “none of the new information changes the fundamental view that Russia meddled in the election and that Mr. Putin hoped to damage Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee.”
In another piece, “Gabbard Claims Obama Administration Tried to Undermine Trump in 2016,” the New York Times reports that Democrats are calling the newly released report “politically motivated and error-ridden.”
Just a few weeks ago, the Times admitted the ICA had flaws. It published a July 2 piece titled “C.I.A. Says Its Leaders Rushed Report on Russia Interference in 2016.” But even in this piece, NYT held that that Russia preferred Trump.
Quoting unnamed “former officials,” the Times reported that the Steele dossier, “Was not used in drawing conclusions of the assessment and that Mr. Brennan was opposed to its inclusion [in the ICA].”
But the report released this week says the opposite: that Brennan wanted to include the Steele dossier and it was used specifically to support the Russia collusion hoax.
The Washington Post Then
The other Russia collusion hoax Pulitzer Prize winner, The Washington Post, produced many stories on the topic, including a slick, 11-minute video in June 2017 using the sketchy ICA as proof of the claims made in the piece. Reporters speaking over sinister, investigative mood-music describe how a courier arrived at the White House in August 2016, with “an envelope of highly classified material that can only be shared with Obama,” and his three top aides, Avril Haines, Denis McDonough, and Susan Rice.
It was a report from CIA Director John Brennan that said Russia was interfering with the election, trying damage Clinton and help Trump.
“The CIA director was convinced that this was as close to smoking gun evidence that the CIA ever gets,” Greg Miller, Washington Post National Security Reporter explained.
The video never shows a photo of the report, never says precisely what is in it, never explains how the Post came to know about the “top secret” report, and never makes it clear that any reporter ever laid eyes on it. The viewer is simply supposed to believe the reporters.
The Washington Post Now
After Gabbard released the documents showing the Post’s Pulitzer-winning story was all a massive hoax, the Post doubled down on the lies. A report titled, “Gabbard uses surprise White House appearance to attack Trump’s enemies on the Russia investigation” was written by Reporters David Klepper, Eric Tucker and Chris Megerian. It claims Gabbard was “escalating her attempts to undermine the long-settled conclusion that Russia tried to help Trump beat Hillary Clinton for the presidency nearly a decade ago.” The piece was picked up by the Associated Press which means, like a heat rash, its mischaracterizations are spreading, being reprinted in local news outlets across the nation.
The Washington Post has produced several similar pieces within hours, attempting to discredit Gabbard, Trump, and most of all, information that refutes its “award winning” reporting.
Post a Comment