No. Putin Did Not Try to Thwart Hillary’s Candidacy Like She Did to Him in 2012. He Didn’t Have To

(archived from Jan 4 2017) by Scott Creighton

Pussy Riot™  mission statement: When the world is being neoliberalized as fast as possible and the masters of the universe demand tribute from those seeking a place at the table, no effort to assist in that endeavor , no matter how sophomoric or insipid, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how contrived, shall go unrewarded. And Pussy Riot™ will be there to cash in

Not that long ago President Obama said that Russia and President Putin had tried to influence the outcome of our election process and that it was “unacceptable” behavior for a nation to attempt to influence the democratic process of other nations. Forget for a second that his evidence was so laughable that the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that cobbled it together, posted a disclaimer on the first page of the report that said it didn’t stand by a single shred of “proof” in it’s own report:

“this report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.”

Let’s also forget for a moment the troubling rise of the New McCarthyism in America and the lynch-mob mentality that goes along with it.

Just Plain Stupid: The Russia/Trump/Hookers/Golden Shower Blackmail Story (archive)

(archived from Jan11 2017) by Scott Creighton

And speaking of “fake news”… CNN has some breaking this morning.

what is the Russian translation for this?

Fake news outlet CNN is reporting on this story as if it is the gospel truth and they apparently refuse to link their readers/viewers to the actual 35-page document so folks can judge it for themselves. There’s good reason for that. It’s ridiculous. Here is a link to the entire 35-page “report” (PDF)

Here’s the story in a nutshell: an organization of Trump rivals in the primary contest last year hired some former British MI-6 liar to dig up some dirt on Donald Trump during the run-up to the election. The guy cobbled together some bullshit fabrications about Russia cultivating Trump for the past 5 years while simultaneously collecting sex videos of him and some hookers peeing on a bed the Obamas once slept in for blackmail purposes. The “report” was so stupid and devoid of actual facts, the group shelved the “report”. In their desperation toward the end, the Hillary team bought the rights to it, but again, because it was so stupid and sophomoric sounding, even they refused to use it.

The “Less Than Nothing” Russia Hacking Hoax Lives on While the Truth of the 5-Eyes Spying Is Forgotten

 (archived from June 2017 ) by Scott Creighton

“When it appeared to (the Deep State) that Secretary Clinton was likely to (lose) the presidency the (5-Eyes) influence campaign focused more on undercutting (President Trump’s) legitimacy and crippling (his) presidency from its start, including by impugning the fairness of the election”

No truer words have ever been written by the Deep State’s 5-Eyes political influence and destabilization campaigns.

In early March of this year, Judge Napolitano of Fox News broke a story about how the former president Barack Obama was aided by British intelligence agency GCHQ to spy on the campaign of then Republican candidate Donald J. Trump in 2016 through the use of the 5-Eyes program which allows various nations to use their spying services to aid each other, spying on their own citizens without actually having to break national laws about spying on their own citizens. This “intelligence sharing” deal allows members to ask other nations to spy on their citizens so they can’t be accused of violating their rules and the constitutions of the various member states.

When this story came out, the complicit media viciously attacked Judge Nap. and anyone else who reported on the story.

GCHQ, who typically never comments on anything they are accused of, spoke up IMMEDIATELY, denying the charge.

“The British GCHQ has responded with the following statement: “Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct ‘wire tapping’ against the then President Elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.”

For a brief moment in time, the general public started hearing about 5-Eyes, many for the first time and for the next month Mockingbird personalities like Scarborough and Maddow breathlessly ranted about how dangerous it was to insult our glorious intel partners across the pond as they forecast dire possibilities about what might happen were we to lose their trust.

Then this happened on April 13th…

FBI Reports they “Lost” 5 Key Months Worth of Texts Between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page (archive)

 (archived from Jan 22 2018) by Scott Creighton

It must be good to be king.

Years ago the CIA deliberately destroyed videos of their interrogations (read as “torture”) of various terror suspects that congress had demanded to see for their investigation into 9/11.

Hillary Clinton deliberately used a private email server (illegal by the way) so that the record of her time in office as Secretary of State wouldn’t include communications she would rather it didn’t include. One of her staffers smashed two of her blackberry devices with a hammer when the FBI announced their investigation into the matter while thousands of emails were illegally deleted because Hillary says they were “personal”

And recently, during an ongoing lawsuit, the NSA had to report they “regretted” destroying a bunch of data they collected with their illegal and unconstitutional spying program where they have been spying on every U.S. citizen for decades without cause and without warrants. They had been under order from the courts to maintain that data and they promised to do so. They also “accidentally” erased all the back-ups of that data. Oops...

Last Friday the FBI had to admit they “lost” 5 months worth of texts between Peter Stzok and his girl-toy co-worker Lisa Page. Those texts they “lost” were during a particularly important time during the “Russian collusion” investigation.

A VERY IMPORTANT TIME.

For those of you who don’t know, I covered Peter Strzok back in Aug. of 2017, long before he became a household name.

Peter was involved in the Hillary Clinton email server investigation (he was one of three who were in the room when she was questioned) and then he moved onto the Trump/Russia thing right afterwards. Mueller eventually put him on his staff in May of 2017 when that thing kicked off.

The Declassified Russian Hacking “Intelligence” Report Is Devoid of Any Evidence and Apparently Based on Previous Lies (archive)

(archived from January 7, 2017)

by Scott Creighton

Yesterday (Friday Jan. 6th 2017) around 1pm, the Department of National Intelligence released their declassified report (PDF) on the Russian hacking story or the Russian “influence” story that has been taking shape here in the States surrounding Hillary Clinton’s crash and burn presidential campaign of 2016.

At about the same time, a man got off a plane in Florida and took a gun from his checked bag and opened fire on people in the baggage claim area of an airport, emptying 3 clips before lying down on the ground and waiting to be arrested. That man claimed earlier that the CIA had been trying to force him to watch “ISIS” videos.

Each and every page of the declassified report contains in the top header an official disclaimer of sorts which reads:

“This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.”

Key here is the fact that the report contains no facts. None. Zip. Zilch. No evidence reported in the report whatsoever.

Also key is the word “assessment” and in the beginning of the declassified report, they take the time to explain that term:

“When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as “we assess” or “we judge,” they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment. Some analytic judgments are based directly on collected information; others rest on previous judgments, which serve as building blocks in rigorous analysis“

“(O)thers rest on previous judgments”. Got that? No evidence reported in this report and they tell you right off the bat that in all likelihood, this “assessment” is based on “previous” assessment, which as we all know, were bullshit. “Grizzly steppe” anyone?