Showing posts with label Buzzfeed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buzzfeed. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

FBI Scandal Update: Dossier Writer Christopher Steele Failed To Show Up For Court

christophersteele


Former British MI-6 Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele, who was paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS’ Glenn Simpson to write and promote the dossier funded by the Democratic National Committee was a no-show in a civil court case.


The multi-million dollar libel case has brought against Buzzfeed after the media outlet published the unverified disinformation dossier at Steele’s insistence. Steele was paid to promote the fake dossier among select journalists in a smear campaign against President Donald Trump.


According to reports from Fox News, Steele was a no-show Monday for a long-requested deposition in London. The news comes as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have announced a criminal referral on Steele.



Evan Fray-Witzer, a Boston-based attorney representing Russian tech tycoon Aleksej Gubarev in multi-million dollar civil litigation, described Monday’s U.K. court actions to Fox News. “My understanding is that Mr. Steele’s lawyers spent a good deal of time arguing why they thought he (Steele) should not be required to sit for a deposition and that ultimately the court took the entire matter under advisement.” Gubarev is suing the British-based Steele’s company Orbis Business Intelligence because the dossier also smeared Gubarev’s companies which include XBT Holdings and Webzilla.  The dossier claimed the companies used “botnets and port traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs and steal data.”   Fray-Witzer said, “Certainly with respect to Mr. Gubarev, Webzilla and XBT there has never been a single scrap of evidence about them in the dossier.”


As Fox News has reported based upon a review of British court records, Steele promoted and met with five media outlets repeatedly between the spring and fall of 2016.  At the same time, Steele was also meeting with the FBI in Rome, according to reports.


Records obtained and reviewed by Fox News from related civil ligitation in Florida reveal that Steele maintains that even showing up for a deposition would “implicate state secrets in London.” Fray-Witzer stressed in that hearing that the British government “has not asserted” Steele’s claims. The attorney has said Steele “is asserting he can’t speak about things.  We have pointed out that he’s spoken to anyone who is willing to listen, every journalist, and the FBI.” 


 

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Buzzfeed Editor: “All I Want For Christmas is Full Communism Now”

This report was originally published at Infowars.com


communism


BuzzfeedUK’s science editor Kelly Oakes has set her twitter account to private after declaring, “All I want for Christmas is full Communism now.”




Oakes received swift backlash on Twitter following the absurd tweet, prompting her to switch her account to private.








This isn’t the first time Buzzfeed staffers revealed their misplaced love of Communism.


Just last month, Buzzfeed reporter Blake Montgomery said in a now-deleted tweet that President Trump honoring the victims of Communism was a “white nationalist talking point.”


Buzzfeed world editor Miriam Elder was one of many who criticized the remark, noting “Soviet oppression was real.”


Montgomery has since apologized after the backlash.




Backlash against tweets like tend to be severe considering Communism’s well-documented history of oppression and democide, being responsible for the deaths of well over 100 million people in the 20th century alone.


“Over the past century, communist totalitarian regimes around the world have killed more than 100 million people and subjected countless more to exploitation, violence, and untold devastation,” the White House said in a statement after Trump declared Nov. 7, “National Day for the Victims of Communism.”


“These movements, under the false pretense of liberation, systematically robbed innocent people of their God-given rights of free worship, freedom of association, and countless other rights we hold sacrosanct. Citizens yearning for freedom were subjugated by the state through the use of coercion, violence, and fear.”


Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Another Woman Accused Conyers Of Sexual Harrassment

Update: In a lawsuit unearthed by Buzzfeed, a second woman accused Conyers of sexual harassment, but later abandoned efforts to hold him accountable. According to Buzzfeed, a former scheduler for the Democrat said she faced daily harassment from the congressman in a suit she later dropped after a court denied her request to keep it sealed. The behavior dscribed in the suit took place between 2015 and 2016, meaning it happened after Conyers settled with the previous, unnamed, former staffer.


“These behaviors and actions were so common and pervasive that they created a hostile work environment,” she alleged. Unlike the settlement agreement that was published by Buzzfeed earlier Monday, this lawsuit is a public document. BuzzFeed News was not able to reach the woman for comment and also decided against releasing her name.


Asked by Buzzfeed to comment on the lawsuit Tuesday, a Conyers spokesman said: “[The former staffer] voluntarily decided to drop her case.” The congressman “vehemently” denied the previously reported allegations.


Though the staffer expressed admiration for Conyers" civil rights record in the suit, his harassment quickly became too much for her to tolerate. She even convinced a former staffer to be her "fake boyfriend". He would stop by the office once in a while in an attempt to head off Conyers" advances.


In the lawsuit filed earlier this year, the former staffer said she had a “fatherly affection” for Conyers, as well as “extreme admiration and respect for his legislative work as a Civil Rights icon.” It was because of this that “Plaintiff was extremely uncomfortable addressing this inappropriate behavior with Defendant Conyers nor did Plaintiff wish to embarrass or disparage Defendant Conyers by sharing her concerns with other members of the office staff."


She also cited his “age and failing mental capacities” in the suit, saying she was hired, in part, to keep track of his “whereabouts,” call to wake him up every morning, and deliver his medication, including on weekends. She said she asked a male staffer she’d earlier dated to be her “fake boyfriend” and make regular stops by the office in the hopes of halting Conyers’ advances.



* * *


Update: After bizarrely denying that allegations of sexual harassment ever led him to agree to a settlement with a former staffer, Conyers has finally confirmed that the documents published last night by Buzzfeed are authentic.


However, that"s about all the ground Conyers is willing to give. Because in the same statement, he denied that he ever sexually harassed staffers, according to the Washington Post.


“I expressly and vehemently denied the allegations made against me, and continue to do so,” Conyers said Tuesday in a formal statement, his first since BuzzFeed reported details of the settlement late Monday.


“My office resolved the allegations — with an express denial of liability — to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. That should not be lost in the narrative,” he stated.


* * *


Update: Despite one anonymous staffer"s claim that Conyers is "untouchable" because of his longstanding status as a civil-rights icon who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., senior Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are calling for an ethics probe into the Dean of the House following a report revealed that staffers have accused the senior lawmaker of sexual harassment.


Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and  Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the second and third most-senior Democrats on the powerful committee said early that the House Ethics Committee should investigate the validity of the BuzzFeed News report published late Monday night.


"The reports about Congressman Conyers are as serious as they get. The Committee on Ethics should take up this matter immediately with a goal of promptly assessing the validity of the news account. This reported behavior cannot be tolerated in the House of Representatives or anywhere else," Lofgren said in a statement Tuesday morning, the Hill.


Nadler issued a statement around the same time calling the allegations against Conyers "extremely serious and deeply troubling."


“Obviously, these allegations must be investigated promptly by the Ethics Committee. There can be no tolerance for behavior that subjects women to the kind of conduct alleged," Nadler said.


Conyers continues to deny that the settlements happened.


* * *


Update: Conyers has told The Associated Press that he hasn"t settled any sexual harassment complaints with any staff members. Conyers, who answered the door at his Detroit home Tuesday morning, says he knows nothing about any claims of inappropriate touching and learned of the story just hours earlier. Referring to allegations of sexual harassment and assault being made against politicians and others, the veteran lawmaker says he"s "been looking at these things with amazement."


Meanwhile, Paul Ryan - who Cernovich blamed for enabling Conyers" settlement - called the settlement “extremely troubling” and vowed to continue reviewing House policy on sexual harassment in the workplace.


“People who work in the House deserve and are entitled to a workplace without harassment or discrimination,” Ryan said, outlining the recent steps the House has made to combat sexual misconduct in Congress.


As Talking Points Memo pointed out, last month the Committee on House Administration reviewed its procedures related to workplace harassment and discrimination, and last week that committee issued a new policy requiring “mandatory training for all members and staff,” he said.


* * *


Last week, we reported how Congress’s Office of Compliance paid out $17 million for 264 settlements with federal employees over 20 years for various violations, including sexual harassment – information that was brought to light by California Rep. Jackie Speiers, who claimed that two men with a history of sexual harassment continued to serve in the House – one of whom was a Republican and one a Democrat.


Now, thanks to Buzzfeed News, the mystery Democrat has been identified as Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the ranking member on the powerful House Judiciary Committee and the longest-serving member of the House of Representatives. In 2014, a former Conyers staffer filed a complaint claiming she was fired for refusing his sexual advances, and that she had been subsequently blackballed from working with Congress.



The woman received a $30,000 settlement, which was paid out of Conyers’s taxpayer-funded office budget.


The woman who settled with Conyers launched the complaint with the Office of Compliance in 2014, alleging she was fired for refusing his sexual advances, and ended up facing a daunting process that ended with a confidentiality agreement in exchange for a settlement of more than $27,000. Her settlement, however, came from Conyers’ office budget rather than the designated fund for settlements.


 


Congress has no human resources department. Instead, congressional employees have 180 days to report a sexual harassment incident to the Office of Compliance, which then leads to a lengthy process that involves counseling and mediation, and requires the signing of a confidentiality agreement before a complaint can go forward.


 


After this an employee can choose to take the matter to federal district court, but another avenue is available: an administrative hearing, after which a negotiation and settlement may follow.



A law clerk who represented the woman, who was not named by Buzzfeed and has never come forward with her story, said the settlement process was like “being abused twice” for the poor woman.  In the settlement papers, other staffers in Conyers’ office discuss acting as couriers who transported women with who Conyers was allegedly having affairs.


The process was “disgusting,” said Matthew Peterson, who worked as a law clerk representing the complainant, and who listed as a signatory to some of the documents.


 


“It is a designed cover-up,” said Peterson, who declined to discuss details of the case but agreed to characterize it in general terms. “You feel like they were betrayed by their government just for coming forward. It’s like being abused twice."


 


Other lawyers named as representing the accuser could not be reached for comment. The Office of Compliance did not confirm or deny that it had dealt with the case.



The documents were first provided to BuzzFeed News by Mike Cernovich, who said he gave the documents to BuzzFeed News for vetting and further reporting, and because he said if he published them himself, Democrats and congressional leaders would “try to discredit the story by attacking the messenger.” He provided them without conditions. BuzzFeed News independently confirmed the authenticity of the documents with four people directly involved with the case, including the accuser.


In a series of tweets published last night, Cernovich explained why he leaked the story to Buzzfeed, and also blamed House Speaker Paul Ryan for covering up Conyers’ harassment.


 



 


 



 


In her wrongful dismissal complaint, the former employee said Conyers repeatedly asked her for sexual favors and often asked her to join him in a hotel room. On one occasion, she alleges that Conyers asked her to work out of his room for the evening, but when she arrived the congressman started talking about his sexual desires. She alleged he then told her she needed to “touch it,” in reference to his penis, or find him a woman who would meet his sexual demands.


As Buzzfeed pointed out, Congress has no human resources department. Instead, congressional employees have 180 days to report a sexual harassment incident to the Office of Compliance, which then leads to a lengthy process that involves counseling and mediation, and requires the signing of a confidentiality agreement before a complaint can go forward. After this, the complainant can choose to either pursue the matter in federal district court or seek a settlement through an administrative hearing.



In the complaint, which is available in full below, the woman alleges that Conyers sexually harassed her by asking her to touch his penis, or find another woman who would meet his sexual demands. Conyers also made her work nights, weekends and holidays on occasion to “keep him company.”


In her complaint, the former employee said Conyers repeatedly asked her for sexual favors and often asked her to join him in a hotel room. On one occasion, she alleges that Conyers asked her to work out of his room for the evening, but when she arrived the congressman started talking about his sexual desires. She alleged he then told her she needed to “touch it,” in reference to his penis, or find him a woman who would meet his sexual demands. She alleged Conyers made her work nights, evenings, and holidays to keep him company.


 


In another incident, the former employee alleged the congressman insisted she stay in his room while they traveled together for a fundraising event. When she told him that she would not stay with him, she alleged he told her to “just cuddle up with me and caress me before you go.”


 


“Rep. Conyers strongly postulated that the performing of personal service or favors would be looked upon favorably and lead to salary increases or promotions,” the former employee said in the documents.


Three other staff members provided affidavits submitted to the Office Of Compliance that outlined a pattern of behavior from Conyers that included touching the woman in a sexual manner and growing angry when she brought her husband around.


 


One affidavit from a former female employee states that she was tasked with flying in women for the congressman. “One of my duties while working for Rep. Conyers was to keep a list of women that I assumed he was having affairs with and call them at his request and, if necessary, have them flown in using Congressional resources,” said her affidavit. (A second staffer alleged in an interview that Conyers used taxpayer resources to fly women to him.)



One male employee who corroborated the victim’s claims in an affidavit said he witnessed Conyers touch his staffers in an inappropriate, sexual manner. The women in his office said it was widely known that Conyers had sexual relationships with his staff, something the women felt undermined their credibility.


The employee said in her affidavit that Conyers also made sexual advances toward her: “I was driving the Congressman in my personal car and was resting my hand on the stick shift. Rep. Conyers reached over and began to caress my hand in a sexual manner.”


 


The woman said she told Conyers she was married and not interested in pursuing a sexual relationship, according to the affidavit. She said she was told many times by constituents that it was well-known that Conyers had sexual relationships with his staff, and said she and other female staffers felt this undermined their credibility.


 


“I am personally aware of several women who have experienced the same or similar sexual advances made towards them by Rep[.] John Conyers,” she said in her affidavit.


 


A male employee wrote that he witnessed Rep. Conyers rub the legs and other body parts of the complainant “in what appeared to be a sexual manner” and saw the congressman rub and touch other women “in an inappropriate manner.” The employee said he confronted Conyers about this behavior.


 


“Rep. Conyers said he needed to be ‘more careful’ because bad publicity would not be helpful as he runs for re-election. He ended the conversation with me by saying he would ‘work on’ his behavior,” the male staffer said in his affidavit.



One reason Conyers’ staffers tolerated his behavior, as Buzzfeed points out, was the Congressman’s status as a civil rights icon, something his staffers believed insulated him from criticism. He is also incredibly popular among his constituents in Detroir.


Conyers is a civil rights icon. He was lauded by Martin Luther King Jr. and is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.


 


“Your story won’t do shit to him,” said the staffer. “He’s untouchable.”



Representatives for Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and former Speaker John Boehner said both lawmakers were unaware of the settlements because of the confidentiality agreements. Paul Ryan’s office didn’t return Buzzfeed’s request for comment.


To help rectify Congress’s broken system, Rep. Speiers has introduced legislation to overhaul the complaint process, including requiring the Office of Compliance to publicly name the office of any member who enters into a settlement. The bill would also allow complainants to waive mediation and counseling, set up a victims" counsel, and require all congressional offices to go through harassment training every year.


In the meantime, we imagine this won’t be the last bombshell disclosure implicating a high-ranking member of Congress. Indeed, if recent trends are any guide, it’s only a matter of time, we believe, before the Republican whom Speiers alluded to is unmasked.


Read the complaint in its entirety below:


 


2017.11.21buzzfeed by zerohedge on Scribd



 


 









Saturday, November 18, 2017

America"s Righteous Russia-gate Censorship

Authored by Robert Parry via ConsortiumNews.com,


Arriving behind the anti-Trump “resistance” and the Russia-gate “scandal” is a troubling readiness to silence dissent in the U.S., shutting down information that challenges Official Narratives...



A stark difference between today’s Washington and when I was here as a young Associated Press correspondent in the late 1970s and the early 1980s is that then – even as the old Cold War was heating up around the election of Ronald Reagan – there were prominent mainstream journalists who looked askance at the excessive demonization of the Soviet Union and doubted wild claims about the dire threats to U.S. national security from Nicaragua and Grenada.




Tomb of the Unknown Soldier outside the Kremlin wall, Dec. 6, 2016. (Photo by Robert Parry)



Perhaps the Vietnam War was still fresh enough in people’s minds that senior editors and national reporters understood the dangers of mindless groupthink inside Official Washington, as well as the importance of healthy skepticism toward official pronouncements from the U.S. intelligence community.


Today, however, I cannot think of a single prominent figure in the mainstream news media who questions any claim – no matter how unlikely or absurd – that vilifies Russian President Vladimir Putin and his country. It is all Russia-bashing all the time.


And, behind this disturbing anti-Russian uniformity are increasing assaults against independent and dissident journalists and news outlets outside the mainstream. We’re not just entering a New Cold War and a New McCarthyism; we’re also getting a heavy dose of old-style Orwellianism.


Sometimes you see this in individual acts like HuffingtonPost taking down a well-reported story by journalist Joe Lauria because he dared to point out that Democratic money financed the two initial elements of what’s now known as Russia-gate: the forensic examination of computers at the Democratic National Committee and the opposition research on Donald Trump conducted by ex-British spy Christopher Steele.


HuffingtonPost never contacted Lauria before or after its decision to retract the story, despite a request from him for the reasons why. HuffPost editors told a BuzzFeed reporter that they were responding to reader complaints that the article was filled with factual errors but none have ever been spelled out, leaving little doubt that Lauria’s real “error” was in defying the Russia-gate groupthink of the anti-Trump Resistance. [A version of Lauria’s story appeared at Consortiumnews.com before Lauria posted it at HuffPost. If you want to sign a petition calling on HuffPost to restore Lauria’s article, click here.]


Muzzling RT


Other times, the expanding American censorship is driven by U.S. government agencies, such as the Justice Department’s demand that the Russian news outlet, RT, register under the restrictive Foreign Agent Registration Act, which requires such prompt, frequent and detailed disclosures of supposed “propaganda” that it could make it impossible for RT to continue to function in the United States.




Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)



This attack on RT was rationalized by the Jan. 6 “Intelligence Community Assessment” that was, in reality, prepared by a handful of “hand-picked” analysts from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency. Their report included a seven-page addendum from 2012 accusing RT of spreading Russian propaganda – and apparently this Jan. 6 report must now be accepted as gospel truth, no questions permitted.


However, if any real journalist actually read the Jan. 6 report, he or she would have discovered that RT’s sinister assault on American democracy included such offenses as holding a debate among third-party candidates who were excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates in 2012. Yes, allowing Libertarians and Greens to express their points of view is a grave danger to American democracy.


Other RT “propaganda” included reporting on the Occupy Wall Street protests and examining the environmental dangers from “fracking,” issues that also have been widely covered by the domestic American media. Apparently, whenever RT covers a newsworthy event – even if others have too – that constitutes “propaganda,” which must be throttled to protect the American people from the danger of seeing it.


If you bother to study the Jan. 6 report’s addendum, it is hard not to conclude that these “hand-picked” analysts were either stark-raving mad or madly anti-Russian. Yet, this “Intelligence Community Assessment” is now beyond questioning unless you want to be labeled a “Kremlin stooge” or “Putin’s useful idiot.” [An earlier State Department attack on RT was equally ridiculous or demonstrably false.]


And, by the way, it was President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who testified under oath that the analysts from the three agencies were “hand-picked.” That means that they were analysts personally selected by Obama’s intelligence chiefs from three agencies – not “all 17” as the American public was told over and over again – and thus were not even a full representation of analysts from those three agencies. Yet, this subset of a subset is routinely described as “the U.S. intelligence community,” even after major news outlets finally had to retract their “all 17” canard.


So, the myth of the intelligence community’s consensus lives on. For instance, in an upbeat article on Tuesday about the U.S. government’s coercing RT into registering as a foreign agent, Washington Post reporters Devlin Barrett and David Filipov wrote, “U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the network and website push relentlessly anti-American propaganda at the behest of the Russian government.”


In the old days, even during the old Cold War and President Reagan’s ranting about “the Evil Empire,” some of us would have actually examined the Jan. 6 report’s case against RT and noted the absurdity of these claims about “relentlessly anti-American propaganda.” Whether you want to hear the views of the Greens and Libertarians or not – or whether you like “fracking” and hate Occupy Wall Street – the opportunity to hear this information doesn’t constitute “relentlessly anti-American propaganda.”


The U.S. government’s real beef with RT seems to be that it allows on air some Americans who have been blacklisted from the mainstream media – including highly credentialed former U.S. intelligence analysts and well-informed American journalists – because they have challenged various Official Narratives.


In other words, Americans are not supposed to hear the other side of the story on important international conflicts, such as the proxy war in Syria or the civil war in Ukraine or Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians. Only the State Department’s versions of those events are permitted even when those versions are themselves propagandistic if not outright false.


For example, you’re not supposed to hear about the huge holes in the Syria-sarin cases, nor about Ukraine’s post-coup regime arming neo-Nazis to kill ethnic-Russian Ukrainians, nor about Israel’s evolution into an apartheid state. All right-thinking Americans are to get only a steady diet of how righteous the U.S. government and its allies always are. Anything else is “propaganda.”


Also off limits is any thoughtful critique of that Jan. 6 report – or apparently even Clapper’s characterization of it as a product of “hand-picked” analysts from only three agencies. You’re not supposed to ask why other U.S. intelligence agencies with deep knowledge about Russia were excluded and why even other analysts from the three involved agencies were shut out.


No, you must always think of the Jan. 6 report as the “consensus” assessment from the entire “U.S. intelligence community.” And you must accept it as flat fact – as it now is treated by The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and other mainstream news outlets. You shouldn’t even notice that the Jan. 6 report itself doesn’t claim that Russian election meddling was a fact. The report explains, that “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”


But even quoting from the Jan. 6 report might make an American reporter some kind of traitorous “Russian mole” whose journalism must be purged from “responsible” media and who should be forced to wear the journalistic equivalent of a yellow star.


The Anti-Trump/Russia Hysteria


Of course, much of this anti-Russian hysteria comes from the year-long fury about the shocking election of Donald Trump. From the first moments of stunned disbelief over Hillary Clinton’s defeat, the narrative was put in motion to blame Trump’s victory not on Clinton and her wretched campaign but on Russia. That also was viewed as a possible way of reversing the election’s outcome and removing Trump from office.




Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona, March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)



The major U.S. news media quite openly moved to the forefront of the Resistance. The Washington Post adopted the melodramatic and hypocritical slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” as it unleashed its journalists to trumpet the narrative of some disloyal Americans spreading Russian propaganda. Darkness presumably was a fine place to stick people who questioned the Resistance’s Russia-gate narrative.


An early shot in this war against dissenting information was fired last Thanksgiving Day when the Post published a front-page article citing an anonymous group called PropOrNot smearing 200 Internet news sites for allegedly disseminating Russian propaganda. The list included some of the most important sources of independent journalism, including Consortiumnews.com, apparently for the crime of questioning some of the State Department’s narratives on international conflicts, particularly Syria and Ukraine.


Then, with the anti-Russia hysteria building and the censorship ball rolling, Congress last December approved $160 million for think tanks and other non-governmental organizations to combat Russian propaganda. Soon, reports and studies were flying off the shelves detecting a Russian behind every article, tweet and posting that didn’t toe the State Department’s line.


The New York Times and other leading news organizations have even cheered plans for Google, Facebook and other technology companies to deploy algorithms that can hunt down, marginalize or eliminate information that establishment media deems “fake” or “propaganda.” Already Google has put together a First Draft coalition, consisting of mainstream media and establishment-approved Web sites to decide what information makes the cut and what doesn’t.


Among these arbiters of truth is the fact-check organization PolitiFact, which judged the falsehood about “all 17 intelligence agencies” signing off on the Russian “hacking” claim to be “true.” Even though the claim was never true and is now clearly established as false, PolitiFact continues to assert that this lie is the truth, apparently filled with the hubris that comes with its power over determining what is true and what is false.


But what is perhaps most troubling to me about these developments is the silence of many civil liberties advocates, liberal politicians and defenders of press freedom who might have been counted on in earlier days to object to this censorship and blackballing.


It appears that the ends of taking down Donald Trump and demonizing Vladimir Putin justify whatever means, no matter the existential danger of nuclear war with Russia or the McCarthyistic (even Orwellian) threats to freedom of speech, press and thought.









Thursday, November 16, 2017

Half Naked Woman Who Stole Uber Driver"s Tips Complains Of Harassment After Video Goes Viral

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com


A half-naked woman whose theft of an Uber driver’s tips was caught on video is complaining of online harassment after footage of the brazen incident went viral.


Scantily clad 18 year old Gabrielle Canales – a horrible human being, was caught on surveillance video reaching into the Uber driver’s tip jar after she and two other passengers reached their destination in Brooklyn, New York.


After posting a now-deleted Instagram response in which Canales showed little remorse, the Crown Heights woman finally admitted she was “completely wrong” for stealing the money – $5.00 by her count – which she says she paid back.


“I understand I’m completely wrong and I’m not denying it,” Canales told BuzzFeed. “The lesson was learned that same day. That’s why the gentleman was paid back.”



Watch:


 


After the video went viral, Canales told Buzzfeed she’s been subject to harassment and mocking.


“I didn’t need this video to go viral to teach me a lesson. I learned the lesson that same day. Before the video went viral, the man was paid back,” Canales said. “I apologize on the matter once again.”


Canales then doubled down on her self-righteous half apology and played the woman card, saying “I’m wrong for taking $5, and according to the world, I need to die,” she said. “I understand I’m going to get hate from a lot of people and that’s something I accepted, but I don’t think it’s okay to disrespect me as female.”


Uber bans woman, ignores driver


Following the incident, Uber banned the woman from the platform, stating “What’s been shown has no place on our app and the rider’s access to the app has been removed.” The driver, meanwhile, told the Daily Mail that he was “too busy working to file a police report after the video was filmed.”


When he reached out to Uber, they sent him a canned response:


We understand your frustration with this experience. We’ve attempted to contact the rider by phone and email, but haven’t been able to resolve this issue. The rider responded to us and advised us that she didn’t steal your cash from the tip jar. If you believe the rider has your cash as captured from your dash cam and is refusing to return it, you may want to initiate a formal investigation via the police.


Uber drivers raping passengers, passengers robbing Uber drivers – some of whom were then shortchanged by the company … I bet the ridesharing behemoth can’t wait to replace those pesky human drivers with self-driving cars.


Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Thousands Of Americans Scream At The Sky To Mark Trump Anniversary

It was the scream which, at the conclusion of Donald Trump"s inauguration ceremony, captured the existential dread of millions of Americans.




It also appears to have sparked a mass "resistance" protest movement.


On Wednesday night, thousands of Americans across the nation gathered to “Scream helplessly at the Sky on the Anniversary of the Election” to mark one year since President Trump"s victory.


Thousands attended events planned in New York City, Philadelphia, Dallas and other major cities. The idea came from Boston, where people will gather in America"s oldest park, the Boston Common, to scream. The premise behind the event was self-explanatory as people came to public gathering places, looked to the sky and, well, screamed.


This is how one Facebook event page described tonight"s event:








Let"s have a primal scream for the current state of our democracy! Gather together after work at Philadelphia"s City Hall, or just scream in solidarity from your own backyard.



The Washington Square Park event planned in New York was more emphatic:








Join us cucks and snowflakes, safe spacers and libtards, as we enjoy a collective cathartic yell into the heavens about our current political establishment.



Explaining the motive behind today"s screamfest, New York event organizer Nathan Wahl said that "frankly, I can’t keep up with it all. Every time I think of the laundry list of social injustices on top of my own shit like my actual laundry I get overwhelmed. Every news notification on my phone is a reminder of something over which I am powerless. And I think a lot of people feel that way. So fuck me for thinking it’d be nice to yell about it."








We really need some universal mental healthcare in this country and some anger management, while we’re at it. Which is kind of what this event is. It’s group anger management. No one’s crying. No one’s demanding anything. It’s a collective expression of frustration. It’s like… it’s like the feeling you have when you’ve been building Ikea furniture for three hours, and it’s late, and you feel like you’re getting nowhere, and you were almost done, but then you realized you put a piece on backwards and you have to take almost the entire thing apart and you just wanna fucking SCREAM. That’s what we’re doing?—?we’re screaming because living in America feels like building ikea furniture.


 


Secondly, I am doing something.




More than 15,000 people had expressed an interest in attending Wednesday’s scream in New York, including Joe Z. from Astoria, who told Metro it “might be helpful to bond with others who feel the same way.” Joe has found Trump’s presidency thus far “as awful as I feared — it’s a daily, sometimes hourly nightmare.” The main thing he intends to scream about is Trump’s measures against immigrants.


“Everything they do with immigration is about eliminating diversity from this country,” he said. “I live in Queens, diversity of cultures is what I most love about living here. There"s no empathy for others in the face of the most callous cruelty to other human beings.”


Tonight"s "scream" started off in a calm fashion as the following BuzzFeed clip shows...



... before the occasional clashes broke out.



Meanwhile, there was a parallel event for Trump supporters who wanted to shout their joy over the events of the past year. According to RallyList.com, there was a nationwide screaming counter-protest to “Praise God for President Trump” and that “HRC is not our president.”









Saturday, October 21, 2017

Did John McCain Provide The Infamous "Trump Dossier" To BuzzFeed?

After nearly a year of cogitating, no one in the media, usually a fairly leaky institution, has been able to figure out who exactly who provided the infamous "Trump Dossier" to BuzzFeed which was published on January 10, 2017 and promptly debunked within approximately 35 seconds. 


As the Daily Caller points out today, less than a handful of people had access to the dossier before it made its way to BuzzFeed: John McCain, David Kramer (a former State Department official and an associate of McCain), then FBI Director James Comey and Fusion GPS (the creator of the document).  Fusion GPS has since admitted under oath that they did not share the document with BuzzFeed which basically just leaves John McCain (and/or his associate) or James Comey.


Asked about the dossier recently, an irritable, and perhaps defensive, McCain lashed out at a Daily Caller reporter (seemingly a new trend for McCain of late) saying only "I don’t know why you’re digging this up now."








In addition to McCain and Steele, opposition research firm Fusion GPS had the dossier, as did David J. Kramer, a former State Department official and an associate of McCdoain’s.


 


One person who was provided a copy of the salacious document, written by former British spy Christopher Steele, is Arizona Sen. John McCain. But McCain, who has already acknowledged providing an early version of the dossier to former FBI Director James Comey, denied this week that he also gave a version to BuzzFeed, which published it on Jan. 10.


 


“I gave it to no one except for the director of the FBI. I don’t know why you’re digging this up now,” McCain said during a testy exchange with The Daily Caller on Wednesday.


 


McCain was asked whether he was BuzzFeed’s source after the Republican’s office declined to answer direct questions on the matter.



As a reminder, here is a recap of the timeline leading up the dossier"s BuzzFeed debut.








McCain and Kramer, a former official at the McCain Institute, were first told about the dossier in November, during a conversation with Sir Andrew Wood, a former British spy and associate of Steele’s. McCain then dispatched Kramer to meet with Steele in London on Nov. 28.


 


Steele, who operates Orbis Business Intelligence in London, has revealed in the London lawsuit that he allowed Kramer to view the dossier but did not provide him a copy. He said that an “arrangement” was later made for Fusion to provide a copy of the dossier to McCain through Kramer.


 


McCain then provided a copy of the document to Comey during a Dec. 9 meeting.


 


Four days after McCain met with Comey, Steele would produce the final memo of the dossier, the one that was provided to BuzzFeed and which included the allegations against Gubarev.


 


Steele sent the final memo to Fusion with instructions to pass a hard-copy to Kramer and McCain. It is unclear how the dossier was disseminated after that. Fusion has not said whether it disseminated the final version of the dossier to anyone outside the company.


 


The denials by Steele, Fusion and McCain that they were BuzzFeed’s sources leaves just a few posibilities, including Kramer.


 


Kramer has not responded to multiple requests for comment about his handling of the dossier or whether he gave it to any news outlets. He has not talked on the record to any reporters since being identified in the controversy.



McCain


Of course, the identity of BuzzFeed’s source is significant for two reasons.  First, because a Russian tech executive, Aleksej Gubarev, was accused in the document of hacking into DNC computers to dig up dirt on Hillary during the 2016 campaign.  And second, but certainly not least, because it could shed light on whether someone in Trump"s own party or, and perhaps even more disturbing, within the FBI ordered a "political hit" on the newly elected - if wildly unpopular (at least on the DC circuit) - president.








It is a central question in a lawsuit filed against the media outlet by Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian tech executive named in the dossier. Gubarev is identified by name in Steele’s Dec. 13 memo. In it, Steele alleges that Gubarev was recruited under duress by the FSB, Russia’s intelligence agency, and that he used his companies to infiltrate the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee.


 


Gubarev’s attorneys have said they want to find out if BuzzFeed’s source provided any warnings or qualifications about the allegations made in the dossier. If so, the lawyers are likely to argue that BuzzFeed was negligent and careless in publishing the document.


 


BuzzFeed, which has apologized to Gubarev, has defended its decision to publish the dossier, noting that its article unveiling the Steele memos explicitly stated that the memos had not been corroborated. The website also said that the dossier was newsworthy because Comey had briefed President Trump on its allegations during a meeting on Jan. 6.


 


On top of its importance to the lawsuit, the identity of BuzzFeed’s source is of widespread interest because of the possibility that a government official disseminated the uncorroborated document to the media, possibly as a hit job on Trump.



And then, of course, there is the issue of who ordered the dossier in the first place...








Sunday, August 13, 2017

Error 404: Visualizing The Internet's Digital Decay

In 2005, one of the most intriguing advertising stunts of the internet age was hatched.


As Visual Capitalist"s Nick Routley explains, Alex Tew launched the The Million Dollar Homepage, where anyone could “own a piece of internet history” by purchasing pixels-plots (minimum of 10×10) on a massive digital canvas. At the price of just one dollar per pixel, everyone from individual internet users to well-known companies like Yahoo! raced to claim a space on the giant digital canvas.



Today, The Million Dollar Homepage lives on as a perfect record of that wacky time in internet history – or so it seems. However, the reality is that many of the hyperlinks on the canvas are now redirects that send incoming users to other sites, while over 20% of them are simply dead.


Here are the links that still work on the Million Dollar Homepage today:



The revealing graphic above, via John Bowers, raises the question – how do hyperlinks disappear, and what implications does this “digital decay” have?


DIGITAL DECAY


The internet is stitched together by an incalculable number of hyperlinks, but much like cells in an organism, the sources and destinations have a finite lifespan. Essentially, links can and do die.



Most “link rot” is the result of website restructuring, or entities going out of business and pulling their website offline.


A high-impact example of this is when Yahoo! pulled the plug on GeoCities, one of the first popular web hosting services. In one fell swoop, roughly 7 million websites (containing a plethora of animated gifs, auto-playing midi files, and traffic counters) went dark forever.


Links can also die because of more deliberate reasons, as well. In 2015, the editor-in-chief of Buzzfeed, Ben Smith, came under fire for deleting thousands of posts from the site (including content that was critical of Buzzfeed advertisers). Journalism has traditionally acted as a public record, so this type of “decay” has serious implications on the credibility of media brands.


WHO CARES?


This idea of a public record is at the heart of why digital decay is an issue worth addressing. Once millions of links simply burn out, what will people in the future know about society in the early-ish days of the internet? What record will remain of people’s thoughts and feelings in that era?





I worry that the twenty-first century will become an informational black hole.


– Vint Cerf, Internet pioneer



Perhaps more urgent are public records that live in the digital realm. Supreme Court decisions and academia lean heavily on citations to build their arguments. What happens when those citations simply vanish? A Harvard study found that 49% of the hyperlinks in Supreme Court decisions are now broken.


Even that ubiquitous resource, Wikipedia, has serious issues caused by digital decay. Over 130,000 entries link to dead pages – a troubling development, as linked citations are what lend entries their credibility.


BACKING UP THE INTERNET


A handful of people are taking steps to archive the internet.


The most well-known solution is Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, which has archived hundreds of billions webpages over the past 20 years. Even the The Library of Congress – which is well known for archiving digital information such as tweets – contracts Internet Archive to do its web crawling.


The academia-focused Perma is another example of a company looking to create permanent records of the web sources (particularly citations).


Many of the weird and wonderful forums and hand-coded homepages of early internet lore may be gone, but we’re finally taking steps to combat digital decay. As awareness grows, avoiding an “informational black hole” may be possible.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

British Lawsuit Raises New Questions Over John McCain's Involvement With The "Trump Dossier"

In the aftermath of BuzzFeed"s release of the now-infamous "Trump Dossier," much time has been spent speculating exactly who paid for dirt on the Trump administration and who had the opportunity to take a sneak peak at the findings before the report was passed off to the FBI.  Media reports have suggested that the "opposition research" was ordered by one of Trump"s presidential primary competitors though that detail has never been officially confirmed.


That said, a name that continues to pop up every time the dossier is mentioned is that of Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a rather outspoken and unapologetic critic of President Trump.


As a recap, for those who have manged to avoid the head trauma of this particular narrative, the dossier in question was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and his London firm, Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd.  The intelligence produced amounted to a collection of uncorroborated reports gathered by Steele primarily from intelligence contacts he developed while working undercover in Moscow.  Provocative details relating to Trump, hookers and "golden showers" in Russian hotel rooms proved explosive when they were published by BuzzFeed on January 10th, but were quickly debunked as nothing more than "fake news."


But now, courtesy of a lawsuit filed by Aleksej Gubarev in the U.K., additional details are emerging which raise new questions about McCain"s links to the dossier.  As McClatchy notes today, according to a new court document filed in the British lawsuit, the counsel for Chris Steele repeatedly points to Senator McCain and a former State Department official as two of just a handful of people known to have had copies of the full document before it circulated among journalists and was ultimately published by BuzzFeed.


McCain


It"s unclear exactly when McCain got his first look at the dossier and his staff has refused to provide additional comment beyond a statement released back in January.  As a result, all we know for sure is that Steele finished his opposition research in October and Comey testified that he didn"t get a copy of the dossier until January 6th.  Precisely who saw what and when during that interim period still remains a mystery.





A McCain spokesperson declined to comment Monday on the new court document, pointing instead to a Jan. 11 statement from the veteran senator about the dossier. “Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the director of the FBI,” McCain had said then. “That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue.”



In recent congressional testimony, ex-FBI Director James Comey, fired by Trump amid a widening probe, acknowledged receiving the dossier from McCain on Jan. 6. Kramer, a former State Department official who until recently served as a senior director at Arizona State University’s McCain Institute for International Leadership, declined comment.



Two defamation lawsuits — one in the United States and a second in the U.K. — have been brought by lawyers for Aleksej Gubarev, a Cyprus-based Internet entrepreneur whom Steele’s Russian sources accused of cyber spying against the Democratic Party leadership.





The dossier, without substantiation, said Gubarev’s U.S.-based global web-hosting companies, XBT and Webzilla, planted digital bugs, transmitted viruses and conducted altering operations against the Democratic Party leadership.



While one key name in the dossier was blackened out by BuzzFeed, Gubarev’s was not. He alleges that he was never contacted for comment, suffering reputational harm in the process.



In the court document, Steele’s barrister, Nicola Cain, argued that the portion of the dossier dealing with Gubarev, which came in weeks after Trump’s election and after Steele was no longer paid by his client for research, amounted to raw intelligence and was advertised as such. She did not return a call or email requests for comment.



Of course, with discovery still ongoing in both lawsuits, we suspect additional details on this narrative will continue to leak out slowly over time despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to conceal the fact that opposition research was being gathered, not just on the Clinton campaign, but on Trump as well.



The full filing can be viewed here:

Thursday, July 6, 2017

CNN Self Immolates: Deleted Tweets, Airport Shunning, Oh - And They Got The Wrong Guy


Content originally published at iBankCoin.com


One week after James O"Keefe destroyed CNN"s last shred of credibility, the network rife with ham-handed propagandists has doused itself in gasoline and lit a match - forever condemning themselves to irrelevancy and ridicule.


As you are now aware along with the rest of the world, CNN went on a witch hunt over the weekend to track down the identity of Reddit user "HanAssholeSolo," who they claimed is responsible for creating a video of Trump beating up a man with a CNN logo for a head, which the President tweeted on Saturday.


After discovering the man"s identity - through possibly illegal means, the network threatened to expose the Redditor"s identity, "doxing" him. In response, the internet exploded with rage - creating dozens of new similar CNN memes and receiving a formal declaration of war from 4chan users, who have begun "unmasking" CNN employees for the world to harass.


Deleted Tweets


After the immense public backlash over CNN"s witch hunt, CNN"s Chris "that sucks" Cuomo - a giant douche, deleted a tweet asking followers "Should CNN reveal name of Reddit user who made trump wrestling video?"



CNN journalist Andrew Kaczynski who went on the Witch Hunt for HanAssholeSolo also deleted a tweet from 2012 - and was promptly called out by Donald Trump Jr. (whose Twitter account has been on fire).



Airport Shunning


After a tweet from Mike Cernovich calling for airports to stop showing CNN, it"s been reported - with a crappy photograph, that Atlanta international airport has shut off the Very Fake News Network!




It appears that CNN GOT THE WRONG GUY


As Buzzfeed of all places points out "As Reddit was celebrating HanAssholeSolo"s victory, one user pointed out that what Trump tweeted wasn"t actually HanAssholeSolo"s GIF."



While Solo maintains it was his video with sound added, Buzzfeed also notes that HanAssholeSolo"s original GIF was shorter, had a different aspect ratio, and had a WWE logo in the corner.



Also - according to TweetDeck, Trump"s tweet was sent from an iPhone, so someone would have had to send it to the President via private message or emailed attachment, and was uploaded to Twitter via his camera roll.


Per Buzzfeed:


So what does this all mean?


"Someone downloaded the GIF that HanAssholeSolo originally posted to Reddit. Then that person cropped it to better fit a video player like Facebook or YouTube. Then they went through the effort of syncing it back up with audio from the original clip. Then that person put it somewhere where Trump or one of Trump"s people could see it and download it. Then whoever found the video version had to get it to Trump"s phone."



Lastly - an unverified 4chan user from Mexico claims to have created the GIF months ago...




Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

EXCLUSIVE: Abby Martin Exposes Fake News and the Oligarchy Behind It

Jay Syrmopoulos, of The Free Thought Project, interviewed investigative reporter Abby Martin, the former host of the RT show Breaking the Set, which was featured in the fatally flawed DNI report on Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election, to ask her a few questions.


The “Declassified Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” report, which amounted to nothing more than a speculative assessment, contained no actual evidence of Russian hacking, and was clearly an attempt at supporting a dubious political agenda.


The report provided no conclusive evidence to support the oft-made claims of “Russia hacking the election,” and instead devoted a large section of the report to speculative claims about Russian motives and criticism of the Russian television station RT.


In particular, the report explicitly blamed the RT program, Breaking the Set, for undermining Americans’ confidence in US electoral processes. One major problem: the program wasn’t even on the air during the current presidential election cycle.


TFTP: With the publication of the anti-Trump dossier that was clearly unverified propaganda meant to intentionally undermine Trump, but published by Buzzfeed anyway, making it into the intelligence report on Russian election interference — on top of the already fallacious narrative about Breaking the Set influencing the election, despite not being on the air at that time — do you feel that that US intelligence community as a whole is politicized beyond the point of operating as fully functional intelligence agencies that provide non-politicized, untainted, intelligence to President Trump or are we off into uncharted territory in terms of the intel apparatus attempting to largely dictate public policy with highly politicized intelligence to the administration? Any other thoughts about the extremely speculative DNI report into “Russian election interference?”


Abby Martin: The Buzzfeed dossier was one of the most outrageous things printed during this entire election season. You’d better have substantial evidence in order to print a claim as crazy as Trump is compromised because Russia has Golden Shower sex tapes of him. Buzzfeed knew the report was likely fake, and published it anyway, telling people to ‘make up’ their own mind. This is a reprehensible way to conduct journalism, and Buzzfeed is no better than the ‘fake news’ it denounces.


The long awaited DNI report allegedly proving Russia’s role in US elections is audaciously baseless. Almost half of it was dedicated to bashing RT and the network’s coverage of valid issues like Wall Street and fracking. Half of the US population is living paycheck to paycheck, and there is mass suffering across the country. Simply covering inequality, protests and exploiting the devastating hypocrisy on behalf of the US Empire when it comes to human rights does not ‘undermine democracy’––in fact, it strengthens it. In order to have any sort of functioning self-governance, a citizenry needs to have unfettered access to a variety of opinions and information that impacts them.




READ MORE:  Conspiracy Theorists Vindicated: FBI Docs Reveal "Shadow Government" Protecting Hillary Clinton



The scariest part about the report is that it was essentially calling coverage of activist issues, environmentalism and third parties a danger to the US. It also singled out my former RT show Breaking the Set, which has been off the air for two years, as some sort of Kremlin entry point to subvert the US government by fomenting “radical discontent.”


In any reasonable world, with a true and honest fourth estate, such a report would be laughed out of the room. Unfortunately, many in the corporate press have vehemently defended the report, desperate to latch on to vestige of power that they will invariably lose now that the Clinton dynasty is crushed. It’s embarrassing that partisan journalists and Hillary lackeys all of the sudden are defending the same apparatus that got us into Vietnam, Iraq and other deadly wars on purposefully false intelligence.


I don’t think we’ve seen this much internal conflict inside the intelligence community since the the 1960s, where there was a series of high profile political assassinations and aggressive covert operations being carried out at home and abroad. The existing power structure has lined up against Trump, because of his unpredictability to puppet their agenda, and could go to some extreme lengths to correct and reassert itself.


Russia was just declared as the number one “national security threat” to America by politicians vying to escalate their new Cold War and desperate to de-legitimize Trump’s presidency, putting US-Russia relations at potentially its most dangerous moment. People must fight against this belligerent push for war.


TFTP: There is a large entrenched corporate oligarchy that has deep roots within the U.S. governmental bureaucracy, which is largely being brought to bear against Trump, a perceived outsider to the levers of powers, mainly as a means of delegitimizing his presidency and usurping his stated intention of rapprochement with Russia — what, or whom, do you see as the main drivers and interest groups coalescing behind this soft coup of sorts?



READ MORE:  The US Just Deployed Fighter Jets on Russia"s Doorstep and Said, "We"re Not Here to Provoke"



Abby Martin: The US is undoubtedly an oligarchy, to which Trump is no outsider. The cabinet he’s putting together is one of the richest gaggle of billionaires in history to be ruling over us peons––from mercenary Erik Prince’s sister Betsy DeVos, to Exxon Mobil’s CEO Rex Tillerson. There are just differing factions within the capitalist class, from neocons to neoliberals, that see Trump as a derailment to their plans and ‘common interests’ in Syria, Russia and beyond.


I think the establishment is mainly concerned about Trump because they know he will be a magnet for mass protests at home, and could bring the country to the brink of revolt like it was near the end of the Bush administration, before Obama’s hypnotic platitudes put everyone back to sleep.



It would be a mistake to assume Trump is going to defy a ruling class he is ultimately a part of when it comes to the Empire’s global chessboard. Already, he has stacked his cabinet tons of anti-Muslim war-mongers who are itching to fuck with Iran, one of the world’s greatest tinderboxes. Trump’s ego could lead him anywhere in the world he feels would make him more popular among his base.


TFTP: There was a clear trickled down agenda enacted after a major post-election meeting of progressive elites with the Democratic Alliance, co-founded by Soros in 2005, with Media Matters then issuing a press release, and like clockwork numerous publications such as the Washington Post began running articles about “fake news.” Subsequently, President Obama even publicly claimed “fake news” a threat to our democracy during a speech in Berlin. In turn, Mark Zuckerberg announced a fact-checking regime, laughably using Politifact, Snopes and ABC news to fact-check and flag disputed stories — which would then result in disputed stories being given a lower algorithm ranking, thus not as often appearing in people’s newsfeeds. In essence, this is a way for the corporate oligarchy to attempt regain control of the public informational narrative.


The corporate mainstream narrative of “fake news” had a creeping, but clear, drive to delegitimize alternative media outlets, such as us here at The Free Though Project, likely due to our reporting on U.S. hegemony/imperialism and topics like the contents of WikiLeaks’ releases of the DNC and Podesta emails during the election – while the mainstream media largely refused to do so.



READ MORE:  Coroner Report Contradicts Claims of Heart Attack -- RT Founder Beaten to Death in D.C. Hotel



Do you perceive the aforementioned events as separate and distinct from one another, or do you see a larger agenda being set into motion by a collusion of the power-elite regarding these attempts at regaining control over the informational gates of society?


Abby Martin: Those who hitched their wagons to Hillary wants to blame the loss on everything and everyone but themselves. So of course “fake news” is a perfect target. But the attack on so-called “fake news” is really nothing more than an attack on non-corporate media. The neo-McCarthyist list propagated by Washington Post and elsewhere conflated several hard hitting legitimate news sites with random blogs to try to discredit alternative media as illegitimate.


It’s ridiculous to see the same media outlets that have been pushing disastrous economic and political policies for decades suddenly outraged about “fake news.” I don’t think anyone is buying it, either. The extreme distrust in corporate media outlets being at an all time low is why Trump did so well––their clear agenda against him just made people trust him more. Unfortunately, Trump as president means
Brietbart and Infowars are now de facto state media, publications that promote false narratives demonizing Muslims, immigrants and leftists instead of the power elite.





TFTP: Also, I was curious if there was a heavy Russian state influence on reporting at RT in terms of how much censorship or suppression was there, and how much leeway journalists were provided in how they reported on events relating to Russia vs other global events?


Abby Martin: I worked for RT for three years, and although it was obvious who the network’s financier was, I was still able to pave a level of editorial freedom essentially unheard of at any other major media outlet. I was able to denounce Putin, as well as my own network’s coverage, and still maintain the prime time show for the next year. Despite the disagreements I had with management, I was never deterred from speaking my opinions on my show, and if I ever was I would have immediately quit. My personal experience at RT totally undermines the mainstream narrative that RT is nothing more than a Kremlin mouthpiece.