Donna Brazile Reveals She ‘Feared for Her Life’ After Seth Rich was Murdered

Donna Brazile revealed that she feared for her life after Seth Rich was murdered, and was encouraged by Democratic Officials not to talk about the DNC Leaks.

5 Major Revelations Lapdog Media is Covering Up with Fake Russian Hysteria

Only a select few over the entire course of human history can legitimately say they’ve witnessed the implosion of an empire, but Americans now have a front row seat to the tabloidesque spectacle currently slashing heads and taking names, as it rips through Washington with the full force of a deadly — if highly propagandized — tornado.

And this storm leaves no one — corporate press, politician, nor the U.S. President, himself — unscathed.

What began as proof of election-rigging by the Democratic National Committee and key players, including failed candidate and ex-Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has morphed into an as-yet unsolved murder, allegations of sedition by the White House, and an altogether murky soup of unconfirmed accusations and hurt feelings — a true mashup of events, legitimately putting House of Cards to shame.

A tragic dearth in actual facts betrays mainstream media’s disingenuous headlines plastering unfounded tales of Russian collusion, as if on automatic pilot to peg every crime of the 21st century on shady operatives of The Enemy State.

Worse, the life of promising DNC staffer, Seth Rich, appears to have mattered as little to power-hungry pols as figures compiled in the military’s estimations of ‘collateral damage’ — excess, ostensively accidental killings of civilians — were this operation taking place anywhere but these once-United States.

Worse still, the only collusion thus far evident from anything other than unnamed, anonymous sources crucifies those once-illustrious media institutions as willing and active participants in both the cover-up of a murder, and slavish devotion to the nefarious U.S. Intelligence Community.

It’s a wonder any independent journalists — let alone, the people inhabiting this planet — can keep track.

In all its macabre splendor, this is the weaponization of news The Free Thought Project — and Wikileaks founder and editor, Julian Assange, himself — warned of, months ago.

And on that note, several laughably audacious assertions and their profoundly telling roots must be dissected for a better understanding of what has, in actuality, become a farce deserving of a cinematic cable series — or, perhaps, reality TV.

Buckle up: this will be a decidedly bumpy ride — veritably guaranteed to nauseate upon descent into this rabbit warren, over which any soap opera producer would drool. Were it only fictional drama.

Welcome to the Spin Cycle.

First, the wholly ruthless and altogether inexplicable demise of Seth Rich must be examined, in its own right — but must be done so against the backdrop of the Internet rumor mill, superimposed on revelations from albeit unconfirmed information, revealed just one day ago.

Deemed a robbery gone awry by D.C. police, Rich met an early fate in a hail of gunfire last July, during the wee hours after leaving a bar and just feet from his Bloomingdale District home. Speaking to his girlfriend at the time, Rich blew off that strangers were approaching him on the sidewalk, due to the proximity of his residence — and ended what would become his last communication with anyone.

Police arrived in three minutes to the bloody scene, and though the young DNC staffer remained conscious, he later passed away after transport to a local hospital. No witnesses have surfaced. Rich’s cell phone, keys, wallet, watch, and $2,000 necklace were apparently disregarded by the feckless robbers.

None of the evidence amassed proves, well, anything — yet, D.C. police baselessly asserted the unfortunate murder a result of a botched robbery.

Nothing of value had been taken. Nothing about the murder scene even whispered of a strong-arm, violent robbery. Yet, that’s the narrative held by unusually tight-lipped police, politicians, and the ionosphere of corporate press.

Secondly, just this week, the ice fractured a bit, as private investigator and former D.C. homicide detective, Rod Wheeler — hired by Rich’s family for an independent probe — broke ranks, telling Washington affiliate FOX 5,

“My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks … The police department nor the FBI have been forthcoming. They haven’t been cooperating at all. I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.”

Thirdly, Wikileaks published tens of thousands of DNC documents — evincing massive corruption, collusion, and a plot to thwart the candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders — which had been obtained from an unnamed source, and which then dominated headlines for a significant period in the run-up to the U.S. election.

Corporate-funded media titans declared, sans evidence, it must have been The Russians who hacked the DNC to hand off information — thus, Wikileaks, and any journalist with sufficient integrity to cover the damning content of the files also must be colluding with the U.S.’ familiar Cold War foe.

Independent journalists, right-leaning press, and the ever-suspicious Internet, however, raised worthwhile doubts about the evidence-free claim — instead pouncing on Rich’s murder as suggestive a disgruntled insider might have earned a belt-notch on the notorious but theoretical Clinton Body Count.

Wheeler’s claims appear to at least partially back those suspicions — despite the staffer’s family denigrating the admittedly unproven narrative.

In fact, positing Rich as the leaker would seem to prove his killing more than an already peculiar anomaly — particularly, as mainstream, left-loyal press dismissed Wheeler’s statements as a diversion from a laughable and equally unprovable report from none other than the Intelligence darling, Washington Post — which claims President Trump carelessly forked over intel on the Islamic State to Russian officials in a secretive tête-a-tête recently.

Fourthly, the timing should not be ignored. Incredulously timed to coincide with the FOX affiliate’s earth-shattering revelations, the Post published its article, “Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador,” as yet further supposed proof the president has been in bed with the evil Russians for time immemorial.

None of the officials leveling blame in this matter have been named or otherwise identified. To us, they’re simply, officials — a designation the Post seems to think should garner the unhindered respect.

READ MORE:  Her "Oh S**t" Moment -- Clinton Email Server Wiped AFTER her Subpoena

On the left hand, American media collectively excoriated Trump’s putative Russian ties, while the right hand repeated Wheeler’s accusation as further proof the political establishment would stop at nothing — not even murder — to deflect from the impotent and ultimately failed campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Remember, despite substantial circumstantial evidence backing the latter, neither the left nor right has provided unassailable proof their allegations can tread water, much less swim under duress.

That the Washington Post concluded The Russians Did It — It, of course, being Everything — should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with owner Jeff Bezos’ oh-so timely $600 million business deal with the CIA the same year the billionaire Amazon owner purchased the once-upstanding media colossus.

Fifthly, the key article posing a possible explanation as to why all this is happening was scrubbed from the web this week. The go-to article from The Nation, detailing the freakish timing of Bezos’ Post purchase and CIA contract — since used as a reference for scholars and journalists, alike — suddenly vanished from the Internet within hours of the media’s mudslinging competition about Rich and The Russians.

WaPo put out the fake Trump story 1 hour after the #SethRich story broke to distract from it.

Podesta works for WaPo.

100% collusion. pic.twitter.com/gw4Pgd30PZ

— /pol/ News Forever (@polNewsForever) May 16, 2017

It had been part of The Nation’s website since 2013. No more. Although cached versions of its piece, “Amazon, ‘The Washington Post’ and That $600 Million CIA Contract,” are retrievable — at least, on a temporary basis.

While the CIA deal ostensibly came to Bezos under a premise wholly unrelated to the Post, his outlet’s devotion to the neoliberal establishment continued with the unabashed hiring of disgraced former Clinton campaign chair, John Podesta — himself, the starring role in injurious documents obtained and published by Wikileaks, prior to the election.

Podesta joined the Washington Post as a contributor in February, this year — and, in short order, held Trump responsible for every ill on the planet, in an op-ed boastfully proclaiming, “Trump is on a rampage to endanger the planet. Now it’s up to us to save it.”

READ MORE:  Elijah Wood Just Exposed Hollywood"s Organized Pedophilia Ring

Given Bezos’ suspect CIA deal and Podesta’s unwavering fidelity to the Clintons, if no one or nothing else — in conjunction with the permanency of his megaphone at the Post — that the organization conveniently peppered the pot with further anti-Russian tripe at virtually the same time Wheeler’s claims about Rich began circulating, to consider WaPo a disinterested party would be to willingly wool one’s eyes.

Of course, all of this has yet to address Trump’s audacious termination of James Comey as head of the FBI — Comey, having been responsible for a thus-far publicly inconclusive probe into the president’s rather elusive ties to the Russian Federation.

No FBI chief, no investigation, many have pointed out — whatever bickering between the two parties might have occurred behind the closed doors of the Oval Office.

Even that managed to garner political disputation, as the timing of Comey’s termination, amid all of the aforementioned, effectively halted the months-long investigation to discern whether or not Trump involved The Russians to steal the White House from its apparent, rightful heir, Hillary Clinton.

It would seem someone set off an incendiary propaganda device in Washington, D.C. this week — and nary a soul on the planet has the tools available to quash the politicized flames.

When all else fails, a Hail Mary offers light where only mud existed, thus, CNN muscled a long shot Wednesday, boldly pronouncing all of right-leaning media washouts, in an article titled, “Story on DNC staffer’s murder dominated conservative media — hours later it fell apart” — intone here your best, over-the-top Canadian “sore-y aboot that” at your own peril.

Murdered staffers, Russian hackers, and media hacks, aside, what this chronicle of chaos enunciates more explicitly than any text offered by the duopoly’s media bullhorns is that, clearly, the Emperor Wears No Clothes — the empire’s naked vanity is on full display in a mirror reflecting years upon years of collective hope ‘this time will be different.’

This time, the serfs have spoken — they’ve elected a leader impugn to corruption, manipulation, and smear tactics infamously inextricable from American politics.

Or so they’d thought.

The reality of our demise instead reeks of the mundanity pictured in a supermarket tabloid — everyone gawks, no one admits they do, and the gruesomeness of someone else’s misery tantalizingly tempts us to pretend we don’t share in its fomentation, when we all know we do.

Have Americans learned nothing? Have we seriously entered an era where murders with hundred-thousand-dollar-plus rewards go unsolved, lest tipsters also suffer similar fates? Has this country succumbed to narcissism this profound, that blame in black-and-white text be sufficient to finger heads of state responsible for crimes not even committed — while legitimate but less flashy infractions go unanswered?

READ MORE:  Greatest Boxer of All Time, and Muslim, Muhammad Ali, Delivers KO to Trump and ISIS

Voting matters, how?!

With all of these brazen details — and a copious volume unaddressed in this article for, well, brevity’s sake — is anyone still convincing themselves politicians have the peasants’ best interests at heart?

Seth Rich is dead. Hillary Clinton lost. Donald Trump tweets policy matters and temper tantrums, vicariously depending on the day.

America’s imperialist nightmare obviously wishes its capacious ills would just go away — but they won’t. They can’t. These stakes are too high.

It’s been lamented the unlikely swamp-drainer will be the last President of the United States; but — judging from this flaming pile of manure masquerading as tenable — perhaps that’s the best, possible outcome for the planet.

BUSTED: FBI Never Even Examined the DNC Servers Over Allegations of Russian Hacking

According to a report, the FBI has never examined the servers of the Democratic National Committee — not even for the six months during which the bureau claimed to be investigating allegations of Russians compromising cyber networks.

In fact, according to unnamed officials who spoke to Buzzfeed News, “the bureau has still not requested access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US government entity has run an independent forensic analysis on the system.”

While it would seem intuitive for the U.S. Intelligence Community to perform a detailed and methodical analysis of its own, Eric Walker, deputy communications director for the DNC, told Buzzfeed,

“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers.”

Although the FBI declined to comment on the report, it’s notable the bureau has relied solely on third-party technology security company, CrowdStrike — whose controversial report early last year noted Russia-linked hackers penetrated DNC systems — for its analysis and assessment, rather than performing one of its own.

But the official who spoke with Buzzfeed — and expressed confidence Russia coordinated the ostensible ‘widespread hacks’ — didn’t exactly add an air of confidence to the CrowdStrike report, noting,

“CrowdStrike is pretty good. There’s no reason to believe that anything that they have concluded is not accurate.”

Relying on a single, ‘pretty good’ organization to examine a putative breach of national security would seem foolhardy, but the unnamed official confirmed that was the case.

“Beginning at the time the intrusion was discovered by the DNC,” Walker explained, “the DNC cooperated fully with the FBI and its investigation, providing access to all of the information uncovered by CrowdStrike — without any limits.”

Reports indicate the DNC discovered their system had been infiltrated in March 2016, but didn’t summon the tech security firm until May — and although the FBI had been given all relevant information concerning the alleged hack, apparently the bureau never investigated further.

According to the outlet, “BuzzFeed News spoke to three cybersecurity companies who have worked on major breaches in the last 15 months, who said that it was ‘par for the course’ for the FBI to do their own forensic research into the hacks. None wanted to comment on the record on another cybersecurity company’s work, or the work being done by a national security agency.”

But the FBI apparently did not do forensic research of the alleged DNC hack on its own — no matter if that is common practice or not.

A subsequent report from the Washington Post — notorious for publishing Fake News — cited unnamed officials from the CIA claiming the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded Russian government-associated actors had performed the hack and handed over documents for Wikileaks to publish.

However, that article contradicted the unanimity it intimated, stating no formal report would be forthcoming from the Intelligence Community as disagreement that conclusion remained. Further, an unnamed counterintelligence official with the FBI came forward rejecting the unnamed CIA officials’ allegations — despite FBI Director James Comey standing in agreement with the report.

Intelligence officials — most of whom remain anonymous — who share the view Russian State actors hacked systems of the Democrat Party infrastructure have yet to proffer conclusive and unassailable evidence to explain their position. Although they assert the supposed hackers sought to undermine Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House by swaying the vote in favor of Donald Trump, none have explained why that would be a motivation.

If what Buzzfeed reports is indeed true — and the FBI relied only on CrowdStrike and never performed its own standard forensic examination of DNC systems before Comey concluded The Russians threw the election — than questions about the bureau’s political agenda must be raised.

Again, no evidence has been provided to the public for further scrutiny — except for a rough and disclaimer-emblazoned joint report from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, since criticized for its lack of content damning to the Russian government. That report — although cited by President Obama prior to imposing sanctions and expelling 35 Russian diplomats — largely focused on defensive methods cybersecurity experts could employ in the future, rather evincing details of the alleged hacks.

And, as even mainstream Buzzfeed points out, “Nowhere in the report does it say that the government conducted its own computer forensics on the DNC servers.”

Corporate media has made a mess of the situation, citing that report as if it were indisputable evidence of Russian hackers infiltrating every computer system in the U.S.

But as Leonid Bershidsky wrote for Bloomberg View,

“The confusion has already begun. Last Saturday, The Washington Post reported that ‘a code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe’ was found on a computer at a Vermont utility, setting off a series of forceful comments by politicians about Russians trying to hack the U.S. power grid. It soon emerged that the laptop hadn’t been connected to the grid, but in any case, if PAS was the code found on it and duly reported to the government, it’s overwhelmingly likely to be a false alarm. Thousands of individual hackers and groups routinely send out millions of spearphishing emails, meant for an unsuspecting person to click on a link and thus let hackers into his computer. Now, they have a strong incentive to use Russian-made backdoor software for U.S. targets.”

In other words, Russians hacking the election, the DNC, John Podesta, the electrical grid of Vermont, and all other accusations stand hollow and as-yet unproven — making the FBI’s lack of forensic investigation and reliance on a third-party tech security company both alarming and suspicious — and exponentially more so as the lame duck administration repeatedly provokes Moscow in the eleventh hour.

With sanctions in place, diplomats sent packing, and news special forces have been deployed to the Russian border, the public deserves unassailable evidence — conclusive proof — The Russians hacked anything at all.

The Times Are Changing: Assange Goes on FOX News and Destroys the Russia Hack Conspiracy Theory

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange came forward after a long period of silence for a video interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity — in particular, to decimate claims leaked emails from the Democratic establishment had been hacked and provided by Russian government actors.

“The narrative has begun that, in fact, the U.S. government is accusing Wikileaks of having received materials from Russia and Russia’s cybercriminals with the political agenda of influencing the election. And obviously they’re talking, not just about the John Podesta emails, the DNC emails, but in other ways. I’ve asked you before, I’ll ask you again today — did Russia give you this information, or anybody associated with Russia?” Hannity asked.

“Our source is not a State party,” Assange told Hannity, once again confirming assertions he and Wikileaks have made on previous occasions. “So, the answer for our interactions is ‘no.’”

Continuing, he explained the political establishment has attempted to distract from the revelations in the leaked documents — which exposed the true words of Clinton and others in her campaign,

“And the American public read that information, true information, and said, ‘We don’t like these people.’ And then voted accordingly.”

Rather than acknowledge the breadth of corruption and behind-the-curtains nastiness on display in the documents, the establishment has attempted to conflate Wikileaks with Russians hacking the election — an accusation Assange explained amounted to bait-and-switch, as,

“Even Obama has had to admit that there was no hacking of U.S. voting machines.”

“But … the main focus for most Americans is that, they are being told by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, by the President of the United States, there are the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, et cetera, that in fact,” Hannity asked, “that Wikileaks was working with the Russian government to influence the election. Is that true in any way, shape, matter, or form?”

“No, it is absolutely false,” Assange replied, “and, if you read their statements carefully, you’ll see they don’t actually say that. They kind of mention one fact here, and one fact there, and nothing else.

“In the most up-to-date information, the twenty-ninth of December, where the FBI, DHS, White House, et cetera, made a statement, what is completely absent — from all those statements — is Wikileaks. Totally absent. So, what’s going on?

“I believe two things are going on. Number one, they don’t have the evidence that Wikileaks is involved in that way. Now, why am I confident about that? Because there is one person in the world — and I think it’s actually only one — who knows exactly what is going on with our publications. And that’s me.”

Asked whether he could state “unequivocally” the information published by Wikileaks did not come from any person associated in any way with the Russian government, Assange stated,

“We can say, and we have said repeatedly over the last few months, our source is not the Russian government, and it is not a State party.”

Again refusing to comment on the clarifying details concerning the source of documents leaked to the publishing organization, Assange emphasized that — although he could not confirm or deny reports from close friend and former British intelligence agent, Craig Murray the leaker came from within the Democratic establishment — “our sources are not a State party.”

Hannity then directly requested clarification for several accusations bandied about by the United States political establishment, asking if Assange had ever conversed with Russian President Vladimir Putin, to which he replied flatly, “No.”

“Have you ever talked to any of his surrogates?” the host continued.

“No.”

“Have you ever talked to Donald Trump?” Hannity asked, addressing suspicions Wikileaks had acted on behalf of the billionaire businessman’s campaign.

“No.”

“Any of his surrogates?”

“No.”

“Not one?” Hannity prodded.

“No,” Assange firmly responded.

“There was some report you might have talked to someone who was not associated with the campaign, Roger Stone?”

“No. That’s false.”

Claiming The Russians hacked anything has been largely a creation of the corporate press and politicians, and, as he explains, Obama is “acting like a lawyer,” and “If you look at most of his statements, he doesn’t say that. He doesn’t say that WikiLeaks obtained its information from Russia, or worked with Russia.”

Addressing one of the most frequently touted ideas that leaked documents influenced the election in order to sway the election for Donald Trump, Assange noted it would be impossible to tell for sure, but,

“If it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz — their true statements is what changed the election.”

Discussing millions of documents hacked by the Chinese, about which the aforementioned parties and the Obama administration have selectively chosen not to focus, Hannity asked whether Assange felt the move was intended to “delegitimize Donald Trump — what’s your interpretation of that?”

Assange explained, “It is exactly what it is designed to do … If you look at what the allegations are, they don’t mention Wikileaks, for the 29th, they don’t mention our publications. Our publications had wide uptake by the American people. They’re all true. But that’s not the allegation that’s been presented by the Obama White House. So, why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious: they’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House. They’re going to try — they are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate” president.

The Wikileaks head went on to explain the Democratic Party continues to attempt “short term wins” in such criticisms, while ignoring the factual substance of leaked documents — and the American people “want as much true information as possible.”

Wikileaks has been vilified for not releasing documents pertaining to Trump or his campaign — but, as Assange has repeatedly contended, no such documents were provided to the publisher.

“If the information you had was about Donald Trump and his campaign,” Hannity asked, “would you have equally released that?”

“Yes,” Assange responded without hesitation. “Absolutely.”

Murray, Assange’s associate — and former intelligence officials entirely unassociated with Wikileaks — have suggested the documents were leaked by a disgruntled party inside the Democratic establishment. On that topic, after Assange noted the perfect record Wikileaks has maintained in regard to authenticity of documents and refusal to expose the identity of sources, Hannity asked, since the leaker was not Russian,

“Can I ask … take it one step further. Can you say that the source was within the United States?”

After a frustrated pause, Assange replied, “I don’t want to constrain whether it was someone inside the United States, in the DNC, in the service providers that provide for the DNC, or outside, et cetera. I think that we have already pushed it quite a lot … more than we would like, by saying it was not a State party.”

But speaking out with that qualification had been a necessity as “there was a serious attempt to distract from the content of our publications with this Russian narrative.”

On the joint report from DHS and the FBI, Assange noted the tools provided as loose evidence of Russian hacking are commercially available — to anyone — and nothing laid out by the agencies evinced solid proof.

Additionally, Podesta’s careless choice of “password” for his password, and his staff’s erroneous assertion the infamous phishing email he received was legitimate, Assange said,

“This is something a fourteen-year-old kid — a fourteen-year-old kid — could have hacked Podesta that way.”

On the topic of corporate media’s lack of coverage of the content of the leaked documents — and exposed collusion with the Clinton campaign — Assange described the American mainstream press as “ethically corrupt.”

Despite allegations Assange and his organization had been somehow motivated to influence the election in favor of Trump, he noted,

“My motivation, for twenty years — ten years with Wikileaks — is to publish true information that is otherwise unassailable.”

Emphasizing he has no party political agenda, he added,

“We believe that the best type of government comes from a government that is scrutinized by the people, when they have true information about how governments and major corporations, other power actors in society, are behaving.”

Assange has been confined for years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London under threat of extradition to the United States — effectively making him a political prisoner. But vociferous anti-Russia rhetoric and allegations Russian hackers provided documents to Wikileaks forced Assange to come forward — first in an interview on Hannity’s radio program, and then this face-to-face interview — to call out the claims as hollow and baseless.

Although mainstream media has parroted these allegations against Russia, perhaps hearing Assange’s words in this rare appearance will help quiet the new Red Scare propaganda — and bring logic and common sense back to the table.

George Soros and Bill Gates Exposed as the Force Behind Facebook’s New ‘Fake News’ Detector

After controversy erupted over Facebook’s plan to use left-leaning, liberal fact-checking organizations to flag “disputed” news — as part of the wholly vapid and unnecessary war on “fake news” — additional information has emerged that won’t quell the public’s misgivings on the situation. Billionaire globalist George Soros is among several liberal ‘luminaries’ funding the social media platform’s latest foray into soft censorship of dissent.

On Thursday, CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the plan to combat fake news — incidentally, an issue he wasn’t concerned about until the left establishment applied pressure — but was met with consternation and outrage from constitutional rights advocates, alternative media, and right-leaning media for the singular viewpoint of the ostensible fact-checking organizations.

Indeed, Facebook’s announcement it would use third-party fact-checkers from the ‘trusted’ Poynter Institute should have sounded even louder alarm bells, as Poynter receives funding from Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Google, the Craig Newmark Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Omidyar Network, and other extreme left groups.

EBay founder Pierre Omidyar has donated over $30 million to the Clintons and their charities; the Gates have given the Clinton Foundation no less than $25 million; and the loathed George Soros — who donated an unprecedented $27 million to defeat George W. Bush in 2004 — reportedly spent over $25 million on Hillary Clinton and other Democrats this election cycle.

In short, these entities who will be deeming articles legitimate or “disputed” are anything but unbiased. As the Ron Paul Institute notes:

“Never fear. A group of selfless and unbiased philanthropists have stepped forward to offer millions of dollars to assist these ‘fact-checkers’ in their efforts to ferret out and disappear anything they determine to be ‘fake news.’ It seems rather curious, however, that these donors are all in fact in one way or other completely beholden to Hillary Clinton and the left-interventionists of the Democratic Party.”

As admittedly right-slanted Breitbart pointed out, “On Monday, just days before the announcement of the Facebook partnership, Poynter issued a press release revealing that Newmark donated $1 million to the group to fund a faculty chair in journalism ethics.”

That press release states:

“The gift will support a five-year program at Poynter that focuses on verification, fact-checking and accountability in journalism. It’s the largest donation Poynter’s ever received from an individual foundation.

“The Newmark Chair will expand on Poynter’s teaching in journalism ethics and develop certification programs for journalists that commit to ethical decision-making practices. The faculty member will also organize an annual conference on ethics issues at Poynter and be a regular contributor to Poynter.org.”

Ferreting out dis- and misinformation has little, if anything, to do with actual dis- and misinformation, and everything to do with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment’s disgust with Donald Trump and their losing election campaign.

Zuckerberg’s plan will at first entail fact-checking by Politifact, Snopes, FactCheck.org, the Associated Press, and ABC News, with the option to rope more outlets into the effort in the future.  But as the Ron Paul Institute reports, the bias in these groups — and their penchant for reporting false information — is astonishing:

“One problem: these organizations themselves are among the biggest purveyors of real fake news! PolitiFact has a whole website dedicated to exposing the organization’s biases. The popular site Snopes is in fact run by a husband and wife out of their home in California. Neither have any background in research or investigative techniques — they just use Google to make their determinations. As for AP and ABC News — they are mainstream media outlets with no clean hands when it comes to propagating fake stories. In fact the Associated Press has a long history of coordinating with governments to produce fake news.

“Political fact checking is not a science. On the contrary, more often than not it carries with it all the biases of any hyper-partisan organization.”

That point should not be overlooked — because as Facebook claims to be combating ‘fake news,’ employing organizations like the Open Society Foundations, Snopes, Google, and, particularly, Politifact in the plan evince the underlying motivation to further an establishment-left agenda — not combat actual, false reports, at all.

In fact, by using the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) — funded by the Poynter Institute, and thus Soros, Gates, and the others — Zuckerberg is committing to liberal bias in Facebook newsfeeds and foregoing the last shreds of open idea-sharing the platform originally claimed to embrace.

Although the left often downplays the role Soros plays in global events, his alleged fingerprints in the affairs of nations from the Ukraine to Macedonia to the United States show little more than a pattern of self-interest and profiteering disguised as concern for the public interest.

“Soros has earned his megafortune in part by short selling currencies and causing economic crises. He is credited with breaking the pound on September 16, 1992 in a day that became known in Britain as ‘Black Wednesday.’ He reportedly made $1.2 billion from that crisis.  In 2002, he was convicted for insider trading,” Breitbart’s Aaron Klein reports.

With clear favoritism for the left now on display, many conservative press organizations and alternative media outlets, whose bias largely doesn’t represent a particular ideology, have begun discussing leaving Facebook for any social media platform whose running modus operandi refuses censorship of any stripe.

It would behoove the U.S. populace to recognize the war against ‘fake news’ has nothing at all to do with actual fabricated reports and everything to do with funneling thought into one, accepted frame — that of the Democratic establishment.

Facebook, Soros, the Gates’, and Clintonites are trying to make acceptable the idea of spoon-feeding information, and the packaged narrative of news being somehow ‘fake’ does the job handily.

But losing the choice to view competing and sometimes unpleasant viewpoints is the steepest price to pay for the convenience of not being tasked with researching items on your own — and it’s the slipperiest of slopes in an increasingly authoritarian State.

DNC Caught Faking Craigslist Ad to Frame Trump for Sexual Harassment — As if They Needed to Frame Him

Apparently, Democratic National Committee insiders had it in for Donald Trump from the beginning — and perhaps because they worried Bernie Sanders would stand a better chance against the billionaire at the polls — they fabricated a plot to ensnare and accuse the GOP presidential contender of sexual harassment.

While that might seem to have the fingerprints of a tin-foil hat contrived theory, emails published by Wikileaks in the presidential election’s eleventh hour reveal DNC staffers scheming to do exactly that — and possibly more.

In an email dated May 19, 2016, DNC social media director Cate Domino writes to attorneys Graham Wilson and Jacquelyn Lopez — the former a partner and the latter an associate at Perkins Coie LLP — asking advice about, as the subject line states, “Approval: Craigslist Job Post,” stating:

“This is copy for a job we’d like to post on Craigslist. We’re aware that it might get taken down, and we’re comfortable with that, but we want to make sure we’re not exposing ourselves to any other action when we post.”

Other action apparently refers to the distinctly realistic possibility they could be sued for placing said ad — which is understandable, given its contents:

“Multiple Positions (NYC area)

Seeking staff members for multiple positions in a large, New York-based corporation known for its real estate investments, fake universities, steaks, and wine. The boss has very strict standards for female employees, ranging from the women who take lunch orders (must be hot) to the women who oversee multi-million dollar construction projects (must maintain hotness demonstrated at time of hiring).

Title: Honey Bunch (that’s what the boss will call you)

Job requirements:

* No gaining weight on the job (we’ll take some “before” pictures when you start to use later as evidence)

* Must be open to public humiliation and open-press workouts if you do gain weight on the job

* A willingness to evaluate other women’s hotness for the boss’ satisfaction is a plus

* Should be proficient in lying about age if the boss thinks you’re too old

Working mothers not preferred (the boss finds pumping breast milk disgusting, and worries they’re too focused on their children).

About us:

We’re proud to maintain a “fun” and “friendly work environment, where the boss is always available to meet with his employees. Like it or not, he may greet you with a kiss on the lips or grope you under the meeting table.

Interested applicants should send resume, cover letter, and headshot to [email protected]

Although Lopez responds, in part, “The defamation risk here is too high,” further communication in the chain indicates a phone conversation occurred between Domino and the attorney — and it would seem the dubious nature of this putative parody advertisement no longer sparked qualms among DNC staffers.

Domino explains as much to DNC Deputy Digital Director Tessa Simonds the following morning, May 20, writing:

“Just talked to Jackie – apparently because we’re talking about sexual harassment, the defamation risk is really high, but he hasn’t been litigious yet, so…

“When I told her that we pulled every example from solid news sources, that made her feel a little better. Basically, it’s up to the DNC if it’s worth the risk, but if we decide to go forward, she thinks we should make sure we’re really confident in our research back-up, and asked us to flag it for them first.

“What do you think?”

Then, three minutes later, before Simonds or other staffers copied into the chain can reply, Domino notes:

“New intel – she just called me back.

“Apparently Graham took this all the way to Marc [Elias, Perkins Coie partner and Clinton campaign general counsel], and he said no. So if we do this, we need to get Amy and Lindsey to agree that we’re ok with the possibility of getting sued.”

Shortly thereafter, DNC spokeswoman Christina Freundlich — who earned instant national notoriety for snapping a shameless smiling selfie in front of a deadly blaze in New York City in March 2015 — intones with the following reminder:

“However, Jackie said to Cate ‘if you think getting sued would be awesome publicity and Amy and Lindsey are willing to go there, then let’s talk, but…’”

In minutes, Simonds responds, “Great. Once research weighs in, Cate will take it to Amy and Lindsey if we decide to move forward,” before Democratic National Committee research director and head of the rapid response division, Lauren Dillon, weighs in:

“I’ll do the sign off which will probably slow it down a bit. For awareness.”

Simonds, contextually appearing a bit apprehensive about the plan, replies, “Rapid team has signed off, we just need to decide within this group IF we want to take this to lindsey / amy / luis”

Dillon, replying to the growing list of staff copied into the burgeoning plot for the fake Craigslist ad, writes [all errors original]:

“If we have a likelihood of getting sued I need to look at it closely too if you want to move forward.

“You can take it to them first to decide and if they say no that will save me time but I may end up making edits – or I may not – before it actually goes out.

“My team if great as you know but I lawsuit should be on my shoulders.”

Several issues arise in parsing the larger context of leaked documents — and the intended nature of this fabricated Craigslist ad is far from an exception. A simple explanation for the plan being simply a parody forgets those privy to the plot expressed apprehension about potential legal ramifications — were the ad a basic joke, such a possibility would seemingly discourage planners from moving forward.

Instead, the email chain appears to show intent to smear Donald Trump’s reputation to the brink of disaster, and a willingness to risk litigation in the process.

Are these the signature marks of a political party and its favored campaign under fire from the start and looking to cheat its way out of the negative spotlight? Was this a satirical prank pulled despite damaging consequences? Or was this perhaps undertaken in hopes national controversy and outcry would lower the integrity of the already-contentious Trump presidential bid?

Those questions might go unanswered forever — or perhaps more will be revealed as Wikileaks publishes its apparently voluminous cache of documents,  as Americans prepare to head for the polls in less than 24 hours.

As the Free Thought Project covers the presidential candidates and their various blunders, depending on which candidate we criticize, we are accused of supporting the ‘other guy.’ It is important to note that the Free Thought Project does not and has not endorsed any individual candidate. If you look through our archives, you will find that we have exposed corruption on all of them.