Tag Archives: New York Times

Biden’s Harsh Dismissal of Kamala During Negotiations Left GOP Senators ‘Taken Aback’: New Book

Martin Walsh
April 27, 2022

There’s apparently major tension between President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in the White House that has not settled down.

New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns detail in their upcoming book, “This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America’s Future” a slew of tense moments and exchanges between Harris and Biden.

In one instance, the book alleges that Biden left Republican senators stunned during legislative negotiations last year when he strongly shut down Harris in front of everyone.

In a meeting last May, Biden and Harris met with senators to discuss passing a $1 trillion infrastructure bill through Congress when Harris reportedly “thought that there was something missing from the conversation.”

The book alleges that Harris “began to make the case for a larger package than the one Republicans seemed to have in mind,” which included adding more Democratic goodies.

“Biden dismissed her comment immediately,” the authors explain, adding, “that even the Republican senators were taken aback” by his harsh tone.

In another meeting, the NYT authors quote Maryland GOP Gov. Larry Hogan, who recounted a meeting between Biden, Harris, and a handful of governors.

Hogan recalled Harris’s role in meetings as “very strange,” saying she sat quietly and it was noticeable.

“Harris did not say a word,” Hogan said, adding that he didn’t know if Harris was “just being deferential to the president — didn’t want to step on him” or there was something else going on.

“Some of Harris’s advisers believed the president’s almost entirely white inner circle did not show the vice president the respect she deserved,” Martin and Burns wrote in excerpts.

“Harris worried that Biden’s staff looked down on her; she fixated on real and perceived snubs in ways the West Wing found tedious,” the authors add of Harris who has yet to improve her dismal approval ratings.

In another section, the authors detail how First Lady Jill Biden apparently did not want Harris to be her husband’s pick for vice president and he had reservations of his own.

“There are millions of people in the United States. Why do we have to choose the one who attacked Joe,” Jill Biden said in a conversation after she discovered that Harris was in the lead for the job.

In another example of the Biden-Harris feud in the West Wing, the book claims Biden threatened to dismiss any staffers for Harris if they were discovered spreading negative stories about her leadership and personality.

Biden reportedly made the threat amid a flurry of news stories documenting rising frustration and dissatisfaction with the VP among the ranks of her staff, many of whom have already quit in the year she’s been in office.

Biden was angry following negative reports last June claiming dissatisfaction among Harris’ staff.

In response, Biden brought in senior staff to the Oval Office and told them that if “he found that any of them was stirring up negative stories about the vice president…they would quickly be former staff,” according to an excerpt of the book reported by Politico.

Many of the reports contained specific complaints from unnamed staffers.

In early December, the Washington Post published a lengthy report and quoted several current and former staffers who were frustrated with her.

“It’s clear that you’re not working with somebody who is willing to do the prep and the work,” a former staffer said. “With Kamala, you have to put up with a constant amount of soul-destroying criticism and also her own lack of confidence. So you constantly sort of propping up a bully and it’s not really clear why.”

Here are some other headlines from the book:

Book: Biden Threatened to Fire Harris Staffers If Caught Spreading Negative Stories About VP

Biden Believed Kamala Harris’ Team Was Sabotaging Rivals For Veep Slot

Biden May Be Secretly Planning To Replace Kamala Harris As VP: Insider Rumor

‘A Sign Of Disrespect’: Book Claims Harris Wanted Biden’s Staff To Stand Whenever She Walked In

NY Times Latest to Mislead Public on New Ivermectin Study

The New York Times on Wednesday sent an email to subscribers titled: “Breaking News: Ivermectin failed as a Covid treatment . . .” The Times was referring to a study in the New England Journal of Medicine, covered March 18 by The Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the newspapers failed to provide an accurate critical analysis of the study.

The New York Times on Wednesday sent an email blast to subscribers with the subject line: “Breaking News: Ivermectin failed as a Covid treatment, a large clinical trial found.”

The Times was referring to a study I wrote about, that same day, for The Defender.

My article called out the Wall Street Journal for its March 18 reporting on the same study — before the study was even published — for its failure to provide an accurate, critical assessment of the study.

The study in question — “Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19” — was officially published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

In it the authors concluded:

“Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19”

The Times did not critique the study itself, but quoted the opinion of Dr. David Boulware, an infectious-disease expert at the University of Minnesota:

“There’s really no sign of any benefit. Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin towards other therapies.”

Yes. Let us dive into the details and the data and see where it “steers” us, shall we?

A closer look at the details

The NEJM study took place in Brazil between March 23 and Aug. 6, 2021.

The study examined 1,358 people who expressed symptoms of COVID-19 at an outpatient care facility (within seven days of symptom onset), had a positive rapid test for the disease and had at least one of these risk factors for severe disease:

  • Age over 50
  • Hypertension requiring medical therapy
  • Diabetes mellitus
  • Cardiovascular disease
  • Lung disease
  • Smoking
  • Obesity
  • Organ transplantation
  • Chronic kidney disease (stage IV) or receipt of dialysis
  •  Immunosuppressive therapy (receipt of ≥10 mg of prednisone or equivalent daily)
  • Diagnosis of cancer within the previous 6 months
  • Receipt of chemotherapy for cancer.

Young and healthy individuals were not part of this study.

Both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were included in the study. The percentage of vaccinated participants in each group was not specified. Note that by choosing not to identify vaccination status as a confounding variable the authors are implying that vaccines are playing no role in preventing hospitalization.

The 1,358 subjects were divided into two equally sized groups that were relatively well-matched and randomized to receive either a three-day dose of placebo or a three-day course of ivermectin at 400 mcg/kg.

The primary outcome was hospitalization due to COVID-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of COVID-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization.

How researchers were able to conclude ‘no benefit’ despite signs to the contrary

The study’s authors wrote:

“100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event (composite of hospitalization due to the progression of COVID-19 or an emergency department visit of >6 hours that was due to clinical worsening of COVID-19), as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16).”

In other words, a greater percentage of placebo recipients required hospitalization or observation in an emergency department than those who received Ivermectin.

The authors of the study broke it down by subgroups here:

As is demonstrated in nearly every subgroup, the Ivermectin recipients fared better than those who received the placebo.

However, these data were not statistically significant given the size of the study.

This is how the authors were able to conclude there was no benefit to ivermectin use in preventing hospitalization in high-risk patients in their study.

Patients were under-dosed, some didn’t follow instructions

As it stands, the study The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal declared as proof of the uselessness of ivermectin in treating COVID-19 is actually quite promising —  contrary to what their headlines told readers.

The dosing protocol advised by the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) includes a five-day course of ivermectin at 600 micrograms per kilogram of body weight for people with risk factors such as those possessed by participants in the study.

Instead, the investigators behind the NEJM study chose a much lower dose, 400mcg per day for only three days. This represents less than half of the total dose that has been shown to be effective in practice.

Furthermore, despite acknowledging that studies have shown some indication that the bioavailability of ivermectin increases when taken with food, especially a fatty meal, participants in the trial were instructed to take the medicine on an empty stomach.

In other words, the patients were significantly under-dosed — and yet a positive effect of the drug was emerging, though not statistically significant given the size of the study.

Also of note, the investigators chose to include emergency room visits with hospitalizations for COVID. Clearly, six hours of observation in an ER is a significantly different outcome than a hospitalization that may last a night or much longer.

When excluding the ER visits from the primary outcome and examining only hospitalizations, the ivermectin cohort had even less risk of an outcome, i.e. the relative risk was 0.84 vs 0.9 when ER visits and hospitalization were grouped together.

Perhaps the most glaring deficiency of the study is the low number of placebo recipients who actually followed the study’s protocol:

Only 288 of 679 participants randomized to receiving the placebo reported 100% adherence to the study protocol. Nearly 400 didn’t.

Why not? We asked Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee.

Nass told The Defender:

“Presumably they knew the difference between ivermectin and placebo, and the placebo subjects went out and bought ivermectin or something else … but whatever they did, they didn’t bother with the pills they were given.

“So, it was not actually a double-blinded trial. Yet the 391 people who didn’t take the placebo but did something else were included in two of the three calculations of ivermectin efficacy anyway.”

So, was this the definitive answer proclaimed by mainstream sources? Nass thinks otherwise:

“I would say that instead, it was a failed trial due to the 391 placebo recipients who admitted they did not follow protocol versus the 55 in the ivermectin arm.”

More questions than answers

Rather than pounding the final nail in the coffin around ivermectin’s utility in treating COVID, the NEJM study raises more questions.

  • What would the effect have been if a higher dose shown to be effective were administered?
  • What would be the benefit of this medicine in patients with no risk factors?
  • How statistically significant would the results have been if more participants were enrolled?
  • Why weren’t more participants enrolled as the study progressed given the emerging benefit of the drug and the absence of adverse events?
  • Why did the investigators define a primary outcome with such different real-world implications (ER visits vs hospitalizations)?
  • With less than 50% of the placebo arm adhering to the study protocol, why were their outcomes included in the analysis?
  • What effect did vaccination status have on outcome? If this is the primary means endorsed to prevent hospitalization, why wasn’t vaccination status mentioned as a confounder?
  • Did the investigators choose to limit the study as it became clear that an Ivermectin benefit would be too big to ignore?

Given these obvious issues with the study, it is becoming even more clear where the real story is: Neither The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times are willing to pursue startling details around how corporate interests are corrupting scientific opinion as reported here.

Instead, these iconic journals chose to report on a scientific study on or prior to the day of publication using misleading headlines backed up by flimsy investigations conducted by journalists with no capacity to dissect the analysis or data.

Here’s a bigger question: Are they just incompetent, or complicit, too?

This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Watch: Joe Rogan Slams Media Coverup of Hunter Biden Laptop Story

James Anthony
March 20, 2022

Podcasting icon Joe Rogan slammed the corporate media’s coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop saga on Saturday’s episode of his popular show featuring former CIA covert operations officer Mike Baker, the current CEO of a global intelligence firm.

In the program’s segment, Baker noted the legacy media “love a good story.”

“They don’t just love a good story. They love a narrative, and they’re willing to ignore facts to push that narrative. That’s what scares me,” Rogan said.

Rogan noted he believes there are objective journalists who work for The Washington Post and The New York Times. “There’s real solid journalists out there,” Rogan acknowledged, “but I don’t necessarily know if you’re getting all the information,” he continued, causing Baker to break out in laughter.

“You’re not sure?” Baker asked Rogan sarcastically.

“I think it’s safe to say that some f*ckery is afoot,” replied Rogan.

The New York Timesjust now, is admitting that the Hunter Biden laptop is real. And, we remember from the debates, with Trump bringing it up to Biden, and Biden saying, ‘It’s bullshit.’ And it’s a lie, a flat-out lie. Everybody knew it was a lie,” Rogan went on, then referring to when The New York Post‘s bombshell report on the infamous “laptop from hell” was suppressed on Twitter in October 2020.

Rogan said the censorship “was just outright crazy,” mentioning that the conservative news outlet is “one of the oldest newspapers in the country.”

He stressed how “nobody is apologizing.” CNN anchor Brian Stelter has refused to apologize for amplifying the “Russian disinformation” claim as well as the dozens of former intelligence officials who either doubled down or declined to comment.

“There’s a dynamic here,” Baker jumped in. “I love this topic, in a sense, not so much because of whatever the f*ck Hunter was up to, but in part, because now when you look at the liberal Dems and the progressives, it doesn’t matter to them.”

Baker elaborated further on the topic of left-wing apathy to the Hunter Biden laptop story, saying, “If you read some of the narrative that’s out there now, the social media in the past day or so, ever since The New York Times came out with this, they’re just dismissive of it. They don’t care, or they’re willing to overlook it.”

“Which is the same thing they accuse the right of doing. Both sides—we’ve talked about this before—both sides are just so f*ked up,” Baker added.

Project Veritas: Pulitzer Prize-Winning NY Times Journalist Admits Jan. 6 Was “No Big Deal”

JD Rucker
March 8, 2022

Project Veritas has done it again. Corporate media in general and the NY Times, in particular, made the mostly peaceful protests of January 6, 2021, “overblown” for the sake of promoting a narrative, a Pulitzer Prize-winning NY Times journalist admitted on undercover video.

Watch NYT National Security Correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, spill the beans over drinks:

This is Part 1 of at least two parts of this Project Veritas series. While it may not be at the bombshell level that they’ve hit in recent exposés, it reinforces what most of us already suspected: Corporate media knows they’re playing up the January 6 “insurrection” narrative so they can paint Donald Trump and his supporters as bad people.

One strong revelation from the report has always been known, but further reiterated by Rosenberg. The Deep State was present among the “insurrectionists” and helped to encourage entry into the Capitol Building.

According to Project Veritas:

  • NYT National Security Correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, contradicts his own January 6 reporting: “There were a ton of FBI informants amongst the people who attacked the Capitol.”
  • Rosenberg: “It was like, me and two other colleagues who were there [January 6] outside and we were just having fun!”
  • Rosenberg: “I know I’m supposed to be traumatized, but like, all these colleagues who were in the [Capitol] building and are like ‘Oh my God it was so scary!’  I’m like, ‘f*ck off!’”
  • Rosenberg: “I’m like come on, it’s not the kind place I can tell someone to man up but I kind of want to be like, ‘dude come on, you were not in any danger.’”
  • Rosenberg: “These f*cking little dweebs who keep going on about their trauma. Shut the f*ck up. They’re f*cking b*tches.”
  • Rosenberg: “They were making too big a deal. They were making this an organized thing that it wasn’t.”
  • Rosenberg RESPONDS: “Will I stand by those comments? Absolutely.”

We will eagerly await Part II and will post it here.

SAD NEWS: NY Times Editor Dies of Heart Attack Hours After Posting Selfie Taking the COVID Booster

Matt Agorist 
December 30, 2021

On Dec. 16, in Seoul, South Korea, Carlos Tejada received a Moderna mRNA/LNP “booster.” Later that night, he would die of a heart attack. Tejada was the deputy Asia editor of The New York Times, who helped shape coverage of the global Covid-19 crisis in 2021 that won a Pulitzer Prize, according to the NY Times.

Carlos’ wife Nora Tejada took to her husband’s Twitter account the next day to announce that her husband had died of a heart attack. The screen capture below was taken before the account was locked.

The day before he died, Tejada took to his Instagram to post a photo of himself receiving the booster shot.

“Double-vaxxed. Janssen-fueled, Moderna-boosted. Hey, Omicron: Hit me with your wet snot,” Tejada joked. “All I had to do was fill out this form in a language I can’t read.”

As Berenson said in his article on Substack, “If this does not wake the Times nothing will.”

Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new data showing a total of 965,843 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Dec. 10, 2021, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

This most recent dats included a total of 20,622 reports of deaths and 159,166 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period.

As we reported earlier this month, a study by researchers at Columbia University suggested that this number could be a massive undercount. Given the factor of 20 found by the researchers in this study, according to the most recent VAERS numbers, that would mean 400,000 deaths possibly attributed to the covid jab.

After watching so many people die, and receiving personal emails from folks telling their stories, Alex Berenson issued a promise to Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna.

By the time I’m done the world will know what you knew and when you knew it. This isn’t about depopulation conspiracy theories; it’s about a drug – not a vaccine, this isn’t a vaccine by any reasonable definition – you rushed to market with the promise of zero liability and tens of billions of dollars in profits, a drug that looks worse by the week. It’s about risking the hearts of healthy kids to make morbidly obese adults feel a little better; it’s about getting the result you want in a clinical trial after a few months and blowing up the trial – for a drug that is supposed to be given to billions of people – and not once, but over and over.

So, yeah, I’m not going to forget. I don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and I absolutely will not stop until the truth comes out.

New York Times Manipulates FBI Lawyer’s Guilty Plea To Hide Real Spygate News

Mollie Hemingway
AUGUST 17, 2020

A New York Times reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for his role perpetrating the Russia collusion hoax was tasked with framing the news that a former top FBI lawyer was to plead guilty to deliberately fabricating evidence against a Donald Trump campaign affiliate targeted in the Russia probe. The resulting article is a case study in how to write propaganda.

Adam Goldman broke, and cushioned, the news that former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was to plead guilty to fabricating evidence in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application to spy on Trump campaign affiliate Carter Page.

His job was to present the news as something other than an indictment of the FBI’s handling of the Russia collusion hoax, to signal to other media that they should move on from the story as quickly as possible, and to hide his own newspaper’s multi-year participation in the Russia collusion hoax. One intelligence source described it as an “insult” to his intelligence and “beyond Pravda,” a reference to the official newspaper of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. Here’s how Goldman did it.

Mild Headline With Ludicrous Spin

The New York Times used to put every Russia collusion story it had on the front page. Then, when the narrative fell apart, the Times moved on to a new narrative of redefining America as irredeemably racist.

Even though Clinesmith’s guilty plea is directly relevant to the false story the Times peddled for years, and even though it broke the news of his guilty plea, the publication hid the story deep in the paper and put a boring headline on it. “Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer Expected to Plead Guilty in Durham Investigation,” as if begging readers to move on. If they didn’t, the subhead told them that the news really wasn’t such a big deal. “Prosecutors are not expected to reveal any evidence of a broad anti-Trump conspiracy among law enforcement officials,” it claimed, without, well, evidence.

In fact, while the charging document was brief, it revealed that while Clinesmith deliberately fabricated evidence in the fourth warrant to spy on Page, all four warrants failed to mention the information the CIA gave the FBI months before the first warrant was filed. That information was that Page, a former Marine officer who graduated from the Naval Academy, had been a source for the agency, sharing information about Russians the agency was interested in. In fact, he’d done it for five years.

All four warrants took those contacts as probable cause to spy on him, so the CIA’s information would have significantly altered the applications if included.

Downplays Robert Mueller Ties

Goldman describes Clinesmith as someone “who was assigned to the Russia investigation,” avoiding any mention of his role on the “Mueller probe” until the 24th paragraph. The Mueller probe is the name given to the special counsel investigation ostensibly led by Robert Mueller but actually led by rabid partisan Andrew Weissmann.

Clinesmith was removed from the Russia collusion investigation not for falsifying evidence but for his extreme anti-Trump texts. Those were found when Inspector General Michael Horowitz investigated the FBI’s gentle treatment of Hillary Clinton when she was facing scrutiny for mishandling classified information.

“I’m just devastated,” Clinesmith texted to FBI attorney Sally Moyer shortly after Trump won the 2016 presidential election. “Plus, my god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff,” Clinesmith wrote.

“Is it making you rethink your commitment to the Trump administration?” Moyer later asked Clinesmith, apparently referring to Clinesmith’s plan to remain at the FBI.

“Hell no,” Clinesmith responded. “Viva le resistance.”

Assertions Without Evidence

Goldman claims, without evidence, that Trump “has long been blunt about seeing the continuing investigation by the prosecutor examining the earlier inquiry, John H. Durham, as political payback.” In fact, Trump has said that no president should go through what he went through: the weaponization of a political opponent’s conspiracy theory to undermine a duly elected president.

Still Peddling Russia Claims

“Attorney General William P. Barr has portrayed Mr. Durham’s work as rectifying what he sees as injustices by officials who sought in 2016 to understand links between the Trump campaign and Russia’s covert operation to interfere in the election,” Goldman writes, failing to inform his readers that there were no such “links.”

Evidence Of Broader Conspiracy

As in the headline, Goldman highlights his view that “prosecutors were not expected to reveal any evidence in charging documents that show Mr. Clinesmith’s actions were part of any broader conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump.” Beyond the fact that the very brief charging document actually does get at problems that extend beyond Clinesmith, the lack of an outline of such evidence doesn’t mean the prosecutors don’t have it, just that they didn’t put it in this document.

Perhaps Clinesmith’s plea involved his assistance in laying out this evidence, or perhaps the information was unnecessary, or perhaps it simply wasn’t shared with Clinesmith or his attorney who are the obvious source candidates for the article.

Factual But Not Truthful

The corporate media are “factual but not truthful,” says critic Michael Malice. A good example of that is when Goldman picks out the two least salient pieces of information from the inspector general’s investigation of FISA abuse to claim that actually the FBI did a good job. This was the report that found 17 egregious errors, inaccuracies, and problems in the applications to spy on Page.

Goldman saves his mention of that for the 14th paragraph of his article, instead saying, “And the Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, has found that law enforcement officials had sufficient reason to open the Russia investigation, known inside the F.B.I. as Crossfire Hurricane, and found no evidence that they acted with political bias.”

He leaves out that Horowitz also said he found the FBI officials’ “we weren’t politically biased” claims to be insufficient and unsatisfactory explanations for how all of the egregious problems happened. And before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Horowitz testified that questions of political bias get “murkier” once you get past the opening of the probe.

More Anonymous Sourcing

Goldman grants Clinesmith or his attorneys anonymity to say that “his motives were benign, and other evidence indicated that he had not tried to hide the C.I.A. email from his colleagues.”

First off, this is a really cute way to elide the inspector general’s finding that Clinesmith didn’t just fabricate evidence in the email from the CIA, he also hid his initial email to the CIA, which provided much-needed context for understanding the CIA’s response. But also, what is the justification for Goldman to give the anonymity for making this claim?

Clinesmith or his attorneys are not leaking classified information here. Is the Times willing to grant anonymity to anyone and thus relieve them of the responsibility of their own statements so long as the Times approves of what they’re saying?

Anonymous Leaks Good, Accountable Public Statements Bad

Goldman, who for years regurgitated anonymous leaks to spread the false and dangerous Russia collusion hoax, writes of Barr mentioning that there would be a development in the Durham probe: “It is highly unusual for law enforcement officials to publicly discuss ongoing investigations, but Mr. Barr has long made clear his distaste for the Russia investigation and his view that Mr. Durham would remedy any issues with it.”

In other words, Goldman is opining that it is better to anonymously leak false information like the FBI and Weissmann teams did for three years rather than make mild and accurate statements in a public and straightforward manner. Got it.

We Never Cared About Collusion

The entire reason the Russia collusion hoax gripped the nation for years was because of the conspiracy theory that Trump was a traitor who had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. As the Wall Street Journal put it, “Thousands of news stories appeared through this period suggesting myriad, concrete Trump campaign linkages to Russia.”

But once Weissmann was unable to find any collusion, the media simply dropped the claim that they had pushed for years. Now Goldman, who won a Pulitzer for pushing the claim, describes the Mueller probe as something that “uncovered the Kremlin’s complex operation to subvert the election and the Trump campaign’s expectation that it would benefit from foreign involvement.”

He hides the fact that Weissmann failed to find any evidence that Trump team colluded with Russia, which was the core allegation being investigated but has suddenly become so irrelevant that he doesn’t find it necessary to mention it while summing up the Mueller probe. Poof, it just disappeared.

Downplaying FISA Abuse

The 434-page Horowitz report identified major abuses by the FBI that violated Page’s civil liberties. The corporate media used to present itself as an institution that cared about protecting individual freedoms from abuse by unaccountable government. The IG report lists the threat to the First Amendment and “constitutionally protected activity” nearly 20 times.

Here’s how Goldman puts it: “Republicans have seized on a narrow aspect of the inquiry — the investigation into Mr. Page — in a long-running quest to undermine it.”

This is propaganda. FISA abuse was never a “narrow aspect” of the inquiry and everyone should have “seized” on it because lying to a FISA court and violating an American’s civil liberties are evil. For Goldman to opine the motivations of his political opponents is beyond his capabilities. Also, he should know that Republicans couldn’t “undermine” the investigation at this point if they tried, since it ended a long time ago.

Good-Faith Document Tampering

The CIA repeatedly told the FBI that Page was a source. Clinesmith told a supervisor Page wasn’t a source, despite what he was told by the CIA. He was asked by the supervisor to provide documentation supporting that claim, at which point he doctored an email so it said Page was “never a source.”

Here’s how Goldman spins this: “Mr. Clinesmith did not change the document in an attempt to cover up the F.B.I.’s mistake, the people familiar with the case said. His lawyers argued that he had made the change in good faith because he did not think that Mr. Page had been an actual source for the C.I.A.”

That sounds very believable and Goldman is a good reporter for not having any skepticism at all toward the claim.

Hiding The Dossier

The New York Times used to trumpet the “Steele dossier,” a collection of memos bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign alleging Trump was a traitor who had colluded with Russia. Page featured prominently in the dossier.

Recently it was confirmed that, far from the descriptions in the media, the dossier was just the collected gossip and drunken brainstorming of an American-based researcher and his school chums that were then exaggerated by Steele. Goldman himself was part of a reporting team that described Steele as “an expert on Russia who is well respected in the spy world,” adding that he was “considered a competent and reliable operative with extensive experience in Russia.”

Goldman and his colleagues praised Steele as having “an excellent reputation with American and British intelligence colleagues and had done work for the F.B.I. on the investigation of bribery at FIFA, soccer’s global governing body. Colleagues say he was acutely aware of the danger he and his associates were being fed Russian disinformation.”

It turned out that the FIFA talking point wasn’t true. Steele’s prior handling agent at the bureau told Inspector General Horowitz that he would have never approved such a description of Steele’s work, since most of his prior work had not been corroborated and none of it had ever been used in criminal proceedings.

As for his “acute” awareness of the danger of being fed Russian disinformation, that was also not true. Horowitz found that Steele was an agent of “Russian Oligarch 1,” a reference to Oleg Deripaska, and that he was in frequent contact with agents of Russian oligarchs.

Had the FBI been properly informed that Steele was working both for the Clinton-funded operation and the Russian oligarch, they said they would have been much more sensitive to the possibility his entire operation was related to Russian disinformation. Also, Steele’s two most explosive claims — about Michael Cohen being in Prague and the “pee tape” claim — were both thought possibly to have been part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

The dossier was key to securing the wiretap on Page, which Goldman doesn’t mention. He instead writes, “Investigators eventually suspected that Russian spies had marked Mr. Page for recruitment” as the reason they were able to get a wiretap.

All of which to say, in a story about malfeasance on Carter Page’s FISA warrants, Goldman doesn’t mention the dossier until the penultimate paragraph of a 30-paragraph story.

These are just a few of the ways Goldman manipulates the story to protect the Russia collusion hoax he participated in. Because they were co-conspirators in the hoax, too many in the corporate media are serving as obstacles to holding the FBI and other powerful government agencies accountable for their actions.

Media Corruption: Trump Rejects NY Times Report on Russian Afghan Attacks on Troops

EDITORS NOTE: The CFR/SeeEyeAye/Trilateral Commission affiliated legacy media has been trying to push war fear since Trump took office, but what has happened is actually quite the opposite. The truth of the matter is that he has pulled troops out of all ground wars, deescalated the North Korean threat, and is actually working to bring peace to the middle east situation in ways previous administrations wouldn’t even consider (because unelected leaders control the war economy)

Troops pulled from Syria: https://www.americanlibertyreport.com/articles/mission-accomplished-trump-brings-troops-home-from-syria/

Afganistan: https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-renews-intent-to-bring-us-troops-back-from-afghanistan_3366325.html

Troops Remains Returned from N. Korea (unprecedented): https://time.com/5318121/president-trump-north-korea-war-soldiers-remains/

There are many more examples, you would have no trouble finding with a simple duckduckgo search.

-Ryan DeLarme


JACK PHILLIPS 
June 28, 2020

President Donald Trump responded to a New York Times report claiming American intelligence officials learned that Russia offered bounties to Taliban-linked terrorists to kill American and coalition troops in Afghanistan.

Trump wrote on Twitter Sunday that no one in his administration, including White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Vice President Mike Pence, briefed him on the allegations contained in the report, describing it as “fake news.”

“Nobody briefed or told me, @VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an ‘anonymous source’ by the Fake News @nytimes,” Trump wrote on Sunday morning, adding that “everybody is denying it.”

Meanwhile, he added that “there have not been many attacks on us. Nobody’s been tougher on Russia than the Trump Administration.”

Over the weekend, the newspaper cited “officials briefed on the matter” for its report, while it noted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow hasn’t been made aware of the claims, while a Taliban spokesperson, Zabihullah Mujahid, denied the allegations.

“These kinds of deals with the Russian intelligence agency are baseless—our target killings and assassinations were ongoing in years before, and we did it on our own resources,” Mujahid said. “That changed after our deal with the Americans, and their lives are secure and we don’t attack them.”

Aiming at the NY Times, Trump said the newspaper used an anonymous source to obtain the report and must reveal the person in order for it to be credible.

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe echoed Trump’s sentiment, writing that he “confirmed that neither the president nor the vice president were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday.”

The White House also addressed the issue, and it denied that a briefing ever occurred, according to his office. “The New York Times reporting, and all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing are inaccurate,” Ratcliffe wrote.

News of the alleged Russian-backed scheme was met with scorn by top Democrats, including 2020 candidate Joe Biden. In a virtual town hall event on Saturday, Biden suggested that if the NY Times published an accurate report, Trump should face consequences.

Biden repeated longstanding Democratic allegations that Trump has a close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that his “entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale.”

“It’s betrayal of the most sacred duty we bear as a nation to protect and equip our troops when we send them into harm’s way. It’s a betrayal of every single American family with a loved one serving in Afghanistan or anywhere overseas,” he said.

Trump denied Biden’s claims, reiterating his claim that the Kremlin took advantage of the former vice president as well as former President Barack Obama.

Troops afghanistan
U.S. soldiers walk at the site of a Taliban suicide attack in Kandahar in a file photo. (Javed Tanveer/AFP/Getty Images)

“Funny to see Corrupt Joe Biden reading a statement on Russia, which was obviously written by his handlers,” Trump wrote. “Russia ate his and Obama’s lunch during their time in office, so badly that Obama wanted them out of the then G-8. U.S. was weak on everything, but especially Russia!”

The top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, said he reached out to the Trump administration after reading the NY Times report.

“If accurate, the administration must take swift and serious action to hold the Putin regime accountable,” McCaul said. He added that the report deepens his concerns about Moscow’s  “malicious behavior globally.”

Russia called the report “nonsense.”

“This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists of American intelligence, who instead of inventing something more plausible have to make up this nonsense,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said, according to the Associated Press.

UNW Weekly Report(Feb 23rd – 29th): Fear Porn, Resignations, NYT Lawsuit

Ryan Delarme
March 1st, 2020

There’s been a lot of buzz and fear mongering over the latest designer virus, and it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the main objective in intentionally accidentally releasing the Coronavirus is to crash the global economy as a gambit to shift the blame from the Central Bank. Fear is great fuel for an agenda, and of course the usual suspects have jumped at the chance to twist a tragedy for political gain. 

Remember, the Central Bank and its Deep-State actors have been throwing everything they can at those defying them. It’s not too far fetched to think that they had a hand in the release of the virus, in fact it is looking very likely. 

A well known military intelligence backchannel has often claimed that there will be many high-profile figures who will be “getting sick” and slipping away from the public eye. Within the same 24 hour cycle both the Vice president of Iran and Pope Francis have suddenly come down with the Coronavirus. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/coronavirus-iran-vice-president-masoumeh-ebtekar-test-positive-outbreak-latest-a9363181.html

https://nypost.com/2020/02/29/pope-francis-cancels-third-day-of-events-amid-mysterious-illness/

I’m not saying that they are faking it, but I’m also not saying that they are not.


Peace may finally become a realization in the Middle East, despite countless attempts by the Deep-State to continue the endless proxy wars. Representatives of the United States and the Taliban have sealed a landmark agreement in Qatar to end the 18-year-long Afghan war. The deal will pave the way for an intra-Afghan dialogue.
US troops will start withdrawing from Afghanistan with immediate effect, US President Donald Trump said on Saturday, when asked about the timeframe for the withdrawal. Speaking to journalists, Trump said: “Like today, OK? Today. They’ll start immediately.” 


In resignation news we saw a lot of folks stepping down as has been the trend since 2016. Notable resignations in february alone have included: Def Jam CEO and Chairman Paul Rosenberg, Chairman of Democratic Party of Iowa Troy Price (following caucus fiasco), Heineken CEO Jean-Francois van Boxmeer, VP of Google Eileen Naughton, President of Ford Motor Company USA Joe Hinrichs, Harley Davidson CEO Matthew Levatich, The Bayer Chairman who oversaw the Monsanto merger Werner Wenning, Vice Chairman of BlackRock Inc. Barbara Novik, and perhaps the most notable and most publicized was Disney CEO Bob Iger suddenly stepping down but remaining on the board of directors. There are new resignations everyday, they can be tracked at https://www.resignation.info/list.

While Iger’s impending retirement has been predicted for quite some time now, this full-stop switch is definitely unexpected. Iger had been the head of the world-dominating business for 15 years. During his reign as CEO, he made monumental moves like purchasing Lucasfilm in 2012 and Marvel in 2009 for $4 billion each, as well as nabbing Pixar from Apple CEO Steve Jobs for $7.4 billion in 2006. 


Perhaps my favorite bit of news from this past week was the announcement of a lawsuit against the New York Times by team Trump. It is possible that this will be a cascading event hopefully sparking a flood of libel lawsuits by those who have been smeared and slandered by the MSM in recent years. Anytime somebody who is not a part of the old guard or “Deep State” gains any amount of popularity and takes a stance opposing any of their myriad agendas, they are instantly slammed with the “Russian Asset” label. Not just Donald Trump, but Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard etc, the list goes on and on. The mainstream media NEEDS to be held accountable, and like the CIA it should be broken into a million pieces and scattered on the wind.

All of the usual publications rushed to attack immediately. The Clinton linked Daily Beast ran an article with the headline “Trump Campaigns New York Times Lawsuit Might be a Nightmare – for Trump”, and Politicusa running “Trump Embarrasses Himself By Suing The New York Times For Libel”.