Tag Archives: NYT

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 ACCOUNTABILITY: NYT Opinion Editor’s Telling Resignation Letter

Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. 

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. 

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. 

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. 

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. 

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. 

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. 

Sincerely,

Bari

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”.