Russia is in the news again. And the Russia Collusion story is back, too. But what do you see when you take a closer look?
Tensions between the US and two other nuclear powers have been ramping up since, oh, about that last week in January.
First, Biden’s team has looked spectacularly weak in their first official diplomatic interactions with China. Backing down on their Internment camps while giving them the moral high ground on US racial tensions makes us look like chumps, in case they didn’t realize that.
Then, Biden signaled to the world he really was Putin’s puppy, by talking tough to Russia about Ukraine and Crimea, only to blink when his resolve was tested.
Biden has surrounded himself with flunkies who don’t know (or care) that speak loudly and carry a limp stick is NOT a successful model for foreign policy. But then again, Biden is desperate to get back into bed with Iran despite Iran offering safe haven and a base of operations to ISIS.
With tensions ramping up, there was a real chance some of the horses**t the deep state Democrat operatives were flinging to damage Trump would suddenly come back to bite America on the ass, and push us in the direction of open hostilities with Russia.
Anti-Trump voices from the Intelligence Community spent last year undermining Trump by claiming Russia had been paying bounties to the Taliban for every American life they took … as though they needed any additional inspiration. The news medial ran with that story, beating Trump up with it while failing to mention that American casualties in Afghanistan had finally dropped to zero under Trump.
ClashDaily ran a story detailing why that story was a steaming pile of dog crap, for anyone not yet up to speed: Here Are Dozens Of Times Democrats And Their Corporate Media Sycophants Pushed The B.S. ‘Russian Bounty’ Story (VIDEO)
Isn’t it interesting that another story — one that SMEARED Trump — just happened to be released just before that one was discredited by our Intelligence Community?
We held off before running with that story, because something about it didn’t pass the sniff test. It’s the same news instinct that kept us from reporting the Russian Collusion story, several of the hoaxes, and jumping in with the Nick Sandmann smear that so many of the ‘reputable’ players fell for.
Dan Bongino supplied the missing piece of the puzzle on his podcast on Friday. Now we know WHY it didn’t pass the sniff test.
Manafort was in the news again and even outlets supposedly ‘friendly’ to the political right (like the Hill) were running breathless headlines claiming the smoking gun proving Russian collusion was finally proven.
The Hill’s irresponsible headline:
There was Trump-Russia collusion — and Trump pardoned the colluder
The opening and closing lines of the hit piece are as follows:
It’s official: The Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
In an explosive development, the Biden administration confirmed that a Russian government agent with close connections to Donald Trump’s top 2016 campaign official “provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and [Trump] campaign strategy.”
This revelation demolishes, once and for all, Trump’s ceaseless claims that he was the victim of the “greatest witch hunt in the history of our country.” (Recall that a Trump appointee directed Robert Mueller to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”)
…Ultimately, it took five years to finally learn that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
While the Republicans and right-wing media outlets that relentlessly peddled falsehood after falsehood are dealt a decisive blow, one must wonder what other revelations will come to light in the months and years to come.
Seems pretty damning right? Of course it would. Most narrative-building smears do, just think back to the Obama-era kids-in-cages photo that started a propaganda firestorm that still hasn’t died down.
But smears also tend to fall apart when scrutinized more closely.
Let’s start with the credibility of the source. This opinion piece was written by someone. The author matters. Who wrote it?
Marik von Rennenkampff served as an analyst with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, as well as an Obama administration appointee at the U.S. Department of Defense.
Ok, he was an Obama appointee. So he has a dog in this fight.
The claim is that Manifort passed sensitive polling information to a Russian intelligence agent in Ukraine named Konstantin Kilimnik.
What’s the only problem with that theory?
The entire premise was completely shot to hell by an article published by… The Hill. This one went up back when John Solomon was still on their staff.
The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is so important to Mueller’s overall narrative that it is raised in the opening of his report. “The FBI assesses” Kilimnik “to have ties to Russian intelligence,” Mueller’s team wrote on Page 6, putting a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.
What it doesn’t state is that Kilimnik was a “sensitive” intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013 while he was still working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I reviewed.
Kilimnik was not just any run-of-the-mill source, either.
He interacted with the chief political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, sometimes meeting several times a week to provide information on the Ukraine government. He relayed messages back to Ukraine’s leaders and delivered written reports to U.S. officials via emails that stretched on for thousands of words, the memos show.
…Kasanof’s and Purcell’s interviews are corroborated by scores of State Department emails I reviewed that contain regular intelligence from Kilimnik on happenings inside the Yanukovych administration, the Crimea conflict and Ukrainian and Russian politics. For example, the memos show Kilimnik provided real-time intelligence on everything from whose star in the administration was rising or falling to efforts at stuffing ballot boxes in Ukrainian elections.
Those emails raise further doubt about the Mueller report’s portrayal of Kilimnik as a Russian agent. They show Kilimnik was allowed to visit the United States twice in 2016 to meet with State officials, a clear sign he wasn’t flagged in visa databases as a foreign intelligence threat.
…So Kilimnik’s delivery of the peace plan to the Trump campaign in August 2016 was flagged by Mueller as potentially nefarious, but its earlier delivery to the Obama administration wasn’t mentioned. That’s what many in the intelligence world might call “deception by omission.” —The Hill, John Solomon June 6, 2019
We can’t have it both ways. Either this ‘Russian agent’ had completely deceived everyone on team Obama, long before Trump came into the picture…
Kilimnick is on our side, but his name is being disparaged to ‘dirty up’ Trump.
The latter seems more plausible. Why is that a big deal?
It means ‘our’ Intelligence Community has absolutely NO loyalty to the American people. It has become a propaganda team doing political assassinations to DECEIVE the American electorate and further the ambitions of the Democrats.
Joe Biden tearfully invoked the name of his dear dead son to enrage American servicemen and women against Trump over this fake story about Russian Bounties during an election campaign.
Trump was called a traitor and worse. In the debate, Biden dared to call him Putin’s Puppy because of this slander… meanwhile when the chips are down and Putin calls America’s bluff it’s Biden who blinks. Just like Obama did before him.
Biden is a small man benefiting from a rash of media lies and basking in the obscene power a dishonest press has delivered into his hands.
Now, with one ‘traitor’ story done away with, the ‘Intelligence Community’ has seen to it that another slander against Trump has risen to take its place. Because it isn’t enough to replace him, they need to destroy him.
Isn’t this the sort of thing that Project Veritas has been exposing over at CNN?
Part 1: Propaganda
Part 2: Deliberately manipulating viewers
Part 3: Pushing one narrative despite evidence to the contrary
Unfortunately for the press, the Project Veritas videos exposing their methods came at a VERY bad time for them.