Category Archives: FBI

Boom: the Clintons, US uranium, Putin, and the FBI

by Jon Rappoport

October 23, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

In 2016, long before the current news story broke about the FBI concealing a multi-year investigation into Russian bribery, the Clintons, US uranium, and Russia, I wrote about the scandal and spelled it out in simple terms.

A writer for the Washington Post then called me and tried to extract a statement he could use to discredit the story. I declined to give him anything, except a link to a key 2015 NY Times piece, which he said he’d “read many times.” I’m not sure why he had to read it more than once. Perhaps he suffers from a mental deficit.

Anyway, here is the piece I wrote then. It’s more relevant than ever. Then I’ll make some comments on the present situation.

—Cue the dawn sunrise and violins for the beautiful first couple of American politics (the Clintons).

But what about the uranium scandal?

The what?

Before I quote a NY Times piece on this—-suppose, just suppose the beautiful first couple, Bill and Hillary, have been running a parallel operation to the government, in the form of a Foundation that is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want (and get) serious political favors.

Well, current news stories confirm that. We already know that.

But uranium?

Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.

Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is already owned by a Canadian mining company.

The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.

But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.

The State Department is headed up by Hillary Clinton. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.

The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Getting the picture?

On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

The Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.”

“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yeah, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Who’s running the show in America? Ha-ha-ha. Some egregious dolt? Maybe he’s a sleeper agent we forgot about and he reactivated himself. And this Clinton Foundation—how can the beautiful couple get away with that? Can we give Hillary a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?

You shake your head and go back to sleep. You see a parade of little boats carrying uranium from the US to Russia. A pretty line of putt-putt boats. You chuckle. Row, row, row your boat…merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily…life is but a dream.

Good times.

Final note: there is a great deal of difference between a major outlet like the NY Times running their Clinton/uranium piece for one day—and pounding on it for weeks and months. In the latter case, they would let loose the hounds, who would probe and push and interview relevant people and get confessions and parlay those confessions up the food chain—blowing the story into an enormous scandal—which it is.

The Times had its hands on a volcanic piece…and they let it drop. Because the ceiling and the limit had been reached. The Times basically executed what’s called a limited hangout, a partial exposure of a story that was getting too hot to suppress entirely.

The limited hangout allows the venting of steam—and then nothing more. In this case, the Clinton camp denies there was any quid pro quo, they assert Hillary had nothing to do with the uranium deal, and the curtain falls.

Thus you have the reality which the major media did expose, vs. the reality they could have exposed. The “could have” part would have changed current history—but it was squelched, and put under wraps.

Tossed on the junk heap.

—end of my 2016 article—

Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee and Chairman Chuck Grassley are looking into these crimes, because new reports of corruption are surfacing:
FOX News: “The Hill reported that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. — but the Obama administration approved the uranium deal benefiting Moscow anyway.”

“Grassley on Wednesday [raised]…the question of whether the [US government] committee that approved the [uranium] transaction [in 2010] was aware of the FBI probe. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) [which approved the uranium deal] included then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

As Newsweek reports, that early FBI probe was launched under FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller is now trying to dig up (or invent) every tidbit he can about Russian collusion with…Trump in the 2016 presidential election. My, my.

Newsweek contacted the FBI a few days ago, asking whether Mueller had informed the Obama White House about his old FBI probe that uncovered Russian corruption relevant to the uranium deal that was being put together at the time.

Newsweek: “The FBI said it had no comment to Newsweek questions about whether Mueller alerted senior Obama administration officials, including Clinton, about the [FBI] investigation before they brokered the [uranium] deal.”

BOOM. Are you kidding? No comment? That’s tantamount to admitting, “Look, either way we answer that question, we’re screwed or the Obama White House is screwed, so we’re remaining mum. We’re protecting VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE and the truth doesn’t matter.”

This should be the subject of screaming headlines from mainstream news around the world: FBI CLAMS UP ON URANIUM DEAL. FBI REFUSES TO SAY WHETHER BOSS MUELLER TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT RUSSIAN CORRUPTION IN URANIUM DEAL. FBI COVERING UP CORRUPTION IN CLINTON OBAMA RUSSIAN URANIUM DEAL.

However, the FBI refusal is buried deep in mainstream stories.

But wait, it gets even better:

FOX: “[Grassley] is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent ‘gag order’ on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a [2009-10] corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was ‘threatened’ by the Obama administration to stay quiet.”

“Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox News’ ‘America’s Newsroom’ that her client has ‘specific information about [Russian] contributions and bribes to various entities and people in the United States’.”

“She said she could not go further because her client has not been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag order could be lifted soon. Toensing also claimed that her client was ‘threatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department’ when he pursued a civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information about the case.”

The gag order and the non-disclosure agreement are nonsense. They don’t apply when enforcing them would cover up a major crime.

I have suggestions for the FBI informant’s lawyer Toensing, if she’s playing it straight.

Hire at least four top-flight private security firms to guard your client around the clock, and hope these firms don’t have strong ties to government law-enforcement.

Issue a firm declaration from your client stating he is in good health and has no intention of committing suicide.

Do these things yesterday.

After all, it’s the Clintons we’re talking about, and Obama and the FBI.

And the Clintons.

And, of course, the Clintons.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Vegas shooting: concert workers’ phone footage wiped clean by FBI

Vegas shooting: concert workers’ phone-footage wiped clean by FBI

What??

by Jon Rappoport

October 13, 2017

Paul Watson at infowars has the story:

“Workers at the Route 91 festival during which Stephen Paddock unleashed his massacre have reportedly been given back their phones and laptops by the FBI only to discover that all messages and videos from the night of the attack have been wiped clean.”

“According to a Las Vegas resident who posted a status update on Facebook, ‘A bunch of people that worked the Route 91 [concert] said they got their cell phones back today. They all said that all their phones are completely wiped clean! All messages and info from that weekend are completely gone. Anyone else experience this’?”

“’A few different people who were vendors there are all saying the same thing,’ the woman later comments.”

“Later in the thread, a Route 91 worker confirms the story, commenting, ‘Of course. It’s an active federal crime scene. They can wipe it clean. I was the beverage manager for the entire event. My laptop is wiped clean’.”

What?

First of all, in a recent article, I demonstrated in detail why you can never trust what the FBI says about evidence in any investigation. There is a notorious history of the Bureau cooking and slanting and inventing data to support prosecutions.

Second, who says the FBI can take people’s phones and laptops, watch and copy the video footage, and then wipe it all away before returning the devices to their owners?

The FBI literally owns the crime scene AND any record of what happened at that scene? Baloney.

The obvious reason for wiping out the footage: it contained evidence that contradicts the official scenario. And most likely, that evidence revealed multiple shooters.

As Vegas cops, the FBI, and the owners of the Mandalay Hotel have changed and massaged the official narrative, one assertion has remained constant: there was only one shooter, and he was Stephen Paddock.

Law-enforcement pounced on that claim early on, without the slightest justification. Without interviewing multiple witnesses who state they saw other shooters.

“Okay, the mass shooting happened yesterday and we know there was only one shooter. That’s it. Don’t ask us any questions about this. Anyone who disagrees with us is spreading rumors and impeding the investigation.”

Admitting multiple shooters is admitting there was cooperation, collusion, conspiracy, a plan, and a purpose for that plan beyond “the lone gunman was crazy.” This is the door law-enforcement keeps slamming shut every time it opens.

And now we have reports that the FBI has wiped witnesses’ phones and laptops. No more footage of the shooting. No more evidence.

Let’s be clear: the FBI is impeding the investigation.

There is no Constitutional rule that states private citizens can’t investigate crimes. There never was. There never will be.

Law enforcement doesn’t OWN investigations.

If they did, every time a journalist probes beneath the surface of a crime and uncovers important information, the FBI could say, “Well, we just opened an investigation of that very crime, and therefore we want all your notes and we want you to cease and desist your inquiry. Shut up and go cover Sunday picnics.”

In most cases, law-enforcement doesn’t have to worry about mainstream reporters. Those denizens simply take dictation from local cops and federal cops and their stories appear in papers and TV news broadcasts wiped clean of independent thought.

That leaves the truth a wide open field.

Private citizens and non-mainstream journalists own that field, not through edict, but through default. Don’t blame us. If you were doing your jobs, we wouldn’t have to do them for you.

Your first rule would be: stop lying.

Destruction of evidence is a felony. Those concert workers whose phones and laptops were wiped clean had a felony committed against them. By agents of government who have sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.

Thousands of smart lawyers out there will say, “Come on, there’s no way you could make a charge like that stick.” Well, maybe there would be a way, if enough of you decided there has been enough destruction of the Constitution and it’s time to stand up and be counted, come hell or high water.

Meanwhile, whoever can look past the lies and fabrications and distortions of a criminal investigation can say something because they saw something.

Here is a quick excerpt from my recent piece about the FBI’s stance on crime probes. It should give you a clue about the Bureau’s attitude and reputation:

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

In the Vegas shooting case, the FBI is saying: Trust us. We’re the pros. We do investigations the right way. Now give us your cell phone so we can look at video footage of the shooting and make a copy and wipe your phone clean and give it back to you.

Don’t worry, be happy. All is well. The centurions are on duty.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Vegas cops change their story: Paddock shot security guard BEFORE mass shooting: huge new can of worms

Vegas cops change their story: Paddock shot security guard BEFORE mass shooting: huge new can of worms

LA Times: “Police said Paddock fired 200 rounds into the hallway” wounding a hotel security guard.

by Jon Rappoport

October 10, 2017

LA Times, October 9: “Police have dramatically changed their account of how the Las Vegas massacre began on Oct. 1, revealing Monday that the gunman shot a hotel security guard [in the leg through the closed door of his hotel room] six minutes before opening fire on a country music concert — raising new questions about why police weren’t able to pinpoint the gunman’s location sooner.”

The previous police story was: Paddock shot security guard Campos after he finished firing on the concert crowd.

The LA Times focuses on how this new information changes the timeline of events—in particular, the addition of minutes before police arrived at Paddock’s door.

Really? That’s the takeaway?

There is a far more serious question. Why did Paddock shoot the security guard through his hotel room door, with 200 rounds of ammunition (according to police), BEFORE starting to fire on the concert crowd?

Whether or not Paddock was using a silenced weapon to shoot the security guard, didn’t he think 200 rounds through a door might possibly alert people in the hotel to what he was about to do—kill people at the concert?

Security guard Campos, according to the Times, was on Paddock’s 32nd floor to check on an alert about another guest’s room door having being left open. Campos wasn’t there to check on Paddock. There is no indication Paddock was suspected of anything.

The new Vegas police sequence of events now goes this way: Paddock is in his room preparing to slaughter people at the concert; security guard Campos comes to the 32nd floor to check on a report of another guest’s door having been left open; Paddock sees Campos out in the hallway outside his door (using a camera Paddock had installed); Paddock fires 200 rounds through his door and hits Campos in the leg; leaving Campos there, Paddock then WAITS SIX MINUTES and begins firing through his broken window(s) at the concert crowd.

Perhaps the police will change their story yet again. Paddock didn’t fire 200 rounds through his door. He stepped out into the hallway and wounded Campos with one shot using a silenced handgun. He then left Campos there, went back into his room, waited six minutes, and then started firing on the concert crowd.

Or, after wounding Campos with one bullet, he paid Campos with a pile of casino chips and told him to wait in the hallway and say nothing to anyone for a half-hour.

Or he bound and gagged Campos after shooting him in the leg and stuffed him into a laundry closet in the hallway.

Or, the most popular tactic in these untenable and absurd stories: “Obviously, Paddock was crazy. There is no way to account for all his actions. We may never know why he did what he did.”

That usually works with the public. The police or the FBI paint themselves into a corner trying to hide the truth. They realize their latest version of events makes no sense. So they invoke the time-honored “we may never know” explanation.

If some reporter wakes up from his stupor and resists going along with the story, he’ll probably hear: “Yes, we’re looking into that. But we have no further comment at this time.”

Or most likely, any time.

Here is a reasonable assessment: since very early on, police had decided on this story: Paddock was the shooter; he was the only shooter; he wounded the security guard after he finished firing on the concert crowd.

But the fact that the security guard was wounded BEFORE the concert shooting was leaking out. People in Las Vegas knew about it. So the cops (or the FBI) decided they had to get out ahead of the leak, if possible. It would be better to change their story than wait and end up with egg on their faces.

And so far, it looks like they made a smart move. Because how many media outlets are pointing out how crazy the new story is?

Most importantly, how many other egregious lies are sitting under the previous security-guard lie? How many other devious twists and turns in the true tale are being hidden?

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about the Vegas shooting

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about Vegas shooting

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2017

No matter how the Vegas shooting investigation looks, the FBI is playing a large role. The forensics, in particular, would be checked by FBI techs and labs.

Vital lab analysis of weapons and ammunition and bullet-angles and cartridges and residue. Weapons Paddock had or didn’t have. Ammunition he had or didn’t have. Modifications he made or didn’t make to those weapons. How many different kinds of bullets were found in victims? What weapons did those bullets come from?

And depending on that evidence—were there multiple shooters, for example?

Should you believe the FBI’s analyses?

Are you kidding? The scurrilous reputation of the FBI in its handling of forensics is astonishing. Read on. Note: I’m saving the best for last:

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

“Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.”

“The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.”

Giant long-term scandal and corruption. The story is covered. Then it disappears.

Now here’s the capper:

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

So now…there is no reason to believe anything the FBI says about Paddock, his weapons, his ammo, his modifications, the degree of his participation (or non-participation) in the shooting, the trajectories of bullets, the types of bullets found in victims, the nature of the expended shell casings, and other VITAL forensic details in the case.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The FBI evidence lab, a cesspool

The FBI evidence lab, a cesspool

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2017

In these pages, I’ve emphasized that mainstream news often fails to follow up on their own stories.

They publish a shocking account of a scandal, and then they drop it like a hot potato.

Why? There are several reasons, but the most important is: the scandal is too revealing. It indicts an institution or organization that, in the long run, must be protected.

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

Here is a sample of the 2014-15 stories:

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

“Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.”

“The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.”

Giant long-term scandal and corruption. The story is covered. Then it disappears.

Here is one reason why. If the press outlets continued to search out every aspect of the story, they would come upon numerous prosecutors who routinely relied on false FBI lab reports in trials. Some of those prosecutors would be exposed for knowingly accepting fake evidence from the FBI, in order to make their cases.

The scandal would spread like ink on a blotter.

Major media news picks their spots. They choose to pound on certain stories day after day, in an effort to convince the public of certain “facts.” They studiously refuse to dig and keep digging on other stories, hoping the public will forget.

Remember this, forget that.

Journalism schools don’t teach their students that this is the way to do news. After graduating and finding jobs, young reporters catch on.

They catch on and go along.

That’s how their ideals crumble and disintegrate.

That’s how they become agents and blunt weapons for their bosses.

That’s how they become alcoholics and denizens traveling through a dim underworld of lies.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Fake evidence used in the Oklahoma Bombing

How official “science” is deployed to advance a political agenda

by Jon Rappoport

August 21, 2017

(To join our email list, click here.)

The public wants to buy every official scientific claim the mainstream press pounds into their brains—whether the issue is vaccine safety, global warming, the “overwhelming success” of medical drugs, the Big Bang theory of the universe’s origin…

For most people, the notion that a political agenda underlies such scientific pronouncements is unthinkable.

So as an example, a very specific example of fake science, let’s look back at the attack on Oklahoma City.

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

Therefore, other paths of investigation were abandoned. If bombs did, in fact, explode in the Ryder truck, but didn’t cause the major damage, then those bombs were a cover for other explosions of separate origin—for example, charges wired inside the columns of the Murrah Building, triggered at the exact moment the Ryder Truck explosion occurred.

Now we would be talking about a very sophisticated operation, far beyond the technical skills of McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier.

Who knows where an honest in-depth investigation would have led? The whole idea of anti-government militia terrorism in the OKC attack—symbolized by McVeigh—was used by President Bill Clinton to bring the frightened public “back to the federal government” as their ultimate protector and savior.

Instead, the public might have been treated to a true story about a false flag operation, in which case President Clinton’s massaged message would never have been delivered.

But the fake crooked science pushed by the FBI lab was permitted to stand—despite exposure as fraud—and the story of militia terrorists trying to bring down the federal government was allowed to stand as well.

The year 1995 was rife with anti-government sentiment in America. This wasn’t merely a bunch of militias talking about insurrection. This was widespread dissatisfaction, on the part of many Americans, who were seeing federal power expand beyond any semblance of constitutionality.

As an object lesson, the Oklahoma Bombing was: “You see what happens when crazy people are allowed to own guns and oppose the government? Stop listening to anti-government rhetoric. It’s horribly dangerous. We, the government, are here to protect you. Come home to us. Have faith in us. We’ll punish the offenders. We’ll make America safe again. Let’s all come together and oppose these maniacs who want to destroy our way of life…”

The lesson worked.

Many scared Americans signed on to Clinton’s agenda.

And fake FBI science was used to bolster that agenda.

Even when exposed as fake by mainstream press outlets—however briefly, with no determined follow-up—the federal brainwashing held. The myth was stronger than reality.

If the federal government can egregiously lie about an event as huge as the Oklahoma Bombing, using fake science as a cover—what wouldn’t they lie about?

That’s a question which answers itself.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

James Comey stars in another bad movie

James Comey stars in another bad movie

by Jon Rappoport

June 9, 2017

Where was the devastating revelation about Trump’s crimes during James Comey’s Congressional testimony yesterday?

“Who produced this stinker? Find out and fire him. I thought I was the head of a movie studio. Apparently, I’m marketing sleeping pills. I conked out after watching five minutes of Comey…”

If James Comey’s testimony before Congress yesterday were a Hollywood movie, and if the press weren’t obliged to make a very big deal out of it, the studio that produced it would have shut it down and eaten the box office losses. The movie theaters would have been empty, except for a few stragglers getting out of the rain.

We did learn that Comey leaked his “memo” of a conversation with Trump (about the Michael Flynn investigation) to the press. So the FBI director is a leaker. And we only have Comey’s word that his “memo” notes were correct and accurate.

Then Comey stated that Attorney General Loretta Lynch told him to call his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server a “matter,” not an investigation. So the former Attorney General was a partisan Hillary supporter.

Comey asserted that Trump “pressured” him to cease investigating Michael Flynn. Trump didn’t order Comey to stop that probe. And Trump could have, because the president, in the chain of command, is over and above the Justice Department and the FBI. Oops. That’s right.

Attorney Alan Dershowitz : “Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.”

“As a matter of law, Comey is 100 percent correct. As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama—have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear.”

Was Comey investigating Trump’s “Russia connections?” Business Insider: “President Donald Trump’s private attorney, Marc Kasowitz, on Wednesday said his client felt ‘completely and totally vindicated’ by James Comey’s prepared opening statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee.”

“Comey’s remarks, released Wednesday in advance of Thursday’s Senate hearing, confirmed previous statements by Trump that Comey had told him three times that he was not personally being investigated amid the FBI’s wide-ranging inquiry into Russian meddling in the election and the Trump campaign’s possible ties to Russia.”

So…where were Comey’s revelations yesterday? Nowhere. Where were his explosive charges about Trump’s crimes? Nowhere.

Comey should really take a long vacation. He should disappear from public life for quite some time. He’s embarrassing himself.

Recall the last bad movie Comey starred in. The Hillary email server scandal. The FBI probe was off, it was on, it was off. Early in this fiasco, Comey delivered a televised press conference. FBI directors don’t hold press conferences, but Comey did. He simultaneously played the role of FBI head, grand jury, Attorney General, and Constitutional jurist. He only held one of those jobs, but that didn’t stop him. He laid out, end to end, Hillary Clinton’s violations of federal law governing the handling of classified materials. He failed to note that “hostile intent” is no part of that law. He failed to note that negligence is the only standard for prosecution. He said that since Hillary (who was surely negligent) didn’t intend to cause harm to the nation, he wasn’t recommending prosecution. Now THAT should have been the subject of a Congressional hearing. But it wasn’t.

Before that, Comey starred in a little known movie called HSBC.

In 2013, before his appointment as FBI director, Comey was brought in by the scandal-ridden HSBC Bank, to oversee efforts to clean up its act—in particular, money laundering for drug cartels.

Comey was positioned as the face of honesty and competence for HSBC.

How well did he do, before he exited his position? How much crime and how many criminals did he leave behind?

Three years later, after Comey had departed, The NY Times wrote: “HSBC Bank Executives Face Charges in $3.5 Billion Currency [Fraud] Case … Traders Use Front-Running to Profit From Client Orders…”

I guess Comey didn’t clean up the HSBC mess. There were a few things he didn’t notice while he was there. A few thing he left behind. A few billion things.

I guess that uniquely qualified him for appointment as FBI director.

So here is my memo. It’s directed to Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and assorted Hollywood studios: “Before you sign Tom Hanks, Alec Baldwin, Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore, or Caitlyn Jenner to star as James Comey in a heroic biopic, ‘Don’t Cry for Me, America,’ check your brains. It’s a loser.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The Comey affair; lies and reality pass like trains in the night

The Comey affair; lies and reality pass like trains in the night

by Jon Rappoport

May 14, 2017

NEWSMAN #1: Trump fired Comey.

NEWSMAN #2: Biggest thing since the great Chicago fire of 1871.

NEWSMAN #1: Bigger. How do we play this? The Democrats wanted Comey’s head for what he did to Hillary. Trump just fired Comey. I’m confused.

NEWSMAN #2: Doesn’t matter. Say Trump just burned up the Constitution. Say he hates dogs and little children. Say his hair is actually a wig made of Russian sable.

NEWSMAN #1: What about the truth?

NEWSMAN #2: The what? You poor sap. Truth is relative to agenda. Did you miss that lesson in journalism school?

NEWSMAN #1: I didn’t go to journalism school. I got my PhD in philosophy at Yale. I wrote my thesis on a comparison of “an” and “the” in ancient Babylonia.

Fired FBI Director Comey is obviously in trouble. Cry for him. He’ll have to go on food stamps and welfare now, won’t he? Will he be able to collect Social Security? He’s too young! He needs crowdfunding. Send canned food.

The media are portraying Trump firing Comey as “breathtaking,” “stunning,” “shocking.” They’re saying this is how Washington is reacting.

If you live in Washington, try to find somebody who is really sucking air and trying to breathe. Find somebody who is leaning against a wall because he’s stunned. Find somebody whose eyes are rolling up inside his head from the shock.

It’s all made up. It’s all hyped.

Washington politicians may be pretending shock and amazement for the cameras, but that’s about it.

And if you travel outside Washington, most people don’t care about Comey. People are fired from their jobs all the time. People are let go for many reasons. People who can’t afford to be unemployed. Comey, on the other hand, is thinking about a book deal. He might be planning a vacation. He might be talking to Obama about doing some elite “community organizing.” He’ll be fielding offers to sit on corporate boards. His biggest worry: “Do I go on the talk shows right away or do I wait?”

Washington insiders aren’t shocked by anything. They just play that role on television.

When an interesting event occurs, like Trump firing Comey, Washington pols meet with their staffs and plan their public response. They look for a personal advantage. “How can I play this?” “Can I use this to get ahead?” “Let’s go for the Trump impeachment angle.”

Comey himself knew he was on the verge of getting fired. There wasn’t any mystery about it. He kept pushing the fantastical Trump-Russia investigation. He didn’t bother looking into Trump-team leaks that were the result of domestic hacking. His initial reaction to getting fired—he thought it was a joke, a prank—was nonsensical. He knew. He knew he was on the edge.

Right now, Comey is wondering how far he can move from his former job and maintain credibility as a non-partisan figure. Or: can he go the other way and sign on with Obama? Can he approach Hillary and mend fences? Can he lobby? How can he successfully position himself for the “next chapter of his life?”

I once interviewed a troubled Washington politician who had jumped the wrong way on an important decision involving his Party. He was toast. With me, he mouthed all sorts of gumble-jumble about “sticking to his guns,” but I could see his wheels were turning. He was contemplating his future. Where could he go? What could he do to make hay after public office? These people don’t waste time. They move on. Nobody cares. It’s politics.

Comey rolled the dice and lost. He knew he could lose. As he was rolling those dice, he was already thinking about his image and whether he could emerge as a hero or a martyr. Or whether he had already played out all his political capital. If so, his next gig would land him in the private sector, or with a prestigious foundation.

Washington is a mix of musical chairs and checkers. Doors open, doors close, the players scramble for a spot.

Nobody is shocked.

In the swamp, nobody is amazed.

The media pretend shock, awe, and amazement, because when they do, their ratings go up.

Right now, in that vein, they’re all jockeying for a chance to interview Comey. He’s the next big “get.”

“Tell Mr. Comey we can do this anywhere he wants to. In his living room, his study, or we’ll put him in a quiet studio. And we’ll walk along a riverbank, stroll through a forest. It’ll be dignified. Absolutely no gossip. He’s a major figure. We’ll accord him all the respect he deserves. We’ll track his career from the early days. He’s a…statesman. We hold him in the highest regard. We’d like to do this long-form, as a two-parter, on consecutive nights. An hour each night. Only one commercial per half-hour. We want to give him the widest possible exposure. All of America wants to hear what he has to say at this crucial moment. As a token of our appreciation and an expression of concern, we’re prepared to FedEx him a dozen cans of baked beans and several flank steaks from Safeway, because we know he’s currently unemployed…”

And then there was the Comey farewell letter to his FBI people.

As you read it, try to hold back the tears.

“I have said to you before that, in times of turbulence, the American people should see the FBI as a rock of competence, honesty, and independence. What makes leaving the FBI hard is the nature and quality of its people, who together make it that rock for America.”

“It is very hard to leave a group of people who are committed only to doing the right thing. My hope is that you will continue to live our values and the mission of protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution. If you do that, you too will be sad when you leave, and the American people will be safer.”

Competence? Committed to doing the right thing? Upholding the Constitution and the law?

Comey was obviously excluding himself from that reference.

Recall his surreal press conference during the presidential campaign, during which he acted as FBI director, Attorney General, and grand jury, when he recited a list of felonies Hillary Clinton had committed in the handling of her private email server…and then said he was not recommending prosecution, because Hillary showed no intent to deceive or do harm. Comey obviously knew intent was no part of the law, which was written to make sure negligence alone, in the handling of classified materials, was sufficient to prosecute and convict a perpetrator.

A number of FBI agents weren’t happy with Comey then. Not at all. The new Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe belatedly confirmed it in testimony before Congress on Thursday: “…there were folks within our agency that were frustrated with the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about those concerns.”

You bet.

As for the unparalleled honesty of the FBI Comey referred to in his farewell letter, where does one begin?

Let’s take a peek at just one area: the vaunted FBI lab, where evidence in crime investigations is analyzed.

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: “Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload”’.”

Buckle up for this one. March 22, 1997, CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

If you’re thinking the FBI’s fake investigation of the Oklahoma bombing evidence opens the door to a whole new direction in the case, you’re right. (I wrote a book about false evidence in the OKC bombing in 1995.)

Yes, there are honest and honorable agents at the FBI, but let’s not go overboard with Comey and his sop of a farewell letter.

Comey postures. He works the “honor” angle. He tap dances. He puts out pure jive.

In 2013, before his appointment as FBI director, Comey was brought in by the scandal-ridden HSBC Bank, to oversee efforts to clean up its act—in particular, money laundering for drug cartels.

Comey was positioned as the face of honesty and competence for HSBC.

How well did he do, before he exited his position? How much crime and how many criminals did he leave behind?

Three years later, after Comey had departed, The NY Times wrote: “HSBC Bank Executives Face Charges in $3.5 Billion Currency [Fraud] Case … Traders Use Front-Running to Profit From Client Orders…”

I guess Comey didn’t clean up the HSBC mess. There were a few things he didn’t notice while he was there. A few thing he left behind. A few billion things.

And now, far more interesting than “why was Comey really fired from the FBI”: what corruption he did he leave behind at the FBI that we don’t know about?

The old saying, fake it ‘til you make it, applies. Comey faked it until he made it. And then he faked it again.

Now he’ll move into a new role. Who knows, some day, as history is rewritten, people may be saying he was the only honest man in Washington.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: I’m writing a book about Comey, comparing him to Gandhi.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: Who wins?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: Comey, in a landslide. He stood up against the titanic forces of evil in Washington.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: You have a publisher?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: The US Printing Office. My uncle owns it.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: I thought that was a government department.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: The New York Times bought it.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: Your uncle owns the New York Times?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: He owns the company that owns Facebook and Google. They own the New York Times.

FUTURE NEWSMAN #2: Wow. What’s the name of the company your uncle owns?

FUTURE NEWSMAN #1: Clinton and Comey. It’s a law firm and a foundation. Their headquarters are in Jerusalem, Riyadh, and the Vatican.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Trump fires Comey: spin doctors go wild in the swamp

Trump fires Comey: spin doctors go wild in the swamp

by Jon Rappoport

May 10, 2017

In the political swamp that is Washington, and in the press swamp, motor boats began speeding every which way in the wake of Trump’s decision to fire FBI Director Comey.

People in the boats are holding up signs to explain the reason for the firing.

The first sign was: COMEY LIED. Comey lied the other day. He lied in testimony before Congress, when he said Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s long-time aide, had sent “hundreds and thousands” of emails to her husband, Anthony Weiner, some of which contained classified information. The truth was, the FBI says, contradicting Comey, a great many of those emails were merely “backed up” on Weiner’s laptop via “backup devices.” Huh? Does that actually mean something? Weiner obtained those emails out of the sky, delivered by a chariot, and not from Huma? Weiner’s laptop was serving as a storage device, a personal little cloud? Somebody not connected to the Hillary campaign was using the social-media’s porn star as a backup for classified data? Who would that be? Putin? Putin hacked the Hillary/DNC emails, and sent them to both WikiLeaks and Anthony Weiner? “Hi Anthony. Vlad here. Keep these thousands of emails for posterity.”

The next motor boat running through the swamp featured a sign that said: COMEY SCREWED UP THE HILLARY INVESTIGATION. This sign can be interpreted several ways, depending on who is in the boat. One, Comey didn’t press the investigation into Hillary’s personal email server far enough last summer and fall. He stalled it. He didn’t ask for an indictment. That’s why Trump fired him yesterday. Trump didn’t fire Comey right after he was elected president, when it would have been a simple bye bye. No, Trump waited five months and then lowered the boom. Sure.

The other meaning of COMEY SCREWED UP THE HILLARY INVESTIGATION is: Comey improperly told the world (last summer) that the FBI was investigating Hillary. His announcement influenced the election. The FBI is supposed to keep absolutely quiet about ongoing investigations. Comey didn’t. Then he publicly closed the book on the investigation, opened it again, and closed it again. That’s why Trump just fired him. Again, Trump waited five months after the election and then got rid of Comey. And of course, Trump was morally outraged that Comey exposed Hillary in the first place, when Comey should have remained silent. Sure. That makes a lot of sense.

The next motor boat speeding across the swamp held up a big sign that said, TRUMP FIRED COMEY TO STOP THE FBI FROM INVESTIGATING THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION. You see, for five months, Trump happily left Comey in place, knowing Comey was investigating him, Trump, and yesterday Trump had enough of that, so he fired the FBI director. Right.

The next motor boat in the swamp held up a sign that said, THIS IS NIXON ALL OVER AGAIN, THIS IS TRUMP’S WATERGATE. The sign refers to the last sign, but ups the ante. And there is another sign that says, in the same vein, NOW WE CAN IMPEACH TRUMP. And another one that says, APPOINT AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP-RUSSIA CONNECTION.

I’m waiting for Bob Woodward of Watergate fame to step in and say, “It’s all right, folks, I’m on the case. I’ll handle it. I was just eating lunch and sipping a fine wine in my underground parking garage when a shadowy figure stepped out of the gloom and whispered, ‘My throat is deep, and I’ll spoon-feed you secrets for the next year, but you’ll have to dig up the facts. Everybody is involved in the cover-up. Comey, Sessions, Pence, Bannon, Conway, Ivanka, Putin, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Stalin.”

So why did Trump fire Comey yesterday?

I don’t know, but the short answer might be: Comey’s boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, told Trump to get rid of Comey. Sessions made the call.

Sessions now has a specific plan to make the FBI over in the image he prefers. Sessions wants to shape the Bureau according to his agendas. Sessions has looked into the Bureau and he now knows which people he wants to fire. He wants to get rid of the Obama crowd. He wants loyalists. He doesn’t want a Dept. of Justice that is going in one direction, while the FBI is going in another. Sessions wants a predictable FBI. His own.

Joel Pollak, writing at Breitbart, has a simpler answer to the question, why fire Comey now? Pollak writes:

“But why fire Comey now? The answer is simple. The day before, President Barack Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper repeated, under oath, what he told NBC News’ Chuck Todd on Meet the Press on March 5 — that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. That gave the Trump administration the breathing room to dismiss Comey — which it simply did not have before.”

In other words, now Trump can’t be accused of firing Comey to stop “the truth” emerging about a Trump-Russia collusion, because there isn’t any collusion.

Theoretically, that might be the case—but the spin machine doesn’t care about the truth or who is right and who is wrong. The machine keeps running. Those motor boats keep moving across the swamp. Signs come out. People yell and scream.

Chuck Schumer may soon compare Trump to Benedict Arnold.

For the past 65 years, the CIA has been infiltrating media and promoting many messages. In certain cases, an op involves promoting CONFLICTING messages, because the intent is sowing discord, chaos, and division. In this instance (Comey/Trump), it’s a walk in the park (or a ride in the swamp). All sorts of people on both sides already have steam coming out of their ears, without any nudging or provocation.

A child could run this spin counter-spin op.

And we’re just getting started.

power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Actual hacking: Every reporter needs to understand Sharyl Attkisson’s case against the US government

Actual hacking: Every reporter needs to understand Sharyl Attkisson’s case against the US government

by Jon Rappoport

January 31, 2017

Sharyl Attkisson was a star investigative reporter for CBS News. After two decades at the network, she resigned on March 10, 2014.

Among the controversial stories she covered: the Fast and Furious gun-walking program, in which the government “purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them” (LA Times, 10/3/11); the Benghazi attacks and murders; the CDC fraud in grossly overestimating the number of Swine Flu cases in America.

Attkisson now hosts a weekly television news program, Full Measure, for the Sinclair Broadcast Group. She writes at sharylattkisson.com.

Attkisson is also engaged in a struggle with the federal government.

Attkisson writes: “I just filed my latest appeal to the FBI’s improper withholding of my FBI file. You may not know it, but every American citizen—even a lowly reporter—is entitled to see his FBI file, if one exists.”

I queried Attkisson about this yesterday, and she replied: “I find it unacceptable that the federal government, and specifically the nation’s top law enforcement agency (DOJ), would be party to improperly—and I believe unlawfully—withholding public and personal materials that we (not they) own.”

For some reason, Attkisson isn’t permitted to see her FBI file. Why? The answer may lie in the government’s role as a hacker. A hacker of Attkisson’s computers.

Attkisson writes at her website: “I have a separate federal lawsuit underway against the federal government over illegal surveillance of my work and home computers by intruders using software proprietary to a U.S. intelligence agency. The intrusions were detected and confirmed by three independent forensics exams in 2013.”

“So far, the government has not cooperated with my lawsuit. For example, without even filing the required motion, government officials failed to show up for a properly-noticed deposition in the case.”

Here, from a press release, are details about the hack of Attkisson’s computers:

“On December, 27, 2014, Investigative Journalist Sharyl Attkisson filed administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Postal Service, and certain unnamed employees and/or agents of the federal government. Shortly thereafter, a lawsuit was filed in the District of Columbia alleging certain violations of Attkisson’s constitutional rights based on information implicating the federal government in illegal electronic monitoring and surveillance of her home and business computers and phones.”

“As outlined in the claims, three separate computer forensics exams revealed that intruders used sophisticated, remote capabilities to monitor Attkisson’s work. The intruders installed and periodically ‘refreshed’ software used to exfiltrate data, obtain Attkisson’s passwords to various personal and work accounts, access the CBS News computer system, and monitor Attkisson’s audio using a Skype account. Forensics also revealed evidence of U.S. government-related involvement in the surveillance.”

“Through a Freedom of Information Act request, Attkisson learned that the F.B.I. opened a case on her computer intrusions in 2013, listing her as the victim, but the agency failed to interview her in the investigation or even notify her that one had been opened. To date, U.S. government officials have failed to fully cooperate with Attkisson’s efforts to learn about the intrusions, and have failed to fully respond to numerous requests to help provide information necessary to learn the truth. As a consequence of the government’s choice to ignore Attkisson’s requests, Attkisson and her family have chosen the only available option left to them.”

Yesterday, I asked Attkisson: in your opinion, why were your computers hacked?

She wrote: “On the lawsuit over the hacking: The reason I had my computers analyzed in the first place is because government sources had approached me and told me I was likely being ‘surveilled’ due to the reporting I had been conducting, especially some of my CBS News stories that were published online. They specifically mentioned my Benghazi reporting, which I began in fall of 2012. The forensics analyses were able to determine multiple unauthorized remote intrusions of my computers using software (proprietary to a federal government agency) that occurred prior to my Benghazi reporting, however. One such intrusion, for example, occurred in February 2012 (we have the date, time and method of entry) and another in July 2012. Stories I covered during this time period included Green Energy Waste stories that the Obama administration worked very hard to stop from airing on CBS, as well as Fast and Furious reports, among others. Among other details, the forensics exams were able to determine that the intruders not only accessed the CBS system, and used Skype to surreptitiously listen in on conversations, but also examined several files and photos related to Fast and Furious.”

“In addition to two separate forensics exams that I had conducted, CBS hired a forensics company that confirmed the remote intrusions. The analyst informed CBS, among other things, ‘I have definitive evidence that shows commands were run from Sharyl’s user account that she did not personally authorize during the timeframe of concern’ and ‘This history has been deliberately removed from Sharyl’s hard drive’ by a third party.”

—Read Attkisson’s next paragraph carefully. It’s explosive. It indicates Dept. of Justice (DOJ) lying and cover-up:

“A fourth forensics exam conducted by DOJ Inspector General of a different computer (only my personal computer that I asked them to examine in hopes they would recognize the government software, CBS would not give them the CBS computers in question) also confirmed the suspicious activities and that a third party deliberately removed files from my personal computers to cover their tracks. However, this information was omitted from a summary the DOJ IG released, which instead made it incorrectly sound as though intrusions had been ruled out. (The DOJ IG will not lawfully respond to FOIA requests for the documentation showing the investigators confirming the suspicious activities. I know the documents exist because the investigators let me review them during the investigation and briefed me on their findings.)”

“The 2012 intrusion dates I mentioned were NOT the sum total of intrusions—they were two dates we know of during which software was planted in my computers. The software was then used on an ongoing basis to access files, watch my keystrokes, etc.”

CBS agrees that Attkisson’s computers were hacked. Here is an excerpt from an August 7, 2013, article posted at the CBS news site:

“CBS News announced Friday that correspondent Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was hacked by ‘an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions,’ confirming Attkisson’s previous revelation of the hacking.”

“CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair said that a cybersecurity firm hired by CBS News ‘has determined through forensic analysis’ that ‘Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions in late 2012’.”

“Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data. This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion. CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access.”

“Several months ago, Attkisson had reported suspected intrusions of her computers, including her CBS News work computer, prompting CBS News to hire a firm to look into the hacking.”

My comment: As indicated at the beginning of this article, Attkisson is unable to see her FBI file. The FBI won’t show it to her. This is a breach of law. They won’t show it to her because it would reveal the FBI and DOJ stance on her investigative work at CBS. They didn’t like her work. They considered it a threat. They considered it an exposure of truths they wanted kept under wraps, relating to Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Green Energy Waste, etc.

That FBI file would lend further strength to Attkisson’s claim that the Dept. of Justice has been lying about what they found when they investigated the hacking of her computers.

For example: They found that some of their own people (FBI/DOJ) and/or people at other government agencies had done the hacking.

Major media consider this story “dead until further notice.” But independent journalists all over the world shouldn’t. They should cover it aggressively and keep the pot boiling, and make sure the public understands what is at stake: the right to report actual news, free from government interference and intimidation.

And the right to call government on the carpet, in court, under oath, to account for their crimes.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.