Posted on 10/20/2019 8:03:45 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
If you pay close attention to the fake reporting of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and a few other Deep State fake news organizations, you can easily see how the FBI/CIA/State Department goons who choreographed the three year “Russia Collusion” fantasy play are trying to manipulate the public narrative in advance of the release of the Horowitz Report and the slow-rolling Barr/Durham investigation.
A piece published by the Times on Saturday serves as a prime example. The report, written by Adam Goldman and William Rashbaum, two of the most reliable deep state mouthpieces in the media, is chock-full of dozens of references to anonymous sources, all of whom most likely helped organize and lead the plot to fix the 2016 election for the Pantsuit Princess, and then to mount a coup d’etat on American soil. Although the reporters dutifully attempt to carefully craft the narrative here as a defense of treasonous snakes like Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, James Comey and other high officials who participated in this long-running betrayal of the United States, it fails miserably to do so.
What we end up with instead is a very long-winded indictment of these snakes in a piece that contains a series of revelations that will damage the reputations and defense efforts of everyone involved.
Let’s begin with the startling admission contained in this paragraph (I will add emphasis throughout the excerpts from the NY Times piece):
In his review, Mr. Durham has asked witnesses about the role of Christopher Steele, a former intelligence official from Britain who was hired to research Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia by a firm that was in turn financed by Democrats. Law enforcement officials used some of the information Mr. Steele compiled into a now-infamous dossier to obtain a secret wiretap on a Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page, whom they suspected was an agent of Russia.
So, here is the New York Times, the mouth organ of the Deep State narrative, admitting – albeit deep in the bowels of a very long piece – that the Steele Dossier was indeed funded by “Democrats.” The Times of course cannot go so far as to be specific about which “Democrats” – i.e., the Coughing Crook Campaign and the DNC – were involved in funding the effort, because that much truth in one article would cause most of its upper East Side readership to faint dead away with the vapors.
But putting that little nugget of truth into its pages is a stark admission that the Clinton Campaign literally paid millions of dollars to foreign agents to help them in an American election, an admission that most Times readers have likely never seen before.
Then there’s the lead paragraph:
Federal prosecutors reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation have asked witnesses pointed questions about any anti-Trump bias among former F.B.I. officials who are frequent targets of President Trump and about the earliest steps they took in the Russia inquiry, according to former officials and other people familiar with the review.
Note the use of the words “federal prosecutors” rather than “investigators,” because words are important here. This distinction, the first two words of a very long piece, clearly implies that the Times has been made aware by their Deep State buddies that Barr and Durham are not only pursuing actual indictments and prosecutions of some of their ranks, but have brought in multiple additional federal prosecutors to assist in the effort. This is a key shift in the fake media narrative, which has previously talked about Barr and Durham being just a couple of loose cannons mounting a rogue investigation in order to curry favor with President Trump.
The second paragraph is also quite interesting:
The prosecutors, led by John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, have interviewed about two dozen former and current F.B.I. officials, the people said. Two former senior F.B.I. agents are assisting with the review, the people said.
Oh. Who might those two dozen “current and former FBI officials” be? We’ll have to wait to find out. But the more interesting bit of information here is that “two former senior FBI agents are assisting with the review.” Who might those agents be?
Well, about five paragraphs further into the piece, we find out who they are NOT:
Mr. Durham has yet to interview all the F.B.I. officials who played key roles in opening the Russian investigation in the summer of 2016, the people familiar with the review said. He has not spoken with Peter Strzok, a former top counterintelligence official who opened the inquiry; the former director James B. Comey or his deputy, Andrew G. McCabe; or James A. Baker, then the bureau’s general counsel.
So, Barr/Durham and their fellow prosecutors have interviewed dozens of current and former FBI officials, but they have yet to speak with four of the main suspects who we all know from public information already released were key leaders of the cabal. This would be common practice if those four are in fact targets of the investigation – the process would be to gather all the independent information possible to build a strong case prior to interviewing the actual targets. Very encouraging for those who desire to see actual justice done to at least some of the myriad bad actors in this matter.
Much later on in the piece, we find out who one of the “two former senior FBI agents” happens to be:
The former official said he was reassured by the presence of John C. Eckenrode, one of the former senior F.B.I. agents assisting Mr. Durham. Like Mr. Durham, who investigated C.I.A. torture of detainees overseas, Mr. Eckenrode is also familiar with high-stakes political inquiries.
How is Mr. Eckenrode famliar with “high-stakes political inquiries”? Way back in 2003-04, he worked for special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on the Valerie Plame investigation. Some will view this association with a previous out-of-control special counsel as damning of Barr/Durham’s real intentions here, but the Fizgerald investigation would have involved literally dozens of FBI agents who were simply carrying out their orders in their daily jobs. When conducting a high-profile, controversial investigation such as this one, it would be perfectly natural for any U.S. Attorney to try to bring in assistants who have prior such experience.
Towards the end, the Times writers do their best to provide cover for their Deep State sources:
For example, the former official compared the F.B.I.’s handling of its two investigations related to Mr. Trump and his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton. Agents overtly investigated Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server but kept secret their counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. If the F.B.I. had been trying to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy and hurt Mr. Trump’s, they could have buried the email investigation or taken more overt steps in the Russia inquiry.
This is, of course, abject nonsense. The Clinton email scandal had been in the news for many months, beginning way back in mid-2015. The corrupt and preening Comey, always concerned more about his public image than about the actual pursuit of justice, had no choice but to be seen as pursuing that investigation in a very public way. The fact that the fix was in for the Fainting Felon came with the release of internal FBI documents proving that Comey and Strzok drafted Clinton’s exoneration memo in May, 2016, two full months before they even bothered to interview her.
But this tired old narrative is all the Comeys and Strzoks have left to them, and the Times dutifully plays along, rolling it out there for the consumption of their willfully-deluded reader base.
The very publication of this narrative piece demonstrates the concern the coup plotters really are feeling about the pending release of the Horowitz Report and the ongoing conduct of the Barr/Durham investigation. It’s an effort – a miserably failed effort – to get out ahead of the release of the Horowitz Report, and to build a public narrative in defense of the bad actors as Barr and Durham advance towards seeking indictments. As the Times piece itself states in the lead sentence to its third paragraph:
The number of interviews shows that Mr. Durham’s review is further along than previously known.
Slowly but surely, the walls are closing in on the coup plotters.
“The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.” – Sun Tzu
That is all.
The Durham Report will pour buckets of water on the latest Democrat Congressional brushfire attempt to take out the President.
This Coup d’ Etat attack will fail too.
Wake me when indictments are handed out - preferably just before the 2020 election.
Maybe some early morning SWAT raids would be helpful.
Any attempt to create a narrative to obfuscate truth is doomed to failure. Truth has a way of blooming like a flower through manure.
The Horowitz Report was supposed to be released yesterday according to rumors. I’m not holding optimism that it will ever be released at this point. If it is then it will probably be whitewashed.
I hope it includes some news media who have become more than reporters.
I see no reason why Barr and Durham wouldn’t be drawn into investigating the origins of the “impeachment”. The “impeachment” is nothing more than a smoke screen to deflect attention away from 2016 Ukraine/DNC collusion and the CrowdStrike presence in the Ukraine.
I have never been able to fathom the thought or the suggestion that these treasonous bastards would be allowed to get away with their attempted coup. I know that this country is better than that and is well worth fighting for.
The day of reckoning is coming, make no mistake about it.
I take comfort in knowing that any undertaking that is pursued by Liberals, ends up as a complete and total disaster for the Liberals. That fact of life NEVER fails. Those people screw up everything that they touch.
They need to hurry, people are starting to lose faith. Justice delayed is justice denied (MLK)
You're going to be asleep a very long time. It's never going to happen as much as we wish it would.
I would agree, It’s been long enough, actually too long already. Drop the Hammer get some rope and let’s get this party swinging.
I take comfort in the same thing. Even the apocalypse that will result if they manage to get their way. Out of the wreckage and the dark age that will follow, we or our spiritual descendants will rise again as theirs continue to wallow in depravity. In their stupidity and incompetence lie the seeds of their own ruin—and well deserved it is.
The phrase suggests that real journalists are objective.In reality objectivity is a goal, not a state of being. It’s fine with me if someone claims to be trying to be objective - if indeed they are - but claiming actually to be objective is out of bounds on philosophical grounds.
The propaganda campaign of the journalism cartel to the effect that “journalists are objective” merely has the effect of changing the meaning of the term “objective” to mean, “ideologically simpatico with the journalism cartel.” Exactly what the journalism cartel has caused “liberal,” “moderate,” “centrist,” and “progressive” to mean. Only the rule of usage varies: “objective” is to be used always and exclusively for journalists - and the other, connotatively identical words are to be used for simpatico people who are not journalists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.