“After three years of lies and smears and slander, the Russia hoax is finally dead. The collusion delusion is over.”
With these words, President Donald Trump opened a raucous rally in front of more than 15,000 enthusiastic supporters in Grand Rapids, Michigan on March 28, celebrating the release of the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on March 22. According to the summary submitted to Congress by Attorney General William Barr, Mueller found no evidence of collusion, nor of obstruction of justice, thus vindicating Trump’s repeated claim that the investigation was a “witch hunt.”
In his remarks, Trump did not merely proclaim vindication. He issued a call to action, asking those at the rally to join him in defeating the anti-Trump coup plotters, who are foolishly continuing their campaign to remove him from office. He forcefully denounced leading Democrats, naming Representatives Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, who are both using Committees in the U.S. House of Representatives to expand their fake investigations. Trump said they “need to decide whether they will continue to defraud the public,” now that Russiagate has been exposed as a fraud. He also excoriated the media, and intelligence officials who had served under President Obama, such as former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, suggesting that both of them could be prosecuted for lying, and using their positions to illegally unleash the witch hunt.
In an interview with Fox television’s Sean Hannity before the rally, Trump stated that he will soon release all documents related to the attack on him, including those compiled by the FBI, which used the fictional dossier written by “former” British MI6 operative Christopher Steele, to get surveillance warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, as well as the “302” reports on FBI interrogations, text messages, and emails from the coup plotters. President Trump said:
I have plans to declassify and release. We must never let this happen to another president. I hope they don’t get away with it. . . . It’s an investigation that should never have happened. [On the role of corrupt, leading officials of the FBI who were part of the coup apparat:] They wanted to do a subversion. . . . It was treason. It was really treason.
That Trump survived the persistent and vicious assault against him is in itself quite remarkable. He had to endure years of media leaks and lies, attacks on his family, his businesses, and his associates, many of whom were threatened and bullied, to get them to turn against him, as his former attorney Michael Cohen did. Mueller also secured fraudulent indictments of “Russians” for cyber meddling, which will never be tested in court, and convictions for “process crimes” unrelated to the assignment given him. Yet, in his final report, Mueller was forced to admit there was no proof that Trump colluded with foreign efforts to steal the 2016 election.
This conclusion is a harsh blow to the anti-Trump fanatics committed to his impeachment, leaving them reeling, stammering that they will “go further” than the special counsel in their hysterical resolve to overturn their defeat by Trump in the 2016 election. The Schiller Institute’s Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who has taken a leading role in exposing the fraud behind the attempted coup, said in a webcast on March 28, a transcription of which is in this issue of EIR, that it is not surprising that Trump’s opponents will continue, as the report “did not lead to the desired result,” i.e., his removal! But now is no time for complacency, she added. Instead, “Now is the time for reckoning” for those who ran the attempted coup.
The attempted putsch against Trump was never simply about disgruntled supporters of Hillary Clinton seeking revenge for her electoral defeat. It was launched by the highest levels of British intelligence, in collaboration with accomplices from the Bush and Obama-Clinton networks, to prevent Trump from overturning the post-Cold War consensus of using geopolitical confrontation to protect the British-directed unilateral world order, which was imposed following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Up until now, other than Mrs. LaRouche and a handful of other courageous individuals, such as former National Security Agency (NSA) Technical Director and whistleblower Bill Binney and his associates, the assertion in the Mueller report that the Russians did interfere in the U.S. election, has gone unchallenged. Mrs. LaRouche identified the escalation against Venezuela—led by National Security Advisor John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence, members of both parties in Congress, and the same media hacks who are still smarting from being slapped down by the Mueller report—as part of the effort to trap Trump into a position on Venezuela against Russia and China. She said that “. . . unless this apparatus is dismantled, they will find new ways to entrap” Trump, calling the Venezuela escalation “the continuation of the coup against Trump, ‘with other colors,’ ” a reference to the launching of “color revolutions,” as in Ukraine, as regime change operations under the cover of “humanitarian” efforts.
In an interview on radio station KTKK in Salt Lake City, Bill Binney told this author (Harley Schlanger) that he fully endorsed Mrs. LaRouche’s insistence that the perpetrators from the UK intelligence community and the anglophile “shadow government” in the United States must be “held accountable.” If this does not happen, he said, “they will do it again, lying as they did to get us into war in Vietnam (in the 1960s), and with the lies about weapons of mass destruction to justify the overthrow of Saddam and mass murder in Iraq,” and again with the lies from the “British and former CIA Director John Brennan about Russian hacking.”
Binney has conducted the most thorough forensic investigation into the charge that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign computers—which is at the heart of Russiagate—refuting it on every level. He said he knew from August 2016 that the charge was a fake. Instead of hacking by Russia, he proved that the data leak was the result of an “inside job,” with a thumb drive or similar device. Yet, despite his known expertise in this area, he was never called to testify by Mueller, and his reports have been blacked out of the major media.
Binney said the intelligence agencies must be “cleaned up—President Trump has the potential to do this, to give the intelligence agencies a double lobotomy!” If this is not done, they will continue to “build their empire of destruction, with full support of a submissive media.”
While the combative spirit shown by Trump in Grand Rapids is a sign that he is up to the fight, the question now remains whether the American people will respond to the call to action and join with the LaRouche movement to use this opportunity to take down the corrupt British-U.S. networks responsible for war, chaos and poverty.
Source: https://larouchepub.com/other/editorials/2019/4613-mueller_report_no_collusion_ti.html
COLLUSION DELUSION: Media In Denial Over Mueller Report
Many in the media remained in denial about the Mueller report findings, as they collectively screamed “Nothing is over, until we decide it is!” From clinging to ongoing Democratic investigations to spouting conspiracy theories about a cover-up, liberal journalists and hosts spent the next few days following the releae of the Mueller Report refusing to accept there was nothing to their precious “Russian Collusion” dreams. The following are the 10 worst examples of liberals in denial as they curse the Mueller Report conclusions:
CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time, March 25.
Rudolph Giuliani: “You guys on this network have tortured this man for two years with collusion and nobody’s apologized for it! So, before we talk about obstruction, apologize for the overreaction to collusion!”
Host Chris Cuomo: “Not a chance. Not a chance. Not a chance.”…
Giuliani: “Apologize.”
Cuomo: “Never.”
Joe Cries: There Is More of “Onion to Unpeel”
“If Donald Trump had nothing to worry about all along, why did the President lie about his contacts with Russia repeatedly during the campaign? Why did the Vice President lie about their contacts with Russia in January of 2017? Why did the Attorney General lie in front of the United States Senate about his contacts?… How about the meeting on Air Force One where Donald Trump has everybody around him saying, ‘Okay this is how we’ll lie about our meeting with the Russians?’…There is more of that onion to unpeel.”
— Co-host Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, March 25.
Trump Lies Everyday, He Has to Be Guilty!
“You’re going to hear this from the right for the next days and weeks to come, that the press has made all of this up to take down President Trump. But the press is just following a trail that Trump created. He has proven time and time again that he cannot be trusted. He is so dishonest that even America’s allies don’t know what to believe….Maybe every time he said no collusion more than 231 times so far, maybe every time he said no collusion he was telling the truth. Maybe that’s what Mueller found. If so it would be a relief for the country. But Trump’s daily deceptions have given this country ample reason to be suspicious. That’s why there is so much noise.”
— Host Brian Stelter on CNN’s Reliable Sources, March 24.
It’s a Conspiracy!
“The fact that this investigation takes place within the Justice Department which Donald Trump essentially controls and he got rid of the problem, Jeff Sessions, who the one decent thing that he did was recuse himself, this guy is not recused [Attorney General William Barr], it feels like the seeds of a cover-up are here.”
— Host Joy Reid on MSNBC’s AM Joy, March 23.
How Dare Mueller Let Trump “Off the Hook”
“We know about the meeting in Trump Tower, June of 2016. We know about the meeting at the cigar bar with [Ukranian political consultant Konstatin] Kilimnik. We know – my God, we know about all those meetings with [Russian ambassador] Sergey Kislyak at the Republican convention in Cleveland. All of these dots, we’re now to believe, don’t connect?…Why was there never an interrogation of this President?…How can they let Trump off the hook?”
— Host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, March 22.
Huh?
“He wasn’t investigated for the first two years at all! So, I think, there’s a little catch up to do in this.”
— Chief political analyst Matthew Dowd on ABC’s This Week, March 24.
Not Buying It
Co-host Joy Behar: “I don’t buy that he is completely exonerated the way he just said.”…
Co-host Sunny Hostin: “We don’t know anything….We only know what’s in this four-page memo written by the Attorney General that was selected by President Trump. That’s all that we know….I think everybody needs to pump the brakes when we talk about this being a huge victory for this administration, because there has been a complete lack of transparency here.”
— ABC’s The View, March 25.
“Russians Have Clearly Won”
“I want to hear him [Mueller] tell me why the ‘Russia if you’re listening’ speech was….a joke? Did he accept the changing of the Georgian platform as a joke? The handing off of data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a GRU, you know, asset as a joke? Somebody’s got to explain these things. And if it was ‘I couldn’t get a 100 percent slam dunk’ then the Russians have clearly won on a very well planned and coordinated operation, even by Mr. Mueller’s standards.”
— MSNBC counter-terrorism analyst Malcolm Nance on MSNBC’s The Beat, March 24.
Sour Grapes on CNN
“There is a direct quote that Mueller has said it does not exonerate the president. Now, I happen to look at that as kind of ‘a Mueller maybe,’ which to me is really atrocious. After two years, if you still have questions, when you still can’t answer that question, it’s not good enough…I’m completely unsatisfied.”
— CNN legal analyst Laura Coates on CNN New Day, March 25.
Don’t Need Mueller Report to Know Trump Is a Traitor
“Did the Democrats put too much trust in the Mueller report? Because I don’t need the Mueller report to know he’s a traitor. I have a TV.”
— Host Bill Maher on HBO’s Real Time, March 22.
Source: NewsBusters
Wikipedia Editors Delay, then Post Fake News on Summary of Mueller Probe
One of Google and YouTube’s trusted partners is not exactly trustworthy when it comes to reporting the facts. Google and YouTube elevated Wikipedia to the level of fact by using the volunteer-run encyclopedia site to fill in the blanks on “Knowledge Panels.” But after the Mueller Report was delivered and declared President Donald Trump “did not commit a crime” with Russia in the 2016 presidential election, Wikipedia seemed to have a hard time adjusting to this fact. Ten articles on Wikipedia either buried or ignored the results completely.
Of particular focus was Mueller “not exonerating” Trump on obstruction, despite Attorney General William Barr and his deputy Rod Rosenstein agreeing evidence did not show obstruction. Some Wikipedia editors also went to articles related to the origins of the investigation to defend its pretext, including the Steele Dossier used as the primary basis for the collusion allegations.
While Wikipedia allows registered users to edit any piece they want, “locked” pieces don’t allow changes to be made. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s bio failed to mention the results of the report for several days. A simple sentence reads, “Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019 which officially ended the investigation on possible Russian influence in the 2016 United States presidential election.”
An article about the legal teams involved in the Mueller investigation had not, as of March 25, been updated with the results of the report. Another piece, titled “Efforts to Impeach Donald Trump,” had also not been updated. It finally included (among the dozens of paragrapgs of allegations) the sentence, “According to Barr, the investigation “did not find evidence to charge other Americans (including Trump associates) in conspiring with Russia in 2016,” and did not come to a conclusion about obstruction of justice.”
Wikipedia buried the results in the Wikipedia entry on the report itself. After detailing them, whoever wrote the entry added the caveat pertaining to Barr’s letter: “However, the letter did detail two ways in which Russia attempted to influence the election in Trump’s favor.”
In another entry, titled “Links between Trump associates and Russian officials,” the results were revealed … five paragraphs in. The same happened in the article, “Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.” No mention, of course, of former top NSA cryptologist William Binney’s debunking of the Russia hacking of the DNC. This is in an effort to conceal that Seth Rich, a democrat that worked at the DNC and saw the cheating by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz to rig the election in favor of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, and who downloaded evidence to a thumb-drive and gave the information to Wikileaks. He was soon after murdered.
Despite the conclusion of Mueller’s report, some editors also continued to suggest there was collusion with Russia. Editor Volunteer Marek attempted to add to the intro of the article on Trump’s presidency that Trump had advance notice of the DNC leaks citing his former lawyer Michael Cohen, failing to note this referred to Roger Stone’s dubious claims to have insider information at Wikileaks rather than a Russian connection. Another editor, BullRangifer, repeatedly argued over several discussions that Steele’s dossier had not been debunked by the investigation yet also sought to minimize its role in the investigation.
Wikipedia’s article on Spygate, a term that has become associated with allegations of improper surveillance of the Trump campaign, has drawn considerable attention as critics of the collusion claims have called for investigating the investigators. Marek and Rangifer have both been active in discussions at the article along with other anti-Trump editors. The Spygate article itself was locked to prevent editing as anti-Trump editors repeatedly fought to retain material claiming the Spygate “conspiracy theory” is false.
Coverage of the investigation and criticisms of it on Wikipedia have largely fallen in line with the predominant mainstream media narratives, which have overwhelmingly treated allegations of treasonous collusion with Russia as credible and allegations of investigatory misconduct as baseless conspiracy theories. For nearly a year the article on the Special Counsel investigation has claimed allegations of misconduct were “raised and almost immediately debunked” citing, among other things, the Carter Page FISA warrant discussed by Representative Devin Nunes in a House Intelligence memo. The warrant reportedly relied heavily on the Steele dossier as evidence.
Several commentators have noted FISA surveillance warrants often authorize access to past and present communications, not only of the ostensible target, but anyone with whom the target communicated and anyone with whom those people have communicated. These commentators also note that such access, if granted in the Page warrant, could potentially give investigators extensive access to Trump campaign communications. As large parts of the FISA warrant application remain redacted, it is not known whether this form of authorization was sought. Despite this, mainstream media claims that allegations of the Trump campaign being improperly surveilled were “debunked” are given priority on Wikipedia.
Articles covering Trump-Russia collusion have been a major point of contention on Wikipedia since the investigation began, though partisan editors have typically succeeded in slanting articles in their favor, including by having sources critical of the Russia hacking narrative “purged” from articles. One Trump associate, Michael Caputo, went so far as to hire a paid editor to remove false claims of him being a “consultant” for Putin, but the claims were restored and the editor banned for violating policies on paid editing and using multiple accounts. Unbeknownst to Caputo, the editor who added the false allegations was using an account created to evade a ban on editing about living political figures.
Academics have warned against using Wikipedia as a source for years. But YouTube and Google ignored this and have built an entire system on Wikipedia. Google proudly boasted of its relationship with Wikipedia in January 2019, saying “Our organizations have partnered throughout the years on initiatives that further our joint goals around knowledge access, including making information available through Google Search.” Wikipedia has been consistent with its bias against conservatives, to the point where hoaxes against the Republican party have been allowed to stand. In one case, the California GOP was referred to as the “party of Naziism.” 1,2
