Seth Rich and Heather Heyer: Summer of Love
Note: throughout this essay, I often use the term “the left” pejoratively. I am referring to “the left” in its current incarnation, which unfortunately rather resembles a skunk with a can stuck over its head, staggering about in circles with no idea how to remedy its situation or where to aim its defences.
I realize that many left-leaning and never-Trump readers will find the first section (an examination of the Charlottesville incident) objectionable. Please realize that my primary objective in this essay is not an endorsement of Trump, but rather an attempt to showcase the self-serving and hypocritical methods used by the Establishment/Deep State media. They are the true enemy, if you believe, as I do, that secrecy inevitably leads to corruption. This is a story about two young left wing activists, Heather Heyer and Seth Rich, who are no longer with us, and the disparate ways in which the Mainstream Media told – or didn’t tell – their stories.
“I think there is blame on both sides” – Donald Trump
“There are not two sides to hatred. And if you choose to march with a flag that symbolizes the slaughter of millions of people, there are not two sides.” —Arnold Schwarzenegger
Actually Arnold, if both sides happen to be carrying a flag that symbolizes the slaughter of millions of people, then… let’s see…by my math and what I think is your logic, then there are…why this can’t be right…two sides!
When a group with swastika (interesting discovery – neither WordPress or Google will autocomplete this word) flags engages another with Soviet flags and hammer and sickle belt buckles in a street fight – in 2017 America, let’s keep in mind – you can pretty much expect to find blame on both sides.
The media is furious at Trump after his bumptious and thrilling press conference for having the audacity to once again refuse to partake of their script before speaking, the script requiring a furious denunciation of white supremacy to the exclusion of any other relevant factor – factors which may help us to get a higher resolution picture of what happened in Charlottesville, but which are utterly without utility if you happen to be part of the media responsible for generating the Trump Disaster Narrative – they had a plot hole to fill. Before his election they tried to convince us that he was a racist, a Hitler in the making that could only be stopped with a Clinton victory. This was purely provisional fear mongering, the truth of which was never meant to be put to the test. When their slanderous and cheap strategy failed to secure them the election they told everyone was a slam dunk, the remnants of their credibility finally crumbled. After Charlottesville they sensed a brief chance to regain some cred by proving that their Trump the Racist Hitler forecast had arrived.
Trump, who stated unequivocally that “Racism is evil”, instinctively understood that he also needed to aggressively push back with a “many sides” interpretation right from the get go. Kowtowing to the press would have allowed them to unhesitatingly run at breakneck speed with this implication: He is why America is a place where “Nazis” run people down with cars; the white nationalists belong to him, are because of him, popping up like dandelions the moment Obama stepped off the lawn.
Is there blame on both sides? Virtually everyone, including, of course, Donald Trump, agrees that white supremacy is contemptible and vehicular violence atrocious, and the mainstream press wants us to draw large scale conclusions about the danger posed by the far right from this incident, but what about that other group? Recent activities of the far left include assassinating police officers, smashing heads with bike locks(by a professor, no less; I suppose this is what passes for field work in academia these days), setting fire to a university, and shooting a congressman. Given their stated aim to “shut down” events featuring people they disagree with are we to believe that they showed up in Charlottesville wielding bats in order that they might engage in a friendly game of softball? Poor New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg. If only she’d been a little more prescient, she might not have tweeted ‘The hard left seemed as hate-filled as the alt-right. I saw club-yielding “antifa” beating white nationalists being led out of the park’ and then she wouldn’t have had to waste time replacing her observations and first impressions with something more filtered and palatable to the Times readership – she could have gone straight to work on the latter, serving the narrative that the Times has so obviously committed itself to.
It is worth remembering that Unite the Right had secured a permit for their demonstration, unlike their opponents who showed up with the expressed intent to forcibly shut down a lawful assembly. Friday night (before the Saturday riots) they had marched with Tiki torches chanting like creepy weirdos and occasionally getting into scuffles with the then-greatly outnumbered counterprotesters, but generally conducting themselves with an eerie, almost zombie-like roboticism. Blogger Caitlin Johnstone, one of the few people on the left who hasn’t undergone a near total mental collapse since Trump’s election and who is well clued-in to the workings of the Deep State, muses:
I’m convinced that one of the reasons these alt-right demonstrations are consistently met with violent counter-protests is because there are people on the left who are genuinely worried that the alt-right would indeed hold a peaceful demonstration if left to their own devices, and they don’t know how they’d deal with that.
Let’s perform a quick thought experiment. You are a Starbucks window. You hear what sounds like an angry crowd noisily approaching. Who is going to get you shuddering over your sill? Far right demonstrators with Tiki torches, or balaclava-clad Antifa?
The violence of that day likely required the presence of the left. One might reply that it takes two to Tango, but before the counter protesters arrived on the scene in greater numbers on Saturday the right was engaged in little more than the Walking Dead Shuffle. And here’s the thing – the left gets violent even when no one shows up to oppose them, turning their attention to inanimate objects and property – just ask that Starbucks window! Or how about the University of Berkeley, which they set fire to because they were so incensed that someone had the gall to invite a speaker they disagreed with. Or how about…every ludicrous temper tantrum thrown by Antifa since Charlottesville, leading to narrative collapse even within the mainstream media, and lending credence to Trump’s fact-based “blame on both sides” assessment.
In common with the incident at the University of Berkeley is what appears to have been some sort of police stand-down. About 20 minutes to noon on the Saturday, long time sleazy Clinton ally and mayor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency and had the Unite the Right rally cancelled. The demonstrators were herded out of the park and straight into the antifa gauntlet, where – tell us again what you saw, Sheryl – ‘I saw club wielding “antifa” beating white nationalists being led out of the park’. Agreed upon by virtually all reporting and in the accounts of people on both sides of the skirmish is the fact that the police did very little to stop the violence. That there was a large swarm of Antifa planning to descend upon Charlottesville to put a stop to the Unite the Right rally was widely known well before Saturday; McAuliffe didn’t suddenly discover this in a briefing over brunch. Had he wanted to prevent a confrontation, he could have declared a State of Emergency Friday or earlier, but no, he waited just long enough to bring the the two groups together and then unleashed them upon one another like pit bulls in a steel cage match, thus ensuring an anarchic spectacle of the sort we were promised would happen if Trump were elected. Sound too conspiratorial?
During the run up to the election, Democrtic operatives got caught on hidden camera by undercover journalists with Project Veritas talking about how they were deliberately “starting anarchy” at Trump rallies. These are not marginal, rogue operatives with no real political connections, either: the group in question, Democracy Partners, was run by felon Bob Creamer, who, according to publicly available records, visited the White House during the Obama administration…wait for it…342 times. And in case you’re thinking that maybe he’s just a big fan of the public tours he personally met with Obama on 47 of those visits. The last recorded visit was in June of 2016, nearly three months after Trump had to cancel a rally in Chicago over concerns about violence, violence which Scott Foval, who answered to Creamer, takes credit for in the video. Hillary Clinton blamed Trump’s “ugly, divisive rhetoric” for the violence stating that “the encouragement of violence and aggression is wrong, and it’s dangerous. If you play with matches, you’re going to start a fire you can’t control. That’s not leadership. That’s political arson.” Hmmm…
Last summer, I told a Clinton supporting tennis partner about the Project Veritas investigation. He stared at me blankly for a solid one-one thousand two-one thousand, and then said “That sounds like bullshit” before marching, with an air of finality, back to the baseline to resume play. For a significant portion of the population, any story not reported on by the major media effectively didn’t happen or simply isn’t important. Just in case you are planning to pull a “That sounds like bullshit” on me and not watch the video, I will drop some of the money quotes from good ole Scotty Foval here:
“It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker.”
“We train up our people…and I work with a network of groups, we train them up on how to get themselves into a situation on tape, on camera, that we can use later.”
“We’re starting anarchy here.”
“I’m saying we have mentally ill people, that we pay to do shit, make no mistake…Over the last twenty years, I’ve paid off a few homeless guys to do some crazy stuff, and I’ve also taken them for dinner, and I’ve also made sure they had a hotel, and a shower. And I put them in a program. Like I’ve done that. But the reality is, a lot of people,especially our union guys, A lot of our union guys…they’ll do whatever you want. They’re rock and roll. When I need to get something done in Arkansas, the first guy I call is the head of the AFL-CIO down there, because he will say, ‘What do you need?’ And I will say, I need a guy who will do this, this and this. And they find that guy. And that guy will be like, Hell yeah, let’s do it.”
“There is a level of adherence to rules on the other side that only when you’re at the very highest level, do you get over.” (emphasis mine)
“The thing that we have to watch is making sure there’s a double-blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC and what we’re doing. There’s a double-blind there, so that they can plausibly deny that they heard anything about it.”
Here we have clear evidence of Trump’s opponents showing a willingness to put some of society’s most vulnerable people in volatile situations in order to create news. People like Heather Heyer are nothing but cannon fodder for them, and as we shall see, by the time mid-August rolled around, they needed a fresh outrage to pin on Trump, needed it desperately…
– — – — – — –
*Russia has collapsed (*not the country, the storyboard scribble conjured up by the desperate and wicked) and there is a growing pile of evidence that the DNC e-mails were not stolen via hack but rather were leaked from someone on the inside. In early August, within the space of a little over a week, two independently derived stories emerged that were totally ignored by the mainstream press.
On August 1st an audio recording emerged of well-respected journalist Seymour Hersh. (Although an exceptionally clear writer, Hersh’s characteristically rambling speech patterns can be difficult to transcribe, so listening to the audio can be useful for clarification). He had this to say about Russia:
“I have somebody on the inside, you know I’ve been around a long time, and I write a lot of stuff. I have somebody on the inside who will go and read a file for me. This person is unbelievably accurate and careful, he’s a very high-level guy and he’ll do a favour. You’re just going to have to trust me. I have what they call in my business a long-form journalism, I have a narrative of how that whole fucking thing began, it’s a Brennan (Director of the CIA) operation, it was an American disinformation and fucking the fucking President, at one point when they, they even started telling the press, they were back briefing the press, the head of the NSA was going and telling the press, fucking cock-sucker Rogers, was telling the press that we even know who in the GRU, the Russian Military Intelligence Service, who leaked it. I mean all bullshit. They were telling the stupi-I worked at the New York Times for fucking years, and the trouble with the fucking New York Times is they have smart guys, but they’re totally beholden on sources. If the president or (unclear) the head of the CIA tells them something, they actually believe it. I was actually hired at the Times, to write, to go after the war, the Vietnam War in ’72 because they were just locked in. So that’s what the Times did. These guys run the fucking Times, and Trump’s not wrong. But I mean I wish he would calm down and had a better a better press secretary, I mean you don’t have to be so. Trump’s not wrong to think they all fucking lie about him.”
The New York Times has shown massive interest in *Russia, writing what likely amounts to hundreds of stories about the subject, so you’d think that if a tape emerged in which Seymour Hersh, the man who broke the My Lai Massacre story and one of their most celebrated former reporters, claimed to have a source confirming that Russiagate is “all bullshit”, The Times would have spent the next several days feverishly contending with and reporting on this new allegation. The mere existence of the tape should have been one of their top stories on August 1st; in the days following they could delve further into an analysis and investigation of its credibility. The fact that they ignored it makes it incredibly clear that they are not interested in *Russia in an objective, follow-the-facts-wherever-they-lead kind of way.
There’s another reason The Times and other establishment media ignored this story: Hersh identifies the leaker as one Seth Rich – “About the kid, I’ll tell you what I know” – lending credence to one of the most frowned-upon “conspiracy theories” of 2016/17.
Julian Assange, who has always insisted that Wikileaks was not given the DNC’s e-mails by Russia, cryptically hinted in an interview that Rich, a DNC staffer who was found murdered five days after the cyber theft operation, may have been their source; Wikileaks even posted a $20 000 reward for information on Rich’s unsolved murder. Naturally, those capable of the rudimentary connecting of dots pondered the possibility that he might have been silenced for information he possessed, or to send a warning to anyone else who might be thinking of messing with the DNC/Clinton Campaign. In an article from last May entitled ‘How the Murder of a D.N.C. Staff Member Fueled Conspiracy Theories’ The New York Times gives us this conclusive reason to go back to bed:
“No credible evidence has emerged, however, that Mr. Rich was in contact with WikiLeaks.”
That was in May, but how would The Times deal with this? From their former reporter:
“About the kid, I’ll tell you what I know. What I know comes off an FBI report. Don’t ask me how. You can figure it out, I’ve been around a long time. What they find is he makes cont- first of all this is what you have to know, you have to know some basic facts, one of the basic factors, in that there’s no DNC or Podesta emails that exist beyond May 22nd. May 21st, May 22nd is the last email from either one of those groups. And so what the reports says is that sometime late spring, early summer and he makes contact with Wikileaks. That’s in his computer and he makes contact. He had submitted a series of documents, of emails. Some juicy emails from the DNC, and you know, by the way all this shit about the DNC, um, you know, whether it was hacked or wasn’t hacked, whatever happened, the Democrats themselves wrote this shit, you know what I mean? All I know is that he (Seth) offered a sample, an extensive sample, you know I’m sure dozens of email and said ‘I want money’. Then later Wikileaks did get the password, he had a Dropbox, a protected Dropbox, which isn’t hard to do, I mean you don’t have to be a wizard IT, you know, he was certainly not a dumb kid. They got access to the Dropbox. He also, and this is also in the FBI report, he also let people know, with whom he was dealing…‘I’ve also shared this box with a couple of friends so if anything happens to me it’s not going to solve your problem.’ Ok. I don’t know what that means.”
If an innocuous memo (the Comey Memo) read by an anonymous source over the phone is front page breaking news for the Times, then how do they rate this? Or how about CNN? Since Van Jones was caught on camera (courtesy, once again, of Project Veritas) calling *Russia “a big nothing burger” and producer John Bonifield, also unaware he was being recorded, said it was “mostly bullshit” (there’s that word again) before explaining that the whole thing was really about ratings, you would think that CNN would be hungry, longing, Jimmy Stewart on a bridge at Christmas desperate for redemption – It’s not too late, Tapper! For journalists hungry to uncover the truth about Russia and the US election it doesn’t matter if Rich’s murder is completely unrelated (and Hersh’s opinion is that the police’s botched robbery theory is likely correct), what is relevant is that Hersh’s FBI source attributes to Seth Rich a role that US Intelligence attributes to Russia.
But what about those intelligence agencies who have assured us, on the basis of forensic evidence and analysis we the public can’t see, that the DNC was definitely hacked by “the Russians” who then handed Wikileaks the e-mails? That’s where our second early August story comes into play.
On August 9th The Nation published an article about the results of comprehensive forensic work done on the DNC incident by an organization called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which is a group of well credentialed and experienced former intelligence officers that formed during the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Their critical analysis of the intelligence being touted by Colin Powell in his silly presentation to the UN as absolute proof that Iraq possessed WMD’s, as well as various other claims being disseminated by government officials and their media squawkers, have stood the test of time.
But why let an organization being correct in the past prevent you from ignoring them in the present?
After all, if you only consume establishment media sources, you only know of the one forcefully asserted *Russia hypothesis, and we are told that to reveal the evidence would be to endanger national security. It is the role of an unbiased media to investigate, thoroughly, all valid leads, and, as in the case of Hersh, VIPS cannot simply be ignored. These are experts at the top of their fields, and when dealing with them, it is the job of a journalist to show first deference and then skepticism when presented with their findings.
At least VIPS presents us with their case against the hack and for the leak, giving us a chance to evaluate their conclusions, something that the official government sources have refused to do. According to their (VIPS) analysis it turns out that the DNC’s files were being transferred out at an impossibly high rate in 2016 (and likely even now), with the likelihood of such rapid transference being even further outside the realm of the possible if the hack originated in Romania, as Guccifer 2.0 claimed. No matter; the attack appears to have come from somewhere in the Eastern Time Zone, which includes Washington DC, the home and place of employment of…Seth Rich. The transfer rate is more consistent with a USB-2 flash device – a device one might use if one had direct access to a DNC computer, like an employee…which, of course, would include Rich.
Here we have two stories, occurring in early August, that contain complimentary elements which only the most ardent coincidence-theorist could successfully explain away. There is no mention of Seth Rich in the Nation’s August 9th article, and VIPS makes no mention of him elsewhere. In fact, VIPS’s memorandum for The President upon which the article is based is dated July 24th, so it can’t be said that VIPS’s leak-not-hack theory was hastily thrown together to bolster Hersh’s audio which emerged on August 1st. It doesn’t work the other way, either: The recorded conversation happened prior to June 2nd. Hersh had no idea he was being recorded, and only begrudgingly admitted that it was indeed his voice, refusing to comment or elaborate. In fact, on July 31st, Hersh told NPR, who was writing a story discrediting wealthy Trump supporter and financier for an independent investigation into Rich’s murder Ed Butowsky, that “I hear gossip. [Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it.” The Washington Post, also eager to portray Butowsky as an agent of Trump and Putin who was using Rich to cast doubt on *Russia, was happy to drop this quote in an article published after NPR’s on the same day (Aug 1st). Luckily Butowsky quickly shared his sneaky little recording later that day, revealing that Hersh was in possession of more than just “gossip”, although those same media outlets were – surprise! – not so eager to report on this new information. Now as for Hersh’s behaviour here, that is a rabbit hole for another day…get back to me if you have any theories.
The DNC actually responded to the Nation’s article:
“We hear our bloody cousins are bestowed
in England and in Ireland, not confessing
their cruel parricide, filling their hearers
with strange invention.”
Oh, sorry, that was greedy usurper Macbeth, accusing innocent people of his crime, and of Shakespeare’s 17th century equivalent to the conspiracy theory, “strange invention.” Not sure how that got there, but I’m sure the DNC will do much better at sounding less comically guilty:
“U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It’s unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative.”
And the Strange Invention Award goes to…
– — – — – — –
I realize that quoting Orwell is all the rage at the moment, mostly by imbeciles who have no idea that they can be spied on through their televisions just like poor Winston with his telescreen, and that this ubiquitous surveillance state was not put in place by Trump, but here goes:
“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” – George Orwell
We should be able to rely on media sources with mottos and slogans like “The Newspaper of Record” or “The Most Trusted Name in News” or the histrionic “Democracy Dies in Darkness” to tell us if there is more than one valid hypothesis. Most of us, when presented with two competing hypotheses regarding a cyber breach, are not particularly qualified or able to determine which is higher in verisimilitude.
Golly, it seems like in times like these, we citizens sure could use an old, big city daily with a history of breaking important stories…or a 24h news network that puts a premium on trustworthiness…or a paper with a new-found devotion to preventing democracy from perishing of photon deprivation if we’re ever going to sort out this conundrum. Why won’t they help us? Why wasn’t the first week of August a week in which we saw the media descend upon the Hersh story like hyenas on a fallen wildebeest if you believe that there are journalists who want to be heroes in their field, and if you believe that there is a market incentive to “getting the scoop?” Just as *Russia was undergoing a serious plot twist and starting to get interesting again, the media seemed to be running out of things to say about it.
No, the focus on August 1st for virtually all of the media was “The Mooch, The Mooch, The Mooch Has Been Fired!”and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. After that, we learnt the same breaking news every day – North Korea? Still working on that rocket! Hoping to commit suicide via Guam as soon as they can.
(I sometimes wonder if the deep state is deliberately ratcheting up tensions with North Korea as part of the aforementioned strategy of creating an aura of chaos around the Trump Administration. North Korea is reliable in it’s own way: always eager to get one up and off but totally impotent, so it can be counted on for friction that ultimately leads nowhere but to a mesmerizingly awkard and distracting spectacle. Of course, Trump himself could be using it for similar purposes, but – whataboutism alert – he won’t be the first.)
The unelected Deep State and its media outlets, in their efforts to destroy or at least discredit an administration which was never supposed to win, had found themselves wandering in an empty desert, dangerously parched as daily and hourly their *Russia mirages rose up vaporously and evaporated into nothingness. Were people beginning to notice?
In July, the *Russia investigation turned a year old: a year is a unit of time that the human mind is conditioned to note, as in “Today I have one year of sobriety” or “2016 was a terrible year” or “They still haven’t found anything? It’s been a fucking year!”
And then, an oasis appeared – Charlottesville. Certainly the event was exploited by the Trump Disaster Narrative media, thirsty after the drought which at best brought them gossip worthy of TMZ and at worst brought them actual news which threatened to destroy the criminal lie they’d spent the last year concocting and disseminating, exposing the real collusion between some of the biggest media outlets and the Clinton Campaign/Deep State. Or, considering the stakes, maybe the event was partially orchestrated, derailed by Mcauliffe and/or infiltrated by agents provocateurs (or provocatrice, for the ladies). Since, as we’ve seen, Democratic operatives already used this dirty trick in order to ensure victory, one can only wonder what they might get up to now that they’ve lost.
How dare the New York Times write the headline “Trump Gives White Supremacists an Unequivocal Boost” on August 15th, after effectively accusing the President of treason for a year, and then going a full two weeks without bothering to inform its readers of the Hersh/VIPS revelations? When you throw around a serious accusation and then that accusation turns out to be false (or even in doubt) you don’t get to just move on to the next allegation without acknowledging that you were wrong the first time. When the Rolling Stone’s “A Rape on Campus” story fell apart, they issued a retraction, an apology, and published their own report attempting to account for how they had gotten things so wrong. What they did not do was immediately scour the University of Virginia for another scandal with which they could nail them. Included in the Times article were several quotes from Trump, including “Racism is evil. Those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., white supremacists and other hate groups.” That is an unequivocal statement, and I challenge anyone to find a Trump quote from that article (or anywhere else) that makes an equally unequivocal statement in favour of white supremacy, something along the lines of “Racism is great! Those who cause violence in its name are heroes and saints, including the K.K.K., white supremacists and other pillars of society.” Can’t do it? Neither could the Times, and it’s their headline. The crux of the article is in line with the Governator’s sentiments: they take issue with the fact that Trump declared “blame on both sides.” The Times explains that Trump’s unequivocal condemnation of racism was “in response to bipartisan condemnation of his more equivocal statements during the first 48 hours of the crisis.” So, if he was being equivocal in the first 48 hours, and then compensated for it later by giving a clear statement denouncing racism, when or how exactly did he give an unequivocal boost to white supremacy? Maybe it wasn’t something he said…did he finally give David Duke that coveted position on the National Security Council? No, but that irresponsible, trashy headline makes perfect sense if you accept my thesis: The New York Times and other media outlets have an objective, and that objective is to offer up a particular narrative (albeit a complex one) that serves particular interests. Their objective is not to shed light, or seek truth, or serve the interests of the the broader public. Perhaps it once was: back in the days of Sy Hersh and Daniel Ellesberg and the Pentagon Papers, but no more. Contrast the high-intellect but hard-talking Hersh (who can’t even find a publisher for his work in the United States today – yesterday’s legends of journalism are nothing but refuse that need to be shoved down the memory hole, apparently) with the simpering court-eunuch careerists employed by the Times today. Herein lies an important point: to those who would say that it’s too ridiculous to think that (as they might caricature it) “everyone in the media is part of a grand conspiracy” I say that there’s no need to be so all-or-nothing. You need a handful of Machiavellian dominant types, some well organized compartmentalization (take a look at the Manhattan Project if you want a primer on the effectiveness of compartmentalization) and a shit-tonne of sycophantic, boot-licking nanny goats – and that supply never runs dry. This type’s concern with remaining permanently attached like a barnacle to some prestigious institution is so powerful that they have an instinctive capacity for self-deception: cognitive dissonance threatens to put them on shaky ground and at odds with those whose foot ware they find so delightfully tasty; they lie to themselves first so that they don’t have to lie to you – the falsehood remains but the deception is gone.
Focusing on the tragic death of Heather Heyer serves The Narrative. Seth Rich, on the other hand? Forget about him. Why? Because any honest examination of Rich – not just his death (not even particularly his death, as I’ve explained) but his actions in the days and weeks leading up to it would be detrimental to The Narrative if it turns out Hersh’s source is truly reliable. Swallowing this pill doesn’t require you to like Trump or believe he’s a good president, and even if the nightmare predictions of his detractors materialize, we shouldn’t cease in our efforts to root out the corruption that I’m highlighting – corruption that pre-exists Trump, and will last long after he is conveniently scapegoated and the Establishment restores the phoney edifice they have worked so hard to erect, convincing the public that The Trump Disaster is over and that they can breathe easy again.
I’ll be up front about something – I’m absolutely aware that there is a strong conjectural component to this essay. But if you’ve ever dealt with a compulsive liar, you know that each and every time their lips are moving, you are forced to take a position of extreme skepticism, and it’s not enough to merely doubt their claims: you must concoct and anticipate alternative scenarios which might be the truth so as not to become a victim of their deception – “What’s she really up to? Last time I leant her money she disappeared for three days and came back looking like a bit of a mess. She says she’s clean now and that the money is so she can make it through the next couple of days after she pays rent, but I don’t know…”
I believe that I have proven that we cannot count on many of the largest and most well-reputed media sources, the ones that have set themselves up as the high-priests of “real news”, to give us all information pertinent to the very news stories that they themselves have told us are important.
You want to tell us all about *Russia? Fine, go ahead, we’re all ears. But when facts emerge that change the nature of a story, you’d better keep us in the loop, otherwise the jig is up – your integrity has died before our eyes, and the obvious question is – who do you really work for?