Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Spies Are The New Journalists

That's the title of Lee Smith's latest article--a real tour de force. I'll paste in the opening and closing paragraphs and hopefully that will whet your appetite for the in between. Some real LOL moments--at least there were for me. Here's where you'll find it:

Spies Are the New Journalists 
And with the help of big names in media they’re turning journalism into an intelligence operation 
By Lee Smith

There are two sets of laws in the United States today. One is inscribed in law books and applies to the majority of Americans. The other is a canon of privileges enjoyed by an establishment under the umbrella of an intelligence bureaucracy that has arrogated to itself the rights and protections of what was once a free press. 
The media is now openly entwined with the national security establishment in a manner that would have been unimaginable before the advent of the age of the Dossier—the literary forgery the FBI used as evidence to spy on the Trump team.

In coordinating to perpetrate the Russiagate hoax on the American public, the media and intelligence officials have forged a relationship in which the two partners look out for the other’s professional and political interests. Not least of all, they target shared adversaries and protect mutual friends. 
Rather than unraveling the lies that sustained the FBI’s dirty Russiagate investigation, the press’ selective reporting served rather as a shield to defend intelligence officials spying on Americans who were guilty only of supporting the wrong presidential candidate.  
There is little chance the Post or Times reporters will be prosecuted for doing what Assange did—and much worse. However, the Assange indictments coupled with the rewards reaped by America’s premier newspapers for their role in a spy agency information campaign send a clear message not only to journalists but also to the public at large. In abusing both the rights of a free press and national security programs designed to keep Americans safe from terrorism, the press and intelligence bureaucracy have made us less free and less safe. The larger message they’re sending is, it’s not your country anymore. It’s ours.

[Deleted on advice of commenter Forbes. See below.]


  1. One of the forces for good that gives me hope is the alternate media that exists on the internet. That includes you, Mr. Wauck.

    The internet has broken the stranglehold of the mainstream media. How they hate you and others whom they can't control!

    One of my naughty pleasures in life is taking delight when the left can't rebut an argument by the right. So they turn to ad hominem attacks, ridicule, gaslighting, rationalizing, ignoring, downplaying or censorship. Their eyes squint and I can almost see the steam come out of their ears.

    Anyway, another reason that I quit being a Republican is admirably illustrated by the Zerohedge link that you helpfully shared. All of that concentration of power by six media outlets. Throw in Google, Facebook and Twitter, as well. The chamber of commerce never met a merger that they didn't like, as long as the purchase price of the acquired company includes a sizable premium for shareholders to pocket.

    1. Re the Zerohedge link, it's one of those things that you kind of assume, yet your shocked when you get into the details. When you see that you realize what a remarkable thing Trump's victory was, what a remarkable guy he must be. Then the GOPers, instead of harnessing themselves to this Force of Nature, try to sabotage it. They'd rather lose than adopt a new way of doing business.

    2. The ZeroHedge post is deeply out-of-date--therefore misleading with error. General Electric (GE) no longer controls the media interests listed. Newscorp, long ago split-off FOX, while FOX has recently sold significant assets. I'd go on, but you get the idea. To be sort of, kind of, right--is to be factually wrong. As they say, closeness only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

    3. With respect to the Forbes comment, I did a cursory check and he's right that the chart is out of date.

      But the larger point of media concentration is still true.

    4. Yes, that is the larger point.

  2. The first leak about the FISA applications was given to the Internet publication Heat Street, on November 7, 2016, the day before Election Day.


    Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.

    [end quote]

    The Heat Street website had been established in April 2016 by Louise Mensch, a former member of the UK Parliament who now was living in the USA. Politically she was a conservative or libertarian.

    The Heat Street report was not confirmed at that time, and so the public response was largely skeptical. A couple months later, however, the report about the FISA warrant was confirmed for the first time on January 12, 2017, by the BBC. The BBC article included the following passage:


    On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

    [end quote]

    It's remarkable that these first two reports -- by Heat Street and by BBC -- are based on information reported to British reporters.

    1. What--you think Brennan told Gina Haspel to leak to Brit reporters to leak to ...?

      What a nasty suspicious mind you have!

    2. In my previous comment, I referred to an article published by BBC on January 12, 2017. The article was written by Paul Wood, a BBC reporter based in Washington DC.

      In regard to the FISA warrant, Wood reported that in April 2016, CIA Director John Brennan had been given "a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the [Trump] presidential campaign". The tape recording "was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States."

      This recorded conversation apparently included one or more US citizens. Therefore, "a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created" so that the CIA could participate in actions against US citizens involved in the transfer of money.

      DOJ lawyers submitted an application for a FISA warrant to intercept electronic records from two Russian banks, but the application was rejected by a FISA judge in June 2016. The DOJ lawyers subsequently rewrote the application, but it too was rejected in July 2016.

      Ultimately the DOJ lawyers obtained the FISA warrant, from a different FISA judge, on October 15.


      Another article was published on January 11, 2017, by Britain's Guardian. This article was written by Julian Borger, a Brit stationed in Washington DC.

      This article reported that a FISA warrant rejected in the summer of 2016 was "to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials". Borger explained: "The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus."

    3. 1. Unfortunate that Brennan didn't turn that tape over to Mueller so Mueller could prove collusion.

      2. I'm skeptical about the FISA for the two Russian banks--that stuff would be picked up as a matter of course by NSA under blanket authorizations.

      3. The FISA for 10/15 would be for the server in Trump Tower re Alfa Bank. Again, I'd like to know more about that one. Why did they need a FISA when they should have been able to get relevant data from NSA. Was it really about picking up other comms traffic in Trump Tower?

      4. The final article re the attempted FISA on "four memebers of the Trump team" is clearly Crossfire Hurricane related and shows they were going for the FISA absolutely from the start. The narrowed focus appears to have ended up being Carter Page.

      All those records would make fascinating reading.

  3. I am reading the Lee Smith column about the Deep State and the media. I have always been a staunch advocate for the First Amendment, but I agree with Justice Thomas that court protections for libel need to be changed.

    The media are complicit in this coverup and I would like to see them punished if it can be done properly. The Smith article points out the hypocrisy of the media determining who is and who isn't a journalist.

    1. A few posts back I know I quoted someone saying exactly that--the complicity of the media and where does accountability start with them?

  4. I can't keep up with all the comments to your posts because you are exceeding 30 comments with some of your pieces.

    Surely one thing that would help this nation return to the rule of law would be a landslide reelection of Donald Trump. I also hope that Donald has coattails for good reform candidates.

    If one goes back to 1980, we see that we have had rumblings that our countrymen are not satisfied with the status quo. John Anderson, Ross Perot, etc.

    I hope that we are seeing a flowering of a renewed America.

    1. That's ironic, isn't it? Or something. I mean, all the accusations of Trump abusing power, when in fact he does everything "by the book." He is restoring constitutional government, IMO. But the establishment has little interest in that. Constitutional government means paying attention to the people, and the establishment thinks they own the country.

  5. I had forgotten Lee Smith's excellent reporting and analysis in Tablet. Here's his 'bibliography'. Mark's readers will find a handful of excellent articles about the Russia Hoax as well as on other topics...