Over the weekend there was plenty of discussion about the WaPo hit piece on Rudy Giuliani--and incidentally, or so it seemed, on Senator Ron Johnson. We knew there was more to this story--that much was obvious. The question was whether any more would come out. That question is answered, partially, by Christopher Bedford in a must read article today:
For years now, a number of the country's most prominent publications have assumed the groveling role of palace guards for the state and its friends in Congress.
I urge you to read the entire article, which shows the WaPo working hand in glove with the Zhou regime's intel agencies. Here, however, are some key passages. It seems--are you sitting down for this?--that the WaPo didn't publish everything that Ron Johnson told them about the FBI "defensive briefing". Naturally nobody expects a newspaper article to simply be a transcript, unless it presents itself as an interview. However, in these cases, these omitted portions were extremely important and were major parts of the story--the story could not be understood without them. The statements by Senator Johnson are taken from a letter he wrote to the WaPo after their article was published.
In these excerpts, Bedford begins with a point I made that should be obvious even to WaPo reporters: the Russians always seek to influence powerful and/or influential persons. But it's not just the Russians. We do it, too--of course. In fact, it isn't just intelligence operatives in a formal sense. Diplomats from every country on earth seek to influence powerful people from other nations--especially important nations. Our allies seek to influence us in this way, too, to convert us to see world affairs from their standpoint, to possibly alter our own policies. Do we stop talking to them? How stupid would that be? Such influence efforts are no ipso facto "disinformation campaigns." We can actually learn from the views of other countries. We'd be pretty stupid if we stopped listening to Russian representatives--but the Inter Agency wants the public to think that such basic responsible governance is somehow treasonous without any further consideration:
In other words, the disinformation campaigns that our Deep State run against US politicians--prominently recently having included President-Elect Donald Trump--was also being used against Senator Johnson.
Read that again. Understand: Our Inter-Agency, the Deep State, sees it as part of their job to run disinformation campaigns against US politicians right up to the level of the POTUS. The purpose is to convert those politicians to the views of the Inter-Agency Deep State, if those politicians aren't already on board. To the extent that all relevant information is provided, such advocacy is legitimate, but to the extent that that is not the case ...
That alone is a rather telling admission: The decision to conduct a "non-informational" briefing of Senator Johnson was arrived at by the Inter-Agency--the Intel Community/Deep State acting together. One assumes that, of the 17 member agencies of the IC, only certain agencies were involved. One thinks of the FBI, the CIA, ODNI, NSC. Zhou himself? Why not?
Now, I also recommend this interview/discussion between two savvy reporters: Aaron Maté and Glenn Greenwald--BlueAnon: Glenn Greenwald on Why Russiagate Disinformation Never Ends. Here's the brief lead-in to the video interview:
On the same day that the claim of “Russian bounties” in Afghanistan collapsed, another US intelligence-sourced, evidence-free claim was treated as vindication for conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia collusion.
Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Maté discuss the predictable demise of the “Russian bounties”; the Biden administration’s new evidence-free assertion that Paul Manafort associate Konstantin Kilimnik passed Trump campaign polling data to Russia; and why major US media outlets continue to parrot Russiagate disinformation no matter how many times the “bombshells” turn into duds.