The Left covers for their crimes and Hillary by yelling “Fake News”

But what is fake news?  Is it fake news that the MSM refused to cover the lies discovered when Wikileaks hacked Podesta emails?  Or when they further discovered through recovered emails from HRC’s actual account she had lied to the American people about Benghazi?

The Germans had a saying back seventy years ago; “Tell a lie often enough to enough people it becomes the truth.”

Today, we are seeing the Left following that age old truism.  Their goal is twofold; 1. Undermine Trump’s win so no matter what he says or does, they can put in the first paragraph- “President Trump, who lost the popular vote and had a number of state wins clouded by voter fraud, AND was helped by the Russians faking bad news about Hillary, said today……” And they will do that by setting the false (can we say fake news?) narrative and repeating it over and over and over.  2. To “prove” to the people that Hillary did not lose, but her election was stolen, thus giving cover for those crazy sycophants who are seen crying in despair to this day! (Seriously folks, get a freaking grip and once again maybe one point as to why women, and girly men, shouldn’t vote! But then again, I’m crying tears of joy she lost! Soo…)

Image result for fake news cartoon

So what is fake news?  Glenn Greenwald, who has spent years uncovering government malfeasance, has a good take on what is really fake- and it appears to be the Left planting false stories…again.

Now we have an even more compelling example. Back in October, when WikiLeaks was releasing emails from the John Podesta archive, Clinton campaign officials and their media spokespeople adopted a strategy of outright lying to the public, claiming – with no basis whatsoever – that the emails were doctored or fabricated and thus should be ignored. That lie – and that is what it was: a claim made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth – was most aggressively amplified by MSNBC personalities such as Joy Ann Reid and Malcolm Nance, The Atlantic’s David Frum, and Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald.

That the emails in the Wikileaks archive were doctored or faked – and thus should be disregarded – was classic Fake News, spread not by Macedonian teenagers or Kremlin operatives but by established news outlets such as MSNBC, the Atlantic and Newsweek. And, by design, this Fake News spread like wildfire all over the internet, hungrily clicked and shared by tens of thousands of people eager to believe it was true. As a result of this deliberate disinformation campaign, anyone reporting on the contents of the emails was instantly met with claims that the documents in the archive had been proven fake.

The most damaging such claim came from MSNBC’s intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance. As I documented on October 11, he tweeted what he – for some bizarre reason – labeled an “Official Warning.” It decreed: “ are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & not even professionally done.” That tweet was re-tweeted by more than 4,000 people. It was vested with added credibility by Clinton-supporting journalists like Reid and Frum (“expert to take seriously”).

All of that, in turn, led to an article in something called “The Daily News Bin” with the headline: “MSNBC intelligence expert: WikiLeaks is releasing falsified emails not really from Hillary Clinton.” This classic fake news product – citing Nance and Reid among others – was shared more than 40,000 times on Facebook alone.

The problem is nothing in the Wikileaks is faked, or not at least that we can tell. Podesta made a point of not denying it, probably because they were blindsided by the revelations and because the emails were accurate. Their fear, as I see it, was if they made a fuss and claimed them to be lies, Wikileaks would have dumped another ten thousand emails proving that statement was false.  In effect, they would be playing prevent defense against a group that had all their game plans! So they bit the bullet and suffered.

But now, they will work hard to create the new false narrative, repeat it often and hope someone will write it down and give it to the young minds full of mush, so they will grow up thinking Hillary was a saint.

I know….but then again they love Castro and Chavez…so where’s that bar set actually??

Greenwald did the work and found out that one of the biggest “fake news” incidents was created by a Hillary supporter. Trust me, they are all coordinating this, just like the Podesta emails showed for the campaign.  (Once again people, thank God that she didn’t win. This would be our new reality- crazy followed by paranoid!)

From the start, it was obvious that it was this accusation from Clinton supporters – not the WikiLeaks documents – that was a complete fraud, perpetrated on the public as deliberate disinformation. With regard to the claim about the Podesta emails, now we know exactly who created it in the first instance: a hard-core Clinton fanatic.

When Nance – MSNBC’s “intelligence analyst” – issued his “Official Warning,” he linked to a tweet that warned: “Please be skeptical of alleged . Trumpists are dirtying docs.” That tweet, in turn, linked to a tweet from an anonymous account calling itself “The Omnivore,” which had posted an obviously fake transcript purporting to be a Hillary Clinton speech to Goldman Sachs. Even though that fake document was never published by WikiLeaks, that was the entire basis for the MSNBC-inspired claim that some of the WikiLeaks documents were doctored.

But the person who created that forged Goldman Sachs transcript was not a “Trumpist” at all; he was a devoted supporter of Hillary Clinton. In the Daily Beast, the person behind the anonymous “The Omnivore” account unmasks himself as “Marco Chacon,” a self-professed creator of “viral fake news” whose targets were Sanders and Trump supporters (he specialized in blatantly fake anti-Clinton frauds with the goal of tricking her opponents into citing them, so that they would be discredited). When he wasn’t posting fabricated news accounts designed to make Clintons’ opponents look bad, his account looked like any other standard pro-Clinton account: numerous negative items about Sanders and then Trump, with links to many Clinton-defending articles.

In his Daily Beast article, published on November 21, Chacon describes how he manufactured the forged Goldman Sachs speech transcript. He says he did it prior to learning that the WikiLeaks releases of Podesta emails contained actual Clinton speech excerpts to Wall Street banks. But once he realized WikiLeaks had published actual Clinton transcripts, Chacon began trying to lure people he disliked – Clinton critics – into believing that his forged speeches were real, so that he could prove they were gullible and dumb.

Sadly for Chacon, however, the people who ended up getting fooled by his Fake News items were the nation’s most prominent Clinton supporters, including supposed experts and journalists from MSNBC who used his obvious fakes to try to convince the world that the WikiLeaks archive had been compromised and thus should be ignored. That it was pro-Clinton journalists who spread his Fake News as real now horrifies even Chacon:

The tweet went super-viral. It started an almost trending—but still going today—hashtag #bucketoflosers. A tweet declaring it a bad forgery was picked up by Malcolm Nance, an intelligence analyst for MSNBC among others, who tweeted to be wary of the WikiLeaks release. . .

Beware of the now worldwide attempt by governments claiming “fake news” is the problem. (Germany is one such example.)  The question is who decides what is fake and if you are deemed such, what will they do to you?

Well, to answer that question, you could ask Geert Wilder from the Netherlands, who was convicted of “hate speech” by a judge who ruled he incited hate when he made a speech.  The speech consisted of him asking the crowd if there should be less of a certain type of immigrant, and the crowd agreed.

The case against Wilders, which took 20 months to come to a verdict, was built on 6,500 official complaints after he led a party rally during a local election campaign in The Hague in March 2014, asking whether there should be “more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.” The Telegraph has details:

The crowd’s response of “fewer, fewer”, was clearly organised, said a judge at the secure court at Schiphol Judicial Complex, near Amsterdam, ruling that Wilders had breached the boundaries of even a politician’s freedom of speech.

“It doesn’t matter that Wilders gave another message afterwards [saying he was referring only to criminal Moroccans and benefits claimants],” said the judge. “The message that evening from the podium, via the media, was loud and proud and did its work…The group was collectively dismissed as inferior to other Dutch people.”

Wilders said, in a statement in English posted on his YouTube channel, “I still cannot believe it, but I have been convicted because I asked a question about Moroccans. The Netherlands has become a sick country. The judge who convicted me [has] restricted the freedom of speech for millions of Dutch. I will never be silent. I am not a racist and neither are my voters.”

Michiel Pestman, lawyer for some of the complainants who helped bring the case, said: “This is the first time that a court has said that minorities need special protection and even a politician should be very careful about what he says.” [Emphasis added] In other words, we must make sure that free speech applies only to protected minorities, by which he means Muslims.

Lucien Nix, a solicitor for the council of Moroccan mosques in Holland said, “The Netherlands can take a deep breath of relief. Moroccan Dutch people have felt robbed of their dignity and a heightened sense of discrimination. We have waited for this for a long time.”

Abdou Menebhi, one of the complainants, told The Telegraph, “Half a million people feel the threat of Wilders every day. This gives us trust in the legal process.”

What about the millions of Dutch, for whom Wilders speaks, who feel the threat of their society being Islamized?

That’s a good question.  So we have the elites invoking “fake news” as a reason to take more control over what you hear, and the same elites finding a politician guilty for speaking out.

Anyone else see a pattern? Get ready, this will not go away. Liberals are endlessly energetic when plotting mischief, and they have a President to destroy.

Image result for fake news cartoon

This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply