Ðỗ Ngọc Yến Thuở Sài Gòn

Ðỗ Tăng Bí

Nhật báo Người Việt xuất bản và phát hành một tuyển tập của 53 người viết về anh Đỗ Ngọc Yến, gọi là “Đỗ Ngọc Yến Giữa Bạn Bè”. Bài viết này vốn có tựa là “Đỗ Ngọc Yến Thuở Thiếu Thời” in trong quyển sách đó, Đưa vào blog, tôi đổi tựa bài, phác họa hình ảnh Đỗ Ngọc Yến giữa thành phố Sài Gòn.

Một buổi sáng cuối năm 1963, anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến đến nói với tôi: “Bí này, chúng mình phải làm cái gì để cản bớt mấy cái trò nhảy nhót đang tràn lan các trường đại học mới được…” Anh đang nói về chuyện một số trường đại học ở Sài Gòn lúc đó, nhân đà “cách mạng 1 Tháng 11”, thay nhau  tổ chức các đêm dạ vũ ăn chơi tưng bừng từ cuối tháng 11, 1963 trở đi. Chúng tôi chia xẻ nhau ý nghĩ rằng lúc đó mức độ ác liệt ngoài chiến trường đang gia tăng, số thương vong mỗi ngày một nhiều, miền quê tràn lan khói lửa, mà thanh niên, sinh viên học sinh thành thị thi nhau vui chơi phè phỡn thì đâu có được.

Thế là chúng tôi chỉ có hai người, phân chia công việc: Anh Yến về nhà soạn bức tuyên cáo kêu gọi ngưng các sinh hoạt phù phiếm trong khuôn viên đại học, còn tôi viết một lô các khẩu hiệu trên những tờ bìa khổ lớn gấp đôi, nội dung đả đảo những buổi nhảy nhót tại trường học, kêu gọi sinh viên học sinh tẩy chay các sinh hoạt đó. Buổi chiều cùng ngày, tôi cầm bản viết của anh Yến đến Ronéo Mỹ Hiệp thuê đánh máy và quay 500 bản ronéo. Ngay chiều hôm đó chúng tôi đạp xe một vòng các toà soạn những tờ báo lớn thời đó, khoảng trên chục tờ, gửi cho ông Chủ Nhiệm, Chủ Bút một bì thư trong có bản ronéo tuyên cáo kể trên. Ðồng thời chúng tôi đi lén dán các tấm bìa khẩu hiệu viết bằng bút nét lớn tại các trường đại học sắp mở “ball” mừng Giáng Sinh năm đó.

Tôi không nhớ rõ nội dung anh Yến viết gì. Chỉ nhớ đầu đề là “Tuyên Cáo Chống Sinh Hoạt Ðồi Truỵ Xa Hoa Phóng Ðãng”, sau đó nêu một số điểm, rồi ký tên là “Phạm Hồng Thái”, thay mặt “Nhóm Sinh Viên Chống Sinh Hoạt Ðồi Trụy Xa Hoa Phóng Ðãng”.  Không ngờ báo chí hưởng ứng lời tuyên cáo của chúng tôi trong số báo ra vào chiều hôm sau. Tôi không còn nhớ đích xác tờ báo nào, nhưng ít nhất hai tờ đã lấy nguyên bức tuyên cáo thay cho mục xã luận. Một số tờ trích phần nào nội dung để bình luận. Có tờ làm bản tin về tuyên cáo và trích dẫn. Tựu trung báo chí đều cho rằng phong trào nhảy nhót trong trường học lúc đó là không được.

Mấy trăm bản ronéo chúng tôi phân phối đi các trường học bằng nhiều cách, qua các bạn bè, phần đông là Hướng Ðạo, rải ở các trường trung học. Có bạn gấp các “truyền đơn” để lên cánh quạt trần, khi bắt đầu giờ học, học sinh mở quạt, truyền đơn bay như bươm bướm. Tôi nhờ một cô nữ sinh Trưng Vương, cũng là Nữ Hướng Ðạo Sinh, mang mấy bản ronéo vào dán ở trường. Cô kể lại rằng phải cố gắng lắm mới dán được hai bản trên tường nơi cầu thang lên xuống, nhưng đủ để học sinh xôn xao, và khiến các cô Hiệu Trưởng, Tổng Giám Thị và các Giáo Sư  Trưng Vương lo lắng, hội họp tìm hiểu, điều tra. Không khí mật vụ của thời biểu tình mấy tháng trước đó còn đè nặng lên tâm trí mọi người.

Ðó là một trong vài kỷ niệm đầu tiên ngoài khuôn khổ sinh hoạt Hướng Ðạo tôi có với anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến. Từ đó cho đến hôm nay, hơn 40 năm qua đi, trừ 16 năm tôi ở Thanh Hoá, rồi Sài Gòn, khi anh Yến ở Mỹ, hầu hết thời gian còn lại tôi vẫn làm việc, sinh hoạt với anh Yến, hoặïc thường trực, hoặc cách đoạn. Ngay cả mấy năm tôi ở trong quân đội, những sinh hoạt này vẫn được nối tiếp. Giai đoạn nhộn nhịp nhất là khi anh là Tổng Thư Ký “Chương Trình Công Tác Thanh Niên Sinh Viên Học Sinh Hè 65”, thường được gọi tắt là “Chương Trình Hè 65”, anh cho tôi làm phụ tá để đỡ cho anh những việc thường xuyên hàng ngày .

Có nhiều chuyện anh Yến làm mà chỉ hai anh em chúng tôi biết với nhau. Năm 1991, tôi được qua Mỹ đoàn tụ gia đình. Gặp chị Loan, vợ anh Yến, tôi kể “chuyện hồi đó”, khi đoàn văn nghệ Ðường Sáng của Chương Trình Hè đang trình diễn ở Miền Trung (1965) thì hết tiền ăn, mà ngân khoản từ ngân hàng chưa được tháo khoán, tôi đã chở anh Yến về nhà lấy vòng vàng của chị đi cầm lấy tiền đưa anh Phạm Quốc Bảo mang gấp ra Trung “cứu đói” các bạn nghệ sĩ. Lúc đó chị mới kêu trời. Chị nói mấy chục năm nay vẫn băn khoăn về số vòng và kiềng vàng là của hồi môn của chị, bỗng dưng biến mất. Mà Chị không dám nghĩ ai đã lấy, nên cứ nín lặng. Anh Yến lo ngay được một số tiền cho việc chung, nhưng anh lại không dám lấy tiền từ quỹ chung đi chuộc vàng về trả vợ.

Người ta thường nói đến những cái “dùi trống” anh Yến chất đầy trong garage nhà anh. Ngụ ý mấy chữ châm biếm trên để chỉ nhiều chuyện anh Yến đã bắt đầu nhưng không kết thúc, như anh đánh trống rồi bỏ dùi đâu đó. Gần gũi anh, tôi biết rằng đa số những hồi trống anh dóng lên thường là những chuyện cần thiết, hoặc cho lúc đó, hoặc cho mai hậu. Nhưng với lối làm việc “team-work”, không tự quyết định độc đoán, không dễ gì anh tìm được những người chia xẻ với anh và thực hiện những dự định lớn lao và cần thiết, nên anh đành để đó và “sau hãy hay.” Vậy mà cũng có lần anh phải đi dọn dẹp đống dùi trống của người khác để lại, như chuyện dưới đây.

Khoảng giữa năm 1993, một nhóm vài ông khá tiếng tăm và giầu có dự trù cấp một ít học bổng cho mấy bác sĩ ở Việt Nam đi tu nghiệp ở Hoa Kỳ. Việc tuyển chọn nhờ một tổ chức y tế ngoại quốc đang làm việc tại Việt Nam. Các ông bắt đầu bằng chuyện tuyển chọn một cô bác sĩ ngành chống bệnh truyền nhiễm, phù hợp với ý định của tổ chức kia muốn giúp Việt Nam chống sự lan truyền bệnh Aids. Năm, sáu ông góp mỗi người ít tiền mua vé máy bay cho cô bác sĩ qua Miền Nam California, các ông xin cho cô được tu nghiệp ở một bệnh viện hay trường đại học nào đó. Nhưng còn chuyện cô sẽ ở đâu, ăn uống ra sao, di chuyển ra sao, đời sống hàng ngày thế nào cho suốt thời gian cô ở California thì không ai đứng ra lo, không ai chịu bỏ tiền ra cả. Và bỗng dưng anh Yến được mời tới. Và anh Yến lại về nhà, cậy cục sao đó với vợ anh, chị Loan, được ít tiền để cô ta dằn túi. Anh tìm tôi: “Bí này, có cách nào lo được chỗ ở cho cô ấy không nhỉ?” Ngay hôm đó thì không có cách gì đi thuê nhà cho cô, vào khách sạn thì tiền đâu, tốt nhất là rước cô về nhà tôi. Vợ chồng tôi qua ở phòng con trai, nhường phòng cho cô, con trai tôi ra phòng khách ở tạm. Gọi là tạm cũng mất đâu hơn một tháng. Phải tìm một phòng ở ngay gần nơi cô tu nghiệp, đỡ chuyện xe cộ đi lại. Tiền thuê appartment mỗi tháng cũng mất năm, sáu trăm, ít nhất phải mất một năm tiền nhà, còn tiền ăn uống của cô, rồi đồ dùng linh tinh, từ cái TV, giường nằm, bàn làm việc, rồi mùa lạnh tới cần quần áo phù hợp, rồi tiền quà cáp những ngày Thanks Giving, Giáng Sinh, giúp cô ít tiền gửi về nhà… cũng phải có đủ. Tôi không biết anh xoay đâu ra ngần ấy thứ, cứ đưa tôi dần dần để tôi lo liệu. Có những tháng anh chưa xoay kịp tiền, chúng tôi phải nghe những cú điện thoại chửi rủa của chủ nhà và phải è cổ ra trả tiền phạt vì hai vợ chồng tôi là người đứng ra ký hợp đồng thuê nhà cho cô ta. Hoàn cảnh chúng tôi lúc đó cũng không thể góp nhiều với anh được. Chuyện tiền nong coi như xong, nhưng còn tin đồn lúc đó anh Yến có bồ, đi thuê nhà cho cô ta ở, thì nói làm sao? Hôm nay lần đầu tiên tôi xin nhắc lại chuyện dùi trống này, để nếu chị Loan hay ai đó mười mấy năm nay vẫn nuôi thắc mắc, có thể giải toả từ đây. Cũng là cái nghiệp, nếu anh Yến để lại nhiều dùi trống thì anh cũng là người phải dọn dẹp nhiều dùi trống của thiên hạ.

Trên là vài mẩu chuyện nhỏ phác hoạ một phần rất đơn sơ chân dung anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến. Theo tôi, đó là một con người tử tế. Và anh cũng không quên những gì người khác đã làm cho anh. Cuối Tháng Tư, 1975, tôi không nhớ rõ ngày nào, khoảng 26 hay 27, nhận được lời nhờ cậy của anh Ðỗ Quý Toàn, tôi mượn chiếc xe hơi R-8 của ông bố vợ, đến đón gia đình anh Yến đưa vào sân bay Tân Sơn Nhất. Sau này anh chị còn nhắc mãi chuyện đó, và nói rằng nếu không có chuyến xe đó, chắc anh sẽ trải qua những kinh nghiệm khác của cuộc đời.

Tại hải ngoại, nhiều tổ chức, đoàn thể, nhiều cơ quan truyền thông, nhiều trường đại học Hoa Kỳ và các sắc tộc thiểu số đã công nhận sự đóng góp của nhà báo, nhà hoạt động Ðỗ Ngọc Yến, cho sự phát triển và hội nhập của cộng đồng người Việt tại Hoa Kỳ, và sự hòa hợp với các cộng đồng bạn. Ðộc giả đã được đọc và nghe nhiều chương trình phỏng vấn, bài báo viết về anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến. Riêng phần ghi dưới đây sẽ cho chúng ta thấy bàng bạc hình ảnh anh Yến hồi còn rất trẻ qua ký ức của anh về Sài Gòn thập niên 50. Một số những người cùng thời anh Yến đều có chung kinh nghiệm này: Lúc còn bé thơ, chúng ta không được chơi đáo, đánh quay, bắn bi như những bạn cùng lứa tuổi trên đường phố, trong sân trường học. Hình như chúng ta tự dưng bị ngăn cách sao đó với sinh hoạt trẻ thơ. Anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến cũng là trường hợp đó, 15 tuổi đã làm báo lậu là một thí dụ kinh nghiệm không phù hợp với tuổi; 16, 17 tuổi đã chui trong các hậu trường ca nhạc cải lương là một thí dụ khác. Và những kinh nghiệm không hợp lứa tuổi này thường khó có ai cùng lứa tuổi làm chung. Cho nên, muốn phác hoạ chân dung anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến thời niên thiếu chúng tôi phải góp nhặt nhiều lần qua những lúc anh cao hứng kể cho nghe, chứ không thể nhờ ai đó làm nhân chứng kể lại.
Về việc trò Trần Văn Ơn bị bắn chết, những năm sau đó các nhóm bí mật đều tổ chức truy điệu. Vụ này anh Yến nhớ lại như sau: “Hồi đó tôi còn nhỏ quá (khoảng 13, 14 tuổi), hồi đó cái vụ truy điệu tôi không phải là cánh “tổ chức”, đôi khi tôi chỉ tham dự. Sở dĩ tôi tham dự là vì lúc đó tôi là hướng đạo sinh, hướng đạo mình thường khuyến khích đoàn sinh đi đâu mình cũng tích cực, phải đóng cái vai trò phục vụ, thí dụ như ăn uống mình phục vụ bằng cách tổ chức cho người ta ăn uống, đưa đón mình tổ chức đưa đón, trật tự này kia nhưng mà thực sự mình không biết chương trình. Nghĩa là chuyện đó định làm như thế nào thì mình không biết, nhưng thấy có một số người tập họp thì mình xoay ra “tổ chức” thế nào cho cuộc họp có trật tự. Ðó là năm 1955, nhưng từ năm 1956 tôi đi sâu vào chuyện sản xuất báo, báo bí mật, báo lậu. Năm 1957 thì tổ chức hội họp bí mật. Ðến năm 1959 tôi bị bắt”.

Bây giờ anh vẫn khiêm nhượng nhận rằng chỉ học được nghề báo từ cụ Nguyễn Ðức Quỳnh, từ Lê Xuyên, từ Phạm Long Ẩn,… nhưng thực ra anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến vào nghề báo từ năm 15 tuổi. Chuyện “làm báo” từ 1956 anh kể như sau: “Báo in ở đây là báo in bột, tức là bột thường, bột gạo, nhưng có điều đặc biệt là mực in phải mua ở tiệm bán ở đường Catinat. Loại mực đó là loại mực của Ấn Ðộ. Lọ mực cũng đắt tiền, lúc đó đi mua lọ mực cũng bằng bao anh em đi một chầu ciné. Mực chà lên bột, mực thấm vào, rồi lăn bột lên từ tờ giấy này qua tờ giấy kia, lăn độ chừng ba chục trang thì bột xộc xạch và chữ ngoằn ngoèo hết, đôi khi muốn làm nhiều phải in hai lần. Sau này người ta gọi in sương sa thì cũng là nguyên tắc đó. Nói cho đúng thì cái đó chỉ là chuyện học tập làm công tác, thực sự nội dung của những tờ đó không có gì đặc biệt”.

Thực ra trước đó anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến đã ngồi tù một thời gian. Ðó là năm 1957, lúc anh 16 tuổi. Câu chuyện xẩy ra vì đầu năm 57, Bộ Quốc Gia Giáo Dục ra thông tư về điều kiện cho học sinh Ðệ Tứ muốn lên Ðệ Tam. Tự nhiên là tương lai của đại đa số học sinh bị đe dọa. Từ chuyện này đã phát sinh ra phong trào Kiến nghị, anh Yến kể như sau: “Hồi đó, tự nhiên mấy ông bên Bộ Quốc Gia Giáo Dục hay mấy ông nào đó cho ra quyết định những ai đỗ bằng Trung Học Ðệ Nhất Cấp hạng từ Bình Thứ hay Bình gì đó trở lên mới được vào học lớp Ðệ Tam trường công. Như thế là họ đẩy một số lớn học sinh không cho học đệ nhị cấp. Thành ra phía học sinh phản đối. Các ban đại diện hội họp rồi làm kiến nghị.

 “Vào khoảng đầu năm 1957, cả lớp có 40 chục người. Kiến nghị thì đứa nào cũng ký vào hết, nhưng phải có một học sinh đại diện, mà thường học sinh đại diện này phải là người học giỏi trong lớp. Như thế có 10 lớp Ðệ tứ có 10 lá thư như vậy. Mỗi lá thư đính kèm 30, 40 chục chữ ký. Chẳng những trường Petrus Ký làm thế mà tất cả những trường công ở Sài Gòn đều làm, (và người đại diện ký kiến nghị cho cả trường Trưng Vương là chị Kim Dung (bà Hà Tường Cát bây giờ). Thế là cả Sài Gòn kể cả trường Nguyễn Trãi, Chu Văn An đều ký, những trường dưới miền Tây như Nguyễn Ðình Chiểu ở Mỹ Tho, trường Thoại Ngọc Hầu ở Phan Thanh Giảng cũng đều ký hết.

”Khi kiến nghị thì phải đèo theo hai điều, là đèo theo học bổng, cải thiện về giáo dục. Phong trào này xảy ra đầu năm 57, đây là năm đầu tiên đấu tranh Chống Hiệp Thương. Trên nguyên tắc là năm 56 thì đòi Hiệp Thương nhưng hai bên lắc đầu nhau, đến năm 57 điều này xảy ra thì là con đẻ của chuyện kia thôi.

”Các trường lớp được tổ chức họp tại Sài Gòn, rồi miền Nam mười mấy trường họp lại trong một nhà hóc bà tó tại Bàn Cờ. Tôi thì không đại diện lớp đại diện trường nhưng tôi lại là người tổ chức cuộc họp đó mà địa điểm lại không biết ai cho mượn (vì tất cả đều là bạn bè, người một tay). Tôi lại là người tổ chức đi lại, ăn uống và cuối cùng tôi là chủ tọa của buổi họp đó, bạn bè tôi thì được dặn để làm này nọ, còn tôi thì không ai dặn hết, chỉ vì tinh thần xì-cút mà có tinh thần tổ chức. Vì là chủ tọa cho nên sau đó tôi ra bưu điện gửi thư cho Tổng thống và Quốc Hội. Tất cả những thư từ lúc đó khi gởi cho hai cấp đó phải có số căn cước của mình, còn nếu gởi thư bảo đảm thì không thành vấn đề. Khi đưa căn cước là tôi thầm biết, “Mẹ,ï lúc này là bắt đầu lãnh đủ rồi đấy nhá!” Nhưng đã lao theo thì phải tới luôn. Và dĩ nhiên là thơ không đời nào có câu trả lời. Thế là phải họp lại và xuống đường.

”Cuộc xuống đường tại Nha Trung Tiểu học đường Lê Văn Duyệt trước cửa Tao Ðàn, nơi trước là văn phòng Thủ tướng Ngô Văn Thinh ngày xưa treo cổ chết, mà tôi là đại diện của phe biểu tình 200, 300 trăm người với cờ xí. Tôi vào nói chuyện với ông Tổng Giám Ðốc Trung Học Bùi Phượng Trì. Xong về nhà, đến ngày hôm sau thì mới thấy những bạn kia đến nói cảnh sát ở quận nhì, quận nhất, quận ba gọi tôi. Mới đầu chỉ có 1, 2 thằng báo tôi còn không tin nhưng sau đó 7, 8 thằng báo tin thì biết đúng là nó đã lùa hết đám này ra rồi. Thằng nào cũng báo tin cho biết là họ đang đi tìm xem vụ này có những ai. Ðến lúc này tôi biết tình hình nguy đến nơi. Tôi dò hỏi thì biết cảnh sát đặc biệt miền Ðông ở chỗ Mạc Ðỉnh Chi, tôi đến trình diện, “Tôi đây không cần phải đi tìm.” Thế là cảnh sát giữ tôi ở đó.

”Trong bản khai tại đó có những câu hỏi rằng: Những ý kiến này là của ai. Tôi biết vậy nên nhất định chứng minh rằng đó là ý kiến của chính anh em học sinh. Thế là tôi bị giam một thời gian sau đó thả ra. Trước khi thả ra tôi phải ký vào giấy cam kết phải báo cáo cho họ biết nếu có những ai tiếp xúc… Tôi ký xong về và suy nghĩ tìm cách báo cho mọi người biết là tôi đã bị theo dõi rồi các anh đừng liên lạc với tôi nữa. Nhưng tôi khám phá ra rằng tất cả những người chơi với tôi cũng đều đã được dặn như vậy hết rồi, nghĩa là không đứa nào liên lạc với đứa nào nữa. Thì rồi lại yên”.

Anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến đã thú nhận rằng cứ cái máu hoạt động, cái máu hướng đạo hay lăng xăng tham gia, phục vụ, thì thế nào mình cũng bị dính vào cái gì đó. Một trong “cái gì đó” là vụ kể trên, bị nhốt, rồi thả ra, rồi bị ra toà. Anh Yến kể về chuyện ra toà: “Từ bản kiến nghị đó họ đưa đâu khoảng 14 người ra trước tòa, trong đó là 12 người đại diện của các ban đại diện học sinh, những người đã ký tên vào các kiến nghị. Trong những người ký tên có năm bảy người loại hoạt động, có những người vì là vào đại sau đó gia đình lo cho họ thoát được, họ học hành tiếp tục bình thường không có gì hết, có những người cũng bị sổ đen sổ đỏ hoài, có những người thoát ly luôn.

“Trong trường hợp tôi, tôi là người không có ký tên trên văn kiện nào hết, nhưng mà tôi lại ký trong hai cái loại văn kiện hành chánh, vì khi gửi những bản kháng nghị lên cho tổng thống và quốc hội thì phải ra bưu điện gửi bảo đảm, và hồi đó muốn gửi bảo đảm cho tổng thống và quốc hội thì họ biên căn cước của mình, tôi dùng Thẻ Học Sinh có dán hình để gửi, thành ra nó có vẻ là một người tổ chức ở một dạng nào đó”.

Loại hoạt động của anh Yến là loại khá độc lập, thấy cái gì tiện thì làm, không thuộc hệ thống nào, do đó bên Công An theo truy mãi, theo dõi mãi cũng không thấy gì nên để đấy thôi. Nhưng khi nội vụ đưa ra tòa thì lại lấy cái tên người gửi thư để gọi vụ án, và báo chí hồi đó đã gọi “Vụ án Ðỗ Ngọc Yến và các đồng lõa”.

Theo những người còn nhớ kể lại, hồi đó vụ án mang tên anh Yến cũng “xôm tụ” lắm, cái kiểu “anh hùng Lương Sơn Bạc” ø. Người ta lạc quyên để lấy tiền lo luật sư, người ta biểu tình để ủng hộ đòi hỏi hợp lý của nhóm học sinh. Nhưng anh Yến lại cho rằng: “Cũng chẳng có gì to tát lắm đâu. Ðại khái như thế này. Cả bọn ra tòa cuối Tháng Giêng năm 1959. Cũng lại là một kinh nghiệm nữa về hoạt động của phía”bên kia”, là tự nhiên không biết từ đâu có bao nhiêu luật sư đến để đề nghị biện hộ miễn phí. Một số trong các ông luật sư này là những ông đầu tàu của mấy ông tranh đấu thời sau, có ông sau này vào bưng với “Mặt Trận Giải Phóng Miền Nam”.

“Như vậy mình phải hiểu rằng mấy ông ấy đã được “bên kia” yêu cầu yểm trợ. Lúc xử án, lại nảy ra phong trào nhịn ăn điểm tâm để dành tiền trả luật sư biện hộ cho mấy người bị ra tòa. Ðến ngày tòa xử lại có bãi khóa, học sinh vây chung quanh tòa án, leo lên bám nghẹt các song sắt hàng rào tòa án. Chính tôi phải khó khăn lắm mới vào được trong toà.Vì chúng tôi từ nhà ra hầu tòa chứ không bị đưa từ nhà giam. Ðến lúc chúng tôi vào đến tòa, tập hợp điểm danh xong thì ông tòa nói là đình vô hạn định. Ai về nhà nấy”.

Mặc dù phiên xử án được đình vô hạn định, nhưng anh Yến vẫn bị trường Petrus Ký đuổi học. Hẳn nhiên điều này đã ảnh hưởng không ít đến cuộc đời anh. Suốt vụ án anh thuộc loại tại ngoại hậu tra, không ở tù nên không bị “bên kia” móc nối như một số tù chính trị đương thời, nhưng phía “bên này”, công an vẫn theo dõi. Bị đuổi học, việc “cách ly” với bạn bè, xã hội càng nặng nề hơn, khe khắt hơn. Lúc đó anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến học đệ nhị tại Petrus Ký. Chàng thanh niên 17, 18 tuổi bỗng dưng bị cách ly với sinh hoạt công đồng thường nhật. Ôn lại kỷ niệm này, anh Yến kể:

“Tôi từ tòa án đi về trường, lúc đó tôi học đệ nhị. Vừa đến trường thì hai ông giám thị chờ sẵn kẹp cổ tống ra ngoài cửa trường và bảo từ rày trò không được trở lại trường này nữa vì sáng nay hội đồng giáo sư họp đã đuổi học vĩnh viễn. Ðó là khoảng cuối Tháng Giêng năm 1959.

“Buổi sáng đi thẳng ra tòa, rồi về trường thì bị đuổi. Lúc đó tôi đang là Trưởng Ban Báo Chí của trường. Ðể lại đống bài vở cho các bạn trong ban, xin đi lấy xe đạp, rồi lững thững đạp về nhà. Ðến nhà thì ông cụ đã được báo là tôi bị đuổi học từ sáng rồi.

“Sau buổi sáng đó tôi đi khỏi trường Petrus Ký. Thành ra trong cuộc sống đời tôi có khác với nhiều bạn khác. Bình thường, ở mỗi lứa tuổi người ta có một số kỷ niệm, một số kinh nghiệm giống nhau. Thí dụ ở tuổi mười mấy thì có những kinh nghiệm đúng với tuổi đó.

“Ở đây, tôi có những kinh nghiệm hơi sớm trước tuổi, ngoài kinh nghiệm đi học, mà lại không có kinh nghiệm hồi còn bé như đánh đáo, đánh điếc, bắn chim. Nó cũng là hoàn cảnh chiến tranh. Chiến tranh trong nước ta xảy ra trên hai ba bình diện, nội chiến, ý thức hệ này kia, không phải bây giờ người ta mới tận dụng đám trẻ con như là bên Phi Châu, đám trẻ 13, 14 tuổi cầm khẩu súng bazoka hay là mặc bộ đồ lính của người lớn nom nó buồn cười. Thời đó người ta cũng sử dụng trẻ con nhưng mà tinh vi, vô cùng tinh vi, hệ thống lớp lang và nó có một kinh nghiệm là mấy chục năm ở Việt Nam, Trung Quốc, ở ngoài Bắc vào trong Nam mấy chục năm, mấy thế hệ như vậy. Thành thử cái đó đối với Tây Phương đó là cái gì nó hơi lạ nhưng đối với xứ nông nghiệp, xứ Ðông Nam Á mình thì nó thành là chuyện bình thường ai cũng có thể trải qua được. Ðó cũng là cái điều mà người Mỹ không hiểu được về đất nước, con người Việt Nam. Ðôi khi có những người rơi vào giữa cuộc chiến của hai hệ thống, bị hút vào đó như một cơn lốc”.

Trong chúng ta, một số người ra đời trước và sau 1940 vài năm thì cảnh “tản cư” là một phần ký ức của tuổi thơ. Cùng với ký ức tản cư, có thể chúng ta còn ghi nhận những cảnh Tây về làng “điểm mục”, lính kín ruồng xét, cho “bao bố nhận diện”. Tôi không biết từ “điểm mục” có phổ biến không. Ký ức thời 5, 6 tuổi của tôi đã ghi nhận hai chữ đó. Ðiểm mục là lính Tây, lính “dõng” về làng, tập họp cả làng lại điểm danh, nhìn từng khuôn mặt xem có ai là “du kích”, làm việc cho “Uỷ Ban Hành Chánh” hay không. Giai đoạn tản cư của anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến ngắn và gần, nghĩa là chỉ tản cư chung quanh Sài Gòn chứ không đi xa.

Anh kể: “Hồi đó tôi đi tản cư ở Lái Thiêu (những mảnh vườn mà sau này chúng ta đi cắm trại, ăn trái cây), để tránh Nhật bỏ bom tại Sài Gòn vào cuối 1944 đầu 1945. Tôi không có cuộc tản cư lớn. Trong đầu óc tôi Tản Cư là những cảnh nên thơ, tản cư là các cụ thuê các xe cá. Xe cá là xe ngựa kéo, xe cá có ít nhất hai con ngựa kéo. Còn xe ngựa, xe thổ mộ, chỉ có một con ngựa thôi. Xe cá giống như xe minivan, phía trên rộng có thể để tủ lớn chồng lên nhau. Xe cá này chở người tản cư từ Sài Gòn về phía ngoại ô, thường thì chạy về Lái Thiêu hoặc Tân Quy vì ở đây có nhiều nhà vườn. Người dân Sài Gòn chạy về đó, nhờù đồng bào tại đây cho tá túc.

“Sau này, khoảng 1954, 1955, tôi hay đạp xe đạp về vùng đó chơi, đi thăm những cụ già, những “ngôi nhà tá túc” hồi đó. Ðặc biệt năm 55 tôi đạp vô vườn chơi, có chứng kiến một cảnh, sau này mới vỡ lẽ ra. Lúc đó tôi khoảng 13-14 tuổi, tôi thấy mấy ông nông dân mặc quần áo đen ngồi đầy, đông lắm, ngồi rất trật tự. Sau này tôi mới hiểu là mấy ông tập kết. Nhưng hình ảnh tôi nhớ rõ nhất là cái hình ảnh mà trong sử cũng nói, là dân ở ủy ban hô hào dân chúng xuống đường đi ra đường Catinat thời 1945, ông già tôi đã dắt tụi tôi đi từ sáng sớm, ghé tiệm Tàu đầu đường làm ly cà phê mà ông Bình Nguyên Lộc từng mô tả là “đổ ra cái dĩa” uống, lúc đó tôi khoảng 4 tuổi.

“Sau đó cảnh đáng nhớ nữa là cảnh Tây đi xét nhà. Ðầu tiên chúng chỉ xét thôi, xong có mấy người Việt Nam đi theo bắt mở tủ, rương… ra, rồi tôi thấy đồ đạc chúng lấy đi. Tụi Tây và người nhà mình thấy vậy thì bắt phải trả lại.

“Nhưng cái cảnh bắt đầu biết sợ là sợ cảnh bị Tây bố. Hồi đó cứ sáng sớm: “đi bố, đi bố” nghĩa là Tây bao hết vùng đó, trước cửa trường Nguyễn Bá Tòng, tất cả đàn ông bị lùa hết ra ngoài khu đất trống, nằm trước cửa nhà tôi. Tất cả ngồi chồm hổm, hai tay để lên đầu; đàn bà con nít thì đứng lóng ngóng quanh đó. Sau đó bị lên xe “cây” chở về bót.

“Sau rồi đến “bao bố nhìn mặt” nghĩa là cho nhận diện mọi người, những người làm việc nhận diện thì được chụp bao bố lên đầu. Ai bị nhìn mặt và gật đầu thì bị giữ lại, không có thì cho về. Về sớm nhất là những ông công chức, gần nhà tôi có mấy ông công chức Sở Hỏa Xa. Sở Hỏa Xa không phải là của nhà nước nhưng có chế độ công chức nên được ưu tiên. Và từ đó trong đầu tôi có ý niệm thế nào là công chức, công chức thì oai quyền lắm, làm công chức thì an ninh, rồi được về trước cho đi làm. Chờ đến chừng 10-11 giờ nghe nói ông già được thả về thì mừng, còn giờ đó không được thả về, mà tin “bao bố trùm mặt” gật đầu thì chết. Ðây là những giây phút điếng hồn của những gia đình lúc bấy giờ. Vài năm sau thì lựu đạn nổ ngay trước cửa nhà. Hay trong những năm đó, hình ảnh những ông Việt Minh cứ đến nhà xin tiền bố tôi – thời đó thanh niên ngày ấy ai cũng tầm vông vạt nhọn đi quanh quanh khu phố – hay có những ông bạn già đến nhà… và sau đó mới biết rằng đó là những ông Việt Minh, nôm na là những người bị bắt rồi thả ra.

“Thường những người được thả ra bị đánh đập xơ xác rách mướp, đau ốm ho lao, phải đi loanh quanh xin tiền. Những gia đình bình thường dù muốn dù không ai cũng giúp đỡ. Và những cảnh này cứ trở đi trở lại hoài”.

Tuổi thơ chúng ta có thể còn chất chứa thêm những ký ức về cuộc sống trong vùng “ấm ớ hội tề”. Ở làng tôi, ban ngày mấy ông “hội Tề” cai quản. Ban đêm, mấy ông “Uỷ Ban Hành Chính” từ bên kia sông qua tập họp nói chuyện, thu thuế,… Tôi vẫn nhớ như in hình ảnh những “anh nuôi” đêm đêm lén lút về xin tiền, xin thuốc chữa bệnh của Mẹ tôi. Chế độ chính trị trong vùng thật ấm ớ, nên mới gọi là “ấm ớ hội tề”.
Về khoản này, anh Yến không có cơ hội trải qua: “Ngược lại tôi hoàn toàn sống dưới chế độ mà bên kia gọi là “tạm chiếm.” Nhưng tôi lại có liên hệ (đến phía Việt Minh) nhiều nhất là khi vào học ở Petrus Ký, Petrus Ký là cái ổ! Khi tôi vào Petrus Ký thì vừa xảy ra vụ Trần Văn Ơn được hai năm, cao trào này đang từ từ đi lên. Trong trường Petrus Ký lúc này học sinh đi học là một chuyện nhưng mặt khác bị chi phối quan tâm đến một lối sống khác: họp hành, đọc sách báo này nọ… Nhà tôi lúc đó ở Bùi Thị Xuân, gần khu Bàn Cờ, Lê Văn Duyệt thì có hai bãi đất trống bán sách báo cũ — cũ đây là cách đó chừng 3, 4 năm thôi — các sách vào thời kỳ bắt đầu kháng chiến, mà đặc biệt là toàn là sách báo kháng chiến. Dần dần có sách báo của Thông Tin Hoa Kỳ. Những cuốn sách đầu tiên của Thông Tin Hoa Kỳ vào truyền bá về thế giới tự do. Tôi nhớ là báo Thế Giới Tự Do số hai là tôi đã được trông thấy, và tôi biết tòa soạn của Thế Giới Tự Do đặt ở lầu 4 tại phố như thế nào, mà khi đó tụi con nít chạy đến, tìm cách chạy lên thang máy vì hiếu kỳ”.

Những cuốn sách đầu tiên được dịch ra mà anh Yến nhắc đến là cuốn “Ðêm hay ngày” của Koestler, cuốn “Tôi chọn tự do, chọn công lý” của mấy anh đi trốn ở Nga thật dày; trong đó cũng có những cuốn về văn hóa Mỹ như “Dũng sĩ da đỏ,” rồi “The Last of Mohican” của P. Coopper, lúc đầu là mấy cuốn đó. Rồi đến thời kỳ ông Diệm từ năm 1954 trở đi, những loại sách văn học như cuốn “Kho tàng phiêu lưu” của Tom Sawyer, “Ðôi bạn phiêu lưu”… mới được dịch. Nhưng trước đó, những cuốn sách khác đều là sách chính trị hết, duy có vài cuốn về văn hóa như “Bác sĩ Aerosmith” của Sand Lewis có thể nói là sách nói hoàn toàn về Mỹ. Có một cuốn nổi tiếng “Tẩy Não Tại Trung Hoa Ðỏ” (1949)…

Anh Yến kể: “Trong trường hợp của tôi, tôi khác với nhiều bạn vì tôi là một thằng bé lớn lên hoàn toàn trong thành phố, thành ra hai loại tranh đấu này tôi quen từ bé đến lớn: tranh đấu nội thành và công khai hợp pháp tranh đấu dưới một chế độ chính trị đặc biệt nào đó. Lúc đó mình đủ sức tò mò để nghĩ tại sao có sách như thế này (nói về kháng chiến), mà lại có thể phổ biến được? Sau này có một người thông thạo vấn đề đó cắt nghĩa mới hiểu. Lúc đó chính phủ Sài Gòn người ta để tình trạng như vậy để người Mỹ quan sát thấy là có tài liệu cộng sản khắp mọi nơi, hoạt động cộng sản tưng bừng khắp ngõ, để người ta sợ chế độ cộng sản mà ủng hộ viện trợ cho phe Tây ở Việt Nam.

”Sách Thông tin Hoa Kỳ tôi đã xem từ đầu, từ năm 49 Sở này bắt đầu hoạt động, thì mấy năm đầu chưa có loại sách đó đâu. Hai cuốn của Thông Tin Hoa Kỳ lúc đó nổi tiếng nhất là cuốn sách hình “Tám bậc vĩ nhân” (Hoa Kỳ) trong đó có từ ông Washington đến ông Jefferson rồi ông Headman rồi trong đó có một ông Tây đen là ông B. Washington (?), rồi một ông thi sĩ Whitman, rồi ông G. Nixon… Rồi đến báo Thế Giới Tự Do, số đầu tiên thì tôi không biết nhưng tôi biết số Thế Giới Tự Do 2. Còn nhà xuất bản của Thông Tin Hoa Kỳ lúc đó được đặt tên là Tân Á. Rồi báo Sức Mạnh và Tự Do, đây là báo người ta bỏ… nhà cầu. Tôi có đọc một đoạn trong tờ báo này về “Ðêm hay Ngày” và bắt đầu hiểu, khi ấy tôi khoảng 11-12 tuổi, hiểu rằng cuốn này đặt đề tài là nếu anh chấp nhận thế này thì anh là cộng sản rồi, tức là ở đời quan trọng nhất là tự do với cơm áo, nếu anh muốn có cơm áo thì phải chấp nhận cộng sản, còn chấp nhận tự do thì phải cãi nhau với cộng sản. Hồi đó sách vở cũng đủ sức để dạy cho mình những hiểu biết như vậy”.

Trở lại trường Petrus Ký mà anh Yến nói là “cái ổ”. Ðó cũng là nơi xuất thân của các ông Huỳnh Văn Tiễn, Lưu Hữu Phước… những vị mà sau này nổi tiếng về cách mạng. Anh Yến cho rằng đó đúng là một chỗ quy tụ những trí thức yêu nước, những người ý thức về thân phận của dân tộc của đất nước để bắt đầu tranh đấu. Truyền thống đó đã tiếp tục cho đến vụ Trần Văn Ơn, đây cũng là một yếu tố nuôi dưỡng, mà sau này khi anh Yến vô học Petrus Ký cũng đã cảm được cái không khí đó ở trong lớp của Petrus Ký. Chuyện người hoạt động bí mật thời đó thì coi như là những thần tượng. Không phải chỉ anh Yến, các bạn khác của anh như  Lê Ðường, Trần Ðại Lộc vẫn nhìn thấy ánh hào quang của những năm cuối 40 đầu 50 còn phảng phất tại Petrus Ký.
Về điểm này, anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến nói: “Nói tóm tắt một là nó có truyền thống, và hai là nó có nề nếp rồi. Nghĩa là lớp nào nó cũng có những người thuộc loại lăng xăng có liên hệ với những tên hoạt động lớn hơn chừng hai, ba tuổi, hai ba lớp hay là thân nhân ở ngoài. Trước đó thì những học sinh này không có gì hết về suy nghĩ chính trị, nhưng sau bị ảnh hưởng của những anh kia. Trong trường hợp tôi, trước đó tôi không có liên hệ với ai hết, nhưng lúc đó tôi là xì-cút (Hướng đạo). Trong xì-cút có dạy nhiều thứ như dạy anh phải là một thành phần nào trong lớp của anh, nghĩa là trong lớp cần gì thì anh phải tự nguyện v.v… Thầy giáo ở Petrus Ký cũng có nhiều thầy hóc búa như ông Giám thị, nhưng cũng có một số thầy luôn luôn kích thích tinh thần yêu nước của học trò. Tôi còn nhớ năm học Ðệ tứ, một thầy giáo dạy Sử Ðịa, mà người này đã từng ở tù thời Trần Văn Ơn. Ông này đã dạy Sử trong tinh thần kích thích học trò. Thầy giáo này mê báo Ðời Mới của ông Hoàng Thương lắm. Năm học Ðệ tứ tôi đã có gần đủ số báo Ðời Mới này (có khoảng 154 số) — đến tháng 4 năm 1955 thì tờ báo đóng cửa — tôi chỉ đi ra nhặt ở đầu đường bán lẻ. Ngày tôi bị ra tòa rồi đi tù, tôi mang hết bộ đó biếu cho người thầy này. Khi ra khỏi tù, cảnh sát cứ theo điều tra xem mình bị ảnh hưởng bởi những ai, ai nói cho mình điều này, ai nói cho mình thế kia”.

Anh Yến đã nhắc lại giai đoạn học Ðệ Tam Petrus Ký kể trên, anh bị vướng vụ “Kiến Nghị”, biểu tình. Ðang học Ðệ Nhị, đang hoạt động tưng bừng thì tự nhiên anh hoàn toàn bị cô lập vì bị đuổi học, bị theo dõi. Có lẽ thành tích “đấu tranh” của anh được “lưu ý”, nên “Sau đó vài tháng thì cũng có người đến liên lạc nhưng không phải là chuyện học sinh nữa mà là liên lạc, mời tôi đi họp trong Tổng Liên đoàn Lao Ðộng, mời lập một nghiệp đoàn Văn Nghệ Sĩ, bây giờ là lúc đấu tranh vào khu vực văn nghệ từ những rạp hát, cải lương, báo chí v.v…”

Lúc đó anh Yến chưa hề là văn nghệ sĩ, chưa viết lách gì ngoài những trang báo trong trường. Nhưng từ xa xưa anh vốn đọc sách nhiều, đã có cái nhìn “viễn kiến”, nên người ta dễ tìm đến anh. Anh kể: “Tôi đâu có viết lách gì, nhưng đại khái mình là dân hoạt động. Rủ là tôi đi. Vô họp đây thì bàn bên cạnh là bàn công an. Tụi công an ngồi đó 24/24 để ghi lại tất cả những chuyện đó vì là đấu tranh công khai mà. Tôi lại nghĩ thầm, “đây lại là cái rắc rối nữa đây. Nhưng kệ, làm thì cứ làm.” Lúc này tôi cũng đã bắt đầu chơi với đám văn nghệ sĩ rồi nhưng cũng chỉ là tép riu thôi, nhưng vấn đề là hệ thống tổ chức tức là anh đã bị lộ phía học sinh rồi thì họ sẽ đưa anh vào sâu sang hoạt động khác, vì đây là một hệ thống có tổ chức mà. Sau đó khó khăn thì họ dặn tôi đừng liên lạc với Liên đoàn Lao động nữa, muốn liên lạc gì thì đi lên trên Hóc Môn, đi vào các vườn họp. Khi đi họp lên đường Chi Lăng, từ Chí Nhuận từ nhà ông Phạm Duy đi ngược về Bà Chiểu, cứ buổi chiều từ 4, 5 giờ muốn gặp thì đứng chờ ở đó có người đạp xe đạp ngang qua. Các bạn đã biết phần nào tuổi thơ của tôi”.

Trong một bài viết, chị Hà Dương T. Quyên có nói về khả năng “luồn lách” của anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến, chị gọi là khả năng “lăng ba vi bộ”, theo chữ trong tiểu thuyết của cụ Kim Dung viết về nhân vật Ðoàn Dự.  Chúng ta vừa mới lướt qua về thời thơ ấu của anh Yến, hình dung vài nét phác hoạ chân dung anh hồi nhỏ. Chúng ta có thể hiểu được khả năng “lăng ba vi bộ” của anh từ đâu tới.  Tuy nhiên, theo tôi, khả năng đó của anh chỉ để làm lợi, làm tốt cho những người cần được giúp đỡ, cho cộng đồng, cho cuộc đời. Và đó là điều đáng quí của anh Ðỗ Ngọc Yến.

TRANSCRIPT OF THE FILM, SHADOW GATE

by Millie Weaver

MILLIE WEAVER: What if I were to tell you that a small group of government contractors were hired by government officials to frame the Trump campaign, set him up for the Russia Collusion investigation, provided witnesses for the impeachment hearings and provided administrative support services to the Department of Justice during the Mueller Investigation?

And what if it just so happened that this same group of contractors are behind the Fake News in Mainstream Media, influence operations on social media and the civil unrest nationwide, pushing the “defund the police” movement? The Obamagate scandal only scratches the surface.

[VIDEO]

LINDSEY GRAHAM: You mentioned shock value, that it’s shocking what the Russians did. I agree. We need to stop it.

SALLY YATES: I know that now, based on the Horowitz Report.

LINDSEY GRAHAM: I’m not saying that you lied to the court. I’m saying you signed something that was a lie and you didn’t know it.

MILLIE WEAVER: Talk about a cover story! What really happened is much more alarming. Both parties are equally guilty of covering up what should turn out to be an even bigger scandal.

Shadowgate: the tactical and operational role the Shadow Government played behind the scenes, carrying out the coup against President Trump. We’re going to be looking behind the puppets, at who the real puppet-master string-pullers are.

The material presented in this documentary should concern people of all political affiliations. This is about real players; people whose names never come up but should. Career politicians are definitely part of the Beltway Swamp, even aspects of the Deep State – but they are not the Shadow Government.

The Shadow Government consists of government contractors, defense intelligence, security and so on. Our government mostly consists of front-facing desk jockeys that are compartmentalized in cubicles, there to cover up for the fact that most of the real work is outsourced to contractors, aka the Military Industrial Complex.

That way, what the public sees through FOIA requests, investigations, congressional hearings or otherwise is as clean as a whistle. All the dirty work is kept private with contractors in clandestine networks. These contractors have used their connections, power and influence to create an unprecedented international criminal enterprise, where blackmail is traded and people’s personal data is gold.

MILLIE WEAVER: Two whistleblowers, Tore and Patrick Bergy, who both worked extensively within the Shadow Government as contractors have come forward with revelations that may be part of the biggest whistleblowing event to date.

TORE: I’m one of thousands faceless, patriotic Americans that work within the shadows and had been doing that for a very long time. People that worked for John Brennan approached me while I was in my specialist training, while I was in the Navy.

When I was recruited, it was for electronic warfare. Then, I ended up in Information Warfare and ironically, the base that I first went to for electronic warfare is now Information Warfare.

PATRICK BERGY: My job was for a company called Dynology, which was owned by Obama’s National Security Advisor, General James Jones and I answered directly to his son. I worked for them for about eight years, from 2007 to 2010.

My focus was primarily in the development on a couple different contracts for the Department of Defense for the development of the capabilities for “Interactive Internet Activities”, being something that helps support CNO, which is Computer Network Operations, hacking and different things like that and Information Operations, which would be your actual Influence Operations.

It’s a supporting application that’s really kind of like a Microsoft project, which allows you to manage large projects, like enterprise-level projects, but instead of managing the construction of a 14-story building, it’s managing the most malevolent operations that you could imagine.

TORE: I was a contractor for various intelligence agencies that were privately- created, so they were private contracting agencies, because unlike what most people think, our intelligence doesn’t stay within our borders or within federal buildings.

PATRICK BERGY: The Shadownet was the commercial version of an IIA weapon, IIA being “Interactive Internet Activities”. That’s the military nomenclature for what basically, you’ve heard just being described for the last three or four years, with all the Fake News and the Fake News journalists and fake stories, fake dossier – all these things are attributes and characteristics of IIA, which is social media psychological warfare.

We began that really in 2007, when right after the policy guidelines first came out. We were one of the first contracts with the DOD that I’m aware of, trying to help the 4th Psychological Operations Group understand how to go from dropping flyers from planes to a more micro-targeted, social media, psychological warfare application, where you could select an individual target or a group target – or an entire country, if you wanted to.

TORE: What I did was something called localization or L-10N. So, a localization strategy is, you find a group of people; that could be a whole country, a city, a certain religious group, a six-block radius, like CHAZ and you try to get in their mind.

You have to understand how they eat, how they walk, how they talk, what they like, what pushes their buttons, what drives them nuts, what upsets them, what makes them happy. And then you use that to your advantage to push whatever ideology or product or direction you want them to go, marrying together cultural appropriation, language, nuances of the demographic that you are targeting or the nation you are targeting.

It pries into your demographic, your world, so if I want to blackmail you and put you under my thumb, not only will I know everything, but I will know your deepest, darkest fears; I will know people I can get in contact to find out more about you.

Maybe you had an old hockey injury, so if I wanted to attack you, I’d know where to hit you.

PATRICK BERGY: You understand enough about someone and you can hack their shadow, you can use their fears, you can use their anxieties.

Sound anything like pandemics that you recognize, here?

MILLIE WEAVER: Oh yeah, definitely.

PATRICK BERGY: So, you can use those things to help reflexively control or influence and target an individual or whoever it is, or a group of people or an entire election, an entire country

TORE: What Patrick Bergy created was a program that was based off of the strategies that we used in person. It was a psychological operation but that crunches data with the use of psychological operations, so you can predict how your target will respond.

PATRICK BERGY: I spent like seven years overseas; a couple of those years were specifically related to IIA, so I understood certain things when.

TORE: We hijacked the Afghan elections. How did we do that? We had to understand how the Afghanis think. We had to go to the areas that were anti- Taliban, because the Taliban political group was now more militant than it was political. We used that to our advantage and formulated a plan where we would sway their thoughts to believe that “XYZ candidate” is the way to go, because then, you won’t get robbed and we’ll tame the Taliban – but we had to do it in their way. So, he created the algorithm that does that for you

PATRICK BERGY: When we were largely doing this, it was done by analysts. Now, this is more done, automated through Artificial Intelligence, which is just a common iteration of the program or application development process.

The database component ends up allowing you to build behavioral profiles on individual targets and through those behavioral profiles you can develop or implement reflexive control, which allows you to understand – with enough information about someone – you can predictably determine how they’re going to react.

TORE: I was really good at what I did, really good and I can still do it, too. I’m not doing it now though

MILLIE WEAVER: Well, don’t be doing that, Tore!

TORE: You wouldn’t know if I was, too!

But I helped them train algorithms with the strategies that I had created, all these years.

PATRICK BERGY: They had asked us to bring the application to a classified network. But Jim sent him a bogus, just a made-up, ridiculous bid to actually do that, because if it went on a classified network, we couldn’t turn around and sell it commercially. We went on, after that to another contract in Tampa, took everything with us.

4th Psychological Operations Group had no idea that we were going to be taking their years’ worth of work, that they paid us to do – the taxpayers paid us to do

– and we kept the intellectual property rights to it and remarketed it, branded it commercially as the Shadow.

So, I come back here and I see these guys back here, in America have just been having a field day utilizing the technology that we’ve been developing to alter the outcomes of our elections in America.

MILLIE WEAVER: This technology was so successful, they couldn’t resist the temptation to not use it commercially and have the power to affect outcomes of elections at home. The commercial and black market value of such a technology is incalculable.

PATRICK BERGY: This is the mobile mega Shadownet mobile. My laptop sits in here and then I got uh two 4k capture cards. I can do VTC and this charges all the camera equipment, so while I’m riding, I’m told I’m getting as much as 40 amps.

These are the same cases that we used to build out our Skips; our SC2IPs, which is a Small Command and Control over IP.

And when I was working with JCSE, we would take these cases and build out networks. This is a Small Command and Control over IP. It’s just only running on one unclassified network.

SIM-enabled Wi-Fi router and if I get decent cell connection, then I can run the multiple cameras and I can put multiple images in one screen and I can run all that from my cell phone, that I have mounted here.

MILLIE WEAVER: The group of whistleblowers from the NSA and other classified data collection agencies, referred to as the Global Surveillance Whistleblowers were used as a vector to legalize what was then illegal dragnet spying on everyone, 24/7.

[VIDEO]

60 MINUTES: The NSA and its former head, General Hayden declined to comment for this story.

MILLIE WEAVER: The FISA Amendment Act of 2008 had section 702, that permitted the government to spy on citizens with a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The NSA data system collects everything through what’s called the Upstream, where everything is stored for 72 hours then dumped. However, if one could twin this stream of data they could privatize it. Imagine what you could do with that?

Tore alleges that she worked for John Brennan at the Analysis Corporation and Global Strategies Group.

What is the analysis corporation?

TORE: It is a company that does a lot of things, varying from administrative work, to analyses, to data collection, biometric collection. I mean, whatever contract they’ve been awarded by the government, they do. It could be something as simple as janitor duties.

[VIDEO]

STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN DURING 2008 PASSPORT SECURITY

BREACH: In case you missed the Secretary’s words upstairs, she reached out to Senator Obama to say that she was sorry that this had happened, that there were these unauthorized accesses to his passport files.

One incident this past summer, where there was a trainee in the Passport Office who had an unauthorized access of Senator Clinton’s passport file. Now, in the case of Senator McCain, we detected earlier this year, one of the same people who accessed Senator Obama’s passport file also accessed Senator McCain’s passport file.

This is the same individual who was disciplined but at this point in time, still remains working with the contractor.

MILLIE WEAVER: She claims to be the actual person who moved the electronic files at Stanley, Inc and CGI in 2008, which publicly was falsely alleged to be a “hack”. What can you tell us about the CGI-Stanley passport incident?

TORE: See, Brennan has a certain MO, okay? When he wants to get something, he pretends there’s a hack. So, I was asked, when I was stateside, “Hey, would you go by that office and pull all this data from the State Department?” and I said, “Of course I will.”

I put it on two rugged drives. They were like the orange tips, really big drives and I put it on there and then later, it’s like, “Oh, they were hacked.” And I’m thinking, “Um, I didn’t hack anything. I was told to do it.”

So, I just kind of watched what was happening. One person actually committed suicide or something and the other two were found. I’m like, “But there was no hack!” And that that’s a going theme. You know that, right?

MILLIE WEAVER: Wow. If it wasn’t a hack, I’m presuming that means you took the information off of their servers and computers?

TORE: Correct.

MILLIE WEAVER: So, that information was then missing?

TORE: Correct.

MILLIE WEAVER: What would be the point of that? What were they trying to hide?

TORE: Well, if I removed it, that means someone else was there to replace it, right? So, I remove the factual, actual information and then someone goes behind

– that’s like super switch. I didn’t see that until in retrospect.

Because for me, going to copy a server off of a consulate computer, State Department, wherever would be normal. If we had a contract with them, they would tell me what terminal, I’d scan the barcode, make sure that I was at the right computer and do my job.

So, I removed data. That means someone else replaced it.

MILLIE WEAVER: So, what is the relationship between Global Strategies Group, Analysis Corporation and Canadian Global Information?

TORE: They all do the same thing. They’re the Jacks of all Trade, except for the fact that Global Strategies Group was actually a hub for all information; in and out, in and out.

All of the directors there were former GCHQ, CIA, NSA, MI6, MI5, German intelligence. You have to wonder, why are all these former heads heading up consulting firma and what were they consulting? And they weren’t consulting. They were collecting everybody’s data and privatizing it.

MILLIE WEAVER: John Brennan, working within his network of contracting companies, such as Stanley, Canadian Global Information and the Analysis Corporation helped then-Senator Barack Obama get elected using Internet influence operations.

March 5th, 2013, Brennan gets confirmed as CIA Director, dodging controversy over his involvement in the CIA Enhanced Interrogation scandal.

Now, tell us about these data bridges to the NSA. Is that legally obtained information?

TORE: I mean, that’s kind of what Snowden did, too.

MILLIE WEAVER: According to sources closely-connected to this subject, under John Brennan’s direction, Snowden created a data bridge from the NSA database into private servers controlled by private intelligence and cyber security

contractors, aka the Analysis Corporation, Global Strategies Group and Canadian Global Information.

TORE: The twinning of streams is duplicating the information in the Upstream. That’s crazy. To think that another company is copying all emails, texts, phone calls, messages, emojis, Instagrams, tweets – anything you can imagine that’s being uploaded, that has to go into the 72-hour holding is suddenly being pushed offshore. That sounds kind of illegal, because it is.

MILLIE WEAVER: June 5th, 2013. Edward Snowden goes public with the NSA program PRISM, revealing the NSA collects Internet traffic of all US citizens from major Internet and telecom companies through the FISA 702 program.

Snowden’s actions kicked off, on the federal level justification for spying on US citizens, including the Senate and Congress, in the name of preventing US citizens with Classified or Top Secret clearances from being able to repeat Snowden’s actions. This opened the door for the creation of ClearForce.

July 4th, 2013 CGI and GCHQ launch a Defense Cyber Protection Partnership (DCPP), which includes sharing threat intelligence.

So, these were all private corporations that even had foreigners working in them and they had access to NSA servers?

TORE: Of course they did. How do you think we found, through facial recognition of the FBI the Belgium Bomber? Why would we have their facial recognition data?

MILLIE WEAVER: So, is this legal, what you’re telling me and why would they do it? Why would they set this up this way?

TORE: So, sharing our information and our private identifying information, facial recognition biometrics outside of the United States for official purposes, like at a consulate and an embassy, through Secret Service or anything like that is legal – or through Interpol – but to have a company that houses everybody’s data and any private person can buy that data or investigate that data or analyze that data, that’s not. And that’s exactly what GSG was doing.

[VIDEO]

[CNBC BROADCAST]: Early 2009, John Brennan left government and went to work for a small intelligence contractor here in the Virginia, area suburban Virginia area, just outside of Washington. The company was called the Analysis Corporation. There are subsidiaries of subsidiaries. Some of these companies are spun out, go public, go private, again. It’s kind of hard to keep track of them.

MILLIE WEAVER: In just four months, GSG, CGI and other private contractors allegedly had unauthorized access to the entire Five Eyes network; unfiltered, unrestricted, decompartmentalized, outside any government regulation or oversight.

Not surprisingly, the CIA gets caught one year later spying on the US Senate. Their excuse, it was their own network they had set up for the Senate to use, so they had authorization.

[VIDEO]

[C-SPAN BROADCAST OF SENATE HEARINGS] SEN. ROBERT WYDEN (D-OR):

Would you agree that the CIA’s 2014 search of Senate files was improper?

CIA DIRECTOR JOHN BRENNAN: This is the annual threat assessment is it not? Yes. These were CIA computers at a CIA-leased facility. It was a CIA network that was shared between Senate staffers conducting that investigation for your report, as well as CIA personnel.

SEN. ROBERT WYDEN (D-OR): The reality is those computers, in effect belonged to the CIA but they were reserved exclusively for the committee’s use.

NSA DIRECTOR, GEN. HAYDEN: We accelerated our ability, our – for one of a better word – invasiveness and into communications networks in which legitimate targets coexisted with legitimately-protected communications.

PATRICK BERGY: Obama takes office and General Jones is being sworn in as National Security Advisor. His son, General Jones’s son copyrights “CKMS”, Congressional Knowledge Management System.

Within a couple months after he leaves office in 2010, Dynology gets contract for CKMS, the Congressional Knowledge Management System, which basically controls all of the scheduling, the addresses, the documents, everything for the Congress.

CKMS is going to give you access to unlimited information. Think about the information you could get from that.

MILLIE WEAVER: If we look on usspending.gov, we see Dynology was awarded contracts for the Congressional Knowledge Management System. However, one contract stands out, where Dynology was awarded a contract by the Department of Defense that includes a mention of the Congressional Knowledge Management System.

A closer look shows that the award description is for “CKMS Hosting Labor/Admin Core Data.” The primary place of performance is Germany and the North American Industry Classification description is “Data Processing, Hosting and Related Services,” even one section stating, “Manufacturing Outside the United States, Use Outside the United States.”

Let it sink in, that these official documents suggest the Congressional Knowledge Management System, outsourced to a private contractor is hosted, managed and stored in servers in Germany. This is very disturbing.

With the Senate’s computer network compromised by John Brennan’s CIA and the Congressional Knowledge Management System being hosted, managed and stored overseas by General Jones’s company, the ability for these contractors to eavesdrop on both the House and the Senate is staggering.

PATRICK BERGY: When I brought this up, back in 2018, shortly after that, Dynology lost the contract that they had had since 2011/2012 with CKMS and that contract went to another company, a company that exists as nothing more than a website and a maildrop, a mile or so from Dynology’s Tampa office – controlling the entire Congressional Knowledge Management!

TORE: And if you look at the contracting database, they’ll say that, “Oh, they have an American entity!” and it’s like, “But it’s the same CEOs for this Canadian Company, I’m so confused!”

So, they even falsify information, so they can obfuscate where our federal tax dollars are going. And don’t forget they all share contracts, they all subcontract, co-contract.

PATRICK BERGY: PSYGroup has the exact same product as Dynology, the Shadownet and Eyesight, right? Yet, the owner of Dynology sits on the board of directors of PSYGroup, which in my opinion, is kind of like the owner of Coke sitting on the board of directors of Pepsi.

TORE: TAC, CGI and all these LLCs, they just keep cycling and cycling all of them.

[VIDEO]

[CBS BROADCAST ABOUT OPM HACK]: The Social Security numbers of 19.7 million Americans subjected to federal background checks, as a condition of employment are now in the hands of hackers.

MILLIE WEAVER: In June 2015, the Office of Personnel Management announced a major data breach. Tell us about the OPM hack.

TORE: Okay, so that’s another Brennan job, another “hack”, supposed hack and this is to obtain, delete and obfuscate information.

Hillary Clinton was up on the shopping block about her emails at the State Department and that was coming up, that was big talk of the town in 2014.

Suddenly, the Office of Personnel Management was hacked. In December, down the line, five months later, Hillary Clinton appears in court and they tell her, “Hey, you’re gonna hand over your emails.” A couple days after that, the now-fired corrupt, leaking former IG of the State Department, [Steve A.] Linick had requested from our elected officials to give him a big fat budget to create his own personal IG of the State Department server.

MILLIE WEAVER: How convenient.

TORE: Very convenient.

[VIDEO]:

[ROLLCALL BROADCAST OF FOREIGN RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE] STATE

DEPT IG STEVE A. LINICK: Well, we have no evidence that our data has been compromised. The fact that the contents of our network may be accessed by large numbers of Department administrators puts us at unnecessary risk.

The IT folks at the Department have the keys to our IT system, so they really have access, unfettered access to the system. If they wanted to, they could read, modify, delete.

I would like to be completely separate from the Department, to ensure the integrity of our system but I also need the Department to give us access to the same systems, that we have now.

TORE: And he was responsible, in releasing her emails that he gave in little, little doses, of course, over time. But at the same time, the press came out with a report. “Oh dear, months ago, there was a leak!”

[VIDEO]:

[ROLLCALL BROADCAST OF FOREIGN RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE] SEN.

DAVID PERDUE (R-GA): Do you have evidence that the State Department’s network has been attacked? And does that affect you guys?

STATE DEPT IG STEVE A. LINICK: There, there, uh there has been, there’s, there’s evidence that it has been attacked and it has affected us. I can’t really go into details, uh because of the nature of the information.

TORE: For people that don’t know, the Office of Personnel Management usually has information on every single American that has applied for any type of clearance. So, if you applied for a White House Press Pass or joined the military or an admin job that could require something like a Public Charlie clearance – anything – all your information is there.

MILLIE WEAVER: What could they do with all that information?

TORE: Right. They started slowly creating these Memorandums of Understandings (MOUs) with your Secretaries of State and Attorneys General, secretly behind your back, providing facial recognition data, private identifying data, data, data.

This was the most incredible data, because if you want to control someone, all you need to do is put that information through a couple of systems and you’ll know exactly what buttons you need to push and how to make them nod their head the way you want them to or shake it.

[VIDEO]

[CBS BROADCAST ABOUT OPM HACK]: Millions of Americans have received letters like this, notifying them their data are at risk and referring them to a government-contracted credit monitoring agency.

MILLIE WEAVER: Does this correlate with predictive programming?

TORE: Yes.

MILLIE WEAVER: The merging of John Brennan’s tactical intelligence and General Jones’s operational capabilities gave birth to ClearForce.

PATRICK BERGY: iPSY was the relational database component of it. That’s what we named it – I named it, actually and –

MILLIE WEAVER: What did you name it “iPSY” for?

PATRICK BERGY: “I” like the iPhone, “PSY” for psychological warfare.

MILLIE WEAVER: Okay.

PATRICK BERGY: You have the component where you need to be able to collect all this information and then you need to be able to collaborate this information with a team of an unspecified amount of analysts and/or other legal people that will be looking at stuff and you need to be able to provide the leadership of a tactical operation; you need to be able to provide them what’s called a “COP”, a Common Operational Picture, right?

So, this provides people at the top Common Operational Picture of all the different assets. Assets can be journalists, it could be an entire news organization, it could be a podcast, it could be just an individual YouTube influencer.

It could be anybody like that and you would either build them from scratch or contract them out, just bring them online.

MILLIE WEAVER: According to Bergy, the 2012 changes to the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 opened the floodgates for domestic IIA: Social media Influence Operations.

Do you think that some of these smart devices were created in order to gain access to the public by the military-industrial complex?

PATRICK BERGY: I know that the iPhone really was released within this – if not the same month of the IIA policy letter, right. I know for a fact – and you can easily look it up – that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act was modified to allow for the influence, dissemination of propaganda to Americans, which had previously been restricted or prevented by the Smith-Mundt Act in the late ‘40s, when it was put in place.

When they modernized that, they took away those protections, allowing it to adapt for social media. And then, within a few months or just a very short period of time, they came out with the Obamaphone

[VIDEO]

[FOXNEWS BROADCAST]: Free cell phones to low income families. Tracfone has just started a program here, in the Volunteer State called SafeLink Wireless. More than 800,000 families here in Tennessee qualify for these phones. The company says this program is about providing a safe link for families no matter what their level of income is.

PATRICK BERGY: A very short time after that, they added free unlimited data plans to them.

MILLIE WEAVER: He also suggested that the contiguous release of the Obamaphone with an unlimited data plan played a significant role in fostering the Ferguson Riots, using IIA.

So why do you think they were targeting them for collection purpose?

PATRICK BERGY: We know – think of what you could do, right? Think of how easily you could start a riot in Cleveland, if you had the data? Oh, my goodness.

MILLIE WEAVER: So, you could gather that information and know how to psychologically-target them to get them upset or do you think that they were pushing information to them, tailoring their viewpoint on social media?

PATRICK BERGY: I would. And like I said, I didn’t really actually finish this, earlier but I originally, in 2014, I recognized the Black Lives Matter movement during the Michael Brown riots as being influenced by IIA.

The colleague of mine in South Korea did a trace route on it; trace routed the source of what I believe to have been IIA to Ukraine. That’s funny, right? Because Ukraine just always keeps popping up and whether or not it was actually the Shadownet, itself, or it was a competitor, like McChrystal…

What they accused McChrystal of having is the exact same thing as what we built before him. Maybe it was a competitor. Who knows? It’s becoming really a boutique market.

MILLIE WEAVER: Do you think that many of these social media companies like Twitter, Facebook, that they were created with IIA operations in mind and it was never intended to be a Free Speech platform? What’s your take on that?

PATRICK BERGY: In our Shadownet flyer, it has a screenshot of a South American social network site that was kind of like the predecessor for MySpace, owned by Google and I believe the name was Orkut.

You can actually look on our flyer and see a screenshot from that, which looks like an active engagement from South America. Now, if you look up what happened to Orkut, what was really Google’s first attempt, pre-MySpace, you’ll see that it was largely shutdown and largely contributed to an overwhelming use of fake personas. What was one of the reasons that they attributed to MySpace shutting down last year? Rampant fake personas.

At the same time I’m developing these flyers for a company that doesn’t have a sales staff – they only have a product – at the same time I’m doing that, our number one partner for a company that doesn’t have a product – that has only sales people – are working John McCain’s campaign, doing micro-targeted social media for John McCain’s campaign.

MILLIE WEAVER: You were speaking on news pundits and how many of the news pundits are IIA assets and intelligence assets. So tell us more about that.

PATRICK BERGY: Mika Brzezinski, her father is the father of influence operations and psychological warfare.

[VIDEO]

[TODAY SHOW BROADCAST]: A towering figure in American foreign policy, an extended member of the NBC news family, as well, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor…

PATRICK BERGY: Jillian Turner, Fox News host was also Vice President of Jones Group International, doing an interview with her old boss – and my old boss – now, why would I assume that they would be using anything other than the Shadownet, because the owner of the Shadownet has so many key assets. Why would he need to go to anybody else, right?

So they get their talking points from the analysts that are putting it together but then they disseminate those talking points, through non-attribution to their assets, throughout these news organizations, utilizing an application like the Shadownet.

Jillian Turner has a direct connection to Atlantic Council. General Jones was the Chairman of the Board of the Atlantic Council, JGI: Jones Group International is an oil lobby. Atlantic Council and Burisma has a relationship. Burisma is an energy company. Obviously, they have these connections.

MILLIE WEAVER: This would explain why Fox News focuses mostly on the Biden- Ukraine scandal, never mentioning Jones’s connections nor the Atlantic Council.

Trump focusing on Ukraine isn’t just about Biden. It’s about Jones, Hayden, Brennan, McChrystal, the State Department, USAID and corrupt inspector generals.

With everything in place and after being in control of the office of the presidency for decades, the Military-Industrial Complex had confidence they could take Trump out as a candidate, or even as President.

Has IIA been used against President Trump?

PATRICK BERGY: Absolutely. Through the Russian Dossier, there are so many people, former colleagues of mine, directly connected to the Shadownet.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham. One of the last two people to have their hands on the Russian Dossier before it was handed off to BuzzFeed, as part of the dissemination process.

[VIDEO]

[CNN BROADCAST: GRAHAM DEFENDS MCCAIN OVER STEELE DOSSIER] DON

LEMON: I told the President it was not John McCain. I know, because John McCain showed me the dossier.

PATRICK BERGY: It was built, it was a product, it was used as a weapon, as part of an influence operation. It was fake information put into it to help create chaos and to influence an election, bottom line.

But those people that were directly involved with that were also directly involved with the Shadownet.

MILLIE WEAVER: So, you have knowledge of them using military-grade psychological warfare weapons on the President of the United States.

TORE: Done by the closest people around him, too.

PATRICK BERGY: As Trump’s election unfolded, and as all of the Russia Collusion and all these things started happening and becoming exposed, revealed to me it was to keep from exposing the stuff they’ve been doing over here, which I believe includes the Maidan Massacre in Ukraine.

TORE: Where did the Dossier come from? Nelly Ohr testified it came from Ukraine. Where’s all the money-laundering and crazy IIAs we see going on? Ukraine.

PATRICK BERGY: So Manafort’s being accused of social media influence operations in Ukraine, in 2010. World courts charged him with that.

TORE: Ukraine was the epicenter of everything – like, everything – and that’s because we had maimed that nation and made them deal to us. Barack Hussein Obama did it.

We deployed troops, National Guard, of course – and what states are the ones that work with Ukraine? it would be California and New York.

So, we deployed troops there, because they weren’t listening. Why would you want to stay independent and hang out with the Russians, when you can be with us, the Americans and the Europeans?

And they were really upset that they weren’t willing to commit to receive debt from the EU and ignore Russia, which they had been attached to for eons.

So, we went in there and destroyed them. That’s how Hunter Biden got his job. That’s how we weaseled our way in there. We got a hold of corrupt people, we said, “We’ll help you out with your lawsuits, you get us in there.” We wrote bills, we sent the money, so we can “help” them conduct elections. We did everything there.

MILLIE WEAVER: The Obama aid package in Ukraine, which corresponds with Joe Biden’s billion- dollar loan guarantee scandal is the same aid package, where Scytl got a field office in Kiev to provide “election training” and “election management” for the Ukrainian Election Commission.

Scytl is one of the most notorious outsourced companies for elections, with regular electronic voting machine problems, who also tabulate our election results in cloud services in Europe – aka, servers outside the United States.

A whistleblower leaked to me in 2019, internal documents from Scytl that appeared to show meddling in the Kentucky election.

PATRICK BERGY: Atlantic Council has been deciding America’s policies for decades now – and look at what a panic they were in when Trump made that phone call to Ukraine!

They went into absolute panic mode! 75% of the people testifying were all directly connected to General Jones, McCain and Atlantic Council.

TORE: The now-IG of the NSA, literally with his wife, created the National Anti- Corruption Bureau in the Ukraine in 2009. They created it.

[VIDEO]

[UKRAINIAN BROADCAST]: Robert Storch is the Deputy Head of the US Inspector General’s Office.

ROBERT STORCH: I recognize how important this task is for NABU and for the effort to address corruption there, in Ukraine.

MILLIE WEAVER: September 30th, 2016, Obama knows that within 30 days, if the NSA can’t fix the over-collection problem, by either dumping data or justifying having it, the FISA Court will order the IG of the NSA to investigate.

So what does Obama do? He writes an Executive Order that makes the IG of the NSA a Presidential Appointment, rather than an appointment by the Director of the NSA.

November 30th, 2016, Obama nominates Robert Storch, who was working as Deputy IG of the DOJ under Horowitz, at the same time.

[VIDEO]

[OFFICIAL VIDEOS OF BOTH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND NSA PLAYING SIMULTANEOUSLY] ROBERT STORCH: I’m Rob Storch and I’m

honored  to   serve  as  the   Inspector  General               at   the     Department           of

Justice/National Security Agency.

MILLIE WEAVER: During the transition period from the Obama Administration into the Trump Administration.

Storch appears to never have actually been confirmed by the Trump Administration.

TORE: How did this guy get confirmed? Not one person asked, “Hey, have you ever worked for – ?” I mean, a couple months before they even had the hearing, to see if he’s going to be confirmed or not? Nobody asked him, “Hey, did you, by any chance get an offer from the President of Ukraine to work for them?” It was all over the media – but not one person asked!

You know who else helped them set it up? Bill Taylor and George Kent. Those two clowns also testified against the President. One of them has supersonic hearing; they could hear phones that are not on speakerphone from across the room.

MILLIE WEAVER: That’s odd!

According to TORE, the alleged impeachment whistleblower was actually a wiretap, hence “supersonic hearing capabilities”.

Eric Ciaramella was a decoy to hide the fact that the President was being wiretapped, through a 702 data over-collection problem connected to the sunset clause. A collection problem that the NSA Inspector General, Robert Storch oversaw.

TORE: The question is, what has been the Senate Intelligence Committee all complacent, every single one of them? Because it’s their job to be our voice and ask those questions? It’s because they’re in on it.

MILLIE WEAVER: So, I the question is, are they all just that inept or is there something else going on?

Section 702 of the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 was created to stop illegal surveillance through data collection. It ends up being used as cover, providing the intelligence agencies front-facing legal access to unauthorized data, while turning a blind eye to private contractors having backdoor access to all data.

TORE: I had access, through the administrative side platform, because I was one of the first on it, to be able to see all communications between people, like Adam Schiff, Brennan, Feinstein’s staffers and General Jones – and many more that I don’t want to say, because I haven’t publicized that, yet, actually. Because there’s foreign people that I did see communications of – former GCHQ’s Hannigan.

Robert Hannigan was part of the company at GSG. So I gave most of this information to Millie Weaver and she put out a report and even though I had legal access to all their communications, because I had my username and password, the minute she did that report, within just – I believe, almost instantaneously, the website was taken down and my access was revoked. They changed it – well, it wasn’t revoked – they just uphauled the whole server. It was done, it was finished. They made it toast. I mean, that’s what they do.

But nothing ever really dies, really because the way they use their servers is by torrents, so all their information is hidden somewhere across the planet. Maybe we should look at some old articles that I put out on “Hurricane Electric” to find those servers and those little bits and seed them correctly.

So, you’d be able to seed it with something like Keystone.

MILLIE WEAVER: I want to ask you about John Brennan and the blackmail. So, who all did he have blackmail collected on? Any politicians?

TORE: You mean, that I’ve seen?

MILLIE WEAVER: Yes.

TORE: A lot of people, yes. MILLIE WEAVER: And politicians? TORE: Yes.

MILLIE WEAVER: So, would you say there’s any side – more Democrats or more Republican – or is it kind of even?

TORE: Very even-steven.

MILLIE WEAVER: Okay, so once this blackmail was collected on politicians, what did they do with it?

TORE: Even Pelosi doesn’t know what they have on her. Neither does Blumenthal. Mobody. I can keep going down –

MILLIE WEAVER: But do they know that these people have blackmail on them?

TORE: Only if they’ve butted heads.

MILLIE WEAVER: Okay.

TORE: So, we saw a butting of heads between Murkowski, was it and Feinstein, right? That’s a butting of heads. That’s where it’s like, “Hey, we got this.” You know, where she put her up against the wall? Happens all the time.

MILLIE WEAVER: Now you know how our government has been compromised: 24/7 surveillance mixed with blackmail.

What’s the significance of Cambridge Analytica being attached to Trump’s campaign?

PATRICK BERGY: Everything that I saw, with the description of how Cambridge Analytica functioned; what they did, their app, the computer applications, everything that I saw with that, I would describe as just a later iteration of the Shadownet.

MILLIE WEAVER: Was Cambridge Analytica, to your knowledge an IIA operation?

TORE: Yes, it was and I believe that it was so blatant, because it was piloted at the same time that the RNC and the DNC were hacked. It was all formulated correctly.

[VIDEO]

[THE GREAT HACK, NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY] MALE CHARACTER: I have said

to you, it’s all coming out!

BRITTANY KAISER: I didn’t inspire Hillary’s emails and I have nothing to do with Russia. So yes, the fact is, it looks like I did both. If I wasn’t me, I would say, “Yes, that’s what it looks like!”

I was part of the team running Obama’s Facebook. We invented the way social media is used to communicate with voters.

TORE: This is how they were going to do it. They were supposed to go in, they were supposed to sway him, because they were supposed to give up the goods to match the Russia hack.

MILLIE WEAVER: Why would they be running an IIA operation that would be helping Trump win, because that doesn’t make sense, when we know that General Jones is a Democrat and many of these people don’t like Trump. So what gives?

TORE: Well, because then, we just make it look like Russia was running the Cambridge Analytica program, too.

[VIDEO]

[THE GREAT HACK, NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY] BRITTANY KAISER: And it

admits to it, right here.

I am headed to Washington, DC for my testimony for the Mueller Investigation. I definitely didn’t think that while we’re sitting there, counting votes, that some of those votes were made by people who had seen Fake News stories, paid for by Russia on their Facebook page.

TORE: So, not only did they hack the DNC and the RNC – but nobody talks about that, right – because we’re only supposed to focus that Russia was hacking just the DNC, not the RNC – we keep forgetting about that, because it was just information Brennan was getting. They wanted to get access to servers. That’s the way it goes.

Anyway, Cambridge Analytica, at the same time, would be supposedly helping President Trump win and the Russia Collusion Hoax would have stuck better, because behind all those LLCs and the glitz and glamour, they would have had some statue of Vladimir Putin in a tutu waiting for you.

[VIDEO]

[THE GREAT HACK, NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY] BRITTANY KAISER: Yeah, I

worked at Cambridge Analytica while they had Facebook datasets, went to Russia one time while I worked for Cambridge, I visited Julian Assange while I worked for Cambridge, pitched the Trump campaign and wrote the first contract.

I have an email from one of our senior data scientists that said that we were actually using Facebook-like data in our model. The methodology was considered a weapon; weapons-grade communications tactics.

“Well done, Britt looked quite tough and you did okay with a winky face, little emoji.

[VIDEO]

[MSNBC BROADCAST] RACHEL MADDOW: We found out that Cambridge Analytica reached out to WikiLeaks and said, “Hey, can we help?” What that means is we’ve got a Russian intelligence operation underway to illegally influence the US election in Trump’s favor and we’ve got the data firm paid by the Trump campaign offering operational help to that effort.

[VIDEO]

[ABC BROADCAST] GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Are there any ties between Mr. Trump, you or your campaign and Putin and his regime?

PAUL MANAFORT: No, there are not. It’s absurd and you know, there’s no base to it.

MILLIE WEAVER: Cambridge Analytica was used to create the appearance that Russia conducted influence operations to help Trump win the 2016 election.

PATRICK BERGY: Stone, Manafort, Davis, McCain, Jones, all of these people have been doing this for, to my knowledge, a decade of my personal, fact-witness knowledge. They’d been doing this for a decade prior to Trump even running for office.

I met with Roger Stone. We were at his table at a speaking engagement that he did in Clearwater, Florida and I asked Roger Stone at that time, “Did you work with, do you know Jim Jones? Did you work with Dynology?” and he acknowledged his relationship and he said, “Yeah, sure.”

I asked him flat-out, I said, “Did you use the Shadownet? Did you know about it?” He’s like, “No.”

MILLIE WEAVER: Stone leaving the Trump campaign early on suggests candidate Trump didn’t want his campaign tied to Stone’s influence operations.

[VIDEO]

[THE GREAT HACK, NETFLIX DOCUMENTARY] ROGER STONE: We really

pioneered negative campaign advertising.

MILLIE WEAVER: Stone does have a reputation for political dirty tricks and influence operations

ROGER STONE: I revel in your hatred because if I weren’t effective, you wouldn’t hate me.

TORE: Manafort and Roger Stone go way back, like from the ‘80s. Come on, these people have been through everything together and this is why they targeted them and this is why they went on Manafort for things that were, like ancient. it’s like, Man, not even a statute of limitations, not anything. Come on, Man. Seriously? Nope.

PATRICK BERGY: PSYGroup and WikiStrats, absolutely connected to the Shadownet, through the owners of the Shadownet, through the fact that, PSYGroup, through Paul Manafort submitted a proposal to the Trump campaign. Now, Trump’s campaign rejected the proposal. I love that man, right? That’s why I keep voting for him, because even when he’s given the opportunity to do that, he rejected it.

MILLIE WEAVER: The Trump campaign must have known the Dems would try to use anything against them. Trump must have sensed that the offer for influence operations was a honey trap to set him up.

Well, do you think that the reason they attached Manafort to Trump’s campaign

– because that was kind of later, right – attached them onto there. Do you think it’s because they were trying to frame up trump?

TORE: Yes, because they failed with their IIA attempt.

PATRICK BERGY: Yeah, I definitely would say that Manafort was an asset, whether or not he fully understood what his role was, you know. They might have lied to him about what their true intentions were. I believe they fully intended to throw him under the bus.

Because two things had to happen. They could not let Hillary win and they could not let Trump keep his seat, right? So, they were trying to kill two birds with one stone, using Manafort to make sure that Hillary doesn’t win, through IIA, through WikiStrat, through his connections, there.

And then those same people, turning around throwing him under the bus, by somebody who had previously worked with Manafort and understood what he had been doing and what he was doing and used that to exploit him, as a way to hurt Trump.

TORE: Since their whole attempt to have him employ a company to help him win and use these psychological operations that the Left was using, I mean, “They’re doing it, we should do it!” – and he didn’t.

PATRICK BERGY: And that’s in the Mueller Report. That’s in The New York Times. There are several instances, where he’s rejected the opportunity to take advantage of influence operations, be it IIA-supported or just your standard run- of-the-mill influence operations, right? They’ve rejected that

TORE: And the thing is, people like Roger Stone aren’t saints but they’re not demons, either. They skirt the outs and they’re great at what they do and you know, you either love him or not. It’s like Brie cheese.

But the one thing that you can be sure of is that he sticks to his principles and if he’s your friend – especially if he’s been your friend for 40 years, like he was with president Trump – there’s no way he’s going to flip on you to save his butt, ever. Because that’s what honest people do

MILLIE WEAVER: Yeah, he seems to know how the games in the swamp are played.

TORE: Oh yeah.

MILLIE WEAVER: So, I mean, he knows how they operate.

TORE: He was actually framed by people that he worked with. I mean, that software was created by his friend that created the MagicWheel software – implemented Shadownet for the courts – so they can randomly have such specified – out of millions of people that were in the [jury] pool, they were all intelligence contractors and Never-Trumpers. Come on!

MILLIE WEAVER: So, why wouldn’t they just focus their efforts on running IIA operations to get Hillary in office?

TORE: Oh, they did! Are you kidding? They deployed everything, from censoring, shadow-banning, to dismissals to full-blown Mockingbirds. I mean, that’s where we saw the real face of the press. That is exactly where we saw it.

[VIDEO]

[PRISON PLANET BROADCAST OF CLINTON RALLY] HILLARY CLINTON: I

want all of you to know that that’s true, not only for the campaign but if I am fortunate enough to be your President, I want you to know and I want you to tell anybody you know; any friends or colleagues at school or work or your neighborhood, whether you vote for me or vote against me.

TORE: The polls’ “98% chance Hillary Clinton wins?” Like, what?

MILLIE WEAVER: Those were bogus!

TORE: That was an IIA! That was hijacking reality, to think she’s already won so obviously, she’s the best. All the superstars coming out, how she’s amazing, all these concerts – and all to divert you away from the fact that she couldn’t walk, talk, climb stairs, say a word without chucking-up

[VIDEO]

[ALEX JONES YOUTUBE CHANNEL] MILLIE WEAVER: Hillary Clinton is on

stage right now, as we speak and she is coughing non-stop.

TORE: Did she like chuck-up a lung or something that one day? That was super weird

PATRICK BERGY: There is a definitely some context that needs to be understood in the relationship between General Jones, Obama and Hillary Clinton.

General Jones was originally offered by Obama the position of Secretary of State. He accepted. He talked to his family, he accepted. And then two days later, without even telling him, which was kind of a jerk move to do, Obama turned around and tapped Hillary Clinton.

And I know that Jones – Jim Jones told me that his dad was really offended by that. And then, he was offered and accepted the role the position of National Security Advisor but actually, considered turning it down, because he was so offended by and was so upset by what had happened.

MILLIE WEAVER: What would be the point of taking Hillary out of the equation, to then get Trump in, to then want to just impeach him?

PATRICK BERGY: Well, because he wasn’t their choice. These people hate Trump.

[VIDEO]

[CNN BROADCAST] LINDSEY GRAHAM: He’s a jackass.

PATRICK BERGY: We’re talking about, at the time –

MILLIE WEAVER: That would just make Pence in charge.

PATRICK BERGY: Well, do you think John McCain would have rather had Pence in charge? You think Lindsey Graham would rather have Pence? Lindsey Graham was

so frustrated with Trump, he took his phone and smashed it on YouTube, because Trump gave out his phone number. Trump drove that man crazy.

MILLIE WEAVER: Trump got in the way of the Big Game, a contest between contractors and subcontractors over who gets first dibs on defense, security and tech contracts.

[AUDIO]

[RED STATE RADIO TORE SAYS SHOW] TORE: Mueller, since I think it was August of 2016 was well aware that I had in my possessions portions of the DNC mirrored server in February and March, did you know that?

ROGER STONE: No, I did not.

TORE: And when my private life was collapsing, the same exact day – not without a minute of separation – I was served by Barack Hussein Obama’s attorney, three years later to come and talk about it. Did you know that?

ROGER STONE: I did not know that, either.

TORE: They went as hard as they could. Stone, the same thing. They went with nothing, look, Mueller called him in for these emails and talking about WikiLeaks

– when I had actual portions of the DNC server, like even Mueller knew I had it.

PATRICK BERGY: Why did Mueller never call me back? When I went to him and told him about all this information and spoke to him for 15 minutes? Every one of these people are so corrupt. It’s not even funny.

TORE: The Swamp already knew, in August of 2016 that the information was compromised by people and they knew what type of people had accessed that information but they didn’t know who.

PATRICK BERGY: Some people will say, “Well, maybe they’re investigating.” Well, how can you investigate it, if you don’t ever call me back? And you don’t ever

really – because, there’s a lot of things that I need to be able to explain to them that I can’t say, outside of a classified environment.

So if they are investigating it, they certainly aren’t doing it with all the information.

TORE: Stop, stop, stop. We all know it was a fix!

MILLIE WEAVER: Did the DOJ outsource the Mueller Investigation to CGI?

TORE: Well, yes they did. So, I’ll tell you what happened. I actually, for my listeners on air, I interviewed former Acting Attorney General Whitaker.

[AUDIO]

[RED STATE RADIO TORE SAYS SHOW] TORE: I want to ask you something. You were Chief of Staff for Jeff Sessions, so there’s obviously contracts that are signed, like you know how you hire vendors?

I wanted to know why, during the Mueller probe, we spent over $40 million in waste management to a Canadian company that works with Canadian intelligence? Sounds like paper shredding.

FORMER ACTING AG MATTHEW WHITAKER: Yeah, this is the thing, we need watchdogs and something I did before I came to Washington, DC was run a watchdog group that asked these types of questions and to make sure that that there’s not waste, fraud, abuse.

TORE: So, why is our Department of Justice outsourcing to Canadian intelligence companies access to the Mueller Investigation?

MILLIE WEAVER: That definitely seems improper. Now, this Canadian company, how much were they paying? And were they paying them with tax dollars?

TORE: We have to ask ourselves why would we use federal tax dollars and upwards of $40 million to have them do paper shredding for Mueller and administrative tasks and emptying garbage cans? That sounds like a leaking opportunity! That sounds like, why are we getting foreign nationals involved in an investigation, that we’re supposedly investigating the President – the sitting President of the United States?

MILLIE WEAVER: From CGI’s involvement in the passport fiasco in 2008 to CGI involved in the Mueller Investigation we see how contractors have the ability to both perform and clean up their own dirty work.

TORE: I think it’s about time people understand what happened and I made it no secret that I know what happened.

So, Seth Rich worked for the DNC. He was asked, just like I, he was asked, “Hey, why don’t you go image the DNC server, right there, since you’re there for us, so we can keep it safe.” And he did so.

And he uploaded it where he was told. So, he uploaded it where he was supposed to. And there were a lot of “mes” that saw it, “mes” meaning a group of friends that I have, where we sit and talk String Theory and Predictive Analytics on the Undernet.

So, we find this and it’s like, “Whoa! Treasure trove!” Copied. And we fractioned it, so that way we can download it, because it was so massive. And that’s what happened.

So I’ll tell you what happened to Seth Rich. So, he did his job, as he was asked at the same time the RNC was also hacked. Again, Brennan’s MO. “Let’s hack!” And the hack was done on purpose, so you can delete information, insert information and of course, with them putting Cambridge Analytica and sending them over to President Trump – which was a trap, okay – that was a trap um you clearly can see.

They hacked the RNC – you mean, you had someone within the GOP do it for you, because no one died there. And yes, some of those emails escaped, because that is what was considered “mitigation”. You have to give them something really bad.

And so, when he saw that they had retroactively changed things; the stories and the rumors going in, seeing the Bernie Sanders elections were being stolen, the DNC was all about Hillary, not about real elections, that it was all rigged, he came in contact with a guy named Sean Lucas.

[VIDEO]

[OAN BROADCAST] SEAN LUCAS: We did make contact with somebody from the democratic national committee’s office and they’ve been served. Democracy has prevailed today.

TORE: So, they decided, oh yeah, maybe we can get it out to someone else. And it was not to Julian Assange, direct. And both of those guys are dead.

[VIDEO]

[OAN BROADCAST]: But in a bizarre twist of events on August 2nd less than one month after serving the subpoena, Lucas was reported dead.

TORE: Hillary’s emails were still being examined. They had to get rid of the evidence. And the only way that they can access the whole DNC server is if there was a breach and that’s how you can go in and change things.

This is why the FBI never asked for the server. That’s the real story. So, as Seth Rich thought, that what he was doing was correct, later on, he realized it was not. That’s why there was such a big gap. They didn’t need to find him, they needed to find out who had it and they already knew that I, myself had portions of the DNC server and others, in March and February.

Obama’s lawyer, for Seth Rich, three years later says, “You need to come and tell us about Seth Rich.”

I was like, “I don’t need to do anything. I don’t know who you’re trying to -” “You’re being subpoenaed!”

“I can’t bring you anything because you’re three years too late.”

And for the record, usually, they’re going to be three minutes too late. You know, Hillary doesn’t have a patent on hammers or city dumps or Bleach Bit or, or, or…

MILLIE WEAVER: Didn’t CrowdStrike initially investigate the DNC server, creating the whole “Russia hacked the election” scenario?

[VIDEO]

[CNN BROADCAST. “TRUMP SLAMS ‘RIDICULOUS US INTEL ON RUSSIAN

HACKING’”] DMITRI ALPEROVITCH: When the DNC hired us back in May, we actually came in and deployed our technology, called Falcon on all the systems inside that corporate network.

WOLF BLITZER: Who were these people that were actually doing the hacking of the DNC?

DMITRI ALPEROVITCH: There were two groups; two independently-working groups that we associate with Russian intelligence agencies. One of them was associated with GRU, the primary military intelligence agency in Russia.

PATRICK BERGY: CrowdStrike, owned by that Alperovitch guy, who is a Senior Advisor on the Atlantic Council!

When President Trump called up the Ukrainian President, what did he ask him for? The CrowdStrike servers, right? Again, all immediate, direct colleagues, like the brown bag lunch at this big star chamber that you can imagine existing there!

[VIDEO]

[DR. STRANGELOVE (1964)] PETER SELLERS: I’m sorry, Mr. President.

PATRICK BERGY: They’re all there! What can we do? Orange Man Bad! What are the statistical odds, of that Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon existing on virtually everybody connected to the Russian Dossier and the impeachment? The only other person that directly connected to both of them is President Trump – and he’s on the receiving end of it!

But yet you never hear this man’s name.

TORE: General Jones. That’s the guy that heads up ClearForce. That’s the guy that took Shadownet and made it what it is. That’s the guy that resold, reinvented Shadownet, to create the MagicWheel at the DC courts, to make sure that they get the most compromised juries put together for anyone that they didn’t want.

PATRICK BERGY: When General Jones was tapped as the Chairman of the Board of the Atlantic Council to replace Jon Huntsman, one of the first orders of business that he did with the Atlantic Council was to create a partnership with Facebook.

That happened a month after Mark Zuckerberg sat in front of Congress.

[VIDEO]

[C-SPAN BROADCAST OF SENATE JUDICIARY & COMMERCE COMMITTEES

JOINT HEARING] MARK ZUCKERBERG: I mean, they did not want their information to be sold to Cambridge Analytica by a developer and that happened. And it happened on our watch. So even though we didn’t do it, I think we have a responsibility to be able to prevent that and be able to take action sooner.

PATRICK BERGY: So, a month after they do that, Facebook partners with General Jones at the Atlantic Council to “restore election integrity worldwide”, right? So,

the best out of 7 billion people on the planet, Mark Zuckerberg picks the owner of the Shadownet.

[VIDEO]

[UNKNOWN BROADCAST]: President Donald Trump and Mike Pence both ran ads on Facebook that included a symbol of an upside down red triangle. Facebook today removed the ads.

[CBS THIS MORNING BROADCAST]: Facebook has taken action against what it calls “harmful misinformation” from President Trump. The company deleted a post by the President that included a false statement.

PATRICK BERGY: To “restore election integrity worldwide”. We all know that he was connected – directly-connected – to Cambridge Analytica, through PSYGroup and WikiStrat. So, essentially, what they did was they partnered with Cambridge Analytica, again.

MILLIE WEAVER: This also explains why Facebook went to Atlantic Council, aka Jones to fix the Cambridge Analytica problem. They needed to cover their IIA tracks.

What you’ve seen, with the recent riots surrounding George Floyd’s death, from your perspective, does that look like an IIA operation?

PATRICK BERGY: Absolutely. Nothing feels natural about what’s going on. More stuff is fake and fabricated, right now in the news than what’s actually real. When I say fake or fabricated, I mean like you have the truth and it’s being represented to you with a very specific slant. It’s so far beyond Russia spending some money on some Facebook ads, right? If you believe that, then they’ve already won.

TORE: So, that’s how it works.

MILLIE WEAVER: It’s like the movie, ‘Wag the Dog’, quite literally.

TORE: Well, you know, movies tell a lot of stories and it’s almost as if they’re making fun of us.

MILLIE WEAVER: They made fun of Alex Jones when he used to point out all these False Flags. I mean, I guess that’s just a term he was using, but if you actually look, what he was pointing out in a lot of instances was IIA operations.

[VIDEO]

[BBC BROADCAST ON 9/11. REPORTER DESCRIBES WTC 7 COLLAPSE 23

MINS BEFORE IT HAPPENED] MALE ANCHOR: Jane, what more can you tell us about the Salomon Brothers building and its collapse?

JANE: As you can see behind me, the Trade Center appears to be still burning we are getting information now that one of the other buildings, Building 7 in the World Trade Center complex is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing.

TORE: Well, but he didn’t know the term IIA, so it would be easier for people to understand someone’s “hacking your reality”, because now, in this day and age of computing, that makes more sense to people. They understand it more. “Oh, ‘hack my reality’! You mean, change the way I see things?”

And that is exactly what an IIA is. It’s just that it’s software churning out, “Oh, you need to do this, to get this outcome,” Kind of like using that Shadownet in the DC courts and saying, “Oh, Prosecutor, you want him to go to jail and you want a guilty verdict? Well, we’re going to have to pool it out. And then, when a pool of jury people come, all of them are potential to give you a guilty verdict.

So then, you pick from all the people that will give you a guilty verdict, so there’s no chance that you’ll win – and even Matt Whitaker said that on my on my show. He said the judges are corrupt.

MILLIE WEAVER: That’s a major problem for the justice system, if people are able to use that technology in jury selection to be able to predict who’s gonna you know throw their vote a certain way

TORE: Is anyone stopping them?

MILLIE WEAVER: That’s a major problem right there.

TORE: It is and roger stone with this commutation will solve it because this is where it all comes to the surface.

[AUDIO]

[RED STATE RADIO ‘TORE SAYS’ SHOW APRIL 22, 2020] TORE: How do you

think your jury pool was selected?

ROGER STONE: Well obviously, I don’t know. I do know that, based on the statistics on the District of Columbia, that is that the statistical improbability of my jury having a single Republican should be impossible. The statistical impossibility of my jury having a single military veteran should be impossible. The statistical possibility of my jury having no jurors with less than a college education is impossible. But that was the case.

TORE: Well, what if I told you, Roger that your jury was actually selected. The jury pooled the grander jury pool right before the voidier, they say where you select and approve and deny – the majority of it was actually plugged into a program – but see this program wanted to select a jury pool that would get you a guilty verdict, no matter what.

Hence the odds, like you say are so far-fetched. So the question is, who was the company who was the vendor that was used to select your greater pool for the jury? And if your lawyer was to able to able to find that or ask that question, I would not be surprised if you see the name General Hayden pop up.

ROGER STONE: I do think it might strengthen the possibility of my appeal it, should that become necessary. I will never plead guilty to something I didn’t do. It’s a matter that does require some research and I appreciate you bringing it up.

MILLIE WEAVER: It’s amazing. It’s like ‘Minority Report’ in real time, today.

PATRICK BERGY: ClearForce is what they built. It’s the next iteration of the Shadownet. They took the cycle, they took the profile, personas and profile capabilities, they added real-time criminal background, travel, financial, medical, added all these things in, to create predictive behavioral profiles that determine whether or not you’re likely to steal or leak.

ClearForce actually sells this to HR, right? So, you could actually go into a job, apply for it, not get the job, because an application with an algorithm designed by Obama’s National Security Advisor and/or Obama’s CIA Director determined that you were predictively likely to steal or leak, in some ‘Minority Report’-like fashion – and you may never, ever steal or leak but you might lose a job, because something read all your posts and looked at your information and determined it.

KORE: Think about it. If people knew just how bad it is. Think about how many things he’s changing and how much money they’re taking. I mean, think of all the money they’re going to lose in contracting. He’s stopped the clearances.

Remember, “once you’re out now we pull your clearance”? He did that. Remember? So now, all the future generals or all the future intelligence community persons don’t get to use their clearance. If you’re out, it’s finished.

PATRICK BERGY: You guys were paying me, as taxpayers were paying me, as the Information Assurance Security Officer, to protect our National Security. So y’all should want to get to the bottom of this as much as anybody, as much as I do.

But it’s very personal to me, I won’t deny that.

TORE: When you have your [Joint Chiefs of Staff – General Dunford?] trying to usurp your president by penning in an anonymous letter to the New York Times, that’s a big problem.

MILLIE WEAVER: This is the biggest and boldest move towards the ultimate surveillance state ever made and it’s near completion.

Micromanaging this technology on a global scale would require integrating it with Artificial Intelligence. Imagine Artificial Intelligence autonomously operating the Shadownet and ClearForce.

Interpol’s 2019 publication, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for Law Enforcement’ reveals we are already there:

“Although films such as ‘Minority Report’ and ‘Robocop’ may not present the most attractive depiction of the future of advanced technologies in law enforcement, understanding how these technologies can be applied by law enforcement agencies for the safety and security of our global community is of critical importance.

[VIDEO]

[NBC BROADCAST OF POLICE DRONE]: Keep a safe distance of six feet from others.

MILLIE WEAVER: Short from a major PR rollout, there is an international push for autonomous law enforcement to remove the human factor. Several features of the Interpol program indicate that they are using an iteration of Shadownet and ClearForce technology. This March 2017 United States Patent issued to Jim Jones III and ClearForce spells it out:

“Systems and methods for electronically monitoring humans to determine potential risk.” Several diagrams in this patent look identical to the dashboard layout of the Shadownet the patent mentions integration with US and international databases, local law enforcement and individual state databases, all

fed into international justice and public safety networks. Full integration of all data including the Internet of Things is the objective.

A March 2020 Atlantic Council policy primer, ‘AI, Society and Governance’ references the 2019 Interpol publication, stating “The United Nations Inter- Regional Crime and Justice Research Institute and the International Criminal Police Organization are leading the conversation on autonomous patrol robots, tracking and tracing systems, forecasting tools predictive policing and more.”

The next iteration of the Shadownet and ClearForce is ready to go. Integration with AI robots and the replacement of traditional law enforcement is just around the corner. Given that Leftist organizations managed by Momentum, which is behind the “Defund the Police” movement and given that Momentum has been connected to IIA operations, the case can be made that Jones & CO. are running the “Defund the Police” influence operation, simply because they are in a position to benefit, by offering an alternative solution that is already in line with the Green New Deal agenda.

We’ve already seen some of this rolled out, with the technocratic response to COVID19, with autonomous drones, contact tracing apps, nanotech vaccines and predictive modeling for social distancing and economic shutdowns.

Furthermore, this technology is behind the push for police abolition, defunding law enforcement and replacing it with “Smart Justice”, given we have seen IIA Shadownet technology, implemented by the Socialist Democrats and THE Sunrise Movement, who are using it to push for police abolition, this political movement is deeply connected to the UN who has partnered with Interpol to corral us into the Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for Law Enforcement direction.

07-15-2020- Meet the New Black Press

07-15-2020- Meet the New Black Press

Meet the New Black Press

How nimble, mission-driven outlets and a citizen-focused initiative are telling stories about — and for — Black communities

Tiffany Walden (left) and Morgan Elise Johnson co-founded The TRiiBE to reshape the narrative being told about Chicago's Black communities

Tiffany Walden (left) and Morgan Elise Johnson co-founded The TRiiBE to reshape the narrative being told about Chicago’s Black communities Chantal Redmond/The TRiiBE

The TMZ headline “1,000 People Attend Chicago House Party During Coronavirus Pandemic” was worrisome to Tiffany Walden, editor-in-chief of The TRiiBE, a digital outlet that aims to reshape the narrative about Black Chicago. She was already following social media comments on a viral Facebook video posted on April 25 showing a jam-packed party in a West Side Chicago residence. Like many Chicagoans stuck at home during Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s meme-worthy lockdown order, Walden had questions.

So did traditional media outlets that followed up on the TMZ release.

The Chicago Tribune was interested in what Illinois Governor Pritzker had to say. An April 26 headline read: “Video of crowded party said to be in Chicago prompts Gov. Pritzker to warn social distance violators: ‘You’re putting everyone around you in danger.’”

An April 27 NBC 5 online story was labeled “WEST SIDE: Homeowner Cited After Massive Party Held at Residence on Chicago’s West Side, Police Say.” The broadcast reported on a “party house crackdown.”

The Chicago Sun-Times April 29 headline read: “Party shut down by cops was held in townhome owned by CFD commander,” referring to the Chicago Fire Department.

“I had this feeling that TMZ was doing this very sensational, stereotypical, and dangerous narrative around Black people in Chicago,” Walden says. “I had to figure out what was going on because I know there aren’t many homes in Chicago where a thousand people can fit in them.”

Related Reading

Timeline: Milestones of the Black Press in the U.S.

Making Black Lives Matter in the News

By Susan Smith Richardson

Walden, who is Black, grew up in a low-income area of the city’s West Side. Even within the Black community, “West Side” is code for a certain kind of Black experience — low-income — when compared with the middle-class Black experience of people living on, say, Chicago’s South Side, according to Walden.

Walden reached out to freelance writer Vee L. Harrison to dig into this disturbing tale of failure to social distance at a time when African Americans nationally were suffering disproportionately from the coronavirus. The TRiiBE would do one thing none of the other outlets would initially do: Talk to someone who was there.

While traditional media outlets pointed fingers at the Black partygoers, Harrison talked to the woman, Tink Purcell, a mother of two, who made the video. She found out that the partygoers were memorializing friends who had died as a result of gun violence in 2018. The “aha” moment of the story was when Purcell and others said they did not perceive the coronavirus to be as dangerous as it is. The story quotes MTV host Dometi Pongo saying news media weren’t connecting with young, Black Chicagoans.

houseparty screenshot

Though many outlets reported on a giant house party that happened on Chicago’s West Side during the coronavirus pandemic, The TRiiBE was initially the only one to talk to people who were actually there Tink Purcell Facebook via TMZ

Walden says punitive coverage didn’t take into account that many of these partygoers live in low-income neighborhoods with few resources to make staying at home bearable. They may live in areas with limited internet access or in homes where staying in the house for an indeterminate amount of time may not be safe for everyone. The TRiiBE also connected this experience with underlying issues that may have informed the partygoers’ attitudes. The story quoted Black state representative La Shawn K. Ford, who is from that side of town and evoked police brutality, gun violence, and poor schools as some of the reasons it might be difficult to connect with parts of the Black community.

The TRiiBE’s headline reflected these insights: “A West Side house party exposes the disconnect between young Black Chicago residents, Chicago officials, and the news during the Covid-19 pandemic.”

As part of what might be described as “the new Black press”— outlets that advocate for and culturally represent Black people but are not necessarily Black-owned, are largely digital, nimble, and take an expansive view of who and what constitutes journalism — The TRiiBE was well-positioned to display an empathetic understanding of the community it covers. The racialized economic and health disparities that emerged during the coronavirus pandemic and the outrage that followed the killings of Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, and Rayshard Brooks underscore fresh opportunities for the cultural nuance and campaigning coverage the Black press has always offered.

Newsrooms, too, cannot escape the racial tension — and exhaustion — of this cultural inflection point. Blacks in salaried positions comprise 7% of newsrooms that answered the 2019 American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) survey, compared with whites, who occupy 78% of those jobs; Hispanics hold 7% and Asians 5% of salaried newsroom positions. The ASNE survey showed that 80% of newsroom leaders are white, compared with 7.6% who are Black.

Resignations at The New York Times opinion section and The Philadelphia Inquirer and turmoil at The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette stand as emblems of an enduring belief among minorities in the news industry that the “objectivity” standard is merely a tool of racial bias that establishes white norms as the measure of newsworthiness. Staffers at The Washington Post circulated a petition to address the hiring, pay, promotion, and retention of Black employees, and the newspaper has created several new positions that intersect race and other topics as well as a senior leadership position, managing editor for diversity and inclusion. The Los Angeles Times also is facing complaints over the lack of Black staffers.

“News and reporting about Black communities, which is what mainstream news offers, is a lower bar than news and reporting for Black communities,” says journalist and researcher Carla Murphy, who is working on a report about the Black news ecosystem for the Center for Community Media at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY.

Outlets like The TRiiBE; theGrio, a video-centric site devoted to African-American perspectives; ZORA, a publication for women of color hosted on Medium; digital sports and culture site The Undefeated; Coronavirus News for Black Folks, a newsletter focused on the disparate impact of the pandemic on African-Americans; The Root, whose tagline is, “The Blacker the Content the Sweeter the Truth”; Outlier Media in Detroit, which leverages text messaging to drive coverage; The Plug, a news and insights platform covering the Black innovation economy; Blavity, a community for Black creativity and news; and networked journalism, which includes citizen journalists as well as trained professionals in the production of news are some of the sites and initiatives targeting Black audiences that have found their sweet spot in providing news, information, and resources for Black communities as national attention has been focused on the coronavirus and the protests following Floyd’s killing.

Of course, Black people have always found it necessary for their lived experiences to be authentically narrated through vehicles they control. That was the impetus for the 1827 founding of Freedom’s Journal by African Americans John B. Russwurm and Samuel Cornish. Born enslaved, Ida B. Wells found power and purpose as part owner and editor of the Memphis Free Speech and Headlight. (She shortened the name to Free Speech.)

For a long time, legacy Black outlets served as a corrective frame for a more authentic, nuanced Black American story. They were the go-to publications for Black representations of joy and beauty, as was the case with Ebony magazine, founded by John H. Johnson in 1945. Jet magazine, which debuted in 1951, helped catalyze the civil rights movement in 1955 when it published photos of mangled 14-year-old lynching victim Emmett Till in his casket before his funeral at Chicago’s Roberts Temple Church of God in Christ.

Currently, there are about 200 Black-owned newspapers in the U.S., according to the National Newspaper Publishers Association. A 2019 Pew Research Center chart detailing paid circulation of several Black newspapers illustrates the loss of influence among legacy outlets. Using data from the Alliance for Audited Media and Verified Audit Circulation, the chart shows The New York Amsterdam News, for example, reached 13,175 subscribers in 2006 compared with 6,786 in 2018. At its height, Jet’s weekly circulation was about 1 million; in 2016, Jet and Ebony and their online counterparts were purchased by Texas-based Clear View Group. In 2014, Jet went online exclusively with no new stories since 2019Ebony.com is a shadow of its former self, and Clear View did not respond to queries about its plans for the print version of Ebony.

The new Black press is changing the lenses of victimization and dysfunction into lenses of empower- ment and agency

At least 10 Black legacy outlets have joined the newly launched Fund for Black Journalism — Race Crisis in America, organized through the Local Media Foundation. The campaign aims to raise $2 million to create shared video, data, and investigative reporting projects and provide stipends to help local outlets enhance their reporting on race issues. Participating media organizations include New York Amsterdam News, The Atlanta Voice, Houston Defender Network, The Washington Informer, The Dallas Weekly, St. Louis American, Michigan Chronicle, The Afro, Seattle Medium, and The Sacramento Observer.

Nancy Lane, CEO of the Local Media Foundation, says the idea for the fund came from Elinor Tatum, publisher and editor-in-chief of the New York Amsterdam News. When an organizing committee talked about what better, more comprehensive, and shared coverage would look like, Lane says, the idea was, “Let’s empower Black newspapers to tell these stories and, most importantly, propose solutions. Black voices need to be heard.”

There is “still a yearning for a more complete look at the Black experience because we just don’t have that many vehicles,” says Charles Whitaker, dean of Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications. “Today, we still see African Americans through the lens of victimization or as perpetrators of crime through the lens of dysfunction.”

Driven by the urge to address the depresencing of Blacks from their own narratives, the new Black press is changing the lenses of victimization and dysfunction into lenses of empowerment and agency. A look at select outlets:

TheGrio

TheGrio, owned by Entertainment Studios, responded to the nationwide pandemic shutdown and subsequent economic losses with a series of videos that addressed how the coronavirus is affecting Black entrepreneurs, called “Staying in Business,” a partnership with Facebook Watch. The series spotlighted everyone from Black travel agents to people driving for Uber and Lyft, “just talking to them and having real conversations about how this whole pandemic was affecting them,” says Todd Johnson, theGrio’s chief content officer. “Over the course of four episodes, we were able to track and hear from everyday Black folks — men, women, young and old — about how this national issue … is literally affecting Black people in different cities, New York, Atlanta, Chicago and other areas.”

Among business owners showcased by theGrio’s Natasha Alford were Vida and Virginia Ali of Ben’s Chili Bowl in Washington, D.C. They discussed the difficulty of accessing emergency funding approved by Congress to keep their restaurant going and their workers working. “If you didn’t close for the ’68 riots, we’re not going to close for this one,” Vida said.

Alford, vice president of digital content, also featured Ron Busby, president and CEO of U.S. Black Chambers, Inc., who urged people to spend their emergency money at Black businesses: “If 100,000 of those Black people say, ‘You know what, of this $1,200, I’m gonna take $200 and spend it with a Black firm,’ that would be $20 million back into our economy overnight,” he said, snapping his fingers.

ZORA

Vanessa De Luca, editor-in-chief of ZORA, a Medium Corporation site, felt her publication needed to dig deeper than mass media outlets in reporting on safety issues Black people could face when masked up in social environments already hostile to their presence. The essay, “Telling Us to ‘Tip Our Mask’ Is Racist,” resonated with the ZORA audience. Writer Danielle Moodie explained how racial profiling by police affects the Black community and would likely worsen as the government mandated face coverings in public.

Referring to armed white protesters who entered Michigan’s capitol building in April to demand the state reopen,  Moodie described the hypocrisy of “heavily armed, angry white mobs” who stormed government buildings, flaunting their privilege to do so without being attacked by law enforcement: “Why? Because in America, armed White people in masks are considered good patriots, while unarmed Black people in masks are perceived as a threat.”

Vanessa De Luca

At ZORA, co-founder Vanessa K. De Luca felt her publication needed to dig deeper than mainstream outlets on safety issues that Black people face at protests Michael Rowe

Pieces like this reflect how ZORA’s audience is “looking for those nuances in between,” De Luca says. “We’re looking at a very specific point of view, from a very specific point of view, and an experience that can only be told through our lens as opposed to just telling a story about how to wear a mask or how to make a mask at home.”

The Undefeated

The Undefeated, owned by The Walt Disney Company, spoke into a difficult moment when the video of Arbery being hunted and killed by white neighbors in Georgia horrified all audiences but made African Americans feel particularly vulnerable to what amounts to a modern-day lynching. The outlet highlighted the stakes in its interview with track and field legend Michael Johnson, “Olympian Michael Johnson on Ahmaud Arbery: ‘This is not about running.’”

Johnson admitted he hadn’t heard about Arbery’s killing until the video was released on social media. Though it’s uncustomary for Johnson, the former world-record holder in the 200- and 400-meter events, to speak publicly on social or political issues, he told The Undefeated’s Martenzie Johnson that he felt compelled to bring awareness to the mishandling of the case: “This is about Black people being able to live their lives without fear of consequence that someone is going to make a set of assumptions about them and call the police on them, or in this case, take action into their own hands by making an assumption that they’re a criminal.”

Coronavirus News for Black Folks

Patrice Peck, a former BuzzFeed writer, had been planning to launch a newsletter and grow her own audience when the pandemic hit. She was grounded in facts about health disparities and the Black community and says she relished the opportunity to be her own gatekeeper so she didn’t have to justify why her ideas about Black people are newsworthy or “fit within” a news organization’s scope.

Early on in her work on Coronavirus News for Black Folks, Peck tackled the topic of conspiracy theories to address suggestions within sectors of the Black community about so-called immunity to the coronavirus and how the virus is transmitted. She centered Black subject-matter experts, like Patricia Turner, a folklorist who is also senior dean and vice provost of undergraduate education at UCLA, who parsed the difference between unsubstantiated stories and universal truths about the Black experience in the U.S. healthcare system.

As a key example, she highlighted the Tuskegee syphilis experiment conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932 to 1972 in which Black male sharecroppers in Alabama were subjected to unethical medical procedures and misinformation as public health officials observed what happens when syphilis goes untreated. The trickery and the pain and suffering caused to these men and their families are what undergird the medical establishment’s polices on informed consent today.

While still in start-up mode and building her audience, Peck has set up a Patreon page offering various levels of membership, which all include access to Weekly Live group creative brainstorming sessions, video and audio exclusives, bimonthly live Q&As, and “Writer’s Cut,” compelling information that didn’t make it into a published piece. Monthly memberships start at $9, $19 and $49 up to levels for $299 or $499.

The Root

It’s not every day that a news outlet can call a major presidential candidate a “lying MF” and get away with it, but when you’re The Root, part of G/O Media, that’s just another day at the office.

Michael Harriot’s nuanced essay about coming of age in the Black community and the trials of upward mobility, published in November of 2019, was a sacred and profane rejoinder to Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s resurfaced 2011 comment about children from lower-income, minority neighborhoods. The candidate claimed at the time that these children were not supported by people who value an education. Harriot’s plainspoken language — which got Buttigieg to call him the next day — resounded with The Root’s affluent, educated Black audience, which overindexes in the 25-54 age range and skews female.

Harriot dressed down Buttigieg for offering respectability politics as the answer to education access and equity, saying the candidate had “never attended a school with more than 10 percent Black students.”

“Apparently, it’s not the fact that the unemployment rate for Black college graduates is twice as high as the unemployment rate for white grads. Black college graduates are paid 80 cents for every dollar a white person with the same education earns … Get-along moderates would rather make shit up out of whole cloth than wade into the waters of reality. Pete Buttigieg doesn’t want to change anything. He just wants to be something.”

Danielle Belton’s team at The Root is intentionally counterintuitive, and it is working. Because The Root is part of the G/O Media family of titles that also include The Onion and Jezebel, even non-Black audiences get to listen in on “lodge talk,” private, culturally specific conversations shared among African American community members.

Danielle Belton

Danielle Belton, editor-in-chief of The Root, which strives to publish stories “tied to that emotional chord…written in a creative or interesting way that kind of elevates the conversation” Danielle Finney

“I’ve always thought people would be more likely to consume an article if they were entertained by it no matter what the subject was,” says Belton, the editor-in-chief. A story “could be horrible, it could be sad, it could make you angry — as long as it’s tied to that emotional chord … written in a creative or interesting way that kind of elevates the conversation.”

Outlier Media

Though Outlier Media doesn’t identify as the Black press per se, Candice Fortman, the outlet’s chief of engagement and operations, acknowledges that serving low-wealth information in a nearly 80% Black community means that race does matter: “For us, serving the city is about serving a population that has been underserved.”

Outlier took that philosophy to heart when it launched a Covid-19 texting campaign to share resources to help residents navigate the pandemic. The team curated resources to help residents in the areas of housing, debt, unemployment, health, and public safety. They shared flyers at local social service agencies, and Fortman posted in “tons of Facebook groups” so community members would know where they could turn to ask questions. In most cases when a Detroit resident texted their zip code and designated an area of query, they received automated answers directing them to next steps. In other cases — more than 200 during a week that elicited more than 700 texting engagements — residents needed a personal touch.

One man with long-term health issues that he understood well needed help figuring out his best options, Fortman recalls: “They need somebody to figure out who they can trust, like, ‘I’m getting information from all these different places. Who should I listen to?’”

Sometimes, the questions are so good, Outlier launches accountability and investigative pieces, including a story — published by published by The Detroit News and aired on “Reveal” — about a dilapidated house that neighbors wanted the Detroit Land Bank Authority, the city’s largest property owner, to tear down. “We are not the assignment editor; our community is our assignment editor,” Fortman says. “We have basically outsourced the assignment editor role to the community [by asking], What do you need to know?”

The Plug

The Plug, founded by Sherrell Dorsey, is a subscription-based digital news and insights platform covering Blacks in the technology and innovation economy. The site renders Black people in tech as real, as they are traditionally depresenced in common conversations about the sector. With a team of 15 contractors, The Plug leverages a newsletter, industry-specific databases and events, such as a Zoom call with Andre M. Perry, the Brookings Institution Fellow who recently published “Know Your Price: Valuing Black Lives and Property in America’s Black Cities” to build out an authentic narrative about what Black people in the technology sector are building and innovating — a phenomenon mainstream tech media fails to make clear.

A recent data set of tech company statements and a graphic visualization released in the wake of mass protests over police brutality resounded with The Plug’s audience. The Plug curated links to statements on racial justice, Black Lives Matter, and the May 25 police killing of George Floyd, a Black Minneapolis man. The dataset includes company name, CEO, statement link, time of release, diversity report link and year of release. The document tracks over 200 companies such as Twitch, Spotify, Logitech, Microsoft, Zoom, and Hulu.

“It was a lot of folks who initially wanted to understand, ‘Are you all just paying lip service,’ which of course, many are,” Dorsey says. “Also, who’s really stepping up and for the first time centralizing where Black representation happens across these companies that had very bold things to say publicly kind of as part of their PR versus what representation actually looks like within the ranks of their employment.” Dorsey says Black tech workers were “blowing up my DMs,” including direct messages through Signal, an encrypted messaging platform. “For the most part,” she says, “Black tech workers in particular just demanded more accountability.

Tracking tech company statements from the 2014 police killing of Michael Brown, which ignited Black Lives Matter, till now reveals a pattern that helps explain the experience of Black people in the tech sector, Dorsey adds: “What’s been true for white moderates or white liberals is there’s kind of this propensity to say things and to not actually make a sacrifice to ensure the long-term survival of Black and brown folks.”

Blavity

When Blavity was established in 2014 by Morgan DeBaun, Jonathan Jackson, Jeff Nelson, and Aaron Samuels, the site set out to be a community for millennial Black creatives. Travel Noire and AfroTech, part of the Blavity brand portfolio, cover innovative Black entrepreneurs and thinkers, says Zahara Hill, Blavity’s deputy editor. The outlet also runs opinion pieces from community members covering everything from police brutality and anti-racism to #sayhername, a call to stand up for Black women and girls. The site’s coronavirus coverage has focused on solutions Black business owners and others bring to navigating the pandemic.

Hill cites one story — “This Black-Owned Gun Shop Is Committed To Educating, Consulting And Training Black People On Their Second Amendment Rights” — as representative of how Blavity’s coverage highlights “Black people and Black businesses who are essentially not waiting around for anyone’s permission to do the work.” The story is also representative of what Hill describes as Blavity’s ability to speak directly to Black lived experience, while traditional media seem to still be in a discovery phase of how systemic racism works: “Blavity is uniquely positioned because we don’t have to spend as much time on [educating newsrooms and audiences]. We can get right to like the more actionable item.” The approach seems to be working: Blavity reached 38 million page views in May, according to Hill, a 150% jump from April.

Networked Journalism

According to Allissa V. Richardson, assistant professor of journalism and communication at the University of Southern California, Annenberg, traditional outlets often fail to consider residents of marginalized communities as subject-matter experts, one of the reasons the Black community distrusts mainstream media. She also notes how the mainstream media pick up on condescending or outright false statements about the Black community, which further erodes trust. A case in point: Steve Huffman, the Ohio state senator and now-fired emergency room physician who speculated that African Americans, or the “colored population,” in his words, could be suffering disproportionately from the coronavirus because they don’t wash their hands well enough.

Incorporating citizen journalists as well as trained professionals in the production of journalism is an opportunity to create better coverage — and a better working definition of the Black press, argues Richardson, author of “Bearing Witness While Black: African Americans, Smartphones, and the New Protest #Journalism.”

The grip and depth of racial disparities revealed by the coronavirus pandemic and the ongoing problem of the policing of Black bodies are just two reasons for nuanced coverage of the Black experience

Ordinary people using hashtags are really producing journalism about their neighborhoods and often function as first responders in crisis situations, Richardson suggests. She cites the August 2014 uprising that followed the fatal police shooting of Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri as an example of the type of networked journalism that serves the Black community. “There were local people who were tweeting and posting pictures of Mike Brown’s body long before CNN even got there,” Richardson says. The same dynamics were at play in the case of Arbery and Floyd when citizen videos galvanized the attention of mainstream media and overtook the national conversation on policing. (In Arbery’s case, the video was produced by a white man who was later arrested and charged.)

“I would not discredit that work and say they weren’t Black journalists because they were operating very much in the same capacities our ancestors did who reported on lynching and let Ida B. Wells know, ‘You’ve got to get back down here from New York because there’s a fresh lynching you need to document,’” says Richardson, referring to the Black journalist who was posthumously awarded a Pulitzer Prize this year. Richardson recalls Wells’ “The Red Record” (1895), a formal lynching tally of every Black person murdered 1892 to 1894 through extrajudicial or state-sponsored means: “That’s exactly what citizen journalists are doing today. By filming, they’re keeping their very own red record of all the Black people who have died violently and unnecessarily.”

Networked journalism — user-generated, hyperlinked, crowdsourced — is even more imperative today, says Richardson, given her view that everything from the 19th-century movement to abolish slavery to lynchings to today’s Black Lives Matter protests are the necessary excavation that must occur to keep Black audiences and their experiences from being erased from the dominant news narrative. Where the general public may be occupied with government and other forms of surveillance, the methods employed by contemporary Black protesters function as a form of “sousveillance,” the recording of an activity by participants in that activity as a way to promote accountability from the bottom up. Footage of Floyd and Arbery and the McKinney, Texas girl at a 2015 pool party who was slammed to the ground by a police officer was crucial to getting media and law enforcement attention to these injustices.

The grip and depth of racial disparities revealed by the coronavirus pandemic and the ongoing problem of the policing of Black bodies, through law enforcement and otherwise, are just two reasons for nuanced coverage of the Black experience. Documenting the existence of Black joy is another, because these audiences need and crave both recognition and reckoning.

Richardson aptly recalls James Baldwin’s commentary on Black people’s need for witnesses, which he summed up in a 1984 New York Times interview: “I have never seen myself as a spokesman. I am a witness. In the church in which I was raised you were supposed to bear witness to the truth. Now, later on, you wonder what in the world the truth is, but you do know what a lie is.”

Related Reading

Nieman Reports Spring 2015 issue on Race and Reporting
The news industry has been talking about diversity for decades, but that talk has not always been followed by action. In this Nieman Reports cover package, reporters and editors discuss strategies for creating more inclusive newsrooms and how racially diverse staffs can improve coverage. ((Read the stories here))

07-15-2020- New York magazine -Andrew Sullivan resigns

07-15-2020- New York magazine -Andrew Sullivan resigns

Longtime columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan resigns from New York magazine

By Kerry FlynnCNN Business

Updated 4:03 PM ET, Tue July 14, 2020

New York (CNN Business)Columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan is leaving New York magazine, his professional home since 2016, he announced Tuesday.

“This will be my last week at New York Magazine,” Sullivan tweeted. “I’m sad because the editors I worked with there are among the finest in the country, and I am immensely grateful to them for vastly improving my work. I’m also proud of the essays and columns I wrote at NYM – some of which will be published in a collection of my writing scheduled for next year.”

Sullivan did not directly state his reason for leaving but said on Twitter that it was “pretty self-evident” and the “broader questions involved” would be discussed in his last column on Friday.

New York editor in chief David Haskell confirmed Sullivan’s resignation in a memo to staff obtained by CNN Business.

Haskell wrote that the decision for Sullivan and the magazine to “part ways was mutual.”

“Andrew and I agreed that his editorial project and the magazine’s, though overlapping in many ways, were no longer the right match for each other,” Haskell said.

Sullivan first came to prominence as editor of The New Republic. Later he founded The Daily Dish, an influential political blog that was published by a number of outlets including Time and The Atlantic before going independent.

But while at The New Republic, Sullivan published excerpts from “The Bell Curve,” a book that argues there are IQ score differentials among racial groups that can be explained by genetics. Even at the time, the book and the excerpts were controversial, but more than 20 years later Sullivan has continued to defend them, sparking more controversy and criticism of himself and New York.

Though neither Haskell nor Sullivan addressed these issues in their public statements, they may have played some role, especially at a time when the media is examining its own issues with diversity, both in its staffs and in its coverage. And Haskell did allude to differences of opinion between himself and much of the magazine’s staff, on the one hand, and Sullivan, who describes himself as conservative, on the other.

“I am trying hard to create in this magazine a civil, respectful, intellectually honest space for political debate,” Haskell said. “I believe there is a way to write from a conservative perspective about some of the most politically charged subjects of American life while still upholding our values. I also think that our magazine in particular has an opportunity to be a place where the liberal project is hashed out, which is to say not only championed but also interrogated.”

Haskell vowed to push for “work that challenges the liberal assumptions of much of our readership. But publishing conservative commentary, or critiques of liberalism and the left, in 2020 is difficult to get right, and thoughtful, well meaning people can come to different conclusions about it: how to weigh the value of plurality of political opinion against other journalist and community values; whether our current publication does in fact create that environment I am trying to foster; what to think of certain writers in particular.”

Sullivan’s resignation came on the same day that Bari Weiss,a controversial opinion columnistfor the New York Times, announced her decision to leave the paper. On her way out, Weiss published to her personal website a scathing letter in which she blamed the Times for fostering what she called an “illiberal environment” that she said was “especially heartbreaking.”

07-15-2020- New York Times – Bari Weiss resigns

07-15-2020- Bari Weiss Quits New York Times

07-15-2020- New York Times – Bari Weiss resigns

Bari Weiss Quits New York Times

Bari Weiss Quits New York Times, Excoriates Paper As ‘Performance Space’ For Woke Olympics

by Tyler Durden

Tue, 07/14/2020 – 16:15

The internal schism at the New York Times has claimed yet another staffer, as opinion editor Bari Weiss has left the paper and penned a scorching resignation letter denouncing the Times as nothing more than an echo chamber for ‘woke’ activists masquerading as journalists who believe dissent has no place on the platform.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalismand the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else. –Bari Weiss

As a refresher, the Times newsroom erupted in chaos following the decision to publish an Op-Ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK), in which he suggested that the Trump administration should deploy the military to quell violent race-riots gripping the country following the death of a black suspect while in custody of Minneapolis police. https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.395.0_en.html#goog_73511934 An internal schism formed within the Times, with younger ‘woke’ staffers insisting that such ‘wrongthink’ has no place on the platform, while others defended the decision to publish Cotton’s divergent opinion.

In the end, the woke mob won; the Times added an editor’s note conveying regret for publishing it – which was accompanied by the resignation of editorial page editor James Bennett (who Weiss writes ‘led the effort’ to reform the paper after the 2016 election).

Which brings us back to Bari Weiss, who came under intense fire by her NYT colleagues after she laid out what was going on in the newsroom in a Twitter thread, which ultimately defended the decision to publish Cotton’s op-ed.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1268628683952185346&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fbari-weiss-quits-new-york-times-slams-paper-abari-weiss-quits-new-york-times-excoriates&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=9066bb2%3A1593540614199&width=550px In her Tuesday resignation letter, Weiss excoriated the Times.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.” -Bari Weiss https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=&width=728 Weiss described the Times as a hostile work environment, and slammed the paper for allowing “this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public.”

“Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery,” Weiss writes, adding “But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times.

“Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.”

Published in its entirety below:

* * *

Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. 

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. 

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. 

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. 

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. 

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. 

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. 

Sincerely,

Bari

07-04-2020- TIN PHỊA – TIN XUYÊN TẠC – TIN BÔI BÁC

07-04-2020- TIN PHỊA – TIN XUYÊN TẠC – TIN BÔI BÁC

TIN PHỊA – TIN XUYÊN TẠC – TIN BÔI BÁC

Trong thời gian qua, như đã trình bày cùng quý độc giả, cận ngày bầu bán, TTDC xả hết tốc lực ra đánh TT Trump. Truyền Thông Tỵ Nạn cũng vén áo chạy theo tối đa, tung hàng loạt tin bất lợi cho TT Trump. Không phải là tin bất lợi thật mà hầu hết đều là tin phịa, tin xuyên tạc, tin bóp méo, tin bôi bác rẻ tiền,… Nhai đi nhai lại từ cả mấy năm qua.

Tuần rồi có một cụ tỵ nạn cuồng chống Trump viết rất oai “… nhiều người Việt đang cố gắng tự đầu độc mình và cộng đồng bằng tin giả”.

Một cụ khác cuồng hơn dõng dạc “Một số người Mỹ gốc Việt … sử dụng tin giả, tin vịt để thuyết phục mọi người tin theo!

Một cụ khác cuồng nhất đã ‘hoành tráng’ hơn nhiều “Ngậm máu phun người, xuyên tạc, vu khống, đổ thừa và ngang ngược nói dóc lừa bịp là thứ đầu đường xó chợ.

       BRAVO! Quá hay! Quá tuyệt!

Kẻ này -chẳng mấy khi- xin hoan hô các vị này, bằng cả hai tay và hai chân.

Chỉ có ‘hơi khác ý’ với các cụ về chuyện ai đang làm những chuyện dối trá đó thôi. Bởi vậy mới có câu “Đừng nghe những gì mấy cụ cuồng chống Trump nói, mà hãy nhìn kỹ những gì họ đã, đang và sẽ làm”. Kẻ này xin phép điểm qua một số lập luận để quý độc giả thưởng lãm. Gọi là tóm lược tổng quát làm ‘hồ sơ lưu’, mỗi lần các cụ lôi ra thì ta cũng lại lôi ra đối chất chơi.

Xin thưa ngay, hầu hết những lập luận các cụ cuồng chống Trump vừa mới đưa ra đều không có gì mới lạ, đã được bàn qua cả vạn lần, bác bỏ cả triệu lần qua hàng tỷ bằng chứng cụ thể nhất. Các cụ bất cần sự thật, nhắm mắt, bịt tai, cứ tiếp tục nhai lại, theo đúng sách vở của Goebbels và Lê-nin: một điều dối trá lập đi lập lại mãi, sẽ có người tin là thật. Nhưng lập đi lập lại chưa đủ đâu. Còn phải vừa ăn cướp vừa la làng nữa, như 3 câu trích dẫn vừa nêu trên.

Người Việt đã là những nạn nhân lớn và đau nhất của TTDC Mỹ tuyên truyền, xuyên tạc, bóp méo,… đến độ mất cả nước vào tay CSBV, vậy mà giờ này vẫn còn không biết bao nhiêu người chưa tỉnh, vẫn coi TTDC Mỹ như Kinh Thánh, răm rắp làm vẹt lập lại. Kể cả những người vừa làm vẹt vừa đấm ngực ầm ầm khoe mình có đủ loại bằng tiến sĩ, thạc sĩ, bác sĩ, văn sĩ, email sĩ, phịa sĩ, cuồng sĩ,…

Bây giờ, xin quý vị theo dõi cho vui.

Phần chữ nghiêng là nguyên văn những lập luận hầu hết cũ rích được lập lại cùng với tên tác giả (viết tắt chỉ để xác nhận không phải do Vũ Linh chế ra thôi, ai viết người đó biết) và ngày kẻ này nhận được (để chứng tỏ lập luận mới được nhai lại!). Phần chữ thẳng ở dưới là ý kiến của Vũ Linh. Cũng phải xin thưa ngay là những lập luận các cụ đưa ra nhiều vô kể, không có cách nào liệt kê ra hết được trong khuôn khổ một bài viết trên DĐTC này, do đó, chỉ xin đưa ra vài chuyện lố bịch nhất thôi.

Các mẫu tin được liệt kê không theo thứ tự đặc biệt nào, đọc tới đâu viết tới đó. Diễn đàn sẽ không bàn về những bôi bác vô căn cứ, hay chửi bới lung tung lăng nhăng.

1.     4 năm đập phá. Cuồng Trump khen (PN- 29/6)

Tác giả biểu diễn cái dốt của mình, chẳng hiểu gì về nguyên tắc của nền dân chủ Mỹ. Trị quốc ở Mỹ có hai khuynh hướng: cấp tiến và bảo thủ. TT Obama là cấp tiến, ban hành những chính sách cấp tiến nặng trong 8 năm, dân Mỹ chán hay không chấp nhận, không muốn thấy bà Hillary tiếp tục chính sách đó, bầu cho ông bảo thủ Trump để thay đổi toàn diện, chứ không phải bầu ông Trump để tiếp tục như cũ. Đó là nền tảng của dân chủ Mỹ.

Thay đổi không phải là “đập phá”. Đập phá là việc những tên cấp tiến thiên tả cực đoan khùng điên BLM và Antifa đang làm hiện nay như biểu tình bạo động, đốt nhà, cướp của, giật tượng, xé cờ, chiếm khu phố, đòi giải tán cảnh sát,… được các cụ tỵ nạn cuồng chống Trump vặn vẹo tìm cách bênh vực, bào chữa.

2.     Đập phá chế độ dân chủ, dẹp bỏ đối lập, Trump muốn xây dựng nước Mỹ ra sao, giống Nga? Tàu? Việt Nam, Saudi Arabia? Bắc Triều Tiên? (PN-29-6)

Vừa ăn cướp vừa la làng.

Đập phá dân chủ? Bên nào đang bằng mọi cách cố xóa kết quả bầu cử dân chủ 2016?

Dẹp bỏ đối lập? Nếu nhìn kỹ, hình như đối lập chưa bao giờ được tha hồ chống đối, ồn ào chửi bới, xuyên tạc, bôi bác, đập phá như hiện nay. Nếu Mỹ giống như VN thì tất cả các cụ cuồng chống Trump đã bị đeo gông sắt vì tội ‘phản động’ từ lâu rồi. Nếu giống như Bắc Hàn thì các cụ đã ăn điểm tâm đạn phòng không rồi.

3.     Một phóng viên hỏi Trump chương trình tranh cử Tổng Thống kỳ này là gì?… Trump không có chương trình, không biết phải ưu tiên thực hiện gì, không có mục đích (PN- 29/6)

Bôi bác.

Nhìn vào những việc TT Trump làm trong hơn 3 năm qua mà chưa biết TT Trump muốn gì sao? Vậy mà cũng dám bàn chuyện chính trị sao? 

Thế chương trình cụ Biden là gì? Tiếp tục bí mật lãnh đạo bằng nói nhầm từ trong hầm trú hay sau lưng tất cả mọi người?

4.     Bãi nhiệm, phế bỏ ngân sách các trung tâm nghiên cứu và lo cho y tế cộng đồng phòng ngừa bệnh dịch, làm dụng cụ y tế thiếu thốn (MP – 27/6)

Tin phịa quá xưa rồi.

Hãng thông tấn Associated Press tìm hiểu vấn đề và khám phá ra ngân sách CDC và NIH chưa bị cắt một xu nào. AP cũng cho biết thêm là CDC thật ra cũng đã cắt giảm tiền trợ cấp gửi cho các tiểu bang và địa phương để phòng bệnh, nhưng những cắt giảm đó đã bắt đầu từ luật của quốc hội do DC kiểm soát ban hành dưới thời TT Obama, mà CDC dưới thời của Trump vẫn phải tuân theo thôi. Chính New York Times đã xác nhận không có ai bị bãi nhiệm và không có cơ quan nào bị đóng cửa hay cắt giảm ngân sách hết.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/03/17/no_the_white_house_didnt_dissolve_its_pandemic_response_office_142683.html

Dụng cụ y tế thiếu thốn? Đó là gia tài của TT Obama khi ông này xài hết mặt nạ và ống thở cho dịch H1N1 năm 2009, sau đó không mua/sản xuất lại cho kho dự trữ trong suốt 7 năm sau.

5.     Gần 130,000 người chết vì COVID-19 vì đã không chuẩn bị, lo cho việc bảo vệ người dân, ngăn ngưà lây nhiễm kịp thời (MP – 27/6)

Tin phịa.  

Giữa tháng Giêng, TT Trump cho kiểm soát dân từ TC qua Mỹ tại 5 phi trường lớn. Cuối tháng Giêng, Trump giới hạn du khách từ TC không cho vào Mỹ hay bất đắc dĩ vào Mỹ thì bị cấm cung quản thúc 14 ngày, bị cụ Biden tố “hysterical xenophobia”. Giữa tháng Hai, Trump giới hạn du khách từ Âu Châu qua, bị CNN tố bài ngoại vô lý. Cho đến đầu tháng Hai, toàn thể phe DC, nghị sĩ, dân biểu, cấp lãnh đạo đảng DC và tất cả báo và TV của TTDC vẫn lo chúi mũi đàn hặc TT Trump, không một phút để ý đến dịch. Đến tháng Ba, các tiểu bang mới bắt đầu đóng cửa trường học, đóng cửa kinh doanh, là những biện pháp tổng thống liên bang không có quyền làm.

https://diendantraichieu.blogspot.com/2020/04/bai-121-tom-luoc-dien-tien-oi-pho-dich.html

Từ ngày coronavirus tấn công Mỹ đầu tháng Giêng cho tới cuối tháng Hai, TTDC Mỹ vẫn khẳng định chỉ là cúm không có gì đáng quan tâm.  

New York Times:  99% ca sẽ là nhẹ, không cần chữa trị đặc biệt gì.

USA Today: không phải là một khủng hoảng y tế toàn cầu.

Washington Postmối đe dọa thật sự là bệnh cúm thường chứ không phải corona. Cảnh giác thiên hạ coi chừng cách đối phó quá cứng rắn và hấp tấp của tay độc tài Trump

CNN: corona không phải là đại dịch -pandemic-, chỉ là cúm -flu.

Đây là một thí dụ cụ thể: bài của Real Clear Science ngày 29/2/2020:

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2020/02/29/five_reasons_you_dont_need_to_panic_about_the_covid-19_coronavirus.html

Ai lơ là, không chuẩn bị, không lo bảo vệ dân?

Đại Học John Hopkins đã công bố một nghiên cứu chi tiết của họ về việc các quốc gia trên thế giới đối phó với đại dịch trên thế giới, theo đó Mỹ đã là nước có chuẩn bị chu đáo và hữu hiệu nhất thế giới, sẵn sàng ứng phó với đại dịch nhất.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-was-most-prepared-country-in-the-world-for-pandemics-johns-hopkins-study-found-in-2019

Một điều không cụ nào dám bàn là tỷ lệ chết của Mỹ rất thấp so với các nước Tây Âu trong khi số thử nghiệm lên đến 35 triệu người, hơn gấp hai lần Pháp, Anh, Ý cộng lại chẳng hạn. Đây là thống kê ngày 30/6/2020:

6.     Quảng bá và công khai khuyến khích người dân tiêm chất khử trùng vào cơ thể là kẻ “ngu dốt” (HL-19/6)

Tin phịa.

Đây là nguyên văn câu nói của TT Trump: “And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or, or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets on the lungs and it does a tremendous number, so it will be interesting to check that. So that you’re going to have to use medical doctors. But it sounds, it sounds interesting to me. So we’ll see”. [Trích nguyên văn tiếng Anh để khỏi mang tiếng là dịch bậy]

TT Trump thắc mắc không biết có cách nào có thể dùng thuốc khử trùng để trị vi khuẩn không, cần phải hỏi các bác sĩ.

“Quảng bá và khuyến khích” chỗ nào?

7.     Vào cuối tháng 2, tổng thống Trump tuyên bố “tháng Tư’ vi khuẩn sẽ biến mất, và mối quan tâm của đảng Dân chủ và giới truyền thông về đại dịch là một “trò lừa bịp mới”. (HL-29/6)

Xuyên tạc.

Đây là nguyên văn câu nói của TT Trump: “Now, the virus that we’re talking about having to do — you know, a lot of people think that goes away in April with the heat — as the heat comes in… One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear. And from our shores, we — you know, it could get worse before it gets better. It could maybe go away. We’ll see what happens. Nobody really knows. The fact is, the greatest experts — I’ve spoken to them all. Nobody really knows.”

Đại khái, TT Trump cho biết ông nghe nói vi khuẩn kỵ nóng, nhiều người nghĩ sẽ bị diệt tháng Tư, nhưng ông cũng nói thật sự không ai biết rõ hết, ta chờ xem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/28/yet-again-trump-pledges-that-coronavirus-will-simply-go-away/

TT Trump bị phe DC và đồng minh TTDC tố là lơ là, bất tài, chịu trách nhiệm để vi khuẩn phát tác. TT Trump nói đây chính là ‘hoax’ mới của phe DC để bôi bác ông, sau những cái hoax thông đồng với Nga và đổi chác với Ukraine. Nghĩa là những tố cáo của phe DC và TTDC là hoax, chứ không phải TT Trump nói vi khuẩn tấn công là hoax.

Nhà báo Kathleen Parker của WaPo chính thức xin lỗi TT Trump vì đã tố oan chuyện này: “Let the record reflect: The president never said the pandemic was a hoax.  I regret the error.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/now-is-not-the-time-to-cast-blame/2020/04/08/f0cf10b4-79d3-11ea-9bee-c5bf9d2e3288_story.html

8.     Tiền cứu trợ Covid19 là do các nhà lập pháp soạn thảo và thông qua chỉ đưa lên ký để hợp luật vậy mà tự in tên lên ngân phiếu đúng là hạng “chiếm đoạt lập công” (HL-19/6)

Bôi bác vớ vẩn.

Ký để hợp luật”? Không ký thì không thành luật, chứ không phải là chuyện “hợp luật”.

Việc đề tên trên chi phiếu là quyết định của bộ Tài Chánh theo đúng thủ tục hành chánh của bộ, không phải là quyết định của TT Trump.

Luật cải tổ y tế năm 2009 do Hạ Viện soạn thảo, lưỡng viện thông qua “chỉ đưa lên ký để hợp luật, sao Obama lại vỗ ngực nhận là ‘Obamacare’? “Chiếm đoạt để lập công”?

9.     Khuya ngày thứ năm 25/6 đã đệ đơn lên Tòa Tối Cao nhằm « khai tử » chương trình bảo hiểm y tế,… Đây là việc làm hết sức tàn nhẫn, vô lương tâm của chính quyền Donald Trump đang lúc dịch bệnh lây lan, gây tác hại, lo sợ đến mọi tầng lớp người dân. (MP – 27/6). Con số thất nghiệp đã tăng lên trên 40 triệu người, mất việc làm tức sẽ mất bảo hiểm. (MHN-29/6). Sẽ cúp bảo hiểm trên 24 triệu người (PN-29-6).

Xuyên tạc và hù dọa láo.

Ý muốn nói Obamacare cung cấp bảo hiểm y tế cho dân thất nghiệp, nếu không còn Obamacare mà bị thất nghiệp thì sẽ không còn bảo hiểm y tế nữa.

Hiện giờ đang có hơn hai tá tiểu bang kiện đòi thu hồi Obamacare; chính quyền Trump không xin gì cả, mà bộ Tư Pháp chỉ nộp ‘góp ý’ (legal opinion) ủng hộ việc này vì Obamacare có thể đã không còn hợp hiến nữa.

Thu hồi hay không là quyết định của Tối Cao Pháp Viện, muốn chửi là “tàn nhẫn” thì cứ chửi TCPV. Cho dù Obamacare bị TCPV cho thu hồi thì cũng không phải là ngày mai hay tuần tới, mà cũng chẳng ai mất bảo hiểm hết vì nếu thu hồi thì chỉ mất Obamacare, vẫn có thể thay thế bằng bảo hiểm của công ty, sở làm và cả chục công ty bảo hiểm đang hoạt động. Mỹ có 330 triệu dân, chỉ có 8,3 triệu người trong Obamacare, còn lại hơn 320 triệu người không cần Obamacare gì hết. Nói Trump thu hồi Obamacare để cho 24 triệu người mất bảo hiểm y tế là hù dọa phịa, rẻ tiền và ngớ ngẩn.

10.  Thủ đoạn của Barr, cố tình dấu diếm, tìm cách trì hoãn để cắt xén, sửa đổi, thêm bớt bản báo cáo chắc chắn không thể được chấp nhận trong một đất nước với tam quyền phân lập như Mỹ (TDL-27-6)

Xuyên tạc.

Phúc trình của công tố Mueller có 3 bản: một bản tóm lược rất ngắn có 4 trang do ông Barr nộp cho quốc hội hai ngày sau khi công tố Mueller nộp phúc trình trong khi chờ đợi bộ Tư Pháp kiểm duyệt; một bản nguyên văn đầy đủ sau đó được gửi cho quốc hội và công khai công bố cho công chúng nhưng bôi đen những đoạn mà theo luật an ninh quốc gia, không thể công bố được; và một bản nguyên văn không bôi đen đặt trong một phòng mật của quốc hội để các nghị sĩ và dân biểu hay các phụ tá chính thức vào đọc trong cả tháng trời. Chẳng có ‘thủ đoạn’ vớ vẩn nào hết.

Nếu có chuyện dấu diếm, cắt xén, sửa đổi, thêm bớt thì sao công tố Mueller và 18 luật sư hầu hết theo phe DC không ai lên tiếng khiếu nại? Nếu không chấp nhận được vì vi phạm nguyên tắc tam quyền phân lập, thì sao phe DC trong Hạ Viện chưa kiện ra tòa đi?

11.  Đối xử ác độc với những người tỵ nạn, di dân. Trẻ con phải xa cha mẹ, và một số đã chết trong các trại giam giữ (MP –27/6)

Xuyên tạc và tin phịa.

Chính sách cách ly trẻ em ra đời dưới thời TT Clinton, theo thỏa thuận giữa tòa án và bộ trưởng Tư Pháp Janet Reno thời đó, không phải là sản phẩm của Trump. Các quan chức Sở Di Trú bây giờ chỉ thi hành luật có hiệu lực từ hồi đó tới giờ thôi, không liên quan gì đến TT Trump hết.

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/family-separation-not-trump-administrations-fault

Bao nhiêu người đã chết trong các trại giam giữ? Có con số chính xác không? Bằng chứng?

12.  Trump cho phép và ủng hộ tinh thần nhóm Mỹ da trắng thượng đẳng KKK, Neo-Nazi, và nhiều nhóm lẻ tẻ khác, chống da đen da màu và di dân (PN-29-6)

Tin phịa.

TT Trump chưa bao giờ “cho phép và ủng hộ tinh thần” da trắng thượng đẳng KKK, Neo-Nazi hết. Cũng chưa bao giờ chống da đen da màu và di dân, chỉ chống di dân lậu, khác xa.

Các luật giới hạn một số di dân từ các quốc gia rối loạn Trung Đông chỉ có mục đích thanh lọc khủng bố, được Tối Cao Pháp Viện xác nhận hợp hiến vì nhu cầu an ninh quốc gia. Nếu đó là những biện pháp kỳ thị thì đã không được TCPV chấp nhận 9-0, kể cả các thẩm phán cấp tiến.

13.  Nợ quốc gia tăng, ngay cả trước đại dịch COVID-19 vì giảm thuế cho những người giàu nhất (MP –27/6)

Xuyên tạc.

Nợ quốc gia tăng mạnh, không sai, bắt đầu từ 2009 khi Obama nhậm chức cho tới cuối nhiệm kỳ với tổng số nợ tăng gấp hai, chứ không phải vì TT Trump “giảm thuế cho những người giàu nhất”.

Mức công nợ Mỹ

(TT Obama: 2009-2016)

14.  Thâm thủng mậu dịch với Trung Cộng tăng vọt trước đại dịch COVID-19 và vẫn tiếp tục thâm hụt thêmHơn 2 năm thương chiến hù dọa, đổi ý tới lui đối với Trung cộng làm thiệt hại hằng tỷ đô la, nhất là cho người dân, nhưng không đem lại kết quả hữu hiệu (MP–27/6)

Xuyên tạc và tin phịa.

Thâm thủng mậu dịch với TC tăng vọt, không sai, nhưng phần lớn là dưới thời Obama (2009-2016). Xin coi biểu đồ dưới. Đang xuống trong hai năm 2019-2020 (2020 là dự phóng dựa trên vài tháng đầu, cũng như dựa trên việc kinh tế đóng cửa, số cầu hàng nhập cảng sẽ giảm mạnh trong cả năm).

Hai năm thiệt hại bạc tỷ”? Bằng chứng đâu?

Thâm thủng thương mại Mỹ-TC

(TT Obama: 2009-2016 – TT Trump: 2017-2020)

15.  Chánh Phủ Mỹ dưới sự lảnh đạo của D Trump đã hoàn toàn thất bại đối với các vấn đề quốc tế quan trọng như sau: Tầu Cộng, Hàn Cộng, Hồi Giáo Cực Đoan Iran, Venezuela “vẫn còn sống nhăn” (HL-29/6)

Bá láp.

TT Trump chưa khi nào có ý định xóa 4 xứ này khỏi bản đồ thế giới, cũng chưa bao giờ có chủ trương lật đổ các chế độ hay lãnh đạo các xứ này. Sao lại là “thất bại”?

16.  Cái vụ mà Trump nịnh Tập và nói là hãy mua hàng giúp tôi thắng cử đó là Trump nói trước đám đông người chứ không phải tay đôi (DT-29/6)

Tin phịa.

Ông Bolton viết TT Trump đã nói câu này với Tập trong một buổi họp chung giữa hai phái đoàn Trump-Tập. Đại Diện Thương Mại Mỹ, ông Robert Lighthizer xác nhận đây là nói láo, TT Trump chưa bao giờ nói câu này, trong buổi họp ông Bolton kể lại (biên bản buổi họp vẫn còn đó), hay bất cứ nơi nào khác.

17.  Rốt cuộc sau 4 năm của Trump dân Mỹ chúng tôi thiếu thốn đủ thứ, mua cái gì cũng mắc thêm (PN-29-6)

Tin phịa.

Trump mới làm TT có 3 năm 5 tháng, chưa tới 4 năm.

Thiếu thốn cái gì? Cái gì mắc thêm?

Dưới đây là biểu đồ lạm phát giá cả Mỹ:

Tháng 2/2017: Trump nhận gia tài của Obama: 2,74%

Tháng 7/2018: 2,95%, tăng 0,21% trong gần một năm rưỡi 

Tháng 3/2020: 0,17%

Lạm phát Mỹ

(TT Obama -TT Trump)

18.  Ủng hộ, ngợi khen, “kết bạn” với những kẻ cầm quyền độc tài ác đức (MP-27/6)

Bá láp.

Các cụ cuồng chống Trump coi các quan hệ ngoại giao quốc tế giống như chuyện ba thằng nhóc tiểu học kết bạn vậy. Thân thì ôm vai bá cổ, không thì phải túm đầu đánh lộn ngay. Thế mới nới “các cụ già tuổi không có nghĩa là đã trưởng thành”. Đừng nói chuyện quan hệ ngoại giao quá phức tạp đối với các cụ.

19.  Mối liên hệ mật thiết giữa VN và Hoa Kỳ tăng trưởng rất nhiều dưới thời chính quyền Trump so sánh với chính quyền Obama trước đó? Có ai thấy tréo cẳng ngỗng không? (NL-27/6)

Tin phịa.

TT Obama: chính thức thăm viếng VNCS, thăm chùa Tầu ở Sàigòn,ăn bún chả ở Hà Nội, giải tỏa cấm vận quân sự, cho phép VNCS tha hồ mua vũ khí cho công an đàn áp dân chống đảng.

TT Trump: chưa chính thức thăm viếng VN lần nào, chỉ đi Đà Nẵng dự hội nghị ASEAN và Hà Nội gặp Kim Jong Un, rồi ghé chào xã giao lãnh đạo VC. Không đi chùa, không ăn bún chả, “mật thiết, tăng trưởng” chỗ nào?

Tất cả những người có mắt để nhìn, cho dù chỉ còn một mắt, đều thấy rõ quan hệ Mỹ-VC nở rộ trong các thời TT Clinton và Obama. (Tuần tới, ta sẽ bàn về chuyện TT Trump chống cộng hay không, đừng lo!)

20.  Ông Trump hoàn toàn chưa làm điều gì có ích lợi rõ rệt cho cộng đồng người Việt ở Mỹ hơn các cộng đồng khác nếu không muốn nói rằng chính sách nhập cư khắc nghiệt của Trump còn đang làm khốn khổ khoảng 8.000 người Việt và gia đình họ đang chờ bị trục xuất về VN… (TDL-27-6)

Phe đảng và tin phịa.

Thế các TT Clinton, Bush con và Obama đã ‘làm điều gì có ích lợi rõ rệt cho cộng đồng người Việt ở Mỹ hơn các cộng đồng khác”? Xin đưa bằng chứng cụ thể ra xem.

Chuyện Trump ‘còn đang làm khốn khổ khoảng 8.000 người Việt …” là tin phịa với mục đích hù dọa cộng đồng. 8.000 người là tổng số những người tỵ nạn phạm pháp từ khi mới đến đất Mỹ thời TT Ford cho tới giờ (45 năm) chứ không phải do TT Trump bắt, họ phạm pháp không được vào quốc tịch Mỹ nhưng Mỹ không gửi trả về VN được vì VC không nhậnCác TT từ thời Clinton đến Bush con, Obama và Trump đều cố điều đình mà VC vẫn không chịu, chỉ nhận những người tới đất Mỹ sau tháng 7/95 thôi.

Tin phịa xưa hơn trái đất, vẫn cố nhai lại.

https://diendantraichieu.blogspot.com/p/tr.html

21.  Khoảng mấy chục người Việt tị nạn bị trục xuất khỏi nước Mỹ, gửi trả về Việt Nam, có những người không biết nói tiếng Việt vì qua Mỹ có mấy tuổi đầu, bố mẹ của họ khóc lóc quá trời, xin cho con được tiếp tục ở trong tù nhưng không được (TDL-27/6)

Tin phịa.

VC cho đến nay nhất quyết từ chối không nhận dân tỵ nạn nào qua Mỹ trước tháng 7/95, chỉ nhận ‘Việt kiều qua sau thời điểm đó’ (du lịch, du sinh) phạm pháp bị Mỹ trục xuất về VN thôi. Con số ‘mấy chục người’ bị trục xuất KHÔNG phải là dân tỵ nạn, mà là Việt kiều du lịch hay du sinh, không có đứa nào ‘không biết nói tiếng Việt vì qua Mỹ có mấy tuổi đầu’.

Nếu kẻ này viết sai, tôi thách đưa bằng chứng cụ thể ra đó. Không tin đi hỏi ông Giao Chỉ cho xem các con số trục xuất chính thức đi.

22.  Ngay chính TT Trump cũng nợ nhiều triệu USD từ Bank of China (NL-27/6)

Xuyên tạc.

Nợ 200 triệu đô đã được một công ty tài chánh Mỹ mua lại cách đây 8 năm rồi. TT Trump không còn liên hệ gì đến Bank of China từ đó tới nay.

Con của cụ Biden giao dịch bạc tỷ với Bank of China qua Rosemont và Bohai, sao không dám hó hé bàn tới?

23.  The Guardian tung ra tin “Rửa tiền Deutsche Bank-Kremlin-Trump”. New York Times điều tra. Nếu tiền từ Nga-Deutsche-Trump là chính đáng, TẠI SAO Trump lại phải dấu diếm, tranh đấu “like hell” để hồ sơ tài chánh không được đưa ra cho mọi người (HMH-29/6)

Xuyên tạc.

Chưa có kết quả điều tra, sao đã vội tố vậy?

Nền tảng tư pháp Mỹ khác với tư pháp CS ở chỗ người tố phải chứng minh ra tội, chứ người bị tố không cần chứng minh vô tội khi chưa bị tố gì hết.

24.  Con gái ông Trump được cấp phép tổng cộng 34 thương hiệu tại Trung Quốc kể cả máy bầu cử (voting machines) (NL-27/6)

Dốt và phịa.

Thương hiệu chỉ là giấy xác nhận đặc quyền để cấm dân Tầu ăn cắp tên ‘Ivanka’ để bán hàng giả. Tất cả các công ty của thế giới muốn không cho các chú Ba ăn cắp tên để bán hàng giả ở TC  đều phải xin trademark của TC, kể cả CNN, Facebook, Channel, Louis Vuitton, Sony, Samsung, Nike, Apple,…

https://diendantraichieu.blogspot.com/p/tttn.html

 Bà Ivanka chẳng có liên hệ xa gần gì đến máy bầu cử, mà TC cũng chẳng bao giờ có nhu cầu mua … ‘máy bầu cử’!!! Ở TC làm gì có bầu cử mà phải cần máy bầu cử? Tác giả hình như chưa biết TC là gì?

25.  Gia đình Kushner, con rể của Tổng thống Mỹ Donald Trump, đã cố gắng “dụ dỗ” các các doanh nhân giàu có tại Trung Quốc đầu tư vào một dự án của gia đình với lời hứa cấp thị thực EB-5 vào Mỹ (NL-27/6)

Xuyên tạc.

Bất cứ ai đầu tư nửa triệu đô vào Mỹ đều được cấp giấy vào sinh sống ở Mỹ, đó là luật chung từ hồi nào tới giờ, cả triệu người đã vào Mỹ bằng cách này, kể cả hàng loạt đại gia đỏ TC và VC. Không phải là đặc quyền của Kushner tặng.

Chuyện bình thường đối với cả triệu người, nhưng với những người có thành kiến ghét Trump thì đây là con dòi to hơn con voi mà họ đã khổ công bới rác tìm ra được để đánh Trump.

—————-

Thích hay ghét Trump là chuyện bình thường. Phao tin phịa, tin xuyên tạc để công kích là không lương thiện, vô tư cách.

at July 04, 2020

05-11-2020- They Want Modify Us with the COVID-19 Vaccine

05-11-2020- They Want Modify Us with the COVID-19 Vaccine

Dr Andrew Kaufman: They Want to Genetically Modify Us with the COVID-19 Vaccine

Dear anh,

Dr Andrew Kaufman joins Spiro Skouras with his laser-like way of describing what is happening around the world with this Globalist “pandemic”.

“In an unprecedented way, we see all of the governments around the world, with very few exceptions, all adopting the same policies, all at the same timeframe, right? This tells us that that this is a highly-coordinated effort, internationally and it tells us that there is a group of people or individuals who are directing the governments, essentially what to do.

“This is compatible with a Globalist agenda, moving towards a One World Government, with tighter control over the population, with a reduced population, with a new financial, monetary and currency system, and there’s evidence for all these aspects and I think the overall plan has been well laid-out in the United Nations document, Agenda 21, later changed to Agenda 2030.

“There are many other supporting documents, like you pointed out, the Rockefeller document and there are several others, that essentially gives all the details to this plan and they all correlate to the policies that are taking place right now.

“They basically want to inject genes into us and they’re using this procedure called ‘electroporation’, where they apply an electric current through two extra needles with the vaccine that creates little holes in our cells that allow the DNA to go inside our own cells and then they are supposed to make foreign proteins that supposedly generate immunity…

“They want to make us into Genetically-Modified Organisms, because this is the exact same procedure that they would be using to make a Genetically-Modified Organism.”

Dr Kaufman is risking his reputation and his medical license to get this information out as widely as possible because he doesn’t want his children to live in a world with no freedom, which he believes is where we’re headed if this isn’t rejected by the people.

Citing the CDC’s own publicly-available data, updated daily on their website, Kaufman points out that there is no “excess mortality” charting. In fact, the number of deaths this season is lower than it has been for the past three years. This leads him to think that this so-called pandemic is a “manufactured public relations, marketing operation.” There is no virus or disease but there are major changes to government policies in all areas that are severely limiting our freedoms.

He says the novel coronavirus has, in fact never been isolated and that its identity is based on tiny snippets of DNA fed into a computer model – which, he says is also how the SARS virus of the 2003 was identified. The COVID-19 virus is being classified as a member of that SARS family because it shares 80% of its genetics with SARS, based on this very slipshod modeling.

For some perspective on how genetically distant 80% is, human beings share 80% of our genomes with cattle.

Moreover, the sample population originally used to collect materials and identify the COVID-19 virus was 7 people – and there was no control group. None of the basic scientific standards have been met in the identification of the novel coronavirus, such as purifying and isolating the virus particle through a filter. Its identification is based solely on theoretical and digital modeling.

These are just a few examples of the bad science involved. There’s much more that he details here. In short, this pandemic a massive medical fraud. 

Since beginning of this #CoronaHoax, we’ve been hearing all kinds of contradictory information about the very nature of viruses, themselves, with some subscribing to Rudolf Steiner’s suggestion that viruses don’t exist at all but that they’re the excreted toxicity of cells, aka exosomes.

Spiro asks Dr Kaufman, “At this point, they haven’t been able to successfully isolate the COVID-19 virus, so we don’t know if it really exists, because they haven’t been able to prove it. And then, the testing, itself is very flawed…resulting in many false positives and the method by which they are testing does not really make sense, scientifically…

Koch’s Postulates, which are meant to prove and…reproduce the effect of viruses have never been accomplished for any viruses – so, would that call into question viruses, themselves, their existence?

“And if that’s the case, then how do you explain when people get sick, like when they catch the flu and they just feel like crap, I mean, we all thought it was viruses. What can you tell us?”

Dr Kaufman says it’s true that Koch’s Postulates have never been satisfied for the disease causation of any virus, which means that our ideas about viruses consist largely of dogma and are based on a scientific system that rewards this theory-based approach.

When asked about the bioweapons angle of this story, Dr Kaufman gives a surprising reply: “I’m sure there are Top Secret labs that are researching all kinds of weapons…but…if there’s really no biological model for a virus to cause this disease, I’m not sure what they’re engineering, exactly.

“I imagine that it would be extremely difficult to create some kind of biological organism that would cause disease, because most of the time when we have parasitic problems, they’re opportunistic.

“They’re there because there’s something not right in our body and they’re actually trying to help us get rid of that but in the process, they might get out of control and cause us problems. But I’m not aware of any organisms that some in and take over when you’re healthy. So, I think that would be a really tall order and I’m not sure that it’s even possible. 

“But if they did want to make us sick, the easiest thing would be to put toxins into our bodies and there’s many ways this can be done – and that has been done. For example, they’re putting fluoride in our water supply, which is a known toxin to the central nervous system. And even the CDC put out a guidance in the early 2000s, instructing parents of newborns not to use fluoridated water to mix baby formula, because it would affect the children’s neurological development, right? Yet, they put it in our water. You can look at what happened in Michigan, with the lead pipes and the lead poisoning from the water…

“But getting back to the mortality figures, we haven’t seen excess mortality, so if there’s any strategy like this, I don’t see evidence that it’s been deployed. Now, am I concerned that it will be deployed in a second wave or a future part of this psychological operation? Yeah, I concerned about that.”

As for the “Contact Tracing” programs, now hiring tens of thousands of workers, aiming to remove individuals from their homes to put them into a quarantine prison, Dr Kaufman says that the term, “Contact Tracing” was created in the 1931 and all of this has been in the planning stages for a long, long time and that it absolutely does represent an end to our freedom.

The Royal Academy of Sciences journal in May of 2019 dedicated the entire issue to managing a pandemic and methods of controlling the population, which is what “Contact Tracing” is for.

“So, they took the easy way to do this, because if they just come up with a completely fake illness and get everyone to volunteer to give up all their rights, it’s much easier and much less risky than unleashing some kind poison on the population that would really make people sick and die – and that would also put themselves at risk. How would they make themselves invulnerable?

“In a sense, it’s a kind of genius plot but it’s a very sinister genius plot.

“[Contact Tracing] is the next step to further get us to volunteer to give up our rights and this time, it’s mostly about privacy. And they may say that, initially, they’re doing it for the public health but we don’t really know what their real intention is and I don’t think there’s going to be transparency.

“There was a Contact Tracing app…it would give you a red light or a green light and that would be to let you into your office building or to use public transportation. So, these things, where we have freedom of movement, now we have to be granted a privilege based on this…

“One of the [Contact Tracing recruitment] ads that you showed, they were looking for people with military experience…they know how to knock down doors, they know how to look for evidence and trash places, they know how to intimidate people. That’s what they’re doing and their training and their experience in a military operation. So clearly, there’s an intention to use these types of tactics with our own citizens.”

All of this is covered in the 2010 Rockefeller “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” paper, under the heading of “Lock Step”. (http://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller%20Foundation.pdf)

Spiro says, “It’s beyond Orwellian…Under the guise of this pandemic, it could be used to achieve many goals…one of them…is disappearing dissidents. Remember, at the beginning of this outbreak, at the beginning of the year? We had see all these videos coming out of China…there were so many videos of men in full hazmat suits…dragging people out of their homes, literally kicking and screaming. And if you look at who was filming those videos…they were *with* those dragging people from their homes. So, how did those videos get shared on social media, with the tight clampdown that China has? I think that there’s a chance that they wanted the world to see those videos and to terrify people…and to normalize the idea.”

Dr Kaufman says that if you want to know what the vaccine agenda is, it very easy to find out, you just need to read their Agenda 2030 documents.

“All of these measures are really voluntary…If we rely on the authorities to give us approval to exercise our freedoms, they’re going to take more freedoms away, as they’ve been doing. So, while I respect people who want to go and protest at city hall or at the state capital, they are coming from the right point of view but they’re just asking the authority figures, the government to give them permission, when they don’t need permission from the government, they already have permission because they have inalienable rights.

“It’s not really a decision for me it’s just what I feel that I have to do to preserve a way of life and the way that I want to live, for me and for my children.”

Running Time 55 mins:

05-11-2020- Americans’ Views of the News Media During the COVID-19 Outbreak

05-11-2020- Americans’ Views of the News Media During the COVID-19 Outbreak

MAY 8, 2020

05-11-2020- Americans’ Views of the News Media During the COVID-19 Outbreak

Americans’ Views of the News Media During the COVID-19 Outbreak

Even in crisis, Republicans and Democrats remain starkly divided in their attitudes toward journalists

BY JEFFREY GOTTFRIEDMASON WALKER AND AMY MITCHELL

How we did this

To examine Americans’ attitudes of the news media during the COVID-19 outbreak, we used data from a broad survey of 10,139 U.S. adults conducted April 20-26, 2020.

Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel, an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. Recruiting our panelists by phone or mail ensures that nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. This gives us confidence that any sample can represent the whole population (see our Methods 101 explainer on random sampling). To further ensure that each survey reflects a balanced cross section of the nation, the data is weighted to match the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.

Here are the questions asked in this survey, along with responses, and the methodology. Visit our interactive data tool to access the data on Americans’ attitudes of the news media during the coronavirus, as well as other issues related to news and the election.

This report was made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which received support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Coverage of the current coronavirus outbreak has consumed much of the news media’s attention as Americans look for information in a time of high anxiety and uncertainty. Overall, more Americans hold positive than negative views of the news media’s coverage of the COVID-19 crisis, though broader views of the media are more evenly divided or more negative. And Republicans and Democrats continue to stand far apart in their opinions of the media during the pandemic, according to a new Pew Research Center survey conducted April 20-26, 2020, among 10,139 U.S. adults who are part of the Center’s American Trends Panel.

When asked to evaluate the news media’s coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak, Americans are more likely than not to think that the news media are fulfilling four key roles. For example, most Americans (59%) say the news media are providing them with the information they need about the coronavirus, compared with about a quarter (24%) who say this is not the case. And while nearly half of U.S. adults (49%) say the media’s COVID-19 coverage has been largely accurate, roughly a quarter (24%) say it has been mostly inaccurate. (The remainder say that neither of the statements in each case reflect their views.)

Americans also are more likely than not to say media coverage of the crisis is benefiting the public (rather than news organizations) and is helping the country (rather than hurting it).

The U.S. public continues to pay rapt attention to news coverage about the outbreak. Americans are following a wide range of coronavirus-related news topics at both the national and local level, and many have seen reporters change how they cover the news to some degree.

At the same time, tensions between the news media and President Donald Trump have continued, and the new survey finds that Republicans and Democrats do not see eye to eye on views of the news media’s COVID-19 coverage. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are far less likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to think that the news media are fulfilling each of the four functions measured in the survey. For example, while two-thirds of Democrats (66%) say the media’s COVID-19 coverage has been largely accurate, just about three-in-ten Republicans (31%) agree. And the divide is even larger between Republicans who describe themselves as conservative and Democrats who describe themselves as liberal.

While the American public has a more positive than negative assessment of the news media’s COVID-19 coverage, Americans’ broader views of the media are more evenly divided or more negative. For instance, Americans are split in their confidence in journalists: About half (48%) have at least a “fair amount” of confidence in journalists to act in the best interests of the public, while a similar share (52%) say they have not much or no confidence. And the public is somewhat more likely to think that journalists have “low” or “very low” ethical standards (56%) than “high” or “very high” standards (43%). Views about the ethical standards of journalists are stable from last year, while confidence in journalists has dropped slightly since 2018.

Similar to views of coronavirus coverage, partisan divides also persist over opinions toward journalists more generally – and are wider than for any other group of individuals asked in the survey, including business leaders, elected officials and religious leaders. For example, there is a 47-percentage-point gap between the shares of Republicans and Democrats who have at least a “fair amount” of confidence in journalists, almost exactly on par with the 46-point difference in 2018.

Overall, the findings show that Americans are largely evaluating the news media in similar ways during the COVID-19 outbreak as they did prior. Surveys conducted before the pandemic have shown that Americans often see the news media as performing well at specific roles. But Americans tend to have less positive views toward the news media and journalists more broadly. And what seems to be an unbreakable rift – even in a time of crisis – is the continued disconnect between the two parties in attitudes toward journalists and the content they produce.

You can find much of the data from this report in the Pew Research Center’s Election News Pathways data tool and analyze it alongside other data points.

1. Americans are more likely than not to think the news media are fulfilling key roles during the coronavirus outbreak, but partisans are starkly divided

BY JEFFREY GOTTFRIEDMASON WALKER AND AMY MITCHELL

The American public is more likely than not to say that the news media are serving key functions through their coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak. But dramatic partisan differences emerge, which is consistent with deep-rooted partisan gulfs in attitudes toward the news media prior to the outbreak.

Survey respondents were asked about their views of four elements of the news media’s coverage of the coronavirus outbreak: whether the coverage is giving them the information they need, or not; whether it is largely accurate or inaccurate; whether it is benefiting the public or the media themselves; and whether it is helping or hurting the country.

Overall, more Americans see the news media as fulfilling these key roles during this crisis than not, which is in line with other recent findings showing that most Americans think that the news media are doing fairly well in covering the outbreak more generally.

The news media receive the highest marks for whether they are keeping the public informed. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (59%) say that the news media’s coverage is getting them the information they need, compared with far fewer – about a quarter (24%) – who say coverage is not serving that role. The remainder (17%) say that neither phrase reflects their view.

The public also is much more likely to think that coverage of the outbreak is largely accurate (49%) rather than largely inaccurate (24%). And more Americans see the news media’s coverage as working for the benefit of the public (48%) and helping the country (46%) rather than benefitting the media themselves (36%) or hurting the country (34%). On each of these questions, between 15%-26% of respondents choose neither option.

This overall sense that news media are performing these key functions in this crisis is similar to the public’s general views that the news media do well at a number of specific roles, especially at the local level. For example, Americans say that one of the most positive things that the news media do is simply report the news and provide important information. And Americans overwhelmingly go into national news stories expecting they will be accurate.

Partisans sharply divided over whether the news media are fulfilling key roles during the coronavirus outbreak

Democrats and Republicans are far apart in their views of the news media’s COVID-19 coverage. Republicans generally express more negative sentiments of the news media than Democrats, particularly since the 2016 presidential election. The partisan divide during this crisis is just as stark as before – Republicans are far less likely than Democrats to think that the news media are fulfilling key roles for the public through their coverage of the outbreak.

Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are between 29 and 38 percentage points less likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to hold a positive view of the news media’s coverage of the COVID-19 outbreak across the four different roles. For example, while two-thirds of Democrats (66%) think the news media are working for the benefit of the public, roughly three-in-ten Republicans (28%) share this assessment. More than half of Republicans (57%) say the media are working to benefit themselves.

Indeed, while Democrats are far more likely to view the news media’s coverage of COVID-19 positively than negatively across all four of these questions, Republicans are more likely to give a negative assessment in three areas. The only exception is whether the news media are giving them the information they need during the outbreak: 44% of Republicans say that the news media are providing this information, compared with 35% who say this need is not being met.

These partisan divides are even larger among those at the ideological ends of each party – liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are even less likely to see eye to eye. For instance, the 35 percentage point divide between the two parties in thinking that news coverage of the coronavirus outbreak is largely accurate grows to 46 points between liberal Democrats (72%) and conservative Republicans (26%).

Chart showing liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans stand far apart in their evaluations of the news media’s COVID-19 coverage

Many Americans – particularly Republicans – think news coverage of the outbreak is too negative

Another survey question asked about the tone of the news media’s COVID-19 coverage. Fully 43% of Americans say the news media’s coverage of the coronavirus outbreak has been more negative than it should be, far more than the share who say the tone of the coverage has been too positive (12%). Many Americans (44%) say that the coverage has been neither too negative nor too positive.

Republicans are particularly likely to think that the news media’s coverage is too negative. Two-thirds (66%) of Republicans and Republican leaners say this, compared with about a quarter of Democrats and Democratic leaners (24%). Instead, Democrats are far more likely to say the coverage struck the right tone (60%, vs. 25% of Republicans).

Pagination

2. Americans are more negative in their broader views of journalists than they are toward COVID-19 coverage

BY JEFFREY GOTTFRIEDMASON WALKER AND AMY MITCHELL

Even as Americans are more likely to give the news media positive than negative marks on key aspects of COVID-19 reporting, views of journalists broadly remain more negative – specifically in Americans’ confidence in journalists and their views of their ethical standards. Furthermore, major partisan divides are just as stark as before the outbreak began, and Republicans and Democrats disagree more strongly in their assessments of the media than they do about several other institutions.

Overall, Americans are about evenly split in their level of confidence in journalists. About half (48%) have at least a “fair amount” of confidence that journalists will act in the public’s best interests, including 9% who say they have a “great deal” of confidence. But the other half (52%) have “not too much” or “no confidence at all” in journalists to serve the public interest.

The public’s level of confidence in journalists is slightly lower than the last time this question was asked in late 2018, when 55% had at least a fair amount of confidence that journalists will act in the best interests of the public, including 15% who had the highest level of confidence. Since many issues and events have transpired since late 2018, the reason for the change is unclear.

Views of journalists’ ethics, meanwhile, are somewhat more negative than positive. Roughly four-in-ten Americans (43%) say journalists have “very high” or “high” ethical standards, while a majority (56%) say they have “low” or “very low” standards. Americans’ opinions about the ethical standards of journalists are largely stable compared to 2019, the last time this question was asked.

Partisans remain sharply divided in their opinions about journalists

Like their views of the news media’s COVID-19 coverage, Republicans and Democrats sharply diverge in their confidence in journalists and views of journalists’ ethical standards – divides that are just as stark as before the outbreak.

While a majority of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents (70%) say they have at least a fair amount of confidence in journalists to serve the public interest, this share falls 47 percentage points to about a quarter (23%) of Republicans and Republican leaners. The size of this partisan divide is almost exactly the same as it was in late 2018, with slight overall decline in confidence occurring within both parties.

Partisans also disagree in their perceptions of the ethical standards of journalists. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say journalists have high or very high ethical standards (64% vs. 19%), a 45-point divide that is about the same as last year.

These gaps are even larger between the ideological ends of the parties. The 47-point gap between the shares of Republicans and Democrats who say they have at least a fair amount of confidence in journalists grows to 61 points between liberal Democrats (76%) and conservative Republicans (15%). And the 45-point partisan divide in views about journalists’ ethics swells to 57 points between liberal Democrats (70% of whom say journalists have at least high ethical standards) and conservative Republicans (13%).

Partisans are more divided in their assessments of journalists than any other institution

On a list of several different groups of individuals, journalists rank near the bottom when it comes to public confidence. And partisan divides in views toward journalists are larger than they are for these other groups.

Survey respondents were asked about their level of confidence in groups of people from 10 different areas to act in the public interest. Journalists are on par with business leaders (48%), and they rank higher than only one other group – elected officials, who have the confidence of just 37% of U.S. adults. In the new survey, medical scientists (89%), scientists in general (87%), public school principals for grades K-12 (83%) and the military (83%) rise to the top of the list.

Journalists are the only group for which public confidence has declined since the last time each question was asked.

Americans’ views of journalists’ ethical standards follow a very similar pattern. Journalists rank toward the bottom compared with five other groups of individuals asked about. And again, the one group that journalists outrank is elected leaders (just 27% of Americans think elected leaders have high or very high ethical standards).

The public is more likely to think medical doctors (92%), police officers (73%) and religious leaders (67%) have very high or high ethical standards, while journalists (43%) are about on par with lawyers (44%).

Partisan divides in these views of journalists stand out for being especially large.

The 47-point gap between Democrats and Republicans (including leaners) in the share who express at least a fair amount of confidence in journalists to act in the public interest is at least 10 points larger than the split for each of the other nine groups of individuals, a pattern that is very similar to views in 2018 to before the COVID-19 outbreak. The next largest gap is 37 points: 85% of Democrats express confidence in college professors, compared with 48% of Republicans.

Chart showing Republicans and Democrats are more divided over views toward journalists than other groups of individuals

And the same pattern emerges in views of ethics. The 45-point gap in whether journalists have high or very ethical standards between Republicans and Democrats shadows the divides for the other five groups asked about.

Republicans and Democrats are far more divided over the ethical standards of journalists than other groups of individuals

Chart showing Republicans and Democrats are far more divided over the ethical standards of journalists than other groups of individuals

Table showing American Trends Panel recruitment surveys

Weighting dimensions

Weighting dimensions

Acknowledgments

BY JEFFREY GOTTFRIEDMASON WALKER AND AMY MITCHELL

This report was made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which received support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. This report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals. Find related reports online at journalism.org

Jeffrey Gottfried, Senior Researcher
Mason Walker, Research Analyst
Amy Mitchell, Director, Journalism Research
Michael Barthel, Senior Researcher
Kirsten Worden, Research Assistant
Maya Khuzam, Research Assistant
Margaret Porteus, Information Graphics Designer
Michael Lipka, Editorial Manager
Claudia Deane, Vice President, Research
Hannah Klein, Communications Manager
Rachel Weisel, Senior Communications Manager
Shannon Greenwood, Digital Producer 

Methodology

BY JEFFREY GOTTFRIEDMASON WALKER AND AMY MITCHELL

American Trends Panel survey methodology

The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. The panel is being managed by Ipsos. This report was made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which received support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. The panel is being managed by Ipsos. This report was made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which received support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Data in this report is drawn from the panel wave conducted April 20 to April 26, 2020. A total of 10,139 panelists responded out of 11,022 who were sampled, for a response rate of 92%. This does not include three panelists who were removed from the data due to extremely high rates of refusal or straightlining. The cumulative response rate accounting for nonresponse to the recruitment surveys and attrition is 5%. The break-off rate among panelists who logged on to the survey and completed at least one item is 0.01%. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 10,139 respondents is plus or minus 1.5 percentage points.

The subsample from the ATP consisted of 11,022 ATP members that responded to the Wave 57 survey and were still active.

The ATP was created in 2014, with the first cohort of panelists invited to join the panel at the end of a large, national, landline and cellphone random-digit-dial survey that was conducted in both English and Spanish. Two additional recruitments were conducted using the same method in 2015 and 2017, respectively. Across these three surveys, a total of 19,718 adults were invited to join the ATP, of which 9,942 agreed to participate.

In August 2018, the ATP switched from telephone to address-based recruitment. Invitations were sent to a random, address-based sample (ABS) of households selected from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. In each household, the adult with the next birthday was asked to go online to complete a survey, at the end of which they were invited to join the panel. For a random half-sample of invitations, households without internet access were instructed to return a postcard. These households were contacted by telephone and sent a tablet if they agreed to participate. A total of 9,396 were invited to join the panel, and 8,778 agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. The same recruitment procedure was carried out on August 19, 2019, from which a total of 5,900 were invited to join the panel and 4,720 agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. Of the 23,440 individuals who have ever joined the ATP, 15,427 remained active panelists and continued to receive survey invitations at the time this survey was conducted.

The U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File has been estimated to cover as much as 98% of the population, although some studies suggest that the coverage could be in the low 90% range.1 The American Trends Panel never uses breakout routers or chains that direct respondents to additional surveys.

Weighting

The ATP data was weighted in a multistep process that begins with a base weight incorporating the respondents’ original selection probability. The next step in the weighting uses an iterative technique that aligns the sample to population benchmarks on the dimensions listed in the accompanying table.

Sampling errors and test of statistical significance take into account the effect of weighting. Interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish.

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

Table showing unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request.

05-10-2020- The Deep State Is Older Than You Realize

05-10-2020- The Deep State Is Older Than You Realize

The Deep State Didn’t Start with Donald Trump

By Steve Baldwin
Published May 10, 2020 at 6:05am


The term “Deep State” has become quite popular during the Trump years, only because of how these entrenched government networks have been exposed by the conservative media and by President Donald Trump himself. It refers to cabals of long-time government bureaucrats and officials who are part of the permanent political establishment.

These informal networks may also include well-connected Capitol Hill staff, influential political consultants, and leaders of leftist activist groups and foundations.

Advertisement – story continues below

Of course, there is no formal membership. Rather, such networks are held together by common ideology and interests.

They have sought to maintain their power and influence regardless of which party controls the White House and are imbued with an arrogant “We know what’s best for America” attitude. They regard themselves as the “real government” and consider most elected officials as ignorant, bothersome obstacles. Oftentimes, they operate in secret and many at one time may have been political appointees, but once someone hostile occupies the White House, they shift into protected Civil Service positions to maintain power and influence. They usually have establishment media allies and are far more connected to Democrat politicians than Republican ones.

Their ideology is on the left — and they are scornful of conservatives. More specifically, those who hold this ideology typically favor subverting U.S. interests to international entities such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court and support treaties and agreements that put the U.S. at a disadvantage. Examples of this would be the Iranian nuclear deal, the Kyoto global warming treaty and many of the so-called “free trade” deals.

TRENDING: Media Lies at Work: As NY Deaths Go Up, So Do Cuomo’s Polls – As FL Deaths Go Down, So Do DeSantis’ Polls

This globalist mentality stems from a belief that America was founded upon malevolent motivations and obtained its wealth and power immorally; thus America’s influence must be checked by international institutions and treaties whenever possible.

These globalists detest the “America First” attitude and will do whatever is necessary to subvert that concept. They are mostly socialists.

Advertisement – story continues below

The classic examples of Deep Staters from recent headlines are former Obama appointees John Brennan, Nellie Ohr and James Comey, all of whom played key roles in the Russian collusion hoax but also have deep Marxist influences in their backgrounds as documented in Diana West’s book “The Red Thread: A Search for ideological Drivers inside the Anti-Trump Conspiracy.”

Deep Staters always claim to be defenders of the Constitution but in reality are hostile to the ideas of limited government, national sovereignty, a strong military and much of the Bill of Rights — especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments — since they believe such rights will inhibit their efforts to increase the power and scope of the federal government.

Do you believe the Deep State is aligned against Donald Trump?

Top of Form

Yes No 

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Bottom of Form

Deep State members are commonly involved in unethical or illegal activity, and they have assisted liberal presidents to carry out such activity — or, at the very least, helped conceal it. Indeed, Deep Staters have no problem working with foreign intelligence operatives to achieve their aims.

We know, for example, that the group of Obama appointees who initiated the Russian collusion hoax worked with a former British intelligence officer to assemble a dossier full of phony intel fed to him by Russians with close ties to Putin and by a “top level Russian intelligence officer.” Moreover, we know that this same Deep State network collaborated with intelligence sources in Italy and Australia as well.

All of this was directed toward, at first, the defeat of Donald Trump in 2016 and then, post-election, his removal. The reason, of course, is that Trump, an avowed American-Firster, posed the greatest threat ever to these entrenched Deep State networks.

Advertisement – story continues below

In an earlier era, such activity would be considered treasonous.

The Deep State networks often play a role in enriching their ideological leaders. Sometimes they will organize foundations staffed with former high-ranking government officials who then hit up nations and multi-nationals for money on the premise that, once back in power, they will carry out policies beneficial to them. (The Clinton Foundation is the perfect model here, but there are other such foundations.)

RELATED: Dick Morris: Four Senators Put Their Greed First

Another favorite Deep State tactic is to get the children of its leaders appointed to the boards of foreign companies which are controlled or deeply influenced by U.S. foreign policy or recipients of U.S. foreign assistance. These children will then become wealthy and pour money back into the Deep State network. The classic example of this is Hunter Biden’s board appointments and involvement with corporations in Ukraine, China and elsewhere that engaged in activity Hunter had zero background in — all while his father was vice president.

It is also common for Deep Staters to get their children appointed to domestic highly paid corporate boards. A classic example is the appointment of Chelsea Clinton to the board of IAC/InterActiveCorp, a media and internet investment company. Since 2011, she has reaped $9 million from this company, even though she has no background in media investments. Not surprisingly, this company is controlled by Barry Diller, a close associate of Hillary Clinton.

Advertisement – story continues below

The Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Obama and Romney families, just to name a few examples, are the beneficiaries of these and other enrichment schemes exposed by Peter Schweizer’s books, namely, “Profiles in Corruption” and “Secret Empires.” Indeed, many believe the main reason why the political establishment detest Trump and want to remove him from office is because he’s the first president in history to expose this corruption.

Finally, it should be noted that Deep Staters are hardly ever held accountable for their actions due to their ability to conceal their illegal activity, the contacts they maintain within the Department of Justice and the incompetence of congressional oversight committees.

In an earlier American Spectator article, I compared how Democrats handled GOP scandals, specifically Contra-gate and Watergate, with how the Republicans responded to the half-dozen scandals involving Barack Obama, such as using the IRS to suppress the Tea Party movement in order to ensure his re-election:

“Between Watergate and Contra gate, Democrats charged 83 Republicans with criminal conduct. Today, Republicans have not held even one Democrat accountable for the high crimes committed by the Obama Administration.”

Advertisement – story continues below

Perhaps that will change this summer, but don’t hold your breath.

This Op-Ed is Part I of a multi-part series on the Deep State by former California state assemblyman Steve Baldwin. The second part will appear on The Western Journal on May 14.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Submit a Correction

05-10-2020- Obama Worried Over Dropped Flynn Case

05-10-2020- Obama Worried Over Dropped Flynn Case

05-10-2020- Obama Worried Over Dropped Flynn Case

Obama Worried Over Dropped Flynn Case, Warns in Leaked Call ‘Rule of Law Is at Risk’

By Andrew J. Sciascia
Published May 9, 2020 at 1:26pm


The Justice Department’s official dismissal of the federal case against former Trump administration National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is not sitting well with former President Barack Obama.

According to Yahoo! News, Obama provided rare commentary on the matter Friday, referring to the decision as unprecedented and worrisome in a private online call with members of his former administration, now colloquially referred to as the Obama Alumni Association.

An audio recording of the call reveals the former president even alleged the “rule of law is at risk.”

“The news over the last 24 hours, I think, has been somewhat downplayed about the Justice Department dropping charges against Michael Flynn,” Obama said. “The fact that there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.

“That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.

TRENDING: Media Lies at Work: As NY Deaths Go Up, So Do Cuomo’s Polls – As FL Deaths Go Down, So Do DeSantis’ Polls

“And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places,” Obama added.

He went on to suggest the Flynn decision should underline for left-wing political operatives the importance of the upcoming 2020 election, in which his former vice president, Joe Biden, is now the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Advertisement – story continues below

Benny

✔@bennyjohnson

OBAMA PHONE CALL: ‘Rule of law is at risk’ after Michael Flynn case was dropped.

Embedded video

1,214

9:54 AM – May 9, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

761 people are talking about this

According to The Associated Press, the charges against Flynn were dramatically dropped in a Thursday court filing brought by the Justice Department after a lengthy investigative case review conducted by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen.

Amid then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to knowingly providing false statements in an interview with the FBI the previous January, Fox News reported.

Prior to President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the incoming national security advisor had been under scrutiny for alleged Logan Act violations resulting from foreign policy conversations with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transitionary period between the Obama and Trump administrations.

Despite his guilty plea, however, arguments raised by Flynn’s legal team over alleged potential evidentiary improprieties and prosecutorial misconduct prevented the courts from moving forward with sentencing — a matter further complicated by the subsequent withdrawal of the guilty plea after prosecutors retracted their recommendation that he serve no time behind bars. (The leniency guarantee was part of the original plea deal.)

Advertisement – story continues below

Increasingly relevant among the concerns raised by the defense were allegations the FBI had withheld from Flynn the knowledge that false statements would constitute criminal activity and further advised against the presence of White House counsel during the interview.

FBI notes unsealed last week only served to further undermine the basis for the interview, indicating investigators had questioned whether their goal in interviewing him was to catch Flynn in a perjury trap.

RELATED: Attorney: Then-President Obama Was Involved in Plot To Set Up Flynn

“What is our goal?” one of the notes read. “Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”

Dan Bongino

✔@dbongino

“The White House is running this”
“The POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing.” #ObamaKnew

View image on Twitter

8,748

6:29 PM – May 7, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

4,574 people are talking about this

The bombshell disclosure and immaterial nature of Flynn’s false statements would in turn lead the Justice Department to conclude the interview was “conducted without any legitimate investigative basis” and “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn,” according to The AP.

“Through the course of my review of General Flynn’s case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case,” Jensen said in a statement. “I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.”

Do you think General Flynn has been exonerated?

Yes No 

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Advertisement – story continues below

Brought about by Attorney General William Barr’s ordered investigation into the origins of the Russia probe, the development is yet another in a series of revelations which seems to call into question the legitimacy of both the procedure and foundations of the probe.

Obama’s remarks on the decision come the same week that the investigation seems to have uncovered a baseline knowledge of the probe and its activities among members of the Obama administration.

According to Fox News, recently unsealed notes from then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates reveal Obama and his FBI director, James Comey, were aware intelligence agents had wiretapped Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak in December 2016.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Submit a Correction