CNN has a long article by @MarshallCohen that purports to provide a "reckoning" on the Steele Dossier. It admits that much of it has been proven to be a fraud, that much of the media participated in the fraud, and Trump has been "partially vindicated."
The reality -- which the corporate media is still trying to conceal even as they pretend to admit they helped perpetuate a fraud -- is that virtually every sector of the liberal media made the core conspiracy theory of the Steele Dossier (Putin blackmail) central to our politics:
Even when they didn't mention the Steele Dossier explicitly, all of the major media outlets in the liberal sector -- NYT, WPost, NBC, CNN -- constantly pushed, for years, the deranged conspiracy theory from it: that Putin had seized control of the US through blackmail over Trump.
Don't let them trick you into thinking they're providing accountability for this. Not one journalist will lose their job for this fraud. On its payroll, CNN still has most of the security state agents and media liars who most pushed the Steele Dossier, including @NatashaBetrand.
Almost every discussion on both CNN and MSNBC for years began this way: we now welcome our panel of former prosecutors, FBI agents, CIA operatives, NSA and Pentagon officials, here to tell us why Trump is controlled by Putin. Look how they merged with the security state:
They all used the Steele Dossier over and over, even when they pretended they weren't. That the Kremlin had seized control over the US was the central, core theme of the Democratic Party and corporate media like NBC, CNN and the NYT for years. Just look at them do it:
The NYT and WPost in particular are in this desperate mode of pretending it was just the crazy cable hosts -- not the Serious Journalists like them -- who pushed this. It's an utter lie. The Pulitzers they showered themselves with included this fraud.
The reason there can't be any accountability for the Steele Dossier fraud -- which they are now finally forced to admit was a fraud -- is because they were all implicated in it. Where would the accountability begin? Who in media stood up and objected? They all went along with it.
By far the two biggest liars in politics were @AdamSchiff and @ericswalwell, who just happen to be the favorite sources and guests for CNN and NBC. Most of the Congressional leaks that were lies came from those two, plus Pelosi. It was a union of media, Dems & the security state.
Right, I did and so did a few others. But those who objected were immediately cast out off those corporate precincts, banned, and were declared to be off-limits, radioactive and crazy, so all dissent was eliminated. Only the liars remained, unchallenged:
This is why a "reckoning" of the 4-year fraud they perpetrated is impossible:
Just as the media in 2004 tried pretending it was only Judy Miller who spread WMD falsehoods -- scapegoating her as a way to protect themselves -- they're now trying to pretend that it was only Maddow and Ben Smith responsible for the Steele Dossier. It was an industry-wide scam.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yale's "Fascism expert" Jason Stanely -- Yale's "Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy" (does anyone now who that is?) -- explains why he's fleeing the US in fear withYale's Timothy Snyder and his wife Marci Shore -- to Canada, which he calls "the Ukraine of of North America."
He says Canada is Ukraine beacaue it's a bastion of freedom and nobility threatened an by authoritarian neighbor.
The absolute narcissism and melodrama of these people: there are those whose civil liberties are threatened. Celebrated, rich Yale professors are not among them.
Extra gross that Snyder is very wealthy by heralding himself the world's leading warrior against fascism. His book implores others not to "anticipatorily obey" Trump.
2 months into Trump's term, he flees the US as if he's an underground #Resistance leader in occupied France.
If Joe Biden had announced that any private universities that allow criticism of him or Dems shall immediately lose all federal funding -- while keeping the funding if they allow criticisms of Trump -- would that have been constitutional since no school has the right to funding?
How about if Biden cut off all federal funding to universities that deny the validity of the trans identity or the existence of multiple genders -- on the ground that such teaching incites violence against trans people and is hate speech?
Would that have been constitutional?
The only tactic needed to induce support for censorship is train people to believe the views they hate are violence.
Anti-trans activists are inciting violence and calling for genocide, etc.
Opponents of Israel's war on Gaza are calling for genocide and must be censored, etc. etc.
During the Dem primary campaign, one of RFK Jr.'s core issues was free speech and opposing censorship. Then he became known for wanting to combat chronic disease.
So what does he use his first month for? Threatening universities which allow protests against Israel on campus:
Note: you're free to protest the US on campus. You can protest any country or group: just not Israel.
And of course this censorship - like all censorship - is justified the name of stopping hate speech and keeping one group "safe": as if they're being relentlessly attacked.
Every government in the world -- including the most repressive and tyrannical -- "protects free speech" for the views they like.
It's the views they most hate that are targeted. And the most sacred issue for many in the Trump Admin is Israel: that is what's therefore shielded.
There's nothing stopping Germany or the EU from funding war in Ukraine until the end of eternity if they wish, or sending their citizens to Ukraine to fight Russia.
But the German Greens -- the worst of the worst -- are emblematic of European liberals: all posturing, no action.
British pundits prance around as if they're Churchill, and Macron walks around like he's a tough guy, and German Greens and other vague Berlin liberals posture as if they're the paragon of compassion: all while they rely on the US to finance wars, fight and protect them.
Zelensky begged and begged Westerners to get off line and stop tweeting with their blue-yellow emojis and instead go to Ukraine to help them fight the Russian Army, knowing he couldn't win without non-Ukrainians volunteering to fight. Very, very few did.
For a long-time, harsh critiques of US foreign policy and interventionism were found on the populist right. Listen to Pat Buchanan (who worked for Nixon and Reagan) as well as Ron Paul on US policy toward Israel. Very, very few Dems now speak this way:
In February 2021 -- more than a year before Russian troops entered Ukraine en masse -- the inspiring democrat, President Zelensky, banned 3 popular opposition TV networks by accusing them of spreading Russian disinformation.
It'd be as if Biden banned Fox or Trump banned CNN:🇺🇦
In 2014 -- after Victoria Nuland, @ChrisMurphyCT, John McCain etc. used NED to fund protests in Kiev to remove the democratically elected leader and replace him with an unelected pro-US puppet -- Kiev began bombing ethnic Russian civilians in Donbas:
@ChrisMurphyCT It's bizarre to watch history re-written in real time to serve war propaganda: how Azov Battalion was described as neo-Nazi by western elites, only to be turned into heroic warriors the minute we armed them.