Newsweek’s Eichenwald Doubles Down on Debunked Conspiracy, Loses It on Twitter

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: HerpaDerpagiorgio

Still afraid to post under your actual account? Just want to let out some hot air?

Ok I've already answered your query so yes I am afraid. This is serious and scary. Help.

a reply to: HerpaDerpagiorgio

We know.

originally posted by: HerpaDerpagiorgio

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: HerpaDerpagiorgio

Still afraid to post under your actual account? Just want to let out some hot air?

Ok I've already answered your query so yes I am afraid. This is serious and scary. Help.

What are you afraid of?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
But the extent of that intererence is being played up, and the reports seem to support that conclusion. What everyone thinks is Russian interference is simply US intelligence psyops. There is nothing legally preventing them from doing it now.

On 12/29/12, President Obama signed HR 4310, the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Section 1078 of the bill authorizes the use of propaganda inside the US, which had previously been banned since 1948 when the Smith-Mundt Act was passed.
This was discussed in this thread at the time :
President Obama Legallized Propaganda
And this was proven to be true by both the recent implication of PR firm Bell Potinger and confirmed by recent email leaks :

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

What everyone thinks is Russian interference is simply US intelligence psyops.

Prove it. If it is the US intelligence agencies what is their goal? They could have arranged for a viable Republican candidate who could have defeated Clinton fair and square. On the other hand, if Clinton is their puppet, why the damaging leaks? On the other hand, Russia has been known to support political parties in Europe that undermine liberal democracy there. This follows that pattern.

a reply to: HerpaDerpagiorgio

No need to be afraid, anyone can do the test if he dares and, in some cases, the US MSM footage can turn to be a semi-decent source of information to validate the facts :



Seems hard to blame Russia with that one ...
Those avoiding the facts are more likely to be afraid.

a reply to: DJW001


Feel free to drop your comments in this thread :

Clinton / Soros Operative paid million$ to agitate war with Russia

Add-on from Podesta email's #15 :

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

But the extent of that intererence is being played up, and the reports seem to support that conclusion. What everyone thinks is Russian interference is simply US intelligence psyops. There is nothing legally preventing them from doing it now.

Are you saying that it is legal for a foreign intelligence service to steal private correspondence and publish them in an attempt to derail an election?

It's also possible it was a US leak, not done by Russia at all.

If Russia did it they are wrong for doing so .. but that does not detract from the wrong that was exposed.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: the2ofusr1

We are supposed to believe that Russia is not interfering with the American election because the Kremlin controlled state media says they're not?

No, we are supposed to believe that Russia is not interfering with the American election because our US state controlled media says they ARE.

I totally get that everything Putin says or does is as much marketing as our own reptilian overlords.

Still, damn it, everything I see with the guy is down to earth, reasonable, and makes me like him better than I like any of my own politicians.

And he's the enemy. Probably still... pretty sure. But he sure does the leadership role well. I can't remember when the USA last had a leader that actually pulled it off so well.

RC

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Some updates about Kurt Eichenwald :

First, this :

Did Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald Use Threats and Bribery to Silence a Young Journalist?

Consequence : he is now the defendant in a libel complaint :

William Moran II VS Newsweek LLC

And then this old gem from 2007 :

New York Times reporter was a member of an illegal underage porn site, claims he was only "posing as online predator"

The reporter is Kurt Eichenwald, who quit the Times in October, 2006. He already had a lot of explaining to do earlier this year about his conduct while working on the Justin Berry story when it was revealed in March that, without telling his editors, he gave $2,000 to Berry — an 18-year-old who’d spent five years making child porn of himself, when Eichenwald first contacted him in 2005. By then, Berry was an adult recruiting minors to perform sexually on webcams. After discovering this, Eichenwald found Berry a lawyer, who took him to the Department of Justice and got him immunity from prosecution in exchange for turning state’s evidence against four mostly gay and young men. All were eventually charged and convicted of making and distributing porn depicting underage teen boys. After Eichenwald wrote a blockbuster story about Berry for the Times, his journalism techniques aroused controversy in press circles. Even so, no one knew about the $2,000 check, and most of the media feted him.

Press adulation evaporated in March of this year however, when revelations of the $2,000 check emerged at a criminal trial in Michigan for one of the four accused men. Testifying there, Eichenwald said he was not acting as a reporter when he gave Berry the money, but was trying to save him from sexual exploitation and later demanded the money back before he started doing a Times piece.

This summer, a court hearing in the Nashville case revealed that Eichenwald gave yet more money to Berry, again without telling his editors. CounterPunch was the first to report this, and days later, the Times picked up the story. The Times didn’t say what the money — $1,184 — bought, and Eichenwald demurred that he had no independent recollection of having spent it. Two days after the Times report, he resigned from the Conde Nast financial magazine Portfolio without explanation.