Once-curious media that exposed Watergate now playing role of co-conspirator in covering up Obama spying on Trump

The now-infamous “Russia dossier” had been floating around in establishment media circles for weeks during the summer of 2016 when the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump were heating up.

But no one thought to publish the 35 pages of often salacious claims about Russian hookers, motel rooms, “golden showers,” and other wild allegations made against Trump.

That’s because no one could verify what was in the dossier — or so that’s what the American people were told. 

It turns out, however, that its author, Christopher Steele, had attempted to shop the document to various media outlets, which is what eventually got him fired by the FBI. So the media knew the document was out there, what it contained, and where it came from — bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign.

When CNN first reported the existence of the ‘as yet unverified’ dossier, it was after then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper leaked the fact that it had been presented to President-elect Trump by FBI Director James Comey (Clapper would later become a paid analyst at the network).

The American people were never told any of this. We found out much later, thanks to honest brokers on the House Intelligence Committee and a few good investigative journalists like Sara A. Carter, John Solomon, and Paul Sperry.

It’s not the only time the media has either lied about the president or been in collusion with the Deep State to fool the American people and help bring down a duly-elected president, simply because they don’t like him.

It’s also worth noting that Comey knew the dossier was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign — that it was opposition research — which the media also knew. But no one reported that.

Obama ‘wiretapping’

In a series of tweets on March 4, 2017, Trump accused the Obama administration of “wiretapping” him at Trump Tower. It was a clumsy, old-fashioned way of saying that the Obama regime was ‘spying’ on him — keeping him under surveillance.

Mind you, president Trump is privy to all kinds of information that 99.99 percent of Americans will never see or even know about, so it only makes sense to take him at his word when he makes such claims.

But few did. 

Early on, I posited the opinion that someone in government or the media was lying about the Trump ‘wiretapping story.’ Turns out it was both.

After initially reporting information that could have only been gleaned from a counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign (ergo, spying, surveillance) many in the Pravda media began to backtrack and call the president out (accused him of lying).

Then-White House spokesman Sean Spicer pointed out to the media that they were the first to report it. 

The media even went so far as to report that Comey called Trump “crazy” for making the claim that he’d been ‘wiretapped’ by Obama. The New York Times reported:

After President Trump accused his predecessor in March of wiretapping him, James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, was flabbergasted. The president, Mr. Comey told associates, was “outside the realm of normal,” even “crazy.”

What a narrative. Remember that the Times was the paper that reported the “wiretapping” in the first place — and even used that term in a headline in print editions. 

And of course, after all these months, we now know for sure that Trump was right all along and that Comey, Clapper, John Brennan, et. al. and the Pravda media lied about it every step of the way. 

Obama: ‘No way’ Russians could hack/steal the election

In a snarky October 2016 press conference, Obama was asked about Trump’s comments that an outsized number of illegal voters could shift the balance in Clinton’s favor in states like Florida, where there is a heavy immigrant population.

Not only did Obama criticize Trump over those remarks, he went on to claim that no election rigging was possible at all because of the vastly decentralized nature of the American electoral process.

That means if illegal aliens could not affect an outcome, neither could a few hundred Russian trolls. Or a few thousand. Or Russia’s entire counterintelligence service.

But yet, for more than a year the Pravda media has pushed the story, in one form or another, that Russia did just that — affected the outcome of the election against Hillary and for Trump.

For months after the 2016 election the story was pushed daily — and by all the Pravda media outlets — though always without evidence and frequently based on fake information spoon-fed them by Obama Deep State holdovers and operatives.

There’s never been any evidence to prove that Russia “hacked” the election. There never was, because, as the 44th president so vehemently stated, it’s simply impossible (though Hillary still believes it).

But you’d be hard-pressed not to find dyed-in-the-wool Democratic voters to this day who won’t swear to you that it did happen, thanks to the big lie spread by the Pravda media.

The big spy lie

In recent days it has become clear that corrupt Democrats and their equally corrupt Pravda media are changing their stories and narratives so fast it’s like they’ve set a new record for lying.

Last week The New York Times and The Washington Post published leaked information detailing how Trump’s campaign was not only under surveillance but that it had also been infiltrated by spies.

Naturally, the stories garnered much attention, and from the president as well, as one can imagine. 

So incensed was Trump that he summoned Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray to the White House on Monday and ordered them to conduct an investigation into the extent of the spying and the reason why the counterintelligence operation was begun in the first place (since, according to the head of the House Intelligence Committee, there was no intelligence evidence whatsoever upon which to launch a probe).

But some of the same media that had just reported all the details about the spying operation then backtracked, claiming that, no, there were no “spies” only “informants.” As though the entire operation was legitimate in the first place, which of course is false.

What’s another word for an unknown, undercover “informant?” 

That would be spy.’

And that’s precisely the term the Democrats and their Pravda media would be using if, say, George W. Bush had devised a bogus “counterintelligence” operation for the express purpose of keeping tabs on a rival (Obama) campaign. 

As The National Sentinel reported:

What’s even more grotesque about the Times’ piece is it attempts to convince us that the underlying counterintelligence investigation was some real thing — as though there really was legitimate evidence that Team Trump was doing something nefarious with Russia.

There is no evidence to support that claim because there was never any collusion. The entire investigation was part of a scheme to keep Trump out of the White House or undermine him so badly if he won he could be driven from office.

The Pravda media has been in on these various Obama-era scandals involving Team Trump from the outside. What’s sad — and dangerous — is that a large plurality of the country will never believe, or be convinced, that they’ve been lied to.

Read more about Deep State and media corruption at DeepState.news, NewsCartels.com, and Corruption.news.

J.D. Heyes is also editor-in-chief of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:





comments powered by Disqus