On June 23, Scott Horton of Antiwar.com and Ray had a relaxed, hour-plus Skype conversation prompted by the web version of the Washington Post’s most fulsome attempt yet to show that Vladimir Putin bears primary guilt for Donald Trump’s success in insinuating himself into the White House.

6/23/17 Ray McGovern on the latest Trump-Russia hoax in the Washington Post


In the Sunday Post on June 25, star reporters Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Adam Entous – with contributions from Karen DeYoung and Julie Tate – present a gripping narrative dominating five pages, replete with photos of, and interviews with, the super-serious players on Obama’s minor-league team that had to go to the showers in January.  Above the fold on page one is a telling photo evincing the article’s main theme; namely, that Obama let Putin steal the election for Trump.  A wimpish-looking Obama is looking more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger at a clearly unrepentant, shorter-but-tougher Vladimir Putin, over the caption HACKING DEMOCRACY and the article’s title, Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election assault.


(Psst!  Ordinarily, we are reluctant to give away the ending, but we decided to spare you the need to wade through the turgid prose; and if you’re a reader of the Post, the ending will come as no surprise: The wimp lost to the bully.)

The Post article is so replete with “alternative facts,” that Ray chose mostly to present a very different narrative based on facts that won’t go away, rather than inferences and “Brennan-facts” that cannot bear close scrutiny.  While the Columbia School of Journalism is still with us, someone should send them the June 25 Washington Post for use as a case study showing how not to do investigative journalism.

Listeners to the Scott Horton interview will find it more discursive and informative than the 19-minute one Ray gave RadioSputnik an hour before.

Ray discusses the latest Washington Post “analysis” of Russia’s “interference” in the 2016 U.S. election; provides a very different narrative – one supported by evidence as well as inference.