Is Amy Goodman Trying to Out-Rachel Rachel?

By Ray McGovern

Toward the top of her program yesterday, Amy Goodman featured the following summary from a par-for-the-course Russia “expose” just published by the New York Times:

“A New York Times investigation has revealed how Russian warplanes have repeatedly bombed hospitals in Syria — including four hospitals in a 12-hour period on May 5 and 6. It is a war crime to recklessly or intentionally bomb a hospital. From April to September, more than 50 hospitals and clinics in opposition-held Idlib province were attacked. Russia has backed Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in his brutal effort to recapture territory from opposition groups.”

( Not to miss the clever graphics, see: .)

I decided to tweet ( ):
Note to Amy @democracynow: There you go again, uncritically parroting NYT anti-Russian drivel re bombing hospitals in Syria & the White Helmets, no less! You took the NYT story hook, line & sinker. For once drop your line in RT waters; you’ll catch this:

Will Amy dare fish out — and perhaps even report the RT version — if only to provide some “balance?”  In this case at least, RT promptly put out “the other side of the story.”

Clearly, the HWHW (Hillary Would Have Won) virus is still making the rounds in erstwhile progressive media that, earlier, were not obsessed with demonizing Russia.

Quick, someone tell Amy that Mrs. Clinton gave her tacit permission to tune in to RT.  (And surely, a wider sampling of news and views might stem the well deserved loss in’s credibility on things Russian.)

Several years ago (on March 2, 2011) when she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by noting publicly: “The Russians have opened up an English language network. I’ve seen it in a couple of countries and it’s quite instructive.”  She added: “We are in an information war and are losing that war.”

You can’t win by telling only one side of the story — and that goes in spades when it’s a NY Times “investigation” of Russian “war crimes.”

Why the NYT’s Fulsome Praise for Felons?

By Ray, October 13, 2019

“James Comey Would Like to Help [get rid of Trump]”.  This may not seem newsworthy, yet it is the title atop an instructive article today by Matt Flegenheimer of the NY Times.  His article makes it clear that, for its part, the Times remains determined to support former FBI Director James Comey and sustain the discredited Russia-gate narrative they share — to the point of helping Comey and his partners-in-crime avoid prison. (See:  .)

In late August, the Department of Justice decided to let Comey off with a slap on the wrist for leaking to the NY Times, through an intermediary, highly sensitive information from his talks with President Donald Trump. At that juncture, it was already a no-brainer to warn that the victory lap Comey chose to run was clearly premature. (See, for example: .)

Consequential leaks to the media by a former FBI director are serious enough.  Now, however, we are talking about felonies.  And this time Comey is standing in such deep kimchi that he may drown, despite how tall he is, and despite NYT preemptive puff pieces protesting purity of the caliber of Caesar’s wife.  This time, even with the Establishment media and Comey’s accomplices offering fulsome praise for him, there is some serious doubt as to whether or not he will be able to wangle a Stay-Out-Of-Jail Card.  Why are they running scared?

In Horror of Horowitz

Over the last year and a half, Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been investigating how Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, and three Deputy Attorneys General (Rod Rosenstein, Sally Yates, and Dana Boente) thought they could get away with signing applications for surveillance of former Trump associate Carter Page without disclosing that, as McCabe later testified, the application was based largely on a the shabby, unverified “Steele dossier” paid for by the Democrats.  Providing incomplete, misleading information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a felony.

No problem, these top law enforcement officials thought at the time.  Who would find out about their misconduct after Mrs. Clinton — the odds-on favorite — became president?  There would be encomia and promotions for help rendered, not indictments.

Oops.  Now all of the above are squirming, and there is a paper trail.  Only one of the FISA application signers is still in a key position to help from the inside — Dana Boente.  No, he was not demoted to working in the file room.  He is the FBI General Counsel.

Is It About to Hit the Proverbial Fan?

According to Inspector General Horowitz, Attorney General William Barr has had his draft IG report for over a month.  Horowitz has said that his team “reviewed over one million records and conducted over 100 interviews, including several of witnesses who only recently agreed to be interviewed.” The team is “finalizing” the report prior to releasing it publicly. ( See: .)

Some pundits are now suggesting that the DOJ IG report may be published as early as next Friday.

Hold onto your hats.

Quick! Someone Tell Amy Goodman What Actually Happened – and Didn’t Happen – in Ukraine 5 Years Ago

By Ray McGovern

Below is a tweet Ray sent off the other morning:

Barr & Durham travel to Rome, as walls close in on [Russia-gate’s] mysterious Professor Mifsud (Video)
October 8, 2019 (25 minutes; but worth it)

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the highly unusual trip to Rome, Italy, taken by U.S. Attorney General William Barr and Russiagate-origin-Investigator, John Durham.  Their ostensible purpose was to listen to a secret tape of Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud, the man many believe is the contracted spy who kicked off the Mueller investigation.  They did more, of course, than simply listen to a tape.

The origins of Russiagate are about to unravel. The trip to Rome, plus the expected results of the investigation of those who approved the FISA warrants  for surveillance of Carter Page, which is led by Justice Department IG Michael Horowitz, have seriously rattled the Democrats, corporate media, and other aficionados of the Russia-gate caper.  The best defense being an aggressive offense, they came up not only with “Ukraine-gate,” but also with an “impeachment inquiry!” The “inquiry” appears to be on shaky legal/constitutional grounds and Trump’s lawyers today explained why he refuses to cooperate.  Hold onto your hats.

What’s Really At Stake with the ‘Whistleblower’ Coup w/ @RayMcGovern
From Fault Lines, live at 8:30 AM ET, Oct. 8, 2019
(30 minutes; starting after first min.)

Are “Ukraine-gate” and impeachment a “magnificent diversion” of attention from the imminent findings by Attorney General Barr and his investigators of FISA and other felonies by the most senior former officials of FBI, CIA, and the Department of Justice itself?
After a year and a half of investigation, DOJ Inspector Michael Horowitz gave his findings on FISA violations to Barr four weeks ago.  Trump gave Barr authority to declassify as necessary. So what’s going on?

Ray includes a critique of hapless former DNI James Clapper.  Inter alia, Clapper actally wrote in his memoir that, while he was head of imagery analysis before the attack on Iraq, “intelligence officers, including me, were so eager to help that we found what wasn’t really there [WMD].”  Ray also observes that Clapper seems to be, so to speak, a summa cum laude graduate of the the “Curtis E. LeMay Air Force School of Russian Studies.”

Attorney General Barr’s Posse Is Mounted, Armed, & Ready, Judging From Attempts to Pre-empt

By Ray McGovern, October 5, 2019

With Justice Dept. IG Horowitz & Prosecutor Durham breathing down their necks, die-hard Russia-gate aficionados have launched a coordinated, pre-emptive “debunk” of what they fear most.  In the words of veteran pundit Frank Rich, the “crackpot conspiracy theory” that needs to be discredited first and foremost is he notion that Russia did not hack DNC, after all.

On no!  First, no Trump-Putin collusion; now no Russian hack? Oh no! Something quite different afoot?  So how did it all start?  The miscreants may be senior, but the evidence is clear.  With some Trump/Barr/Durham/Horowitz courage, we may get close to the truth.  The miscreants did not take th trouble to hide their tracks, because, as Comey wrote in his book, Hillary Clinton was sure to win.

Vestigial Russia-gaters are allergic — understandably — to any mention of the cyber-fraud firm CrowdStrike, the weak sister in the claim of Russian hacking.  CrowdStrike was supposed to do the forensics on the alleged “hack” of the DNC, but never gave the FBI a final report.  For some reason that was okay with then-FBI Director Comey; he paid them anyway for services performed, or not.  And he later admitted under oath that he did not follow “best practices.”

This past week, NBC won the laurels as worst offender.  See:  For an incredibly well informed, comprehensive critique, see:
The proverbial “fat lady” is rehearsing her song; she may be ready to sing soon.

Casablanca Reprise

Intelligence IG Fixed the Goalposts; Now Welcomes Hearsay 
By Ray McGovern

John Kiriakou and Ray made cameo appearances on Russian TV this morning discussing the “whistleblower” who, like Captain Renault in Casablanca, was “shocked, shocked to find” that unsavory activity was going on in the Washington CasaBlanca.

Whistling in the Dark  (8 minutes)

RT/Intl presenter Murad Gazdiev out-Rachels Maddow with documentary evidence strongly suggesting chicanery by the man behind the curtain — Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson himself.

If the others behind the curtain pulled a trick on Atkinson and kept him whistling in the dark,  … well, does anyone ever quit on principle these days?

Was the IG himself a party to this?  Is there no limit to the depredations of these amateur miscreants?  Did they really think they could get away with this one?

AS for RT, small wonder the Establishment abhors RT’s attempts to “influence” people by reporting documentary information.

Neither John nor Ray are holding their breaths for a call from CNN, or MSNBC — or even, sadly, from Amy Goodman.

Red “Whistleblowing” Herrings

By Ray McGovern, September 27, 2019  

On CNLive yesterday evening (link below), Ray discussed the new “Ukraine-gate” whistleblower, who is reported to be a CIA officer who spent some time on detail to the White House. Ray begins with a brief discussion of the intelligence officer-policy maker nexus — particularly the need for the intelligence officer to keep abreast of the interests and needs of the policy maker without becoming seduced into active advocacy of this or that policy.

Ray outlines how Robert Gates placed on steroids the practice of inserting intelligence officers into policy departments, and offers short case studies, demonstrating the need to keep a respectful space between intelligence and policy — not to mention the invaluable credibility and trust that accrues to an intelligence officer who avoids the slightest appearance of policy advocacy.  In contrast, there has been serious mischief — and worse — when intelligence analysts, sitting side-by-side with policy makers, slip into the role of policy maker, blurring the lines and letting their own political/ideological views (and/or the views of those who “detailed” them) — intrude inappropriately on policy making.

Seconding CIA officers to policy making offices increases this risk severalfold.  The reported detailee “whistleblower” for Ukraine-gate needs to be scrutinized in this context.
Filing a complaint, based on hearsay, to the Inspector General of National Intelligence to investigate the president?  Really?  What did the “whistleblower” really have in mind?  Already discernible with the initial leaks of this story to the media was the stench of rotting red herring.

 (Ray’s segment goes from minute 7:55 to 44:40; the whole CNLive video is worth watching.)