Let me clue ya' on what's really got them all in a twist. By all, I mean the entire establishment in both parties, their corporate overlords and the media minions. They're all asking themselves and each other the same question. How do we operate in a world where we cannot keep secrets? Everything, everybody, has been and will continue to be exposed. The whole slimy lot of them are used to working on the shadows and now the light has be cast upon them. Oh, it's okay for you and me to have the cameras on us day and night, and those f'n cops, get them on tape too. They have no problem tracking our every move, but now it's on them and they're scrambling to get back in the dark. Yeah, it's a problem. It's a huge f'n problem for the whole damn world. We've all come to a place where our leaders cannot distinguish between truth and lies, and we the people have grown accustomed to dining on the bullshit images being fed to us. The curtain just got yanked back and wouldn't ya' know, isn't anyone got clean hands. Trust is gone. Now what? Good old Ted the uni-bomber was right. Technology will be the death of us all. It exposes every single flaw of humanity, and in high def. We ain't ready for that.
No kidding, they lost control of the narrow one message media. Some guy sits in his parents basement and actually reads the whole official public document and then gives his spin on what it all means. And now we can all read it and if anything smells fishy it goes viral. And then on Sunday morning they have to go back to the network and answer for themselves if they are even asked. It's like an internet guidebook to magic tricks that expose every magicians slight of hand. Their only hope is to declare all news from any source not officially approved by thinking people is not to be read or talked about or shared or discussed in any way. So far, it's not working. Too many of us non thinkers out there, and we vote.
The only thing I would add about the difference is that in the past the papers were owned by families, the banks were owned by others, the oil companies owned by others, steel owned by others, manufacturers owned by others and unions, all competing for the right to buy Congress. Now, all theses competing interests no longer compete. They have been consolidated into the hands of those who have access to the cheapest money and or best technology. But even the tech companies tie up to the banks when they go public after they have a summit with bankers spokesmodels like buffet. The repeal of Glass Steagall made all this worse. For instance Trump is right when he says amazon has a antitrust problem. Not only are they going vertical... Amazon's founder / controller owning the Washington Post is flat out dangerous. Its a formula for the creation of fake news supporting an internationalist agenda.
4 Reasons Russia Didn’t Swing The Election To Trump http://www.dailywire.com/news/11546/4-reasons-russia-didnt-swing-election-trump-ben-shapiro Democrats are over the moon about the new Washington Post report that quotes CIA sources who say that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government actively attempted to aid Donald Trump in his election race against Hillary Clinton. Many Democrats have been making the claim that if not for Putin’s intervention – if not for Russian hackers accessing emails from Hillary campaign chief John Podesta and then releasing them via WikiLeaks for months – Hillary Clinton would today be the president-elect. There’s no evidence to support that. There is plenty of evidence to support the contrary notion, actually. 1. Hillary Tanked Because Of Comey. When FBI Director James Comey announced on October 28 that the FBI had reopened their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, the iceberg hit the Titanic. The gushing hole the FBI announcement represented can’t be overstated. As Nate Silver pointed out over the weekend, “Late-deciding voters broke strongly against Clinton in swing states, enough to cost her MI/WI/PA.” According to Silver, “Clinton would almost certainly be President-elect if the election had been held on Oct. 27 (day before Comey letter).” The Comey reopening happened because of discoveries made during the Anthony Weiner investigation, not because of WikiLeaks. 2. Hillary Was Wildly Unpopular The Entire Election Cycle. The notion that WikiLeaks pushed Hillary’s unpopularity is unsupported by the evidence. An Economist/YouGov poll taken January 15-January 19, 2016 showed that just 38 percent of voters saw Hillary favorably, compared with 56 percent who viewed her unfavorably; that same poll showed her at 43 percent to 56 percent on November 4 through November 7. Hillary was always an awful candidate, and most Americans knew that for the entire election cycle. 3. The Major WikiLeaks Revelations Weren’t Major Enough. The most serious WikiLeaks revelations about Clinton broke late in the campaign: Donna Brazile channeling debate questions to Hillary Clinton during her campaign with Bernie Sanders, Hillary aides attacking Catholics, Hillary working with the Clinton Foundation. But none of those had any marked impact on her poll numbers. It was the Comey revelations that damaged her severely – she seemed to be stabilizing just before the Comey news broke. 4. It Wasn’t Putin’s Fault Hillary Didn’t Visit The Swing States. Hillary’s team blew it. She didn’t show up in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. According to Huffington Post, “In Michigan alone, a senior battleground state operative told HuffPost that the state party and local officials were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004…. A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin. According to several operatives there, the campaign’s state office and local officials scrambled to raise nearly $1 million for efforts to get out the vote in the closing weeks.” Hillary assumed she had the campaign in the bag, and in the final weeks, she treated it that way, spending time in states that weren’t competitive rather than those that were. Is it serious stuff that Putin attempted to influence an American election by hacking an American institution like the DNC? Of course. It was impeachable when Richard Nixon bugged Democratic headquarters in 1972 – it’s not exactly small news when the Russians effectively do the same thing to Democrats in 2016. But just as Nixon’s bugging didn’t cost McGovern the election in 1972, there’s little evidence to suggest that Putin’s interference stopped Hillary Clinton from becoming president-elect.
http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelReagan/democrats-russia-ronald-reagan/2016/12/13/id/763730/ "...When my father, Ronald Reagan, was president, Democrat politicians secretly connived with the Soviets in failed attempts to manipulate elections and defeat Ronald Reagan. Former intelligence officer Herbert Romerstein dug through the Soviet archives after the fall of the USSR and uncovered secret documents written by KGB agent Victor Chebrikov. The documents revealed that Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy had sent a friend, former Senator John Tunney of California, to contact the KGB. Tunney’s mission: undermine then-President Jimmy Carter. On March 5, 1980, as Kennedy was challenging Carter in the primaries, Tunney met with the KGB and urged the Soviets to sabotage Carter’s foreign policy efforts. It’s amazing: Two high-ranking Democrats — a sitting U.S. senator and a former senator — sought Soviet help in undermining American foreign policy and manipulating an American election..." "...Then there’s Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O’Neill. He privately told Ambassador Dobrynin that it was in everyone’s best interests if the Soviets would help the Democrats keep "that demagogue Reagan" from being re-elected. O’Neill warned Dobrynin that the "primitive instincts" of this "dangerous man" would plunge the world into war. It must have amazed Anatoly Dobrynin that these prominent liberals — Ted Kennedy, Armand Hammer, Jimmy Carter, and Tip O’Neill — all viewed President Reagan as more dangerous than any Communist dictator. Historian Paul Kengor observed that the Soviet archives showed "the lengths to which some on the political left . . .were willing to go to stop Ronald Reagan..." "...Fast-forward to 2016. The Democrats are desperate to blame their election loss on Russian interference. President Obama has ordered a complete investigation, and says he wants a report on his desk before he leaves office. Well, Mr. President, I wanted you to have all the information, including how the Democrats tried to manipulate U.S. elections in 1980 and 1984 — with the help of the Russians. Karma really sucks, doesn’t it?..."
I read these stories about the CIAs feelings. 1. I don't believe that. I think most know the Washington Post story is bullshit. 2. If the CIA did not want their feelings hurt they should avoid having their leaders make political findings. Their analysis should be that podesta's email was was hacked his emails released. The RNC may have been hacked... we don't know. Since we don't know who actually did it.... We can't say it was political or just the natural result of phishing. Besides Julian Assange said it was not Russians and hinted the leaker was the DNC worker who was assassinated in D.C neighborhood coffee shop.