I forrige uge rapporterede flere medier, at Wikileaks skulle have tilbudt Trump og hans kampagnestab adgang til de e-mails, der var blevet hacket/lækket fra partiet Demokraternes servere, og at dette skulle være sket inden nyheden om hacket/lækagen blev kendt af offentligheden. Dette blev tolket som en rygende pistol på, at Trump arbejdede koordineret sammen med Wikileaks og dermed inddirekte med Rusland. Det hele var baseret på en e-mail fra en ellers ukendt Michael J. Erickson til Trumps søn Donald Trump Jr, hvori Jr blev tilbudt en digital krypteringsnøgle.

Men historien holdt ikke vand og medierne ukritiske behandling var med Glenn Greenwalds ord i The Intercept et ‘ymygelsesorgie’. Den ukendte Erikson viste sig nemlig at være en tilfældig fyr, der bare havde sendt en opfordring til Junior EFTER, at e-mailsne var blevet offentliggjort og altså allerede kunne ses af hvem som helst. Men denne ‘nothingburger’ af en nyhedshistorie var faktisk fyldt med et delikat indhold, skriver Conservative Treehouse (CTH), for medierne havde mere end en anonym kilde til de samme oplysninger, mere end en kilde som altså havde lavet den nøjagtigt samme dateringsfejl…

It was leaked from within the committee, and later reported by CNN, that the date was “September 4th, 2016”; a date convenient for a collusion narrative between Trump Jr and WikiLeaks.

However, the real date, on the actual email, was “September 14th, 2016”; a day after Wikileaks published the content of their DNC leaks and a date that makes the entire CNN report a ‘nothingburger’.

However, CNN reports that two independent sources originally leaked to them the contents of what they had seen on the email in question.  But CNN never saw the email, until later in the day.

Think about this carefully.

?Two “independent sources” both looked at an email, and both came away from reading that email with the wrong date?   How is that possible?

It has been CTH contention for several weeks that a counterintelligence sting operation has been going on within the IC community.  False trails of information, seeded by ‘White Hat’ investigators, intended to be captured by ‘Black Hat’ leakers – and delivered to their usurping allies in media.  The stories are fake, the leaks are real.

All investigative documents, relating to the witness, are provided to the congressional committees prior to the interviews with the witnesses; or, if the information is classified, each committee member has an opportunity to review the documents via a controlled SCIF environment when no physical copies are allowed as part of the evidence.

The Don JR./Wikileaks email could very easily be part of a ‘sting’.  The date was intentionally seeded as incorrect.  The resulting story is fake. The leak, however, is real.

Each nugget of disinformation exposes a specific leaker. Each trail used in the sharing of that disinformation exposes the enabling media.  The White Hat plants the fake news seed, and then watches to see where, when, how, to-whom, and from-whom, it shows up.

Komiteen der omtales er House Intelligence committee, som følger efterretningstjenesterne og også Muellers efterforskning. Lækager i politisk øjemed herfra er derfor “a VERY BIG deal”, som CTH skriver. Og denne på en gang let og radikalt redigerede historie er blot en af mange falske historier om Trump og russerne, skriver Greenwald, hvilket er sin helt egen problemstilling

Third, this type of recklessness and falsity is now a clear and highly disturbing trend — one could say a constant — when it comes to reporting on Trump, Russia, and WikiLeaks. I have spent a good part of the last year documenting the extraordinarily numerous, consequential, and reckless stories that have been published — and then corrected, rescinded, and retracted — by major media outlets when it comes to this story.

(…)

But what one should expect with journalistic “mistakes” is that they sometimes go in one direction and other times go in the other direction. That’s exactly what has nothappened here. Virtually every false story published goes only in one direction: to be as inflammatory and damaging as possible on the Trump-Russia story and about Russia particularly. At some point, once “mistakes” all start going in the same direction, toward advancing the same agenda, they cease looking like mistakes.

No matter your views on those political controversies, no matter how much you hate Trump or regard Russia as a grave villain and threat to our cherished democracy and freedoms, it has to be acknowledged that when the U.S. media is spewing constant false news about all of this, that, too, is a grave threat to our democracy and cherished freedom.

Fortællingen om Trump og Rusland er døende. De fleste store amerikanske Nyhedshuse har ført kampagnejournalistik udi det selvforførende, og deres politiske engagement har kostet dem den troværdighed, der er deres levebrød. At fortsætte denne kurs er ikke farbar, når der ikke ser ud til at der er lys fordi de ikke er en en tunnel, men gravet ned i et hul. Oveni det er der masser af bedre historier om efterretningstjenesternes politiske samspil med Demokrater og den tidligere regering, som andre medier vinder på.

Det eneste der har holdt de store nyhedshuse sammen om Trump-russer fortællingen så længe, er deres samlede tyngde, der har givet deres historier et indtryk af substans i et fælles og deri uimodsagt verdensbillede. Et konsensus, som alle dissidenter er blevet lattergjort på baggrund af. Ironisk det samme, der gjorde at de og Demokraterne helt forregnede sig i valgkampen og at de har forført sig selv til at tro at de kunne omgøre samme valg. Selvsving ser ikke ud til at være en god taktik på længere sigt.

Drokles blogger på www.monokultur.dk

Køb Hege Storhaugs bog her!