The Guardian's Assange-Manafort fake news story hasn't been retracted or apologized for. Instead, other left-leaning psy-op "journalist" rags like Politico, a known purveyor of fake news, is trying to absolve The Guardian and it's plagiarist "hack job" of a write Luke harding by blaming Russia for the whole mess.

The message delivered started out from The Guardian as "Manafort secretly met with Assange 3 times in the Embassy to work as agents in a Russian plot to destroy America", and now it's morphing into "the Russians tricked the Guardian into publishing a false story to make people distrust the trustworthy news agency."

The apologetic piece form Politico starts off talking about the "bombshell report in the Guardian":

It means the guy running Trump’s campaign met directly with the head of the organization that served as a tool of Russia’s intelligence services, distributing stolen Democratic emails in an effort to influence the U.S. presidential election. It could be the proverbial smoking gun that shows Trump’s campaign knew it was receiving help from Russian intelligence services and perhaps even aided the operation.

In order to counter and combat the flurry of skepticism and claims of a false story, Politico is doing it's "duty" to promote and defend the mainstream news media's fake news narrative, as it often does.

... perhaps the report is something else entirely: a disinformation campaign. Is it possible someone planted this story as a means to discredit the journalists?

A number of parties in the Trump-Russia circus have an interest in discrediting the media.

Harding is likely a major target for anyone wrapped up in Russia’s intelligence operation against the West’s democratic institutions

If this latest story about Manafort and Assange is false—that is, if, for example, the sources lied to Harding and Collyns (or if the sources themselves were lied to and thus thought they were being truthful in their statements to the journalists), or if the Ecuadorian intelligence document is a fake, the most logical explanation is that it is an attempt to make Harding look bad.

Yup. If it's fake, then it's not Harding or the Guardian that is to blame for making a fake news story. Because mainstream media is the "authoritative" measure of "real true news" in society and is always to be trusted. They can;t possibly be the fabricators of fake news. No. Instead, the reason false information is being published by the media outlet and carried unquestioningly by others, is because the "Russia’s intelligence services" wanted to spread this disinformation... right...

Harding and the Guardian are just poor dupes in this evil plot by Russia once again. That's exactly what Russia would want. Create a false story to make them look bad, and hope it gets exposed as a fake news in order to destroy the credibility of Western media. As if the credibility and trust of the Western media outlets weren't already doing a great job of that on their own.

The whole article is ridiculous mental gymnastics to try to excuse Harding and the Guardian. After 3 days, no other media outlet has confirmed the authenticity of the accounts claimed by Harding and the Guardian, despite running with it. No videos or photos prove any meeting took place. And apparently, this Politico shit-piece is "an article by an ex-CIA agent with a fake name suggesting it's Russia's fault", says Glenn Greenwald.

If it's fake news, the Russians are to blame. If it's true, the Russians are to blame for working with Manafort and Assange to "destroy American democracy". Either way, it's all about trying to go after Russia and tying Trump and otehrs like Assange to it.

It's all about trying to smear Assange into a Russiagate corner of colluding with Russia to hack information about the Democrats that lost them the election. The fake news outlets like CNBC had an idea which they are all too glad to push onto their viewer. In a recent "The Beat with Ari Melber" titled Collusion bombshell: Report Manafort met with Assange in 2016.

Listen to what he said to try to paint Assange as a Russian agent:

"At a minimum, this reports shows the man who released the emails hacked by the Russians met with the man who ran Donald Trump's campaign and had long standing times to Russia."

"The maximum legal theory would suggest that the head of Trump's campaign could coordinate, either the hack itself, or the way it was deployed with WikiLeaks, against a domestic political opponent in the United States."

Even if Manafort didn't meet with Assange, the media doesn't care. They got their hyped up false story and they are running with it to warp the American mindset. Manafort lied before, he can't be trusted and must be lying now. Therefore, what the Guardian is saying is true. The end.

Much of the media already considers Assange guilty of colluding with Russia to hack emails that were later released in WikiLeaks. They are so convinced of their own bullshit narrative that they, the Democratic left-leaning media and Democratic party, lost the election is because of Russian tampering. Anything that has to do with making the Democrats lose the election, such as the leaked emails which exposes some bad behavior of Hilary Clinton, could only of come about from those evil meddling Russians to "subvert" and "destroy" the great democracy of America.

Politico is part of the mainstream narrative supporting deluded idiots or outright liars. They, along with Snopes and WikiLeaks, are the "fact checkers" with Facebook and YouTube. It's a joke. All they do is support the official "authoritative" position on things. And when something goes against their narrative, they drum up conspiracies like this that try to exonerate the fake news their mainstream allies are spreading, shifting the blame on the hacking, "democracy-destroying" red devils in Russia.

References:

Related posts:

Thank you for your time and attention. Peace.

If you appreciate and value the content, please consider: Upvoting, Sharing or Reblogging below.

me for more content to come!