Where have you seen these RT headlines before?

[ffr]

Clinton for Prison*
Julian Assange Special: Do WikiLeaks Have the E-mail That’ll Put Clinton in Prison?”

Clinton cannot be trusted
“Clinton and ISIS Funded by the Same Money.”

Corrupt Clintons
“How 100% of the Clintons’ ‘Charity’ Went to...Themselves,”

Rigged!
“Trump Will Not Be Permitted To Win,”

* Underlines for framing scope

01/06/17 - release of the Intelligence Communities analysis.
On 6 August, RT published an English-language video called “Julian Assange Special: Do WikiLeaks Have the E-mail That’ll Put Clinton in Prison?” and an exclusive interview with Assange entitled “Clinton and ISIS Funded by the Same Money.” RT’s most popular video on Secretary Clinton, “How 100% of the Clintons’ ‘Charity’ Went to...Themselves,” had more than 9 million views on social media platforms. RT’s most popular English language video about the President-elect, called “Trump Will Not Be Permitted To Win,” featured Assange and had 2.2 million views. - TPM Pg 14 of 25

All of them were produced by....?

THE KREMLIN. And rebroadcast by Fox News & RW media outlets to hoodwink American voters into voting for the Russian backed candidate.

Romanian hacker Guccifer: I breached Clinton server, 'it was easy' - Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/04/romanian-hacker-guccifer-breached-clinton-server-it-was-easy.html

Assange: Clinton & ISIS funded by same money, Trump won’t be allowed to win - RT
https://www.rt.com/news/365299-assange-pilger-saudi-clinton/

Funding terrorism — and the Clintons - NY Post
http://nypost.com/2016/06/15/funding-terrorism-and-the-clintons/

96 Percent Of Hillary’s Charitable Donations In 2015 Went To Clinton Foundation - The Daily Caller
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/12/96-percent-of-hillarys-charitable-donations-in-2015-went-to-clinton-foundation/

Clintons' 'charity' is to themselves - Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/12/clintons-charity-themselves/

Any questions about who is on whose side?

[radical noodle]

1. I saw a few of them right here a few months ago

[ffr]

2. Me too. The IC report mentions Trolls and False Flag operations too

Holy fcuking sh*t!!!

WE ARE UNDER ATTACK! And their army is about to walk right throw our front door on January 20th.

[radical noodle]

6. Yes and I have friends

who are generally non-political who are beginning to think the same thing. I see people now who didn't care one way or the other before who are afraid now.

[Igel]

11. Whoa.

No, the Kremlin didn't write them. RT did. The distinction isn't moot. It's like saying the White House writes what's in the Army's newspaper. Loyalty and awareness of the party line makes hands-on action by the Kreml' not so important for most things.

Beyond that, the headlines are written for the story. If Wikileaks has some emails and 10 newspapers write stories based on them, the headlines are likely to be similar. Headlines are locally produced, mind you.


What the "attack" consisted of was getting attention thrown on things that were then picked up in a completely predictable fashion and promulgated widely. Those emails from the DNC that were leaked? Nobody forced the press to report on them; that was the press doing what the press did. Perhaps trolls got some stories rated more highly, but that's about all. If the press corps and the rest of we-the-people found the stories uninteresting and unappealing, they'd have sunk like stones.

The "attack" was like upping the amount of heroin that's sent into a community of drug addicts. Yeah, there are more deaths, but the attack neither produced the addicts nor forced them to shoot up. Most of the anti-HRC news wasn't fake; we just like to think it was because the fake stuff didn't have any traction here (in fact, I'd never heard most of it) and we needed an excuse.

In similar fashion, the first goal the IC report listed was the Kremlin's desire to undermine faith in the electoral process--and, by implication, to act on the non-legitimacy of whoever occupied the Oval Office. Now, to a certain extent (R) said that about Clinton. To a larger extent, (D) said that about Bush II, selected-not-elected, black-box voting, and all that fun stuff. To an even larger extent, (R) said that about Obama. Now, to yet a greater extent (D) will say that about Trump--we mock the idea of voter fraud, we guffaw when Trump said the election was rigged, but a couple of days after Trump won numerous states many, many (D) were talking voter fraud and election rigging (whiplash-inducing, that). We're naturally eager to delegitimize the electoral process, and yearn to do the Kremlin's bidding in this regard. At best, the Kreml' is accelerating the process a little. We may import a certain amount of meth on our own, but they're shipping in a bit more for free. Pogo was right--we have met the enemy and he is us.

[VOX]

19. Wouldn't take much for the Kremlin to "get to" someone at RT...

And even request that specific anti-Democratic Party topics should be emphatically hammered on with increased intensity and ruthlessness. And in a steady, measured flow with no letup.

Of course anti-HRC exists within the "KGOP," but this had power and muscle behind it. It's a coup d'etat thinly disguised as a legitimate election. The incoming administration is pushing their appointments so quickly that they're outpacing the traditional review process. Per today's Washington Post:
"A top ethics official has warned that plans to confirm Donald Trump’s top Cabinet choices before background examinations are complete are unprecedented and have overwhelmed government investigators responsible for the reviews."

[Cha]

20. Really? Well that contributed to her loss.. spreading FAKE NEWS.

[radical noodle]

22. Exactly Cha!

And it's still going on in some places, as I'm sure you know.

[Cha]

23. Yes, but good to remind others who may not

be aware.

rad

[Joanie Baloney]

3. So

How can people like Ed Schultz and Larry King and to some extent, Thom Hartman, associate with them? Maybe now they won't.

-JB

[ffr]

4. The OP is regarding written talking points, not radio shows.

If you can find those radio personalities toting the Russian line, then please come forth with such information. Until then, I'd assume that any pro-Russian language they used be taken with skepticism.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. How Ed Schultz transformed from MSNBC lefty to the American face of Moscow media

December 20, 2016

...
“Good evening, friends,” Schultz boomed on his program one recent evening before swiftly segueing into “the alleged hacking” of the presidential election by Russia. Schultz skipped the latest details, such as President Obama’s views on the matter or the consensus among American intelligence agencies about the extent of Russian meddling. Instead he went straight to Ed Schultz’s view of the matter: “This has become a lifeline for Clinton supporters in an effort to reverse the outcome of the election. .?.?. In the meantime, the story has entered the arena of outrageous.”

Schultz quickly threw to a recorded package, in which RT America reporter Alexey Yaroshevsky wondered how long the “spiraling downfall of sanity” over hacking in the U.S. media would continue. “Until the public sees forensic evidence, if such exists at all, these accusations should carry as much weight as online humor,” Yaroshevsky reported.

Next up: A Schultz-led panel discussion of Trump’s appointment of ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson as secretary of state and Tillerson’s ties to Putin.

“Why is (Tillerson’s) business relationships and successes with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the business world and in the energy industry, why is that a negative on Capitol Hill?” he asked the panel, almost pleading. “Isn’t that a positive thing that he knows Putin?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-ed-schultz-transformed-from-msnbc-lefty-to-the-american-face-of-moscow-media/2016/12/20/320713f4-c322-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.7464ad08958b

RT America’s Ed Schultz Is Defending Donald Trump’s RT America Interview

September 9th, 2016

Liberal TV host and former MSNBC star Ed Schultz put out a video Friday in which he lit into the Clinton campaign and the media for raising questions over Donald Trump‘s Thursday night appearance on his current network.

Trump spoke with Larry King on his Russia Today show, which was intriguing to some because it meant that Trump was following his most recent Vladimir Putin sweet-talk by appearing on the Kremlin’s own network. That interest was compounded by the fact that discussion focused on whether Russian agents were responsible for the DNC hack right before their convention months ago.

These factors have caused both Hillary Clinton and numerous media figures to alternatively question and highlight Trump’s cozy relationship with the Russian president. Schultz is also an anchor for RT America, and he lashed out at Clinton, the media, and CNN in particular for insinuating that Trump’s interview was “unpatriotic.”

Schultz lambasted Clinton for never having granted interviews to the network, and said the idea that Putin hacked the DNC was manufactured by her campaign. Schultz invited her campaign to come on his show, but said they will not because connecting Trump to Putin is Clinton’s top strategy to win the White House.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/liberal-host-ed-schultz-is-defending-donald-trumps-rt-america-interview/

[Joanie Baloney]

15. They do R/T TV as well

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028441830

I just think any American pundit associated with R/T should find another platform.

-JB

[WhiteTara]

5. I have asked Hartman

this same question both publicly and through a PM. The answer is crickets. He's happy for the money.

[byronius]

7. He may not want to lose the platform, but it's hard to imagine him serving Putin.

[progree]

8. Oh he does. He most certainly does

I remember him arguing that the reason Russia took Crimea was that Russia has a naval base there, and they were afraid to lose it. And then he went on to say that the U.S. would do the same thing -- annex Bahrain -- if we were worried about Bahrain closing our naval base there (headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet). That's pretty much when I lost it.

And he is always on the side of Russia against the Ukraine.

He has been arguing recently that there is no proof of Russian government agencies' involved in the hacking. Along with that clown Stephen Cohen as a guest.

I like Thom Hartmann a lot. But whenever he talks about anything to do with Russia, he has zero credibility. And it's not because he is on Russia Today. It's because of what he says.

ON EDIT: Bahrain, not Qatar.

[byronius]

9. Wow, I had no idea.

Hadn't listened to him since Air America.

[Cha]

21. Thanks, progree.. I c/p this for my journal.. Thomm Hartman on Russia

I remember him arguing that the reason Russia took Crimea was that Russia has a naval base there, and they were afraid to lose it. And then he went on to say that the U.S. would do the same thing -- annex Bahrain -- if we were worried about Bahrain closing our naval base there (headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet). That's pretty much when I lost it.

And he is always on the side of Russia against the Ukraine.

He has been arguing recently that there is no proof of Russian government agencies' involved in the hacking. Along with that clown Stephen Cohen as a guest.

I like Thom Hartmann a lot. But whenever he talks about anything to do with Russia, he has zero credibility. And it's not because he is on Russia Today. It's because of what he says.

ON EDIT: Bahrain, not Qatar.

I had no idea either.. Thank you!

[lancelyons]

10. As long as this tactic worked for the GOP they will get behind it.

As long as this fake news tactic works for the GOP they will stay with it. Look they were facing some very bad looking odds to ever govern much again with the changing demographics.

Now Russia is leaning their way and they toward Russia, and Wiki leaks helping both Russia and Trump/GOP. This helped them win the Presidency and be able to push their agenda for years.

Even though this entire situation with Trump and the GOP is undermining democracy and tarnishing the office of President, The GOP will continue to be OK with all of this help from Russian, Fake News and Wikileaks while its beneficial.

I am not sure how democrats will be able to turn this around as long as the GOP continue to benefit from this.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

13. Republicans have lived off fake news for years.

Case in point: Rush(ian) Limbaugh.

The Russians are playing the same propaganda games.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

14. It will likely get worse with more Russian AI bots...

programmed to push their agendas.

Heck, just creating greater unrest and paranoia with racist comments and the like would probably be viewed favorably by the Russians too.

This Microsoft bot is an example of one that was "taught" how to interact with people, presumably from Twitter trolls in this case: http://gizmodo.com/here-are-the-microsoft-twitter-bot-s-craziest-racist-ra-1766820160

[ffr]

16. Perhaps, but now we have the CIA, FBI, & NSA saying that Fox and Friends are in bed too

The RW media, in the United States, is spreading propaganda and fake news on behalf of the Kremlin. That's what the intelligence community is saying, maybe for the first time. Some of our media is in bed with the Kremlin. Eureka!

They show everyone in the world the headlines that were running before the election right there in their report on page 14 (above). Those were the Kremlin's headlines rebroadcast on American networks, specifically right-wing leaning main stream media organizations.

[pbmus]

17. The reason Why

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512675232

[Maru Kitteh]

18. KICKED and R'd. How. Many. Times.

I would expect ignorant Repukes to fall for this. . . but how many times did some so-called "progressives" . . . drop to their knees and swallow this propaganda whole?

JPR are still the willing fluffers of Putin and the orange shitgibbon.

One of their top posts right now "Congress grovels before the CIA as it escalates “Russian hacking” hysteria"