Jeff Bezos (WaPo) Covering Up for their partners in the 2016 election coup


Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post; nothing of political weight can be printed without his approval. That’s a fact, and inability to recognize it or willingness to ignore it is the result of the public having been trained to not question the intentions behind the information the owners of the media conglomerate feed them daily.

Under the guise of ‘journalism’, The WaPo published today Sari Horwitz’ article The attorney general could have ordered FBI Director James Comey not to send his bombshell letter on Clinton emails. Here’s why she didn’t. It’s about covering up what amounts to a premature coup d’etat, not only against Hillary Clinton, but against the people of this nation, by the FBI, the Department of Justice and those who are yet to be uncovered.

It bears mentioning that Horwitz, a WaPo award-winning journalist, was found guilty by the WaPo of plagiarism in 2011.

plagiarims

Her article today is nothing but opinion passing as information. Its goal is to exonerate FBI Director James Comey in the public’s eyes for a behavior that was, without a doubt, politically motivated. The public knows it was, Bezos and Murdoch and Carlos Slim know it too; they often stated, after him releasing the now infamous emails letter to Congress, that Comey “must have known the repercussions of his actions”.

That’s why Comey is protected by a wall of media articles exonerating and casting him as a ‘well intentioned’ ‘worker’. If it is found that he acted out to influence the outcome of the elections, it would implicate many more people in what amounts, again, to a premature coup d’etat. For, remember, he is not just any ‘worker’, he is the director of the FBI. And we all know the first image the word FBI conjures in our minds is the opposite of political honesty.

One example of stealthy opinion passing as fact to exculpate Comey and the Justice Department:

But Comey and Lynch repeatedly underestimated how much their actions would reverberate in a closely contested presidential race.

How did Horwitz arrive at the conclusion that these two highly intelligent politicized bureaucrats “underestimated” their actions, and not that their actions were politically motivated? It seems an innocuous assertion from her part, and many readers would not take notice of the opinion being fed as fact. That’s the problem: it is not an innocuous assertion. It was written to manipulate public opinion about the players’ intentions in this   must horrific case of collusion between the media owners spewing their propaganda and the cover up of the political crime.

Horwitz said the following as if agreeing with Comey, never questioning whether the director’s present or past behaviors  confirm or put in doubt his self-perception

Into that vacuum stepped Comey, an FBI director who prides himself on having a finely tuned moral compass that allows him to rise above politics.

Comey’s sense of obligation to Congress was the key factor driving his decision.

When journalists and media editors want to cast blame on any one, politician or not, whether deserved or not, they don’t go pussy footing around it: They charge the person with the crime and repeat their verdict enough times as to making it become  a fact. And when they want to exculpate some one, they tend to succeed. This is the verdict in favor of the Director of the FBI:

Comey’s sense of obligation to Congress was the key factor driving his decision.

There you have it. It is a an opinion; he acted out of ‘duty’. Keep moving folks, there’s nothing else to see here.

When Comey did  his disreputable deed a week before the elections, The WaPo was not the only one to come to Comey’s defense. There was, and continues to be, consensus and agreement by the owners of the media in casting Comey as a good FBI worker caught in the jaws of party politics, and in particular, in Hillary’s ‘web of deceit’, which is how they characterized her involvement in the scandal. You can google Comey and this is what you get:

Comey a Good Man, But He Made a Serious Mistake

Comey’s unintended consequences…

Of course, Hillary Clinton was cast throughout the campaign as dishonest and corrupt by choice. When it came to cast the blame on the outcome of the elections, Comey was a victim, and Clinton lost because, well, she had to.

For one, why are Democrats making Comey the scapegoat when their own presidential candidate was disliked by 56 percent of the population? WaPo’s Cilliza

Comey is “the scapegoat”, and the public shouldn’t complain about manipulations of their democratic process by the media or by a cabal of politicians acting behind the curtains. The message there is simple: We the media told you that Clinton is disliked even more than Trump; that’s a fact and shut up.

Of course, Hillary won the popular vote by almost three million votes more than Trump. The public didn’t want Trump, but the message, even after the facts, the MYTH is that the public didn’t like her and Trump is the people’s choice.

It is the curse of mass of humanity that it can be manipulated at will by a handful of powerful men.

I don’t see how this is going to change any time soon.

For the moment, Comey is the good guy and “scapegoat”.  Hillary is the evil doer. Trump is El Duce.

Enjoy your bizarro life.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s