Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gives a speech. (Photo credit: DAVID GANNON/AFP via Getty Images)

Four years ago this week, the leftists at WikiLeaks tried to ruin the Democratic convention by posting a trove of emails exposing how the Democratic National Committee blatantly favored Hillary Clinton and tilted against Bernie Sanders.

Buteven then, the media downplayed the juiciest tidbits for conservatives: emails in Clinton aide John Podesta's account that demonstrated how shamelessly reporters and Democrats work hand in hand to shape the "news."Some might even say it sounds fake. For example:

1. ABC's George Stephanopoulos harshly interviewed "Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweizer on his Sunday show on April 26, 2015. In an email, Clinton campaign staffer Jesse Ferguson boasted that Stephanopoulos "refuted" Schweizer and wrote: "Great work everyone. This interview is perfect. He lands nothing and everything is refuted (mostly based on our work)."

Stephanopoulos didn't just donate to The Clinton Foundation. He donated at the office.

2. Maggie Haberman was singled out as a pliant recycler of the Clinton narratives. Podesta wrote: "We have...a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed."

Now match that with how Haberman is the heroic challenger of all things Donald Trump for The New York Times. She's not a journalist first; she never disappoints at teeing up stories for Democrats.

3. CNBC anchor Becky Quick who helped moderate the atrocious CNBC Republican primary debate in 2015 made a promise to Podesta after then-President Barack Obama nominated Sylvia Mathews Burwell for health and human services secretary, saying she would "make sure to defend her when things get further along in the nomination process."

4. Before the release of a Clinton profile in July 2016, Mark Leibovich of The New York Times Magazine told Clinton communications director Jen Palmieri, "you could veto what you didn't want." At the end of an email, Palmieri listed her vetoes and then shot back like a demanding boss: "Let me know if that is not clear. Working from an iPhone on the plane so am not able to access the transcript to cut and paste."

The Clinton campaign got cut-and-paste privileges!

Leibovich had quoted Clinton talking about eating moose stew and mocking Sarah Palin on her moose chatter. Palmieri instructed: "Fine to use the moose, but appreciate leaving the mention of Sarah Palin out." She also instructed Leibovich to change a Clinton quote about gay rights.

"Pleasure doing business!" Palmieri oozed.

If you think this sort of collusion isn't happening right now between Biden's aides and the journalists who want Trump bounced from office, then you're dreaming. Even worse, CBS brought on Leibovich to discuss WikiLeaks...and never mentioned any of this!

In February 2016, the website Gawker published a cache of emails between reporters and Clinton PR operative Phillippe Reines. The best example was Marc Ambinder, a longtime ABC and CBS reporter then with The Atlantic.

In July 2009, Clinton was delivering a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. Ambinder wanted an advance copy of the speech. Reines insisted on conditions.

"You must describe her tone as 'muscular,' and you must note that her most prominent underlings at the State Department (George Mitchell, Richard Holbrooke) would be seated in front of her to convey her command of the staff," he said.

"Got it," Ambinder replied. Later that day, he published a story in which he xeroxed the Clinton spin right at the top, touting a "muscular speech" Clinton would deliver that day in front of her rival "power centers" in the State Department.

This is how reporters are exploited by anonymous "senior administration officials" to set the table for Democrats, whether they are in power or not.

Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org.

Read the rest here:
Remember the Real Collusion Scandal of the 2016 Campaign? - CNSNews.com

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons' headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands. (Yuriko Nakao / Getty Images)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

A series of leaked documents from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) raise the possibility that the Trump administration bombed Syria on false grounds and pressured officials at the worlds top chemical weapons watchdog to cover it up. Two OPCW officials, highly regarded scientists with more than 25 years of combined experience at the organization, challenged the whitewash from inside. Yet unlike many whistle-blowers of the Trump era, they have found no champion, or even an audience, within establishment circles in the United States.Ad Policy

The Trump administrations April 13, 2018, bombing of Syria came days after it accused Syrian forces of killing nearly 50 people in a chemical weapons attack on Douma, a Damascus suburb. Widely circulated video footage showed scores of dead bodies inside an apartment complex and another group of alleged gas attack victims treated at a hospital. Although the White House did not provide evidence for its allegations against Syria, the harrowing images convinced Congress and the media to cheer on military strikes (as they did under similar circumstances the year prior).

Yet there were early grounds for skepticism. The Syrian government was on the verge of retaking the last Douma holdouts of Jaysh-al-Islam, a Saudi-backed militia that was relentlessly shelling the Syrian capital. To suddenly deploy chemical weapons would mean that Syrian forces knowingly crossed the red line that would trigger US military intervention. Subsequent reporting from British journalists Robert Fisk of The Independent, BBC producer Riam Dalati, and James Harkins investigation for The Intercept found evidence that the civilians filmed in the hospital were not exposed to toxic gas.

The US government narrative received a boost in March 2019 when the OPCW issued a long-awaited final report. It concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a chemical weapons attack occurred in Douma and that the toxic chemical was likely molecular chlorine.

The report, however, was not the OPCWs last word. Since May 2019, internal OPCW documents, including a trove published by WikiLeaks, reveal that the Douma investigators initial report reached different conclusions than their organizations published version. They were overruled by senior officials who kept evidence from the public.

The leaks key revelations include:

The OPCW leadership has yet to offer a substantive explanation for why they excluded critical findings and radically altered the original report. Instead, it has denigrated the two members of the Douma fact-finding mission team who challenged the manipulation of their investigation.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

The first dissenting inspector is known only as Inspector B (his identity is publicly unconfirmed). B was the Douma missions scientific coordinator, the primary author of the draft report, and subsequent author of the e-mail of protest about the unwelcome editing.

The second inspector, described by the OPCW as Inspector A, is Ian Henderson, a chemical engineering and ballistics expert who authored the study that concluded that the cylinders were likely manually placed. Henderson went to Douma and took detailed measurements at one of the cylinder locations.

In public comments, OPCW Director General Fernando Arias has claimed that the pair committed deliberate and premeditated breaches of confidentiality, but has not accused them of leaking the OPCW material. Arias maintains that Inspector Bs concerns were taken seriously, without meaningfully accounting for why findings in Bs original report were left out of the final version. He has also dismissed the pair as minor players who refused to accept that their conclusions were erroneous, uninformed, and wrong.

Yet the two inspectors are unlikely candidates to go rogue. Henderson and Inspector B have served with the OPCW for 11 and 16 years respectively. Internal OPCW appraisals of their job performance offer effusive praise. In 2005, a senior OPCW official wrote that Henderson has consistently received the highest rating possible. I consider [him] one of the best of our Inspection Team Leaders. Inspector B, an OPCW superior wrote in 2018, has contributed the most to the knowledge and understanding of CW [Chemical Weapons] chemistry applied to inspections. In a different evaluation, another manager described B as one of the most well regarded team leaders, whose experience of the organisation, its verification regime, and judgment are unmatched.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

The internal praise for the inspectors contrasts with what the OPCW leadership now says about them in public. This includes making untrue statements. Arias has said that Henderson was not a member of the FFM [fact-finding mission] in Douma, but leaks that I obtained show that claim to be false. Contemporaneous OPCW documents describe Henderson as an FFM member and list him among the Mission Personnel and the group of inspectors on the Douma mission.

The two inspectors are also not the only ones to raise concerns. Earlier this year, another OPCW official told me, on the condition of anonymity, that they were horrified by the abhorrentmistreatment of the pair. I fully support their endeavours, the official wrote. They are in fact trying to protect the integrity of the organisation which has been hijacked and brought into shameful disrepute.

The treatment of the whistle-blowers by Western media is also due for criticism. Despite the storys explosive nature, it has elicited a collective yawn. Whereas previous WikiLeaks disclosures fueled entire news cycles, no major US media outlets have reported on the organizations Douma archive. CNN and MSNBC, which both supported Trumps decision to bomb Syria, have ignored the OPCW story. The only time a New York Times reporter has mentioned the Douma scandal was in passing. The Times downgraded the extensive OPCW leaks into a mere email from an investigator. (It also deferred to assurances of Syrias culpability from Bellingcat, an open source investigative outlet, without mentioning its Western government funding, including from the United States via the National Endowment for Democracy). Even progressive, adversarial outlets that have traditionally defended whistle-blowers and challenged US wars have shunned this story. The Guardian described the whistle-blowers claims as a Russia-led campaign, rather than as an effort by two veteran inspectors to defend their investigation.

What explains the prevailing silence? It is certainly true that the Syrian government and its Russian ally have vigorously denied allegations of chemical weapons use, including in Douma. But just as was the case when Iraq was falsely accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction, skepticism of Western claims should not be equated with support for the targeted regime. If anything, the Iraq case reminds us that such allegations should not be politicized and are worthy of scrutiny, especially if used to justify military action and other aggressive measures, including crippling sanctions.

The possibility that the United States may have bombed Syria based on falsehoodsand pressured a global investigative body to grant that intervention legitimacy after the factshould break the media blockade. So too should the fact that it was exposed by whistle-blowers who face risk for speaking out.

The US governments own recent past with the OPCW offers a stark reminder. In 2002, the Bush administration forced out the organizations first director general, Jos Bustani. The veteran Brazilian diplomat was negotiating weapons inspections with Baghdad that potentially impeded the Bush administrations drive to launch a war. Bustani has since revealed that John Bolton, then serving as an undersecretary of state, personally threatened him and his family to force him to resign.

Bustani once again finds himself on Boltons opposing side. In his new memoir about his tenure as Trumps national security adviser, Bolton recounts that he oversaw the US strikes on Syria over the Douma allegations, lamenting only that Trump did not authorize a larger attack. Bustani, meanwhile, took part in an October 2019 panel that heard an extensive presentation from one of the Douma whistle-blowers.Related Article

The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had, Bustani wrote. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing. His hope, he added, is that the outcry over the Douma leaks will catalyse a process by which the [OPCW] can be resurrected to become the independent and non-discriminatory body it used to be.

Bustani is among the prominent signatories of a letter urging the OPCW to let the Douma inspectors discuss their investigation freely. Henderson delivered a statement at a UN session in January, but the United States has thwarted other attempts. (According to Russias envoy to the OPCW, a US representative objected on the grounds that a Douma hearing would encourage the Russian [side] to replicate Stalinist trials, with cross-examinations and intimidations of witnesses.)

Get unlimited access: $9.50 for six months.

The inspectors just want to be heard. In statements this year to Arias, both whistle-blowers requested an opportunity to air the Douma evidence in a transparent, scientific manner. Our sole duty is to be true to the facts and the science, and once that has been achieved, we will gladly accept the proven and agreed scientific outcomes, Henderson wrote.

Something had gone wrong inside the OPCW sir, B told Arias. And we wanted you to know. Its that simple.

See the original post:

Did Trump Bomb Syria on False Grounds? - The Nation