Connect with us


MEDIA GASLIGHTING: Entire Leftist Media Ran With Anonymous “Russian Collusion” Sources

The legacy media has been gaslighting the American public with anonymously sourced Russia Hoax claims for two years now. We won’t let them off the hook.



WASHINGTON, D.C. —  Media outlets responsible for fabricating and sustaining the “collusion” hoax are escaping scrutiny in the wake of the Department of Justice terminating the Mueller investigation.

Here’s the story on how the legacy media kick-started the laundering of the bogus Steele Dossier claims into America’s psyche.

Liberal household information destinations like The Washington Post, Huffington Post, Vox, Vanity Fair, Buzzfeed and the New York Times rushed to scandalize and sensationalize the “Russian hacking” narrative with little more than raw hyperbole and an echo chamber to reinforce each other’s latest spin. When Buzzfeed dumped, WaPo picked it up, and so forth.

It’s transparently clear that America’s most recognizable “left-leaning” news outlets effectively gaslighted readers, always citing the “Steele dossier” authoritatively. These legacy news outlets continued to report this news daily as if it were granted as fact.

Conversely, these irresponsible media outlets insinuated that anyone who didn’t believe their bogus trope about so-called Russian collusion was somehow an irrational being.

The result of this gaslighting campaign has been an increasingly divided American society, as these same media outlets are prone to decry.

When pressed for corroboration of their bogus claims, these outlets produce “anonymous sources,”  but those primary sources never spoke for themselves.

Here are some of the most shocking instances of irresponsible sourcing perpetrated by the legacy media: 

On January 11, 2017, Paul Wood, of BBC News, wrote that the information in Steele’s dossier was also reported by “multiple intelligence sources” and “at least one East European intelligence service.” They reported that “compromising material on Mr. Trump” included “more than one tape, not just video, but audio as well, on more than one date, in more than one place, in both Moscow and St. Petersburg.” While also mentioning that “nobody should believe something just because an intelligence agent says it,” Wood added that “the CIA believes it is credible that the Kremlin has such kompromat—or compromising material—on the next US commander in chief.”

To sum up, a liberal, global cable news source — the BBC — falsely alluded to “sources” to justify a salacious headline, and the never-named “sources” conveniently agree with the claims of the reporter.

In other words, liberal platforms like Buzzfeed were caught citing “anonymous sources,” and simply hoping the gravel foundation didn’t disintegrate.

Perhaps the most glaring example of privileged bias by liberal news outlets on RussiaGate is the definitive expose’ by Howard Blum in Vanity Fair, which provided readers a thorough (but very vague) description of “Steele’s sources,”

“How good were these sources? Consider what Steele would write in the memos he filed with Simpson: Source A—to use the careful nomenclature of his dossier—was “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure.” Source B was “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” And both of these insiders, after “speaking to a trusted compatriot,” would claim that the Kremlin had spent years getting its hooks into Donald Trump.

Such vaguery and innuendo would be shot down in most newsrooms, especially when ethnic backgrounds are being volunteered: “Source E was ‘an ethnic Russian’ and ‘close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump,'” Vanity Fair told readers in its April, 2017 compendium.

“This individual proved to be a treasure trove of information,” the Vanity Fair article continues.

“Speaking in confidence to a compatriot,” the talkative Source E “admitted there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership.”

Blum doesn’t offer much in the way of verifying the claims made by his anonymous sources. And now, after the whole RussiaHoax has fallen apart, Blum’s Twitter feed seems heavy on selling books that look like fiction, but which he touts as non-fiction.

Then Blum offers this stream of poorly sourced claims:

“The Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to the WikiLeaks platform.” And finally: “In return the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/NATO defense commitments in the Baltic and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine.”

In this section of what appears to be more akin to fan fiction than reportage, Blum offers exactly zero sourcing for his extremely serious claims: namely the as yet unproven claim that the Russians were definitely behind the DNC email leak, and the serious allegation that the Trump campaign actually agreed to incorporate Russian strategy prescriptions into the campaign platform in exchange for future policy commitments on the world stage.

Subsequently, countless media members breathlessly reported these serious anonymous claims as hard news.

The Vanity Fair article is a giant “he said, she said” exercise and can be read in its entirety by clicking here.

Founder of The Intercept Glenn Greenwald characterizes the mainstream media’s lack of real sources as “One of the most humiliating moments and scandalous moments in the entire media behavior of the Trump-Russia saga.”

Trump’s ex-attorney, Michael Cohen, teamed up with CNN in similar fashion, claiming the existence of “anonymous sources” but refused to produce any definitive evidence they existed in reality:

They said that, according to Cohen, Donald Trump himself knew in advance about his son Don Jr.’s secret meeting with a Russian delegation during the 2016 campaign. These anonymous sources added that Cohen would be happy to tell special counsel Robert Mueller all about this. And other media outlets, such as the Washington Post, soon heard similar things from a source close to Cohen.

Even  Vox, headed by noted liberal Ezra Klein throws shade on CNN for their poor reporting:

It’s all rather bizarre, and has led to criticism of CNN for running with the Cohen team’s anonymous claims in the first place — including from President Trump. (CNN stood by its story, saying it had more than one source and that the story accurately described what Cohen’s team was saying.)

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Big League Politics will continue to keep an eye out for lazy, irresponsible journalistic practices in the legacy media.

Campaign 2020

Thanks to Spineless, Establishment Republicans, Senate Panel Delays Vote to Subpoena Big Tech CEOs

Republicans Continue to Show Pathetic They are on the Issues that Matter Most



America First nationalist’s hopes of having Big Tech CEOs testify before Congress about allegations of censorship directed towards the Right were temporarily dashed on October 19, 2020.

Politico reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee delayed plans to vote on subpoenas to force the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook to go before the Senate and be questioned about their anti-Right wing censorship policies.

Some Republicans ended up having cold feet and decided to postpone the vote much to the disappointment of right wing activists who have complained about Big Tech’s anti-free speech policies.

President Donald Trump and a number of nationalist Republicans have sharply criticized Facebook and Twitter over their censorship of a controversial New York Post report that exposed Hunter Biden, Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son, and his corrupt behavior.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Originally, GOP officials in the Judiciary Committee announced plans to hold a markup on October 20 to determine if they would subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to get his perspective on allegations concerning his company’s policies that muzzle conservative viewpoints. Twitter denies claims regarding Twitter’s censorship policies.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who is the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, revealed that the planned vote would also call on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify.

The panel stated on October 19 that it would determine whether they would issue subpoenas during a executive session on October 22 where it will also allegedly approve Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. The committee declared in a statement that it will maintain negotiations with the companies “to allow for voluntary testimony” by the CEO. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, the panel will proceed to take a vote on the subpoenas “at a date to be determined.”

The subpoenas would compel the tech big wigs to testify on the reports of “suppression and/or censorship” of New York Post stories and on “any other content moderation policies, practices, or actions that may interfere with or influence elections for federal office,” according to a committee document released on October 19.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is the chair of the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution said to reporters that he’s expecting the committee to preside over testimonies from the Twitter and Facebook chiefs “shortly” regardless of whether they come to the decision on their own volition.

“One way or another, either voluntarily or pursuant to subpoena, they will testify and they will testify before the election,” Cruz stated.

In a separate hearing for the Senate Commerce Committee, Zuckerberg and Dorsey will join Google CEO Sundar Pichai on October 28 for a hearing on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields Big Tech companies from a liability.

Cruz, who is a member of both Judiciary and Commerce committees, wants each panel to carry out their own hearings with the tech chiefs before election day. “I believe we need a separate hearing in Judiciary because the issues being discussed in the two committees are different,” Cruz remarked.

Big Tech has become too powerful, especially during a time when social media has become the de facto public square. Republicans will need to get serious about making online speech receive the same treatment as general political speech.


Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!