Mueller and fake news charges against Manafort

Mueller and fake news charges against Manafort

by Jon Rappoport

October 30, 2017

Here we go. Special counsel Mueller and his team have filed the first federal charges against Trump-campaign officials Paul Manafort and Rick Gates.

CNN is running the headline: MANAFORT, GATES CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE US.

Other press outlets are following suit, emphasizing the “conspiracy against the US.”

CNN writes: “The indictment against the Manafort and Gates contains 12 counts: conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.”

—But here is the real takeaway, and of course MSM outlets are ignoring it: the conspiracy charge is a piece of federal boilerplate. Alongside the basket of other charges mentioned above, conspiracy is a general category that is tacked on. It isn’t a specific singular charge. It definitely isn’t “these two men conspired with Russia to hand Trump the election.”

In fact, CNN adds: “The charges do not cover any activities related to the campaign, though it’s possible Mueller could add additional charges.”

But when MSM outlets blare “conspiracy against the United States,” most readers and viewers will assume this does mean a charge of working with Russia to make Trump president.

It’s a nice little devious trick.

Of course, the Mueller indictments are also being used to blot out the Clinton Uranium One scandal and the Trump dirty dossier scandal, both of which involve the Clintons, and Mueller as well, since he was the head of the FBI when the Bureau discovered all sorts of corruption and bribery involving Russia’s nuclear industry, during Uranium One negotiations, and either failed to disclose the findings, or failed to use them to make an impact on Obama.

Today, it’s all about “conspiracy against the United States,” and the mainstream news audience who thinks and comprehends and talks in terms of vague generalities—like thirsty travelers in the desert spotting the mirage of an oasis.

“OH, CONSPIRACY AGAINST AMERICA, WELL THAT’S IT THEN, THEY NAILED THEM.”

That and $2.75 will get you a ride on the New York Subway.

In case you haven’t read my piece on the Clintons and the Uranium One scandal—which most definitely DOES connect Bill and Hillary to corrupt dealings with the Russians, and which hasn’t been “debunked,” as MSM outlets keep insisting, here it is:

—Cue the dawn sunrise and violins for the beautiful first couple of American politics (the Clintons).

But what about the uranium scandal?

The what?

Before I quote a NY Times piece on this—suppose, just suppose the beautiful first couple, Bill and Hillary, have been running a parallel operation to the government, in the form of a Foundation that is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want (and get) serious political favors.

Well, current news stories confirm that. We already know that.

But uranium?

Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.

Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is already owned by a Canadian mining company.

The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.

But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.

The State Department is headed up by Hillary Clinton. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.

The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Getting the picture?

On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

The Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.”

“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yeah, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Who’s running the show in America? Ha-ha-ha. Some egregious dolt? Maybe he’s a sleeper agent we forgot about and he reactivated himself. And this Clinton Foundation—how can the beautiful couple get away with that? Can we give Hillary a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?

You shake your head and go back to sleep. You see a parade of little boats carrying uranium from the US to Russia. A pretty line of putt-putt boats. You chuckle. Row, row, row your boat…merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily…life is but a dream.

Good times.

Final note: there is a great deal of difference between a major outlet like the NY Times running their Clinton/uranium piece for one day—and pounding on it for weeks and months. In the latter case, they would let loose the hounds, who would probe and push and interview relevant people and get confessions and parlay those confessions up the food chain—blowing the story into an enormous scandal—which it is.

The Times had its hands on a volcanic piece…and they let it drop. Because the ceiling and the limit had been reached. The Times basically executed what’s called a limited hangout, a partial exposure of a story that was getting too hot to suppress entirely.

The limited hangout allows the venting of steam—and then nothing more. In this case, the Clinton camp denies there was any quid pro quo, they assert Hillary had nothing to do with the uranium deal, and the curtain falls.

Thus you have the reality which the major media did expose, vs. the reality they could have exposed. The “could have” part would have changed current history—but it was squelched, and put under wraps.

Tossed on the junk heap.

—end of my 2016 article—

Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee and Chairman Chuck Grassley are looking into these crimes, because new reports of corruption are surfacing:

FOX News: “The Hill reported that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. — but the Obama administration approved the uranium deal benefiting Moscow anyway.”

“Grassley on Wednesday [raised]…the question of whether the [US government] committee that approved the [uranium] transaction [in 2010] was aware of the FBI probe. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) [which approved the uranium deal] included then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

As Newsweek reports, that early FBI probe was launched under FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller is now trying to dig up (or invent) every tidbit he can about Russian collusion with…Trump in the 2016 presidential election. My, my.

Newsweek contacted the FBI a few days ago, asking whether Mueller had informed the Obama White House about his old FBI probe that uncovered Russian corruption relevant to the uranium deal that was being put together at the time.

Newsweek: “The FBI said it had no comment to Newsweek questions about whether Mueller alerted senior Obama administration officials, including Clinton, about the [FBI] investigation before they brokered the [uranium] deal.”

BOOM. Are you kidding? No comment? That’s tantamount to admitting, “Look, either way we answer that question, we’re screwed or the Obama White House is screwed, so we’re remaining mum. We’re protecting VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE and the truth doesn’t matter.”

This should be the subject of screaming headlines from mainstream news around the world: FBI CLAMS UP ON URANIUM DEAL. FBI REFUSES TO SAY WHETHER BOSS MUELLER TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT RUSSIAN CORRUPTION IN URANIUM DEAL. FBI COVERING UP CORRUPTION IN CLINTON OBAMA RUSSIAN URANIUM DEAL.

However, the FBI refusal is buried deep in mainstream stories.

But wait, it gets even better:

FOX: “[Grassley] is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent ‘gag order’ on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a [2009-10] corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was ‘threatened’ by the Obama administration to stay quiet.”

“Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox News’ ‘America’s Newsroom’ that her client has ‘specific information about [Russian] contributions and bribes to various entities and people in the United States’.”

“She said she could not go further because her client has not been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag order could be lifted soon. [It was lifted a few days ago.] Toensing also claimed that her client was ‘threatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department’ when he pursued a civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information about the case.”

The gag order and the non-disclosure agreement are nonsense. They don’t apply when enforcing them would cover up a major crime.

I have suggestions for the FBI informant’s lawyer Toensing, if she’s playing it straight.

Hire at least four top-flight private security firms to guard your client around the clock, and hope these firms don’t have strong ties to government law-enforcement.

Issue a firm declaration from your client stating he is in good health and has no intention of committing suicide.

Do these things yesterday.

After all, it’s the Clintons we’re talking about, and Obama and the FBI.

And the Clintons.

And, of course, the Clintons.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Boom: the Clintons, US uranium, Putin, and the FBI

Boom: The Clintons, US uranium, Putin, and the FBI

by Jon Rappoport

October 23, 2017

In 2016, long before the current news story broke about the FBI concealing a multi-year investigation into Russian bribery, the Clintons, US uranium, and Russia, I wrote about the scandal and spelled it out in simple terms.

A writer for the Washington Post then called me and tried to extract a statement he could use to discredit the story. I declined to give him anything, except a link to a key 2015 NY Times piece, which he said he’d “read many times.” I’m not sure why he had to read it more than once. Perhaps he suffers from a mental deficit.

Anyway, here is the piece I wrote then. It’s more relevant than ever. Then I’ll make some comments on the present situation.

—Cue the dawn sunrise and violins for the beautiful first couple of American politics (the Clintons).

But what about the uranium scandal?

The what?

Before I quote a NY Times piece on this—-suppose, just suppose the beautiful first couple, Bill and Hillary, have been running a parallel operation to the government, in the form of a Foundation that is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want (and get) serious political favors.

Well, current news stories confirm that. We already know that.

But uranium?

Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.

Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is already owned by a Canadian mining company.

The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.

But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.

The State Department is headed up by Hillary Clinton. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.

The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Getting the picture?

On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.

The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.

From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

The Times: “The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

“But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.”

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.”

“Frank Giustra…a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton…”

“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

If you’re Putin and you’re sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what’s your reaction—after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can’t figure out why…and then you remember, oh yeah, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Who’s running the show in America? Ha-ha-ha. Some egregious dolt? Maybe he’s a sleeper agent we forgot about and he reactivated himself. And this Clinton Foundation—how can the beautiful couple get away with that? Can we give Hillary a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?

You shake your head and go back to sleep. You see a parade of little boats carrying uranium from the US to Russia. A pretty line of putt-putt boats. You chuckle. Row, row, row your boat…merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily…life is but a dream.

Good times.

Final note: there is a great deal of difference between a major outlet like the NY Times running their Clinton/uranium piece for one day—and pounding on it for weeks and months. In the latter case, they would let loose the hounds, who would probe and push and interview relevant people and get confessions and parlay those confessions up the food chain—blowing the story into an enormous scandal—which it is.

The Times had its hands on a volcanic piece…and they let it drop. Because the ceiling and the limit had been reached. The Times basically executed what’s called a limited hangout, a partial exposure of a story that was getting too hot to suppress entirely.

The limited hangout allows the venting of steam—and then nothing more. In this case, the Clinton camp denies there was any quid pro quo, they assert Hillary had nothing to do with the uranium deal, and the curtain falls.

Thus you have the reality which the major media did expose, vs. the reality they could have exposed. The “could have” part would have changed current history—but it was squelched, and put under wraps.

Tossed on the junk heap.

—end of my 2016 article—

Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee and Chairman Chuck Grassley are looking into these crimes, because new reports of corruption are surfacing:
FOX News: “The Hill reported that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. — but the Obama administration approved the uranium deal benefiting Moscow anyway.”

“Grassley on Wednesday [raised]…the question of whether the [US government] committee that approved the [uranium] transaction [in 2010] was aware of the FBI probe. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) [which approved the uranium deal] included then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

As Newsweek reports, that early FBI probe was launched under FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller is now trying to dig up (or invent) every tidbit he can about Russian collusion with…Trump in the 2016 presidential election. My, my.

Newsweek contacted the FBI a few days ago, asking whether Mueller had informed the Obama White House about his old FBI probe that uncovered Russian corruption relevant to the uranium deal that was being put together at the time.

Newsweek: “The FBI said it had no comment to Newsweek questions about whether Mueller alerted senior Obama administration officials, including Clinton, about the [FBI] investigation before they brokered the [uranium] deal.”

BOOM. Are you kidding? No comment? That’s tantamount to admitting, “Look, either way we answer that question, we’re screwed or the Obama White House is screwed, so we’re remaining mum. We’re protecting VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE and the truth doesn’t matter.”

This should be the subject of screaming headlines from mainstream news around the world: FBI CLAMS UP ON URANIUM DEAL. FBI REFUSES TO SAY WHETHER BOSS MUELLER TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT RUSSIAN CORRUPTION IN URANIUM DEAL. FBI COVERING UP CORRUPTION IN CLINTON OBAMA RUSSIAN URANIUM DEAL.

However, the FBI refusal is buried deep in mainstream stories.

But wait, it gets even better:

FOX: “[Grassley] is calling for the Justice Department to lift an apparent ‘gag order’ on an FBI informant who reportedly helped the U.S. uncover a [2009-10] corruption and bribery scheme by Russian nuclear officials but allegedly was ‘threatened’ by the Obama administration to stay quiet.”

“Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox News’ ‘America’s Newsroom’ that her client has ‘specific information about [Russian] contributions and bribes to various entities and people in the United States’.”

“She said she could not go further because her client has not been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag order could be lifted soon. Toensing also claimed that her client was ‘threatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department’ when he pursued a civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information about the case.”

The gag order and the non-disclosure agreement are nonsense. They don’t apply when enforcing them would cover up a major crime.

I have suggestions for the FBI informant’s lawyer Toensing, if she’s playing it straight.

Hire at least four top-flight private security firms to guard your client around the clock, and hope these firms don’t have strong ties to government law-enforcement.

Issue a firm declaration from your client stating he is in good health and has no intention of committing suicide.

Do these things yesterday.

After all, it’s the Clintons we’re talking about, and Obama and the FBI.

And the Clintons.

And, of course, the Clintons.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Vegas shooting: concert workers’ phone footage wiped clean by FBI

Vegas shooting: concert workers’ phone-footage wiped clean by FBI

What??

by Jon Rappoport

October 13, 2017

Paul Watson at infowars has the story:

“Workers at the Route 91 festival during which Stephen Paddock unleashed his massacre have reportedly been given back their phones and laptops by the FBI only to discover that all messages and videos from the night of the attack have been wiped clean.”

“According to a Las Vegas resident who posted a status update on Facebook, ‘A bunch of people that worked the Route 91 [concert] said they got their cell phones back today. They all said that all their phones are completely wiped clean! All messages and info from that weekend are completely gone. Anyone else experience this’?”

“’A few different people who were vendors there are all saying the same thing,’ the woman later comments.”

“Later in the thread, a Route 91 worker confirms the story, commenting, ‘Of course. It’s an active federal crime scene. They can wipe it clean. I was the beverage manager for the entire event. My laptop is wiped clean’.”

What?

First of all, in a recent article, I demonstrated in detail why you can never trust what the FBI says about evidence in any investigation. There is a notorious history of the Bureau cooking and slanting and inventing data to support prosecutions.

Second, who says the FBI can take people’s phones and laptops, watch and copy the video footage, and then wipe it all away before returning the devices to their owners?

The FBI literally owns the crime scene AND any record of what happened at that scene? Baloney.

The obvious reason for wiping out the footage: it contained evidence that contradicts the official scenario. And most likely, that evidence revealed multiple shooters.

As Vegas cops, the FBI, and the owners of the Mandalay Hotel have changed and massaged the official narrative, one assertion has remained constant: there was only one shooter, and he was Stephen Paddock.

Law-enforcement pounced on that claim early on, without the slightest justification. Without interviewing multiple witnesses who state they saw other shooters.

“Okay, the mass shooting happened yesterday and we know there was only one shooter. That’s it. Don’t ask us any questions about this. Anyone who disagrees with us is spreading rumors and impeding the investigation.”

Admitting multiple shooters is admitting there was cooperation, collusion, conspiracy, a plan, and a purpose for that plan beyond “the lone gunman was crazy.” This is the door law-enforcement keeps slamming shut every time it opens.

And now we have reports that the FBI has wiped witnesses’ phones and laptops. No more footage of the shooting. No more evidence.

Let’s be clear: the FBI is impeding the investigation.

There is no Constitutional rule that states private citizens can’t investigate crimes. There never was. There never will be.

Law enforcement doesn’t OWN investigations.

If they did, every time a journalist probes beneath the surface of a crime and uncovers important information, the FBI could say, “Well, we just opened an investigation of that very crime, and therefore we want all your notes and we want you to cease and desist your inquiry. Shut up and go cover Sunday picnics.”

In most cases, law-enforcement doesn’t have to worry about mainstream reporters. Those denizens simply take dictation from local cops and federal cops and their stories appear in papers and TV news broadcasts wiped clean of independent thought.

That leaves the truth a wide open field.

Private citizens and non-mainstream journalists own that field, not through edict, but through default. Don’t blame us. If you were doing your jobs, we wouldn’t have to do them for you.

Your first rule would be: stop lying.

Destruction of evidence is a felony. Those concert workers whose phones and laptops were wiped clean had a felony committed against them. By agents of government who have sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution.

Thousands of smart lawyers out there will say, “Come on, there’s no way you could make a charge like that stick.” Well, maybe there would be a way, if enough of you decided there has been enough destruction of the Constitution and it’s time to stand up and be counted, come hell or high water.

Meanwhile, whoever can look past the lies and fabrications and distortions of a criminal investigation can say something because they saw something.

Here is a quick excerpt from my recent piece about the FBI’s stance on crime probes. It should give you a clue about the Bureau’s attitude and reputation:

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

In the Vegas shooting case, the FBI is saying: Trust us. We’re the pros. We do investigations the right way. Now give us your cell phone so we can look at video footage of the shooting and make a copy and wipe your phone clean and give it back to you.

Don’t worry, be happy. All is well. The centurions are on duty.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Vegas cops change their story: Paddock shot security guard BEFORE mass shooting: huge new can of worms

Vegas cops change their story: Paddock shot security guard BEFORE mass shooting: huge new can of worms

LA Times: “Police said Paddock fired 200 rounds into the hallway” wounding a hotel security guard.

by Jon Rappoport

October 10, 2017

LA Times, October 9: “Police have dramatically changed their account of how the Las Vegas massacre began on Oct. 1, revealing Monday that the gunman shot a hotel security guard [in the leg through the closed door of his hotel room] six minutes before opening fire on a country music concert — raising new questions about why police weren’t able to pinpoint the gunman’s location sooner.”

The previous police story was: Paddock shot security guard Campos after he finished firing on the concert crowd.

The LA Times focuses on how this new information changes the timeline of events—in particular, the addition of minutes before police arrived at Paddock’s door.

Really? That’s the takeaway?

There is a far more serious question. Why did Paddock shoot the security guard through his hotel room door, with 200 rounds of ammunition (according to police), BEFORE starting to fire on the concert crowd?

Whether or not Paddock was using a silenced weapon to shoot the security guard, didn’t he think 200 rounds through a door might possibly alert people in the hotel to what he was about to do—kill people at the concert?

Security guard Campos, according to the Times, was on Paddock’s 32nd floor to check on an alert about another guest’s room door having being left open. Campos wasn’t there to check on Paddock. There is no indication Paddock was suspected of anything.

The new Vegas police sequence of events now goes this way: Paddock is in his room preparing to slaughter people at the concert; security guard Campos comes to the 32nd floor to check on a report of another guest’s door having been left open; Paddock sees Campos out in the hallway outside his door (using a camera Paddock had installed); Paddock fires 200 rounds through his door and hits Campos in the leg; leaving Campos there, Paddock then WAITS SIX MINUTES and begins firing through his broken window(s) at the concert crowd.

Perhaps the police will change their story yet again. Paddock didn’t fire 200 rounds through his door. He stepped out into the hallway and wounded Campos with one shot using a silenced handgun. He then left Campos there, went back into his room, waited six minutes, and then started firing on the concert crowd.

Or, after wounding Campos with one bullet, he paid Campos with a pile of casino chips and told him to wait in the hallway and say nothing to anyone for a half-hour.

Or he bound and gagged Campos after shooting him in the leg and stuffed him into a laundry closet in the hallway.

Or, the most popular tactic in these untenable and absurd stories: “Obviously, Paddock was crazy. There is no way to account for all his actions. We may never know why he did what he did.”

That usually works with the public. The police or the FBI paint themselves into a corner trying to hide the truth. They realize their latest version of events makes no sense. So they invoke the time-honored “we may never know” explanation.

If some reporter wakes up from his stupor and resists going along with the story, he’ll probably hear: “Yes, we’re looking into that. But we have no further comment at this time.”

Or most likely, any time.

Here is a reasonable assessment: since very early on, police had decided on this story: Paddock was the shooter; he was the only shooter; he wounded the security guard after he finished firing on the concert crowd.

But the fact that the security guard was wounded BEFORE the concert shooting was leaking out. People in Las Vegas knew about it. So the cops (or the FBI) decided they had to get out ahead of the leak, if possible. It would be better to change their story than wait and end up with egg on their faces.

And so far, it looks like they made a smart move. Because how many media outlets are pointing out how crazy the new story is?

Most importantly, how many other egregious lies are sitting under the previous security-guard lie? How many other devious twists and turns in the true tale are being hidden?


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about the Vegas shooting

Why you shouldn’t believe anything the FBI says about Vegas shooting

by Jon Rappoport

October 9, 2017

No matter how the Vegas shooting investigation looks, the FBI is playing a large role. The forensics, in particular, would be checked by FBI techs and labs.

Vital lab analysis of weapons and ammunition and bullet-angles and cartridges and residue. Weapons Paddock had or didn’t have. Ammunition he had or didn’t have. Modifications he made or didn’t make to those weapons. How many different kinds of bullets were found in victims? What weapons did those bullets come from?

And depending on that evidence—were there multiple shooters, for example?

Should you believe the FBI’s analyses?

Are you kidding? The scurrilous reputation of the FBI in its handling of forensics is astonishing. Read on. Note: I’m saving the best for last:

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

“Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.”

“The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.”

Giant long-term scandal and corruption. The story is covered. Then it disappears.

Now here’s the capper:

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

So now…there is no reason to believe anything the FBI says about Paddock, his weapons, his ammo, his modifications, the degree of his participation (or non-participation) in the shooting, the trajectories of bullets, the types of bullets found in victims, the nature of the expended shell casings, and other VITAL forensic details in the case.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The FBI evidence lab, a cesspool

The FBI evidence lab, a cesspool

by Jon Rappoport

August 22, 2017

In these pages, I’ve emphasized that mainstream news often fails to follow up on their own stories.

They publish a shocking account of a scandal, and then they drop it like a hot potato.

Why? There are several reasons, but the most important is: the scandal is too revealing. It indicts an institution or organization that, in the long run, must be protected.

In 2014-15, stories appeared in the press about the phenomenal corruption of the FBI evidence lab. But since then, there has been very little follow-up. I find no compelling evidence that the federal government has fixed the problem.

Here is a sample of the 2014-15 stories:

April 20, 2015, The Atlantic: “…the Washington Post made clear Saturday in an article that begins with a punch to the gut… ‘Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,’ the newspaper reported, adding that ‘the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death’.”

August 12, 2014, New Scientist: “…the initial results were released of an ongoing review of thousands of criminal cases in which FBI scientists’ testimony may have led to wrongful convictions – including for some people now on death row…[an FBI source states] ’we teach these people [lab techs in training] for two weeks, and they would go back to their laboratories with a certificate of completion and be told: Great you’re qualified to do this [analysis of evidence] – here’s your caseload.’”

Washington Post, April 18, 2015: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

“Of 28 examiners with the FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit, 26 overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project, which are assisting the government with the country’s largest post-conviction review of questioned forensic evidence.”

“The cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison, the groups said under an agreement with the government to release results after the review of the first 200 convictions.”

Giant long-term scandal and corruption. The story is covered. Then it disappears.

Here is one reason why. If the press outlets continued to search out every aspect of the story, they would come upon numerous prosecutors who routinely relied on false FBI lab reports in trials. Some of those prosecutors would be exposed for knowingly accepting fake evidence from the FBI, in order to make their cases.

The scandal would spread like ink on a blotter.

Major media news picks their spots. They choose to pound on certain stories day after day, in an effort to convince the public of certain “facts.” They studiously refuse to dig and keep digging on other stories, hoping the public will forget.

Remember this, forget that.

Journalism schools don’t teach their students that this is the way to do news. After graduating and finding jobs, young reporters catch on.

They catch on and go along.

That’s how their ideals crumble and disintegrate.

That’s how they become agents and blunt weapons for their bosses.

That’s how they become alcoholics and denizens traveling through a dim underworld of lies.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Fake evidence used in the Oklahoma Bombing

Fake evidence used in the Oklahoma Bombing

How official “science” is deployed to advance a political agenda

by Jon Rappoport

August 21, 2017

The public wants to buy every official scientific claim the mainstream press pounds into their brains—whether the issue is vaccine safety, global warming, the “overwhelming success” of medical drugs, the Big Bang theory of the universe’s origin…

The notion that a political agenda underlies such scientific pronouncements is unthinkable.

So as an example, a very specific example of fake science, let’s look back at the attack on Oklahoma City.

On April 19, 1995, one-third of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City blew up, killing 169 people and wounding 680 others.

Three men were arrested and convicted: Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael Fortier. McVeigh was put to death on June 11, 2001, Nichols is currently serving multiple life sentences without the possibility of parole, and Fortier was sentenced to 12 years (he served that term and was released).

The official narrative of the bombing stated: A Ryder truck parked at the curb outside the Murrah Building contained barrels of ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil (ANFO bombs), and their coordinated explosion occurred shortly after 9AM on the morning of April 19th.

In addition to the deaths and the woundings, the explosion impacted 324 buildings and 86 cars in the area.

(In my 1995, book, “The Oklahoma City Bombing, the Suppressed Truth,” I laid to rest the claim that ANFO bombs could have caused that much damage; and more importantly, I showed that an explosion coming out of a Ryder truck at the curb could not have caused the particular profile of damage sustained by the Murrah Building.)

The vaunted FBI lab decided that, indeed, all the damage and death HAD been caused by ANFO bombs in the Ryder truck.

But wait.

Buckle up.

Two years after the bombing, on March 22, 1997, we had this from CNN: “The Justice Department inspector general’s office has determined that the FBI crime laboratory working on the Oklahoma City bombing case made ‘scientifically unsound’ conclusions that were ‘biased in favor of the prosecution,’ The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.”

“…[FBI] supervisors approved lab reports that they ‘cannot support’ and…FBI lab officials may have erred about the size of the blast, the amount of explosives involved and the type of explosives used in the bombing[!].”

“…harshest criticism was of David Williams, a supervisory agent in the [FBI] explosives unit, the paper [LA Times] said. Those flaws reportedly include the basis of his determination that the main charge of the explosion was ammonium nitrate. The inspector general called such a determination ‘inappropriate,’ the Times said.”

“…FBI officials found a receipt for ammonium nitrate at defendant [Terry] Nichols’ home and, because of that discovery, Williams slanted his conclusion to match the evidence.”

And with those revelations, the case, the investigation, the court trials, and press probes should have taken a whole new direction. But they didn’t.

The fake science was allowed to stand.

Therefore, other paths of investigation were abandoned. If bombs did, in fact, explode in the Ryder truck, but didn’t cause the major damage, then those bombs were a cover for other explosions of separate origin—for example, charges wired inside the columns of the Murrah Building, triggered at the exact moment the Ryder Truck explosion occurred.

Now we would be talking about a very sophisticated operation, far beyond the technical skills of McVeigh, Nichols, and Fortier.

Who knows where an honest in-depth investigation would have led? The whole idea of anti-government militia terrorism in the OKC attack—symbolized by McVeigh—was used by President Bill Clinton to bring the frightened public “back to the federal government” as their ultimate protector and savior.

Instead, the public might have been treated to a true story about a false flag operation, in which case President Clinton’s massaged message would never have been delivered.

But the fake crooked science pushed by the FBI lab was permitted to stand—despite exposure as fraud—and the story of militia terrorists trying to bring down the federal government was allowed to stand as well.

The year 1995 was rife with anti-government sentiment in America. This wasn’t merely a bunch of militias talking about insurrection. This was widespread dissatisfaction, on the part of many Americans, who were seeing federal power expand beyond any semblance of constitutionality.

As an object lesson, the Oklahoma Bombing was: “You see what happens when crazy people are allowed to own guns and oppose the government? Stop listening to anti-government rhetoric. It’s horribly dangerous. We, the government, are here to protect you. Come home to us. Have faith in us. We’ll punish the offenders. We’ll make America safe again. Let’s all come together and oppose these maniacs who want to destroy our way of life…”

The lesson worked.

Many scared Americans signed on to Clinton’s agenda.

And fake FBI science was used to bolster that agenda.

Even when exposed as fake by mainstream press outlets—however briefly, with no determined follow-up—the federal brainwashing held. The myth was stronger than reality.

If the federal government can egregiously lie about an event as huge as the Oklahoma Bombing, using fake science as a cover—what wouldn’t they lie about?

That’s a question which answers itself.


power outside the matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.