Apelbaum, Mechanics of Deception (March 2018) deserves to be read in full. It describes little known connections between the authors, promoters, and customers of the “Steele dossier”. Continue reading The Enterprise behind the Steele Dossier
Secretary Hillary Clinton (2010): “Our Goal Is To Help Strengthen Russia”
(National Review, How the Clintons Sold Out U.S. National Interests to the Putin Regime)
Why would Putin meddle in the 2016 elections against Hillary Clinton, when she was the best thing that happened to him since becoming Russian President? Hillary was the architect of the Reset with Russia. But that is off topic here. The NR article contains a link to the YouTube video of this interview (https://youtube.com/watch?v=zulHX5jO1yY), posted by veteran broadcaster Vladimir Pozner in 2014. Now the video is gone. Google has deleted the video and terminated Pozner’s account (now he has a new one without this interview). The last time the video’s page was saved on archive.org is October 2017, when it had ~75k views. In this case, Google was not fully successful in re-writing history. This interview fragment can be found on smaller channels, sometimes with comments like: “this is very hard to find, and I found it on a channel with only 333 subscribers! thanks! SUBBED!“
Google regularly deletes important YouTube videos embedded in conservative and libertarian websites, or linked to. It deleted a Fox News video in which Pete Hoekstra was debunking Clapper’s claptrap about the so-called Intelligence Community Assessment. This video was referred to in a Fox News opinion piece Was Friday’s declassified report claiming Russian hacking of the 2016 election rigged? by former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz (2017-01-08). Fred Fleitz and Pete Hoekstra debunked this so-called Intelligence Community Assessment, leaked to the media by Clapper and released (in a redacted form) a few hours before Congress certified Trump as the next President of the United States. Continue reading Google Deletes Conservative Clips on Youtube, Creates Alternative Reality
Remember how Hillary supported Skolkovo, the technological espionage project of Russia? From the Skolkovo project website:
“The innovative development of nuclear technologies is an essential condition for consolidating (and in some areas, achieving) a position of global technological leadership and maintaining Russia’s defense capability.”
That brings to mind the Uranium One, but this is another topic. Intel and Facebook heavily contributed to Skolkovo when Robert Mueller was their attorney (see his disclosure ). Intel and Microsoft were Skolkovo Foundation Partners. Google‘s Chairman Eric Schmidt became Skolkovo board member.
Google and Facebook aided the Russian Federation with development of facial recognition and computer vision systems having military and intelligence applications, and might have even tested these systems on the Americans. The results are quite impressive. See VisionLabs. Twitter was there, too. Continue reading Skolkovo: Mueller, Hillary, and the Masters of the Universe – OMG!
In Dec. 30, 2016 – Jan. 2, 2017, Mark Maunder, CEO of the security company Wordfence, was among many vocal critics of the wrong and incompetent FBI-DHS report GRIZZLY STEPPE, which purported to provide technical indications of “Russian hacking.” A month and a half later, he was afraid to criticize the new version of the same report, citing the political nature of this issue, ostensibly because he feared the repercussions of such criticisms. The danger was coming from Big Tech, which, triggered by the travel ban, joined the “resistance” and had zero tolerance for anybody and anything not opposing President Trump.
Mark Maunder suggested that ‘Russia’ be put in quotes in his next post on the subject.
Since June 2016, WaPo has been the main firebrand of the Trump-Russia and Russian election interference conspiracy theories. Multiple WaPo “reporters” were Democratic campaign operatives (Greg Sargent et al.). Unbelievably , this operation was financed by the same power that paid Robert Mueller and the law firm WilmerHale. This firm employed Robert Mueller and four (!) other lawyers he employed in the investigation of Trump (the “Russia investigation” pretext has just disappeared). From the Daily Caller (October 2015), China, Russia Pay Washington Post To Publish Their Propaganda:
“Chinese and Russian propaganda supplements are regularly included in The Washington Post, but the widely read newspaper won’t say how much money it gets on the deals.
China Watch – a China Daily publication – and Russia Beyond The Headlines – a Rossiyskaya Gazeta publication – have both appeared in the Post for years as paid advertising supplements. Both foreign periodicals are owned and operated by their respective governments.” Continue reading Aided by WaPo, China Interfered in the 2016 Elections For Hillary Against Trump
Google’s suppression of “undesirable” speech went beyond conservative, Republican, and scientific opinions. Google also muzzled opinions in order to promote its products, eliminate potential competition, and manipulate (inflate) its stock price, including the suppression of
- Information and medical research about the harm inflicted on children by its services
- Mainstream (i.e., not coming from the left) criticism of its business model that would pierce its stock bubble
In its attempts to suppress conservative and Republican speech, as well as scientific, cyber-security, and medical research and information, Google went far beyond banning, de-ranking, and demonetizing content in its own search results, YouTube, and other platforms. Google also
- Developed and deployed an ad blocker, designed to selectively block ads on pro-Trump political websites. The targeted websites include Breitbart, American Thinker, and DailyCaller, and the scientific website WattsUpWithThat. The move was so insidious that even its victims missed the motive behind such an illogical and self-harming act by a company that depends on ads for almost all of its revenues.
- Persecuted conservative employees for their political views, in violation of California laws, resulting in a chilling effect on the speech of other Google employees and the employees of its actual and potential partners and vendors. Google managers compiled and disseminated lists of conservative employees. See James Damore lawsuit against Google.
Contrary to popular assumptions, Google, Facebook, and Twitter are likely not protected by Section 230 for hiding, de-ranking, and banning conservative, pro-Trump, climate realism and other “adversary” content. Section 230 provides protection to them only for: Continue reading Google Ad Blocker and Suppression of Non-Political Speech
2018-12-28 update: On the Thanksgiving Day, the Wikipedia page for Donald Trump was intermittently showing a penis in place of the President’s photo. Apple Siri displayed this picture when asked about the age of Donald Trump. Contrary to the MSM reports, that was neither a bug nor vandalism. This is how Wikipedia works. Leftist Wikipedia editors were permitted to switch the pictures. Apple, Google, and Facebook use Wikipedia as the main source of knowledge out of financial, economic, and anti-competitive motives. Wikipedia is choke full of such “mistakes.”
Pretty much everything people think they know about Wikipedia they heard from Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia has become a cesspool of information that cannot be trusted as facts. Amazingly, Wikipedia functions as a combination of tyranny, chaos, and opacity. Anybody can write anything in it (chaos) as long as what’s written is in harmony with the far-left politics of its San Francisco management (tyranny). But even in totalitarian countries the citizens know their rulers. The portraits of Stalin and Mao hung in every public place of the countries they ruled. This isn’t so in Wikipedia. The highest Wikipedia hierarchs (Stewards and ArbCom members) are totally anonymous and hidden behind usernames like Ks0stm. Wikipedia belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation’s Board currently consists of eight members (1). At least one of them (María Sefidari Huici, Spain) was appointed in open violation of the publicly posted bylaws. The only publicly known person on the board is Jimmy Wales, the founder. Other respected directors resigned or were pushed out years ago. Only two among the seven board members are American citizens. According to Wikipedia, it holds elections of its functionaries and power brokers but the election process is under control of a few (or even one) persons. These kingmakers are also anonymous. Most of the popularity and income (in small donations) is derived by Wikipedia’s relations with Google, which gives Wikipedia abnormally high prominence in its organic search results. However, the widely held opinion that Wikipedia is reliable on non-controversial subjects is wrong because Wikipedia regularly presents leftist opinions as non-controversial facts, making it hard to detect that a subject is in fact controversial.
Originally published on October 29, 2017. Minor updates on April 13, 2018.
Jeffrey Carr is a cyber-security expert, and one of few open skeptics of the narrative that the leaked DNC and/or DCCC internal documents came from hacking by Russia. Few remarkable quotes from his posts, mostly from 2016-2017.
“Here’s my nightmare. Every time a claim of attribution is made — right or wrong — it becomes part of a permanent record; an un-verifiable provenance that is built upon by the next security researcher or startup who wants to grab a headline, and by the one after him, and the one after her. The most sensational of those claims are almost assured of international media attention, and if they align with U.S. policy interests, they rapidly move from unverified theory to fact.
Because each headline is informed by a report, and because indicators of compromise and other technical details are shared between vendors worldwide, any State or non-State actor in the world will soon have the ability to imitate an APT group with State attribution, launch an attack against another State, and generate sufficient harmful effects to trigger an international incident. All because some commercial cybersecurity companies are compelled to chase headlines with sensational claims of attribution that cannot be verified.”
“There’s a cost to being too critical. One infosec company threatened to sue a researcher if he didn’t make substantive changes to a published paper that was critical of their report. Many employers don’t allow their employees to express controversial opinions that could hurt the company’s business or reputation. And if the company or organization that you’re critical of has influential connections in Washington D.C., your professional reputation may suffer as well.” Continue reading Jeffrey Carr, the “Russian Hacking” Skeptic
The social media component of the alleged “Russian activities in the 2016 elections” was non-existent. The IRA, a.k.a. the “troll farm” in Russia, allegedly bought ads for about $100k; this is chump change and not even worthy of a government operation. Most of it has been spent on Facebook, and most ads ran AFTER the 2016 elections. Continue reading Imaginary Social Media Component of Imaginary Russian Meddling
It’s almost funny that the so-called Intelligence Community Assessment (January 6, 2017, Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections) claimed that the Russian interference had been against Hillary and in favor of Trump, although most of the evidence in it demonstrated the opposite. RT (Russia Today TV) and IRA (Internet Research Agency, a “troll farm” in Saint Petersburg) agitated in favor of Hillary and the policies of the Democratic Party, and against Trump and the policies of the Republican Party.
RT was anti-Trump in the 2016 elections (from The Nation)
The Nation is far from being pro-Trump. I think it might be called an Old New Left. This is what it says on the subject, with the links to the RT footage. The following are long quotes from The Nation.
The problem with the claim that RT America is pro-Trump is that it is simply false. Many of the channel’s biggest names were either ardently anti-Trump or highly skeptical of what a Trump presidency might mean for America. Continue reading Russian Activities in 2016 Elections were anti-Trump
Hillary presidential campaign chairwoman Donna Brazile’s book Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House can be retold in one sentence:
The Russians have hacked the elections and poisoned my dog Chip.
Nevertheless, the book reveals some information concealed by Hillary and the DNC loyalists in FBI.
- In August, seeing CrowdStrike’s helplessness, the DNC invited real cyber security people to form a competent network security team that the book calls the Hacker House, or HH. This contradicts the DNC official story that CrowdStrike was doing a fabulous job.
- HH found out that the DNC network was unprotected, and that anybody could have hacked into it
- HH informed DNC and Hillary’s campaign leadership of this fact and spent most of its time training DNC networking administrators
- HH was asked, but refused to support allegations that the DNC network had been penetrated by “Russians.” HH also had run-ins with CrowdStrike.
- The DNC, Hillary, and the Obama administration disregarded and suppressed this information. They continued their electoral campaign strategy: worsening relations with Russia, accusing Trump of collusion with Putin, and using the FBI, CIA, DHS, and ODNI to sabotage Trump’s campaign. During the transition period, John Brennan and other Obama/Clinton loyalists used false allegations of the “Russian hacking” to attempt something like a coup d’état. The coup was not a complete failure – the angry Democrats have nearly wrestled control of the DOJ away from the elected president.
Needs update! (See The Real Origination Story of the Trump-Russia Investigation and more recently published evidence)
2018-09-18. It’s possible that the DNC and/or Hillary campaign started preparing the “Russian collusion” story immediately after the initial attribution of the DNC network breach to Russia by CrowdStrike on May 6 (rather than on June 12, as assumed in the article.) That better explains the hiring of Christopher Steele in early June, the issuing of a visa to Natalia Veselnitskaya on June 1, the strange text of the email introducing Veselnitskaya to Trump Jr., and the meetings between Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS with her immediately before and after her meeting with Trump Jr. Continue reading Origin of Operation “Crossfire Hurricane”
The Official Attribution of Network Breaches is Based on Conspiracy Theories
The DNC has not been hacked by the Russian hacking groups Fancy Bear (APT28) or Cozy Bear (APT29) for one simple reason: neither of these groups exists or existed at any time.
APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) was a code name for Chinese Espionage. There were attempts to detect specific groups under the broad umbrella of the APT. Then Mandiant (later acquired by FireEye) attempted to generalize the definition to include putative state-sponsored hacker groups from other countries. But such generalization cannot work. The attribution of cyber-security incidents to state backed sophisticated hacker groups worked only for China because it was a cyber-fortress surrounded by the Great Firewall of China. Continue reading Voodoo Attributions in Cyber Security
The “assessment” that the Russian government hacked the DNC and leaked its emails was wrong. It’s almost impossible to attribute a network breach to a sophisticated hackers group.
When #CrowdStrike and FireEye started making the fraudulent attribution on cyber security events, many other companies followed. The Obama regime has corrupted and dumbed down the DHS, DNI, and FBI. They bought this fraud, and then added some.
In 2016, Hillary and the DNC were deceived by CrowdStrike into believing that Russia was behind the leaks of their emails that shouldn’t have been written in the first place. Together with Obama they forced that deception on the FBI and intelligence. Then they blamed Russia for their election defeat!
Most successful network security breaches are conducted by criminal hackers, many of whom are based or originate from Russia and Eastern Europe. Most unsuccessful attempts are conducted by amateurs. Organizations should protect their networks, rather than blame nation states.
Read Jeffrey Carr, FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report: A Fatally Flawed Effort or Robert Graham, Dear Obama, From Infosec – both are (or were) anti-Trump.
Even the New York Times admitted that Obama holdovers had committed crimes, probably including espionage, sedition, sabotage, obstruction of justice, and/or subornation of perjury in the transitional period. From the NYT March 1, 2017:
As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.
At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies. Continue reading Crimes of DNC Loyalists in DOJ and Intelligence
Big Tech is the new Big Tobacco!
In fact, it is much worse. Big Tech has committed much worse fraud on its consumers than the Big Tobacco has been accused. Worse, Big Tech funded groups intimidating its opponents, and even lawmakers and government officials. Big Tech also uses its control of the communications line to silence its critics.
Jun 4, 2018 – Google (GOOG, GOOGL), Facebook (FB), and Twitter (TWTR) use their internet gatekeepers’ positions to manipulate (inflate) their stock prices. Continue reading Big Tech is the new Big Tobacco, plus …
Mark Morano has published on WUWT a bonus chapter that was too strong to make it into his The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change! From Intimidating the “Deniers” to Enforce the “Consensus”:
… why don’t more scientists buck the “consensus?” The answer is simple:
Anyone who questions the climate change scare is attacked and threatened. Continue reading Intimidating the “Deniers” to Enforce the “Consensus”
Update. The controlling legal precedent seems to be the following quote from the Supreme Court Decision:
“To determine whether an actor’s conduct possesses “sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play,” the Supreme Court has asked whether “[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.””
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989) (quoting Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11 (1974) (per curiam)).
When Google eliminates climate realist or conservative websites from its top search results, the “message” is certainly not understood by those who view it. Further, this is the main purpose of this conduct – to suppress speech without other people understanding that. Google also flatly denies that it conveys any message in its search results. It claims impartiality and attempts to provide “the most useful and relevant” search results. Thus, intentional distortion of the search results by Google does not even bring the First Amendment into play. It is really fraud, not speech.
Google Search is a commercial service that Google provides to its users. Google must provide this service in good faith and in accordance with other applicable laws. Google search is service, not “speech.” Continue reading Google Search Fraud
I read the testimonies of Google, Facebook, and Twitter executives before the Senate Commerce Committee on Combating the Spread of Extremist Propaganda (January 17, 2018), and I would advise you not to trust them very much. Under the pretext of fighting “extremist propaganda” (a vague term, probably selected to conceal partisan differences on what constitutes extremist propaganda) Google and Twitter suppress speech dissenting from leftist orthodoxy. For example, Google has demonetized some PragerU videos on a range of topics and is being sued by them. I have been banned from Google AdWords and Twitter Ads for speech opposing climate alarmism.
The suppression of conservative websites in Google organic search results has been documented many times. Continue reading Google and Twitter Censor non-Leftist Views Under Pretext of “Extremist Propaganda”
This article continues Obamanet vs. Net Neutrality, published in the American Thinker. It is about how Obamanet (incorrectly called net neutrality) all but destroyed the freedom of press. The new FCC, chaired by Ajit Pai, voted to repeal and replace it. The repealing order has not been published yet, but already encounters fierce resistance. Thus, we will live under Obamanet for months or years. It is important to understand it in depth, because it is much worse than thought even by conservatives.
The announcement that the FCC would regulate the internet under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act caused righteous outrage (for example: Like Obamacare? You Will Love ObamaNet, NRO, February 2015). The full text was published weeks later and probably went unnoticed. It’s a pity because saddling the internet with antiquated regulations was peanuts compared to its other effects: Continue reading Obamanet vs Freedom of Press
“Two and a half years ago, I said that net neutrality was ‘Obamacare for the Internet.’ At the time, the Obama administration, in its typically deceptive manner, had conflated net neutrality — a worthy idea, as originally defined, to protect an open internet — with reclassifying the internet as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, a burdensome, behemoth of a law that gives all sorts of authority to the government …” – Senator Ted Cruz, May 1, 2017
On December 14, the Federal Communications Commission chaired by courageous Ajit Pai voted to repeal another Obama legacy: the Orwellian-named “Open Internet Order” FCC-15-24, or Obamanet. Contrary and opposite to the fake news media’s claims, the Obamanet order weakened or eliminated net neutrality, which had been established as FCC regulatory policy in 2005 by the Bush administration. Continue reading Repeal of Fake Net Neutrality aka Obamanet
The Oregon Petition against climate alarmism has been signed by 31,000+ scientists and experts in the natural sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD holders, and all signatures have been verified. Spicy allegations about petition distribution, signing, and the verification procedures spread by the enviros, leftists, Google, and the former mainstream media, are false. The following email from Dr. Art Robinson is published here with his permission.
Almost all of the signatures were collected in a period of two months in 1998 and again in 2007. All communication was by First Class mail to the potential signers. They signed the petition card, wrote in their credentials, and returned the card by first class mail – their stamp.
Continue reading Oregon Petition: All Signatures were Verified. “Fact Checkers” Lie and Project
My new research paper A Method of Google Search Bias Quantification and Its Applications in Climate Debate and General Political Discourse is published in WUWT. Most people observe that Google search results on political topics are left leaning. But, it was hard to determine whether such leaning was a simple reflection of the left/liberal cultural dominance on the web or if the Google search team intentionally (or “artificially”) biased rankings. This paper demonstrates and even quantifies such intentional or artificial bias.
After publication, I found a 2016 study that also shows that Google results are artificially biased in favor of liberal ideology and Democratic Party candidates: Google bias in search results; 40% lean left or liberal (Matt Bentley / CanIRank.com). From the Matt Bentley study:
“Does it make sense, for example, that someone researching “Republican platform” should be presented only the official text of the platform and seven left-leaning results highly critical of that platform, with zero results supporting it?”
“… we would expect top ranked search results to have more external links compared to lower ranked search results. Instead, pages demonstrating a left or far left political slant made it into the top results with significantly fewer external links compared to pages rated balanced. Pages with a right-leaning slant needed significantly more links to make it into the top results.”
“According to recent Google findings, online search is the resource that 87% of the population turns to first when a question arises. Online search plays a particularly prominent role in the democratic process during election season. During the 2012 election cycle, a survey of persuadable voters revealed that 49% get their news about campaigns and the election online, largely through search engines like Google, and that these voters generally trust the information they find online. Top search results are broadly perceived as being the most accurate and authoritative by members of the public with the first five search results accounting for an estimated 67% of all clicks and the first three results alone accounting for over 55% of all clicks. In their 2015 study, Robert Epstein and Ronald Robertson concluded that the order of search results can have a big impact on voter behavior — and in the event of a close election, this effect could even be profound enough to determine the outcome of the election.”
25 Years of Government Enabled Leftist Oppression, Persecution and Cooptation of the Productive Businesses have Paralyzed Conservative Thought and Speech – an unexpected conclusion of a new article published on this website. No, this persecution did not stop under the George W. Bush administration.
Contrary to its claims that Trending stories were selected automatically, Facebook used a team of hand-picked leftist journos that routinely suppressed “conservative” news. Facebook denies that but its Guidelines had an obvious effect: a very aggressive filtering out of conservative news.
Gizmodo, May 9, 2016: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News (1)
Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users. Continue reading Facebook Filtered out Conservatives for Years
The main organization behind the malicious smear campaign that fraudulently uses the phrase “net neutrality” is Free Press, a revolutionary Marxist group. Robert W. McChesney, a founder of Free Press, sounds like Lenin. From his 2014 article Sharp Left Turn for the Media Reform Movement (emphasis is mine):
“In subsequent years the U.S. media reform movement blossomed, led primarily by a group I co-founded, Free Press. On a number of major issues … Free Press led the charge in Washington, DC. The thinking behind the group and the movement was to have one foot in the battles of the day as they were being fought in the capital, while having another foot doing organizing in the field, with the idea of expanding popular awareness and involvement in the movement. We realized that for most people the range of media policy outcomes then countenanced in Washington seemed abstract or inconsequential. We needed to capture their imagination with bold and radical proposals. The strategy was to create an army for structural media reform …”
Continue reading You Won’t Believe Who’s Behind “Battle for the Net”
Co-written with H.J.
Following the main article in WattsUpWithThat about the New York Times shamelessly revising already published articles, we added a few more observations and examples of inappropriate revisions. These cases are outside the topic of climate debate. The revisions are substantial, undisclosed, and Continue reading The New York Lies: All the Lies that are Left to Print
Co-written with H.J.
It’s no secret that formerly respectable and mainstream media outlets have become fake news purveyors. Whatever it is that drove journalists to lie and manipulate, the evidence exists to prove their intent to deceive.
Much like television commercials and print advertisements, news stories are written to sell the reader something. Many times, what the news outlets are selling is politically motivated. On almost any given topic they choose to cover, they’ve been seen to cherry pick quotes that are in line with their interests and agendas, to omit relevant information that may harm their stand on something, and to use language that falsely imputes guilt on Republicans and conservatives.
The list below includes several examples of stealthy and manipulative alterations of already published news articles by the Washington Post and CNN. Continue reading More Media Caught Stealthily Altering Published Articles
Seven shots were fired at the office of Dr. John Christy in the University of Alabama after the “March for Science.”
Dr. Roy Spencer, another climate realist working in the same building, writes:
“Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence.”
“Local news reports that UAH police have classified this as a ‘random shooting’. So, the seven Belgian 5.7 millimeter bullets which hit windows and bricks around John Christy’s office from 70 yards away were apparently deemed to be ‘random’ occurrence.”
Belgian 5.7 millimeter cartridges can be only Continue reading Offices of Real Scientists were Shot at after the March of Fake Ones
Listed below are 15 lies in this NYT article . This is after the article was corrected on March 4, 2017, two days after it was originally published.
The article’s title is: “Top Trump Advisers Are Split on Paris Agreement on Climate Change”
Lie #1. Trump advisors are not split on the Paris agreement. The U.S. is not a part of the Paris agreement because this agreement has not been ratified by the Senate. All parties of the Paris agreement knew that Obama’s signature did not bind the U.S. Whether the Trump administration repudiates or just ignores that agreement is hairsplitting. Besides, having different opinions is normal. Only Obama’s administration was a single-opinion government. Next: Continue reading How many Lies can one New York Times Article Contain?