Slander, Libel, Buzzfeed, CNN and "Peegate"

Pimpernel is very cautious regarding what I post. Opinion is one thing; but, posting things as fact requires verifiable evidence. One should also remember that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".  This is a mandatory part of reporting. Somehow it no longer is followed by mainstream media, at least not as far a Donald Trump is concerned.

Yesterday an internet "news" site released a 35 page document which made multiple claims about Donald Trump, including allegations that he hired prostitutes to urinate on a bed in a hotel that President Obama had slept in. I can provide a link to this document; but, I choose not to link to news sources that are not verifiable. I have read the document and have some comments on the document itself.

The document purports to be a "Company Intelligence Report".  It is NOT a government intelligence report. If you would like to know what actual intelligence reports by the government look like, go to "The Black Vault". The Black Vault was started by John Greenewald, Jr and is probably the most extensive collection of government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act on all of the internet. Like WikiLeaks, nothing published by Mr. Greenwald has ever been proven to be false. So, what is a "Company Intelligence Report", well, just that. The term is used to define corporations reports, often contracted for that are meant to provide management with information that will help their business.

Now that you have a little background lets get into some specifics. Firstly, the report does not identify who has prepared it and that is odd. When someone prepares a report for a company they usually use their letterhead or at a minimum identify the company that prepared it. Such does not occur in the 35 page document. Secondly, the document does not identify how the information it presents is to be used by the company it is being provided to. That makes no sense. I personally have prepared documents for use by private companies and ALWAYS explain how the information can be of benefit. It is the purpose of these types of documents.

The publisher of these documents, Buzzfeed, published with disclaimers. Buzzfeed - These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia.  The article starts with this, "A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors."  Moving past the fact that Buzzfeed does not know who wrote the document and cannot verify the person's history or purpose for preparing the document lets get to the "errors". The "dossier" claims that Trumps attorney travelled to Prague when in fact, he was in Los Angeles at USC at the time and that has been verified. In fact, the only thing we can prove is that the report intentionally lied about Trumps attorney. That is not a good starting point.

Let me explain something that is relatable. Imagine you are getting a divorce and you go into court with a document claiming your spouse was paid money to have sex with animals in Baja California; but, you didn't know who prepared the document and your spouse could show they had never been to Baja California. How do you think the judge would react? There is a very good chance you would be found in contempt of court.

This report has since been repeated by CNN. That is hypocritical on their part. When "Pizzagate" was being discussed on the internet I specifically said that my readers should NOT post articles about it because there was no evidence, there was no witness, there was no person claiming to be a victim and it was irresponsible to publish such things as they would be used to censor the internet. This is no different. There is not ONE person mentioned in the "dossier" that has come forward and claimed any of it is true. That is a problem, it is a credibility problem.

So, what are the allegations. Simply put, it claims that Trump is compromised by Russia and that they have the ability to blackmail him. Here is where this gets ridiculous. The document claims that this has been going on 5 and 8 years, they really should pick one of the other. NOBODY knew or believed Trump would run for President 5 years ago and they certainly did not know that Hillary would run for President after her last loss to Obama. The report would make more sense if it was about Jeb Bush back then. NOBODY thought Trump would run and nobody thought he would win 5 years ago. Why would Russia risk so much to provide information to Trump for a race they didn't believe he would run in or win 5 years ago? The whole assertion in the report is nonsensical.

UPDATE:

The Wall Street Journal is now claiming that they have identified Christopher Steele of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd as the author. Wall Street Journal - Christopher Steele, Ex-British Intelligence Officer, Said to Have Prepared Dossier on Trump.  Again the Wall Street Journal has not been able to confirm this. More nonsense. Here is a link to their site, Orbis. Orbis prepares reports for companies so that the companies can plan. Simple question, what company paid for the report and how would it assist that company? And a statement, if this is the best Orbis can prepare a report, nobody would hire them because you cannot use unsubstantiated allegations to influence deals. It is really simple, companies do not hire Orbis to give information to the intelligence community. They hire such companies to give them inside information that they can use to make more money. The release of this information alone is contrary to that and if Orbis is identified it will cost them business.

UPDATE 2:

By the way, if this is, as is alleged by CNN and Buzzfeed, part of the secret report given to Obama and Trump then why didn't the US Intelligence agencies release it? Lets be clear, it was claimed that the report was not released because it was Confidential, Secret and or Top Secret. Guess what, that doesn't apply to private companies reports which is what the Wall Street Journal is now claiming. What does this mean, it means that Orbis can be taken into court in England and be forced to prove their allegations. Anyone who actually cares about the truth would promote such a law suit so that the truth can at least be investigated.

UPDATE 3:

Daily Mail - NAMED: The former British spy behind 'dirty Kremlin dossier' that claimed Trump was in bed both with Putin - AND pervert prostitutes. Hunt on for former UK ambassador who handed report to US politician.

McClatchy DC - Russian tech expert named in Trump report says US intelligence never contacted him.  Guess U.S. intelligence couldn't even be bothered to talk to people mentioned in the peegate report. Yet, they were still willing to release it.

UPDATE 4:

And as the day ends... the report is proven to be garbage. The set up is, a retired English intelligence agent was hired by Republicans to come up with garbage about Trump; but, they didn't end up using it (probably because it is garbage and filled with blatant falsehoods). It was then given to Democrats who also didn't use it. It was then passed around news publishers who still didn't use it because it continued to be unverifiable and garbage. Finally it was given to Senator McCain who turned it over to the FBI who also didn't use it. At no point in time is it claimed that Obama or Trump was given a copy of the report though they may have been told there was a report implying Trump had been offered business deals in Russia as a bribe; but, the report itself said Trump never took any deals from the Russians because HE HAS NO BUSINESSES IN RUSSIA.

The end result of all of this is that the intelligence agencies and the media both have less credibility today than they did yesterday, and they were not looking that good yesterday to begin with..

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article125910774.html#storylink=cpy

Coastal Bias

Here is what people in New York, Washington and California do not understand and it is simple. Let me start with a hypothetical. Imagine waking up in California, where I live, and finding that the entertainment and tech industries had just stopped being here and moved to China. The studios would close and quickly become rundown, the people who support those industries would move away and the state would begin to deteriorate quickly. Imagine if the Financial Industry moved from New York to London, same thing. The physical pillars of American capitalism such as the skyscrapers of New York would sit empty just like the factories of the Midwest and nobody would maintain them. If you doubt what it would look like, look at the abandoned skyscrapers of Detroit.

That is what has happened throughout most of the Midwest and when those people asked for improvement in their lives they were told they were angry, racist, uneducated, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic. Do you really think those people will really be returning to the Democratic party soon? To this day those people are still being vilified by the media on the coast and they have no way to respond because they lost control of the media in their states to New York and Los Angeles and the six multinational companies that own 90%  of the media in the United States.

Who represents the working class now? Not the Libertarians, they believe it is everyone for themselves. Not the Democrats as they have decided to represent minorities and foreigners and have embraced open borders and globalism. Not the Green Party which is quite alright with killing industries in America. The only person who actually reached out to them was Donald Trump. Biden and Bill Clinton begged Hillary to reach out to them and she didn't because she had the media on her side and the big banks. She felt she didn't need them and they heard that. She went as far as saying that she was going to end all coal mining in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and other states. What did she offer them in exchange? She offered them federal support and funding for abortion, gay marriage (long after Trump had already supported it) and open borders. Is it really that hard to understand why they didn't vote for her?