Russian spy xxx

WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in ... ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ♡ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀♡22/7/2020♡ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀thankies for pfp Nikki CSGO-KZbPv-jKQeb-73j3z-yCyFb-WFKeB CSGO-K4SGf-RwzFs-LTmZz-H6OdA-HLSKF CSGO-8D5FJ-cEvWa-CVYmf-isrCf-EjyHL CSGO-a3uKU-Vtfkj-e9rvE-9HKTK-e8VeL CSGO-K4SGf-RwzFs-LTmZz-H6OdA-HLSKF CSGO-cHMRX-e9YR2 ... More posts from the RussianSpyCommunity community. 1. Posted by 20 days ago. Die. Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Crab the God? it’s not a story the Russians would tell you. 1. 1 comment. share. save hide report. 1. Posted by 20 days ago. Are you the scum of the earth? 1. 3 comments. share. save hide report. 1. Posted by 20 days ago. The hip and friendly young man with the brunette girlfriend in the front seat as he whipped around Washington in a top-end Mercedes-Benz attracted more envy than suspicion. Congratulations! I just got mine in its final location, and I gotta say, it was worth firing the mouth towards a wall, my response became much more even throughout the room. Anna Vasilyevna Chapman (Russian: А́нна Васи́льевна Ча́пман, born Anna Vasilyevna Kushchenko 23 February 1982) is a Russian intelligence agent, media personality and model who was arrested in the United States on June 27, 2010 as part of the Illegals Program spy ring. At the time of her arrest she was accused of espionage on behalf of the Russian Federation's external ... Media caption Why did Trump give information to the Russians in the White House? The reporter who broke the story explains. The reports said the source had spied for the US for more than a decade ... r/RussianSpyCommunity: No Russian Spies here. Crabs are gay and you can't deny it. They're horrible and smelly and stupid and have no brains. For unsuspecting residents of a suburban Montclair, New Jersey, neighborhood, it seemed too crazy to be believed: their neighbors were Russian spies. The intelligence agencies of Russia, often unofficially referred to in Russian as Special services (Russian: Спецслужбы), include: . Federal Security Service (FSB), an agency responsible for counter-intelligence and other aspects of state security as well as intelligence-gathering in some countries, primarily those of the CIS; reports directly to the president of Russia.

2019.10.18 19:35 ShrekFromNaruto RussianSpyCommunity

No Russian Spies here.
[link]


2019.04.30 11:44 otakusteve Russian xxx spy

Norwegian fishermen have recently discovered that all whales are secretly Russian robots, designed to spy on the oceans.
[link]


2020.09.18 12:13 Zondax Russian spy xxx

This is Hvaldimir, russian spy whale that now lives in Norway. submitted by Zondax to videos [link] [comments]


2020.09.18 03:11 guiltystranger94 Russian spy xxx

Operation Odessa (2018) - A Russian mobster, a Cuban spy and a smooth operator from Miami scheme to sell a Soviet submarine to a Colombian drug cartel for $35 million. [01:33:00] submitted by guiltystranger94 to Documentaries [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 14:59 koine_lingua Response to "If you are a smug Democrat or leftist coming here to see how 'stupid' we are..." on /r/Republican

So I'm actually kind of uncertain about the rules for posting here. I know the actual rule section states that "unless you identify as Republican that you refrain from commenting "; though I feel like from the time I've spent here, I haven't seen this upheld very often.
Maybe my post will be removed, as I'm unambiguously not a Republican, and am pretty clearly left-leaning in most of my views. I figure, though, that since your post is explicitly directed at left-leaning individuals, and since a number of commenters here are inviting them to respond, that it might be considered a bit of a one-off exception.
Just to be clear on a few things: I wouldn't consider myself smug, nor do I come here with any notions about how "stupid" the posters here are — though (like other subreddits representing other political perspectives) I do recognize this as a partisan subreddit, where I think views are often expressed far too carelessly and hostilely.
I'm not a centrist, even if I don't consider my political beliefs to be the most important type of beliefs that I hold as a person, and even though I put great emphasis on finding common ground when it comes to dialogue.
On one last note, I don't think much productive discussion is usually had around these kinds of "gotcha" posts. The main type of argument that this post seems to be centered around is tu quoque, or whataboutism; and I think that this style usually just drags both sides down, and comes dangerously close to the view that two wrongs make a right.
So the style of this post presents hyphenated claims that have presumably been expressed by some Democrats/leftists, followed by a critical response in bold. I'll quote that format as is, and then comment on each item.

  • Trump is trying to encourage peace in the world. He's making moves to end the wars we are in.
Democrats have brought the violence here to our streets. They are failing to condemn it and normalizing the idea that even more will happen if they don't get what they want.
Ideologically/philosophically, I'm a bit more of a rigid pacifist than most; so you won't see me condoning violence. You'll see how a number of my responses here are influenced by this.
In terms of foreign policy and militarism: Trump's stated views, and a number of his actions, indeed tend toward the non-interventionist direction, which is commendable. One question here, though, is whether there's a sort of inevitability to the "war machine," as it relates to the assertion of American power and in the administration's actions in relation to inherited conflicts; and I think this is part of what leads some commentators to speak in terms of some contradictions here. For example, this short piece in Foreign Policy begins by stating
On matters of war and peace, U.S. President Donald Trump says what he means but rarely does what he says; the result has been his administration’s contradictory combination of hawkish militarism and strategic retrenchment. Alongside Trump’s overt militarism—demonstrated in practice by the expansion of troop deployments and airstrikes in the wars he inherited—he has, paradoxically, repeated a rhetorical preference for reducing certain overseas military commitments, both deployments and wars.
(I'll leave to others to determine whether all the assessments in the full article that's quoted here are fair or not. I quote it more so just to showcase more complex views of this than out of blanket agreement. Also, it was written in 2019, and as such obviously doesn't take into account recent peace deals.)
Turning to the domestic situation: I still think that the overwhelming trend is for people on all sides to make a substantive distinction between committed political protesters and opportunistic rioters — certainly including Joe Biden. That being said, the symbiotic (or maybe parasitic?) relationship between political protest and rioting and destruction has always been a super thorny issue — prominent during the civil rights protests, for example, and something that those like Martin Luther King, Jr. famously struggled with.
But yes, again, as someone who leans pretty firmly in a pacifist direction, I'm uncomfortable with normalizing violence, even if some might characterize it as an "inevitable" byproduct of profound political and social change.
  • You tell us Black Lives Matter is just about better police treatment of black people.
Trump doesn't control the police, so why were people trying to storm the White House?
Along with some of what I said in my previous comments, storming the White House is silly and won't accomplish anything, but isn't necessarily contradictory to the larger aims of Black Lives Matter in terms of reducing racial discrimination. (Nor do I think that those more misplaced actions should be taken to be representative of Black Lives Matter supporters as a whole.)
And not by way of justification, but by way of explanation, the President — any President — will always be a figurehead, real and symbolic, for larger political and social views. (And on another note, while the Trump administration indeed doesn't control police, the issue of law enforcement funding is indeed a federal issue, over which Trump and Biden obviously have some differing views.)
  • It's just about "unfair treatment".
Why do you all ignore the ACTUAL justice reform that Trump signed?
First and foremost, justice reform isn't just about one thing. Also, for what it's worth, the First Step Act is almost certainly the measure supported by the Trump administration that has the greatest amount of bipartisan support, and passed 87-12 in the Senate.
We should probably be careful about overstating the amount of reforms initiated by the Trump administration, though. In the section on justice reform on the official site for Trump accomplishments, for example, this seems to center almost exclusively on the First Step Act. (Also, just on a more historical note, the First Step Act has its roots in the 2015 Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. That's not to downplay its significance, but to give a bit more context about its origins.)
  • You think we care nothing about people's lives.
But you don't say anything about states that passed bills making it legal to abort a child literally as it's being born.
I think it'd be silly to think that Republicans and others don't care about people's lives. More generally speaking, I think that both strongly-held pro-choice beliefs and pro-life beliefs both come from concern for people's lives; and/or what might best be described as moral intuitions — sometimes at the expense of rational justification and argument.
That being said, I actually don't know anything about (what I assume) is the debate over "partial-birth abortion," so I won't say anything else about this item.
  • You think we are selfish for wanting to go to church.
How many crowded funerals did George Floyd get, again?
I'd honestly think that the vast majority of criticism here is aimed specifically at church-going that pretty flagrantly refuses to practice social distancing. But yes, I think improper social distancing should be condemned no matter where it takes place. It really, really sucks to be where we are, especially when it comes to our inability to grieve and be with people.
  • You chose Biden and try to sell him as a reasonable centrist.
We know that he may have been that 20 years ago, but he's changed his agenda to be far more "progressive."
I'm not someone who's necessarily inclined to apologize for a more substantive shift to the left. That being said, it remains to be seen how much of Biden's rhetoric here is simply more... opportunistic, in terms of appealing to a wider, younger base that leans far more progressive, whereas he'd be aware that there's little he could really do in terms of more progressive measures actually passing in the Senate.
  • You tell us we're "selfish, greedy bastards."
Republicans give more than Democrats do to charity, and do so at all levels of income.
Some may say that, but I’d never make such a statement.
That Republicans are more charitable than Democrats is a well established fact; and there's no excuse for that — we have to do better. Maybe taking a closer look to try to found out exactly why this is the case can yield some interesting insights, though. (As it stands, I know virtually nothing about that.)
  • You say that Trump is going to have roaming bands of Nazi brownshirts on the streets terrorizing people.
You are now gathering to harass diners trying to eat meals outside...demanding they raise their fists, political figures trying to have dinner are being accosted, conservative journalists have had to move from their homes, you are shouting death threats outside the Senate Majority leader's house and now BLM apparently has a group targeting racist "citizens" to show up at their homes...
Again, as someone fairly committed to non-violence, you won't see me defend these more extreme actions. I do think, though, that at the same time that there are those who opportunistically hijack this movement for more anarchistic or radical purposes, there are a number of people on the other side who also over-eager to use moments like these to make radical political and social statements of their own. (I'll pick this back up in the section about armed protestors.)
Hit the character limit; continued below.
Part 2
  • You say that WE are "in a cult".
You have most major media giving you talking points that you agree with and you discuss how you've had to cut actual family and friends out of your life because they like "Mango Mussolini".
If my takeaway from the point about charity is that we Democrats/etc. have to do better, the takeaway from this one is is that we all have to do better. We especially need to work on not allowing ourselves to by riled up by media commentators — along with being more critical when some of their same sensationalism can spill over into the non-commentary section, too.
As for relationships with friends and family: I struggle with this in my personal life, too. Specifically, while I have an iron-clad policy to never initiate a political conversation or anything with my father, he sends me very sensationalist media and videos unsolicited all the time; and when I try to engage in some of the most respectful conversation about some of these things, he has a tendency to lose his temper very quickly. I know some struggle with the opposite problem.
  • You say that you are the ones who love minorities.
The vitriol that you express towards any member of a minority group that champions conservative beliefs is testimony that you do not.
I think this is one of the weaker responses in your post. It's easy to distinguish larger concern for a populace's well-being from political differences with individual minorities, without thinking the latter entails the former. But yes, occasionally, the idea that minorities can "vote against their own interests" (etc.) can be expressed silly and insensitive ways that have racist connotations — see Biden's "you ain’t black" comment.
  • You say that taking our kids to church is child abuse because they are impressionable.
But when kids are taken to riots by antifa parents and tear gas is deployed, it's the cops' fault for endangering the kids.
I'd imagine the view that taking kids to church s child abuse is fairly radical and uncommon. I'd imagine taking your kids to an Antifa rally is similarly radical and uncommon. I think focusing on these rare events creates more heat than light.
  • You say that you love America.
You voted for a dude that wanted it fundamentally transformed...you say that "it was never great" and some of you are openly wanting a socialist state and you are burning American flags in the streets now.
I think that "fundamentally transformed" can easily be taken more charitably. The Constitution and other legal fundamentals represent a certain set of principles that can't be abandoned; but it also allows for a wide range of views and policies re: how America should function politically and socially.
I’m aware that many have strongly held views about our "national" moral failures. And related to ths, one time, my dad expressed some very strong and disturbing views about Colin Kaepernick and his original protest. I tried to explain that I don't think his was a statement of anti-Americanism, but a provocative challenge to perceptions of the "America" of unbridled optimism, instead calling attention to those who have continually experienced America in a different, painful way (and who obviously looked forward to a day where they didn't have this experience).
  • Teachers are concerned that "conservative parents" might overhear the lessons they are teaching our kids.
You think they have a right to be scared of the parents who are paying their salaries.
I honestly have very little idea of what this is in reference to, so I'll skip this one. (Though I think it also risks conflating "some teachers" with "all teachers.")
  • You snidely said, "All buildings matter" on 9/11.
BLM Riots Are Officially the Most Costly Man made Damage to American Property in History
“All buildings matter” is silly statement basically expressing whataboutism — trying to critique a perceived disproportionate focus on 9/11 by comparing it to anti-BLM sentiment, which presumably is premising on pushing back on (what's perceived to be) a disproportionate focus on a relatively small number of lives.
  • You think you are the ones who understand civics.
You still insist that Hillary really won the 2016 election.
Maybe there's a (small) movement of people who think Clinton really won the electoral vote; but so far as it goes for most people, this obviously comes down to different philosophical views about the role of the electoral college vs. popular vote in determining the President.
  • You used to deny being socialists.
Now you often try to make self-posts here asking us, "What's wrong with having socialism?"
I won't say too much about this one. Somehow, though, I imagine that most of these aren't calls for "full-blown" socialism, but attempts to establish some common ground re: the necessity of a number of programs and initiatives of social welfare.
  • You think that kids making MAGA videos is wrong and exploitative.
But at the same age it's okay for other kids to do dancing in drag at strip clubs.
This is definitely one of the most bizarre and seemingly absurd items here. I can't imagine how small the number of people is that thinks it's okay for kids to be dancing in drag at strop club. But yes, I think that almost no one under the age of 14 or so is capable of grasping the nuance of most political debates (though I suppose that applies far beyond age 14), and that any media paying attention to this is sensationalism by very definition.
  • You demand that subreddits that seem to encourage violence and are conservative be "shut down".
You defend subreddits that advocate violence from the side that is currently PERPETRATING violence in the streets.
I've honestly never followed a lot of the controversy here, so I don't have anything to say on this. Again, though, as someone bit more inclined toward pacifism than most, I'd imagine this is an area that we have to do better on.
  • You complained when re open protests had armed people at them.
A member of a black militia actually opened fire accidentally at a BLM protest and shot three comrades in Louisville. We never hear about it.
In tandem with what I said in my previous comment, I have more blanket opposition toward weapons altogether. At the same time, I still support concealed carry, and would prefer to see much less open carry here — and I think we'd see much less violence here.
  • You think we're poorly informed due to the terrible media we consume.
You still don't know the true story of what happened to the Covington kids in DC and you still want Nick Sandmann to suffer for that hate-smirk.
I do think that our choice of media — particularly its emphasis on opinion/commentary — has a profound and negative effect on political thought, and especially dialogue. As for me personally, at the time of the Covington incident, I spent a great deal of time writing an objective account of events.
  • You think that Russia somehow nefariously influenced the last election via social media.
But you never question who might be behind your favorite left-wing social media sites and posts.
With the caveat that I haven't spent a lot of time researching this issue Russian state influence on social media here, my understanding was that this wasn't exactly a conspiracy theory, and more solidly established. Whatever the case, though, I think that something like this should be a concern to both sides of the political aisle, less than an opportunity to engage in whataboutism.
  • Trump has increased troop pay, improved military readiness, invested in support and worked for REAL reform for a VA long beleaguered by problems.
You tried to float the idea that Trump hates the troops.
My understanding (having not spent a ton of time focusing on issues like this in particular) is that the ideas of a reduced military readiness, etc., could be misleading at best.
As for Trump's personal attitude toward those in the military: one major thing I've learned from having spent extensive time critically analyzing the way we form and maintain beliefs is that way some of the ways our different views and opinions relate to each other can be complicated and perplexing. They can even be contradictory. It's certainly possible that Trump can both have respect for the military and service members as a whole, while at same time also harboring more cynical sentiments, too. (The same goes for his purported views about evangelical Christians, etc.)
  • You said it was grossly offensive, horrible, awful and racist to blame the virus on China.
But every day you slog on trying to blame the virus on Trump.
I think "responsibility" for COVID is spread out a lot more diffusely than some think, even domestically. But at the same time I think Trump's is a calculated deflection.
  • You complain at how the virus is decimating the economy.
But you don't care that the House won't get together with the Senate to cooperate on a Covid relief bill.
I wouldn’t have thought of the original claim as an idiosyncratically Democratic view. I also haven’t followed debate/analysis of the congressional talks about the relief bills, so I have nothing of value to add on that. I'll only say that obstructionism is in many ways the MO of the legislative branch as whole, and I think usually both sides end up making each other look bad, even if one could be said to be acting in more “good faith” than the other.
Hit character limit again; a little more below.
Part 3
  • You think it's too dangerous to vote in person.
But you think these protests just have to happen because the cause is too important.
I think this one has some slight nuance that I can't get fully into due to running out of character space. As a whole, though, if people believe this, I can't see it as anything other than hypocrisy. But again, I think it'd be silly to use that as the basis for insisting on one and not the other.
  • You think that white people are clueless and pretty racist and generally kinda bad and responsible for most of the suffering in the world.
But you want us to adopt the Nordic model of healthcare.
I think this is another of the weaker responses. I think very few of those (white persons) emphasizing the role of systemic racism are unaware that most governments officials — even ones they support — are, well, white. And I think it's silly to accuse them of hypocrisy in this. (I guess I just think "[y]ou think white people are clueless and pretty racist" is a pretty ridiculous characterization in the first place.)
  • You are LGBTQ+ - supportive!
... but when 45% of gay men say that they are backing Trump...SUDDENLY they are "immoral."
I feel much the same way about this comment as I do about your previous one about minority Trump supporters. I'd imagine a number of people were surprised at those poll results (on the dating app Hornet); but I don't think their surprise — and/or dismay — would have anything whatsoever to do with thinking that they were now immoral for being gay.
  • You've spent years blaming anti-vaxx on "the right."
But when Biden and Harris suggested that they wouldn't trust a Covid 19 vaccine because Trump is President, you were silent. They lied, people died?
I haven't really formed an opinion about this yet. For context, though, this Axos article quoting Biden's statement in full reads as follows:
“Let me be clear: I trust vaccines, I trust scientists, but I don’t trust Donald Trump,” Biden said. He then called on Trump to answer the following three questions, and said the American people should not have confidence if the president can't answer them:
"What criteria will be used to ensure that a vaccine meets the scientific standard of safety and effectiveness?"
"If the administration greenlights a vaccine, who will validate that the decision was driven by science rather than politics? What group of scientists will that be?"
"How can we be sure that the distribution of the vaccine will take place safely, cost-free and without a hint of favoritism?"
(End Biden quote.)
  • You keep insisting that the USA is the worst nation at dealing with Covid...
Per population, seven other countries have done "worse"...they are Belgium, the UK, Spain, Peru, Italy, Sweden and Chile.
If someone's misrepresented the statistics here, they should correct their view. On the other hand, I don't think the battle for "least worst" is particularly glorious one.
  • You seem to oppose any measure that would make our vote more secure and less prone to fraud. You insist that fraud doesn't happen.
But you are yelling that somehow Republicans are going to steal the election via some nebulous voter fraud.
I think both Democrats and Republicans have an interest in election security, but differing views on how to go about this — some more self-interested than others. I don't think there's a blanket denial that there's actually no election fraud whatsoever; just push-back against sensationalism about its prevalence. (I think anyone who thinks that there are millions of fraudulent votes is clearly engaging in a baseless conspiracy theory. I'd be surprised if there were more than 1,000 instances in any national election.)
But yes, by the same token, Democrats can also engage in this kind of hyperbole/hysteria about massive Russian-influenced voter fraud or whatever.
  • You think that our only objections to Obama were mustard and that tan suit. And only because we are racist.
IRS scandal, unconstitutional DACA, health reform disaster, Fast and Furious, disappearing stimulus money, spying on journalists and persecuting Fox, Iran pallets of cash, incoherent Middle East policy...to name a few...
I think we all need to be a lot more critical of the politicians we support, even if it's inconvenient or uncomfortable. I think a number of those are perfectly valid reasons for criticizing things that took place during the Obama administration — of course bearing in mind that it's not always direct Obama appointees, etc., who bear the brunt of responsibility for these scandals. (The same goes for the Trump administration, or any other one.) I think Trump of all people could/should admit that not everything that takes place in the course of an administration is the responsibility/fault of the administration.
  • You suddenly think you need guns because Trump is "worse than Hitler" and you might need to protect yourself from the government.
You are going to vote for a man who just tweeted that he's going to take the guns.
I'm assuming this is the tweet in question:
Weapons of war have no place in our communities.
We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
This coheres with the stated policy on the official Biden policy site:
Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.
I'm sure opinions range on whether this is a good thing or not; but calling this "taking your guns" is doubly inaccurate, in that 1) it doesn't suggest anything about taking these existing weapons from their currents owners, and 2) it seems to suggest a blanket ban on "guns" in general.
submitted by koine_lingua to u/koine_lingua [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 14:27 Helldiver-xzoen Russian spy xxx

This bug has been around for a while now- but I feel like it's happening more regularly now. It seems to happen the most in Ground War, but I've also seen it happen in regular MP and shoot the ship.
For those who don't know, there is a bug where Coalition operators will appear on Allegiance, and vice versa. Just last night, I saw multiple instances of this. I saw Lerch on Coalition, Mara on Allegiance, etc. It is not just "default Otter looks similar to default Krueger", its entirely the wrong operator for the faction.
It really throws me off when I'm on Allegiance, but some of my coalition opponents are Russian milsims, while some of my teammates are also Russian milsims. Identifying enemies with this bug is tough, and either leads to getting killed, or annoyingly "spy-checking" teammates.
Does anyone know why this is happening? Is there a fix in the works for this?
submitted by Helldiver-xzoen to modernwarfare [link] [comments]


2020.09.17 02:11 ExtHD Russian spy xxx

Another color revolution? US orchestrating Belarusian unrest, says Russian spy chief Naryshkin; Belarus' leader Lukashenko agrees submitted by ExtHD to World_Politics [link] [comments]


2020.09.16 16:24 AutopostWWNArticles Xxx spy russian

Lyons, Or Barrys? We Ask A Russian Spy Which Is Best To Slip Poison Into submitted by AutopostWWNArticles to WaterfordWhispersNews [link] [comments]


2020.09.16 11:01 autotldr Navalny posts picture from Berlin hospital, says he can breathe on his own

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 54%. (I'm a bot)

Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny shared a picture from his hospital bed on Tuesday with the message that he was now able to breathe independently following his suspected poisoning last month.
Navalny, 44, was flown to Berlin for treatment at the Charite hospital two days after falling ill on a domestic flight in Russia on August 20.
A German military lab determined that Navalny was poisoned with Novichok, the same class of Soviet-era agent that Britain said was used on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, England, in 2018.
French President Emmanuel Macron's office said he had expressed "Deep concern over the criminal act" that targeted Navalny in a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Tuesday that Moscow remained open to clearing up what happened to Navalny but that it needed access to the information on his case.
In a Twitter post on Tuesday, Navalny spokeswoman Kira Yarmysh confirmed that the opposition leader plans to return to Russia.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Navalny#1 Russian#2 Russia#3 poisoned#4 Moscow#5
Post found in /worldnews, /AutoNewspaper and /FRANCE24auto.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]


2020.09.16 10:27 klara4k Russian spy xxx

2020 has become one of the most challenging years for the film industry. The coronavirus pandemic has hindered filming of many TV series and movies . However, streaming platforms found a way out to let us enjoy brand new shows and new seasons of series we already know. This fall is a proper content harvest for those who can’t live without Netflix.
Here are ten shows Netflix is streaming this fall kindly brought to you by the 4K Download team.
Ratched September 19
A new series created by showrunners of American Horror Story tells about a tyrannical asylum nurse Mildred Ratched from Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Sarah Paulson plays the central part of the show. Even before the premiere, the series was renewed for a season 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2tbRZn7tpY
Tip: download trailers, videos, playlists and the entire channels from YouTube with 4K Video Downloader!
Away September 4
This is the new drama series about space with the main part played by the winner of two Oscars Hilary Swank. In this story, American astronaut Emma Green leads the international space team and embarks a mission to Mars. For this, Green will have to leave her husband and teenage daughter behind for three years. The first season consists of 10 episodes of 60 minutes each.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_REapPwio
The Devil All the Time September 16
The gothic thriller is the story of a group of people with PTSD living in Ohio and West Virginia. Among them are a WWII veteran, a couple of serial killers and a priest. The leading roles in the series went to world-famous actors - Robert Pattinson, Tom Holland, Chris Evans, Mia Vasikovskaya and Kylie Rio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIzazUv2gtI
Enola Holmes September 23
This is yet another interpretation of the Sherlock Holmes story. However, this time his younger sister Enola Holmes will come to the fore. In the story, a girl escapes from school to independently investigate the mysterious disappearance of her mother. But Enola’s brothers, Mycroft and Sherlock, are convinced that the woman committed suicide. Stranger Things star Millie Bobby Brown starred as Enola, Henry Cavill starred as Sherlock, and Sam Claflin played Mycroft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d0Zf9sXlHk
Emily in Paris October 2
A new project by the author of the iconic series ‘Sex and the City’ Darren Star is released this fall. In the show, an American girl Emily, played by Lily Collins, unexpectedly gets a job at a famous French marketing agency. Now the girl has to make new friends, build a career and, of course, find true love in Paris. Fans of Sex and the City series and The Devil Wears Prada will surely love the show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4Okq1Wdpg0
The Crown November 15. Season 4
New episodes of the popular TV series about the British Queen Elizabeth II will also be released this fall. The fourth season will show the rule of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Besides, in the same season, Lady Diana Spencer will appear for the first time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT2ETodJq1Q
Stranger Things September 29. Season 4
One of the most hotly anticipated Netflix series was announced to continue this fall. In the new season of Stranger Things, the story will go on in the USSR as well as the US in the 80s, and Russian spies will once again threaten not only the United States but the whole world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhrb1VaFpBM
Sneakerheads September 25
A comedy series for and about sneaker lovers will be released by Netflix this season. The show tells a story of Devin, a former sneakerhead turned to stay-at-home dad who returns to the sneaker world to earn money. After investing $5,000 in a burned-out adventure offered by his sneakerhead pal Bobby, he is desperate to get his money back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CynWJbREA8g
I'm Thinking of Ending Things September 4
A psychological thriller about a woman played by Jessie Buckley who is plagued by strange suspicions about her boyfriend (Jesse Plemons). Despite some suspicions, she agrees to go with him to visit his parents, and this is where it all begins. An unexpected turn causes a series of surreal events, in which the characters' anxieties appear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDTg62vsV4U
Baby September 16. Season 3
A final season of the Italian drama about growing-up Roman teenagers, based on real events with underage prostitutes in Rome will be aired this fall. Faced with family pressure, school stress and broken relationships, the two girls Chiara and Ludovica are caught up in a double life and the underground world of prostitution.
In this season, the girls are ready to face the consequences of their choices, as the police start investigating the double lives, pushing friendships, family ties, and romances to the breaking point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OQVL3u4E1w
submitted by klara4k to 4kdownloadapps [link] [comments]


2020.09.16 10:16 whitewinenotwater Russian spy xxx

This is purely based on my limited knowledge of the Umbrella Academy as it’s shown on Netflix & not the comics, but I can’t help thinking how befitting it would be for the premise of the apocalypse in s2 to be the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Five could have been dropped off once the Cuban Missile Crisis started (16 October 1962), and been given 10 days until the apocalypse — 26 October was when the secret negotiations between Krushchev and Kennedy began, so it would make for a very satisfying conclusion for Vanya to use her powers & set off a “bomb” just as Krushchev was about to send the letter to Kennedy. This would make it so much more believable for the Soviet Union to have instigated a nuclear missile attack on the US, and for the US to attack back.
The “Majestic 12” could have instead been infiltrating Kennedy’s trusted advisors, influencing him to make rash decisions like imposing the naval blockade on Cuba because (surprise, surprise) they were distributors of military & gun equipment, and would profit off a war with Cuba. Or it could also be that their direct industry competitors were based in a Cuba, and severed relations between Cuba and the US would lead to the imposition of tariffs on Cuban goods, so the products from their competitors’ companies would be too expensive for the ordinary person to purchase in the United States.
The threat of mutually assured destruction would have made it much more believable for there to have been heightened public tensions, so there would be no need to add the racial riot/civil rights element (very important!! but perhaps not as pertinent to the story). The whole Russian spy element would have been so much more believable as well — Vanya could have been interrogated about the missile locations in Cuba, what the USSR’s intentions were, whether they were going to attack the US etc.
To reiterate, I haven’t read the comics so I’m not sure if this whole “Kennedy’s death” thing is central to the story, or if the premise could have indeed been swapped out. Maybe I’m just a history nerd LOL but I’m a bit sad at such a wasted opportunity — especially because the time frame they chose was literally just a year after an actual nuclear missile crisis took place, which they could have capitalised on.
submitted by whitewinenotwater to UmbrellaAcademy [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 23:54 Icy_Debt_6080 Xxx russian spy

Mat if he was an russian spy for megadesk submitted by Icy_Debt_6080 to MatthiasSubmissions [link] [comments]


2020.09.15 19:04 MightyCasey Russian spy xxx

📷
To many, Bob Woodward is a hero, the epitome of good journalism, a man who built his career on revealing the corruption of a villainous President, leading to that pPresident’s resignation.
Because of the work of Woodward and his colleague, Carl Bernstein, the Watergate sScandal became a lexicon of American political culture and Woodward was lionized by his portrayal by handsome American movie star, Robert Redford in the movie based on Woodward and Bernstein’s book, “All The President’s Men."
Since Watergate, Woodward has used access to people in power, to cover several administrations:, both Bushes, Obama,’s and now, Donald Trump’s.
Once again Woodward has positioned himself as the journalistic hero, taking on the corrupt leader and his inept underlings in his recently published book on the Trump administration, “Rage”
.
In 2018, Donald Trump attacked the messenger, suggesting that Woodward was a "Democratic operative" after Woodward’s book “Fear” painted Trump in a bad light. Still Trump would talk with Woodward for his new book, at the behest of Senator Lindsey Graham, according to Tucker Carlson. Carlson would suggest that, Graham set up the interview in part to sabotage Trump. Why would Republican Graham want to sabotage Trump? Perhaps the lines go deeper than political parties.
Trump after getting wind that Woodward’s book would paint him in a bad light would Tweet.
📷
This has caused new controversy as recordings have emerged of Trump saying of the COVID Virus threat in January, that he wanted to “Play it down.” From one of over seventeen interviews Woodward had with the President.
“The Bob Woodward book will be a FAKE, as always, just as many of the others have been. But, believe it or not, lately I’ve been getting lots of GREAT books!”
While describing Woodward’s books as “fake” may seem typical of Trump’s ant-,media attacks, Woodward’s books and career as a whole have had a distinct political agenda. Still, Trump’s 2108 tweet that Woodward as a Democratic operative is a laughable assertion. Woodward had unprecedented access to former President Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager and CIA Director, William Casey, as well great access to the Bush administration —and even helping them cover up the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Woodward also exposed Chinese agents who sought to affect the 1996 presidential Election through donations to the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
A few right- wing websites have picked up on an email that Clinton advisor, Sidney Blumenthal, former advisor to President Bill Clinton, wrote to Hillary Clinton in 2012 regarding Woodward as proof that he was an FBIWoodward is an operative. In the email regarding Woodward, Blumenthal would write, "I am told that these Woodward sources were FBI. Since Deep Throat, he has been an FBI asset, his career dependent."
Blumenthal himself was a journalist turned political operative for the Clintons. He was a man with a lot of political access himself, having worked with Woodward at The Washington Post, as well as The New Republic and The New Yorker.
The wording of the email is troubling. There is nothing wrong with a journalist having sources in politics, the intelligence community, or law enforcement. Blumenthal, a colleague of Woodward, referred to him Woodward as an “asset” for the FBI, a relationship he has based his career on.
In an ideal world, the job of a political journalist is to work for the people to keep the government in check, to keep the people informed of the good work as well as bad work and corruption.
When journalists become “assets” for government organizations, rather than objective observers and reporters, they run the risk of becoming propagandists, who cover up the corruption of the organizations they work for and are to be used as tools to persecute their enemies of said organization.
📷
(Bob Woodward and Tom Brokaw at the garage where Woodward allegedly met “Deep Throat”)
Blumenthal may be partially right in saying that Woodward’s career was dependent on the FBI. In 2005 Woodward would reveal that his infamous Deep Throat anonymous source during the Watergate scandal, “Deep Throat,” was in fact Mark Felt, the number three man in the FBI below after it’s director and founder J. Edgar Hoover, and his alleged homosexual lover Associate Director Clyde Tolson, whom Felt served under.
Felt was a loyalist to Hoover and supported the bugging of Martin Luther King and the FBI’s infamous COINTELPRO program that would illegally surveil, infiltrate, and disrupt Black Power, civil rights, anti-war, and anti-government groups. Felt would be convicted of illegally ordering the burglaries of houses of friends and family members of the anti-war saboteur group, The Weather Underground, only to later be pardoned by Ronald Reagan.
It is ironic that the man credited for exposing the illegal burglary and bugging of Watergate was also complicit in burglary and bugging himself, making it seem as if his case against Nixon was more politically based than morally.
Still for some it is unclear if Felt was “Deep Throat” or the only Deep Throat. In a 1979 interview with Playboy Magazine, the Washington Post reporter would deny that Deep Throat was from the “intelligence community” of which Felt was a part of.
Woodward had described Deep Throat as a chain-smoking, hard-drinking (favoring Scotch) intellectual combat veteran. Felt had never served in the army, and was not a known drinker or smoker. CNN, ABC, and the Washington Post had previously speculated that it was CIA agent Corde Meyer, who in fact was Deep Throat, and Meyer fits Woodward’s description as a combat veteran and sScotch drinker.
So was Woodward lying when he said Deep Throat was a combat veteran,? Perhaps to throw people off his source?. He surely was lying when he denied that Deep Throat wasn’t a part of the “intelligence community.”
Perhaps Deep Throat was not one but several sources from the intelligence community who provided the necessary information to Woodward, and the Scotch drinking combat veteran was used to throw off people looking for the real Deep Throat. Regardless, if it was Meyer or Felt or both, elements from the intelligence community helped Woodward make a name for himself as and become a hero high- profile journalist, and a hero trusted by the nation.
Woodward’s road to a journalism career was not typical. Despite the fact that his father was a federal Judge, Woodward attended Yale on a Naval Reserve Officers Training Corp (NROTC) scholarship, eventually following in his father’s path to the Navy. Yale has historically been a breeding ground for the CIA, and while Woodward was not a member of in the Yale’s famous secret society, hotbed of CIA recruitment, Skull And Bones, a hotbed of CIA recruitment, he was a member of another secret society, Book And Snake, which counts former George H.W. Bush’s former CIA Director, Porter Goss as a member.
After serving five years in the Navy, during which according to the 1991 book “Silent Coup,” by Len Colodny, during five years in Navy, Woodward worked closely with the Nixon White House as a Naval Communication Officer, briefing, General Alexander Haig, who was assistant to National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger and would go on to be Nixon’s Chief of Staff, and then secretary Of State for Ronald Reagan.
📷
While Woodward would admit to having a Top Secret Crypto Security Clearance, when Colodny asked Woodward if he ever briefed Haig, he replied, “I defy you to produce somebody who says I did the briefing. It's just, it's not true."
Colodny would in fact produce three sources who said that Woodward did the brief Aig, including, The Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair, Thomas H. Moorer, and Pentagon Spokesperson, Jerry Friedheim.
Despite having no journalistic experience to speak of, Woodward would land a trial job at the Washington Post for two weeks and would be sent to the Post WaPo’s farm team, the Montgomery County Sentinel, before joining The Post full- time. One year into his career in journalism, and he was breaking the biggest storycase in American journalism history, revealing creating the scandal that all other scandals would be named after, Watergate, with the help of an anonymous source known as “Deep Throat,” whose true identity that would become one of American history’s biggest unsolved mysteries, Deep Throat.
Still, Woodward would be a good fit at the Post. Woodward’s boss, Executive Editor, Ben Bradlee, was also an Ivy League Navy Veteran, who went to Harvard, and, like Woodward, served in the NROTC (Navy ROTC). In World War II, Bradlee served in the Office Of Naval Intelligence as a communications officer, the same title held by his protege.
Bradlee still had more experience qualifications to be in journalism than Woodward. Working as a reporter After World War II In Paris, Bradlee would work as the Press Attache at the American Embassy In Paris, later working with the Office of U.S. Information and Educational Exchange producing propaganda films and material for the CIA, according to author Deborah Davis. In a memo in 1952, Bradlee is said to be on assignment from Robert Thayer, the head of the CIA in Paris, to inspect the file of accused spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg for communist propaganda and was attempting to contact CIA Director, Allen Dulles.
📷
(Ben Bradlee and Bob Woodward)
Dulles was not the only head of the CIA that Bradlee would have a relationship with. Bradlee was childhood friends with Richard Helms, who was Director Of The CIA from 1966-1973. Bradlee would also develop a close relationship with Corde Meyer, a high ranking CIA official, who was his brother- in- law.
After Bradlee’s sister- in- law, Cord Meyer’s wife, Mary, who was alleged to be having an an affair with President John F. Kennedy, was murdered, shortly after JFK himself was killed, Bradlee would give her diary to James Jesus Angleton, head of CIA counterintelligence another high ranking CIA officer.
According to Davis, Bradlee’s boss, Washington Post Publisher Philip Graham, also worked with CIA agent Frank Wisner to create Operation Mockingbird, putting Woodward under the direct command of two men with ties to the Intelligence Community and who worked on with a CIA propaganda campaigns.
Meyer was the principal operative in the CIA’s “Operation Mockingbird,” the CIA’s covert plan to use figures in the foreign and domestic media to gather intelligence and spread propaganda. Ironically it would be Woodward’s partner, Carl Bernstein, who would expose the program Operation Mockingbird to the public via a Rolling Stone article. While Woodward was not named, his mentor Bill Bradlee and Post colleague Walter Pincus are listed as one the journalists who would willingly promote the views of the CIA as was Woodward’s colleague at The Post, Walter Pincus.
Since Watergate, Woodward has continued to build a career through his access to military and intelligence officials. In 1987, After writing a book about deceased actor and comedian John Belushi, Woodward wrote his next book in 1987, was “Veil: The Secret Wars Of The CIA.” Once again, Woodward would rely on his connections to the iIntelligence Community, interviewing CIA Director Bill Casey over 40 times.
📷
With “Veil” Woodward once again had the chance to expose a huge scandal that once again went all the way to the White House, covering the CIA and its role in Nicaragua, during the Iran Contra period . Still the book offered no real insight into the growing scandal and lets the CIA and Reagan/Bush administration off easily. The bombshell in the book from Woodward was that on his deathbed, Bill Casey, admitted that he knew of the diversion of funds from the arms sale to Iran.
The problem is that both Casey’s wife and Kevin Shipp, a member of Casey’s CIA security detail at Georgetown University hospital, have denied the fact that Woodward was by Casey’s deathbed to get his bombshell confession. Shipp claims that Woodward was denied entry to Casey’s hospital room and that Casey was unable to speak at the time.
This begs the question:, why would Woodward lie? If, in fact, Woodward was an asset of the intelligence community, why would he throw the Director of the CIA under the bus? By placing the blame on Casey, whom he paints in the book as a noble cold warrior, Woodward essentially let’s, Casey’s higher ups, Vice President George Bush and President Ronald Reagan, off the hook.
We can see more of Woodward’s alliances from the people he lets off the hook than the people than by the people he persecutes. Although George H.W. Bush was the former Director Of The CIA, and has been implicated by many ais being one of the chief architects of Iran Contra, there was barely a mention of him in his book on the CIA’s Secret Wars during the years Bush was Vice President,
When asked why Bush was left out of his book, Woodward would reply, “Bush was, well, I don’t think he was — what was it he said at the time? ‘I was out of the loop’?” If Woodward would have taken the same attitude towards Nixon, he would’ve left the investigation alone after Nixon said “I Am Not A Crook.”
In placing the blame on Casey and taking Bush for his word without doing any investigation into the Vice President, Woodward’s book, released in the election year of 1988, in which Bush was running for President. Being implicated in a big scandal such as Iran Contra would have greatly hurt his chances during the election. In 1988, Rolling Stone would publish an article that highlighted Bush’s ties to Iran Contra, focusing on Bush’s relationship with former CIA agent, Felix Rodriguez, which was ignored by Woodward.
Later documents including Bush’s personal diary would show that Bush was indeed very much in the loop on Iran Contra, attending meetings, working with Israeli Intelligence, coordinating with Honduran leaders to get help from the Contras. So with Casey’s admission and Bush’s omission from Woodward’s book, Woodward, he gave the Bush administration a dead fall guy for the Iran Contra scandal and let Bush off the hook.
Woodward would continue to help out the Bush family in the 2000s. In the lead ups to the Iraq War, Woodward was asked by CNN’s Larry King about the George W. Bush administration’s claims that there were Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq. by CNN’s Larry King Hand responded that the probability of no WMDs in Iraq was “About zero, there’s too much there.
As a journalistic hero, Woodward’s claims of WMD’s would give credence to the case for the war in Iraq, and he would be rewarded with more access to President George W Bush than any other journalist. Woodward would write a total of four books on the George W Bush administration, all of them dealing with wars and foreign policy. One of his books, “Plan oOf Attack '' was listed on the Bush/Cheney 2004 reelection campaign list of recommended reading.
When CIA agent Valerie Plame was outed by Woodward’s colleague, Robert Novak of the Washington Post, Woodward would once again be caught in the crosshairs of the journalism and intelligence worlds. The outing of Plame was seen as politically motivated, as her husband Joseph Wilson had just written an article critical of the Bush administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium from Niger to make a nuclear bomb.
Woodward would wind up testifying for Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief Of Staff “Scooter” Libby as a defense witness in support of Libby. In the trial he would claim that it was not Libby who disclosed the identity of Plame to him, but Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary oOf State under Bush.
Armitage is yet another CIA connection for Woodward. Having worked in covert operations with the Operation Phoenix assassination squad squad in Vietnam, with notorious CIA officer Ted Shackley, Armitage has long been alleged to have strong ties to the CIA. During the 1988 presidential campaign, Former Presidential cCandidate Ross Perot, would press George H.W. Bush about holding Armitage —, who was the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, under Reagan, — accountable for drugs and weapons dealing, during the 1988 election after Burmese opium warlord Khun Sah told Army Special Forces officer James "Bo” Gritz, that Armitage was heavily involved in the international drug trade, using the proceeds of opium to fund anti-communist insurgencies in Southeast Asia.
Other people involved in the opium smuggling operation, according to Khun Sa, were Ted Shackley, who was the Deputy Director Of Covert operations for the CIA when George H.W. Bush was dDirector, and Santo Trafficante, the notorious Florida mafia boss.
Armitage was also involved in the Iran Contra scandal, and although Bush 41 wanted him as Secretary Of the Army, Armitage would withdraw rather than face congressional grilling on his role in the plan to sell weapons to Iran to fund anti-communist insurgents in Central America. A quite dubious figure in the world of covert operations and Deep Politics, while not in the CIA, Armitage is a prime figure in the so-called Deep State.
For his book “Bush At War,” Woodward had a great deal of access to Richard Armitage, who he would promote in the book along with his boss, Colin Powell, and CIA Director, George Tenet. Tenet would provide Woodward with yet another quotable line by saying that there was a “slam dunk” case for WMDs in Iraq. Woodward, in fact echoed this statement on Larry King, saying there was a 0% chance of no WMDs in Iraq. Still, By placing the WMD blame on Tenet and diverting it from George H.W. Bush, Woodward had once again let President Bush off the hook.
According to Larry King, another CIA source for Woodward was Stansfield Turner. King would ask Woodward if he worked for Naval Intelligence, which he would denied.y, King then and then followed up, asking him if ever did anything for the CIA, which he again denied again before back-tracking, saying that he wrote in his book that someone in the CIA once provided a question to him for an interview with Mumar Qadaffi.
On his own website, Woodward has a quote from Robert Gates, former CIA Director under George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Under Obama, saying " "I would have really liked to recruit him for the CIA because he has an extraordinary ability to get otherwise responsible adults to spill [their] guts to him.” When Politico’s Mike Allen suggested that Gates was a source for Woodward, Gates replied, "I would say very, very little and very reluctantly. I talked to (Woodward) at the end of the Bush administration for his book on Bush” and that he would take precautions, but I think uniquely asked for the questions in advance and had a written record made of what was said and a witness in the room, no deathbed confessions from me.”
Allen then would refer to Gates as “the only person in the world who knows that Bob Woodward was not CIA,” hinting at long time rumors that Woodward was involved with the agency, which provided a laugh from Gates.
Woodward’s access to to former and current CIA agents and directors continues to this day, as He claimed claimed that John Brennan, CIA Director under Obama, had said that the infamous Christopher Steele Russia Dossier, — which claimed among other things that Russian agents were in possession of a videotape in with of Trump in a Moscow hotel room in 2013 within which prostitutes who pissed on a bed Obama slept on, and were using it to blackmail him — “was in line with their own sources [at CIA], in which he had great confidence.
So Bob Woodward, if anything is a man with many sources in the CIA. As a man who covers the iIntelligence Community it would seem fitting to do so. Still as a journalist, one must be careful that one's sources do not use you to use you to spread misinformation.
At a Harvard dinner, Woodward’s old colleague, Carl Bernstein would claim that the release of Valerie Plame’s identity was a "calculated leak.” Woodward would reply, “I know a lot about this, and you’re wrong.”
Later at the dinner when Woodward was asked if his readers should worry that he was being manipulated, he would reply, “I think you should worry. I mean, I worry.”
📷
(Woodward and Bernstein)
Those statements would echo ones he made in a Playboy Interview in 1979:, when he said.
“But let me just say that this suggestion that we were being used by the intelligence community was of concern to us at the time and afterward. When somebody first wrote the article saying about me, "Wait a minute; this is somebody in an intelligence agency who doesn't like Nixon and is trying to get him out," I took that seriously.
The CIA is an agency with professional covert manipulators who try to alter events by deceiving people and directing them, running them like an intelligence agent. I have revisited this question of disinformation — I'd rather not go into how it was done — but I've satisfied myself and others that that was not the case.”
And yes, we should worry that Woodward and other journalists are being manipulated by their sources, especially those in the intelligence community who, as Woodward pointed out, have a history of using and manipulating journalists to mislead the public for their political gain. The problem with Woodward is not that he has sources in the intelligence community, but that he refuses to challenge that community.
When asked by a caller on the Larry King Show if he had found any evidence of cocaine trafficking funding the Contra efforts, Woodward would say “I have asked about it, and in fact asked Casey about it, and he denied it, and others have denied it. I don’t have a final answer on that. But no evidence at this point.”
Perhaps both Trump and Blumenthal are wrong in their assertions, that Woodward was a “democratic operative” or an “FBI asset.” Woodward and Bernstein were famously known as the “Republican and the Radical” (Woodward being the Republican) and Woodward would accuse the Obama administration of trying to intimidate him.
Blumenthal’s statement to Hillary Clinton, that Woodward was an FBI asset, doesn’t seem to be a fitting description. If Woodward is telling the full truth about Mark Felt being Deep Throat, that would fall in line with Blumenthal’s assertion that Woodward was an FBI asset. Still Woodward’s career has been based mostly on foreign policy and not domestic, and FBI sources would only get him so far in the world of foreign policy.
The terms “asset” or “operative” may not be fitting terms for Woodward, but he clearly has been a friend of the Intelligence Community, the CIA in particular. Has Woodward been at times manipulated by his sources, or perhaps it was a cooperative effort? By spreading “calculated leaks” Woodward has done the bidding of the intelligence community.
The job of a journalist in politics is to work for the people to keep the government in check. It appears Woodward has not always done this, at times working with the government to keep the people in check, uninformed or misinformed. It seems that Woodward may in fact owe his career to the Deep State and not Deep Throat.
submitted by MightyCasey to conspiracy [link] [comments]