Monthly Archives: May 2017

Nick Robinson hears from the former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith about politicians and decision-making on security; discusses the political power of the press with the editor of the London Evening Standard, George Osborne; and talks to Mark Damazer (former Radio 4 Controller) and Stewart Wood (former adviser to Ed Miliband) about the week’s big campaign interviews.

Treachery, treachery…what to make of a man who not only sells out his country but also his own political party as he undermines both in order to betray the Brexit voting public and sell us out to Brussels?…that man being George Osborne of course.

The BBC have been continuing the effort to attack May’s campaign as they have from the start…when the campaigns were supposedly postponed out of respect for the victims in Manchester the BBC wheeled in a couple of ringers in the shape of Labour ex-senior politicians, Blunkett and Jacqui Smith, to give us their opinion on events….they being ‘civilians’ and so not subject to the imposed silence on the in-office politicians and thus able to carry on campaigning for Labour…and not just campaigning but making the most outrageous claims…that the Tories were responsible for Manchester because of cuts to the police.  The BBC has been helpfully pushing that  line, Emma Barnett demanding a Tory politician admit his guilt saying…’I want you to accept that cuts to the police led to terrorism.’

No coincidence that this is a major Labour narrative now…despite Labour in 2015 saying they would cut an extra 10% of the police budget above what the Tories had already cut….and note the police budget has not been cut since 2015 whilst counter-terrorism has seen a huge rise in budget…..the BBC graciously tell us that but strangely, in its ‘Reality Check’, fail to mention Labour’s prospective extra 10% cut….and notably fail to give us a conclusion.

Today we had Smith wheeled back in though saying little of consequence this time in a programme by Nick Robinson which seemed designed purely as a vehicle to attack May and praise Corbyn….note all the guests were Labour, ex-BBC or anti-May.  The major ‘attraction’ was George Osborne, ostensibly there to talk about Press responsibility but in fact given a platform to further attack and undermine May….what the Telegaph calls a ‘blistering attack on May’s manifesto pledges’.

Naturally this is all related to Brexit and Osborne’s love affair with Brussels….he hopes to fatally wound May, perhaps make her lose the election or at the very least perform so badly that her position as leader is under question…the hope being she is replaced with a more pro-EU person who will kick Brexit into the long grass.   No such thoughts and analysis from Robinson despite Osborne’s motives being blatantly obvious.

Whilst May was savaged it turns out, according to Robinson, that Corbyn has had a great time, successfully keeping his feet apparently [the BBC yesterday praising his pro-terror speech as ‘bold and audacious’]…that’s despite being subject to massive criticism for his pro-terror stance.  Seems Robinson does not read the papers or watch the news.

With Corbyn getting a pretty clean pass from an uncritical BBC [Neil aside] and May savaged at every opportunity it’s no wonder Corbyn is seeing an apparent rise in the polls as he promises the earth buying votes without having any idea how to pay for it all.  His Marxism, his pro-terrorist stance, his bankrupt economics, all get a free pass from the BBC.

All I can say is be careful of which you wish for.   Bankruptcy, unions on the rampage, chaos politicially and throughout society, Britain made a defenceless laughing stock that gets steamrollered by Brussels and terrorists roam parliament, the ‘honoured friends’ of Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn has done an enormous U-turn in his long held political beliefs…claiming after Manchester that he is an implacable enemy of the terrorist…this, and many other claims by him, are a lie….Andrew Neil exposed him but the mainstream BBC applauds him instead.  The BBC, whilst savaging May for her ‘U-turn’ completely ignores Corbyn’s own massive about face.

The Spectator is more critical as it notices that remarkable personal epiphany by Corbyn….

The three lies that Jeremy Corbyn told Andrew Neil last night

Why is a lifelong leftist seemingly abandoning hitherto unshakeable views? For the same reason any politician does anything: There are votes in it.

We learned something important from Jeremy Corbyn’s interview with Andrew Neil: The Labour leader wants to be Prime Minister and will do whatever it takes.

Corbyn told Neil: ‘I didn’t support the IRA. I don’t support the IRA. What I want everywhere is a peace process.’ This is a lie.

Corbyn told Neil: ‘I never met the IRA.’ This is a lie.

Corbyn told Neil: ‘My role was supporting a process which would bring about a dialogue and I believe you have to talk.’ This is a lie.

Extraordinary that a political journalist as astute and sharp as Nick Robinson would rather praise and cheerlead for such a man than expose him and his lies, his support for terrorists and most egregiously his opportunistic exploitation of the dead and wounded at Manchester in a series of lies and misinformation unchallenged by 99.999% of the BBC.

The Labour Party still doesn’t get it; a few do, but most don’t. Corbyn is not some mad old geography teacher with a lapel full of lost causes. He is not well-meaning or idealistic or a bit quirky in his views. He is an extremist and an enabler of extremism. He is a fellow traveller with terrorists and anti-Semites. When the IRA was murdering British soldiers and civilians, Corbyn had their back. When Hamas rains rockets down on Israeli kindergartens, Corbyn has their back. If he was Prime Minister and we came under attack, would he have our back?

The BBC doesn’t get it either.

“It certainly appears to be the case that the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it”

Corbyn gave his speech today re-opening the election campaign with a promise to change British foreign policy at the ‘request’ of some ‘non-Muslim’ Muslim terrorists and linking it to home grown terrorism.

Corbyn has done an enormous u-turn after decades of cosying up to terrorists, along with McDonnell, honouring IRA dead, opposing just about every piece of anti-terrorist legislation going through Parliament, demanding the abolition of the British Army, seeking unilateral nuclear disarmament, demanding Britain make an immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Northern Ireland [a thing worth fighting for he thought], all that is now forgotten as he tells us that the terrorists must never prevail and that bombs and mass murder are terrible things.

Terrorism is so last week…until June 9.

Not so long ago he was insisting, much like the BBC’s Mark Easton, that perhaps Muslim terrorists weren’t so bad after all…maybe quite heroic in their way…

There are an awful lot of contradictions surrounding how we decide who is a good fighter and who is a terrorist; who is struggling for liberation and who is a terrorist. There was a time when people involved in Umkhonto we Sizwe in South Africa were known as terrorists; they were later welcomed to this country as freedom fighters. Things can turn full circle.

He also wants to negotiate with them [something he denied in the interview below with Andrew Neil]….and yet they will never prevail…

Jeremy Corbyn says there could be benefits to opening diplomatic back-channels with Isis

The BBC never noticed this U-turn, somewhat more significant than May’s social care cap retreat, and in the analysis post-speech on the radio and in print didn’t think it relevant to mention Corbyn’s past comments on terror and his links to organisations that supported it such as the paper ‘Labour Briefing’…on which Corbyn was one of the editors…

According to an authoritative parliamentary reference work, Mr Corbyn was general secretary of the editorial board. He wrote the front-page story in the same issue of Briefing.
“It certainly appears to be the case that the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it”

Perhaps the sentiment expressed in that paper concerning the ‘audacity’ of the terrorists might explain the BBC’s attitude today…

The same edition of Briefing, for December 1984, carried a reader’s letter praising the “audacity” of the IRA attack and stating: “What do you call four dead Tories? A start.”

The BBC said Corbyn’s statement on foreign polcy, connecting it to Manchester, was ‘bold and audacious’.…but then again the BBC has peddled the same line for nearly 15 years giving credibility and support to the terrorists’ narrative… thus contributing to the radicalisation and terrorism that occurs as a result of that false narrative.  Manchester?  The BBC’s toxic coverage of the Middle East has consequences.  Manchester was just one of them.

Most people I imagine would just think Corbyn had confirmed what they knew already…that he supported terrorism and was quite prepared to surrender in the face of it…the BBC thought otherwise preferring not to mention Corbyn’s past support for terrorists of all sorts, Muslim included, as he told the British people that he totally and unreservedly condemned such terrorism…it was terrible and traumatic…the terrorists will never cow us, never prevail….

In the past few days, we have all perhaps thought a bit more about our country, our communities and our people. The people we have lost to atrocious violence or who have suffered grievous injury, so many of them heart-breakingly young .

Terrorists and their atrocious acts of cruelty and depravity will never divide us and will never prevail.

Over recent years, the threat of terrorism has continued to grow. You deserve to know what a Labour Government will do to keep you and your family safe. Our approach will involve change at home and change abroad.

Many experts, including professionals in our intelligence and security services have pointed to the connections between wars our government has supported or fought in other countries, such as Libya, and terrorism here at home.

That assessment in no way reduces the guilt of those who attack our children. Those terrorists will forever be reviled and implacably held to account for their actions.

Protecting this country requires us to be both strong against terrorism and strong against the causes of terrorism. The blame is with the terrorists, but if we are to protect our people we must be honest about what threatens our security.

We must support our Armed Services, Foreign Office and International Development professionals, engaging with the world in a way that reduces conflict and builds peace and security.

Our government is not chosen at an autocrats’ whim or by religious decree and [is] never cowed by a terrorist’s bomb.Let’s have our arguments without impugning anyone’s patriotism and without diluting the unity with which we stand against terror.

Corbyn lied throughout the speech and lied throughout his interview with Andrew Neil….Corbyn says he wants multilateral nuclear disarmament..that’s a lie…as the BBC could have told us today as they did in April….

Mr Corbyn is the first Labour leader to support unilateral nuclear disarmament since Michael Foot in 1983 – a stance which puts him at odds with the bulk of his party.

Neil missed a trick in the interview as he pressed Corbyn on Trident…he didn’t ask Corbyn if the missiles would ever be used, despite what the Party as a whole said, as Corbyn himself has said he would never press the button…or indeed that Corbyn wanted nuclear missiles with no nuclear warheads…a vast waste of money….

Jeremy Corbyn: I would never use nuclear weapons if I were PM

Neil also failed to press Corbyn on his meetings with IRA memebers which he denied ever having done…Google and Guido very quickly proves otherwise…

Corbyn Lies: “I Never Met the IRA”

Neil’s interview otherwise was pretty rigorous and you could see Corbyn seething quietly as he was hung out to dry…..he’s a proven liar and a terrorist supporter.  Shame that other than Neil the BBC reports on his speech seem to avoid contradicting or challenging anything he says…which you might think was important considering the claims he is making about the link between Iraq and terrorism and the consequences that flow from that…such as changing our foreign policy to suit those non-Muslim Muslim terrorists.

The narrative that he peddles, that our foreign policy is anti-Muslim and thus angers Muslims [though once they become ‘radical’ they suddenly lose their ‘Muslim’ status according to Corbyn’s law], is entirely false…Muslims in the UK have been ‘radicalising’ for decades and that the ‘radical’ Muslim, Osama Bin Laden, wanted to invade Iraq and topple Saddam himself…and yet that was a bad thing for the West to do….after years of being told we we wrong to support dictators.  We topple one, one that Muslims wanted to beBBC toppled and they get angry and ‘radical’?  The BBC sees no contradiction there.  The foreign policy narrative is just a useful excuse, if it wasn’t that it would be some other….shame on the BBC for promoting such a deadly lie….make no mistake……22 people lie dead in Manchester because of it.

Why is it always Andrew Neil who does the due diligence and some proper journalism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZiHl-HBnuk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_MvJm-dAd8

Oh dear….the BBC’s attempt to inform us on Corbyn’s policies, history and mindset in light of the interview?

General election 2017: Corbyn quizzed on Trident and IRA

Utterly hopeless…fails completely to question his answers giving us instead merely a list of questions that Neil asked and Corbyn’s reply…no analysis, no context, no contrast with Corbyn’s past statements and positions.

Considering this is supposed to be informing us so that we can make a decision on who to vote for it is far from being an indepth, intelligent and useful guide to Corbyn, his thinking and his politics ast and present…we have no  idea that he is being evasive and is lying to us from this BBC report other than his refusal to sign off on Trident.

May is hung out to dry everyday with her past positions and statements compared with today’s.  Corbyn does an enormous u-turn on terrorism and nothing from the BBC, Neil aside, May does a u-turn on social care and it is healdine news for days…and will be until election day as Labour try to capitalise on it and the BBC aid and abet…the News Quiz having much fun at May’s expense and hardly a thing about Corbbyn.

The BBC’s Emma Barnett to Tory James Cleverly on the subject of police cuts and the blame for terrorist attacks…

‘I want you to accept that cuts to the police led to terrorism.’

Barnett also tried to promote the Labour lie that soldiers on the streets were a result of cuts to Bobbies on the beat…failing to understand that the soldiers were there, not to replace beat bobbies, but to support the armed police in the event of a Mumbai or Bataclan type attack which the police alone could not handle.  Barnett, and she’s not alone in this of course, never seems properly prepared research-wise and frequently fails to understand what is being said by her interviewees despite it usually being clear and coherent, she seems to wing it thinking if she says something with enough confidence she can bluff her way through and score a few points….for instance has she any idea, is she bothered, that Labour proposed cuts to the police on top of the Tory cuts? [and remember this was the same Burnham who also proposed cuts to the NHS budget]…..

Yesterday, whilst the politicians were still in respectful silence after the Manchester attack the BBC and Labour tried to work around that inconvenience in order to politicise, weaponise, the bombing.  Instead of using current Labour ministers they pulled in ex ministers, David Blunkett and Jackie Smith, to keep pushing Labour’s message whilst everyone else were silent…they of course not being in Corbyn’s cabinet could be presented as ‘civilian’ commentators…and yet this was a highly, highly political intervention as they implied May had blood on her hands.

Blunkett and Smith were brought in to blame Tory cuts to the police for the Manchester attack…never mind 7/7 was under a Labour government when we supposedly had lots more officers…never mind the police make arrests everyday in relation to terrorism and billions more have been ploughed into security and intelligence…how much more can they do?  They seem to be completely on top of the job as far as possible.  The Americans had massive intelligence and police resources and yet a huge and intricate plot like 9/11 happened.

Andy Burnham has been grandstanding as usual…and as usual he’s a liar…..and he’s also been blaming, very quietly, cuts for the bombing…..as well as peddling the Muslim extremists’ narrative about Prevent…..

Meanwhile, Greater Manchester’s metro mayor, Andy Burnham, said that policing numbers should become an issue in the general election campaign after the initial response to the Manchester attack had been completed. He said there was a need for a “fundamental review” of Prevent, which he said had led to members of Britain’s Muslim community feeling “picked on”.

The Prevent brand is now “toxic” in parts of the Muslim community, he said. “I think we do have to have a debate now about whether or not the frontline police force can be cut. I don’t believe it can,” he said. “I would say this now needs to become an issue in the election campaign, once we have dealt with the immediate events of this week.”

Curiously in 2015 Burnham thought we should make up to 10% cuts in the police budget on top of what the 20% the Tories had already cut…….

Here you go, a new Open Thread to see us off into the weekend! Detail their rancid bias here please!

I don’t know if you watched BBC Question Time last night. This was the panel.

It had one key message.

The death of our children doesn’t matter.

The death of their parents doesn’t matter.

The hurt feelings of Muslims REALLY matters.

A new low for the abysmal BBC.

The BBC can’t help itself….it just keeps on rolling with the anti-Western, anti-British narrative that serves up the endless stream of recruits to the Jihadi cause.

Jeremy Bowen was at it recently, blaming ‘duplicitous British’ actions after WWI for causing all the problems in the Middle East, and by extension the world, today…and of course the ‘catastrophic’ Iraq War gets a mention.

Humphrys blamed the intervention in Libya for Manchester, failing to mention it was a UN operation and that it carried out in order to stop a massacre [and yet the BBC goes on about Srebrenica and the non-intervention there]…and that if it hadn’t been done Libya would be far worse than it is now.

Then we have the long term BBC criticism of Prevent which we are told is failing, toxic brand as it stigmatises Muslims and alienates them.  Never mind that narrative is driven by Muslim extremists who may have an interest in undermining a counter-radicalisation and terrorism programme.

Emma Barnett had on Labour’s Jackie Smith who was also of the opinion that Prevent was failing and that it was the government’s fault…she also said that Manchester was May’s fault as 20,000 police have been lost under the Tories and thus we don’t have the manpower to tackle the threat….blood on her hands!  Kind of forgetting that Labour failed to stop 7/7 when they had more police officers…and fails to recognise that the government has ploughed billions into more intelligence and security staff and resources.  Barnett went along with this ‘analysis’ and then added her own…apparently Brexit also caused Manchester….May has been so distracted by Brexit that she took her eye off the ball…and bang!!!!  Blood on her hands.  Perhaps she suggested, Amber Rudd should resign.

Did seem like a Labour-fest today…Burnham, Blunkett and Smith all getting plenty of airtime and using it to campaign in this campaign down-time…so much for respect.

Who needs all those Islamic State social media sites pumping out Jihadi propaganda when you’ve got the BBC doing it for you?

If arrests are being made every day, if plots, radicalisation and attempts to head off to Syria are prevented every day, if bombs went off during Labour’s time in office…how is it ‘Prevent’ has failed and recent police cuts are to blame for the Manchester bomb?  How can a man who fought Gaddafi, his family given sanctuary in Britain, a Britain that helped get rid of Gaddafi, turn on Britain because, he says, it doesn’t help Muslims?

I have said before that 5 Live’s Emma Barnett could provide this site with enough material on her own to keep it going for years without any other references to BBC bias elsewhere.  Is it bias though or just ignorance combined with a overhelming sense of self-confidence and belief in her own opinion?…a dangerous mixture.  Rather than be allowed to cover serious news issues such as terrorism perhaps she should stick to the type of thing she has done recently such as a piece on a ‘Vagina Museum’…yep…you read that right.  Then again she herself could be an exhibit…after all a talking vagina must be quite a rarity.  I’d pay to see it.

On Wednesday she went all out for an attack on the Prevent programme which apparently is failing and toxic to all decent Muslims.  Barnett wanted to know how we deal with terrorism, how we, er, prevent it and radicalisation.

Of course knowing what the problem is in the first place would help.  Barnett and Co know what that is.

It’s definitely not anything religious…it is instead a Society problem…Muslims have no hope, no future, discriminated against and marginalised….Abedi was a ‘a typical disaffected youth who was very unhappy’.  It is not one community’s fault or responsibility..it’s a British problem.  There is no one thing that makes someone a [er…Muslim] terrorist…there are many ‘pull factors’ such as a lust for adventure and a solution for your personal problems.

The solution is not Prevent, which has failed…we must engage the community, the messenger must be accepted and credible in the community…the youth must be empowered to…er…challenge authority…they must not feel excluded.

We need a better understanding of their motivation.

As you can see a complete waste of time and a refusal to discuss the real problem, the real motivation behind the radicalisation, the one ‘pull factor’ that excites and unites these radicals and terrorists….Islam.  They all identify as ‘Muslim’ and Abedi came from a religious family that was already itself radicalised, and he himself became more religious and came to believe Muslims were under attack by the West and he wanted revenge.  Right there you have the motivation and the mindset that makes a person vulnerable to radicalisation….Islam commands Muslims to defend other Muslims…therefore if they are told Muslims are under attack many will answer the call to arms…Jihad.  And who has been spreading the narrative that Muslims are under attack?  Muslim radicals of course but also the likes of the BBC which has fed Muslims the lie that ever since the Crusades Muslims have been the victims of Christian and Western violence and oppression….all their problems flow out of the West.

The BBC must take the blame for much of the radicalisation of so many muslims, especially British ones.

Thursday we had a different approach.  Perhaps the BBC had a few calls complaining about the one-sided, anti-Prevent narrative being spun by the BBC the day before [a narrative the BBC has kept up for a long time now].  This time we had on some supporters of Prevent, one the brother-in-law of 7/7 bomber Muhammed Sidiq Khan, Ahmed Patel [see above video], and counter radicalisation worker, Sara Khan.  Naturally they didn’t get as sympathetic and uncritical a platform as those who branded Prevent ‘Toxic’ did.

Patel gave an excoriating run down of what is both the extremist and the BBC’s narrative about Muslim victimhood, foreign policy and the Prevent programme.  He supported prevent and thought it was working and that he was fed up with the ‘anti-Prevent brigade’, by which he meant the Muslim extremist groups, such as Cage, who were driving the false and dangerous narrative that Prevent was toxic, was targeting Muslims and set Muslims against each other as they were supposed to spy on each other.  Interestingly he said that the ‘backlash’ against Muslims was legitimate…if there is a trend of attacks by Muslims on non-Muslims he suggested you could not blame British people for reacting against Muslims when they see these attacks on themselves. [Of course there has hardly been any serious anti-Muslim ‘backlash’…British people have been remarkably tolerant and peaceful under the most outrageous provocation]

He went on to say Muslims have a victim mentality and have bought into the false narrative about being under attack, a war on Islam and attacks on ‘Muslim lands’.  Such narratives are creating a them and us mentality that shuts communities off from each other.

He also said that ‘islamophobia’ was not a word he liked…it was used to shut down debate and silence critics of Islamic terror.

Sara Khan then came on [11:39:40] and told of the death threats and threats of rape she receives from Muslims as she works on Prevent…..they want to shut down debate and shut down Prevent.  Barnett interrupted to say that critics she had on her programme were not extremists [they were] and that Prevent isolates Muslims and is toxic….something has gone wrong she tells us.

Khan slapped her down saying that was lazy rhetoric and made a good case for Prevent and its success.

Barnett then dragged in another one of her ‘not radical’ anti-Prevent voices [11:50]…a Muslim academic specialising in terrorism and all that….Even Barnett came to realise as he spoke that he was ‘radical’ and yet she still said his narrative about British foreign policy was ‘fair enough’.

End of the day, despite all that, Barnett still came out with the claims that Prevent was failing, that something was wrong and that it alienated Muslims.  Perhaps she should take some time out and listen to her own show and learn.

The Wall Street Journal tells us that Salman Abedi thought Muslims in Britain were ill-treated and that he became increasingly religious…

Abedi’s sister, Jomana Abedi, said her brother was kind and loving and
that she was surprised by what he did this week. She said she thought he
was driven by what he saw as injustices.

“I think he saw children—Muslim children—dying everywhere, and wanted
revenge. He saw the explosives America drops on children in Syria, and
he wanted revenge,” she said. “Whether he got that is between him and God.”

In May 2016, an 18-year-old friend of Salman Abedi’s, Abdul Wahab
Hafidah, a Briton of Libyan descent, died after being run down by a car
and then stabbed in Manchester. Six men and a 15-year-old boy are on
trial in a Manchester court this month charged with murder in connection
with the killing, which prosecutors have argued was gang-related. The
defendants deny wrongdoing.

Abedi viewed the attack as a hate crime, the family friend said, and
grew increasingly angry about what he considered ill-treatment of
Muslims in Britain. “I remember Salman at his funeral vowing revenge,”
the Abedi family friend said.

Abedi became increasingly religious, family members said, and interested
in extremist groups. A cousin, who declined to be named, said Abedi’s
parents worried he was headed toward violence.

Wonder where he got the idea that Muslims were ill-treated in Britain, one of the most Muslim friendly countries in the world apparently…and that is in comparison to ‘Muslim’ countries.

Contrast that with the BBC’s effort which misses out a couple of the crucial elements…his increasing devoutness and his antipathy towards Britain…..instead the BBC paints a picture of a concerned father trying to take his son away from bad influences…not Muslim extremists but gangs….

The BBC has been told by a Muslim community worker that members of the public called the police anti-terrorism hotline about Abedi’s extreme and violent views several years ago.

We don’t know how the police responded to these reported hotline calls – but we have also learnt that earlier this year, Abedi’s behaviour again raised concerns.

According to our sources, he told local people about the value of dying for a cause.

He also made hardline statements about suicide bombings and the conflict in Libya.

An Abedi family friend in Tripoli has told the BBC that Ramadan took his son out of the city fearing the “influence of gangsters and criminals.” Mr Abedi said he feared his son was becoming increasingly drawn into drugs and criminality after the death of one of his friends in nearby Moss Side.

The New York Times was one of the rags that launched a highly critical attack on Trump claiming [probably falsely]  that he had disclosed top secret intelligence from another country without permission thus putting operations at risk as well as further co-operation.

The NYT then publishes photos of the Manchester bombing without permission which have been leaked to it…and ...the BBC reports on the NYT’s little faux pas…

The UK government and police have reacted with anger after a US newspaper published photos apparently showing the scene of the Manchester bomb attack.

Counter terror police chiefs said the leak undermined their investigation and victims’ and witnesses’ confidence.

A Whitehall source added: “We are furious. This is completely unacceptable.”

Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of smug, lying Liberals.

A couple of things of note in regard to Trump and Russia…as yet absolutely no proof of anything…

And from Breitbart:

Ex-CIA Director John Brennan Refuses To Say Whether Russia Holds Damaging Info On Hillary Clinton

In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan refused to answer a question in an unclassified setting about whether the Russians possess damaging information on Hillary Clinton that was not revealed during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Brennan further testified that, in his assessment, the Russians favored Donald Trump over Clinton largely because they despised Clinton and would generally prefer dealing with a businessman.

This is a far cry from the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that the Russians possessed damaging information on Trump. Brennan did not even imply that this was the case. Indeed, the discussion about the Russians potentially holding negative information on a politician centered around Clinton.

Brennan’s assessment of Russia’s thinking is shared by Comey, who earlier this month confirmed in testimony that the basis for the intelligence community’s assessment that Putin allegedly wanted Trump in office was not because the billionaire was, as Sen. Al Franken claimed during that hearing without citing any evidence, “ensnared in” Russia’s “web of patronage.”

Instead, Comey provided two primary reasons for Russia allegedly favoring Trump over Clinton during the 2016 presidential race.

One reason, according to Comey, was that Putin “hated” Clinton and would have favored any Republican opponent. The second reason, Comey explained, was that Putin made an assessment that it would be easier to make a deal with a businessman than someone from the political class.

And remember…Comey said Trump himself was not under investigation…..probably because they think the russians do not have compromising information on Trump…and thus the ‘dodgy dossier’ is just that…dodgy….a creative pile of horse crap invented by a British ex-MI6 agent in an attempt to influence the election in favour of Clinton…but no one would say anything about that foreign interference in American Democracy…and certainy not the BBC.