Category Archives: BBC bias

“Every now and then, every time we have a conference, every time we invite a speaker, they [the media] always come with the same accusations: This speaker supports the death penalty for homosexuals, this speaker supports the death penalty for this crime or this crime or that he is homophobic, that he subjugates women, etcetera. I always try to tell them that it is not that speaker that we are inviting who has these ‘extreme radical views,’ as you say. These are general views that every Muslim actually has.

Every Muslim believes in these things. Just because they are not telling you about it, or just because they are not out there in the media, doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in them.”

The BBC has always opposed telling the truth about Muslim immigration into Europe and the effects it is having upon society, indeed the BBC has deliberately acted to close down such discussions just as it countered the ‘Muslim Demographics’ video on Youtube with its own video as it didn’t like the conclusions that the Muslim Demographics video aired….that Muslims will take over Europe.

The Muslim Brotherhood has long predicted that France will become Muslim, they suggest within a generation, but they can wait.  Our own BBC goto Muslim expert, Mo Ansar predicts something similar…

Even the EU is prediciting massive and overwhelming immigration, the majority of whom will be Muslim….

Europe is ‘underestimating’ scale of migrant crisis and could be flooded by millions of Africans in ‘biblical exodus’ unless urgent action is taken says top official

The number of migrants crossing into Europe from Africa will be in the millions within five years unless urgent action is taken, a senior EU official has warned.

Antonio Tajani, president of the European Parliament, has said the scale and severity of the migrant crisis is being underestimated and must be tackled urgently.

In an interview with Il Messagero newspaper, Mr Tajani said there would be an exodus ‘of biblical proportions that would be impossible to stop if we don’t confront the problem now’.

And now we have an Archbishop in France predicting a Muslim takeover by ‘demographics’…

‘Muslim believers say ‘one day this will all be ours’ and call it the Great Replacement’: French Archbishop says higher Muslim birth rate is changing the country

The Archbishop of Strasbourg has said Muslims in his country are aware their high birth rate will soon lead to a ‘Great Replacement’ of the French population….. ‘Muslim believers know very well that their birth rate is such that today, they call it … the Great Replacement, they tell you in a very calm, very positive way that, “one day all this, it will be ours”‘

Do you see the BBC reporting either of these statements or discussing them seriously other than to condemn the speakers as deluded or racists?

Why is the BBC promoting a religion that is clearly not a religion of peace but is in fact one based upon conquest and colonisation, its worshipped leader, Muhammed, was a warlord who happily slaughtered whole tribes personally cutting off heads and proclaimiing that his god will reward his followers with land, women, loot and riches if they fight for him in order to spread a religion that is anti-Semitic,, anti-Christian, misogynist, homophobic and highly oppressive and racist….the death penalty is frequently used for gays and those who wish to leave the religion.  Why would anyone in their right mind promote such an ideology as progressive and liberal?  Islam has nothing in common with Christianity other than a few stories it plagiarised in order to make Christians think it had something for them when Muhammed was looking for recruits.

As David Goodhart said:

The gulf between conservative Islam and secular liberal Britain is larger than with any comparable large group….for those of us who value an open, liberal society it is time to explain why it is superior to the alternatives.

He told us that…

Some claim that if people understood Islam more everything would be fine, they would be more tolerant, I think quite the contrary….the more they understand about it the more alien they would find it…authoritarian, collectivist, patriarchal, misogynist…..all sorts of things that Britain might have been 100 years ago but isn’t now.

Charles Moore:

Nothing has changed in 25 years to ease my concerns about Islam

It seemed to me that most Muslim leaders saw their role not in integrating Muslims in Britain, but in asserting difference and increasing their muscle. Many favoured sharia law trumping British law. They would not support Muslim membership of the Armed Forces if those forces were deployed against Muslim countries. They wanted it to be illegal to attack Islam, let alone denigrate its prophet; and they waged constant “lawfare” to try to silence their critics. They tended, I thought, to see the advance of their cause as a zero-sum game in which the authorities had to cede more ground (sometimes it is literally a matter of territory) to Muslims.

Boris Johnson:

To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia – fear of Islam – seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture – to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques – it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers. As the killer of Theo Van Gogh told his victim’s mother this week in a Dutch courtroom, he could not care for her, could not sympathise, because she was not a Muslim.

The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s medieval ass?

It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values. We can’t force it on them, but we should begin to demand change in a way that is both friendly and outspoken.

https://twitter.com/StFrexit/status/885209841077067776

[Thanks to Guest Who for the Tweet above]

The BBC et al always demand that we take in more and more immigrants…more are better for the economy, for diversity, for cheap plumbers and nannies for BBC grandees.  The BBC is a bit of an extremist when it comes to immigration as it campaigns for open borders and limitless immigration into the UK without regard to the real, rather than the imagined, effects that this will have upon the economy, society and the environment.

Ironically the Guardian, which also loves immigration, is headlining with this…

Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

So fewer people is better for the environment.  Why then does the BBC et al keep on insisting we cram this country to the gunnels with more and more people, so many of them who don’t share our values and beliefs and, as we already see, are prepared to take up force to make their own culture the dominant one?

Crowded cities, crowded roads, landscapes that turn from green into concrete, schools packed, the NHS in crisis, housing shortages and massive prices, water shortages, pollution rising, energy use up, workers on the dole or on low wages, productivity down, violence, crime and drugs up.

What’s not to like about mass, uncontrolled immigration?

The environment is not just the green stuff…you should be able to walk the streets in safety and live your life as you always have done as a citizen of a free, liberal, democratic western state.  Can you now?

Also note the huge hypocirsy as the right-on Guardian attacks golden boy Macron for his comments on birth control…

Brand new Macron, same old colonialism

The French president’s casual slur against Francophone Africans over birth control bodes ill for a progressive French presidency. Plus ça chang.

France’s newly elected president, Emmanuel Macron, when asked in a press conference at the G20 summit in Hamburg why there was no Marshall plan for Africa, explained that Africa had “civilisational” problems. He added that part of the challenge facing the continent was the countries that “still have seven to eight children per woman”.

The condemnation online was swift and relentless.

As people have noted the Guardian has posted a picture of 3 very white babies and pointed the finger at the West for population overload…never mind the population in the West has been declining…hence the Guardian and BBC have been urging us to import a ready made population from African and Muslim countries.  The BBC and the Guardian cannot be trusted in the slightest to give us the real news when race and religion are involved, even as the war drums beat and there is blood on the streets they still try to silence those who see what is coming as what many call the invasion of Europe continues.

This was at the bottom of the last post but some may miss it…but it’s worth seeing the wild eyed, foam-flecked collaborator that wants us to remain under the EU’s undemocratic boot…

Probably one of the nastiest and utruthful films you will see on the BBC, hopefully.

‘Our country looks deranged, stupid, diminished, flaky, bringing on self-harm, something no-one voted for, a lab rat experiment by the crazies on the rest of us.  No deal would mean busted, broken borders, bankrupt factories, no right for planes to fly, no right for trucks to move…we’d be a poorer, sadder, nastier place, an absurdity sniggered at by the world.  A bad deal may be the best we can get…so compromise and accept it.’

 

Lord Hall Hall complained to his dinner party set that the BBC’s ‘balanced’ coverage of the referendum had lost the referendum for Remain because it gave too much credibility to the Leave campaign.  Now anyone who has seriously consumed the BBC’s coverage of the referendum will know that their coverage was nothing if not biased heavily in favour of Remain.  Makes you wonder just what sort of coverage Lord Hall Hall would have liked.  Then again, wonder no more because after Nick Robinson coincidentally then came out and said the BBC needn’t bother with ‘balance’ any more when reporting on Brexit that’s precisely what happened….’balance’ went out the window and instead we get a torrent of pro-EU, pro-Remain propaganda that is so blatant that even the blindest, deafest, dumbest member of Ofcom should be able to discern it…don’t hold your breath as the inbred Ofcom keeps up its all too close relationship with its BBC family.

When Zac Goldsmith lost Richmond [a Remain stronghold] to a LibDem the BBC excitedly told us this was a sign that Brexit was over, the tide had turned and opinion was moving away from leaving the EU.  Curiously we have heard hardly a peep about Goldsmith winning the seat back at the recent election [in which, contrary to BBC intimation, May won more votes than the Tories did in 2015].  The BBC also told us that the election meant we must have a new direction on Brexit…the voters have spoken apparently and they want to Remain in the EU, or so the BBC told us, a ‘sign from the country’…never mind the election wasn’t decided on Brexit at all and that 80% or more voted for parties that say they suport leaving the EU now.  This was the BBC campaigning for the Remain side….

‘You are a minority government but you’re reading of the public mood is to push on with the same plans for Brexit that you always had…you know that the whole direction of Brexit is now up in the air…you know that!…you didn’t get the Brexit vote you wanted and you didn’t get a huge majority…this was a sign from the country that they were questioning it [your plans for Brexit].’

Never mind a Tory being elected back into a Remain stronghold.

Robinson told us that the BBC has no need to be impartial becaue there is only one side now as Brexit moves forward…

“The referendum is over. The duty we broadcasters had to ‘broadly balance’ the views of the two sides is at an end. Why? Because there are no longer two sides, two campaigns, two rival sets of spokespeople reading out those focus-grouped slogans.”

Quite clearly, and from the instant the result was known, that has not been true…it is quite apparent that there are two sides and that the Remain side have continued to make their arguments as if the referendum is ongoing…and the BBC has given them huge amounts of airtime to make their case.  The BBC has not only allowed them to make their case but has actually come down on their side even more openly as it also argues for a ‘soft Brexit’…the use of ‘Soft’ and ‘hard’ Brexit is in itself an indicator of bias as there are no such things…a ‘Soft’ Brexit is in fact no Brexit at all.

So Robinson is wrong, there are two sides, and the BBC has chosen to promote and defend the Remain side rather than report accurately, fairly and honestly what is going on.  When have you heard the BBC ever make a positive statement about Brexit?  Their coverage has been entirely negative peddling the Remain ‘apocalypse’ scenario despite it being proven wrong again and again.

Here’s a recent Panorama scare story about food prices…

“[Shoppers will face] higher prices, less choice and poorer quality. Brexit, almost in whatever version it is, will introduce barriers. That makes it less efficient which means all three of those benefits – prices, quality and choice – go backwards.”

Brexit was not about economics, it was about sovereignty, control and immigration.  The BBC ignores that and prefers instead to paint a picture of economic doom in a continuation of ‘Project Fear’…never mind that the ONA has released a report telling us that Osborne’s Treasury report that told us that there would be an immediate and dire impact should we vote to leave was wrong and based upon erroneous assumptions.

Hear about that on the BBC?   No, and yet when the Treasury ‘analysis’ came out during the referendum the BBC put it up in headlights….’proof’ that to leave the EU would be a disaster…they of course didn’t mention that the Treasury was at the beck and call of its master, Osborne.  The same BBC that reported with glee the Evening Standard frontpages attacking May…and yet again failing to mention that the new editor of the Evening Standard was someone who would love to see May deposed even if it meant the Tories being shoved out of Office as this meant Brexit would suffer a huge setback….Osborne again.

Funnily enough the Evening Standard had a frontpage suggesting Brexit would cause us cancer.…this is Osborne continuing a theme started by the BBC which has carefully plotted a campaign with the Remain side to attack May on the ECJ…the BBC organised an interview with arch Remainer James Chapman and ran a relentless stream of news stories and programmes based upon it that exaggerated problems, lied about membership of the EU being crucial to staying part of EURATOM and insisted we would need to remain in the ECJ if we wanted to be in EURATOM.

The BBC is working in concert with the Remain camp to stop Brexit.

There is an endless flow of Remain supporters being given a lot of airtime on the BBC and who are welcomed with open arms rather than with rigorous questions and challenges to their claims.  Last weekend we had Vince Cable on to tell us Brexit would never happen as the people realised how terrible it all would be…no challenge from anyone.  Naturally Ken Clarke and Chris Patten and Heseltine have been allowed to peddle their pro-EU misinformation but it doesn’t stop with the usual suspects as the old BBC trick of inviting on artists, writers and film-makers for an interview on their latest project but actually wanting to know their views on the latest issue the BBC is concerned with…at one time it was George Bush and the BBC knew they could reliably ask all these artistes for a negative comment and in the same way they can be relied upon for an anti-Brexit rant or a pro-EU puff as when they had Lord Brown[ex BP] on and he waxed lyrical about the wonders of diversity and Europe [which of course we will not be able to go to once Brexit happens].

Then there are those carefully crafted hatchet jobs, the little films made by people invited onto the BBC to give their opinion…as during the election when Newsnight’s Corbyn’s film was wide-eyed glorification and May’s a sly stab in the back from Matthew Parris.

Here’s the most recent…a film by Remain psycho [so it would seem from the film] Julian Glover who tells May to just lie back and think of Britain as the EU ‘f***s’ us…he tells us the EU will not compromise so we must…a bad deal is better than no deal…what a snivelling little coward……as one of the comments to the video says…’more BBC shite. The sooner we rise up and get rid of the TV licence tax, the better.’…

Probably one of the nastiest and utruthful films you will see, hopefully.

Our country looks deranged, stupid, diminished, flaky, bringing on self-harm, something no-one voted for, a lab rat experiment by the crazies on the rest of us.  No deal would mean busted, broken borders, bankrupt factories, no right for planes to fly, no right for trucks to move…we’d be a poorer, sadder, nastier place, an absurdity sniggered at by the world.  A bad deal may be the best we can get…so compromise and accept it.

Note the BBC is pushing the same line on PM as Is the BBC Biased? notes….

So no deal would be a sudden dramatic rupture. 

Would we recover? In time yes. Probably trade can’t grind to a halt forever. 

And there are those who think it’s worth it. Ukip put out a statement just today saying it’s time to call it quits and walk away. 

But many people in politics and especially in business think no deal would be a disaster for our economy and for our standing in the world. 

The BBC’s Brexit coverage has been atrocious, highly partisan and biased, it is so far from the truth, so far from responsible, measure, accurate journalism that it is beyond a joke.  Lord Hall Hall should be sacked as he is so clearly incapable of not using the BBC as his own personal messaging service pumping out pro-EU propaganda at a relentless rate in order not to ruin his digestion.

Sack him or jail him.  A good case for either as he corrupts the BBC and poisons the public mind.

A new open thread….list the BBC’s bias here.

As mentioned in a previous post the BBC is pretty much ignoring evidence, or rather the lack of it, and has decided Trump jr is guilty of collaborating with the Russian government to install Trump sr as their puppet in Washington.

Anthony Zurcher confirms this is the BBC’s conclusion as he passes judgement on Trump jr and sentences him and Trump sr to a future in which they have ‘only themselves to blame’.  Guilty!!!!

Analysis: A grim situation for Trump Jr

Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America reporter

Whether by plan or happenstance, Donald Trump Jr is stumbling into an increasingly dire situation.

The pattern has been set. The New York Times runs a story, Trump Jr issues his response, then the noose tightens.

The presidential son says he was conducting routine opposition research. Then the Times reports that he was told it was the Russian government itself that was coming to his father’s aid.

Now it appears the president’s own family, and his presidency itself, could be in peril. They have only themselves to blame.

Really?  Trump jr was told he was meeting with the Russian government?  Where exactly did Zurcher get that gem from?  Out of his own backside one suspects…ooh no…it was that other source of s**t  journalism, the NYT…

Zurcher doubles up on his ‘analysis’ and reports confidently that Trump jr is guilty…

Is this a smoking gun?

What is a gun? What is smoke? Is anything real anymore? The media could discover a metaphorical .357 Magnum on the floor, still warm to the touch, and it would probably be dismissed by many as just another bit of fake news.

For the first time there’s confirmation of a meeting between Mr Trump’s inner circle and someone with ties to the Russian government where campaign issues were discussed.

More than that, Trump Jr seems to have walked into the meeting with the impression that the Russian government wanted to help his father – and there’s email evidence that supports this.

I’m sorry what?  There’s email evidence to support this story?  OK…show me the email.  No…not got it?  Three blokes come to the NYT and spin them a tale about Trump jr and the NYT splashes it as headline news…the BBC then reports that Trump jr has been caught bang to rights collaborating with the Russkies…just a little inconveniently there is no actual evidence…but hey, the BBC is not one to let the facts get in the way of a good story trashing Trump.

Note Zurcher’s opening line…that this will all be dismissed as fake news…getting his defence in early…but perhaps there is good reason to dismiss it as fake news…because so far it is….and the BBC is quite happy to peddle it as fact….the BBC using the term ‘Russians’ to confuse the issue….’Russians’ could be any individual Russian…no law against meeting such people, but the BBC is using it slyly to suggest ‘Russian government’….when they say Trump jr met ‘Russians’ the BBC want you to believe, without them stating it plainly, it was a Russian government inspired meeting and Trump jr knew this…which he didn’t.

BBC…quality journalism you can trust.   Snigger.

Apparently the CRA(P), Cornish Republican Army (Provisional), is hunting down foreigners in Cornwall, sorry, Kernow [Why is the CRA(P) not the KRA(P)?] and is intent on burning them out of Cornwall…Cornwall for the Cornish….a suicide bomber is on stand-by should too many Johnny Foreigners make the summer pilgrimage to the Cornish beaches….the foreign office has issued advice to travellers…do not build sandcastles on the beach as this will be interpeted as a sign of English imperialism and colonisation….the Cornish will get angry and become radicalised.  Theresa May says the Army has been deployed to defend the beaches.

Will the BBC be supporting them as  they have the IRA and Islamic terrorists?  Remarkable how the cheerful beer swilling, cigarette smoking figure of Nigel Farage is the nearest thing to Hitler in the BBC’s eyes and yet people who actually commit mass murder on the basis of race or religion get the seal of approval from the BBC.

Corbyn and Co are out for the oppressed workers who have zero hours contracts…will  that include actors?  Should the BBC et al pay them all retainers and pensions and holiday pay or will actors continue to ‘rest’ between jobs?…perhaps they could work for Uber as they ‘rest’.

 

“We have to remember that our defense is not just a commitment of money, it is a commitment of will.”

 

Quite extraordinary how the BBC treats Trump and anything he says or does.  No  matter what he says, however sensible, measured or insightful his statements, Trump never gets the benefit of the doubt, he is immediately mocked, demonised or dismissed as ‘deranged’ as Justin Webb has, once again, been calling him.

We’ve seen the sensationalist headline the BBC produced for what seems an almost completely fabricated story about one of Trump’s sons and of course followed the BBC’s less than convincing reporting of Trump’s alleged Russian connections but the BBC loses no chance to slip the knife in…never mind that once again the BBC interpretation is at odds with the facts.

When Trump met Putin at G20 the Today show told us that Putin dominated Trump and that the handshake was a win for Putin…but that is complete tosh.  Putin supposedly held back from shaking hands and looked on disdainfully as Trump offered his…just not true…Putin looked down because he had to see where Trump’s hand was…and the handshake was immediate…no hesitation…the Guardian time-line photos of the shake were very, deliberately, misleading…

Not as of Putin was keen to shake Obama’s hand…did the BBC sneer at Obama or were they outraged on his behalf?

Even the BBC itself said Trump won the encounter…in fact he one both handshakes with Putin…so the Today show is peddling the usual crap…so much for the BBC’s flagship news programme providing us with the ‘gold standard’ in journalism….

Interesting how the BBC reports so seriously on the importance of a handshake when they excoriated the Mail for its jokey report on ‘Legs-it’.  BBC sexism…taking men more seriously than women?

Then we had Trump’s speech in Poland in which he said we must defend Western borders and Western values and asks if we have the will to do so…not something the BBC will get too excited about…and true to form their first response was, on the Today show, to scorn and mock Trump bringing on two people who were clearly not Trump fans and who had absolutely no idea what he was talking about…..one even denying there was such a thing as ‘The West’ and ‘Western values’…any wonder Trump asks if we have the ‘will’ to defend ourselves…clearly not in many quarters….. Melanie Phillips goes into the interview in depth...

In his magnificent speech in Poland, President Trump asked whether the west “still has the will to survive”.

If he’d listened to BBC Radio’s Today programme this morning (approx 0840), he might have lost his own.

The issue that seemed to have startled the BBC was the suggestion that there were now threats to western bonds of culture, faith and tradition. (The fact that some of us have been writing about this for years has of course totally passed the BBC by). Two guests were invited to discuss this question: Margaret MacMillan, professor of international history at Oxford university where she is also Warden of St Anthony’s college, and Lord Dannatt, former Chief of the General Staff.

The interviewer’s loaded question about Trump’s speech, “Is he in any sense right?” invited them to agree that no, there could be no sense in which he was. Both duly agreed. Three against Trump, then. But if anything illustrated precisely what he was talking about, this conversation could scarcely have been bettered.

Opined Professor MacMillan: “There are bonds that hold us together and there are often bonds of history, but the idea there is something called ‘the west’ seems to me very dubious indeed. There are many wests, there are many different ways of looking at who we are, and I’m worried by the whole tenor of his speech. The talk of the ‘will’, the family, traditional values, what does that all mean?….. if you talk about defending the power of the west and the dominance of the west that’s very different and I’m not sure that does make the world more stable… What worries me is that part of the enemy is seen as those who live among us… Islam, or Islamic fundamentalism, is [as presented by Trump] in some way a threat, and that means not just from outside but inside and that to me is really troubling.”

Lord Dannatt was equally perplexed. “What threat does he have in mind? From Russia? Islamic State? From climate change? Well he ruled that one out by pulling out of the Paris agreement. Or is it the nuclear threat from North Korea?” [if Dannatt had read the speech he’d have known exactly what Trump was warning against]

The millions who voted for Trump did so because of the promise he made them that he would defend America and the western values of life and liberty that it embodies. They understand very well that America and the west are not just being threatened from outside but are being undermined from within by the kind of people who are engaged in a fight to the death to destroy him – and by the kind of people who took part in that discussion on Today.

The BBC is up to its old tricks of splashing a big accusatory headline that states ‘as fact’ that something has happened when there is absolutely no proof that it did…but the target of the piece is ‘deplorable’ so facts just get in the way of justice don’t they?….

Email ‘linked Kremlin to Trump son meeting’ – New York Times

Trouble with that headline?  It’s just not true…there’s absolutely no evidence of a link between ‘Trump son’ and the Kremlin.  No evidence that the email makes any mention of any Kremlin connection, the man who contacted ‘Trump son’ didn’t know the source of his information and it is likely to have come through various ‘others’ before getting to him…all of which the New York Times [rabidly anti-Trump along with the Washington Post] eventually admits as does the BBC.

And where is the email?  The NYT tells us that it is reporting what three people who say they have seen the email have said…but no  email, not even a direct quote from the email.  Remember how Comey’s infamous memo about Trump suddenly disappeared…Comey himself having destroyed his own copies…why would he do that when it was clearly such an important, crucial, document for his claims?  Is this yet another NYT/WaPo fabrication built on whispers and lies from the dread ‘Deep State’?

Here’s the Times’ nonsense…

Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.

So  it was all part of a Russian government conspiracy…or was it?  The NYT muddies the water…and why ‘three sources’?  Trying to make out it is credible?….and was it part of a Russian campaign or not part of a Russian campaign?….

Mr. Goldstone’s message, as described to The New York Times by the three people, indicates that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information. It does not elaborate on the wider effort by Moscow to help the Trump campaign.

So…the Russian government was the source but no indication part of a Russian government campaign?  How can the email indicate the Russian government was the source when the NYT then admits….

It is unclear whether Mr. Goldstone had direct knowledge of the origin of the damaging material. One person who was briefed on the emails said it appeared that he was passing along information that had been passed through several others.

So the NYT doesn’t know if the email sender, Goldstone, knew Russia may have been the source…and yet they say earlier it definitely was indicated to be the source.

As with all other ‘sourced’ material the NYT and WaPo never provide links to the original material…they haven’t even quoted the email here.

Much like all these leaks the sources are dodgy with vested interests in spreading anti-Trump misinformation…good of the BBC to help out….as usual.

And just who are the NYT’s sources?  Looks like it was leaked by Comey’s pals in the intelligence services…

Two weeks after Donald J. Trump clinched the Republican presidential nomination last year, his eldest son arranged a meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan with a Russian lawyer who has connections to the Kremlin, according to confidential government records described to The New York Times.

So not only are the intelligence services acting against the President but this shows that when Trump said they had been spying on him he was correct despite all the mockery and dismissive claims that he was paranoid and deluded….of course we know that Obama loosened the rules on who could see intelligence and what they could report….part of his campaign to undermine the Trump campaign by allowing intelligence information gathered for one purpose to be used by politicians for another, ie to attack Trump.

Curious how ‘Trump son’ is accused of collaborating with the Russians for having met a ‘Russian national’ who said they had information on Clinton…why would he not meet with them?  The BBC had no qualms about our dodgy MI6 officer meeting supposedly ex Russian intelligence officers to get information on Trump for the Clinton campaign.

Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent. As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK’s embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information.

How on earth can anyone take seriously information fed to them by Russian intelligence…lol.

Interesting….the Russian who met ‘Trump son’ employs the private investigation firm that cobbled together that dodgy dossier...hmmm…any chance that the meeting with ‘Trump son’ was set up precisely to try and associate ‘Trump son’ with the Russians and hence provide headlines that Trump was helped by the Russians? [Corallo is a spokeman for the President’s lawyer and Ms. Veselnitskaya is the Russian contact]

In an interview, Mr. Corallo explained that Ms. Veselnitskaya, in her anti-Magnitsky campaign, employs a private investigator whose firm, Fusion GPS, produced an intelligence dossier that contained unproven allegations against the president. In a statement, the firm said, “Fusion GPS learned about this meeting from news reports and had no prior knowledge of it. Any claim that Fusion GPS arranged or facilitated this meeting in any way is false.”