Category Archives: BBC bias

So you’re a BBC news editor faced with a choice…the pro-EU mandarin, Ivan Rogers, has gone all Kamikazi, and you’re reporting the aftermath of his suicide attack on the Brexiteers.  Do you report his critics’ or his defenders’ words?  You being a BBC employee naturally know what’s in our best interest and shape the news to present Rogers as the telling-truth-to-power victim of the Brexit thought-police.  The reality?  A pro-EU civil servant went public with a hugely anti-Brexit message with the intent of putting pressure on the  government to comply with his own pro-EU views…and the BBC were there to help as they were given the exclusive scoop…wonder why.  Possibly because they are the most powerful, and pro-EU, media platform out there and one guaranteed to give Rogers a favourable platform from which to peddle his pro-EU spiel.  How right he was.

Today we had some interviews on the Today programme….on one we had Lord Marland backing Rogers and telling us how the civil service was incapable of negotiating Brexit and Sir Robert Cooper telling us there is a policy vacuum in government.

Then later we had Matts Persson, a Cameron EU advisor, on.  Interestingly he said that the headlines [the BBC of course the worse culprit ed.]  had been very unfair, that is, misleading, after Rogers’ resignation…They had reported Rogers’ claim that the government was ‘muddled’ and lacked the negotiating skills but both those claims were wrong….planning, as you might expect, was ‘far advanced’ and there was good expertise in the civil service.  Not only that but the negotiating position was very clear.

Not at all the message the BBC wanted to peddle and indeed they didn’t.  In the follwoing news bulletins which messages do you think the BBC news editor chose?  Not Persson’s but both Marland and Cooper’s negative take on Brexit.  Persson doesn’t get a mention at all anymore.

The BBC has also chosen not to report the essential point about Rogers’ not being fit to lead the Brexit negotiations…not only is he a dyed-in-the-wool pro-EU mandarin but he lacks the will to tackle EU reform.  He was the major stumbling block to negotiating the reforms Cameron claimed he wanted.  Rogers said we could not get much so don’t ask for much…a classically bad negotiating stance….so we ask for little and get, of course, even less.

So in effect Rogers empowered the Brexit vote by failing to secure major reforms that were promised.  Even more ironically his departure, the departure of a key, for the Remainers, pro-EU person at the Brexit negotiations, was the result of his doom and gloom being reported by the pro-EU BBC….a feat of which they were boasting as he announced his resignation….lol.

All that smacks of very bad judgement, both politically and tactically…he placed himself in the firing line, and the BBC, thinking they were helping to undermine Brexit, reported with glee his words that Brexit would take 10 years and may not even happen.  He completely misjudged how we should negotiate with Brussels on the reforms, proably coloured by his own pro-EU feelings…it is likely he didn’t actually want any reforms.  Not only that but he was also the one who advised May not to promise EU migrants in the UK that they could stay regardless…and for which May got enormous amount of flak, not least from the BBC.

The BBC of course doesn’t highlight those major flaws in his CV…look at this report in the immediate wake of  his resignation….no mention of his damaging role in the ‘reforms’ and no mention that he is very pro-EU…

UK’s ambassador to the EU Sir Ivan Rogers resigns

Strangely the BBC totally ignores what Tim Shipman said in his book about Rogers…remember Tim Shipman’s book?  The one that the BBC relentlessly once reported when they thought it had negative things to say about Brexit?  No so keen now to dip into the book for quotes…such as this…all pretty damning for him…

Tim Shipman reveals in his unrivalled referendum book All Out War, Cameron’s aides blame Rogers for blocking them from seeking a better deal on immigration and the ECJ:

‘We were too beholden to Tom Scholar and Ivan Rogers,’ one Cameron adviser said. ‘They were status quo. They were happy to take “No” for an answer, happy to believe things weren’t possible when they could be possible. I’ve lost count of the number of times Ivan threatened to resign.’ The politicos say Rogers was aggressive in dismissing their arguments, and went over their heads to Cameron: ‘He would send emails that were the stuff of legend, saying why didn’t we know anything? We were just politicos, we didn’t understand.’ Another aide said Rogers’ emails were ‘notorious’.

Rogers also clashed with the special advisers over their desire to include reforms of the European Court of Justice in the renegotiation. ‘Korski had a long-running battle with officials saying that we needed to do something, and he kept getting told that it was impossible to do something,’ a Number 10 source said. A range of proposals were put forward, ranging from new rules on the selection of judges to proposals for the EC] to get out of lower-level decisions. Their advocates believe the plan would have allowed Britain to get a serious review of the court on the agenda. It was rejected by officials over the summer.

The BBC does bring us Rogers’ resignation letter in full...with the BBC own selective musings and annotations inserted where they think we can benefit from their insight and perception.  Naturally the points selected are negative for Brexit and the BBC’s own interpretation ramps that up, sexing up the negative and essentially inventing meanings and intent to the words….and what you don’t get is any analysis from the BBC that actually challenges any of Rogers’ assertions….the BBC just accepts his claim that the government has no idea about Brexit and that there are no people skilled enough to negotiate it in the UK….as said above they in fact completely ignore anyone who suggests otherwise and doesn’t adopt the correct narrative….and whilst parsing every word that seemingly criticises the government the BBC doesn’t bother with his final words to his fellow civil servants…

I hope that you will continue to be interested in the views of others, even where you disagree with them, and in understanding why others act and think in the way that they do.

Why would he need to tell them that?  If they are impartial civil servants they would surely do their job regardless of whether they voted Remain or not….but seemingly Rogers thinks that might not be the case…which of course, ironically, is why he himself had to go….a point the BBC seems to avoid reminding us of preferring instead to ‘report’ the Remain camp’s ‘concern’ about Rogers resignation [which of course is very telling in itself].

A Biased BBC reader writes;

“The BBC has gone all Buzzfeed: https://www.facebook.com/bbcthree/videos/10154389975545787/

Foreigners and refugees are intelligent, articulate and amazing individuals, answering strawman questions posted by (fictional?) ignorant, idiotic and bigoted indigenous Brits. To emphasise the message thet Brits are inferior, the tone from the interviewees ranges from mildly humorous to condescension to arrogance to ungratefulness to even nastiness.  In fact, the sneering sarcasm towards us putrid plebs is so spot on I expect the BBC will offer them all a job as a Beeb journalist…. ”

And so the utterly useless feverishly pro EU Sir Ivan Rogers resigns from his position as UK Ambassador to the the EU in what can best be described as an extended hissy fit and the BBC is right there – rallying to his side. The Today programme has been to the fore today in painting the loss of this ..coughs …wise old cove.. as a body blow to the UK government and proof that the Government has “no plan” for Brexit. The BBC is stuck in June 22nd land. It can’t accept that the UK voted to LEAVE and that the primary focus of the Government and the Civil Service is to get us OUT as quickly and efficiently as possible. The exit of Rogers is a blessing, he won’t be missed. The BBC chooses not to focus on his appalling record as Cameron’s point man in the 2015 “negotiations” with the EU. Nor have they been too concerned about Sir Ivan’s recent proclamation that it could take “ten years” to fully exit the EU. This man is symbolic of the BBC, it too has to go.

And time for a NEW Open thread on which you can detail the toxic festering bias. Over to you, gentle reader….

The BBC isn’t trumpeting this for some reason…from Reuters…

UK manufacturing growth unexpectedly hits 2-1/2-year high – PMI

British manufacturing growth climbed to a two-and-a-half-year high last month, fuelled by new orders from both home and abroad and adding to signs the economy ended 2016 strongly, a survey showed on Tuesday.

The Markit/CIPS UK Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) rose to 56.1, the strongest reading since June 2014, from 53.6 in November. That exceeded all forecasts in a Reuters poll, which pointed to a decline to 53.1.

Naturally things could turn around later but that’s not the point..the point is how the BBC reports these things…when the PMI fell slightly the BBC was reporting it relentlessly all day with the narrative that Brexit is destroying the economy….screaming about a ‘dramatic deterioration in the economy‘ and that we were definitely heading for recession…as with the last good news figures, which oddly the BBC decided we had to be careful how we interpret as it was far too early to make a sensible judgement [on the good news that is…on the bad news we’re going into recession] the BBC has gone much less noisy..  Strange no?  Not heard a peep on the radio whereas you couldn’t miss it when the PMI fell below 50 and the story is hidden away on the business pages where hardly a soul will see it which is quite extraordinary considering just how relatively high the PMI figure is.

The BBC is definitely trying to hide good news here.

Still, maybe they are just taking advice from Europhile Jonathan Portes [08:35] who on hearing that the Change Britain pro-Brexit group has suggested 400,000 jobs will be created by leaving the EU customs union says these figures are entirely fictional…however….he claims that it is now quite wrong to put hard figures on things as that is meaningless….what we reallyneed to know is that a consensus of ‘experts’ has told us if we leave the EU we are going to Hell in a handcart..so there…oh yes…and he is entirely neutral as Nick Robinson tells us…..really?  The Spectator has its doubts…as you might….

It is wearisome work, but I hope the ‘leave’ campaign is carefully monitoring the BBC’s coverage of the referendum. On Monday, the first full weekday since Mr Cameron’s ‘legally binding’ deal, I listened to the Today programme for more than two hours. I heard six speakers for ‘remain’ and two (John Mills and Nigel Lawson) for ‘leave’. In this I am not including any of the BBC interviewers themselves, though my hunch, based solely on the way they ask questions, is that all of them, with the possible exception of John Humphrys, are for ‘remain’. The guests explicitly in favour of ‘remain’ were Carolyn Fairbairn, Sir Mike Rake, Stanley Johnson and Michael Fallon. Jonathan Portes, who is always presented by the BBC as a neutral expert, was actually pushing the EU cause.

So Portes is conveniently claiming hard figures are meaningless just when the Brexit group comes out with some hard figures he disagrees with…..but he adds that the ‘consensus’ is that we are doomed…based on what?   Hard figures of the failed experts like him who peddled a message of armageddon during the referendum.  But now hard figures are so yesterday when they upset the orthodox bandwagon…then again we are in a post-fact era aren’t we?

Seen this? Your license tax and how it is lavished. In any other walk of life this is called shift work and would just happen. An extra £1m for some of the MOST biased and most anti-British BBC employees. Cheers.

Good to see that the BBC is dealing with all the BIG issues. Take this one…

“An internet search for black dolls will bring up about 20 million results in less than a second – but parents have discovered the toys to be increasingly hard to find on the shelves of High Street stores. Why is this?”

Yip, this is the sort of deranged SJW crap that the BBC specialises in. Next up, where are the transgender dolls?

Well I hope you all enjoyed the BBC’s “Robbie William’s” New Year cringe fest! We’re in 2017 and the BBC keeps proving that no matter how bad it is it can still get worse. Much worse….! Here’s the first OPEN thread of this New Year and it’s now in your hands!

Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency said “I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren’t sitting back, paging through the emails.“

The Guardian is convinced Trump was elected with Russian help….

Russian hackers were able to access thousands of emails from a top-ranking Democrat after an aide typed the word “legitimate” instead of “illegitimate” by mistake, an investigation by the New York Times has found.

The revelation gives further credence to the CIA’s finding last week that the Kremlin deliberately intervened in the US presidential election to help Donald Trump.

Kremlin hackers access to about 60,000 emails in Podesta’s private Gmail account. According to US intelligence officials, Moscow then gave the email cache to WikiLeaks. The website released them in October, and the email scandal dominated the news cycle and was exploited by Trump.

That conveniently ignores that the real scandal was broken by the New York Times in 2015…as the BBC admits….

Mrs Clinton’s email system became a national story the first week of March 2015, when the New York Times ran a front-page article on the subject. The article said that the system “may have violated federal requirements” and was “alarming” to current and former government archive officials.

Note in that BBC report there is no mention of Wikileaks and the Russians and the Podesta hack but for the Guardian, and paradoxically the BBC itself, as well as Obama, it was the Podesta emails that dominated the news cycle and influenced the outcome of the election.  OK…but wasn’t Clinton’s own email scandal the real issue, the one that Trump said he would see her in prison for?  That if  anything was the vote winner….there was huge scandal around Clinton’s emails before Podesta’s were released so late in the day.  Clinton ignored many, many warnings that her emails were vulnerable to hacking by foreign intelligence services. It is clear that the US government knew long ago that the Russians were possibly attempting to hack Clinton’s emails and yet only now does it become an issue.  Why?   The BBC constantly defends Obama’s lack of response by saying he accused the Russians on October 7 2016….but that was years after such claims were made public in the media…so why only now when Clinton loses does Obama suddenly turn on the Russians and expel their diplomats?

The BBC back in 2015 suggested that the email scandal could turn the result of the US election….but now it’s the Podesta hack?….

Make no mistake, Tuesday’s New York Times report on Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email account during her time as US secretary of state could turn into a major development in the 2016 presidential race.

The BBC has been helpfully conflating the two issues and implying that all Wikileak’s email releases, and indeed all the emails that are under discussion, come from the Podesta hack…

The stakes could scarcely be higher: a foreign state stands accused of mounting a campaign of hacking and leaking to help get its preferred candidate into the White House.

And whatever the final conclusions of the multiple investigations into the alleged Russian hacking operation, many of Clinton’s allies believe the steady trickle of embarrassing emails, drip-fed by Wikileaks through the last crucial weeks of the campaign, may have been enough to deny her the presidency.

And again…

The contents of those hacks, passed to Wikileaks and posted online, were embarrassing to the Democrats and shook up the presidential campaign.

By not differentiating clearly which emails came from which source and which are the ones that really felled Clinton the BBC is helping Obama’s narrative that the Podesta emails influenced the election for Trump when the years of revelations and scandals coming from the Benghazi investigation are the real downer for Clinton.

Obama chooses to ignore the inconvenient facts and the BBC happily colludes as it obligingly reports Obama’s claims that Russia hacked Democratic Party emails and thus hijacked the US election to the benefit of Donald Trump as fact.  But just how much fact is there in that sensational and highly political claim?  Look hard and you’ll barely find a mention of Wikileaks and Russians in the run up to the election…here’s Sky’s timeline for the email scandal…no  mention at all of Wikileaks and Russians….it is all about the US government’s own release of emails.

:: November, 2014: The House Select Committee investigating the 2012 attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, requests emails from Mrs Clinton. Some 300 emails from the private account are delivered to the committee.

:: December, 2014: Mrs Clinton’s office delivers about 55,000 pages – some 30,490 emails – to the State Department. Another 31,830 emails from her tenure are deemed private and not delivered.

What the Obama narrative ignores is Clinton herself and her unattractiveness as a candidate, her failed, lacklustre campaign, the failed government and policies of Obama and the fact that the email scandal did not originate from Wikileaks and not from the Russians…it came from within the US government itself and numerous FOI requests from news organisations and civil rights groups seeking their release…Clinton  herself stated she wanted the emails released…is she a Russian spy?….

I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.        8:35 PM – 4 Mar 2015

Not to mention the FBI’s own investigation….Is Comey also a Russian spy?  America seems to be rife with them at the highest level…,.

FBI director James Comey stunned the world when he announced the agency was investigating new e-mails sent or received by Mrs Clinton.

Note that this latest investigation was not due to any ‘leaked’ emails but due to a prior FBI investigation…so again no Russians…

The New York Times has reported the messages were discovered after the FBI seized four electronic devices belonging to Mrs Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner. 

They were taken during an investigation into illicit text messages between the former Congressman and a 15-year-old girl.

Emails released due to FOI request by Vice News just before the election….not Russians…

Today, at 3:30, State Dept w/release 1250 pgs of HRC emails recovered by FBI in response to @vicenews #FOIA lawsuit against FBI/State   10:54 AM – 3 Nov 2016

Wikileaks stated Clinton’s own emails came as result of its FOI requests …

From Wikileaks in 2016:

Hillary Clinton Email Archive

On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.

From Al Jazeera in March 2015:

Revealed: Clinton’s office was warned over private email use

The New York Times reported Monday night that Clinton used only private email accounts during her tenure — a move that prevented the National Archives and Records Administration from automatically archiving her correspondence for historical purposes when she left office. Instead, the newspaper reported, two months ago Clinton aides turned over some 55,000 pages of emails after they reviewed all the messages she sent and received during her four-year tenure.

The revelations have set off a firestorm for the potential 2016 presidential candidate among open-records advocates who question whether Clinton took this approach to circumvent the normal archiving process for a position of that level.

Issues of computer security have dogged public officials since the dawn of the Internet age. President Bill Clinton, for instance, saved his former CIA director, John Deutch, from prosecution by pardoning him for having classified materials on his laptops and relabeling them as unclassified.

From CBS News in September 2015:

Hackers linked to Russia tried to infiltrate Hillary Clinton’s emails

Hackers linked to Russia tried at least five times to pry into Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account while she was secretary of state, emails released Wednesday show.

The phishing attempts highlight the risk of Clinton’s unsecure email being pried open by foreign intelligence agencies.

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department and other U.S. government agencies faced their own series of hacking attacks. U.S. counterterrorism officials have linked them to China and Russia. But the government has a large staff of information technology experts, whereas Clinton has yet to provide any information on who maintained her server and how well it was secured.

The emails released Wednesday also show a Clinton confidant urging her boss and others in June 2011 not to “telegraph” how often senior officials at the State Department relied on their private email accounts to do government business because it could inspire hackers to steal information.

The former first lady and New York senator had maintained that nothing was classified in her correspondence, but the intelligence community has identified messages containing “top secret” information.

Now, with Wednesday’s release, some 37 percent of Clinton’s work-related emails have been made public. The State Department has been releasing the emails at the end of every month, and it plans to finish publishing the emails in January, in accordance with a federal judge’s order.

From Wired April 2015:

For a secretary of state, running your own email server might be a clever—if controversial—way to keep your conversations hidden from journalists and their pesky Freedom of Information Act requests. But ask a few security experts, and the consensus is that it’s not a very smart way to keep those conversations hidden from hackers.

The BBC is reporting a Washingon Post breaking story that President Obama is a Russian agent…the Presidency has been hacked…

From the Washington Post:

The Washington Post can reveal that US government officials have announced that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, is under investigation as astounding information has come to light that he has been working for the Russian intelligence services for at least two decades infiltrating the American political scene and succeeding wildly beyond whatever the Russians could ever have hoped for.

Our official sources indicate that Obama was first spotted by then Soviet ‘talent scouts’ in the 1980’s as he began to involve himself in protests against Apartheid in South Africa and going on to study political science and international relations at university before moving on to work in the sphere of human rights and involving himself in local politics.

It has been alleged before that Obama is a KGB agent….’A Russian government official bragged that Barack Obama was a KGB operative and that his presidency had been planned since birth, an American physicist and government contractor reports.  The boast from a Communist Party official reportedly occurred during a business trip to Russia,16 years before Barack Obama was ushered into the presidency of the United States. The official boasted angrily that…

“You Americans like to think you’re so perfect!” she snarled. “Well, what if I told you that very, very soon you’re going to have a black president… and he’s going to be a Communist!”

The KGB operative was not finished. As she had now dropped this bombshell on the entire gathering, she felt compelled to continue.

“His name is Barack,” she sneered. “His mother is white and his father is an African black. He has gone to the best schools, he is what you would call ‘Ivy League’.”’

The exact time of his recruitment as a Soviet agent is unknown but the officials state that the Russians funnelled funds to him via Saudi Arabia and the Clintons in order to facilitate his progress in the political world.  Saudi Arabia may not seem to be a likely ally of the Soviets at the time as they were on opposing sides in Afghanistan but both sides recognised that it would be advantageous to put aside their differences to further their own agendas.  The Soviets saw a man who would be highly disruptive to the status quo in White America, one who would seek to undermine White dominance and futher non-White interests, thus weakening, fracturing and destabilising the US, as well as one whose interests in ‘human rights’ would put a break on US ‘aggression’ around the world that was making life difficult for the Soviet’s own freedom of action as well as breaking the old ties with ‘White’, colonial Europe…making Europe vulnerable to Soviet intrigue and threats once again.  The Saudis saw a man who was a Muslim, one who could ease the encroachment of Islam into America, be a powerful voice at the UN for Islamic issues and of course, one who could put an end to America’s support for Israel…and a bonus came later as he was in a position as President to suppress the investigation and report that indicated the Saudis had been behind 9/11.

Remarkably, considering the timing as the Soviet empire crumbled, the plan continued and succeeded, the Russian intelligence agency, the FSB, swiftly moving in to take over where the KGB left off.  Obama rapidly moved up the political ranks until he was in a position to compete for the Presidency.  The Clintons again obliged by having Hilary stand as the main opponent ensuring the votes for any other contenders were split and then stepping aside to allow Obama to win the Presidency.  Hilary of course eventually stood against Trump once Obama had run his time, but the Saudis had their own plan in place.  Clinton’s closest aide was a Saudi Muslim with links to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Even with Obama gone the malign hand of the Wahhabi Muslims would still wield power behind the throne pushing Muslim interests.

The Russians could not believe that such an outlandish and ambitious plan had succeeded and yet it had.  The Russians had a man in place at the top of US politics.  No matter that their own military was run down, that their economy was on its knees, they had the most valuable asset of all in their battle with the Capitalists, a man on the inside who held the levers of power.  And what an asset…one who stood aside as Putin annexed the Crimea, who stood aside as the Ukraine was attacked, a man whose ‘cautious’ approach to international politics allowed Putin the opportunity to become the hero who saved Syria, not from the Islamic State which Russia refrains from attacking, but from the Free Syrian Army rebels who oppose the Russian’s other puppet President, Assad.  A further and unexpected prize was that Europe was flooded with migrants whose numbers alone threatened the stability of the continent but whose religious identity also meant that Europe would eventually be torn apart by disastrous religious wars allowing, once again, the Russians to sweep into Europe unopposed to re-establish the old empire ‘in the interests of peace and stability’.  An Obama who also stood aside as the Saudis launched an economic war against America aimed at destroying the US fracking industry and undermining its economy with the ultimate aim of keeping it reliant on Middle East oil and gas and thus obliged to dance to the Saudi tune.  An Obama whose early withdrawal of US troops from Iraq allowed the Saudi backed Islamic State to sweep into Iraq and to establish the new ‘Caliphate’….one that the Russians ‘mysteriously’ refuse to attack.

All that may be over now as Obama faces investigation and Clinton failed to take the Presidency. President-elect Trump is of course seemingly Putin friendly but the question remains just how that will pan out in the real world and will his admiration for Putin extend to more than merely cordial relations with Russia or a more sinister partnership that carves up the world into convenient spheres of influence, China aside, a new world in which the liberal, progressive project is made history and a new era of empires and colonialism takes over?

Whatever happens history may not look kindly upon the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

Oh hang on…that was all a big mistake, Obama’s not a Russian spy or a Muslim mole….must be something lost in translation as the BBC transcribed a Washington Post piece that announced the Russians had hacked the US power grid in somewhat alarmist tones…

The BBC started its report cautiously, the Washington Post [a Democrat supporting rag] it told us was reporting that ‘An electrical company in the US state of Vermont says it has found malware code allegedly used by Russian hackers on one of its company laptops.  The Burlington Electric Department said it had taken “immediate action to isolate” the computer, which was not connected to the electrical grid.  The government alerted them to the “Grizzly Steppe” code on Thursday.’

However it soon threw all such caution to the wind and began asserting that Russian fingerprints were all over everything from the attempt to take out Vermont’s power system to the US election’s rigging.  Never mind there seems to be no such attempt to hack Vermont’s power grid…the virus was on a laptop unconnected to the grid and probably infected by accident as the employee who used the laptop surfed the net in his own time. Not a targeted attack at all.

Infowars does what the BBC didn’t want to…adopt a sceptical stance to the Washington Post’s claims.

One other thing the BBC doesn’t bother to inform its audience of…the US’s own involvement in hacking and spying….strange really as the BBC was all over the revelations made by Snowden when they first came out…now they seem to have lost interest as they don’t play to the narrative now being peddled and used to attack Trump.

The US tapped Merkel’s phone and spied on her ministers…as well as on the French…

WikiLeaks: US spied on Angela Merkel’s ministers too, says German newspaper

US ‘spied on French presidents’ – Wikileaks

Odd how all that is being swept under the carpet as Obama proclaim’s his outrage at possible Russian cyberwarfare and claims Trump stole the Presidency because of that.

.