Russia’s ‘Investigation’ into Clinton’s email scandal



It is now clear that Russia has been viciously maligned and defamed by claims that it hacked Hillary Clinton’s emails in order to influence the US election.  Russia was merely carrying out an ‘investigation’ using skilled outside investigators in the interests of truth and honesty that it believes should be part of the electoral process.

The same way that Qatar used its Muslim propaganda ‘news’ organisation, Al Jazeera, to ‘investigate’ alleged Israeli interference in British politics and thus itself interfered in British politics.

The conversation involved Mr Masot and Maria Strizzolo, an aide to education minister Robert Halfon, the former political director of Conservative Friends of Israel, as well as an undercover reporter.

It was recorded in October 2016 as part of an investigation by Al Jazeera.

Strange how Qatar’s six months of spying on British politicians and state interference in British politics isn’t remarked upon by the BBC…or rather is classed as an ‘investigation’…because of course it is targeted at the Jews.  Russia allegedly interferes in order to stop the BBC’s favoured candidate from winning the US election and the BBC reports what is in the main Democratic Party misinformation with a straight face and yet ignores Qatar’s blatant attempt to make life awkward for Israel and intended to stir up the old accusations used by anti-Semites about the ‘Jewish lobby’.  This is a Muslim nation’s black op against the Jews….why not report it as such?

Alan Duncan himself is prone to interfering in Israeli politics so fair enough that the Israelis might want to tackle someone who is such a vocal and aggressive anti-Israel critic….Duncan is very pro-Arab and thinks Israel is the problem.  He is fanatically opposed to Jewish settlers…or ‘undocumented migrants seeking a better life for themselves, bringing diversity, prosperity and openness to the hideously Muslim Palestinian lands’ as the BBC might, or might not, say. Why is it OK for Duncan to travel the world on the British government ticket to target Israel and not for Israel to target him?  Why is it OK for Qatar to ‘hack’ British politics but not for Russia to hack US politics?

Just how true is the video?  The edits and cut aways are constant and obvious….just how much re-editing has gone into the film and just how much has the time-line changed?  It’s the easiest thing in the world to mash together different words and sentences to recreate a conversation that didn’t happen.



‘THE German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were 20 times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine. Three German Ministries only had direct relations with the Press, but in each case the official responsible for conveying news and interpreting policy to the public was a Jew. . It is from such abuses that Hitler has freed Germany.’

Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Russia’s ‘Investigation’ into Clinton’s email scandal

  1. Foscari says:

    Is the “end game” being planned for Israel? Cork university’s three day seminar,hate feste and debate on ” Israel’s right to exist” Has the BBC teamed up with the Mail on Sunday? Have some of the ex BBC empolyees now working for Al Jazeera been intouch with their mates at the BBC and said” Bingo, we have got the Yids on a sting.You can share on in it.” As for the Sunday Malicious and its sister paper the Daily Malicious. If Hitler would of won the war there wuld of been one newspaper allowed in the UK ,and that would of been the the Daily Mail Zeitung.To be fair the paper is quite open about it’s populist journalism.

    It could well be that from the black, lesbian, jewish activist Linda Bellos of a few years ago.The jew part could have gone up the pecking order sofar as the Mail is concerned.
    However at least the Mail is semi honest about its prejudices. The BBC hides behind it’s liberal fascism.
    As for Israel being caught with its pants down.As if we didn’t know what goes on in the dirty game of political subterfuge. One red card and banned from three ambassadorial cocktail parties.
    And for something completely different. I was surprised that Novak Djokovic was not arrested on court in Doha in Qatar yesterday when he took off his shirt to expose a very large CROSS he had around his neck. Did Al Jazeera show that? Will the BBC sensor him for being insensative? Maybe just a yellow card for that.


  2. The Highland Rebel says:

    One thing I like about al-Beeb is you can always rely on them to quote ‘unidentified sources’ when spewing their bile and propaganda as we see in the Russian hacking non story.
    But they’ve conveniently forgot about the Obomination hacking Mad Merkel’s phones which WERE corroborated, but let’s move on on that, shall we.


  3. Owen Morgan says:

    “Russia was merely carrying out an ‘investigation’ using skilled outside investigators in the interests of truth and honesty that it believes should be part of the electoral process.”

    Actually, that’s exactly what the FBI claims to have done, now that it confesses that it wasn’t allowed anywhere near DNC servers until well after the supposed Russian “hack”. The outside investigators turn out to have been a bunch called Crowdstrike, headed by a besotted Hillary Clinton supporter.


  4. Demon says:

    Do the Russians attempt to hack the American secrets? Yes
    Have the Russians always tried to hack the American secrets? Yes
    Will the Russians attempt to do it in the future? Yes

    Do the Russians attempt to interfere with American politics? Yes

    Do the Americans attempt to hack the Russian secrets? Yes
    Have the Americans always tried to hack the Russian secrets? Yes
    Will the Americans attempt to do it in the future? Yes

    Do the Americans attempt to interfere with Russian politics? Yes

    So why all the and attacks of the vapours when people claim that they are doing it in this case? The Americans try to do the same, as does every other major country.

    Were the Russians responsible for this particular hacking? Probably not: it’s not as if it’s difficult the way Clinton totally ignored all security protocols.

    Was it important that it was exposed? Absolutely yes! It proved what most thinking people already knew: – Clinton is a criminal, a racist and a hypocrite etc. It needed being brought before the American people.

    To be honest it also displays her arrogance that she didn’t care that she didn’t follow the protocols, and clearly thought she would never be brought to book for it. It also proves her a liar as she denied all sorts of things that were blatantly untrue.

    Wikileaks, who I don’t have a lot of time for, deny the Russians were ever involved. On this I tend to believe them.

    Imagine two people in two houses, one keeps their house locked when they are out and keeps their valuables in a safe, and the other one leaves the door open. Who is more likely to be robbed? The “victim” also shares some of the blame for losing their valuables as they knew to lock their door but couldn’t be bothered to do so.

    Whoever hacked her probably wants a vote of thanks in this as the world doesn’t have to suffer a President Clinton (although I’m not convinced the contents of these files had that much affect on the election) and her plans for world war 3.


    • Grant says:


      Exactly. Nothing to add !


    • Demon says:

      effect not affect. Sorry.


    • Owen Morgan says:

      The noise about the “hacks” is nothing more than another attempt to de-legitimise Trump’s election. The Democrats (via their Green stooge, Jill Stein) tried to overturn the result with recounts. That backfired, because the only instances of dodgy counting turned out to be in Democrat-controlled counties of Michigan, where the discrepancies were so extreme that, by a strange quirk of state law, recounts were illegal.

      Then the Democrats decided to run with the idea that Hillary Clinton won really, because she supposedly won the “popular vote”. Given the way the Michigan recount had already threatened to expose the statistical oddities in the Democratic vote, the bigwigs in the party hurriedly moved on to another line of attack: the Russian question.

      At no point have I seen any plausible evidence that the Russians interfered in the US elections. As far as the actual vote is concerned, the idea is nonsensical. The electronic voting machines, used in some counties of some states, are probably open to be interfered with in advance, but they can’t be “hacked”, as such. Paper votes can be deliberately miscounted and postal votes are wide open to abuse (Tower Hamlets, anyone?), but I can’t see Vladi sending in the Spetsnaz to pack a few ballot-boxes, just in case he can swing things for Trump.

      That leaves the question of whether the released e-mails were sufficient to swing the election. Frankly, they should have been. Some Clintonian hanger-on popped up at an early stage, to claim that many (“many”, not all) of the e-mails were forged, but I am not aware of anyone else who agrees with that, which means that they were, in all probability, entirely genuine. The very fact that no-one else on the Democrats’ side is disputing the authenticity of the e-mails speaks volumes about Clinton and her campaign. All the same, I don’t believe the MSM gave the contents of the e-mails nearly enough publicity to influence voting to a significant extent. That lack of publicity was a scandal in itself.

      Nevertheless, the 2016 election will, no doubt, enter the grievance culture as “The Stolen Election”. The Democrats are quite determined to maintain the myth that Moscow influenced the result, not asking why Putin would be so desperate to assist one candidate over the other. It wasn’t Trump who helped Russia gain control of a huge chunk of US uranium resources, after all. Why the Democrats are distraught about losing is a bit clearer. If the Trump administration lets light in on the Fast & Furious and Benghazi scandals, or those in Internal Revenue and Veterans’ Affairs, people could end up doing serious time, some of them in Mexican prisons.


    • NCBBC says:

      Has the CIA ever attempted to change the election results in any country?
      Has the CIA ever hijacked a revolution?
      Has the CIA ever attempted coups in foreign countries?
      Has the CIA armed and instigated rebellions in any country against the established order?

      Does the Obama politicised CIA believe, that Trump’s America is a foreign country?


  5. StewGreen says:

    Russia may or may not have hacked US political email addresses.
    But today most RussiaToday progs opened with a rebuttal of the 25 page report and started by showing it contains enough date and name errors to look like it was written by interns.


  6. Owen Morgan says:

    By the way, with reference to the photo/link at the top of Alan’s article, is Alan Duncan actually trying to look like a stunt-double of Hillary Clinton’s odious henchman, David Brock? (Sorry, I don’t seem to be able to link to a picture of Brock, but there are all too many of them out there.)


  7. GCooper says:

    If the revelations about Clinton and her campaign were so profound that they would have altered the course of the US election, why did the BBC scarcely report them?


    • Owen Morgan says:

      That would be the Beeboids and NYT, WaPo, every other major-ish newspaper in the US, plus CNN and just about every network. The Beebyanka and their allies steered well clear of anything embarrassing to Clinton before the eighth of November, but the supposed Russian hacks totally swung the election, once the votes were in.