AN UNUSUAL STATEMENT FROM THE LATE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: "FAKE NEWS"? REAL NEWS? OR SOMETHING IN BETWEEN?

AN UNUSUAL STATEMENT FROM THE LATE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: ...

March 2, 2017 By Joseph P. Farrell

There's so much strangeness going on these days that it's hard to keep up with. Last Thursday on my News and Views from the Nefarium I commented on the pattern that seems to be in evidence concerning the deaths of Russian diplomats and other high officials. It was a pattern that was set off, so to speak, by the strange traffic accident death of one of President Vladimir Putin's favorite chauffeurs during a the high volume traffic congestion of Moscow's lunch time rush. While I have my suspicions about that "accident," it is true that Moscow is now one of the most congested cities in the world for traffic (ah... the blessings of capitalism).

The latest in this list was the Russian Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Vitaly Churkin. Churkin's untimely death occurred, of course, during a period when American corporate controlled media is still attempting to fly the balloon that the always-byzantine-never-to-be-trusted-Russians led by their Evil Super-Criminal Mastermind Genius, Vladimir "Fu Manchu" Putin  Who-is-Orchestrating-Everything-in-accordiance-with-his-Machiavellian-Grand-Plan-for-World-Domination, tried to influence the American election, and, having done so successfully, put their subservient agent, Donald J. Trump, into the White House, thereby Thwarting Democracy led by the Heroic and Courageous Hillary Clinton, Font of All Goodness, Virtue, and Light.

Seriously, folks, the American fakestream media is just about this hysterical, and hysterically funny.

Now, of course, I'm being rhetorical here, but for a purpose, for while the same media is going hysterically apoplectic over the possibility of "foreign influence" in our elections, having recently rediscovered the 1799 Logan act, it has been equally conveniently ignoring "foreign influence" in a whole host of prior election campaigns, including that Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Saudis, the Germans both contributed to her campaign. And Logan Act cuts both ways: why not invoke it against attendees at Bilderberger or Bohemian Grove meetings? Why not invoke it in the case of the administration of G.W. Bush, and all the weird "foreign connections" via the Bin Ladens? It's apparently ok if the establishment does it.

Speaking of which, might there be a connection between the following interesting tidbit of information, and the recent death of Mr. Churkin?

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5vier0/john_mccain_exposed_wikileaks_mccain_illegally/?st=IZH8Z1JZ&sh=ed22b8dd

Well, one can see why "they" are more than a little perturbed by the current occupant of the White House. But I'm less interested in that than in the background story here, for clearly this document is ... well, "convenient." Is it genuine? We don't know. Perhaps so. But it strikes me as more than just a little odd that a sitting senator of the United States, running a presidential campaign, would appeal for money from the very country he so publicly and consistently opposes. The story is "fake news" according to the following article, and merely the result of a mailing error glitch in Senator McCain's presidential campaign:  http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/fake-news-john-mccain-didnt-seek-campaign-donations-from-the-russians

Churkin apparently realized the whole thing was a mistake, according to this second article:

Here’s how the Associated Press put it at the time:

The Russians have turned down Sen. John McCain’s request for campaign money and had a bit of a laugh at his expense.

Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, received a fundraising appeal from the Republican presidential nominee Thursday, said spokesman Ruslan Bakhtin.

The McCain campaign’s fundraising letter, dated Sept. 29, did not use Churkin’s formal title. That led Churkin to conclude the request stemmed from “a computer failure” by McCain’s campaign, Bakhtin said.

Bakhtin emphasized, too, that the “Russian authorities are in no way engaged in funding political campaigns or political activities abroad.” He said the mission had not sent any direct reply to the McCain campaign.

This is indeed my view: it makes no sense to me that Senator McCain, whose views on Russia and Mr. Putin's government I do not share, would make so blatant and stupid an error. Whatever Mr. McCain is, he is simply not this stupid, whether one agrees with him or not.

But my point in raising all of this is not even really to say anything about the President or the Senator. I am, rather, concerned in my usual high-octane-speculation sort of way, that whatever the status of the story, whether fake or real or somewhere in between, that the recent death of Mr. Churkin may have something to do with it. For consider, the one man who could have issued a statement to clarify the whole matter, perhaps even potentially allowing himself to be sworn as a witness(an admittedly highly unlikely scenario) - either in aid of the Senator's explanations (which again to me seem the most probable), or to animadvert them - is now dead. The document is there for all to see, and the overarching question is, is it legitimate and genuine? If so, then it implies a deeper story remains to be revealed. If not genuine, then it implies either that Wikileaks is now either fabricating documents on its own, or that it has been penetrated somehow and become the agent of the leak of a false document. In either last instance, both the President and Senator McCain have been ensnared in an operation, and, from the that perspective and interpretation, a very clever one, one that may perhaps point to those who would regard both men as political opponents.

There's another perspective as well, one I mentioned in last Saturday's blog, and that's Mr. Churkin's apparent participation in Russian investigations of international human trafficking rings, a point which President Trump has also put on his agenda. If one factors this into the mix of the interpretive context behind the 2008 document, then the picture changes yet again.

However one slices this bizarre pie, I cannot help but to think there is a deeper story to all of this that has not yet come out.

See you on the flip side...