There comes a time when one simply has to speak the truth, no matter how ugly.
The American “mainstream” media is anti-American. And I’m going to show you a primary example, in gory detail, so that you can see their intent, their methodology, and their agenda.
Andrea Mitchell is carrying the knife, and I’m going to show you her murder kit. And then I’m going to show how she LIED to cover up.
There are other ways of saying parts of the truth about the media. Most people are doing that. But I’m going all the way. I am saying that the remnants of the “old, corrupted press” are every bit as dangerous and anti-American as the Revolutionary Communist Party, and need to be treated as such. They need to be treated as lying, scheming revolutionaries who are actively trying to bring strife, death and chaos to the world.
They need to be utterly opposed.
Donald Trump, Jr. calls them out as the “Very Fake News” (VFN), underlining the fact that the organized lies of the leftist American press are, indeed, more fake and more dangerous than the anarchic “fake news” which the VFN seems so concerned about.
At least the Deep-State-backed “FN”, like a noxious cloud of mustard gas, seems to discredit citizen journalism in general – obviously its purpose – but in doing so, it attacks everybody, rarely killing, but injuring indiscriminately.
The VFN, on the other hand, is like a dagger with a single, evil purpose – take out the Trump presidency. The goal of that – to give control of the nation back to a bunch of lying, scheming Marxist frauds. And THAT is not going to happen without a civil war, with real bullets flying everywhere. Mark my words.
Fake News puts your internet postings at risk of being wrong. Very Fake News is putting your country in desperate peril, if not the entire world – World War One-style.
Anyway, let’s get back to this beautiful example of VFN attempting to harm America by carrying out an anti-American political agenda through agenda questions.
NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell – who seems to be “on point” in opposing all things TRUMP – has racked up an impressive string of THREE (count ’em) highly embarrassing instances of agenda questioning – instances which were called out for rudeness, but NOT for what they actually are. Propaganda. Well, I’m going to do that now.
Her first attack was this one. Easily explained by simply showing you Andrea Mitchell’s video selfie.
“Testing Trump.” HA. This woman is so full of herself, it makes one sick.
Let’s look beyond the rudeness. That’s all cover. Andrea Mitchell is playing a part – the “aggressive reporter”, trying to do the utmost to do her job. That is not what we are looking for. That is a distraction.
Note that her question is beyond tangential to the moment – it is utterly skew. Tillerson is meeting with the foreign minister of UKRAINE. If anything, Andrea Mitchell should be asking about RUSSIA or UKRAINE. That would be “journalism”. That might actually get a response from Tillerson or his counterpart. Probably not a response she would like, but it would get a response.
This is key. SHE DOESN’T WANT A RESPONSE. Andrea Mitchell has no intention of doing journalism here. What she is doing is trying to insert a political meme, unopposed, into the news cycle. And note further what the meme is – troublesome relations with another superpower.
Andrea Mitchell is simply using the moment to insert propaganda for the Democrat-media complex. “Trouble with China” is what the message looks like to me.
Hmmm. Who would want to do that? Maybe a former Secretary of State who failed to do much with China, other than take their money? One with a terrible track record, who needs to diminish Tillerson, if she ever hopes to get into the White House in 2020?
Ah – but I’m getting ahead of myself.
There is further agenda here, as well. Andrea Mitchell is trying to sow “FUD” – fear, uncertainty, and doubt – both with the Ukrainian foreign minister, AND with the public. That seems to be a constant in her triptych of toddleresque temper tantrums. So keep an eye out for it as we move on.
Now, chronologically, we should go to the SECOND instance of Andrea Mitchell’s agenda questioning, but we need some comic relief, so let’s go to the THIRD and most recent instance instead.
First, from America’s point of view. Stick with it to the end – that’s the punch line.
In two words – “You’re kidding” – a world-class diplomat reminds us all of just how small the American press has become.
Hmmmm. Is it possible that the whiny, annoying, DEMOCRAT reporter question – clearly shilling for Hillary Clinton – is coming from none other than Andrea Mitchell? Why, we only have to look at her own Twitter account to verify that it is indeed her.
Note how she “pretends not to know” that she is the butt of Lavrov’s joke. Ah, yes. The beautiful Mamet Principle (“liberals must pretend not to know things”) shows up in spades.
In this case, we see that the agenda question about James Comey is theoretically related to the visit, but also note that the entire premise of the question is intentionally opposite to what a sane person might actually presume.
Mitchell asks if the Comey firing “casts a shadow” over the visit. The stark reality is that if anything, it’s the opposite. The idea that a show of internal strength and resolve by Trump, removing the person who largely politicized the FBI, protected Crooked Loretta Lynch, and let Hillary Clinton off the hook – to say nothing of actively maintaining the hoax-like “investigation” and Hillary-protecting distraction of “MUH RUSSIA” – might “cast a shadow” over the visit, is beyond unlikely. Lavrov, and anybody else with a lick of sense, realizes that Trump just strengthened Tillerson’s hand immeasurably. And yet, in an odd way, the Comey firing probably strengthens Lavrov’s hand, too, because the FBI which will keep Russia in check will no longer be controlled by a partisan supporter of the Gaddafi-level unpredictable, Russia-hating, Hillary Clinton.
Bottom line – Trump is getting the job done. And THAT message needs to be opposed by the Democrat-media complex.
Agenda question. As always. Andrea Mitchell is nothing, if not predictable.
So let’s move on the the big one – number TWO.
This is the incident, in Moscow, where Lavrov actually chided Mitchell in front of the entire world for the rudeness of her agenda question.
First, watch it from this angle – roughly the line between Tillerson and Lavrov. You can see Mitchell BEHIND Lavrov and to the left, dressed in a red suit, and holding a smartphone.
Note that she is not addressing Lavrov. She is addressing Tillerson, seated directly across from Lavrov. Lavrov is LOOKING AT TILLERSON when he speaks.
Now look at it from a perpendicular direction, where it is possible to see Tillerson intentionally ignoring Mitchell. Lavrov is obscured behind the lady to his left and is hard to see – “watch his hands”, as they say.
Lavrov is being Lavrov – a world-class statesman – when he scolds Mitchell. His defense of Tillerson is pure diplomacy – win-win messaging with a slight hint of “maybe you Americans need to teach your press some basic manners – just sayin’.”
Now, the agenda question here is interesting. If you listen very carefully, THIS is the loud question Lavrov is clearly responding to.
“Mister Secretary – The Russians don’t believe the intelligence (pause) how confident are you, Mister Secretary, that…”
The rest is garbled, and then stopped by Lavrov’s reaction.
One simply has to ask – it this woman TRYING to sour relations between Washington and Moscow?
But before getting into the agenda itself, consider the psychology. Look at it closely.
It’s very clear what she is doing when you look at a freeze-frame. Think of her as standing in for Hillary Clinton. She is so obviously trying to insert her own agenda into the moment, that she even – stunningly – physically inserts herself into the negotiation.
Mitchell is BEHIND Lavrov, speaking as if he is not there, yet addressing our own statesman Tillerson as if she is representing some foreign power – which, ironically, is not far from the truth.
She hunches down, too, in a very odd way that can only seem like she is seating herself in the conversation. Or, “maternalistically”, like a mother stooping down to address a child. In short, it’s all wrong, and beyond disrespectful – it’s pure enemedia.
The grins and smirks on everybody else’s faces, when Lavrov tells her off, tells the story.
So – WHAT is the agenda here?
In my opinion, Andrea Mitchell is TROLLING Tillerson on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Mitchell is trying to diminish both Tillerson’s stature and his ability to negotiate, by publicly negating his diplomacy at every available opportunity. And if that doesn’t work, which it almost certainly can’t, just leave a matching propaganda impression in the minds of the Democrat faithful.
It’s as stupid as the “chicken suit” obsession that busted Hillary for inciting violence at Trump rallies. It’s not going to work, and if anything it will backfire. But frankly, THAT is Hillary in a nutshell. Self-destructive, and destructive of anybody who gets in bed with her.
Now, it doesn’t end there – and this is the kicker. Andrea Mitchell LIED about being scolded. Check this out.
This is a multi-level lie that needs to be called out on every level.
My colleague, Carol Morello, was the brave journalist who started asking questions.
Begin with the deflection to the “human shield” Carol Morello – another reporter who Mitchell butters up by calling her a “brave journalist”. If you ever hung out with criminals, scam artists, pathological liars, sociopaths, local or federal informants, spies, lawyers, high-pressure salespeople, MSM backstabbers, or hypnotists and persuasion experts like Scott Adams, then you know how this works. One of the fastest ways into money or out of trouble is simply talking a suggestible mark into backing one’s lies, by making that person part of the story. If I had a dime for every piece of human scum that tried to “we” me into their lies, I could have retired YEARS earlier.
SO – do the math. Whether “Carol Morello” is simply sucking it up for Mitchell’s story, or truly believes Mitchell’s story, it’s still a story. Go back and watch the video. If there WAS a prior question, it gets walked all over by the much louder cuckoo chick, Andrea Mitchell, who promptly pushes all competing journalists out of the nest. The idea that Lavrov was reacting to the FIRST question, that you can barely hear, and not the LOUDEST question, which is quite obviously the rudest one as well, is a NON-STARTER. But Andrea Mitchell is drowning, and she will drag whoever she needs to, down with her.
You wonder why Andrea Mitchell rose to the top? Exhibit A. She’s a shameless user.
Lavrov was looking right at her.
Now – the next lie is that Lavrov is looking right at Carol Morello. ORLY? Yeah. Right. Sure, Andrea. Sure.
This is as sleazy as any lie in “climate science”, where the Clintonesque “you can’t disprove this” mentality corrupts science. Andrea Mitchell knows that (1) we can’t really tell WHO Lavrov was actually looking at, short of NSA-level technology, and (2) even if he WAS looking at the other journalist, or anybody else, it doesn’t mean he’s not addressing HER.
But still, we can make a good guess, and it would be a good guess that she is lying.
Looking at the video, knowing and SEEING that Lavrov and Tillerson are seated directly across from each other, knowing the eye contact styles of both Lavrov and Tillerson (watch and learn, people), and understanding the simple basics of “meeting power games”, it is quite clear that Lavrov was looking at Tillerson when he spoke – NOT at an American reporter who was not seated at the table.
Andrea knows this too. She can PRETEND not to know it, but she does. Andrea Mitchell has been in more important meeting rooms than everybody I know COMBINED. So the idea that she doesn’t understand these eye contact games is laughable. And it’s a LIE.
I was on the opposite side of the room, behind him, out of sight.
Not only is this a shameless deflection – it is fundamentally a multi-lie that “fakes” being truth by making multiple misleading insinuations. It’s very crafty, but it’s not able to withstand scrutiny.
The entire statement tries to put both distance and direction between her and Lavrov. More cunningly, it tries to imply that she wasn’t even asking a question. These two insinuated lies reinforce each other. But all one has to do is this:
- Make the video from the end of the table full-screen
- Read my transcript of the loud, obnoxious, rude question
- Watch Andrea Mitchell’s face, lips, chin and cheekbones
It is quite clear that SHE is the one asking the question. And it is quite clear WHERE she is asking the question, relative to Lavrov. Right next to him. “Behind him, out of sight” is only technically true. Given her extreme proximity, it is fundamentally false.
Now look at the use of “opposite“. Again, parseltongue. Andrea Mitchell uses the term “opposite” in reference to the prior sentence – that she is “opposite” the other reporter, as well as where Lavrov is looking.
The thing is, if one reads the whole second sentence, it misleads when taken together with “behind him” and “out of sight”. The combined effect of “opposite”, “behind”, and “out of sight” is that she is completely away from the action. She puts “opposite” into the second sentence to drop it’s payload where it shouldn’t be, in an attempt to confuse.
No. Andrea Mitchell is right there, just as we thought.
Now listen to the loud, annoying, RUDE question itself. It must have been echoing like a horse braying in Lavrov’s right ear. It was addressed not to Lavrov, but to Tillerson. Andrea Mitchell was YELLING at Tillerson across the table, in Lavrov’s ear. And she was not even acknowledging Lavrov’s presence as she did it. So it’s not exactly surprising that Lavrov was not acknowledging HER by looking at her, in response.
What Andrea Mitchell is doing here is misleading, and in multiple ways. She is insinuating that Lavrov must be reacting to something that he sees, and not something that he hears. Something that he hears LOUDLY. And which he IGNORES very intentionally by not looking “it” in the face.
Great, Andrea. A “journalist” misleading the public.
Perhaps I was a convenient foil, but I’m pretty sure I wasn’t his target.
Andrea Mitchell closes with both a victimhood appeal, AND a Clinton-style witness-stand lie.
Perhaps she WAS a convenient foil. But MORE LIKELY she is guilty as charged.
As for the final statement, “pretty sure of the falsehood” is a very typical Clintonian lie, deployed when a Clinton needs to change up from a long string of “I don’t remember” and “not to the best of my recollection” responses.
Of course Andrea Mitchell remembers the truth – but nobody can prove it, can they? Here, she covers her lies with one more lie – the idea that she doesn’t know damn well what was going on.
The Mamet Principle. Pretending not to know. Back with a vengeance. Only this time, she can’t pretend FULLY, because to do so would be a provable lie, so she has to leave herself some wiggle room.
Let’s read it again, in all its charm:
This is a professional-grade lie – a specialty of the Clintons. When read as a whole, it’s a happy evasion – almost cheerful. But down underneath, every sentence – every word – is weaponized to deceive.
I will sum up by returning to my initial point. These people are dangerous. They are as dangerous as any anti-American state actor. They lie with an ease and a cunning that matches any criminal, any spy, any revolutionary. We must not merely call them out as “bad journalists”, because they are no longer acting as journalists. They are propagandists for a dangerous Marxist regime which is desperate to get back into power, and will do anything to get there.
Andrea Mitchell is not stupid. She is evil. I’m not saying harm her, demonize her, or even fire her from her job.
I’m saying treat her like the liar that she is. Teach others to do the same.
Andrea Mitchell is like a relative who scams, misleads, and uses everybody around her.
Treat her accordingly.