After Harvey Weinstein; is Trump next to go down?

After Harvey Weinstein; is Trump next to go down?

The shape of a psyop

By Jon Rappoport

My article here is not about guilt or innocence. Understand that.

It’s about how press reports can be used to build a sense of CONTINUITY, which is vital for the ultimate card that is then played.

Follow along and see how it can be done.

First, the Weinstein story. It is sordid. Ronan Farrow reports, in The New Yorker (11/6):

“In the fall of 2016, Harvey Weinstein set out to suppress allegations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women. He began to hire private security agencies to collect information on the women and the journalists trying to expose the allegations. According to dozens of pages of documents, and seven people directly involved in the effort, the firms that Weinstein hired included Kroll, which is one of the world’s largest corporate-intelligence companies, and Black Cube, an enterprise run largely by former officers of Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies. Black Cube, which has branches in Tel Aviv, London, and Paris, offers its clients the skills of operatives ‘highly experienced and trained in Israel’s elite military and governmental intelligence units,’ according to its literature.”

“Two private investigators from Black Cube, using false identities, met with the actress Rose McGowan, who eventually publicly accused Weinstein of rape, to extract information from her. One of the investigators pretended to be a women’s-rights advocate and secretly recorded at least four meetings with McGowan. The same operative, using a different false identity and implying that she had an allegation against Weinstein, met twice with a journalist to find out which women were talking to the press. In other cases, journalists directed by Weinstein or the private investigators interviewed women and reported back the details.”

“The explicit goal of the investigations, laid out in one contract with Black Cube, signed in July, was to stop the publication of the abuse allegations against Weinstein that eventually emerged in the New York Times and The New Yorker. Over the course of a year, Weinstein had the agencies ‘target,’ or collect information on, dozens of individuals, and compile psychological profiles that sometimes focussed on their personal or sexual histories. Weinstein monitored the progress of the investigations personally.”

Farrow’s story is well worth reading. By inference, it suggests the outline of covert ops that can be used in many situations:

The pipeline would go from the powerful guilty client, to a law firm, which hires the “security companies.”

Persons who work for the security companies can pose as sources for journalists, pretending to offer information. But actually, they’re fishing. They want to know what the journalist knows and what he’s going to do with it, and when.

Then, the first-hand real sources for the reporter can be contacted and pressured.

These sources—victims of sexual abuse—can also be contacted by “sympathetic helpers” who do more fishing.

The security companies will probe the background and history of the reporter and try find information that can be used against him—either to impeach his reputation, or even for blackmail purposes. Anything to stop negative stories about the client from being published.

It would be only one step from there to enlist the cooperation of “Mockingbird” people in the press—covert CIA assets who work as reporters—if the client is powerful enough.

There are many potential wrinkles in this scenario. I’ll give you one that far exceeds what’s revealed or implied in Farrow’s New Yorker piece. This is how Farrow’s tireless work can be used by others, in a larger context, beyond anything Farrow intended:

Weinstein, who is guilty of various sexual offenses, is used to start the ball rolling downhill. Other celebrities, equally guilty, are exposed by victims. The news stories take on the character of a growing fire storm.

The result? The press is seen as the hero, doing its job for once. No one can cast accusations of a cover-up. They even beat the Mossad!

Then, when the public firmly believes the press is shooting straight from the shoulder…

The Trump accusers surface on cue.

At least a dozen women emerge, with their attorneys. They give their testimony of sexual harassment and abuse.

They add fuel to what is already a roaring blaze.

The public, already in a state of outrage, automatically signs on to the latest revelations.

This is not to defend or accuse Trump.

I’m just pointing out the way the game can be played.

It needs a foundation. It needs prior public “preparation” and belief.

More than anything, it needs a sense of continuity.

Otherwise, women who would come forward and accuse Trump of sexual offenses would be dismissed quickly.

But in the wake of many, many stories exposing public figures, the Trump story would have force.

“Aha. First there was Weinstein. Guilty. Then there was Kevin Spacey. Guilty. Then there was Mark Halperin. Guilty. Now there is Trump.”

“Look at how far Weinstein and his hired spies went to cover up his crimes—and they failed. The truth emerged. So now…who can doubt the honesty and sincerity of the press when they hold Trump’s feet to the fire?”

Read this from Washington Post (10/27), headlined: “All of the women who have accused Trump of sexual harassment are lying, White House says”:

“The question was posed during a White House briefing at a time when numerous men in high-profile positions have been undercut of late by allegations of sexual misconduct, including journalist Mark Halperin, who faced accusations this week from former colleagues.”

“’Obviously, sexual harassment has been in the news’,” Jacqueline Alemany of CBS News asked [White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee] Sanders. ‘At least 16 women accused the president of sexually harassing them throughout the course of the campaign. Last week, during a press conference in the Rose Garden, the president called these accusations “fake news.” Is the official White House position that all of these women are lying?’”

“’Yeah, we’ve been clear on that from the beginning, and the president’s spoken on it,’ Sanders said, before quickly pivoting to another reporter to ask a question.”

It’s a perfect news story. First, the headline, which suggests the absurdity of 16 women lying.

Then the claim that the press has slammed one of its own, Mark Halperin, without favor, on behalf of honest journalism. (“We’re fearless.”)

Then the question to the press secretary about Trump: IN LIGHT OF EVERYTHING THAT’S BEEN GOING ON RECENTLY, ARE YOU SAYING ALL THESE TRUMP WOMEN ARE LIARS?

And then the answer: YES.

In light of all the recent revelations about famous sexual offenders, the Post story hits home. It scores.

Again, I’m not saying Trump is guilty or innocent. I’m showing how the game is played. Effectively.

If this follows the Weinstein playbook, one woman will come forward and tell her Trump story.

The press will play it widely and loudly, with details. “Weinstein had his Ashley Judd, Trump now has his (insert name).”

Then another woman will appear and tell her story. And so on.

Media psyops have nothing to do with intrinsic guilt or innocence. They have to do with a final goal—and how to get there. How to achieve credibility with the public.

Working with actual guilt is easier than working with innocence, but the objective is SELLING GUILT.

That’s the trick.

Stay tuned.

Filed under: Uncategorized Jon Rappoport has worked as a free-lance investigative reporter for over 30 years. http://nomorefakenews.com/