Once more, I present the thin-skinned conspiracy theorists of Consortium News

Dunno who's running its Twitter feed, but after two years of @-ing it from time to time, I actually got a response to this Dec. 1, after visiting its website for the first time in a few months:

I guess Consortium News doesn't want people posting URLs in comments because they don't want readers to be exposed to anything outside the party line. Right .@Consortiumnews? Is that part of the real "security issues"? pic.twitter.com/xxLn3guykt

— reallyDonaldTrump  🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) December 1, 2019

And from that? We were off to the races, until Consortium News did a selective exit.

CN has never reported Rich is the leaker. We interviewed people who think that on our webcast but also had on Michael Isikoff who certainly doesn't believe that. Read our site & see there are no "conspiracy theories." We debunked one of the biggest: Russiagate.

— Consortium News (@Consortiumnews) December 1, 2019

I of course couldn't let that go, so:

Depends on how you define "Russiagate."

And, you bit like a cheap dog on the Forensicator nonsense. Have Binney and McGovern ever admitted with Drake (and I) said that they were chasing their own "Curveball"? So, no, you HAVE reported some conspiracy theories.

— reallyDonaldTrump  🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) December 1, 2019

And, of course, to remind the readership of just what I'm talking about, let me link to that.

Right here.

And note that CN has never, ever, cleaned up this Patrick Lawrence mess, even though The Nation DID clean up  Lawrence's mess. (CN has actually run more pieces by Lawrence.)

CN's Twitter Whisperer then said:

Thanks for accepting that you lied about us regarding links in the comments.

— Consortium News (@Consortiumnews) December 1, 2019

Nope. No lie. Rather:

My comment about links was posed as a rhetorical question. No lie.
But, it was based on the fact that you've blocked at least 1 of my email addresses from commenting, over a year ago.
Will you accept I have good reason for saying what I did?
Since I'm getting so much response ...

— reallyDonaldTrump  🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) December 1, 2019

I didn't expect to get any more response after that.

And didn't.

Crickets again, on both the being blocked and on the Forensicator bullshit. Waited more than 12 hours, overnight, just in case whoever's running the account had checked out.

So, the next morning, I Tweeted the Forensicator link, then one other, noted in the next paragraph.

The background is that I deblogrolled Consortium News 18 months ago. The reasons why are described in detail here, but are above all it going downhill after Robert Parry's death, above all with the addition of Caitlyn Johnstone. I also note that I didn't know Bob himself gave plenty of signs of being a JFK conspiracy theorist, and definitely gullible about the myths of Camelot.

As for "Russiagate"? Like Aaron Maté and others, CN by early 2018, mainly driven by Ray McGovern, was clearly going down the road of twosiderism, which I noted four months before the de-blogrolling.

Update, Dec. 9, 2020: The fact that RNC computers as well as DNC ones were hacked undercuts the Seth Rich leaker thing right there. Unfortunately, for a while, I listened too much to bullshit artists like Aaron Maté (you ARE, on this, Aaron, shut up!) who said "cloud computing" and "mirrors" etc. were no substitute for the real thing. Well, when you use cloud servers, Aaron, that IS the real thing. If you're that much of a gasligher, you too can go fuck yourself along with Ty Clevenger. If you're that much of an idiot, again, shut up. Ditto for anybody else repeating that nonsense.

Dropping by once every month or two has led me to see that CN, on a reasonably generous estimate, has about one-third decent to good posts, one-third meh, and one-third crap. And, since I found a place like LobeLog that has a far broader reach on general foreign policy issues, though not diving as much into intelligence establishment issues, that covers half of CN's good stuff or more? I don't really miss it.

As part of that, while not technically conspiracy theorizing, every CN piece about presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard is analysis-free hagiography.

Also, going yet more downhill recently, 20 monthsafter adding Caitlyn Johnstone? Elizabeth Lea Vos of Petulant Media, a feeder of the Forensicator bullshit, is a contributor there. And, since that is a conspiracy theory ...

And contra CN's Twitter Whisperer, everybody who knows anything knows that the Forensicator bullshit, and the Adam Carter behind it, is connected to Seth Rich conspiracy thinking. So, CN, maybe you didn't directly report it. Maybe you interviewed Isakoff (though you've not given him space to write on there, have you? Oopsssss...) but you haven't reputiated, or cleaned up after, Patrick Lawrence, unlike The Nation, and you have, indirectly, thus perpetuated the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.

And?

YOU KNOW THAT. Somewhere, if only in Bob's son's or whoever's unconscious.

Finally, CN and fanbois? As I told the Twitter Whisperer, I know the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. Better than Bob laid it in his piece, since he's a JFK conspiracy theorist.

So, to summarize and swing a full meat-axe? CN lies directly, then further lies by omission and by editorialese (the journalistic equivalent of legalese).

CN's Twitter Whisperer (maybe Vos is running that?) claims it doesn't run conspiracy theories. Refudiation:

• Forensicator;
• Bob Parry himself with JFK.

Claims it doesn't promote Seth Rich conspiracy theorizing. Indirect refutation:

• Forensicator tied to Seth Rich conspiracy theorizing; 
• Never, in its Assange writing, pointing out him as the apparent first promoter of it.

And, so, continues to go downhill.