Corbett

Episode 498 – How To Stage A Cover-Up

Are you a conspirator looking to deflect public scrutiny of your latest crime? Then this is the podcast for you! Today on The Corbett Report, James presents you with a handy-dandy primer on how to stage a cover-up.

TRANSCRIPT

JAMES CORBETT: Are you a down-on-your-luck dictator who deliberately killed your own servicemen…but don’t want the public to find out?

A deep state operator who blew the president’s head off in broad daylight…but wants to get away with it scot-free?

A swamp-dweller with some uncomfortable ties to the most infamous pedophile of modern times…that you’d rather the public not know about?

Well, fret no more! Today on The Corbett Report, I present you with your guide to how to stage a cover-up.

CORBETT REPORT THEME

CORBETT: Welcome back, friends. Welcome back to another edition of The Corbett Report. I’m your host, James Corbett of corbettreport.com, coming to you, as always, from the sunny climes of Western Japan here in April of 2026 with Episode 498 of The Corbett Report podcast, “How To Stage A Cover-Up.”

And, yes, I don’t think the premise of today’s podcast episode will need a great deal of elaboration certainly for, certainly, anyone in my longtime audience—or, really, anyone in the general population with two brain cells to rub together—who have observed that government commissions of inquiry and investigations tend to find that the government did nothing wrong. In fact, so oft repeated is that phrase that it has become a meme. “We have investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong.”

So, as I say, I think we all know examples of this phenomenon. But today, let’s examine nine specific examples from the past century of history of government cover-ups to see how they function and see what we can glean from that information. I think there is some very interesting and instructive information in these examples.

But before we dive into those examples, let’s start with a general observation about how these government inquiries tend to function, how they bake the results of their investigation into the cake of their inquiries from the get-go. And for this observation, we’re going to turn to Dr. Tim Ball, who I’m sure my longtime audience will be familiar with.

If you are not familiar with Dr. Ball or his work as one of the lone voices in the wilderness crying out against the climate madness in the early 21st century, back when it was unpopular to do so, please see my episode from a few years ago, Remembering Tim Ball, which I recorded, of course, on hearing the news of the passing of that warrior for truth. But today, let’s turn back to a conversation I recorded with him in his home in Victoria back in 2009, where he was talking about his experience serving on various government commissions of inquiry and discovering how they take the result and put it into the very formulation of those commissions in the first place.

DR. TIM BALL: My name is Dr. Timothy Ball and I have a PhD in climatology from the Queen Mary College at the University of London, England.

My experience, having chaired commissions of inquiry for government or being on commissions of inquiry with government, is that commissions of inquiry with government are—There are certain things that politicians love. Commissions of inquiry are one of them. Deficits are another because with a deficit they can say, “Oh, sorry, we can’t afford that.” But then, if they want to do something, suddenly, magically, the amount of money is there.

If there’s a problem or a conflict that develops and it’s causing a lot of difficulty for the politicians, they can say, “Oh, we will appoint a commission of inquiry. It’ll be independent!” And that takes the heat off the issue. “Oh, yeah, the government’s reacting! They’re finally appointing a commission of inquiry.” And if they don’t, of course, they say, “Oh, you’re afraid to put one on.” You know, “You’re hiding something!” So, OK, we appoint the commission of inquiry. But then what people don’t realize is they control the outcome of that commission of inquiry.

Now, first of all, they’ve got the advantage now because if the media come and say, “Well? What’s going on?” “Can’t talk about it. Commission of inquiry. Wait till their report comes out.” Well, that delays usually two, three, four years, by which time all the political heat’s off.

But more important is they control it by the terms of reference. And the example I like to use is the Warren Commission inquiry into Kennedy’s assassination. And judge Warren was asked about something after. They said, “Well why didn’t you look?” “Oh, it wasn’t in my terms of reference.” He’d been limited by those that wrote the terms of reference.

And that was my experience. One of the first cases I was asked to look at, the minister said, “Would you look at this?” and I said, “Sure.” And then I get the terms of reference and I say, “I can’t work with that. I can’t provide you with a proper answer, a complete answer, with those terms of reference.” Of course, then the minister said, “Well, sorry, that’s what you’ve got to work with.” I said, “Fine, then I’m not doing the job and I’ll go to the media and say you’re trying to limit the investigation here.” So I could one up him with that.

And so when they set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Maurice Strong—who we we should talk a lot about—he wrote the terms of reference. And the first term of reference was the definition of climate change. And he limited it deliberately to only human causes of climate change. And of course that effectively eliminated all the natural causes and natural variability, which is why you see them not looking at things like the sun and a whole bunch of other issues.

SOURCE: Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed

CORBETT: Once again, that was Dr. Tim Ball talking about how the terms of reference of a commission of inquiry can be used to direct the outcome of that inquiry, a point which should be pretty obvious once it’s pointed out to you. And yet, how many people actually bother to go and read the terms of reference of the various commissions of inquiry that are appointed to cover up various government activities? I would venture to say very few. But it can be a fruitful endeavour.

As Dr. Tim Ball goes on to explain there and as I have talked about in greater detail elsewhere, the terms of reference were very much part of baking into the cake the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming was the cause of climate change in our world, which was not scientifically valid or accurate, but, by terms of reference, the commissions of inquiry and the various conventions that were signed were obligated to find that.

If you would like more information about that and how that worked in that context, I have talked about that more. For example, in Is the IPCC Rigged? – Questions For Corbett #096, we go through a deep dive where I go to the specific terms in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that specifically define climate change in the precise way Dr. Tim Ball was talking about there.

But let’s look at that in the context of government cover-ups and how they function. And let’s see if that has ever been used in history.

Oh, wait, yes, of course it has!

Let’s look at one of the most obvious and prime examples of a government cover-up in the past century, the cover-up of Pearl Harbor. Presumably, my dedicated Corbett Reporteers in the crowd will know that Pearl Harbor was not what the government said it was: a surprise attack out of nowhere. “Who could have seen it coming?”

I hope that my well-informed listeners are already aware of the various flaws in that official story of Pearl Harbor. But, if not, you can look at some of my work on that subject in the past. For example, I do a quick, brief, to-the-point and information-loaded summary of the Pearl Harbor false flag in Debunking a Century of War Lies, so please do see that if you are interested in more information. I’ve also talked to Robert Stinnett, who was one of the premier researchers on this subject back on Corbett Report Radio Episode 050 – Deconstructing Pearl Harbor, where I talked to Robert Stinnett about his work on Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, his magnum opus on the subject, and one that is filled with information about the actual how the attack actually unfolded, what was known beforehand, etc., and also talks in some degree of detail about the cover-up that took place as a result of it.

But, long story short for people who don’t know: essentially, of course, America was outraged. “How could this possibly have happened? How did the Japanese sneak attack us? How did no one know? Who is to blame?” And in the wake of this outrage from the public, of course, President Roosevelt set up his own commission of inquiry to lay the blame of the entire Pearl Harbor incident squarely on the shoulders of two men, Navy Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Army General Walter Short, the commanders at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, who ended up getting blamed for everything.

And you see how that eventually played out. Of course, the commission was first appointed in December of 1941. By February, it had already come back with its judgment, and it was not a kind one for Kimmel and Short. And we get a flavor of that from this contemporaneous New York Times report from March of 1942: “KIMMEL AND SHORT WILL STAND TRIAL; DATE IS UNDECIDED; Courts-Martial on Charges of Dereliction of Duty at Pearl Harbor Ordered BASED ON ROBERTS REPORT Applications of Admiral and General for Retirement on $6,000 Pay Are Granted KIMMEL AND SHORT WILL STAND TRIAL.”

And this goes on to talk about the charge against both officers of “dereliction of duty” that would be laid on them by the president’s special investigating committee “in a report presented by Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts of the Supreme Court, chairman, to Mr. Roosevelt on Jan. 24…” Yada, yada.

Long story short, Kimmel and Short were completely dragged through the mud and were blamed for everything at Pearl Harbor, top to bottom. There are many, many, many reasons to exonerate Kimmel and Short. And, as people may or may not know, the Kimmel family, I know, has been greatly involved in a long decades-long effort to simply get Kimmel’s rank posthumously restored. And even that has been this decades-long, incredibly nightmarish journey for the family. Now that we know that so much information was withheld from Kimmel and Short. So much of the blame that was placed on their shoulders was not their responsibility, which we now know because we know that it was a cover-up. The Roberts panel that was created by Roosevelt was a cover-up committee.

So, again, this is mainstream history at this point, that Kimmel and Short were railroaded. It was a kangaroo commission that basically was going to lay blame on them beforehand, before it even started. And how do we know that? Because it was in the terms of reference, exactly as Dr. Tim Ball was pointing out.

I would like to give the hat tip to Tom Jake, who, as I understand, is a local historian in Husband E. Kimmel’s hometown who has talked about this case in great detail in a lecture he gave several years ago, “Admiral Husband E Kimmel, Betrayed!” in which he points out, yes, it was in the terms of reference of that Roberts Commission that basically, again, was baked into the cake before it even sat down.

So, here is the final report of this Roberts Commission, Attack Upon Pearl Harbor By Japanese Armed Forces. And right there in the preamble, right there in the first lines, in the third paragraph, this was the executive order, which was issued by Roosevelt there in December of 1941: “The purposes of the required inquiry and report are to provide bases for sound decisions, whether any derelictions of duty or errors of judgment on the part of United States Army or Navy personnel contributed to such successes as were achieved by the enemy.”

So, there, did you catch it? It’s right there for you: “on the part of the United States Army or Navy personnel,” i.e. no civilian will be looked at as having any part contributing to the success of the enemy in the Pearl Harbor [incident]. No one in the civilian chain of command or anywhere else. We’re just going to look at US Army or Navy personnel. So, right there, limiting it in that way, they start to bake it into the cake.

And, of course, in the time-honored tradition of “whoever’s in charge is the one to blame,” well, Kimmel and Short got the short end of that stick. And as I say, it’s an ongoing story. You can read or listen or hear some of the lectures and interviews and petitioning and other things that Husband Kimmel’s descendants have been engaged in for years trying to clear his name. And how much they are, shall we say, angry with the government at the fact that they still continue to perpetrate this cover-up about Pearl Harbor.

Lots more information about this case, and, in fact, all of the cases that I’m going to talk about today. We’re only covering the overview here. So, if you want to deep dive into these materials, please go to corbettreport.com/coverup for the complete transcript with all of the hyperlinks to everything that I am citing today.

But let’s get straight into the second example that we’re going to look at today: the Warren Commission. Yes, you know, the Warren Commission, the one that concluded, of course, that: “JFK? That was just some crazy lone nut who just decided to go out there and shoot him, and there you go. Case closed, guys! It was a lone nut. Never have to think about JFK ever again.”

Of course, that did not happen. And many people pointed out the Warren Commission was flawed in many, many, many supremely, incredibly, foundationally important ways and was a railroad investigation that was never meant to come to any actual truth, but only to cover up that truth. Much has been said about this in the past, so I will not attempt to encapsulate all of the problems with the Warren Commission here, but I will point to one specific example that, again, goes to show another way that cover-ups can function. How a government inquiry, an independent commission, can be, from its very inception, loaded—the dice can be loaded so that it will come up with “cover-up” every single time.

In this case, one does not have to look very far. In fact, rather than terms of reference, how about the composition of the commission itself? Who will sit on this commission of inquiry into the assassination of the president of the United States? How about one of the prime suspects as one of the conspirators involved in that assassination?

In this case, of course, talking about Allen Dulles, who was the former Director of Central Intelligence, the person who was in that position when JFK entered as president in January 1961, but who was not director by the time of President Kennedy’s assassination in November of 1963 because…because, of course, Kennedy had unceremoniously kicked him out the door and replaced him with McCone! And why did he replace him? Oh, a little thing called the Bay of Pigs, and that whole debacle.

And as we all know, and hopefully you do know about this in great detail, because I’ve talked about it many times and many, many other people have as well. Of course, Kennedy was absolutely furious at the deep state that existed underneath his administration at that time that was clearly plotting against him and around him and without his knowledge. And he laid a lot of that blame on the doorstep of the CIA, who he infamously said he was going to break into a thousand pieces and scatter those pieces to the winds. And one can imagine there was not a lot of love from Kennedy for Allen Dulles.

So, when JFK gets his head blown off in clear daylight, who does LBJ—Lyndon Baines Johnson, the next president of the United States—appoint to sit on the cover-up commission that would ultimately go on to cover up the details of that assassination? Of course, none other than Allen Dulles.

PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON: We’re going to name very shortly a Presidential Commission made up of seven people: two from the House, two from the Senate, two from the public and one from the court as a study group to go into this FBI Report, this Court of Inquiry and all the incidents in connection with the assassination of our beloved friend and you’ve got to go on that for me.

ALLEN DULLES: You think I can really serve you?

LBJ: I know you can. I know you can. There’s not a doubt about it. Just get ready now to go in there and do a good job. We’ve got to have . . . America has got to be united in this hour.

DULLES: I would like to be of any help . . . and you’ve considered the work of my previous work [sic] and my previous job?

LBJ: I sure have.

SOURCE: Conversation with ALLEN DULLES, November 29, 1963

CORBETT: “…Uhhh…are you sure you want to do that, Mr. President? You know about my work and what I’ve done in the past?” “Yes, and you’re the man for the job! Go in there and cover it up.” “Yes, sir!” Case closed.

And we all know what happened as a result of that. And if you don’t happen to know what happened as a result of the Warren Commission and Dulles’ involvement in it and all of the various pieces of that puzzle, you might want to see some of the work that I’ve done on that over the years. For example, my highly relevant episode on Meet Allen Dulles: Fascist Spymaster, and, of course, my more recent lecture on JFK: From Mongoose to Gladio, which fills in some of the pieces of that puzzle.

But yes, long story short, another way to run a cover-up commission is to make sure that the people serving on that commission have a direct interest in participating in the cover-up. Covering up their own crimes, as it were. That seems like it’s probably something that might be used more than once in history.

So, let’s keep this list rolling. Let’s look at the next specific example of a “we investigated ourselves and found nothing” cover-up: Iran-Contra.

You know and remember Iran-Contra from the 1980s when, of course, the US Government and various people operating within the Reagan administration were involved in a blatantly illegal scheme to sell arms to Iran in order to fund the Contras in Nicaragua in direct violation of the Boland Amendment, which Congress had passed—a series of laws which had specifically prohibited further funding of the Contras. So this was a) a conspiracy and b) blatantly illegal, but it happened!

And what happened? What resulted from that completely flagrantly illegal scheme? Well, pretty much nothing. Of course, there were a series of indictments of various people and even some convictions, but all of those convictions were either overturned on appeal or pardons were issued when Bush came in the door after Reagan departed. So, basically, nothing came of it. It was an effective cover-up, so-called by one of the chief investigators of the Reagan administration’s antics at the time.

But that cover-up, although there are a lot of interesting and fascinating pieces of it—not only, of course, Oliver North and what became of him and his role in American politics but also John Poindexter and what he went on to do with the Total Information Awareness Office and his role in helping Thiel, starting Palantir, etc. Again, I’ve talked about those issues in the past.

But let’s look at a specific moment within what ultimately ended up being the Iran-Contra cover-up in which another truth accidentally almost emerged into public view, but right there on the spot! We had one of these brave Congress critters gaveling down to make sure that a cover-up of that potential side truth be effected right there on the spot.

REP. JACK BROOKS: Colonel North, in your work at the NSC, were you not assigned at one time to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster.

COL. NORTH’S COUNSEL: Mr. Chairman…

SEN. DANIEL INOUYE: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area, so may I request that you not touch upon that, sir?

BROOKS: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers and several others that there had been a plan developed by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was the area in which he had worked. I believe it was—

INOUYE: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage? If we wish to get into this, certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.

SOURCE: FEMA – Martial Law – Oliver North Questioned on Continuity of Government

CORBETT: Wow, just brilliant. Just brilliant! I think you have to hand it to Senator Inouye there, scrambling to come up with some sort of “I think we’re going to take that behind closed doors if you keep going in that direction” way to cover up something that almost got released there in Congress. They almost broached a subject that was a no-no subject, but, man, he gaveled down on that quick enough, didn’t he?

And just for the record, yeah, that’s the same Senator Inouye who gave these sterling speeches about this shadow government with its own shadow navy and army that operates outside of the law that. Still, to this day, you see clips of that. It’s venerated. But this is the same guy who was actively working to cover up any hint of what that deep state was actually involved in.

So, there you go, that’s another way—that’s perhaps the most effective way—to gavel down when something is about to be released. Just say, “Sorry, the public can’t hear about that.” And *poof*, it’s gone.

All right, let’s continue with this cavalcade of conspiracy to the next obvious false flag cover-up of modern times. That would, of course, be 9/11. And we all know about the 9/11 commission and the cover-up that it involved. And if you don’t know about that, well, I’ve spoken about that quite a bit in the past as well, so you can see some of my previous work on that.

And perhaps starting with—or at least continuing your exploration with—my analysis of 9/11 suspect Philip Zelikow, who, again, I’m sure my well-informed audience will be aware, was parachuted in after Heinz Kissinger turned out not to be the kind of person they wanted to put as the face of this commission. Someone that even the New York Times said was clearly a sign that Bush was trying to cover up 9/11 rather than get to the truth. So they threw Kissinger out the door and they brought in Philip Zelikow.

Who’s this guy? Let me check my notes. Oh, that’s right. He co-authored a book with Condi Rice. He’s been in the neocon circles. He definitely has conflicts of interest. Sounds like the kind of guy that can go in there and make sure that a cover-up gets done. And boy, did he make sure a cover-up got done.

The most remarkable example of Zelikow’s dictatorial control came in March 2003, just three months into the commission’s 16-month investigation began. It was at that time, before the commission had even convened a single hearing, that Zelikow, along with long-time associate and commission consultant Ernest May, co-wrote a complete outline of the final report.

DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: “Before the staff even had its first meeting, Zelikow had written, along with his former professor, Ernest May, a detailed outline of the commission’s report, complete, as Shenon put it, with chapter headings, sub-headings, and sub-sub-headings. When Kean and Hamilton were later shown this outline they worried that it would be seen as evidence that the report’s outcome had been predetermined, so the three of them decided to keep it a secret from the rest of the staff.

“When the staff did finally learn about this outline a year later they were alarmed. Some of them circulated a parody entitled ‘The Warren Commission Report: Preemptive Outline.’ One of its chapter headings read: ‘Single Bullet: We Haven’t Seen the Evidence Yet, But Really, We’re Sure.’ The implication was that the crucial chapter in the Zelikow-May outline could have been headed ‘Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: We Haven’t Seen the Evidence Yet, But Really, We’re Sure.’”

(Source: The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut – David Ray Griffin – Day 1)

SOURCE: 9/11 Suspects: Philip Zelikow

CORBETT: You know, you gotta hand it to Zelikow, because he managed to find an even more direct way of baking the conclusion into the commission cake. You don’t have to worry about terms of reference. You just literally write the entire report in advance—or at least all of the headings and subheadings and sub-subheadings—so that there’s no way the commission can possibly conclude anything [other] than what you want them to conclude!

Again, you do not have to go out on the conspiracy limb for this information. Mainstream history. For example, Philip Shenon writing about The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Commission documents that particular factoid in detail. So you can check that out while you’re checking out, of course, your edition of The 9/11 Commission Report, in which you will find, if you bother to go through all o f the footnotes and take a look, more than one quarter of all of the footnotes—all of the evidence that was presented in this 9/11 Commission final report that was written in advance, essentially—more than one quarter of all the footnotes source back to torture testimony. Of course, completely inadmissible in any court of law. And for good reason, because torture does not produce reliable information. It produces whatever the torturers want to hear. And that is precisely why this is—well, that’s one of the reasons why this is absolute unreliable garbage, a fairy tale from top to bottom, start to finish.

And when the reality of the torture testimony, not only for The 9/11 Commission Report—the basis of that—but the entire war of terror started to come out and we started to have at least an attempt to at least give some sort of fig leaf of a pretense of, “Don’t worry, guys, we’re going to look into this and get to the bottom of it.” …oh, wouldn’t you know it? The CIA went and covered it up!

And how did they do it? They took the extraordinary, amazing idea of destroying the evidence. OK, maybe that’s not such an original or inventive idea for covering something up, but a) it is effective, and b) in this particular case, it was not just run-of-the-mill illegal. It was blatantly, absolutely, brazenly illegal, essentially daring the US “justice” system to do anything about this blatantly illegal act.

CORBETT: Oh, do you remember the time that the CIA destroyed tapes of these “enhanced interrogations” despite court orders? Yes. Pepperidge Farm remembers.

The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics.

Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons.

See? They were using black sites that weren’t really on the books anyway, so maybe they can get away with it! Well, they did. I guess they did, because they did destroy the tapes in direct contravention of court orders in November 2005.

And, wait, let’s see, how many people involved in that decision, or in that completely, clearly, brazenly, 100% illegal act have even been brought before a judge to answer for it, let alone sentenced for it? I’m thinking that’s…rounded to the nearest whole number…zero. A big fat goose egg, right?

Now, this report was from 2007. Of course, as it later turned out, it was even worse! Back in 2009, it was admitted that the CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes!

The CIA has destroyed nearly 100 interrogation tapes of terror suspects, a number far greater than was previously acknowledged by the agency.

So, they even lied about how much illegal stuff they did to cover up. But you can trust them when they say “92,” guys. They really mean it this time.

SOURCE: Episode 428 – Torturing the Truth

CORBETT: Pfff. If the Boland amendments aren’t going to stop the deep state from perpetrating Iran-Contra, then no amount of judge orders or court orders are going to stop the CIA from destroying their torture tapes. Am I right? Of course I’m right.

And what was the result of this blatantly illegal act? Obviously people went to jail. There were trials. There was a—oh, of course there was nothing. Of course not. Nobody suffered any accountability for this blatantly illegal act.

If you would like more information about this whole episode and all of the information surrounding it—all of the other crazy information surrounding it, like, hey, remember that time the CIA hacked the Senate’s computers? Remember that? Again, what happened? Nothing. If you would like more information on that, you should see my report on Torturing the Truth.

But let’s move right along to the next cover-up on our list here. Do you remember climategate? Well, if you’ve been around in this space for long enough, maybe that name rings a bell. Maybe it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, what are you going to do? How are you going to find more information about climategate? Well, of course, you go to your favorite search engine, Google, and you type in “climategate.” And of course, the very first link is going to be, oh, good old handy-dandy Wikipedia, the bastion of truth.

But of course, they don’t call it climategate. That’s what those conspiracy theorists called it back in the time. No. So this is “the Climatic Research Unit email controversy.” And this helpfully explains that this email controversy “began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia by an external attacker,” probably the Russians or something, dot, dot, dot. Who cares? Anyway, details, shmeetails.

Yes, the emails from the CRU at the UEA. And, again, my longtime listeners will know about these emails and their significance. But if you don’t, you can continue reading where it was talked about how “The story was first broken by climate change denialists, who argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy and that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.” But that can’t possibly be true. Well, read down far enough and you’ll find, yay, it’s not true. “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”

Case closed, guys. Eight committees investigated. I mean, you can throw one cover-up committee at, you know, the assassination of the president or 9/11 or something like that. We’re going to throw eight committees investigating this controversy, and that’ll shut up the critics, right?

Of course, the only problem with these eight committees that investigated: they were top to bottom cover-up investigations that were parodies of investigations. And there is no reason to take any one of them seriously.

CORBETT: Let’s get to the heart of the “debunking,” which has apparently taken place of climategate. There have been multiple inquiries [that] have debunked this, haven’t there been?

MARC MORANO: Yes, they had I guess about six, maybe seven, even, of these reports. And what it essentially amounted to—this was right after climategate. First of all, they tried to ignore climategate. And this was a key thing. The establishment especially thought it was much ado about nothing and just let it go, which was—I always say, I remember being quoted in Newsweek magazine thanking the global warming establishment and the establishment media for ignoring climategate because it allowed climate skeptics to bring out and basically expose it without all that interference from the media and pushback.

But a few months later, they realized this is serious. It was so serious, by the way, people like climatologist Judith Curry, who was a convinced believer of the climate crisis, literally switched her view and became a skeptic within less than a year from reading these emails. That’s how powerful it was.

But they came out with all these different committees, including: Penn State did an inquiry; multiple UK inquiries, including East Anglia; the Associated Press did their own analysis through all the emails. And their whole goal basically amounts to the global warming establishment essentially investigating itself and declaring that they were fine and there was nothing to be seen here.

And committee after committee basically went through and they had people on it with vested interests. Some of the UK committees actually had renewable energy advocates and people receiving mass subsidies who directly benefit from climate policy running the inquiries. The Penn State committee that investigated Michael Mann—and I don’t make this up, I actually quote it—literally concluded that because Michael Mann was so quoted in the media and made so much money for the university, he couldn’t possibly have done anything wrong. One of the analysts said this was a parody of an investigation, that these words were actually in the report. But the media didn’t actually even quote any of those outrageous quote, they just said, “Oh, Penn State has exonerated Michael Mann!”

But the global warming establishment investigated itself and declared that it was OK. By the way, there’s no other industry where you can investigate yourself like that. Usually they appoint independent, outside groups. But, you know, this is what they did and then they moved on.

SOURCE: Climategate Rebunked – Marc Morano on The Corbett Report

CORBETT: That was a short clip from my conversation with Marc Morano on Climategate Rebunked, in which he pointed out some of the many, many flaws with these so-called investigations, or parodies of investigations. “He makes a lot of money for the university, therefore he can’t have done these things!” Great defense!

Yes, the idea that eight committees have “debunked” climategate is total nonsense. And there’s a lot more evidence along those lines that I’ve talked about in the past.

But actually, it isn’t even the committees of investigation—that were top-to-bottom conflicts of interest and cover-ups—that was the way in which that cover-up was fundamentally effected. No, in fact, it was the idea that we needed committees of investigation to somehow debunk things that are perfectly readable by your own two eyes [that] is itself the cover-up in that case. These are matters of record. You can go and read the emails in which the scientists were literally conspiring to keep people they didn’t like with ideas they didn’t like out of the peer-reviewed record. There’s no denying that. There’s nothing you can say about that. It is there in black and white, along with all of the other pieces of that climategate puzzle.

If you would like to know more about the actual details of what was actually discovered and uncovered there for your own two eyes to see in the climategate emails, please see my report on the subject, Climategate is Still the Issue. I’ve done a lot of work on this subject over the years, but that one is a good encapsulation of some of the most egregious things that were discovered in that tranche of emails and the way that they attempted to cover it up.

But let’s let’s take another look at the cover-up idea and how it is effected. And let’s see if we can find another tactic, which is sometimes used to cover up events after the fact: intimidation.

Of course, if all signs point to [the fact that] there’s somebody out there who’s going to blow the whistle or there’s somebody who’s got information we don’t like, well, you can either take care of them by getting them out of the picture—as, for example, many of the people who weren’t called to the Warren Commission weren’t called because they met mysterious ends in various ways. But sometimes you just go and intimidate the witnesses to make sure that they end up going along with what you want them to go along with.

So, in this specific case, we’re going to turn to another cover-up: the Douma cover-up. Do you remember the April 2018 dastardly attack by the “animal Assad” on his own people there in the suburbs of Damascus, where he dropped at least two cylinders containing chemical weapons on residential areas in which he was fighting with the “freedom fighters” who were attacking the Syrian forces there? That’s right. (Yeah, I’m sorry. I’m struggling to keep the narrative together.)

Yes. And of course, we all know Assad, the suicidal monster, decided to drop chemical weapons on his own population, crossing the red line that he knew was the thing that would result in military intervention, outside military intervention by NATO forces on his soil. And, lo and behold, just a few days after that chemical attack took place, of course, the US and its allies started dropping bombs on Syria. You remember all of that, right?

Well, of course, you remember it incorrectly, if that’s the way you remember it, because what was the evidence that there was a chemical attack of any sort that took place in Douma in April 2018, let alone that it was dropped by Syrian forces? Oh, that’s right. It comes from an OPCW investigation that after five years eventually concluded that, “Yes, it was the Syrian forces!” Of course, it only took about five days for the strikes to start, but it took five years for the investigation to finally wrap up. And why is that? It’s because, oh, there were a few bumps along the way of that investigation.

If you would like to know more about that, boy, do I have a story to tell you. It’s called The Douma Hoax: Anatomy of a False Flag. And that, for those who haven’t seen it, is a deep dive into the narrative that was constructed about the Douma attack and how it was undermined, not only by outside researchers/investigators, but by the OPCW, the organization that is tasked with investigating these types of events. Their own fact-finding mission, their FFM team, was writing reports, draft reports, that contradicted the idea that there was any chemical attack at all. There was no evidence that there was an actual chemical attack that took place, according to the OPCW FFM’s own investigators…at least until the OPCW team decided to force some outside US agents into the matter to convince the team that they saw what they saw, which is chemical weapons.

CORBETT: Steele’s article recurrent recounts multiple interventions on behalf of OPCW management to try to placate the incensed scientists of the FFM who felt that their investigation was being undermined:

On July 4 there was another intervention. Fairweather, the chef de cabinet, invited several members of the drafting team to his office. There they found three US officials who were cursorily introduced without making clear which US agencies they represented. The Americans told them emphatically that the Syrian regime had conducted a gas attack, and that the two cylinders found on the roof and upper floor of the building contained 170 kilograms of chlorine. The inspectors left Fairweather’s office, feeling that the invitation to the Americans to address them was unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW’s declared principles of independence and impartiality.

Steele told BBC News that he believes that the entire incident had been a fake propaganda event staged by the Jaysh al-islam terrorists to bring American intervention into the region against their Syrian enemies.

SOURCE: The Douma Hoax: Anatomy of a False Flag

CORBETT: Now, if you’re unfamiliar with the Douma hoax in general, I would highly suggest you take a look at that full report because there are some wild twists and turns in that story. But, long story short, yes, the OPCW was part—organizationally, institutionally—of a cover-up. The inspectors on the ground seemed to be accurately reporting what they were finding, but those those accurate reports did not find their way into the final report.

And there was a lot going on, including, of course, intimidation by US government representatives who showed up? “Who are they? What agency do they represent? Well, a cursory introduction later, they’re telling us what we saw on the ground.” You’d better believe those investigators understood they were being intimidated in that moment. So, that’s another way that these types of operations can be run.

Let’s look at more examples. Let’s go to number eight on our list of cover-ups.

And of course, we have to talk about COVID, the “defining moment of our lives,” everybody. The incredible pandemic that locked us all down and we all had to—oh, wait, it was a hoax that was then covered up. And we can get that from many different examples. But let’s take a look at one specific example of this that I wrote about last November, “Can the COVID Scamsters Stick the Landing?” where I talked about the UK COVID-19 inquiry, which people might have heard about. If you’re in the UK, you probably heard about it. If you’re not, you might have seen some of the headlines that came out about it, where—oh my God!—it’s a good thing that we locked everyone down because what would have happened otherwise?

Specifically, I write here that “the UK Covid-19 Inquiry delivered its verdict that the lockdowns the UK government imposed during the scamdemic were ‘too little, too late‘ and that they could have saved 23,000 lives by locking down earlier.”

And I point to this Off Guardian tweet: “To be clear, when Baroness What’s-Her-Name says ‘all the evidence suggests an earlier lockdown would have saved 23,000 lives,’ the ‘evidence’ she’s referring to is one modeling paper written by a man who thought lockdown was so pointless he broke it to visit his own mistress.”

Of course.

For those who don’t know, the tweet is referring to this passage from the inquiry’s report:

Professor Ferguson told the Inquiry that in later work which analyzed the impact of restrictions in England: “we explicitly modelled the counterfactual scenario of moving the lockdown of 23rd March back to 16th March, and estimated mortality … would have been reduced by 48%.“ That could have equated to a reduction in deaths in England from 48,600 to approximately 25,600 in the first wave up to 1 July 2020.

“Professor Ferguson” is, lest we forget, Neil Ferguson, the “virus modeller” (or should that be the “Liberal Lysenko“?) from Imperial College London who produced the computer model suggesting that 500,000 Britons were destined for the grave unless the UK government imposed a national lockdown. Ferguson has since walked back that claim and now denies calling for a lockdown at all, but it should be kept in mind that his about-face came after he was caught breaking the UK lockdown restrictions to carry on an affair with his married lover.

I’ll end the quote there. There’s more to that story.

But yes, this is another great way of getting the claim out there at any rate, because I’m sure a lot of people in the UK and elsewhere heard that dramatic claim: “We could have saved 23,000 lives by locking down earlier!” But who is going to bother to actually read the report, actually find that claim in the report, and then actually follow that claim through to its reference to find out where it’s coming from and how those numbers were arrived at? Not one in a thousand people would do that. If they did, they’d discover that, of course, it’s a pile of nonsense, turtles all the way down, “just trust us, bro,” etc.

Those are the types of ways that you can take a claim that you want to be out there in the public and make it a big headline news story that will be graciously and slavishly covered by the establishment press because, hey, you sent it in an official report in an official setting. It doesn’t matter if it was all statistical nonsense based on bad science. It’s in the official record now. What are you going to do about it?

So, that’s another way that these types of cover-ups can be effected. We’ve looked at a lot of different ways that cover-ups can be effected in today’s episode. We’ve looked at the ways to set the terms of reference of an inquiry or just to control who’s going to be on the investigation committee or to intimidate witnesses or to control what’s fake and phony statistics and scientific facts get entered into the record. All of these other ways that you can actually take real information about the real world and then cover it up by a sleight of hand.

So here’s the question: given what we’ve learned from the first eight examples, can we identify a cover-up that is taking place in real time as it is happening?

SENATOR DICK DURBIN: Attorney General Bondi, why did you publicly claim to have the Epstein client list waiting for your review and then produce nothing relevant to that claim?

ATTORNEY GENERAL PAMELA BONDI: Senator Durbin, if you listen to my entire clip on that, I said I had not reviewed it yet, that it was sitting on my desk—along with the JFK files, the Martin Luther King files—and I said I had not yet reviewed it. And if you’ve seen our memo on Epstein, you will see our memo on Epstein clearly points out that there was no client list.

SOURCE: WATCH: Bondi and Durbin back-and-forth over alleged Epstein client list | LiveNOW from FOX

MARIA BARTIROMO: You said Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide. [Laughter.] People don’t believe it.

FBI DIRECTOR KASH PATEL: Well, I mean, listen. They have a right to their opinion. But as someone who has worked as a public defender, as a prosecutor who’s been in that prison system, who’s been in the Metropolitan Detention Center, who’s being in segregated housing, you to know a suicide when you see one, and that’s what that was.

FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR DAN BONGINO: He killed himself. Again, you want me to—? I’ve seen the whole file.

SOURCE: ‘WAVE OF TRANSPARENCY’: FBI director hints at agency’s move to rebuild Americans’ trust

CORBETT: Ahhh, of course! And so we arrive at the ninth and final example of today’s cavalcade of cover-ups: the Epstein cover-up.

Yes, of course. We all know at this point that a cover-up is ongoing, has been ongoing for decades, really, at this point, but certainly in a concerted and concentrated fashion in the past year or two. And we can all see it happening right there, spilling out on the daily news feeds. Yes, this is a cover-up. We can see it happening in real time.

And what can we learn from it? What tactics are being employed here? Well, just as one obvious example, we have media complicity in this cover-up, both mainstream establishment media and alternative media.

AMY ROBACH: I had this interview with Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the air. First of all, I was told, ‘Who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.” Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will that we—that also quashed the story. And then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in because of the planes.

She told me everything. She had pictures, she had everything. She was in hiding for twelve years. We convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us. It was unbelievable what we had. Clinton. We had everything.

SOURCE: BREAKING: @abcnews anchor @arobach caught on ‘hot mic’ in August disgustedly exposing networks decision to strategically spike bombshell investigation into Jefferey Esptein over THREE YEARS AGO

REPORTER: Conservative political commentators were spotted at the White House holding binders labeled “The Epstein Files” just hours after attorney general Pam Bondi pledged transparency in the release of the documents. The Justice Department has yet to release the documents to the general public, leaving many to question what exactly was in the binders. Among those holding the binders were prominent right-wing figures including Rogan O’Handleyk, Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec and Chaya Raichik, also known as “Libs of Tik Tok.”

BONDI: What you’re going to see hopefully tomorrow is a lot of flight logs, a lot of names, a lot of information, but it’s pretty sick what that man did.

SOURCE: DOJ, pledging full transparency on Epstein files, releases them to influencers first

CORBETT: And we have plea deals, that magical courtroom device by which everyone involved in some ongoing crime can benefit. Not only the accused who are directly implicated in the crime but, of course, all of their accomplices and co-conspirators who can get covered under the seal of the plea deal.

CORBETT: We can talk about other connections that happened in the first Trump administration. For example, we all know by now that Trump’s labor secretary in his first term, Alex Acosta, was the one who signed off on Epstein’s sweetheart plea deal back in the 2000s, back when Epstein was first arrested for soliciting underage prostitutes. And he got that sweetheart deal and everything got swept under the rug. And he got a little slap on the wrist because of the plea deal that he managed to make with Alex Acosta. And Acosta, we know, said he was told to leave Epstein alone because he, quote, “belonged to intelligence.”

SOURCE: Episode 486 – Donald and Jeffrey’s Wonderful Secret

CORBETT: We know that Trump did, when Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested, wish her well. Not once, but twice! He doubled down on it! Yes, he absolutely does wish Ghislaine Maxwell well.

And, well, she is doing well at this point. Because, of course, we know she was arrested and sentenced for trafficking underage girls to…no one, apparently. But we do know that she is now at Club Fed, or should that be Camp Cupcake? “Ghislaine Maxwell allowed ‘unlimited amount’ of toilet paper in ‘Camp Cupcake’ prison,” in which she’s apparently writing letters talking about how much she’s enjoying her new stay in her new digs. And oh, by the way, her prison, her fellow prison inmates are petrified of Ghislaine Maxwell and the power that she seems to wield over this minimum security prison that she’s been shoveled off to as she woos Trump for an early release.

And why on earth would she expect that? Oh, that’s right. Because of course, as we all remember earlier this year, Ghislaine Maxwell, who wants a pardon, says she never saw Trump in any inappropriate setting. Wow. Okay. Perfectly on the level there. What level? I will leave you to decide for yourself.

SOURCE: Episode 486 – Donald and Jeffrey’s Wonderful Secret

CORBETT: And how about intimidation of witnesses? Well, have we heard any threats to various people being kicked around as a result of what they may or may not know about the Epstein saga?

LES WEXNER: And I said, “Well, why don’t we keep inventories of stuff?” And she said, “Yeah, I could do that.” So she did that as—that’s kind of a puny example, but I wouldn’t have had the idea, but then all the things were inventoried. That wasn’t work for me or Jeffrey. It was just regularly done.

LAWYER: I will fucking kill you if you answer another question with more than five words, OK?

SOURCE: “I will fucking kill you if you answer another question with more than five words, okay.”:

Now, to be fair, it’s not that I think that Wexner needs any particular incentive or intimidation in order to keep his silence on what he knows about the Epstein operation given how neck deep—or is it eyeball deep?—he was in that operation as, potentially. the progenitor of that operation. But perhaps just in his senility, he needed his legal counsel to subtly remind him not to go too far with his testimony, right? Anyway, yes, I think we all understand there is a cover-up underway on this issue.

And oh, yeah, another way to cover up an issue might be to, I don’t know, launch a war, potentially World War III, to suddenly make the number one pressing political issue that everyone has their attention focused on—that thing that, “Oh, yeah, I kind of vaguely remember that from the beginning of the year. Whatever. Anyway, back to the Iran war.”

So, yes, there are many, many ways that a cover-up can be put into action. And we have seen many of those techniques being used in the Epstein case in particular, which is why it’s so instructive as an example on this list. And one that is obviously still ongoing. Yes, in case you have been distracted by other things—yes, things that are important that are taking place in the world. But let’s not forget that the Epstein investigation cover-up is still ongoing and different details continue to emerge.

And there are still people out there who are doing yeoman’s work in exposing that cover-up as it is taking place in real time and putting valuable information out there in the public record. One example of that is Sayer Ji, who continues to document and really go down the rabbit hole on the Bill Gates/Epstein connection and what is being revealed through so many different documents and emails and other things that are coming to light.

So, I hope people are staying tuned and continuing to follow Sayer Ji’s investigation. And if so, you may have seen this recent article breaking BREAKING: Bill Gates Will Testify Before House Oversight on June 10 — Here’s What the Federal Archive Says He’ll Have to Answer For. And it goes through the information that the federal investigators should be looking at and should be pressing Bill Gates on if there was a real investigation going on.

Now, obviously, I am not expecting that this will result in the conviction/prosecution of Bill Gates or really, ultimately, in anything, in a legal sense, of Bill Gates. Hopefully, his reputation has been ruined to the point where he can no longer hide behind his philanthropic savior mask. But I’m not holding my breath for any actual justice to come from this cover-up. But maybe some more nuggets of information will come to light. At any rate, we can use this as a teaching opportunity for the general public to teach them about some of the things that Bill Gates has been involved in and how that covers some of the other tentacles of the Epstein operation. Not just the political pedophilia blackmail angle, but things like the construction of the pandemic as a business model, which, again, Sayer Ji has been documenting. So, I hope people will take a look at that article, spread it to others.

I think that this is, again, an instructive example of a cover up that is taking place in real time. So, I think it is something that we can use all of this knowledge from today to bring our resources onto exposing this cover up as it is happening, which is probably the only time at which you can actively and successfully divert a cover-up operation from taking place.

Having said that, there’s a lot of information in today’s episode. So if you are interested in that information, please go to corbettreport.com/coverup for the complete hyperlinked transcript. Everything that I say in today’s episode, all of the videos that are played, every piece of information linked so you can go follow it through to its source and find more information on every one of these cover ups. There’s a lot more to say about each and every one of them.

And I bet that you, whoever you are in the crowd, probably can think of, I don’t know, a half dozen, maybe a dozen, maybe a hundred other examples of cover-up operations and the things that they can teach us about how these operations work. If you are in that crowd, and if that is something that pertains to you, then why not share it with others? Log in to corbettreport.com and leave your observations in the comment section. What other cover-ups do you think are good case studies to look at as we go down this cover-up rabbit hole?

That being said, I think we’re going to leave this exploration here for today. James Corbett here, corbettreport.com, thanking you for investing your time in today’s exploration. And I’m looking forward to talking to you again in the near future.

Source link