Alright now this is, this I have to tell you folks, this is an interview I have been waiting for, for a long time. And just as an aside, the Rolling Stone magazine can kiss my butt, alright? I just had to throw that out there. Those people who know what I’m talking about, you know what I’m talking about. I ain’t gonna give them any credit or any…just leave it at that. A couple of Rolling Stone interview people in here and they turn out a trash piece, but what do you expect? Douglas Hagmann commenting at the 32.53 mark on the November 22, 2017 Hagmann Report entitled, The Day the Music Died, JFK 54 Years Ago: St. John Hunt & Pastor Lankford.
If you were listening to that Doug Hagmann statement, would your curiosity be piqued? Would you ask, what Rolling Stone interview? Why does he think it is a trash article? It took place where? When? To answer those questions which Doug Hagmann has refused to address as a gentleman scholar, let’s begin with an audio clip made in April 2017 when those two intrepid reporters came knocking on the door.
Female Reporter: Hi! Are you Mrs. Hagmann?
Renee Hagmann: Yeah, Renee Hagmann. (dogs loudly barking, woof woof, yap, yap yap…) She won’t bite.
Female Reporter: So we went to his basement studio which is unbelievably decked out; there’s an anchor chair and everything and we asked for the court room ready documents and he said they were at the copiers and that he hadn’t kept a copy. I mean on the 2nd he made a big declaration..
Doug Hagmann: yeah..
Female Reporter:..to the world
Doug Hagmann: Yes, I did. And that is based on the, I made that based in large part on information I got, received from my sources.
Female Reporter: OK, and you trust them so much you don’t have to go back and like check it with anybody. You really believe that.
Doug Hagmann: I think that’s a little bit uhh, no, It’s I think that there was enough supporting evidence or supporting documentation on the evidence which was documentation to substantiate the veracity of his assertions…now..
Female Reporter: What documentation? We don’t have any!
Doug Hagmann: OK, if you look at, OK, well that’s true, now, we don’t have any direct…You’re going to hit me, aren’t you?
AND HIT HIM, SHE DID! Amanda Robb has since published a 13 page, well written and well researched article reflecting investigative journalism at its best, in the Rolling Stone magazine.
I transcribed the above conversation between reporter Amanda Robb and Douglas J. Hagmann of the Hagmann Report from a 1.13 minute Revealnews.org/podcast. More than 6 months after that interview, on November 16, 2017, Rollingstone.com published Amanda Robb’s article entitled, Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal. This extensive investigative piece is subtitled, Inside the web of conspiracy theorists, Russian operatives, Trump campaigners and Twitter bits who manufactured the ‘news’ that Hillary Clinton ran a pizza-restaurant child-sex ring. Amanda Robb also gives credit to the reporting of Aaron Sankin, Laura Starecheski, Michael Corey, Jaime Longoria and Jasper Craven as she notes that “this story was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund and Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting.
The Rollingstone article extensively details the explosive take off of the Pizzagate Scandal through the internet by right-wing oriented disinformation sources. I printed off a copy of this article so I could underline points of interest, and what is notable is the number of persons who were interviewed and quoted who have been tracking the effects of both automated and human-hands-on methods of transmitting propaganda throughout social media. Also Amanda Robb traces the human element of the Pizzagate story, and how that assisted the spread of false and defamatory stories.
Of most interest to the readers of Tracking The Leopard Meroz is the interview of Doug Hagmann. Rolling Stone writer Amanda Robb explains that “In April, Hagmann agreed to meet with me for a look at his ‘courtroom-ready’ documents on Pizzagate. His split-level home in Erie, Pennsylvania, is on a quiet leafy street. In the front yard, there’s a small waterfall, a rock garden and a large sign warning that the place is under surveillance. He greeted me in the foyer wearing a suit and tie, his hair slicked back with Brylcreem, and led the way downstairs to his basement broadcast center.”
Continuing, Robb says, “In October 2016, Hagmann claimed, he ‘communicated’ with a friend who knows someone affiliated with the NYPD. The friend of the friend had been on the ‘task force’ that secured Weiner’s computer and had copied documents onto a thumb drive ‘proving’ Clinton and her associates were involved in pedophilia. ‘Now, I can’t get him to give me the thumb drive,’ he said. “Or even admit to the fact that he had it.’ When I asked how he knew the files existed, he said, ‘I trust my source’.”
“When I asked if he had verified anything, Hagmann shuffled some papers, lifting one sheet by a corner, like a poker player. With apparent reluctance, he turned over a color copy of an image showing a clean, uninjured boy wearing a green T-shirt in a dog cage.” Amanda Robb asks Hagmann what this has to do with Hillary Clinton. “…the following month, at Awaken to the Shakin’, a Bible conference in Gurnee, Illinois, Hagmann presented his evidence to an audience of about 40 middle-aged churchgoers. His courtroom-ready exhibits included the Wikipedia entry for ‘fake news’, the New Oxford Dictionary definition of ‘post truth,’ a quote by John Wayne, a photo of people sitting on a couch wearing horse masks, a photo of scars on the fingers of John Podesta. And the kicker- a photo of a decapitated body that Hagmann said was a victim of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer and another of a sculpture by Louise Bourgeois in Tony Podesta’s home, ironically titled ‘The Arch of Hysteria.’ The two images, he said, are shockingly similar.”
So what impact did Douglas Hagmann have with his “courtroom ready” fake news story across the internet? Amanda Robb states, “It was Hagmann who-four days after Carmen Katz first posted the story and six days before Election Day- brought Pizzagate from social media to fake news’ largest stage. On the November 2nd broadcast of Infowars, arguably the most influential conspiracy-theory outlet in the country, with 7.7 million unique visitors to its website a month, Alex Jones asked Hagmann to tell his audience what sources had revealed about the emails recovered on Weiner’s computer. “(T)he most disgusting aspect of this is the sexual angle,” Hagmann said. “I don’t want to be graphic or gross here….Based on my source, Hillary did in fact participate on some of the junkets on the Lolita Express.”
Amanda Robb adds, “The story took off. Google Trends measures interest in topics among the 1.17 billion users of its search engine on a 0-100 scale. On October 29th, the day Katz posted the story on Facebook, searches for “Hillary” and “pedophile” ranked zero. Ninety-six hours later, when Hagmann “broke” the story on InfoWars, they scored 100.”
The higher the numbers of viewers, the greater the monetary rewards; the higher the amount of filthy lucre, the greater the guilt of the one who profited from bearing false witness
I find it interesting that the information by Rolling Stone that Alex Jones receives about 7.7 million unique visitors to its website a month. Recently, I was listening to the Doug Hagmann Radio Show which airs in the morning, and at the 25.32 mark of the November 14, 2017 broadcast, Criminality of the Communist Progressives & Censorship of the Truth Seekers”, Hagmann states, “We’ve got a pretty formidable footprint in the Alternative Media…our program reaches I don’t know-downloads last year on just one platform alone, 70 some million downloads uh 100 some countries. I don’t know, we’re heard all over the world.” It is difficult to compare Hagmann’s numbers with those of Alex Jones as it does not appear that he is discussing unique viewers, but rather the number of views. However, 70 million a year downloads is 5.8 million a month, and that is an impressive statistic.
Hagmann reverses his opinion of secret sources
I have long questioned the veracity of Doug Hagmann’s sources, and especially those who have hidden their true identity behind a pseudonym, so I was interested in the self serving commentary of Hagmann just one day before the Rolling Stone article was published. Recall that Amanda Robb had asked to see his courtroom ready documentation on Pizzagate which he had received from sources which he does not name, and he also failed to prove that his documentation even exists, by claiming that it was at the copier’s. Here is what Hagmann had to say about another form of hidden sources; those who hide their identity behind a pseudonym.
On the November 15, 2017 Doug Hagmann Show called News, Clues and Hints, at the 28.22 mark the topic of the recent internet sensation called Q is remarked upon. “…my whole gut instinct about this, is that we are being gamed. Now does that make the information that is being, um, posted by Q any less real or whatever,– or I just guess briefly what I’m talking about that is, there is an anonymous character, anonymous individual, or anonymous entity who is referenced just simply by the letter Q who has posted a series numerous times, a series of questions of statements, really one-liners if you will, about uh what’s really currently taking place. And it’s almost like this mental jigsaw puzzle with these supposed clues about what’s really going on. And the lot, I mean we’re talking a lot, and I mean tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people involved in attempting to decipher what Q meant.”
Hagmann continues, “Well my whole idea is very simple, with respect to this: If you have information specific to a certain topic or a crime or activity just come out and say it and identify yourself as you say it. Um, if you noticed in our flagship program, we have not, and we will not any longer allow anyone on our program who does not identify themselves or let me clarify this, we have to know their full identity to us and the only way someone is getting on our program using a pseudonym or not being named with their full name so everyone can know who they are-the only way they’re….the only way we’ll bring someone like that on is if there is a legitimate, and by legitimate, I’m talking about an individual who is going to be testifying before Congress, or testifying in a jury trial or trial situations that has information relevant to current events. So in other words, we will grant anonymity only if it’s truly legitimate and will be spelled out before they appear on our program and that’s just standard operating procedure now.”
“So I have kind of a problem with the way the information by this anonymous individual is being thrown out there” Douglas Hagmann explains, “because if you really look at all of the information, and again, if you don’t know what I’m talking about, don’t worry about it. But if you look at all of the statements, questions, partial statements, the one liners, it’s almost it, it could be the byproduct or the direct product of someone’s own analysis of open sourced data, so I’m not, I’m not super-impressed, uh I’m not even impressed. I’m somewhat underwhelmed, I suppose, but I’m watching it none the less…”.
Well, Douglas Hagmann, I have a problem with the exception you allow in your new pseudonym policy. Remember your interview with Rebekah Roth, who claimed to have real documentation which she would not reveal, yet wanted to sell her fictional books so that we might all guess what that evidence might be? She claimed that someone of high import wanted her to testify before Congress. So under your new policy, would she be exempt from your pseudonym policy? Why have any exceptions at all?
One last quote from the Rolling Stone story, Anatomy of A Fake News Scandal, ” As Harvard’s Benkler puts it, ‘The right-wing-media ecosystem had become so hyperpartisan, so self-referential and so superinsular it often simply ignored information that’s disconfirming.’ ” Ignored information that’s disconfirming. That sums up Doug Hagmann’s approach to truth telling, especially when it comes to the part he has played in spreading false information on the internet.