PDA

View Full Version : The Terror of Fake News



Pages : 1 [2]

astralis
02 Apr 17,, 04:34
So for this to be effective, rather than redacting the names and identifiers of wiretapped conversations that include Americans, said Americans are positively identified and search algorithms tasked with searching Trump and Trump associates are run, results forwarded to Comey.

The only way it could work of course, given the literally millions of calls made per day, is as I outlined above.

all of this is conjecture. there is almost certainly other forms of intelligence or investigative leads that would allow for manageable monitoring of foreign nationals. or as you say, certain people might be unmasked if they are part of the investigation (there are senior officials with the power to do so).

we don't know, nor am i interested in discussing the details here. suffice it to say that when the FBI concludes its investigation, there will likely be multiple threads for the investigative committee to look at.

in any case, on a broader note, i think Mark Cuban generally has the right idea:

https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/848275160721502209

Parihaka
02 Apr 17,, 05:06
all of this is conjecture. there is almost certainly other forms of intelligence or investigative leads that would allow for manageable monitoring of foreign nationals. or as you say, certain people might be unmasked if they are part of the investigation (there are senior officials with the power to do so).

we don't know, nor am i interested in discussing the details here. suffice it to say that when the FBI concludes its investigation, there will likely be multiple threads for the investigative committee to look at.

in any case, on a broader note, i think Mark Cuban generally has the right idea:

https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/848275160721502209

You'll just have to trust me on this. There's far to much recording done to use humans to monitor conversations or who called who. There has to be algorithms in place to pick out names, numbers and keywords. Then then has to be a secondary process to filter those conversations that are pertinent to the FBI investigation. The Obama admin provided the NSA the ability to pass on those intercepts to the FBI and others without masking US citizens. None of it is illegal because it's monitoring foreign nationals, the only grey area is the use of the term "incidental". It's not incidental when there's a software command to identify Trump Inc. members, Flynn being a case in point. His phone conversations would not have been picked up unless there was an instruction to pick them up.

DOR
02 Apr 17,, 08:15
I don’t know which is more fun (or, more depressing): watching the 45th Administration step on its own dick on a daily basis, or judging the gymnastic agility with which its knee-jerk reactionary friends try to defend it.

But, the tone is decidedly unWabbit. Time to raise our game, folks, and get out of the name calling.

YellowFever
02 Apr 17,, 18:59
YF,



yes, i know you think that. but what i was referring to was the original argument that you think Republicans wouldn't have played politics if the Flynn affair happened under a Democrat.

your riposte deflected this onto the media, not the political party.

I thought I answered you but I apologize if my answer was not clear enough.

Of course I think the Republicans would have played politics. I'm the one that called the parties "Assholes" and 'Assholes-light".

The difference is whatever bullshit the Republicans pull out is identified as such clearly and rapidly by the mainstream media and dismissed but that is not happening when the Democrats drag out the bullshit because of their biases. It's the main reason why the Russian/Trump thing is continuing.

I wish all journalists treated every politicans like trash (i.e.Dubya) instead of treating some like the messiah (i.e. Obama)

It's ultimagely not good for the Republicans, Democrats and the U.S..

Some people seem to be blinded to that fact because of the Trump Derangment Syndrome.

Parihaka
03 Apr 17,, 15:52
Looks like the media walls are crumbling


White House lawyers last month discovered that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."

The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.
Continues (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel)

After Mike Cernovich (https://medium.com/@Cernovich/susan-rice-requested-unmasking-of-incoming-trump-administration-officials-30085b5cff16) went to press Bloomburg followed. Cernovich also outed Maggie Haberman of the NYT as having sat on the story for at least 48 hours, she's since started confirming the story (https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/848904957050974208) whilst adding the spin (it's Trumps fault!) the NYT is so known for.

Parihaka
04 Apr 17,, 19:53
From knowing 'nothing about anything' acouple of days ago...


"There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to, name not provided," Rice said. If she felt the name of that person was important to understand the significance of the intelligence, she would ask her intelligence analysts for more information, she said.

"They would take that question back, they would put it though a process, and the intelligence community would make a determination about whether the identity of that U.S. person could be provided to me," Rice said. "And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information, as to who the U.S. official was."

This is of course baloney given the volume of data flowing through the system. Someone has to compile material to a request, that is the people have to be named. Rice had to ask for all material regarding Flynn to be presented to her.



Some now very specific allegations are being made


Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered (http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan-rice-ordered-spy-agencies-to-produce-detailed-spreadsheets-involving-trump/) U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election.

Also on Monday, Fox News and Bloomberg News, citing multiple sources reported that Rice had requested the intelligence information that was produced in a highly organized operation. Fox said the unmasked names of Trump aides were given to officials at the National Security Council (NSC), the Department of Defense, James Clapper, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, and John Brennan, Obama’s CIA Director.

Joining Rice in the alleged White House operations was her deputy Ben Rhodes, according to Fox.

JAD_333
04 Apr 17,, 19:58
This has a Trump backer connection. Could be verified by checking MSNBC past programming. I don't have time.



Obama Aide Comes Clean: “We Spied on Trump and Hid the Evidence!”
GOP Presidential March 31, 2017 Uncategorized No Comments

Obama’s former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Evelyn Farkas, made a bombshell admission on MSNBC: the Obama Administration was spying on Donald Trump.

Farkas was commenting on the ongoing investigation between Donald Trump and his ties to Russia—but wound up accidentally confirming Trump’s startling accusation that the Obama White House had set up surveillance on him.

“I was urging my former colleagues and… the people on the Hill… [to] get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration,” said Farkas, in an interview with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski. “Because I had a fear I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.”

Farkas explained that, after the Obama Administration had received intelligence that Trump’s team might be talking to Russia, she urged her friends in the White House to leak as much intelligence as possible—because, once Trump was inaugurated, it would be far harder to link him and his associates to Russia. Leaking classified documents is a federal crime.

But then, Farkas accidentally dropped an even bigger bombshell. She admitted that she was also afraid that the incoming Trump Administration, once they took charge of the executive branch, would figure out that the Obama Administration was spying on them—and they took efforts to cover their tracks.

She added: “If [Trump’s staff] found out how we knew what we knew about… [their] dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew there was more…”

Trump attracted huge controversy for his assertion earlier this month that Obama had wiretapped his campaign team during the 2016 presidential election. While “wiretapping” may not be the right word, more and more evidence continues to come out that Obama and his staff had, in fact, been surveilling Trump’s campaign.

A congressional investigation into the illegal surveillance is ongoing. It’s unclear whether or not they’ve contacted Farkas about her role.



Originally published by Trump Train News.

Parihaka
04 Apr 17,, 20:11
CNN going full fake (https://news.grabien.com/story-cnn-goes-rampage-against-susan-rice-bombshell-instructs-view) with, astonishingly (I really need rolleyes back), McCain along for the ride



Since news broke Monday that the Obama Administration's National Security Adviser, Susan Rice, directed the "unmasking" of NSA intercepts of Trump associates, CNN has raced to shoot down the blockbuster report.
CNN Tonight's Don Lemon went so far as to announce he would ignore the news at all costs.
While interviewing a Democratic congressman, CNN's Chris Cuomo claimed it was "demonstrably untrue" Rice sought surveillance of the Trump team, even as that's exactly what yesterday's reports prove.
Over the last 24 hours, the network has also repeatedly called on its chief national security correspondent -- who was also a political appointee in the Obama White House -- Jim Sciutto, to dismiss the reports as a non-story; Sciutto has even excused Rice claiming ignorance of the unmasking scandal two weeks ago, arguing Rice "wasn't aware" what unmasking Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) was referring to.
And on Tuesday's "New Day," anchor Alisyn Camerota openly pleaded with Sen. John McCain to write-off the news as unimportant.
Last night, Lemon began "CNN Tonight" with an announcement that the Rice report a "fake scandal ginned up by right-wing media and Trump" that he would not be baited into justifying with coverage.
"On this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending," it's legitimate, he said. "Nor will we aid and abet the people trying to misinform you, the American people, by creating a diversion. Not going to do it."

Sciutto also claimed the story was "ginned up" to distract from Trump tweeting that the Trump Tower was "wiretapped," when it was in fact communications were picked up through ordinary NSA surveillance.
"Again, to note by senior intelligence officials who work for both Democrats and Republicans, this appears to be a story, largely ginned up, partly as a distraction from this larger investigation," Sciutto told Anderson Cooper, explaining that "someone close to Ambassador Rice" told him this type of unmasking is "not unusual."
In another appearance, Sciutto even attempted to excuse Rice from claiming to have no knowledge of the unmasking she's been caught orchestrating.
"From her perspective she didn’t know what specific unmasking Devin Nunes and others are talking about, in part because that is something she asks — or asked during the regular course of her work as national security adviser," he said. "I do know from speaking to people yesterday close to her that she doesn’t know specifically what Devin Nunes and others are accusing her of when it comes to unmasking because that was something sets in the regular course of her job."
And in yet another appearance, Sciutto also setup something of a strawman, arguing that the unmasking story is not important because "unmasking is not leaking."
During an interview with Sen. John McCain, CNN's Camerota plainly tried nudging the Arizona senator into dismissing the Rice bombshell:
CAMEROTA: “Okay, senator, I want to move on to other news of the day and that is, as you know, the Trump White House has talked about what they see or they say they see as a controversy of the former national security adviser Susan Rice unmasking a name, someone on team Trump, that was somehow caught up in some incidental collection of surveillance. They say that this is a controversy, it shows that she has done something wildly out of the bounds of normalcy. Is this business as usual for a national security adviser to ask for a name to be revealed, an American name, if she wants to know more or is this some sort of a controversy?”
McCAIN: “I think the circumstances indicate that there’s a possibility that that request could have been politically motivated. But we need to get to the bottom of it. As I’ve said, and I’ll probably say many more times because I’m kind of boring, this is a centipede. A shoe will drop every few days, the latest the meeting in Seychelles. This is a requirement, in my view, why we need a select committee in order to get through all this because there’s lots more shoes that will drop. I can’t make a judgment on what I just heard. She did have the authority to do it. What was the motivation for doing it, I think is the question.”
CAMEROTA: “What we’ve heard from the reporting, is that if she saw a masked name that said American number one had these conversations with Russians at the same time that President Obama had imposed sanctions, wouldn’t that arouse some curiosity on her part?”
McCAIN: “All I can say, Alisyn, is that I don’t know enough to reach a conclusion except to say this is another aspect of this multi-dimensional scandal."
UPDATE: In an interview on MSNBC addressing this story, Susan Rice has now confirmed she unmasked Trump campaign officials, but is denying doing so for political reasons.
Other highlights from the interview:
— Rice on Whether She Unmasked More Trump Officials than Usual: ‘I Don’t Have Any Particular Recollection’
— Susan Rice Admits Pace of Surveilling Trump Team Increased After Election
— Susan Rice on Leaking Flynn’s Call: ‘I Can’t Get into Any Specific Reports’
— Susan Rice Won’t Commit to Testifying About Her Role in Unmasking Trump Team

Looks like Trump was right

43647

snapper
04 Apr 17,, 21:34
The question is why all these Trump aides were picked up on FISA sanctioned SIGINT. If the collected evidence made it reasonable to 'unmask' these US persons then nothing has been done wrong. If Trump is even suspected of collaboration with the election interference (and we know both that he is and part of why) then Evelyn Farkas was acting entirely correctly and prudently.

Parihaka
04 Apr 17,, 21:53
The question is why all these Trump aides were picked up on FISA sanctioned SIGINT.
Because Rice specifically asked for sigint pertaining to them. And Comey et al have already categorically denied any FISA requests were made.

YellowFever
04 Apr 17,, 21:59
This has a Trump backer connection. Could be verified by checking MSNBC past programming. I don't have time.

Last 2 minutes


https://youtu.be/cVGp2FZmVA4

snapper
04 Apr 17,, 22:00
Because Rice specifically asked for sigint pertaining to them. And Comey et al have already categorically denied any FISA requests were made.

Pretty sure you are mistaken regarding Comey. Either that or Comey was mistaken.

Parihaka
04 Apr 17,, 22:12
FBI Director James Comey said during testimony (http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/20/fbi-director-comey-undercuts-trump-on-wiretapping-allegations/) before the House Intelligence Committee on Monday that he has “no information” backing up President Donald Trump’s allegation that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during last year’s presidential election.

Earlier this month, Trump took to Twitter to claim that Obama ordered surveillance on him as a candidate for president.

Comey said that he has no evidence to support that claim.
“With respect to the president’s tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets,” Comey said. “And we have looked carefully inside the FBI.”

Comey added that the Department of Justice authorized him to say that their conclusion is the same as the FBI’s.

“The department has no information that supports those tweets,” he said.

That the FISA requests were fake news was resolved weeks ago.

astralis
04 Apr 17,, 22:31
there is absolutely nothing to indicate that Rice did anything illegal or even grey.

no, she did not ask or receive wiretaps of the campaign. the intercepts that Rice wanted pertained to the Trump transition team, and not only that, these intercepts were between foreign officials or between foreign officials/Trump transition members-- not Trump's campaign team internal discussions.

Parihaka
04 Apr 17,, 22:39
there is absolutely nothing to indicate that Rice did anything illegal or even grey.

no, she did not ask or receive wiretaps of the campaign. the intercepts that Rice wanted pertained to the Trump transition team, and not only that, these intercepts were between foreign officials or between foreign officials/Trump transition members-- not Trump's campaign team internal discussions.
The requested intercepts started a year prior to Trumps nomination, according to several reports. Given that Rice first denied any knowledge, these reports now have credibility.



The unmasked names, (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/03/susan-rice-requested-to-unmask-names-trump-transition-officials-sources-say.html) of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice addresses Libya violence at the White House Monday. (Fox News Photo)Expand / Contract
Rice was ambassador to the UN when she went on Sunday news shows to say the Benghazi attack was prompted by a video. (Fox News Photo)
It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being posed by the sources late Monday.

snapper
04 Apr 17,, 22:43
That the FISA requests were fake news was resolved weeks ago.

You are missing what a FISA warrant is; Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. No Trump and his people were not targeted; they couldn't be anyway under a FISA warrant. Muscovites were targeted to get to the bottom of their attack on US democracy and Trump people kept cropping up...

astralis
04 Apr 17,, 22:52
pari,


The requested intercepts started a year prior to Trumps nomination, according to several reports. Given that Rice first denied any knowledge, these reports now have credibility.

as far as i know the only source saying this is the Daily Caller. and if this is the standard of judging how a report has credibility, that must give old media tons of credibility every time Trump is caught exaggerating, yes?

in any case, this is not a particularly good way for the administration to try to fight charges that it's too close to Russia: "Rice was looking into conversations our team and the Russians were having since the beginning of our campaign!"

Parihaka
04 Apr 17,, 22:54
You are missing what a FISA warrant is; Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. No Trump and his people were not targeted; they couldn't be anyway under a FISA warrant. Muscovites were targeted to get to the bottom of their attack on US democracy and Trump people kept cropping up...

Which is precisely what I said


Because Rice specifically asked for sigint pertaining to them. And Comey et al have already categorically denied any FISA requests were made.

Parihaka
04 Apr 17,, 22:55
pari,



as far as i know the only source saying this is the Daily Caller. and if this is the standard of judging how a report has credibility, that must give old media tons of credibility every time Trump is caught exaggerating, yes?

in any case, this is not a particularly good way for the administration to try to fight charges that it's too close to Russia: "Rice was looking into conversations our team and the Russians were having since the beginning of our campaign!"

Sorry Asty, I've added the quote to my post as you were replying. As I say, given that Rice at first denied any knowledge, these reports now have credibility.


The unmasked names, (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/03/susan-rice-requested-to-unmask-names-trump-transition-officials-sources-say.html) of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice addresses Libya violence at the White House Monday. (Fox News Photo)Expand / Contract
Rice was ambassador to the UN when she went on Sunday news shows to say the Benghazi attack was prompted by a video. (Fox News Photo)
It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being posed by the sources late Monday.

bfng3569
05 Apr 17,, 01:04
CNN going full fake (https://news.grabien.com/story-cnn-goes-rampage-against-susan-rice-bombshell-instructs-view) with, astonishingly (I really need rolleyes back), McCain along for the ride




Looks like Trump was right

43647

The same Susan Rice who claimed Assadds chemical weapons were removed 'in a verifiable way'......


Or was it something I saw on YouTube.....

InfiniteDreams
05 Apr 17,, 07:11
Schiff is awfully quiet after looking at the intel.

Parihaka
05 Apr 17,, 07:49
Schiff is awfully quiet after looking at the intel.
A positive mouse. Last thing he wants is the database she compiled made public. McCain's suddenly STFU as well.
Don't worry though, they'll be back demanding war with Russia by the end of the week. After all, it was Putin who made Rice do it.

Parihaka
05 Apr 17,, 09:09
The Daily caller stands by its claim that Rice had spreadsheets compiled of Trump Inc.


In response to a question Tuesday (http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan-rice-ordered-spy-agencies-to-produce-detailed-spreadsheets-involving-trump/) from NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell, former Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied that she “prepared” spreadsheets of surveilled telephone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides. The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group, however, reported that Rice “ordered” the spreadsheets to be produced.

In addition, former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, one of TheDCNF’s sources, said Tuesday in response to Rice that her denial “would come as quite a surprise to the government officials who have reviewed dozens of those spreadsheets.”

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday

Gun Grape
05 Apr 17,, 10:56
Some background on the person that broke the Rice "Story".

I bet Fox news is also sticking with the story.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-jr-proposes-conspiracy-theorist-for-pulitzer-for-breaking-susan-rice-story-162928866.html


Trump administration officials and allies were out in force this week promoting the story that Susan Rice, national security adviser in the Obama administration, requested the names of Americans who were caught up in surveillance of Russian officials during last year’s presidential campaign and transition. The most recent, and enthusiastic, endorsement came from Donald Trump, Jr., who proposes the writer who broke the story for a Pulitzer Prize.

“Congrats to @Cernovich for breaking the #SusanRice story,” tweeted Trump Jr. Tuesday morning. “In a long gone time of unbiased journalism he’d win the Pulitzer, but not today!”

Trump. Jr was praising a story published over the weekend by Mike Cernovich, a self-described “free speech activist” and writer, claiming that Rice was behind the request to “unmask” incoming Trump officials whose communications were picked up by intelligence agencies. The names of Americans that appear in transcripts of intercepted communications are routinely disguised, or “masked,” but officials can request to see them for law enforcement or national security reasons. There is no implication that Rice broke the law by her request, but leaking the information to the media, or using it for political purposes, could be ethically (or legally) problematic.

“I leaked nothing to nobody,” said Rice in a Tuesday afternoon interview about the allegations with MSNBC. “Never have, never would.”

Before the Rice story broke, Cernovich was best known as a leading promoter of the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory, which claimed that a Washington, D.C., pizza establishment was the front for a pedophilia ring involving former Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. The hysteria over Pizzagate led to a North Carolina man named Edgar M. Welch driving to Comet Ping Pong in Washington and firing shots from an AR-15 inside the restaurant. Welch told the New York Times that he “just wanted to do some good and went about it the wrong way.”

Trump Jr. is not the first member of the White House to promote Cernovich’s work. Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn promoted Cernovich’s book, “The Gorilla Mindset,” on Twitter in October. When Cernovich was interviewed as part of a “60 Minutes” segment on fake news last month, White House adviser Kellyanne Conway called it a “ratings bonanza” and urged everyone to watch.

Cernovich, who describes himself as an author, journalist and documentarian, is one of the most popular alt-right personalities online. In addition to his “60 Minutes” appearance, he was the subject of an October New Yorker profile that laid out his path to notoriety.

“I use trolling tactics to build my brand,” Cernovich told the New Yorker.

Cernovich’s “trolling” has manifested itself in a variety of ways. He was an early figure in Gamergate, which targeted feminists in the video-game industry. He has likened diversity to “white genocide,” stated that date rape isn’t a real thing and said the Black Lives Matter movement “regularly slaughters the innocent.”

Cernovich is not the only conspiracy theorist with a connection to the White House. Then-candidate Donald Trump did a 30-minute interview with Alex Jones’ InfoWars site in December 2015, calling Jones’ reputation “amazing.” Jones has touted a number of unsubstantiated theories, including that 9/11 was an inside job, that chemicals in juice boxes are turning children gay and that a number of politicians, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are actually demons.

Last month Jones apologized for the InfoWars role in promoting Pizzagate. Welch, the gunman who investigated Pizzagate on his own, said he had listened to Jones.

Trump Jr.’s promotion of Cernovich for a Pulitzer faces at least one obstacle: Cernovich himself has admitted that the actual reporting was done by two mainstream journalists, Eli Lake of Bloomberg News and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times. Cernovich said he was tipped off by disgruntled colleagues in the two newsrooms, who suspected the publications were sitting on a story that could have embarrassed the Obama administration.

Parihaka
05 Apr 17,, 11:58
Some background on the person that broke the Rice "Story".

I bet Fox news is also sticking with the story.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-jr-proposes-conspiracy-theorist-for-pulitzer-for-breaking-susan-rice-story-162928866.html

Except of course Rice has admitted to everything in the story except that she kept a spreadsheet. Otherwise it's all public fact. I can show you the interviews and transcripts if you like.

astralis
05 Apr 17,, 15:11
by all means, drag Rice up to testify, but it's still one big nothing-burger.

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/sorry-susan-rice-not-smoking-gun/

Sorry, But Susan Rice Is Not Your ‘Smoking Gun’

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images

This week, multiple news outlets reported that Susan Rice, former national security adviser to Barack Obama, had made several requests to “unmask” the names of Trump transition team members from intelligence reports, in order to reveal their redacted names. But while several politicians and pundits have called conspiracy, the reality is likely much more mundane. There’s no fire here. There’s barely any smoke.

The uproar over the Rice reports—senator Rand Paul (R-KY) went so far as to call it a “smoking gun”—has escalated to the point that at least one senator demanded she testify under oath. This outrage relies on a surface-level understanding of how US surveillance works, and Rice’s previous role in that process. It’s secretive, complicated stuff—which makes it all the more important to get right.

Trump Cards

Understanding the allegations against Rice, and why they’re dangerously overhyped, requires a very quick stroll through the last several weeks of President Donald Trump’s claims that the intelligence community, at Obama’s direction, spied on him throughout last year’s campaign.

Exactly a month ago, Trump tweeted that Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower. Lacking any evidence to support that specific claim, White House officials secretly shared unrelated intelligence reports with House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes, who obligingly relayed their existence to the media. The classified report Nunes presented amounted to vague claims of “incidental collection,” ostensibly intended to lend credence to Trump’s original claims. Nunes shared with the press, among other things, his alarm that the real names of certain Trump transition team members appeared in the report, rather than “US PERSON 1” or some similar anonymizing label—a practice known as “unmasking.”

Trump and Surveillance

So much to unpack, already! First: A US citizen’s name appearing in an intelligence report does not mean that person was the target of a surveillance operation. They’re more likely to have been on the other end of a phone call or email with a foreign national, one that the intelligence community believes to have some sort of value, and received clearance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to surveil. People like, say, the sort of diplomats and foreign officials with whom the Trump transition team would have communicated extensively. It’s known as “incidental collection,” and it’s both totally legal and completely unsurprising.

In cases of incidental collection under FISA, the agency who garnered the material automatically “masks” the names of any US citizens. Masking provides an important Fourth Amendment safeguard—but it’s also not an inalienable right.

“The most commonly used standard by which a national security official can ask for a US person named to be unmasked is: Is the identity necessary to understand the foreign intelligence value of the information?” says Carrie Cordero, a national security lawyer who has worked directly on FISA process issues.

This is a standard practice. Elizabeth Goitein, Brennan Center for Justice

Frequently, it is. According to a the intelligence community’s 2016 transparency report, in 2015 the NSA issued 4,290 reports that included identifying information about US citizens under FISA’s Section 702, which allows for surveillance of non-US individuals. In 1,122 of those cases, the agency ultimately unmasked the information.

“This is a standard practice,” says Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program.

There’s nothing inherently suspicious about incidental collection, and unmasking happens with decent regularity. The only potential scandal that could erupt from some such practices would relate to who requested the unmasking, and why? Which brings us to Susan Rice.
Masked Marauders

It’s easy enough to see how a senior Obama administration official requesting the unmasking of Trump associates could cause a tempest. But less so when you consider the specific associate.

“The national security advisor, every day, as part of the National Security Council, gets a compilation of intelligence reports every morning,” says Goitein. “To the extent that the reports include US person information that has been masked, per standard procedure, you would certainly expect the people who received those reports to be among the people who are requesting the unmasking.”

That aligns with a brief interview Rice gave to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a US person was referred to, name not provided,” Rice said. “Sometimes in that context in order to understand the importance of that report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request the information as to who that US official was.”

All of which, again, isn’t just legal. It’s routine, especially for someone in Rice’s position at the time.

“There’s certainly nothing illegal about it,” says Cordero. “The decision to request an unmask is a judgment call based on an individual’s national security responsibilities, and their need to understand the context.”

It’s also not “leaking,” as some pundits have characterized it. Unmasked intelligence reports are still intended to remain within a relatively small circle of intelligence officials. There’s no presumption that the names will eventually become public. In fact, in this instance, the public only knows about the unmasking in the first place because the White House told Nunes that it had occurred and he went to the media with it.

There’s also a distinction, which seems to have been lost in the furor, between requesting an unmasking and receiving approval. Rice herself can only ask; as NSA head Mike Rogers testified before the House Intelligence Committee last month, only 20 individuals within the agency are authorized to approve those requests.

“They receive specific training, there are specific controls put in place in terms of our ability to disseminate information out of the databases associated with US persons,” Rogers said at the time. What that means is that the NSA itself agreed that the instances in which Rice requested unmasking warranted that action.

Looking through the fog of all these unfamiliar practices and terms can be exhausting, and it’s easy to see how, without a clear view, the routine could seem nefarious. But just as Trump or his associates being named as part of incidental collection doesn’t indicate any wrongdoing on their part, neither does asking for unmasking to better understand intelligence reports—when you’re the national security adviser, no less—point to any kind of grand conspiracy.

What’s slowly emerging from the Rice accusations isn’t a smoking gun at all. It’s the gears of bureaucracy, grinding as confoundingly in spydom as it does everywhere else.

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 15:47
Only problem is 2 days of digging into "Ricegate" has produced more circumstantial evidence against Rice than 100 days and thousands of "journalists" that literally hate Trump could do to build a case against a Putin/Trump collusion.

Cernovich's is on record as saying he got this story because journalists at Bloomberg and NYC were sitting on it and people there leaked it to him.

Must be true because within 10 hours of him releasing it on Twitter, those respective journalists were falling over themselves to get it out and trying to take credit for breaking it.

Wonder why they did that if it was such a nothing burger.

astralis
05 Apr 17,, 16:05
YF,


Only problem is 2 days of digging into "Ricegate" has produced more circumstantial evidence against Rice than 100 days and thousands of "journalists" that literally hate Trump could do to build a case against a Putin/Trump collusion.

when the FBI is looking into the possibility of said collusion, i would say that your comparison of whom has more circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing might be a bit off...:-)

as the article mentions, if Rice actually did anything illegal then the implication is that large portions of our intelligence community were also complicit in aiding such illegal deeds. and somehow kept it all secret until now.

in any case, given the below, I would argue that had Rice -not- looked into it, that would be dereliction of duty.

====

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-trump-adviser-admits-to-2015-communication-with-russian-spy/2017/04/04/a09d7384-193b-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html

Former Trump adviser admits to 2013 communication with Russian spy

By Tom Hamburger and Alice Crites April 4 at 2:40 PM

Carter Page, who served briefly as a foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, made an appearance in a federal espionage case because he communicated several years ago with a Russian intelligence agent under surveillance by the FBI.

In a statement released Tuesday, Page confirmed his role in the 2015 Justice Department spy case, adding another twist to the still-unfolding story of Trump’s peculiar and expanding ties to people connected to Russia.

Page said he assisted U.S. prosecutors in their case against Evgeny Buryakov, an undercover Kremlin agent then posing as a bank executive in New York. Buryakov was convicted of espionage and released from federal prison last week, a few months short of completing a 30-month sentence. Buryakov agreed to be immediately deported to Russia.

Page’s involvement was first disclosed Monday by BuzzFeed, which said Page was identified as “Male 1” in the Justice Department’s complaint against a Russian spy network based in New York.

In a written exchange with The Washington Post, Page confirmed playing a role in the case but declined to discuss details.
Evgeny Buryakov sits in court in New York on Jan. 26, 2015. Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page played a role in the espionage case against Buryakov. (Jane Rosenburg/Reuters)

“Given the very light masking in the original document from January 2015, you can draw your own conclusions,” Page wrote.

According to the court records, the FBI interviewed Page as part of the case against three Russian men identified as agents of the Russian overseas intelligence agency, the SVR. One of them, Buryakov, was operating undercover as an executive in the New York office of a Russian development bank, Vnesheconombank.

The case resurfaced in news accounts last week when President Trump’s adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, acknowledged he had met with the head of the same bank in December.

The complaint includes transcripts from 2013 of wiretapped conversations among the Russians discussing their efforts to recruit Male 1, identified as a New York energy trader whom the Russians described as willing to talk.

In his statement, Page compared the revelation of his role to “the politically-motivated unmasking standards seen in the Obama Administration which have recently been exposed.”

He said the information was released as “retribution for my public positions of dissent” against Obama administration policy toward Russia. The information about his role in the case “amplified the reputational damage against me” that has occurred through 2016, Page said. After he was named by Trump as a foreign policy adviser, news reports discussed his travel to Russia and his frequent criticism of U.S. policy toward Russia under Obama.

According to the 2015 complaint filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, Page met with a Russian agent, Victor Podobnyy, in January 2013 at an energy conference in New York. It says that from January to June of that year, Page as Male 1 “provided documents to [Podobnyy] about the energy business.” At the time, the Russians were seeking information on U.S. sanctions and on energy development.

Although Page communicated with the Russian agents in 2013, he said the information he provided was innocuous.

“As I explained to federal authorities prior to the January 2015 filing of this case, I shared basic immaterial information and publicly available research documents” with the spy who was serving then as a junior attache at the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations.

“In doing so, I provided him nothing more than a few samples from the far more detailed lectures I was preparing at the time for the students in my Spring 2013 semester ‘Energy and the World: Politics, Markets and Technology’ course which I taught on Saturdays at New York University.”

During an interview with The Washington Post editorial page staff in March 2016, Trump identified Page, once a Merrill Lynch investment banker in Moscow, as a foreign policy adviser to his campaign.

But in January, after Page’s name came up in news reports about Trump administration ties to Russia, Trump press secretary Sean Spicer declared that “Carter Page is an individual the president-elect does not know.”

Page, a longtime energy executive, is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate who rose through the ranks at Merrill Lynch before founding his current firm, Global Energy Capital. He previously was a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he focused on the Caspian Sea region and economic development in former Soviet states. He is also a fellow at the Center for National Policy in Washington and has a PhD from the University of London.

He made a speech in Moscow in July that included some criticism of U.S. policy.

The White House has energetically rejected the idea that Trump or his allies coordinated with Russia during the election. The president has said investigators and the public should focus instead on leaks of information and reports that he and his advisers were improperly surveilled by the Obama administration.

“The real story turns out to be SURVEILLANCE and LEAKING! Find the leakers,” Trump tweeted Monday morning.

Page has said repeatedly in recent weeks that he would like to tell his story to congressional investigators looking at Russian government efforts to influence the course of the 2016 election and the leak of information about that effort.

“I very much look forward to providing further evidence regarding last year’s historic crimes committed against me and all Americans,” Page said.

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 16:28
"when the FBI is looking into the possibility of said collusion, i would say that your comparison of whom has more circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing might be a bit off...:-)"

Oh yeah sure, so in an environment filled with Trump haters and people invested in watching him fail, nothing has leaked so far of substance other than the usual innunedos.

So let's have an FBI investigation into Ricegate and see how far that goes.

As someone once said, there is nothing here so it is our duty to keep looking until we find something....or something to that effect.:)

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 16:34
Still makes me chuckle when a new headline "explodes" onto the scene with "HE MET A RUSSIAN ON THIS DATE!!!" crap.

I've seen it for 3 months straight now with nothing of substance following it....yawn.

astralis
05 Apr 17,, 16:44
YF,



Oh yeah sure, so in an environment filled with Trump haters and people invested in watching him fail, nothing has leaked so far of substance other than the usual innunedos.

dude, there's a reason why Manafort, Page, Flynn etc all left or resigned. the overall effect is not "nothing".

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 16:56
YF,



dude, there's a reason why Manafort, Page, Flynn etc all left or resigned. the overall effect is not "nothing".

And what is that reason, dude?

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 17:02
Oh by the way, here, let me break this before the mainstream morons have a conniption fit again.

"Steve Bannon removed from National Security Council"

OMG...THIS PROVE IT!!!!! I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT PROVES BUT....


THIS.PROVES.IT!

astralis
05 Apr 17,, 18:41
And what is that reason, dude?

that there's more than "circumstantial evidence" of deceit regarding Russia floating around Trump's associates-- for instance, Flynn was caught and later admitted to lying, after all.

these issues are of enough substance where Trump has had to change, against his wishes, his national security staff-- and the policies that those staffers supported. for instance, Trump Administration is no longer talking about being buddy buddy with the Russians and Assad to fight ISIS.

similarly, I'll be happy to make a bet with you that there will be no FBI investigation of Rice because there's nothing there.

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 19:30
Flynn was canned for lying to the VP, not for his contacts with the Russians.

And as for the rest of your analysis, man, you made a big jump based on your prejudices.

And as to your opinion that Trump is now changing his tune of being "buddy buddy" with Puitn.....

*gasp* could that have been his policy all along but the people in the left reached a different conclusion based on their opinion????

Ah hell, at least he didn't give the Russian a red button where they could reset the relationship.

Parihaka
05 Apr 17,, 19:30
by all means, drag Rice up to testify, but it's still one big nothing-burger.

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/sorry-susan-rice-not-smoking-gun/

Sorry, But Susan Rice Is Not Your ‘Smoking Gun’

SNIP.

Only the more dullard Republicans want to put Rice on trial, she's already guilty by the fact she lied, so why play the Dems game by the Dems rules? Onwards and upwards.

Parihaka
05 Apr 17,, 19:34
Only problem is 2 days of digging into "Ricegate" has produced more circumstantial evidence against Rice than 100 days and thousands of "journalists" that literally hate Trump could do to build a case against a Putin/Trump collusion.

This. Every day makes the Dems look more delusional. They think CNN is gonna save them.

JAD_333
05 Apr 17,, 20:02
This. Every day makes the Dems look more delusional. They think CNN is gonna save them.

Speaking of CNN...and news as entertainment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/magazine/cnn-had-a-problem-donald-trump-solved-it.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

snapper
05 Apr 17,, 20:07
Only problem is 2 days of digging into "Ricegate" has produced more circumstantial evidence against Rice than 100 days and thousands of "journalists" that literally hate Trump could do to build a case against a Putin/Trump collusion.

Total rubbish. I myself - who cannot follow the business that closely - could write pages now of 'circumstantial' incidents - though where Moscow is concerned 'coincidence' is usually said with an understanding smile here. I reckon Carter Page (who the FBI apparently interviewed some years ago) is worth putting on trial just for his connection to the Podobnyy/Sporyshev/Buryakov business. How strange that Buryakov (the only one not to have some form of diplomatic immunity and was nabbed) was No 2 in the (Government owned) VEB Bank branch in New York, who's chairman ( Sergey Gorkov, personally appointed by Putin) and a bank under US sanctions, Kushner has now admitted meeting. Or strange also that the Attorney who prosecuted the Buryakov (Preet Bharara) case was promised he could keep his position by the Trump administration and then fired. When Carter Page was wondering off to Moscow on the instructions of the Trump campaign last year and according to most reports did meet with Sechin I would put him on trial or make him sing... You want more coincidences? Like I said I have pages worth but I doubt it would help; those who close their eyes do not seek truth.

Parihaka
05 Apr 17,, 20:28
Speaking of CNN...and news as entertainment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/magazine/cnn-had-a-problem-donald-trump-solved-it.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Nice find Jad. NYT calling CNN fake news to distract from NYT's fake news about the Dems fake news.

As Mark Steyn put it "This is a distraction from their distraction..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD-08_dCyHk

I'm more than happy for the Dems to tie their character to CNN, (as it points out, CNN and Trump are in a symbiotic relationship) because given their BAU approach thus far the Dems obviously need to fall further before they can finally do the bloodletting they need to once again become, to borrow a phrase from the commonwealth, "Her Majesty's loyal opposition."

In the meantime it makes for fabulous viewing :-)

Parihaka
05 Apr 17,, 20:34
Total rubbish. I myself - who cannot follow the business that closely - could write pages now of 'circumstantial' incidents - though where Moscow is concerned 'coincidence' is usually said with an understanding smile here. I reckon Carter Page (who the FBI apparently interviewed some years ago) is worth putting on trial just for his connection to the Podobnyy/Sporyshev/Buryakov business. How strange that Buryakov (the only one not to have some form of diplomatic immunity and was nabbed) was No 2 in the (Government owned) VEB Bank branch in New York, who's chairman ( Sergey Gorkov, personally appointed by Putin) and a bank under US sanctions, Kushner has now admitted meeting. Or strange also that the Attorney who prosecuted the Buryakov (Preet Bharara) case was promised he could keep his position by the Trump administration and then fired. When Carter Page was wondering off to Moscow on the instructions of the Trump campaign last year and according to most reports did meet with Sechin I would put him on trial or make him sing... You want more coincidences? Like I said I have pages worth but I doubt it would help; those who close their eyes do not seek truth.

I have a confession to make: I once spent a Saturday afternoon getting outrageously drunk with some Russian fishermen in the Captain Cook hotel in Dunedin.
I have only a hazy recollection but I do believe that at one moment during the afternoon I threw up in the toilets, to much acclaim from my Soviet/Russian companions. Make from this what you will.............

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 20:41
Total rubbish. I myself - who cannot follow the business that closely - could write pages now of 'circumstantial' incidents - though where Moscow is concerned 'coincidence' is usually said with an understanding smile here. I reckon Carter Page (who the FBI apparently interviewed some years ago) is worth putting on trial just for his connection to the Podobnyy/Sporyshev/Buryakov business. How strange that Buryakov (the only one not to have some form of diplomatic immunity and was nabbed) was No 2 in the (Government owned) VEB Bank branch in New York, who's chairman ( Sergey Gorkov, personally appointed by Putin) and a bank under US sanctions, Kushner has now admitted meeting. Or strange also that the Attorney who prosecuted the Buryakov (Preet Bharara) case was promised he could keep his position by the Trump administration and then fired. When Carter Page was wondering off to Moscow on the instructions of the Trump campaign last year and according to most reports did meet with Sechin I would put him on trial or make him sing... You want more coincidences? Like I said I have pages worth but I doubt it would help; those who close their eyes do not seek truth.

Put the tin foil hat away and get back to me when you have proof.

astralis
05 Apr 17,, 20:48
YF,


Flynn was canned for lying to the VP, not for his contacts with the Russians.

he was canned for lying to the VP about what he said to the Russians, and not only that, the Russians knew he was lying to his own boss.


And as to your opinion that Trump is now changing his tune of being "buddy buddy" with Puitn.....

Manafort had the GOP position on Russia changed just prior to Trump accepting the GOP nomination, to delete references to standing up to Russia re: Ukraine.

Trump's executive memo to SECDEF Mattis on 28 January requested DoD identify "new partners" to defeat ISIS.

and just in case you don't remember, he followed that up a few days later with an interview with Fox where Trump talked about cooperating with Russia on Syria, ISIS, and terrorism in general. the very interview where he said that he didn't mind working with Putin because "America is not so innocent" and "has a lot of killers around too".

he's suddenly gone quiet on this, and in fact just announced that he's changed his view of Syria and Assad now that Assad's used chem weapons on his watch.

snapper
05 Apr 17,, 20:48
I have a confession to make: I once spent a Saturday afternoon getting outrageously drunk with some Russian fishermen in the Captain Cook hotel in Dunedin.
I have only a hazy recollection but I do believe that at one moment during the afternoon I threw up in the toilets, to much acclaim from my Soviet/Russian companions. Make from this what you will.............

If I could absolve you I would as I am sure it was guiltless. I have myself met many Muscovites and have cousins there and one living in my family home in Ukraine. Her Brother is still in prison somewhere for the 2011 demonstrations and so the parents won't leave. We all meet Muscovites and 98% of them are normal people; I went sailboarding with a bunch at Dahab once in Egypt and had supper with them several times. But neither of us was running for an election that they interfered in and hiring people who had known contacts with their spies, nor deny having our connections only to be subsequently and continually proven wrong.

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 20:54
Kinda refreshing to see an article with quotes that are attributed to names instead of the usual "offical" or "sources"...


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/05/susan-rices-alleged-unmasking-requests-not-so-routine-ex-officials-say.html

WHITE HOUSE
Susan Rice's alleged unmasking requests not so routine, ex-officials say

Cody Derespina
By Cody Derespina
Published April 05, 2017

While Susan Rice is defending as routine her requests for the identities of Americans caught up in surveillance of foreign targets, others who’ve served in the intelligence community and at high levels of government say the former national security adviser's requests were quite unusual.

Rice, who served in the Obama administration, is at the heart of allegations of improper surveillance of the Trump team prior to Inauguration Day.

Fox News reported Monday that Rice asked for Trump associates to be identified – or “unmasked” – in intelligence reports and those names were then widely disseminated at the top levels of the government. In an interview Tuesday on MSNBC, Rice largely skirted talking specifically about those allegations, however, she said it was “absolutely false” that Obama officials utilized intelligence “for political purposes.”

Rice’s defenders also have said unmasking requests would be a typical part of her job -- and her authority to make such requests generally is not being questioned. Rice said Tuesday the process helped provide context “in order to understand the importance of the report and understand the significance.”

Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau tweeted his coarsely-worded case: "It was her f------ job to know this information! This is utter bulls---."

Her detractors, however, say that’s not the case.
“From my direct experience dealing at this level, that is never done,” retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer told Fox News. Shaffer has experience in intelligence operations focused on foreign actors in which U.S. citizens’ involvement could surface.

“The national security adviser person is a manager position, not an analyst position,” he said. “You have analysts in the intelligence community whose job is to sort through who is doing what with what. Susan Rice is a senior manager looking over the entire intelligence community. She should not have time to be unmasking individuals having conversations. It’s insane. It’s never done.”

Ex-CIA analyst Fred Fleitz agreed in a Fox News op-ed.

“Rice’s denials don’t add up,” Fleitz wrote. “It is hard to fathom how the demasking of multiple Trump campaign and transition officials was not politically motivated.”

Trump hasn't commented extensively since Rice's Tuesday interview, however, asked by The New York Times if he thought Rice committed a crime Trump said: "Do I think? Yes, I think."

Former Ambassador to the United Nations and Fox News contributor John Bolton told “America’s Newsroom” that Rice’s requests may have been improper depending on what reason she gave for wanting the information.

“Now I’m not naïve, a national security adviser’s gonna get her request approved. But she still has to give some reason,” said Bolton, who served under former President George W. Bush. “If she doesn’t even have to give a reason than NSA is really quite negligent. Susan Rice is obviously not gonna say, ‘I want these names unmasked so I can surveil my political opponents.’ And if she said she wanted the names unmasked for national security reasons, that’s a fraud on the intelligence system.”

Shaffer said a U.S. citizen’s interaction with a foreign target is not typically reason enough to unmask an American.

“These techniques, technology and procedures are reserved for potential violations of U.S. laws,” he said, adding of Rice’s alleged actions: “It’s not only legally insufficient, it’s politically insane.”

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 20:55
YF,



he was canned for lying to the VP about what he said to the Russians, and not only that, the Russians knew he was lying to his own boss.



Manafort had the GOP position on Russia changed just prior to Trump accepting the GOP nomination, to delete references to standing up to Russia re: Ukraine.

Trump's executive memo to SECDEF Mattis on 28 January requested DoD identify "new partners" to defeat ISIS.

and just in case you don't remember, he followed that up a few days later with an interview with Fox where Trump talked about cooperating with Russia on Syria, ISIS, and terrorism in general. the very interview where he said that he didn't mind working with Putin because "America is not so innocent" and "has a lot of killers around too".

he's suddenly gone quiet on this, and in fact just announced that he's changed his view of Syria and Assad now that Assad's used chem weapons on his watch.

LOL

So he wants to work with Russia same as Obama did earlier in his administration.

That proves it.

He's a spy.


"he's suddenly gone quiet on this, and in fact just announced that he's changed his view of Syria and Assad now that Assad's used chem weapons on his watch."

Does this mean we can now expect Putin to release all the info he had on Trump now since he just pissed off Putin?

You should be happy.

snapper
05 Apr 17,, 21:24
Put the tin foil hat away and get back to me when you have proof.

Sadly I have to wear more than a tin foil hat often you pillock. My 'circumstantial evidence' and the many proven cases - goes back years against the state that tried to interfere in your election, has murdered countless Syrians and bombed a UN convey in Syria and invaded my country. Fine for you to sit half a planet away and think it's all a TV show so why not have TV personality as President until they come for you. My tinfoil hat? Try opening your eyes or at least disproving a single fact or say it is all circumstantial? You do not have a hope unless you wake up.

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 21:30
Sadly I have to wear more than a tin foil hat often you pillock. My 'circumstantial evidence' and the many proven cases - goes back years against the state that tried to interfere in your election, has murdered countless Syrians and bombed a UN convey in Syria and invaded my country. Fine for you to sit half a planet away and think it's all a TV show so why not have TV personality as President until they come for you. My tinfoil hat? Try opening your eyes or at least disproving a single fact or say it is all circumstantial? You do not have a hope unless you wake up.


https://youtu.be/-EQ6eHeBrhM

snapper
05 Apr 17,, 21:47
I thank you for the song - very beautiful and made me recall the friends and cousin I have lost. I apologise for my abuse.

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 22:15
No problemo.

OK EVERYBODY WE DROP EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW
..NO MORE FAKE NEWS


NO MORE TRUMP!

WE TURN EVERY SUBJECT INTO THE BAD THINGS RUSSIAN DID TO THE UKRAINE!

Snapper, we can leave the Russian abuse of countries, and there are many of them, for different threads.

astralis
05 Apr 17,, 22:39
YF,


So he wants to work with Russia same as Obama did earlier in his administration.

That proves it.

He's a spy.

you're moving to a different tangent.

going back to our original argument:

you say that all the evidence is circumstantial. i say it isn't, just on the basis of the administration's actions alone.

circumstantial evidence wouldn't have caused Trump associates to either resign or get fired. it wouldn't have caused Trump to re-think how close he wants to be with Putin.

this is not to say that "all evidence points to Trump being owned by Putin", or whatever strawman it is that you have set up. i agree, what we see is not evidence for impeachment. but as it stands, right now, it's more than circumstantial. fair?

snapper
05 Apr 17,, 22:47
No problemo.

OK EVERYBODY WE DROP EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW
..NO MORE FAKE NEWS


NO MORE TRUMP!

WE TURN EVERY SUBJECT INTO THE BAD THINGS RUSSIAN DID TO THE UKRAINE!

Snapper, we can leave the Russian abuse of countries, and there are many of them, for different threads.

If you ever grow up and wish to enter to rational discussion get back to me.

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 23:00
this is not to say that "all evidence points to Trump being owned by Putin", or whatever strawman it is that you have set up. i agree, what we see is not evidence for impeachment. but as it stands, right now, it's more than circumstantial. fair?

Well...no.

This whole thing started down this merry path because someone in Obama administration leaked something (most likely illegally) to a press that was more than willing to print whatever crap came down their way because they share an ideology that is 100% in sync with the Democrats.

So what evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, is there right now of a collusion?

I asking you sincerely.

All we have is this drip drip "Trump associate met with Russian in 2013 (or whatever date) in whatever country"
headlines.

I can honestly say I met a Russian KGB offical since my sister's neighbor is a retired desk weenie who use to ride a typewriter in the KGB back in the 80's.

Please list these so called circumstantial evidence so I can decide one way or the other because quite frankly, I see none except a desperate party and a willing media that is both heavily invested in watching this guy fail.

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 23:02
If you ever grow up and wish to enter to rational discussion get back to me.

Great!

I'll call on you when I want to discuss the dastardly Russians abusing Ukraine and Syria.

In the meantime please let us discuss fake news here in peace.

YellowFever
05 Apr 17,, 23:32
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/russia/52_say_clintons_should_be_part_of_russia_probe

Let's do it.

Let's put everybody into this.

Parihaka
06 Apr 17,, 03:47
Without bothering to all the previous links I've already put up.....

DNC gets hacked.

Meme develops claiming it was the Russians.

Trump says "cool, can they hack some more :big grin:

Dems say "see, he's working with the Russians."

Site admin for DNC is gunned down near his home but nothing is stolen.

Independent security site claims it recognises attributes of the code as being Russian, and some of the coding contains Cyrillic metadata.

Gucifer2 claims responsibility and says he's Ukrainian, in an interview interviewer claims "he sounds more Russian to me".

Gucifer2 releases Podesta's emails, apparently in retaliation for being called Russian.

The invisible international security expert culls various reports including one from 4chan where trump gets a variation of golden showers from Russian prositutes on a bed the Obama's slept in and compiles them for the rump Republican never-trumpers, including McCain, who disseminates it far and wide.

FBI launches investigation into Trump team's possible involvement with Russians, but does not, repeat not, intercept any Trump team communications.

Various other security experts discount the claim code is specifically Russian, saying it can be found anywhere on the interwebs, including Cyrillic metadata.

At some point various politicians institute various inquiries that have no end date and no apparent questions but which enable various politicians to make weekly speeches saying their point of view whilst claiming they'll get to the bottom of it.

NYT, WAPO and the Guardian simultaneously release claims intercepts of Trumps team show collusion with Russians.

NYT, WAPO and the Guardian simultaneously release claims Obama team hurriedly disseminating intercepts of Trumps team so when they come to power they can't hide their collusion with Russians.

Nunes gets information Obama team collated unmasked Trump Team intercepts (freely available from your friendly NSA home depot), but these records are only available on the White House servers and not the Congress ones.

Russians/Trump.
Trump/Russians.
Everyone who isn't a TDSS* is a Russian.
Flynn is a Russian, and resigns after misleading Pence by saying he's not a Russian. Turns out later he's a Turk.

Some shock jock (Hannity) compiles all newspaper claims that Obama team intercepts Trump team communications.

Trump tweets Obama wiretapped him and what an arsehole thing to do.

Everyone from TDSS screams at Trump, "what how dare you, Saint Obama would never do such a thing"

NYT, WAPO and the Guardian simultaneously deny Obama team intercepted, collated and disseminated intercepts of Trumps team, whilst linking to the previous articles that said Obama's team did do this, but claim Trumps a liar, not them, because Trump said "wiretapped".

Cue two more weeks of
Russians/Trump.
Trump/Russians.
Everyone who isn't a TDSS* is a Russian.
Trumps a Liar. That's with a big L. Liar liar pants on fire.

Nunes gets two senior White House staff to log onto the White House server and show him the intercepts (McAlister is involved in this but not sure how yet)

Nunes tells Trump, who says "I told you so" in a bad font twitter.

TDSS go mad, say Nunes made it all up, it's White House fake news and Nunes must resign immediately.

Schiff views same documents and immediately submerges and goes on silent running, though asdic operators think they can hear someone singing the Volga Boatmen song.

Right wing nutcase wingnut islamophobic racist transphobic white KKK paedophile old dead white men pseudo journalists claim that the unmasker, collator and disseminater of Trump intercepts viewed by Nunes and Schiff is Susan Rice.

Rice simultaneously claims on ten different CNN and MNSBC programmes that no she didn't, yes she did, no Obama wasn't involved, except that yes he ordered it, the moon is made of cheese and damn all retard redneck racist dead white men. So there. Oh look a squirrel.

CNN and MNSBC claim it's all Trump lies, including Rices statements.


Cue more of
Russians/Trump.
Trump/Russians.
Everyone who isn't a TDSS* is a Russian.
Trumps a Liar. That's with a big L. Liar liar pants on fire.

I soooo look forward to season two.


*Trump Derangement Syndrome Sufferers

bfng3569
06 Apr 17,, 04:00
"when the FBI is looking into the possibility of said collusion, i would say that your comparison of whom has more circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing might be a bit off...:-)"

Oh yeah sure, so in an environment filled with Trump haters and people invested in watching him fail, nothing has leaked so far of substance other than the usual innunedos.

So let's have an FBI investigation into Ricegate and see how far that goes.

As someone once said, there is nothing here so it is our duty to keep looking until we find something....or something to that effect.:)

Funny, but with all the leaks that have been happening, including from repubs who don't like trump, it is amazing that not one fact supporting the collusion-burger has leaked out in months of investigating.....

snapper
06 Apr 17,, 12:45
Great!

I'll call on you when I want to discuss the dastardly Russians abusing Ukraine and Syria.

In the meantime please let us discuss fake news here in peace.

Mea culpa. I did not realise that you knew more than all your security and intelligence agencies and that actually there was no Muscovite attempt to interfere in your election.

astralis
06 Apr 17,, 13:57
YF,



So what evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, is there right now of a collusion?

I asking you sincerely.

bottom-line, the issue is whether or not you think the US intelligence community + FBI are a bunch of deep-state political hacks or if they're conducting a professional investigation.

there is currently an ongoing investigation involving all those agencies regarding the Trump candidacy and later administration's ties to Russia, to include the possibility of collusion.

so far, we've seen multiple Trump associates get canned or resign as details of their various contacts become widely known-- and this is not the "i had a talk with a random Russian" variety of contact, this is the "i took money from the Russians to promote their interests" variety of contact.

given these previous contacts, and the sudden, very noticeable shift in the GOP platform to become far more Russia-friendly (a position I'm not aware conservatives had held in any degree prior to this), it is not particularly partisan to wonder about Russian influence. especially when a previous IC investigation has already found that Putin interfered in the US election with the goal of getting Trump elected.

nor would the IC or FBI start an investigation purely on circumstantial evidence.

this is not to say the Administration is guilty of collusion, just that there are enough valid questions/evidence to justify an investigation, and thus cannot be written off as the evidence-free partisan hackjob that you say this is.

YellowFever
06 Apr 17,, 15:55
1) I think Comey and Brennan were incompetent political boobs.

2) This 'investiagation' was mainly due to leaks created by political hacks and eagerly swallowed up by the so called journalists. A whole bunch of stories that got this ball rolling has been just quietly forgotten when it was proven false.

3) I believe the investigation of the leaks is at least as important as the russian connection. We are not talking about Russian collusion anymore. We are talking about government officials messing with civil rights.

4) So no evidence, right?

astralis
06 Apr 17,, 16:25
YF,

you're conflating several investigations: there's the Senate/House investigation and then there's the FBI/IC investigation.

even if you explain away the Senate/House investigation as political hackery (which is an interesting stance to take seeing as how both investigation committee chairmen are backers of Trump), then there's the FBI/IC investigation. (and that would indicate you support an independent investigation instead of the Senate/House investigation: do you?)

again, the bottom-line is that if there is no evidence, there would not be a FBI/IC investigation. this does not mean the evidence is necessarily damning (see HRC e-mail investigation) but it does indicate there is some evidence.

YellowFever
06 Apr 17,, 17:15
Shit, I just realized this is a non ending debate...lol.

I tip over my king, sir.
(Until I come back in two weeks....lol)

Parihaka
06 Apr 17,, 19:42
YF,



bottom-line, the issue is whether or not you think the US intelligence community + FBI are a bunch of deep-state political hacks or if they're conducting a professional investigation.

there is currently an ongoing investigation involving all those agencies regarding the Trump candidacy and later administration's ties to Russia, to include the possibility of collusion.

so far, we've seen multiple Trump associates get canned or resign as details of their various contacts become widely known-- and this is not the "i had a talk with a random Russian" variety of contact, this is the "i took money from the Russians to promote their interests" variety of contact.

given these previous contacts, and the sudden, very noticeable shift in the GOP platform to become far more Russia-friendly (a position I'm not aware conservatives had held in any degree prior to this), it is not particularly partisan to wonder about Russian influence. especially when a previous IC investigation has already found that Putin interfered in the US election with the goal of getting Trump elected.

nor would the IC or FBI start an investigation purely on circumstantial evidence.

this is not to say the Administration is guilty of collusion, just that there are enough valid questions/evidence to justify an investigation, and thus cannot be written off as the evidence-free partisan hackjob that you say this is.
Pure fake news, The claims that the agencies believed there was hacking (of the election, not collusion between Trump and and Russia) was made by Brennan, a democrat apointment, and instigated by Obama.


"Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-donald-trump-russian-hacking/)FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election."
"The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI."

The connection to Trump is pure political spin on your part.

astralis
06 Apr 17,, 20:04
Pure fake news, The claims that the agencies believed there was hacking (of the election, not collusion between Trump and and Russia) was made by Brennan, a democrat apointment, and instigated by Obama.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections



Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s
longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort
compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.

We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President
-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him.

All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment;
NSA has moderate confidence.

Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the
electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton
was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining
her future presidency.

Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior
since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and
goals.

Parihaka
06 Apr 17,, 20:14
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections

Yes yes I've read Brennans claims before. Just because a political hack who constantly criticised Trump prior to the election despite his position puts his thoughts on paper with a letterhead doesn't make it true. His statement is not the terms for the investigation and is prejudging the outcome , as you well know.

astralis
06 Apr 17,, 20:25
Yes yes I've read Bannons claims before. Just because a political hack who constantly criticised Trump prior to the election despite his position puts his thoughts on paper with a letterhead doesn't make it true.

you do realize that Brennan isn't the sole author of the report?

and that if a political appointee took it upon himself to make up a whole-of-IC conclusion to make his political boss look good, there would be mass protests and resignations?

this is the entire point of my discussion with YF. either you believe the American intelligence community to be political hacks or you believe them to be professionals. there's no middle-ground here.

Parihaka
06 Apr 17,, 20:37
you do realize that Brennan isn't the sole author of the report?

and that if a political appointee took it upon himself to make up a whole-of-IC conclusion to make his political boss look good, there would be mass protests and resignations?

this is the entire point of my discussion with YF. either you believe the American intelligence community to be political hacks or you believe them to be professionals. there's no middle-ground here.

Brennan is a base political hack appointed far above his abilities (http://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/1/13793608/cia-brennan-trump-bbc-interview). Anything he touched is toxic by definition. I know you're onboard with politically perverted intelligence agencies, but the rest of the anglosphere is not, hence my claims the US has, at least for the time being, entered a banana republic phase, an outcome of the previous administration. Rice's spreadsheets are just another example.

As for your claims of there's smoke therefore fire or 'the investigation is proof of guilt', it is the FBI that is investigating and they have proffered no outcome. Perhaps you have a direct line into the current status of their inquiry? Otherwise, your just generating 'speculation' and claiming it as proof.

astralis
06 Apr 17,, 20:48
yes, good to know where you stand.

based on this statement of yours, there's really not much point in me using actual IC documents to make my case, because it's all political hackjobbery.

and using NYT/Washington Post/CNN etc is also right out because they're all Fake News.

so if the only basis for truth that you can accept as "proof" is from the Daily Caller or Breitbart, I profess that I'm rather at a disadvantage in debating things with you.

Wooglin
06 Apr 17,, 21:51
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections

Something seems to be missing from this post. Where exactly does it say anything about Trump colluding with the Russians? I can't find it.

To Pari's point that "The connection to Trump is pure political spin on your part" you responded with an excerpt that in fact makes no mention of any collusion or ties to his administration.

What were you trying to prove? That he was right?

Parihaka
06 Apr 17,, 21:52
yes, good to know where you stand. Transparent democracy. Personally I prefer a constitutional Monarchy with limited govt. defined by a constitution much like the American one was.


based on this statement of yours, there's really not much point in me using actual IC documents to make my case, because it's all political hackjobbery. It was a political statement before the outcome of any actual inquiry. How else should it be viewed?



and using NYT/Washington Post/CNN etc is also right out because they're all Fake News.Yes they are. Is the Brennan quotation false?



so if the only basis for truth that you can accept as "proof" is from the Daily Caller or Breitbart, I profess that I'm rather at a disadvantage in debating things with you.
Unlike you, I read multiple news outlets from multiple political vantage points, hence my linking to NYT, CNN, Breitbart, National Review, Vox, Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, American Conservative et cetera et cetera et cetera. Hence I ask again, is the Brennan quotation false?

astralis
06 Apr 17,, 22:08
wooglin,


Something seems to be missing from this post. Where exactly does it say anything about Trump colluding with the Russians? I can't find it.

To Pari's point that "The connection to Trump is pure political spin on your part" you responded with an excerpt that in fact makes no mention of any collusion or ties to his administration.

What were you trying to prove? That he was right?

if you're going to interrupt a conversation, at least have the basic courtesy to review it before you interject.

my earlier statement to YF stated that there was one completed investigation into Putin's interference into the US election and one ongoing investigation into the Trump candidacy/administration's ties with Russia. i clearly delineated the two.

in fact, i even went out of my way to state that thus far the Administration hasn't been found guilty of collusion, and previously even expressed my own personal doubts that Trump was actively colluding with the Russians.

thus, my response to Pari's post was to point out that there was an earlier investigation that found Putin to have intervened to help Trump.

astralis
06 Apr 17,, 22:15
pari,


It was a political statement before the outcome of any actual inquiry. How else should it be viewed?

it should be viewed as the findings of a professional investigation.

viewing it as anything else just means you believe Obama set up a puppet intelligence community/FBI, which is Alex Jones conspiracy territory.

Parihaka
06 Apr 17,, 23:06
pari,



it should be viewed as the findings of a professional investigation. Really? Then there's no need for the FBI investigation, the congressional inquiries and both Clapper and Morell Disagree with you.


"On the question of the Trump campaign (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-ally-says-smoke-no-fire-no-russia-trump-collusion-n734176) conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all," Morell said at an event sponsored by the Cipher Brief, an intelligence web site.

"There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it."
"Morell pointed out that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on Meet the Press on March 5 (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597) that he had seen no evidence of a conspiracy when he left office January 20.

"That's a pretty strong statement by General Clapper," Morell said.
Clapper's interview is fascinating in its entirety by the way, you might want to listen to the whole thing given it disagrees with everything you've said.


The ODNI also disagree with you

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E) have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

And of course Schiff disagrees with you


"We haven't obtained any of the evidence yet. (http://www.dw.com/en/us-house-intelligence-chair-says-no-evidence-of-trump-ties-to-russia/a-37741458) So it's premature for us to be saying that we have reached any conclusion about the issue of collusion," he said. "You don't begin by stating what you believe to be the conclusion."



viewing it as anything else just means you believe Obama set up a puppet intelligence community/FBI, which is Alex Jones conspiracy territory.
Well no. Given the sources I've read and yet again relinked, the only one channeling Jones is you.

JAD_333
06 Apr 17,, 23:43
Shit, I just realized this is a non ending debate...lol.

I tip over my king, sir.
(Until I come back in two weeks....lol)

lol...agree. Both sides are shooting down each other's contentions using media reports and logic. But as far as the truth of the matter is concerned, no one knows, though I'll venture to guess that Trump did not collude with the Russians to hack the DNC and Podesta emails. As for lower level conniving on other stuff, we'll have to wait and see what the FBI and Congressional committees come up with. Notably, there have been no arrests to date, so it seems they have nothing yet.

This is going to be enshrined in the conspiracy hall of fame no matter what officialdom does to clear it up, just like the Kennedy assassination wasn't put to rest by the Warren Commission.

astralis
07 Apr 17,, 03:01
pari,


Really? Then there's no need for the FBI investigation, the congressional inquiries and both Clapper and Morell Disagree with you.

you continue to conflate the two separate investigations. the first investigation found that the Russians were trying to influence the election to support Trump.

the second currently on-going one is investigating the other way around, looking at what ties Trump Administration members might have had with the Russians, to include collusion. of course there's no evidence that has been presented yet, the investigation is still ongoing.

re: your Reuters article on ODNI. note that was Dec 2016 and quoted 3 officials. the ODNI report that I linked to was published 6 Jan 17.

Wooglin
07 Apr 17,, 03:46
wooglin,



if you're going to interrupt a conversation, at least have the basic courtesy to review it before you interject.

my earlier statement to YF stated that there was one completed investigation into Putin's interference into the US election and one ongoing investigation into the Trump candidacy/administration's ties with Russia. i clearly delineated the two.

in fact, i even went out of my way to state that thus far the Administration hasn't been found guilty of collusion, and previously even expressed my own personal doubts that Trump was actively colluding with the Russians.

thus, my response to Pari's post was to point out that there was an earlier investigation that found Putin to have intervened to help Trump.

Yeah I read what he was responding to. Did you forget you're own post? So the shorter, more honest answer is, yes he was right.

astralis
07 Apr 17,, 04:04
i was addressing pari's post here:


Pure fake news, The claims that the agencies believed there was hacking (of the election, not collusion between Trump and and Russia) was made by Brennan, a democrat apointment, and instigated by Obama.

and my response was an ODNI report that all the major US intel agencies-- not just "Brennan, a democratic appointment"-- said there was "hacking of the election", defined as Putin interfering for Trump. i did not address collusion because that's not what Pari was discussing.

so again, i repeat: if you're going to rudely interrupt a conversation, at least know what you're talking about.

Parihaka
07 Apr 17,, 05:38
pari,



you continue to conflate the two separate investigations. the first investigation found that the Russians were trying to influence the election to support Trump.

the second currently on-going one is investigating the other way around, looking at what ties Trump Administration members might have had with the Russians, to include collusion. of course there's no evidence that has been presented yet, the investigation is still ongoing.

re: your Reuters article on ODNI. note that was Dec 2016 and quoted 3 officials. the ODNI report that I linked to was published 6 Jan 17.

That 'investigation' found nothing of the sort as there was no investigation. It was an analysis, presented publicly for political effect. Tell me about Saddam and WMD.

DOR
07 Apr 17,, 10:18
How the Clintons Sold Out U.S. National Interests to the Putin Regime
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446526/clinton-russia-ties-bill-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime

Highlights—

The “reset button” didn’t say “reset,” in Russian, it said “overload.” Better relations ensued, therefore it was a sell-out.

When Secretary Clinton visited Moscow in early 2010, she didn’t say the US’ objective was to isolate, weaken or bring down Russia. She said it was to strengthen Russia. Therefore, sell-out.

Since the US was no longer treating Russia and Public Enemy No. 1, Boeing scored some heavy aircraft order. Obviously, a sell-out.

Because there has never been any difference whatsoever between the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Foundation and the US Department of State, sell-out.

Oh, and that Canadian uranium thing. Sell-out.

That is all.

Doktor
07 Apr 17,, 11:11
wooglin,



if you're going to interrupt a conversation, at least have the basic courtesy to review it before you interject.

my earlier statement to YF stated that there was one completed investigation into Putin's interference into the US election and one ongoing investigation into the Trump candidacy/administration's ties with Russia. i clearly delineated the two.

in fact, i even went out of my way to state that thus far the Administration hasn't been found guilty of collusion, and previously even expressed my own personal doubts that Trump was actively colluding with the Russians.

thus, my response to Pari's post was to point out that there was an earlier investigation that found Putin to have intervened to help Trump.

How the former two get in line with the third and is a bad thing for Trump Team is beyond me.

astralis
07 Apr 17,, 13:25
pari,


That 'investigation' found nothing of the sort as there was no investigation. It was an analysis, presented publicly for political effect. Tell me about Saddam and WMD.

lol, an analysis "presented publicly for political effect" AFTER the supposed target of such a political effect was just elected..hahaha.

somehow Obama was devilishly clever enough to suborn the entire intelligence community but couldn't bother to get in the attack report in time, or simply get his puppet FBI director to shut up just before the election...;-)

Wooglin
07 Apr 17,, 13:49
i was addressing pari's post here:



and my response was an ODNI report that all the major US intel agencies-- not just "Brennan, a democratic appointment"-- said there was "hacking of the election", defined as Putin interfering for Trump. i did not address collusion because that's not what Pari was discussing.

so again, i repeat: if you're going to rudely interrupt a conversation, at least know what you're talking about.

Uh huh... and you conveniently ignored this part, to which he was responding.



there is currently an ongoing investigation involving all those agencies regarding the Trump candidacy and later administration's ties to Russia, to include the possibility of collusion.



The connection to Trump is pure political spin on your part.

If you don't like being called out for your bullshit then don't post on a public forum and then cry about it.

astralis
07 Apr 17,, 13:57
wooglin,

i honestly have no idea what you're trying to get at. i've discussed both investigations at length now. not sure where i "conveniently ignored" anything.

Wooglin
07 Apr 17,, 14:05
So few are capable of having an honest discussion. It's a shame.

astralis
07 Apr 17,, 14:22
you forgot "and your mother smells of elderberries." :-)

snapper
07 Apr 17,, 18:47
Pretty sure Brennan was due at the public hearing that Nunes cancelled.

Parihaka
07 Apr 17,, 19:45
pari,



lol, an analysis "presented publicly for political effect" AFTER the supposed target of such a political effect was just elected..hahaha. Yes, after he was elected and before he could take office. Nobody believed he could do it remember. You were still confident of a war party win right up til 10;30 that night. The assessment was a last desperate shot to delegitimize Trump, a campaign you're still running now despite coming up with nothing.

Parihaka
07 Apr 17,, 19:49
Uh huh... and you conveniently ignored this part, to which he was responding.




If you don't like being called out for your bullshit then don't post on a public forum and then cry about it.

He doesn't cry about it, he's here to proselytize.

Parihaka
07 Apr 17,, 20:27
Heh, loath her or despise her Ann Coulter can sure sum things up


The Susan Rice bombshell at least explains why the Democrats won’t stop babbling about Russia. They need a false flag to justify using national intelligence agencies to snoop on the Trump team.

Edit to add: actually this is so funny it deserves full posting.
Ann Coulter at Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/05/ann-coulter-russian-emperors-new-clothes/)

The Susan Rice bombshell at least explains why the Democrats won’t stop babbling about Russia. They need a false flag to justify using national intelligence agencies to snoop on the Trump team.
Every serious person who has tried to locate any evidence that Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election — even Trump-haters at the New York Review of Books and Rolling Stone magazine — has come away empty-handed and angry. We keep getting bald assertions, unadorned with anything resembling a fact.

But for now, let’s just consider the raw plausibility of the story.

The fact-less claim is that (1) the Russians wanted Donald Trump to win; and (2) They thought they could help him win by releasing purloined emails from the Democratic National Committee showing that the Democrats were conspiring against Hillary Clinton’s primary opponent, Bernie Sanders.

First, why on earth would Russia prefer a loose cannon, untested president like Trump to an utterly corrupt politician, who’d already shown she could be bought? The more corrupt you think Russia is, the more Putin ought to love Hillary as president.

The Russians knew Hillary was a joke from her ridiculous “reset” button as secretary of state. They proceeded to acquire 20 percent of America’s uranium production, under Hillary’s careful management — in exchange for a half-million-dollar speaking engagement for her husband and millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

(Politifact rates this claim FALSE! — LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! — because Trump referred to 20 percent of America’s “uranium,” not to 20 percent of America’s “uranium capacity.” This is the sort of serious reporting we get from our watchdog media.)

The last thing our enemies want is unpredictability in an American president, and Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. Actually, that’s only the second-to-last thing Putin wants. Russia’s only export is energy: The last thing Putin wants is a president who vows to drill and frack, driving down the world oil price.

But let’s say the Russians were morally offended by a woman who could be bought (by them) for a $500,000 speaking fee, and what they really longed for was a bellicose American president promising to put our interests first.

Why would anyone, least of all trained spies, think that it would help Trump to release emails showing the DNC had its thumb on the scale against Bernie Sanders?

How was that supposed to work again? I forget.

Accepting everything else the most deranged Trump-hater believes, normal people lose the thread of the conspiracy at the moment when the Russians are supposed to have said to themselves, “HEY, I KNOW — LET’S TRY THIS!”

Even experts in American politics haven’t the first idea how to affect an election. The best minds of the GOP bet $140 million of their own money that Jeb! would be the nominee. (Maybe they should have hired Putin.)

Throughout the primaries, Democrats were openly praying that the GOP would nominate Trump. Democrats had the same hope in 1980 for Ronald Reagan. In 2008, Republicans hooted at the idea of Al Franken running for the U.S. Senate.

Days before the election, America’s premier journal of liberal opinion, The New York Times, gave Hillary a 91 percent chance of winning. The Princeton Election Consortium calculated her chances at 99 percent. The Huffington Post’s polling aggregator put Hillary’s odds at 98 percent.

But we’re supposed to believe that a country practiced in spycraft was confident that it not only knew what was likely to happen in a U.S. presidential election, but also knew how to swing it? And no one in Moscow thought to ask: “What will be the predictable, certain outcome of releasing the DNC’s ‘Get Bernie’ emails?”

The DNC leaks might have ended up being the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats. What if they had pulled a Torricelli, and forced Hillary to drop out, so they could run Joe Biden instead? Biden is a lot more popular than Hillary!

Isn’t the more logical leaker someone within the DNC who’d had enough with David Brock and Debbie Wasserman Schultz steering the party into a ditch? The actual leaker probably thought: I’ve got to save the party! She’s going to destroy us!

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, as well as his associate, former British ambassador Craig Murray, both say that the DNC emails came from a whistleblower within the DNC. Murray has even identified the precise location where a DNC insider passed him the emails — a park near American University.

Assange may be a misguided zealot, but neither his friends nor his enemies call him a liar. His image is very nearly the opposite: a self-righteousness fanatic — not a slippery con man.

Hey, did anyone else notice that last week, very quietly, every single staffer at the DNC was fired?

The claim that Russia hacked the DNC’s emails to help Trump is the sort of crackpot theory that can only be concocted after the fact.

They would prefer to say that North Korea or ISIS “hacked” our election and somehow installed Trump. But unfortunately, Trump has no business dealings with ISIS or the Pyongyang regime. He — or people he knows — have had some vague business dealings with Russia. So the left is stuck with its insane Russia conspiracy.

And now, just as the whole story is collapsing, their need is even more urgent, to distract from the Obama administration’s use of national security intelligence-gathering agencies to spy on domestic enemies like Donald Trump.

DOR
08 Apr 17,, 08:39
In order to take Ann Coulter seriously, one has to believe all the vast right-wing conspiracy theories of the past 25 years.
Every one, from "travel-gate" to the Clintons personally ordering multiple murders.

m a x
08 Apr 17,, 09:52
http://www.segabg.com/pic/12427/849766.jpg (http://www.segabg.com/article.php?id=849766)

Parihaka
08 Apr 17,, 11:31
In order to take Ann Coulter seriously, one has to believe all the vast right-wing conspiracy theories of the past 25 years.
Every one, from "travel-gate" to the Clintons personally ordering multiple murders.

You and Ann have something in common then. :-)

JAD_333
09 Apr 17,, 06:28
Those not steeped in American political history may think the recent uproar about fake news is a new phenomenon. It's not. In fact the much beloved Franklin Roosevelt, who steered the nation through the Great Depression and WWII, may hold the title of the greatest enemy of the main stream media and ace manipulator of the news in relatively modern times. What he did and how he did it makes for fascinating reading. While some presidents after him, most notably Richard Nixon, sought ways to muzzle the press, by their time the blow back from the methods FDR and his allies employed prevented them from emulating him.


FDR's War Against the Press
Franklin Roosevelt had his own Breitbart, and radio was his Twitter.

David Beito from the May 2017 issue

Donald Trump's champions and critics agree: He is rewriting the relationship between the press and the presidency. On the pro-Trump side, Newt Gingrich claims that the president's "brilliant" use of Twitter allows him "very quickly over and over to set the agenda at almost no cost," while Press Secretary Sean Spicer says it gives him a "direct pipeline to the American people." Critics highlight how Trump sidelines the press by bullying his critics, rebuffing hard questions, and favoring sympathetic outlets such as Breitbart. They have expressed alarm about Trump's call to "open up" libel laws as a means to quash "horrible and false" stories.

Another president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, revised the media rules in equally profound ways. Like Trump, he feuded with the mainstream media; like Trump, he used a new medium as a direct pipeline to the people. He also used the government's machinery to suppress unfavorable coverage, a fate we hope to avoid in the age of Trump.

Manipulating the Media

Roosevelt, like Trump, had a good relationship with the press at the start of his public career. Journalists found him quotable and amusing. But by 1934 this honeymoon had frayed, and a year later it had given way to a war of words. Roosevelt complained constantly about the press's "poisonous propaganda." With a tone of mock sympathy, he reassured reporters that he understood they were not to blame, because publishers told them what to write.

In the 1936 election, Roosevelt claimed that 85 percent of the newspapers were against him. In the standard work on the subject, historian Graham J. White finds that the actual percentage was much lower and the print press generally gave FDR balanced news coverage, but most editorialists and columnists were indeed opposed to the administration. Convinced that the media were out to get him, Roosevelt warned in 1938 that "our newspapers cannot be edited in the interests of the general public, from the counting room. And I wish we could have a national symposium on that question, particularly in relation to the freedom of the press. How many bogies are conjured up by invoking that greatly overworked phrase?"

Roosevelt's relationship with radio was warmer. The key distinction was that broadcasters operated in an entirely...

(rest or article here: http://reason.com/archives/2017/04/05/roosevelts-war-against-the-pre )

Parihaka
09 Apr 17,, 08:16
THe terror of live news, where your narative gets blown out of the water



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3uaf1NFxXc

gunnut
10 Apr 17,, 07:38
The answer is of course an official government news agency. Any medium/media which differs from the official news will be audited and disciplined. We must stamp out fake news and the detrimental effect they have on our gullible citizenry.

snapper
20 Apr 17,, 04:17
So Exxon is applying for waiver from sanctions just after Tillerson's (medal of "Friend of Russia recipient) visit. Nothing smells here right?


43729

Wooglin
20 Apr 17,, 15:48
So Exxon is applying for waiver from sanctions just after Tillerson's (medal of "Friend of Russia recipient) visit. Nothing smells here right?

Not sure what the fake news item is here.

In any case, didn't there use to be an "alternative theories" section around here somewhere, or am I thinking of another board perhaps? Regardless, it seems we need one lately... that and the eyeroll emoji back.

JAD_333
21 Apr 17,, 21:19
So Exxon is applying for waiver from sanctions just after Tillerson's (medal of "Friend of Russia recipient) visit. Nothing smells here right?




US Treasury department denied the request today after a review that included consultation with the president. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/business/energy-environment/treasury-exxon-mobil-sanctions-waiver.html?ref=business&_r=0

troung
21 Apr 17,, 22:05
The Rachel Maddow Show’s Fake News on Venezuela
By: Max Radwin - Apr 21, 2017, 11:11 am

0

Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 10.52.30 AM
Someone needs to fire the research interns on The Rachel Maddow Show, or tell her to at least get better fact checkers. (MSNBC)

Venezuelans swarmed the streets this week in protest of a brutal dictator who has led the country into a humanitarian crisis without food or medicine, freedom of speech or democratic government.

They were certainly not protesting Donald Trump, despite what MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow may tell you.

Maddow tried to claim on her show Thursday night that the streets of Venezuela had exploded with protests and marches in response to recent news surrounding a subsidiary of a major Venezuelan oil company that donated half a million dollars to the Trump campaign.

Read More: Repression in Venezuela Targets Protesters to Prevent March Even Taking Place

Seriously? It’s pretty clear the citizens of Venezuela had other priorities, like making sure their children do not die of hunger or illnesses.

April 19 marked 207 years of Venezuelan independence from Spanish colonialism, and with that date in mind, both the political opposition and President Nicolás Maduro planned rallies that ultimately clashed and, the next day, saw military force used against unarmed citizens.

Yet the banner caption running on MSNBC read, “Unrest In Venezuela Over Trump Donations” — what many following the events in Venezuela criticized as sloppy reporting to the point of fake news.

No argument there.

“Venezuela is a country in intense turmoil right now,” Maddow said. “The sanctions that the US put on Venezuela were put there in 2014 after 43 people got killed while participating in anti-government protests. Another three people got killed just yesterday. There have been protests for weeks and weeks and weeks. And today Venezuelans are enraged anew by this brand new FEC filing from The White House.”
Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 10.42.10 AM
The Rachel Maddow’s amazing chyron led its readers to believe Venezuelans were protesting over Donald Trump, of all issues plaguing the socialist country. (MSNBC)

Undoubtedly, there were some rage in response to the news that the country’s oil company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) had contributed more to Trump’s presidential run than Google and Ford Motor Company — raising doubts about the new US administration’s willingness to support intervention in the dictatorship.

Venezuelan State-Run Oil Company Donated Half a Million Dollars for Trump Inauguration https://t.co/4dGCloy3Wf

— Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) April 21, 2017

But consider the never-ending sequence of disastrous policy decisions Maduro and his socialist party have made in recent months:

Last week, he sent helicopters to drop tear gas on peaceful protests. This week, he announced he would be arming one million untrained militia loyalists, which incited international criticism from the European Union and neighboring countries like Colombia.

A month prior, the country’s packed Supreme Court ruled the country’s legislative body, the National Assembly, had been compromised by political opposition, and overrode its authority.

Doesn’t all of that seem a bit more motivating for protesters than a FEC campaign donation filing?

Read More: New York Times Apology: As A Venezuelan I Accept It – About Time!

Not to mention that opposition coalition, the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), had officially announced and tweeted repeatedly about the point of the march days before the PDVSA donation made headlines.

Someone needs to fire the research interns on The Rachel Maddow Show, or tell her to at least get better fact checkers.https://panampost.com/maxwell-radwin/2017/04/21/the-rachel-maddow-shows-fake-news-on-venezuela/

DOR
23 May 17,, 14:43
Fox News ranked third in prime time for five straight days behind CNN and MSNBC, the latter of which was the No. 1 cable news network in both the target 25-54 demographic and in total viewers for a full week.

But back to Fox News: This is its longest stretch in third place in 17 years.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/significant-digits-for-tuesday-may-23-2017/

FJV
23 May 17,, 21:51
If you wanna have some sort of accurate idea about fake news and the Russia stuff I would recommend the FPRI audio broadcast on it.

http://www.fpri.org/multimedia/2017/03/fake-news-russian-information-operations/

PeeCoffee
24 May 17,, 02:48
Strange what I observed in the photo or Rex and Vladimir in post # 346.
"RWT" (pic Tillerson's left sleeve cuff)...who the heck wears dress shirts with monogramed cuffs ?
Quite a fashion statement for a dapper and exceedingly wealthy man. Surely "DT" does, eh.

Is this so the laundry or dry cleaners don't misdeliver or lose items of clothing ?
What about monogramed socks, underwear, pajamas and such ?
Wouldn't a bar code be sufficient ?

Back on topic...Who needs false news when the real news is so unbelievable ?
Who styles Kim Jung Un's hair ?...or Trump's ?

DOR
24 May 17,, 08:21
Strange what I observed in the photo or Rex and Vladimir in post # 346.
"RWT" (pic Tillerson's left sleeve cuff)...who the heck wears dress shirts with monogramed cuffs ?
Quite a fashion statement for a dapper and exceedingly wealthy man. Surely "DT" does, eh.

Is this so the laundry or dry cleaners don't misdeliver or lose items of clothing ?
What about monogramed socks, underwear, pajamas and such ?
Wouldn't a bar code be sufficient ?

Back on topic...Who needs false news when the real news is so unbelievable ?
Who styles Kim Jung Un's hair ?...or Trump's ?

The monogram indicates (a) it is custom made, not off-the-rack; (b) it cost something in the region of $200 - $2,000; and (c) "I'm one of the rich guys, in case you hadn't known."

kato
24 May 17,, 16:59
The monogram indicates (a) it is custom made, not off-the-rack; (b) it cost something in the region of $200 - $2,000
You can order custom monogrammed dress shirts for around 50 bucks online (or less - there's places that sell 'em for 30). And the monogram on the cuff is like 10% of that price.

Other than (c) it's also tacky. Especially on the cuff, almost as much as on the breast pocket. On a proper dress shirt the monogram goes on the left side just above the belt.

troung
28 Jun 17,, 14:07
The First Amendment doesn't call for "supremacy of the press" or "submission to the press." Turning off the cameras isn't a threat to democracy or free speech, but it will deal with some grandstanding.


Angry White House reporter: 'I can't take it anymore!'

by Pete Kasperowicz | Jun 28, 2017, 7:26 AM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/angry-white-house-reporter-i-cant-take-it-anymore/article/2627291
The reporter who lashed out at the Trump administration on Tuesday said Wednesday that reporters have to stand up and fight President Trump's effort to dismiss the media, and said he blew up at spokeswoman Sarah Sanders because he "can't take it anymore."

"For the government to sit there and undermine essentially what [are] very essential checks and balances in the system, it's disheartening, it's unnerving," said reporter Brian Karem, who writes for Playboy, on MSNBC.

"I can't take it anymore," he said.


Karem on Tuesday complained to Sanders that she was purposefully saying "inflammatory" things to make the media look bad, and to say anything the press writes against Trump amounts to fake news.

On MSNBC, Karem complained that Sanders' mission on Tuesday was to berate the press, even though the first three questions Sanders was asked dealt with media, including Karem's complaint.

"She took the opportunity first thing off the bat to go after the media," he said. "She was trying to go after CNN specifically and the media in general. We've been called the enemy of the people from that White House, we've been told that we're fake news."

"We are bullied and browbeaten every day, and I pretty much have had enough of it," he said. "We can't take the bullying anymore. It's undermining the fourth estate, it's undermining the first amendment."

Karem also agreed with a panelist that undermining the press appears to be one of the Trump administration's ongoing plans.

"It's one of the few strategies I've seen from this White House, and it has been ongoing," he said.

"He's inflaming the very people who got him into office. He's speaking to his base, and he's trying to undermine the very essence of what we do," Karem said. "And that's not good for this republic, it's not good for this country

troung
28 Jun 17,, 14:57
CNN’s Acosta has meltdown number 3, incensed that ‘WH takes questions from conservatives’

June 28, 2017 | Samantha Chang |  Print Article




aSHARE537
dTWEET16
hPIN0
fPLUS2
vEMAIL



a 537
d 16
f 2
h 0
v
cnn jim acosta white house presser meltdown
CNN moonbat Jim Acosta hijacks daily White House press briefings to make himself the story. (Image: screengrab)

CNN hack Jim Acosta thinks conservative media are un-American and should be censored at White House press briefings. Just like they were under the Obama administration.

That’s what he suggested in an inane tweet as part of his daily anti-Trump whine-fest. Acosta has repeatedly violated a key rule in journalism, which is: Never make YOURSELF the story.

For the past two weeks, Acosta has trolled White House press secretary Sean Spicer and deputy secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders in person or on Twitter every single day.

Last Friday, Acosta was smacked down by Sanders after he complained incessantly about new White House rules drastically limiting on-camera pressers in a bid to cut down on reporter showboating on live TV.

Playboy White House reporter berates Trump spokeswoman: ‘Come on! You’re inflaming everybody!’

On Monday, Acosta hijacked a White House presser by repeatedly shouting at Sean Spicer to turn the cameras back on. While doing this, he rudely interrupted reporters from other media outlets who were patiently waiting their turn to ask questions.

On Tuesday, Acosta threw another childish tantrum by tweeting his outrage that Sarah Huckabee Sanders took several questions from conservative media at a press briefing he didn’t even attend. Acosta’s CNN colleague Jeff Zeleny went in his place.

“Does this feel like America?” Acosta bleated on Twitter. “Where the White House takes q’s from conservatives, then openly trashes the news media in the briefing room.”





Conservative editor Curtis Houck immediately shut Acosta down by reminding him that Sanders had also fielded questions from liberal media outlets NBC, CBS, NPR, and Bloomberg.



Acosta’s latest outburst came just hours after an explosive undercover video showed a veteran CNN producer admitting that CNN is relentlessly pushing the fake Trump-Russia hoax purely for ratings.

The CNN producer, John Bonifield, admitted that many of his colleagues know there’s no evidence to support the fake-news narrative, but CNN is promoting the propaganda around the clock because it’s a ratings cash cow.

The irony is that despite these shameless stunts, CNN’s ratings still lag far behind that of its rivals Fox News and MSNBC.

cnn ratings versus fox msnbc june 26


Despite its best efforts, CNN gets crushed by Fox News and MSNBC every day, in every time slot. (Adweek)

Jim Acosta’s daily whining has become so unhinged and shrill that Fox News anchor Sean Hannity smacked him down in a segment on his show Tuesday night. “One of the top pushers of fake news is combative and whiny senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta,” Hannity said.




Earlier this week, three CNN reporters were fired after publishing a bogus story linking former Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci to the Russia investigations. Scaramucci had threatened to a file a $100 million lawsuit before CNN decided to can its reckless reporters.

Meanwhile, Twitter had a field day skewering Acosta by reminding him that it was just two weeks ago that he pushed a fake news story claiming President Trump did not visit Congressman Steve Scalise in the hospital after he got shot by a crazed leftist gunman. Acosta’s claim was 100% false.

Given these monumental lapses in journalistic ethics, Acosta should be grateful that CNN’s White House press credentials haven’t been revoked yet.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/06/28/cnns-acosta-meltdown-number-3-incensed-wh-takes-questions-conservatives-507658

drhuy
29 Jun 17,, 05:20
so no one gonna talk about how 3 cnn employees got kicked out over fake news and how one of its producer got caught on the tape admitting the russian story is all BS?

DOR
02 Jul 17,, 11:40
No, NASA is not hiding kidnapped children on Mars


“We actually believe that there is a colony on Mars that is populated by children who were kidnapped and sent into space on a 20-year ride,” Robert David Steele said Thursday during a winding, conspiratorial dialogue with Jones about child victims of sex crimes. “So that once they get to Mars they have no alternative but to be slaves on the Mars colony.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/01/no-alex-jones-nasa-is-not-hiding-kidnapped-children-on-mars-nasa-says/?utm_term=.e242203bdf0b

DOR
02 Jul 17,, 11:47
so no one gonna talk about how 3 cnn employees got kicked out over fake news and how one of its producer got caught on the tape admitting the russian story is all BS?

An internal investigation by CNN management found that some standard editorial processes were not followed [which isn't exactly the same as creating fake news wholesale] when the article was published, people briefed on the results of the investigation said.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/media/cnn-announcement-retracted-article/index.html

The story, which reported that Congress was investigating a "Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials," cited a single anonymous source.

In a staff meeting Monday afternoon, investigative unit members were told that the retraction did not mean the facts of the story were necessarily wrong. Rather, it meant that "the story wasn't solid enough to publish as-is," one of the people briefed on the investigation said.

On Friday, one of the people named in the story, Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci, disputed Frank's reporting and said, "I did nothing wrong."

Friday night, once it was determined that editorial processes were not followed, CNN deleted the story from CNN.com. Soon thereafter, the story was officially retracted and replaced with an editor's note.

The piece "did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted," the note said. "Links to the story have been disabled."
The editor's note also included an apology to Scaramucci.

"CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted," Scaramucci tweeted the next morning. "Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on."

drhuy
02 Jul 17,, 12:49
An internal investigation by CNN management found that some standard editorial processes were not followed [which isn't exactly the same as creating fake news wholesale] when the article was published, people briefed on the results of the investigation said.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/media/cnn-announcement-retracted-article/index.html

The story, which reported that Congress was investigating a "Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials," cited a single anonymous source.

In a staff meeting Monday afternoon, investigative unit members were told that the retraction did not mean the facts of the story were necessarily wrong. Rather, it meant that "the story wasn't solid enough to publish as-is," one of the people briefed on the investigation said.

On Friday, one of the people named in the story, Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci, disputed Frank's reporting and said, "I did nothing wrong."

Friday night, once it was determined that editorial processes were not followed, CNN deleted the story from CNN.com. Soon thereafter, the story was officially retracted and replaced with an editor's note.

The piece "did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted," the note said. "Links to the story have been disabled."
The editor's note also included an apology to Scaramucci.

"CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted," Scaramucci tweeted the next morning. "Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on."

wait, you did not expect cnn to publicly admitted that it created fake news, did you?

DOR
02 Jul 17,, 13:54
wait, you did not expect cnn to publicly admitted that it created fake news, did you?

Wait, you did not just make that up, did you?

DOR
05 Jul 17,, 10:30
Scott Sumner, Econlog.econlib.org, July 4, 2017

We've all been hearing a lot about "fake news", although we may not agree as to which side of the ideological spectrum is peddling these lies. But there is another problem as well---news that is accurate, but extremely misleading. Indeed I'd say this sort of news is far more prevalent and far more of a problem than fake news.

The news media is good at storytelling. That's no surprise, as people like to learn through stories, indeed this preference is probably hardwired into our brains. The news media can't survive without readers and viewers, and so naturally they focus on storytelling. And the most riveting stories involve war, terrorism, natural disasters, and other serious problems. While the individual stories are usually true, the overall effect is to present a very false image of the world. As a result, at least 90% of Americans literally have no idea as to what is actually going on in the world. Here's Nicholas Kristof:


“Nine out of 10 Americans say in polls that global poverty has been staying the same or worsening. So let's correct the record.
There has been a stunning decline in extreme poverty, defined as less than about $2 per person per day, adjusted for inflation. For most of history, probably more than 90 percent of the world population lived in extreme poverty, plunging to fewer than 10 percent today.
Every day, another 250,000 people graduate from extreme poverty, according to World Bank figures. About 300,000 get electricity for the first time. Some 285,000 get their first access to clean drinking water. When I was a boy, a majority of adults had always been illiterate, but now more than 85 percent can read.
Family planning leads parents to have fewer babies and invest more in each. The number of global war deaths is far below what it was in the 1950s through the 1990s, let alone the murderous 1930s and '40s.
Aneri and I are reporting from a country whose name, Liberia, evokes Ebola, civil war and warlords like General Butt Naked. That's partly because we journalists have a bias toward bad news: We cover planes that crash, not planes that take off.”

Unfortunately these true lies are hard to push back against. Statistics tells us that the world is getting better at a mind-boggling rate (Seriously, can your brain even imagine the improvement in human welfare associated with 250,000 people a day rising above extreme poverty? I can't.) But that's not the world people tend to see. As a result, they elect politicians who pander to their ignorance of the world.

[I'm not sure how accurate that data is, but there is no question that global poverty is declining rapidly.]
PS. Here's another example:


“[W]e are defeating leprosy. Worldwide, cases have dropped 97 percent since 1985, and it is now easily treatable. A global plan set 2020 as a target for no more children to become deformed by leprosy.”

As recently as the 1980s there were still over 5 million cases of leprosy. And now it's almost gone. Amazing.

bfng3569
06 Jul 17,, 20:39
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/06/cnns-acosta-slammed-for-saying-trump-held-fake-news-conference.html

CNN's Acosta slammed for saying Trump held 'fake news conference'

Cody Derespina
By Cody Derespina Published July 06, 2017
Fox News

CNN reporter Jim Acosta took heat Thursday from conservatives on Twitter after the combative correspondent accused President Trump of holding a “fake news conference” -- and later spewed some "fake news" of his own when he claimed Trump misstated the number of intelligence agencies that concluded Russia meddled in the presidential election.

During a joint news conference with President Andrzej Duda in Poland, Trump took questions from reporters from The Daily Mail and MSNBC. But that apparently wasn’t good enough for Acosta, who’s no stranger to sparring with Trump and White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer.

“Trump finally held a news conference overseas. But he took a question from a friendly reporter and then attacked CNN as ‘fake news,’” Acosta tweeted, adding: “Isn’t it a ‘fake news conference’ to take a question from a reporter who is essentially an ally of the White House?”

Acosta apparently was referring to The Daily Mail's U.S. political editor David Martosko, who was considered last month for a gig in Trump’s communications department but pulled out of consideration.

But right-leaning social media watchers quickly blasted Acosta’s snarky messages, noting the Obama administration enjoyed no shortage of reporter-aide crossovers and suggesting former President Barack Obama and his team routinely called on friendly journalists.

“So by that logic, was every news conference for the last 8 years #fakenews Jim?” Donald Trump Jr. wrote.

Ex-Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer added: “Jim – care to guess how many questions I took from reporters who went on to join the Obama WH??”

Conservative radio host Steve Deace picked up on the thread: “Jim, over two dozen ‘journalists’ went to work in the Obama WH, including the former WH spokesman.”

An Atlantic article from 2013 noted Time managing editor Rick Stengel was “at least the 24th journalist to work for the Obama Administration.” Former Obama White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also had worked for Time as its Washington Bureau Chief, which Deace alluded to. Others defected from outlets such as Politico, The Washington Post, National Journal and the Chicago Tribune to take roles under Obama.

Aside from the Twitter battles, Acosta also ran into some trouble on air Thursday.

While on CNN’s “New Day” after Trump’s joint press conference, Acosta repeated the “fake news” line – a phrase Trump often uses when he refers to CNN, including on Thursday – to describe an answer Trump gave to a question about Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

“The other thing that was ‘fake news’ coming from President Trump is when he said, ‘Well, I keep hearing it's 17 intelligence agencies that say Russia meddled in the election, I think it's only three or four,’” Acosta said. “Where does that number come from? Where does this ‘three or four’ number come from? My suspicion…is that if we go to the administration and ask them for this question, I'm not so sure we're going to get an answer.”

However, there is an answer.

The New York Times – and other outlets – had reported for months that “17 American intelligence agencies” agreed Russia orchestrated cyber-attacks before the election.

But The Times on June 28 issued a correction, noting “the assessment was made by four intelligence agencies – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency.” The Times bluntly concluded: “The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizers in the American intelligence community.”

snapper
06 Jul 17,, 21:28
There has been a stunning decline in extreme poverty...

I have seen similar confirmation of this general rise from poverty (as has my Sister who works for the UN) which I think has to be a good thing. The question is who's policies are right to continue this development?

DOR
07 Jul 17,, 08:00
I have seen similar confirmation of this general rise from poverty (as has my Sister who works for the UN) which I think has to be a good thing. The question is who's policies are right to continue this development?

What's the right course of action for the future? Sorry, I gave up fortune telling some time ago.
What worked best in the past? Opening up to the world economy, being a friend of the US, investing in education and keeping a lid on corruption.

DOR
23 Aug 17,, 11:14
Is Kid Rock leading the U.S. Senate race in Michigan? A story like that is essentially designed to go viral, and that’s exactly what happened when Delphi Analytica released a poll fielded from July 14 to July 18. Republican Kid Rock earned 30 percent to Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s 26 percent. A sitting U.S. senator was losing to a man who sang the lyric, “If I was president of the good ol’ USA, you know I’d turn our churches into strip clubs and watch the whole world pray.”

The result was so amazing that the poll was quickly spread around the political sections of the internet. Websites like Daily Caller, Political Wire and Twitchy all wrote about it. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted it out. And finally, Kid Rock himself shared an article from Gateway Pundit about the poll.

There was just one problem: Nobody knew if the poll was real. Delphi Analytica’s website came online July 6, mere weeks before the Kid Rock poll was supposedly conducted. The pollster had basically no fingerprint on the web.


Indeed, Delphi Analytica isn’t a polling firm in any traditional sense, and it’s not entirely clear they even conducted the poll as advertised.

The story of Delphi Analytica, its mysterious origins and its Kid Rock poll show that the line between legitimate and illegitimate pollsters is blurring. Much of the polling industry is moving online, where conducting a survey is far less expensive than making thousands of phone calls. But that lower price has also opened up polling to all sorts of new people: Some are seasoned professionals trying an old craft with a new tool or well-informed, well-meaning amateurs trying to break into the industry, but other characters have less noble goals — they’re pranksters seeking attention and scam artists trying to make a quick buck.

If you’re a political observer interested in polls or a journalist who writes about them, you need to be more careful than ever.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fake-polls-are-a-real-problem/

DOR
03 Oct 17,, 10:54
Even amid tragedy, fake news:
http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/las-vegas-attack-google-facebook-admit-they-promoted-false-news/60923394

Roosveltrepub
06 Oct 17,, 15:22
Those involved did lose their job,( reference to cnn which shows their goal is get it right not to push a pov as the following site is dedicated to doing yet called news by many it is as much news as maddow) This is the type of fake news that troubles me by dropping the actual phrase spoken they change any kind of thoughtful response to the President's claim there were good people marching. Good people dont march with those chanting Jews will not replace us and for a site attacked for being too sympathetic white nationalists. A coincidence they change the chant being repeated to one that no longer reflects the racist anti Semitic nature of that Friday march...sorry for the necro thread. I thought it was an example of small purposeful changes morphing a news story into a propaganda piece. There was no retraction.....i am retired and will be popping in again mostly to lurk. I hope the last few years were as good to all of you as to me http://www.breitbart.com/news/torch-wielding-group-protests-confederate-statue-removal/ i] the chant is easily identified in any of the videos and it wasn't we will not be replaced

Wooglin
06 Nov 17,, 21:37
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/358983-media-shows-why-its-so-mistrusted-after-falsified-trump-fish-feeding

Media shows why it’s so mistrusted after falsified Trump fish-feeding ‘story’


It happened again — major media outlets and reporters getting caught red-handed misleading the public.

And in this case, it was all over arguably the stupidest thing possible.


You may have read by now that President Trump decided to dump a whole box of fish food into a koi pond while on his 13-day Asia trip. The implication, of course, is that a graceless brute like Trump has no idea about foreign customs and/or cares about the environment.


Here's a few examples:

Bloomberg's White House reporter:


New York Magazine: Trump Under Fire for Improper Fish-Feeding Technique

Jezebel:


CNBC’s Christina Wilkie (in a now-deleted tweet): “Trump and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe were scheduled to feed koi spoonfuls of food. Until Trump poured his entire box of fish food into the pond.”

New York Daily News: Photo of Donald Trump dumping fish food into koi pond during Japan visit draws Obama comparisons

The Guardian: “White House reporters, keen perhaps to pick up on a Trump gaffe, captured the moment when he upended his box on their smartphones and tweeted evidence of his questionable grasp of fish keeping. Some speculated that a poor palace employee would be dispatched to the scene to clean up the mess as soon as the two leaders disappeared inside.”

CNN: Trump feeds fish, winds up pouring entire box of food into koi pond


The CNN example includes edited video that zooms in on Trump to only show his face and prevents the viewer from seeing what Japanese Prime Minister Abe was doing at a key point of the short event.

Why was Abe edited out? Perhaps because he took his entire box of fish food and dumped it into the pond. Trump followed Abe's lead and did the same seconds later.


In other words — nothing to see here.

But with the zoom edit cutting Abe out, the viewer or reader — with an assist from the caption — is led to believe only Trump dumped his box.

So with this latest gaffe from numerous outlets in today's effort to make the president look like a dolt, it's another black eye for an industry that resembles Apollo Creed's face during his fatal fight against Ivan Drago in Rocky IV.

So the obvious question is this: Why pick a fight with Trump — who is mostly polling in the 30s and has no major legislative victories despite having majorities in the House and Senate — over something so ridiculous as fish-feeding? By doing so, it only perfectly makes the argument for Trump that the media is not only overwhelmingly negative in covering him, as study after study shows, but it's at times also hostile, adversarial and — most importantly in this case — fake.

How bad is the damage on the fake front? Check out this poll provided exclusively to The Hill from Harvard University and Harris, which shows 65 percent of Americans think there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media.

The sentiment is carried by a majority across party lines, with 80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of independents and 53 percent of Democrats stating such. Even more telling, 84 percent of voters said it is hard to know what news to believe online.

Bob Woodward probably gave the best advice during his speech at this year's White House Correspondents Dinner.

"Whatever the climate, whether the media’s revered or reviled, we should and must persist, and, I believe, we will," the Watergate legend said.

"We also need to face the reality that polling numbers show that most Americans disapprove of and distrust the media. This is no time for self-satisfaction or smugness,"

Our media can't afford any more of this kind of reporting marinated in the kind of smugness Woodward has keenly noticed.

It needs to be almost perfect. And when mistakes are made, it needs to own up to them.

Another day, another example of media bias.

Oftentimes that bias is subtle.

But in this feeding frenzy, it was not only blatantly overt, but intentional in its deception.

Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) is a media reporter for The Hill.

JAD_333
07 Nov 17,, 05:30
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/358983-media-shows-why-its-so-mistrusted-after-falsified-trump-fish-feeding

Media shows why it’s so mistrusted after falsified Trump fish-feeding ‘story’

With this specific story, it started on the internet and Twitter, and was picked up by CNN and a few other careless majors, but on the whole, majors like CBS, PBC, WaPo, NYT and others caught the fake aspect of it and reported on it. Snopes, Politifact and other fact checkers were also quick to debunk the story.

Yet, the overall premise that fake news in more prevalent these days than in the past, particularly as it pertains to Trump, is probably correct. It is, however, not a new phenomenon in this country, where periodically the media goes off the rails, not that it has ever been totally sober and accurate. Two things we need to remember: The media is not monolithic; it's made up of thousands of news organizations, not all of which agree with each other, and it's a for-profit industry dependent on advertising revenue which itself is measured in readers/listeners. Without teasing headlines and slippery innuendoes, news organizations lose eyeballs and therefore ad revenue. Witness the handful of honest, well researched publications. They have small numbers of subscribers and barely stay afloat.

All in all, the frenzy over fake news is overblown. Carried too far it could lead to muzzling of the press. While it's good to expose fake stories, it's not good to attack the media in general. There are too many moving parts within it for all to be painted with the same brush

Double Edge
07 Nov 17,, 14:11
This is why i stick to PBS & NPR or just listen to what the man has to say, preferably unedited

REAL NEWS

Can post anything from PBS here and i bet not one of you will have a problem with it : )

JRT
07 Nov 17,, 16:41
This is why i stick to PBS & NPR or just listen to what the man has to say, preferably unedited

REAL NEWS

Can post anything from PBS here and i bet not one of you will have a problem with it : )

Here is one that some here might like:

Ronan Farrow On 'Harvey Weinstein's Army Of Spies' : NPR

https://ondemand.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/me/2017/11/20171107_me_ronan_farrow_on_harvey_weinsteins_army _of_spies.mp3

JRT
07 Nov 17,, 16:47
Here is one that some here might like:

Ronan Farrow On 'Harvey Weinstein's Army Of Spies' : NPR

https://ondemand.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/me/2017/11/20171107_me_ronan_farrow_on_harvey_weinsteins_army _of_spies.mp3

Below is the article that was the subject of the interview at the above link.

Is the information real or fake?


Harvey Weinstein’s Army of Spies (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies)

The film executive hired private investigators, including ex-Mossad agents, to track actresses and journalists.

By Ronan Farrow
06 November 2017
The New Yorker

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. He also enlisted former employees from his film enterprises to join in the effort, collecting names and placing calls that, according to some sources who received them, felt intimidating.

In some cases, the investigative effort was run through Weinstein’s lawyers, including David Boies, a celebrated attorney who represented Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential-election dispute and argued for marriage equality before the U.S. Supreme Court. Boies personally signed the contract directing Black Cube to attempt to uncover information that would stop the publication of a Times story about Weinstein’s abuses, while his firm was also representing the Times, including in a libel case.

Boies confirmed that his firm contracted with and paid two of the agencies and that investigators from one of them sent him reports, which were then passed on to Weinstein. He said that he did not select the firms or direct the investigators’ work. He also denied that the work regarding the Times story represented a conflict of interest. Boies said that his firm’s involvement with the investigators was a mistake. “We should not have been contracting with and paying investigators that we did not select and direct,” he told me. “At the time, it seemed a reasonable accommodation for a client, but it was not thought through, and that was my mistake. It was a mistake at the time.”

Techniques like the ones used by the agencies on Weinstein’s behalf are almost always kept secret, and, because such relationships are often run through law firms, the investigations are theoretically protected by attorney-client privilege, which could prevent them from being disclosed in court. The documents and sources reveal the tools and tactics available to powerful individuals to suppress negative stories and, in some cases, forestall criminal investigations.

In a statement, Weinstein’s spokesperson, Sallie Hofmeister, said, “It is a fiction to suggest that any individuals were targeted or suppressed at any time.”

In May, 2017, McGowan received an e-mail from a literary agency introducing her to a woman who identified herself as Diana Filip, the deputy head of sustainable and responsible investments at Reuben Capital Partners, a London-based wealth-management firm. Filip told McGowan that she was launching an initiative to combat discrimination against women in the workplace, and asked McGowan, a vocal women’s-rights advocate, to speak at a gala kickoff event later that year. Filip offered McGowan a fee of sixty thousand dollars. “I understand that we have a lot in common,” Filip wrote to McGowan before their first meeting, in May, at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills. Filip had a U.K. cell-phone number, and she spoke with what McGowan took to be a German accent. Over the following months, the two women met at least three more times at hotel bars in Los Angeles and New York and other locations. “I took her to the Venice boardwalk and we had ice cream while we strolled,” McGowan told me, adding that Filip was “very kind.” The two talked at length about issues relating to women’s empowerment. Filip also repeatedly told McGowan that she wanted to make a significant investment in McGowan’s production company.

Filip was persistent. In one e-mail, she suggested meeting in Los Angeles and then, when McGowan said she would be in New York, Filip said she could meet there just as easily. She also began pressing McGowan for information. In a conversation in July, McGowan revealed to Filip that she had spoken to me as part of my reporting on Weinstein. A week later, I received an e-mail from Filip asking for a meeting and suggesting that I join her campaign to end professional discrimination against women. “I am very impressed with your work as a male advocate for gender equality, and believe that you would make an invaluable addition to our activities,” she wrote, using her wealth-management firm’s e-mail address. Unsure of who she was, I did not respond.

Filip continued to meet with McGowan. In one meeting in September, Filip was joined by another Black Cube operative, who used the name Paul and claimed to be a colleague at Reuben Capital Partners. The goal, according to two sources with knowledge of the effort, was to pass McGowan to another operative to extract more information. On October 10th, the day The New Yorker published my story about Weinstein, Filip reached out to McGowan in an e-mail. “Hi Love,” she wrote. “How are you feeling? . . . Just wanted to tell you how brave I think you are.” She signed off with an “xx.” Filip e-mailed McGowan as recently as October 23rd.

In fact, “Diana Filip” was an alias for a former officer in the Israeli Defense Forces who originally hailed from Eastern Europe and was working for Black Cube, according to three individuals with knowledge of the situation. When I sent McGowan photos of the Black Cube agent, she recognized her instantly. “Oh my God,” she wrote back. “Reuben Capital. Diana Filip. No fucking way.”

Ben Wallace, a reporter at New York who was pursuing a story on Weinstein, said that the same woman met with him twice last fall. She identified herself only as Anna and suggested that she had an allegation against Weinstein. When I presented Wallace with the same photographs of Black Cube’s undercover operative, Wallace recalled her vividly. “That’s her,” he said. Like McGowan, Wallace said that the woman had what he assumed to be a German accent, as well as a U.K. cell-phone number. Wallace told me that Anna first contacted him on October 28, 2016, when he had been working on the Weinstein story for about a month and a half. Anna declined to disclose who had given her Wallace’s information. Over the course of the two meetings, Wallace grew increasingly suspicious of her motives. Anna seemed to be pushing him for information, he recalled, “about the status and scope of my inquiry, and about who I might be talking to, without giving me any meaningful help or information.” During their second meeting, Anna requested that they sit close together, leading Wallace to suspect that she might be recording the exchange. When she recounted her experiences with Weinstein, Wallace said, “it seemed like soap-opera acting.” Wallace wasn’t the only journalist the woman contacted. In addition to her e-mails to me, Filip also e-mailed Jodi Kantor, of the Times, according to sources involved in the effort.

The U.K. cell-phone numbers that Filip provided to Wallace and McGowan have been disconnected. Calls to Reuben Capital Partners’ number in London went unanswered. As recently as Friday, the firm had a bare-bones Web site, with stock photos and generic text passages about asset management and an initiative called Women in Focus. The site, which has now been taken down, listed an address near Piccadilly Circus, operated by a company specializing in shared office space. That company said that it had never heard of Reuben Capital Partners. Two sources with knowledge of Weinstein’s work with Black Cube said that the firm creates fictional companies to provide cover for its operatives, and that Filip’s firm was one of them.

Black Cube declined to comment on the specifics of any work it did for Weinstein. The agency said in a statement, “It is Black Cube’s policy to never discuss its clients with any third party, and to never confirm or deny any speculation made with regard to the company’s work. Black Cube supports the work of many leading law firms around the world, especially in the US, gathering evidence for complex legal processes, involving commercial disputes, among them uncovering negative campaigns. . . . It should be highlighted that Black Cube applies high moral standards to its work, and operates in full compliance with the law of any jurisdiction in which it operates—strictly following the guidance and legal opinions provided by leading law firms from around the world.” The contract with the firm also specified that all of its work would be obtained “by legal means and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.”

Last fall, Weinstein began mentioning Black Cube by name in conversations with his associates and attorneys. The agency had made a name for itself digging up information for companies in Israel, Europe, and the U.S. that led to successful legal judgments against business rivals. But the firm has also faced legal questions about its employees’ use of fake identities and other tactics. Last year, two of its investigators were arrested in Romania on hacking charges. In the end, the company reached an agreement with the Romanian authorities, under which the operatives admitted to hacking and were released. Two sources familiar with the agency defended its decision to work for Weinstein, saying that they originally believed that the assignment focussed on his business rivals. But even the earliest lists of names that Weinstein provided to Black Cube included actresses and journalists.

On October 28, 2016, Boies’s law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner, wired to Black Cube the first hundred thousand dollars, toward what would ultimately be a six-hundred-thousand-dollar invoice. (The documents do not make clear how much of the invoice was paid.) The law firm and Black Cube signed a contract that month and several others later. One, dated July 11, 2017, and bearing Boies’s signature, states that the project’s “primary objectives” are to “provide intelligence which will help the Client’s efforts to completely stop the publication of a new negative article in a leading NY newspaper” and to “obtain additional content of a book which currently being written and includes harmful negative information on and about the Client,” who is identified as Weinstein in multiple documents. (In one e-mail, a Black Cube executive asks lawyers retained by the agency to refer to Weinstein as “the end client” or “Mr. X,” noting that referring to him by name “will make him extremely angry.”) The article mentioned in the contract was, according to three sources, the story that ultimately ran in the Times on October 5th. The book was “Brave,” a memoir by McGowan, scheduled for publication by HarperCollins in January. The documents show that, in the end, the agency delivered to Weinstein more than a hundred pages of transcripts and descriptions of the book, based on tens of hours of recorded conversations between McGowan and the female private investigator.

The contract between a private security firm and one of Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers.

Weinstein’s spokesperson, Hofmeister, called “the assertion that Mr. Weinstein secured any portion of a book ... false and among the many inaccuracies and wild conspiracy theories promoted in this article.”

The July agreement included several “success fees” if Black Cube met its goals. The firm would receive an additional three hundred thousand dollars if the agency “provides intelligence which will directly contribute to the efforts to completely stop the Article from being published at all in any shape or form.” Black Cube would also be paid fifty thousand dollars if it secured “the other half” of McGowan’s book “in readable book and legally admissible format.”

The contracts also show some of the techniques that Black Cube employs. The agency promised “a dedicated team of expert intelligence officers that will operate in the USA and any other necessary country,” including a project manager, intelligence analysts, linguists, and “Avatar Operators” specifically hired to create fake identities on social media, as well as “operations experts with extensive experience in social engineering.” The agency also said that it would provide “a full time agent by the name of ‘Anna’ (hereinafter ‘the Agent’), who will be based in New York and Los Angeles as per the Client’s instructions and who will be available full time to assist the Client and his attorneys for the next four months.” Four sources with knowledge of Weinstein’s work with Black Cube confirmed that this was the same woman who met with McGowan and Wallace.

Black Cube also agreed to hire “an investigative journalist, as per the Client request,” who would be required to conduct ten interviews a month for four months and be paid forty thousand dollars. Black Cube agreed to “promptly report to the Client the results of such interviews by the Journalist.”

In January, 2017, a freelance journalist called McGowan and had a lengthy conversation with her that he recorded without telling her; he subsequently communicated with Black Cube about the interviews, though he denied he was reporting back to them in a formal capacity. He contacted at least two other women with allegations against Weinstein, including the actress Annabella Sciorra, who later went public in The New Yorker with a rape allegation against Weinstein. Sciorra, whom he called in August, said that she found the conversation suspicious and got off the phone as quickly as possible. “It struck me as B.S.,” she told me. “And it scared me that Harvey was testing to see if I would talk.” The freelancer also placed calls to Wallace, the New York reporter, and to me.

Two sources close to the effort and several documents show that the same freelancer received contact information for actresses, journalists, and business rivals of Weinstein from Black Cube, and that the agency ultimately passed summaries of those interviews to Weinstein’s lawyers. When contacted about his role, the freelancer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that he had been working on his own story about Weinstein, using contact information fed to him by Black Cube. The freelancer said that he reached out to other reporters, one of whom used material from his interviews, in the hopes of helping to expose Weinstein. He denied that he was paid by Black Cube or Weinstein.

Weinstein also enlisted other journalists to uncover information that he could use to undermine women with allegations. A December, 2016, e-mail exchange between Weinstein and Dylan Howard, the chief content officer of American Media Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer, shows that Howard shared with Weinstein material obtained by one of his reporters, as part of an effort to help Weinstein disprove McGowan’s allegation of rape. In one e-mail, Howard sent Weinstein a list of contacts. “Let’s discuss next steps on each,” he wrote. After Weinstein thanked him, Howard described a call that one of his reporters made to Elizabeth Avellan, the ex-wife of the director Robert Rodriguez, whom Rodriguez left to have a relationship with McGowan.

Avellan told me that she remembered the interview. Howard’s reporter “kept calling and calling and calling,” she said, and also contacted others close to her. Avellan finally called back, because “I was afraid people might start calling my kids.” In a long phone call, the reporter pressed her for unflattering statements about McGowan. She insisted that the call be off the record, and the reporter agreed. The reporter recorded the call, and subsequently passed the audio to Howard.

In subsequent e-mails to Weinstein, Howard said, “I have something AMAZING . . . eventually she laid into Rose pretty hard.” Weinstein replied, “This is the killer. Especially if my fingerprints r not on this.” Howard then reassured Weinstein, “They are not. And the conversation . . . is RECORDED.” The next day, Howard added, in another e-mail, “Audio file to follow.” (Howard denied sending the audio to Weinstein.) Avellan told me that she would not have agreed to coöperate in efforts to discredit McGowan. “I don’t want to shame people,” she said. “I wasn’t interested. Women should stand together.”

In a statement, Howard said that, in addition to his role as the chief content officer at American Media Inc., the National Enquirer’s publisher, he oversaw a television-production agreement with Weinstein, which has since been terminated. He said that, at the time of the e-mails, “absent a corporate decision to terminate the agreement with The Weinstein Company, I had an obligation to protect AMI’s interests by seeking out—but not publishing—truthful information about people who Mr. Weinstein insisted were making false claims against him. To the extent I provided ‘off the record’ information to Mr. Weinstein about one of his accusers—at a time when Mr. Weinstein was denying any harassment of any woman—it was information which I would never have allowed AMI to publish on the internet or in its magazines.” Although at least one of Howard’s reporters made calls related to Weinstein’s investigations, Howard insisted that he strictly divided his work with Weinstein from his work as a journalist. “I always separated those two roles carefully and completely—and resisted Mr. Weinstein’s repeated efforts to have AMI titles publish favorable stories about him or negative articles about his accusers,” Howard said. An A.M.I. representative noted that, at the time, Weinstein insisted that the encounter was consensual, and that the allegations were untrue.

Hofmeister, Weinstein’s spokesperson, added, “In regard to Mr. Howard, he has served as the point person for American Media’s long-standing business relationship with The Weinstein Company. Earlier this year, Mr. Weinstein gave Mr. Howard a news tip that Mr. Howard agreed might make a good story. Mr. Howard pursued the tip and followed up with Mr. Weinstein as a courtesy, but declined to publish any story.”

einstein’s relationship with Kroll, one of the other agencies he contracted with, dates back years. After Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, an Italian model, accused Weinstein of sexually assaulting her, in 2015, she reached a settlement with Weinstein that required her to surrender all her personal devices to Kroll, so that they could be wiped of evidence of a conversation in which Weinstein admitted to groping her. A recording of that exchange, captured during a police sting operation, was released by The New Yorker last month.

During the more recent effort to shut down emerging stories, Kroll again played a central role. E-mails show that Dan Karson, the chairman of Kroll Americas’ Investigations and Disputes practice, contacted Weinstein at his personal e-mail address with information about women with allegations. In one October, 2016, e-mail, Karson sent Weinstein eleven photographs of McGowan and Weinstein together at different events in the years after he allegedly assaulted her. Three hours later, Weinstein forwarded Karson’s e-mail to Boies and Weinstein’s criminal-defense attorney, Blair Berk, and told them to “scroll thru the extra ones.” The next morning, Berk replied that one photo, which showed McGowan warmly talking with Weinstein, “is the money shot.”

Berk defended her actions. “Any criminal-defense lawyer worth her salt would investigate unproven allegations to determine if they are credible,” she said. “And it would be dereliction of duty not to conduct a public-records search for photographs of the accuser embracing the accused taken after the time of the alleged assault.”

Another firm, the Los Angeles-based PSOPS, and its lead private investigator, Jack Palladino, as well as another one of its investigators, Sara Ness, produced detailed profiles of various individuals in the saga, sometimes of a personal nature, which included information that could be used to undermine their credibility. One report on McGowan that Ness sent to Weinstein last December ran for more than a hundred pages and featured McGowan’s address and other personal information, along with sections labelled “Lies/Exaggerations/Contradictions,” “Hypocrisy,” and “Potential Negative Character Wits,” an apparent abbreviation of “witnesses.” One subhead read “Past Lovers.” The section included details of acrimonious breakups, mentioning Avellan, and discussed Facebook posts expressing negative sentiments about McGowan. (Palladino and Ness did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

Other firms were also involved in assembling such profiles, including ones that focussed on factors that, in theory, might make women likely to speak out against sexual abuse. One of the other firm’s profiles was of Rosanna Arquette, an actress who later, in The New Yorker, accused Weinstein of sexual harassment. The file mentions Arquette’s friendship with McGowan, social-media posts about sexual abuse, and the fact that a family member had gone public with an allegation that she had been molested as a child.

ll of the security firms that Weinstein hired were also involved in trying to ferret out reporters’ sources and probe their backgrounds. Wallace, the reporter for New York, said that he was suspicious when he received the call from the Black Cube operative using the pseudonym Anna, because Weinstein had already requested a meeting with Wallace; Adam Moss, the editor-in-chief of New York; David Boies; and a representative from Kroll. The intention, Wallace assumed, was to “come in with dossiers slagging various women and me.” Moss declined the meeting.

In a series of e-mails sent in the weeks before Wallace received the call from Anna, Dan Karson, of Kroll, sent Weinstein preliminary background information on Wallace and Moss. “No adverse information about Adam Moss so far (no libel/defamation cases, no court records or judgments/liens/UCC, etc.),” Karson wrote in one e-mail. Two months later, Palladino, the PSOPS investigator, sent Weinstein a detailed profile of Moss. It stated, “Our research did not yield any promising avenues for the personal impeachment of Moss.”

Similar e-mail exchanges occurred regarding Wallace. Kroll sent Weinstein a list of public criticisms of Wallace’s previous reporting and a detailed description of a U.K. libel suit filed in response to a book he wrote, in 2008, about the rare-wine market. PSOPS also profiled Wallace’s ex-wife, noting that she “might prove relevant to considerations of our response strategy when Wallace’s article on our client is finally published.”

In January, 2017, Wallace, Moss, and other editors at New York decided to shelve the story. Wallace had assembled a detailed list of women with allegations, but he lacked on-the-record statements from any victims. Wallace said that the decision not to run a story was made for legitimate journalistic reasons. Nevertheless, he said, “There was much more static and distraction than I’ve encountered on any other story.”

Other reporters were investigated as well. In April, 2017, Ness, of PSOPS, sent Weinstein an assessment of my own interactions with “persons of interest”—a list largely consisting of women with allegations, or those connected to them. Later, PSOPS submitted a detailed report focussing jointly on me and Jodi Kantor, of the Times. Some of the observations in the report are mundane. “Kantor is NOT following Ronan Farrow,” it notes, referring to relationships on Twitter. At other times, the report reflects a detailed effort to uncover sources. One individual I interviewed, and another whom Kantor spoke to in her separate endeavor, were listed as having reported the details of the conversations back to Weinstein.

For years, Weinstein had used private security agencies to investigate reporters. In the early aughts, as the journalist David Carr, who died in 2015, worked on a report on Weinstein for New York, Weinstein assigned Kroll to dig up unflattering information about him, according to a source close to the matter. Carr’s widow, Jill Rooney Carr, told me that her husband believed that he was being surveilled, though he didn’t know by whom. “He thought he was being followed,” she recalled. In one document, Weinstein’s investigators wrote that Carr had learned of McGowan’s allegation in the course of his reporting. Carr “wrote a number of critical/unflattering articles about HW over the years,” the document says, “none of which touched on the topic of women (due to fear of HW’s retaliation, according to HW).”

einstein’s relationships with the private investigators were often routed through law firms that represented him. This is designed to place investigative materials under the aegis of attorney-client privilege, which can prevent the disclosure of communications, even in court.

David Boies, who was involved in the relationships with Black Cube and PSOPS, was initially reluctant to speak with The New Yorker, out of concern that he might be “misinterpreted either as trying to deny or minimize mistakes that were made, or as agreeing with criticisms that I don’t agree are valid.”

But Boies did feel the need to respond to what he considered “fair and important” questions about his hiring of investigators. He said that he did not consider the contractual provisions directing Black Cube to stop the publication of the Times story to be a conflict of interest, because his firm was also representing the newspaper in a libel suit. From the beginning, he said, he advised Weinstein “that the story could not be stopped by threats or influence and that the only way the story could be stopped was by convincing the Times that there was no rape.” Boies told me he never pressured any news outlet. “If evidence could be uncovered to convince the Times the charges should not be published, I did not believe, and do not believe, that that would be averse to the Times’ interest.”

He conceded, however, that any efforts to profile and undermine reporters, at the Times and elsewhere, were problematic. “In general, I don’t think it’s appropriate to try to pressure reporters,” he said. “If that did happen here, it would not have been appropriate.”

Although the agencies paid by his firm focussed on many women with allegations, Boies said that he had only been aware of their work related to McGowan, whose allegations Weinstein denied. “Given what was known at the time, I thought it was entirely appropriate to investigate precisely what he was accused of doing, and to investigate whether there were facts that would rebut those accusations,” he said.

Of his representation of Weinstein in general, he said, “I don’t believe former lawyers should criticize former clients.” But he expressed regrets. “Although he vigorously denies using physical force, Mr. Weinstein has himself recognized that his contact with women was indefensible and incredibly hurtful,” Boies told me. “In retrospect, I knew enough in 2015 that I believe I should have been on notice of a problem, and done something about it. I don’t know what, if anything, happened after 2015, but to the extent it did, I think I have some responsibility. I also think that if people had taken action earlier it would have been better for Mr. Weinstein.”

einstein also drafted individuals around him into his efforts—willingly and not. In December, 2016, Weinstein asked the actress Asia Argento, who ultimately went public in The New Yorker with her allegation of rape against Weinstein, to meet in Italy with his private investigators to give testimony on his behalf. Argento, who felt pressure to say yes, declined after her partner, the chef and television personality Anthony Bourdain, advised her to avoid the meeting. Another actress, who declined to be named in this story, said that Weinstein asked her to meet with reporters to extract information about other sources.

Weinstein also enlisted two former employees, Denise Doyle Chambers and Pamela Lubell, in what turned out to be an effort to identify and call people who might speak to the press about their own, or others’, allegations. Weinstein secretly shared the lists they compiled with Black Cube.

Hofmeister, speaking on Weinstein’s behalf, said, “Any ‘lists’ that were prepared included names of former employees and others who were relevant to the research and preparation of a book about Miramax. Former employees conducting interviews for the book reported receiving unwanted contacts from the media.”

Doyle Chambers declined an interview request. But Lubell, a producer who worked for Weinstein at Miramax decades ago, told me that she was manipulated into participating. In July, 2017, Lubell visited Weinstein’s offices to pitch him on an app that she was developing. In the middle of the meeting, Weinstein asked Lubell if they could have a private conversation in his office. Lubell told me that a lawyer working with Weinstein was already there, along with Doyle Chambers. Weinstein asked if Lubell and Doyle Chambers could write a “fun book on the old times, the heyday, of Miramax.” “Pam,” she recalled him saying, “write down all the employees that you know, and can you get in touch with them?”

A few weeks later, in August, after they had made the list, Weinstein “called us back into the office,” Lubell recalled. “And he said, ‘You know what, we’re going to put a hold on the book.’ ” He asked Doyle Chambers and Lubell to “call some of your friends from the list and see if they got calls from the press.” In early September, Weinstein summoned Lubell and Doyle Chambers to his office and asked them to start making calls to people connected to several actresses. “It got kind of intense,” Lubell recalled. “We didn’t know these people, and all of a sudden this was something very different from what we signed up for.” Several of the targeted women said that they felt the calls they received from Lubell and Doyle Chambers, and from Weinstein himself, were frightening.

Lubell told me that hours before the first Times story broke, on October 5th, Weinstein summoned her, Doyle Chambers, and others on his team, including the attorney Lisa Bloom, who has since resigned, to his office. “He was in a panic,” Lubell recalled. “He starts screaming, ‘Get so-and-so on the phone.’ ” After the story was published, the team scrambled to respond to it. Bloom and others pored over pictures that, like the ones featured in the Kroll e-mails, showed ongoing contact between Weinstein and women who made allegations. “He was screaming at us, ‘Send these to the board members,’ ” Lubell recalled. She e-mailed the photographs to the board ahead of the crisis meeting at which Weinstein’s position at his company began unravelling.

Since the allegations against Weinstein became public, Lubell hasn’t slept well. She told me that, although she knew that Weinstein “was a bully and a cheater,” she “never thought he was a predator.” Lubell has wondered if she should have known more, sooner.

After a year of concerted effort, Weinstein’s campaign to track and silence his accusers crumbled. Several of the women targeted, however, said that Weinstein’s use of private security agencies deepened the challenge of speaking out. “It scared me,” Sciorra said, “because I knew what it meant to be threatened by Harvey. I was in fear of him finding me.” McGowan said that the agencies and law firms enabled Weinstein’s behavior. As she was targeted, she felt a growing sense of paranoia. “It was like the movie ‘Gaslight,’ ” she told me. “Everyone lied to me all the time.” For the past year, she said, “I’ve lived inside a mirrored fun house.”

Ronan Farrow, a television and print reporter, is the author of the upcoming book “War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence.”

.

astralis
28 Nov 17,, 19:00
so, what happens when good ol' Project Veritas tries to inject its own fake news into Fake News WaPo? Fake Fake News?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html

surfgun
02 Dec 17,, 14:01
Some ABC @fake news, tanking the markets.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/12/01/abc-news-scorched-over-correction-to-flynn-story-that-tanked-the-stock-market

JAD_333
02 Dec 17,, 19:20
Some ABC @fake news, tanking the markets.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/12/01/abc-news-scorched-over-correction-to-flynn-story-that-tanked-the-stock-market

The usual squabble over words. ABC calls it a "clarification". Looks to me like a retraction. In any case, it illustrates how fact-checking sometimes goes by the board in the rush to report.

The momentary drop and quick correction in the Dow was largely due to auto-trading driven by algorithms that weigh political news into their projections. If you're a retail trader this should give you some insight as to how the market will react if ever that sort of news becomes accurate. Anyway, alert retail traders made some decent money on the dip.

EDIT: ABC has suspended Brian Ross, the reporter who made the error. The suspension will run for 4 weeks without pay. ABC apologized for the error, saying the report was not properly vetted.

surfgun
03 Dec 17,, 13:00
After outcry, ABC suspends (Fake News reporter) Ross for four weeks without pay.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42214214

DOR
29 Dec 17,, 18:01
No, Trump's approval rating hasn't caught up to Obama's

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/29/politics/donald-trump-approval-rating/index.html

Toby
29 Dec 17,, 18:29
No, Trump's approval rating hasn't caught up to Obama's

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/29/politics/donald-trump-approval-rating/index.html

Prince Harry interviewed Obama on the Today Program this week, did you get to hear it?

DOR
30 Dec 17,, 09:09
No, traveling

DOR
07 Jan 18,, 10:36
After years of hyping declining labor force participation rate, Fox & Friends points out that the statistic isn’t useful for measuring economic activity

December 5, 2017 www.mediamatters.org/issues/economy

This morning, Fox & Friends pointed out that the labor force participation rate, a favorite statistic cited by Fox News during the Obama administration to dismiss economic successes, can be a misleading indicator of the health of the job market. Fox spent years using a declining labor force participation rate to portray the job market in a negative light while hyping grossly exaggerated claims about the so-called “real unemployment rate.” And President Donald Trump also used the network’s purposeful distortion of the labor force statistic during the 2016 election campaign.

In 2010, the Pew Research Center reported that “10,000 Baby Boomers” will reach retirement age “every day for the next 19 years,” and, as The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler pointed out in 2014, “The composition of the labor force has been affected by the retirement of the leading edge of the Baby Boom generation.”

On the December 5 edition of Fox & Friends, when co-host Brian Kilmeade mentioned the lagging labor force participation rate during a discussion of the health of the economy under Trump, co-host Steve Doocy was quick to point out that the statistic was misleading because “a lot of those people are retired.” The about-face is yet another example since Trump's inauguration in which Fox has abandoned its conspiratorial portrayals of the labor market, often going out of its way to put a positive spin on numbers they would have trashed during the Obama administration:



BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): There’s two things I'm looking at, the trade deals and the workforce. So only 60 percent of the workforce is working right now. How do we get those people into the game?
STUART VARNEY: I don't have an answer to your question. I do believe, however, that when you restore prosperity and you've got real growth, people will be enticed back into the labor force because there’s a decent job available. It makes sense to go back into the labor force, if that’s the case.
STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): But also, a lot of those people are retired.
VARNEY: Yes, a lot of the people are retired, that’s very true.
KILMEADE: Yeah, I don't want to make them work again. I mean they’re fine.
DOOCY: Move to Florida.
VARNEY: I should be retired.

DOR
12 Jan 18,, 09:58
Jan. 12, 2018, USA Today

WASHINGTON — President Trump said he canceled a planned trip to London because he doesn't want to cut the ribbon at the new U.S. embassy there that he described as a "bad deal."

Trump's on-again, off-again visit to the United Kingdom had been in the planning stages but hadn't been officially announced. The latest cancellation is sure to increase tensions with a vital ally that has broken with Trump recently over his anti-Muslim rhetoric. Some neighborhoods in London declared themselves off-limits to the president.

Trump confirmed his decision on Twitter late Thursday night after British newspapers reported that fears of mass protests had scuttled the trip. A poll from last year found that about 4% of Britain's population — roughly 2.5 million people — would protest a state visit by Trump. But he gave a different reason, blaming former President Obama.

"Reason I canceled my trip to London is that I am not a big fan of the Obama Administration having sold perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for 'peanuts,' only to build a new one in an off location for 1.2 billion dollars," Trump said in a tweet late Thursday. "Bad deal. Wanted me to cut ribbon-NO!"

The problem with that rationale is that Trump's tweet misrepresented the history of the U.S. Embassy move. According to the State Department, it was the administration of President George W. Bush — not Obama — that decided to build a new embassy in 2006 and chose the new location in 2008.

And the billion-dollar price tag is typical of an embassy construction of that size. Officials also said that it was financed entirely by the sale of other U.S. property in England — not new taxpayer money.

The diplomatic compound moved from Grosvenor Square in the well-heeled Mayfair neighborhood of central London, to Nine Elms, a formerly industrial area of southwest London that has been part of regeneration efforts by the capital city.

Trump's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Woody Johnson, described the new embassy last month as a "signal to the world" that the “special relationship” between the two nations "is stronger and is going to grow and get better."

But the decision to cancel the visit will be an embarrassment to British Prime Minister Theresa May. While the trip was always intended to be a working one, and separate to an official full state visit this year for which a date has not been set, as president Trump has visited more than a dozen countries ahead of Britain. These include: Belgium, China, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Vietnam. He has even visited Vatican City and the West Bank.

White House officials could not immediately be reached to clarify the reasoning behind the decision. May's office has also not commented. But others who have long opposed Trump's visit to Britain, including London Mayor Sadiq Khan, have.

"Many Londoners have made it clear that Donald Trump is not welcome here while he is pursuing such a divisive agenda. It seems he’s finally got that message," Khan said.

Trump will visit the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland this month

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/12/trump-cancels-london-visit-blaming-obamas-embassy-decision/1027345001/

DOR
14 Feb 18,, 00:12
Sarah Huckabee Sanders pleads ignorance as the Rob Porter mess worsens
Washington Post

We've reached the stage in the Rob Porter saga where the White House's previous statements now appear so blatantly false that all press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders can do is suggest she didn't know they were false.

DOR
15 May 18,, 13:30
How not to read the news (or, to gather “related coverage” and imply it’s the same story):

China Sichuan Airlines pilot 'half sucked out of plane' survives
BBC News

Related Coverage
Flight passenger detained after he opens emergency exit to get fresh air
International Business Times,


The two stories are totally unrelated.
The pilot did not open the door mid-flight to get some fresh air, and the passenger who did open the door did so while the plane was on the ground.

snapper
23 May 18,, 14:56
Interesting report on how the media should handle 'disinformation'/propaganda/lies: https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FULLREPORT_Oxygen_of_Amplification_DS.pdf