It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2025 2:07 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 566 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 19  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:40 pm
Posts: 136
pizza_Place: None at all
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Here's a good read. And I don't think anyone could possibly characterize Greenwald as a "trumpet".

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the ... ems-cheer/


No, but if you've been reading him long enough, you've seen him starting to obsess over this stuff which isn't good optics.

He enjoys the smell of his own farts, and he knows he can't lose in the "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE" game. If the US has certified unquestionable intelligence on this stuff, they won't release it due to then having to reveal how it was gathered. If they don't have solid evidence, then he can keep pumping out "lol the Russians" articles.

For a long time he dismissed it all as red baiting, but now he's taking a serious approach to it just in case he's wrong so he can then vilify anyone that disagrees with him. It's his MO.

I like the guy, and the content the Intercept puts out, but he's been nearly insufferable about this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Nas wrote:


Wasn't that the website that fooled Mike into thinking that a woman got pregnant from a vaccine? :lol:

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Last edited by Chus on Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
lifesucks wrote:
He enjoys the smell of his own farts


Image

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:19 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102665
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Chus wrote:
Nas wrote:
Wasn't that the website that fooled Mike into thinking that a woman got pregnant from a vaccine? :lol:
I hope nobody tells Mike the tractor story.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:22 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Chus wrote:
Nas wrote:


Wasn't that the website that fooled Mike into thinking that a woman got pregnant from a vaccine? :lol:


I'm not sure.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Chus wrote:
Nas wrote:
Wasn't that the website that fooled Mike into thinking that a woman got pregnant from a vaccine? :lol:
I hope nobody tells Mike the tractor story.


George: You know what I think? I bet she stole a tractor.

Jerry: No one's stealing a tractor, it's a five-mile-an-hour getaway. We're dancing around the obvious, it's gotta be disfigurement.

George: Does she walk around holding a pen she never seems to need?

Jerry: No, she looks completely normal.

George: Oh. Okay, here it is, I got it. She lost her thumbs in a tractor accident and they grafted her big toes on. They do it every day.

Jerry: You think she's got toes for thumbs?

George: How's her handshake? A little firm, isn't it? Maybe a little too firm?

Jerry: I don't know.

George: Hands a little smelly?

Jerry: Why do I seek your counsel?

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:46 am
Posts: 26636
Location: NW SUBURBS OF CHICAGO
pizza_Place: any from anywhere
So this story has become a part of "legitimate" news. Does this mean the Cubs will bring the Jack Brickhouse statue back to the Wrigley area?


Image

_________________
favrefan said:"Chris Coghlan isn't gonna pay your rent, Jimmy."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 13465
Location: God's country
pizza_Place: Gem City
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Here's a good read. And I don't think anyone could possibly characterize Greenwald as a "trumpet".

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the ... ems-cheer/


Yes but Greenwald also employs the type of Chomsky-esque arguments you seem to abhor. In fact he does it all the time lately with regard to Russia. Also does it for the Middle East. Why is he persuasive now?


I'm not a big fan of Greenwald, but I think he makes a great point here.

Also, I want to be clear about my opinion re: Chomsky. I think he's an extremely moral man and if we were starting a worldwide society from scratch and organizing it around moral principles he would be a good man to lead the project.

Unfortunately, we live in an actual world with facts that already exist. I have heard Chomsky express the opinion that as Americans it is our obligation to be harder on America. I think him being a Jew, that's probably why he holds Israel to the standards he does. And so, with the world being what it is, he often comes off as a person who in my view is far too willing to reflexively blame the U.S. and/or Israel for all the problems in the world.
Not a big fan? Then why are you quoting him? Hypocrite.

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:01 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80536
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Here's a good read. And I don't think anyone could possibly characterize Greenwald as a "trumpet".

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the ... ems-cheer/


Yes but Greenwald also employs the type of Chomsky-esque arguments you seem to abhor. In fact he does it all the time lately with regard to Russia. Also does it for the Middle East. Why is he persuasive now?


I'm not a big fan of Greenwald, but I think he makes a great point here.

Also, I want to be clear about my opinion re: Chomsky. I think he's an extremely moral man and if we were starting a worldwide society from scratch and organizing it around moral principles he would be a good man to lead the project.

Unfortunately, we live in an actual world with facts that already exist. I have heard Chomsky express the opinion that as Americans it is our obligation to be harder on America. I think him being a Jew, that's probably why he holds Israel to the standards he does. And so, with the world being what it is, he often comes off as a person who in my view is far too willing to reflexively blame the U.S. and/or Israel for all the problems in the world.
Not a big fan? Then why are you quoting him? Hypocrite.


Thank you for your input.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38779
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Here's a good read. And I don't think anyone could possibly characterize Greenwald as a "trumpet".

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the ... ems-cheer/


Yes but Greenwald also employs the type of Chomsky-esque arguments you seem to abhor. In fact he does it all the time lately with regard to Russia. Also does it for the Middle East. Why is he persuasive now?


I'm not a big fan of Greenwald, but I think he makes a great point here.

Also, I want to be clear about my opinion re: Chomsky. I think he's an extremely moral man and if we were starting a worldwide society from scratch and organizing it around moral principles he would be a good man to lead the project.

Unfortunately, we live in an actual world with facts that already exist. I have heard Chomsky express the opinion that as Americans it is our obligation to be harder on America. I think him being a Jew, that's probably why he holds Israel to the standards he does. And so, with the world being what it is, he often comes off as a person who in my view is far too willing to reflexively blame the U.S. and/or Israel for all the problems in the world.
Not a big fan? Then why are you quoting him? Hypocrite.



Your inability to acknowledge in fairness when others whom you may disagree with our correct about something, is a plague in this country and many other places.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:43 pm
Posts: 1214
pizza_Place: Mariano's
The only hookers in this story are the cheap, lazy journalists who ran with fake Trump sleaze to urinate on his presidency
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dency.html


#cousins
#007

_________________
Obama's Legacy is Trump.
And dead cops.

"One guy lays the pipe, the other guy smokes it"--Clint Eastwood


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:45 am
Posts: 2940
pizza_Place: Drag's
From the famous Trump/AJ Benza spat on Stern:


Trump: I assume A.J.’s clean. I hope he’s clean.

Benza: Meanwhile, he bangs Russian people…

Stern: Russian people?

Trump: Who are you talking about, Russian people, A.J.? I don’t know anything.

Benza: He used to call me when I was a columnist and say, “I was just in Russia, the girls have no morals, you gotta get out there.” [Trump’s] out of his mind.


https://youtu.be/BhqUbW35R3Q?t=251

_________________
Soccer 1,2,3
Spanish Honor Society 1,2,3,4
Forensics 1,2,3,4

"Smiles with Nostrils"

"...no Hmong, go find some blacks"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
From today's WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/dumpster-di ... 1484265571

Dumpster Diving for Dossiers
The team that created the Trump file went digging for divorce records in 2012.

By Kimberley A. Strassel
Updated Jan. 12, 2017 7:23 p.m. ET
833 COMMENTS

Washington and the press corps are feuding over the Trump “dossier,” screaming about what counts as “fake news.” The pity is that this has turned into a story about media ethics. The far better subject is the origin of the dossier itself.

“Fake news” doesn’t come from nowhere. It’s created by people with an agenda. This dossier—which alleges that Donald Trump has deep backing from Russia—is a turbocharged example of the smear strategy that the left has been ramping up for a decade. Team Trump needs to put the scandal in that context so that it can get to governing and better defuse the next such attack.

The more that progressives have failed to win political arguments, the more they have turned to underhanded tactics to shut down their political opponents. (For a complete account of these abuses, see my book, “The Intimidation Game.”) Liberals co-opted the IRS to crack down on Tea Party groups. They used state prosecutors to launch phony investigations. They coordinated liberal shock troops to threaten corporations. And they—important for today’s hysteria—routinely employed outside dirt diggers to engage in character assassination.

This editorial page ran a series in 2012 about one such attack, on Frank VanderSloot. In 2011 the Idaho businessman gave $1 million to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. The following spring, the Obama re-election campaign publicly smeared Mr. VanderSloot (and seven other Romney donors) as “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.”

This national shaming, by the president no less, painted a giant target on Mr. VanderSloot’s back. The liberal media slandered him daily on TV and in print. The federal bureaucracy went after him: He was ultimately audited by the IRS and the Labor Department. About a week after the Obama attack, an investigator contacted a courthouse in Idaho Falls demanding documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot’s divorces, as well as any other litigation involving him. We traced this investigator to an opposition-research chop shop called Fusion GPS.

Fusion is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson. When we asked how he could justify dumpster-diving into the divorce records of private citizens, he said only that Mr. VanderSloot was a “legitimate” target. He refused to tell us who’d paid him to do this slumming, and federal records didn’t show any payments to Fusion from prominent Democratic groups or campaigns. The money may well have been washed through third-party groups.

Why does this matter? Guess who is behind that dossier against Mr. Trump: Fusion GPS. A Republican donor who opposed Mr. Trump during the primaries hired Fusion to create a file on “the real estate magnate’s past scandals and weaknesses,” according to the New York Times. After Mr. Trump won the GOP race, that donor pulled the plug. Fusion then seamlessly made its product available to “new clients”—liberals supporting Hillary Clinton. Moreover, it stooped to lower tactics, hiring a former British spook to help tie Mr. Trump to the Russians. (Fusion GPS did not respond to a request for comment.)

No media organization has so far been able to confirm a single allegation in the dossier. Given Fusion’s history and tactics, trying arguably isn’t worth the effort. Truth was never its purpose.

The point of the dossier—as with the dredging into Mr. VanderSloot’s personal life, or the smearing of the Koch brothers, or Harry Reid’s false accusation that Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes—was to gin up the ugliest, most scurrilous claims, and then trust the click-hungry media to disseminate them. No matter how false the allegations, the subject of the attack is required to respond, wasting precious time and losing credibility. Mr. Trump should be focused on his nominations, his policies, disentangling himself from his business. Instead his team is trying to disprove a negative and prevent the accusations, no matter how flimsy, from seeping into voters’ minds.

Opposition research and false claims are an equal opportunity game. But it says something about the brass-knuckle approach of the left that it would go so far as to write a dossier suggesting that Mr. Trump is a Manchurian candidate—and then to foist that report into the hands of intelligence officials.

Mr. Trump can expect plenty more of this to come. In winning the election, he blocked the left’s ability to use some of its favorite intimidation tactics. It no longer controls an accommodating federal bureaucracy. It no longer runs a Justice Department willing to threaten political opponents and turn a blind eye to liberal abuse.

So the left will increasingly rely on campaigns of delegitimization designed to force opponents onto a back foot, push them off task, or even bully them out of the public arena. In the absence of a winning policy argument, this is, in their minds, the best they’ve got. Republicans had better be ready for it.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Hatchetman wrote:
From today's WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/dumpster-di ... 1484265571

Dumpster Diving for Dossiers
The team that created the Trump file went digging for divorce records in 2012.

By Kimberley A. Strassel
Updated Jan. 12, 2017 7:23 p.m. ET
833 COMMENTS

Washington and the press corps are feuding over the Trump “dossier,” screaming about what counts as “fake news.” The pity is that this has turned into a story about media ethics. The far better subject is the origin of the dossier itself.

“Fake news” doesn’t come from nowhere. It’s created by people with an agenda. This dossier—which alleges that Donald Trump has deep backing from Russia—is a turbocharged example of the smear strategy that the left has been ramping up for a decade. Team Trump needs to put the scandal in that context so that it can get to governing and better defuse the next such attack.

The more that progressives have failed to win political arguments, the more they have turned to underhanded tactics to shut down their political opponents. (For a complete account of these abuses, see my book, “The Intimidation Game.”) Liberals co-opted the IRS to crack down on Tea Party groups. They used state prosecutors to launch phony investigations. They coordinated liberal shock troops to threaten corporations. And they—important for today’s hysteria—routinely employed outside dirt diggers to engage in character assassination.

This editorial page ran a series in 2012 about one such attack, on Frank VanderSloot. In 2011 the Idaho businessman gave $1 million to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. The following spring, the Obama re-election campaign publicly smeared Mr. VanderSloot (and seven other Romney donors) as “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.”

This national shaming, by the president no less, painted a giant target on Mr. VanderSloot’s back. The liberal media slandered him daily on TV and in print. The federal bureaucracy went after him: He was ultimately audited by the IRS and the Labor Department. About a week after the Obama attack, an investigator contacted a courthouse in Idaho Falls demanding documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot’s divorces, as well as any other litigation involving him. We traced this investigator to an opposition-research chop shop called Fusion GPS.

Fusion is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson. When we asked how he could justify dumpster-diving into the divorce records of private citizens, he said only that Mr. VanderSloot was a “legitimate” target. He refused to tell us who’d paid him to do this slumming, and federal records didn’t show any payments to Fusion from prominent Democratic groups or campaigns. The money may well have been washed through third-party groups.

Why does this matter? Guess who is behind that dossier against Mr. Trump: Fusion GPS. A Republican donor who opposed Mr. Trump during the primaries hired Fusion to create a file on “the real estate magnate’s past scandals and weaknesses,” according to the New York Times. After Mr. Trump won the GOP race, that donor pulled the plug. Fusion then seamlessly made its product available to “new clients”—liberals supporting Hillary Clinton. Moreover, it stooped to lower tactics, hiring a former British spook to help tie Mr. Trump to the Russians. (Fusion GPS did not respond to a request for comment.)

No media organization has so far been able to confirm a single allegation in the dossier. Given Fusion’s history and tactics, trying arguably isn’t worth the effort. Truth was never its purpose.

The point of the dossier—as with the dredging into Mr. VanderSloot’s personal life, or the smearing of the Koch brothers, or Harry Reid’s false accusation that Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes—was to gin up the ugliest, most scurrilous claims, and then trust the click-hungry media to disseminate them. No matter how false the allegations, the subject of the attack is required to respond, wasting precious time and losing credibility. Mr. Trump should be focused on his nominations, his policies, disentangling himself from his business. Instead his team is trying to disprove a negative and prevent the accusations, no matter how flimsy, from seeping into voters’ minds.

Opposition research and false claims are an equal opportunity game. But it says something about the brass-knuckle approach of the left that it would go so far as to write a dossier suggesting that Mr. Trump is a Manchurian candidate—and then to foist that report into the hands of intelligence officials.

Mr. Trump can expect plenty more of this to come. In winning the election, he blocked the left’s ability to use some of its favorite intimidation tactics. It no longer controls an accommodating federal bureaucracy. It no longer runs a Justice Department willing to threaten political opponents and turn a blind eye to liberal abuse.

So the left will increasingly rely on campaigns of delegitimization designed to force opponents onto a back foot, push them off task, or even bully them out of the public arena. In the absence of a winning policy argument, this is, in their minds, the best they’ve got. Republicans had better be ready for it.





[quote=]No media organization has so far been able to confirm a single allegation in the dossier. Given Fusion’s history and tactics, trying arguably isn’t worth the effort. Truth was never its purpose.[/quote]

But it sure is great board fodder fro MANY here.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:21 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
pittmike wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
From today's WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/dumpster-di ... 1484265571

Dumpster Diving for Dossiers
The team that created the Trump file went digging for divorce records in 2012.

By Kimberley A. Strassel
Updated Jan. 12, 2017 7:23 p.m. ET
833 COMMENTS

Washington and the press corps are feuding over the Trump “dossier,” screaming about what counts as “fake news.” The pity is that this has turned into a story about media ethics. The far better subject is the origin of the dossier itself.

“Fake news” doesn’t come from nowhere. It’s created by people with an agenda. This dossier—which alleges that Donald Trump has deep backing from Russia—is a turbocharged example of the smear strategy that the left has been ramping up for a decade. Team Trump needs to put the scandal in that context so that it can get to governing and better defuse the next such attack.

The more that progressives have failed to win political arguments, the more they have turned to underhanded tactics to shut down their political opponents. (For a complete account of these abuses, see my book, “The Intimidation Game.”) Liberals co-opted the IRS to crack down on Tea Party groups. They used state prosecutors to launch phony investigations. They coordinated liberal shock troops to threaten corporations. And they—important for today’s hysteria—routinely employed outside dirt diggers to engage in character assassination.

This editorial page ran a series in 2012 about one such attack, on Frank VanderSloot. In 2011 the Idaho businessman gave $1 million to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. The following spring, the Obama re-election campaign publicly smeared Mr. VanderSloot (and seven other Romney donors) as “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.”

This national shaming, by the president no less, painted a giant target on Mr. VanderSloot’s back. The liberal media slandered him daily on TV and in print. The federal bureaucracy went after him: He was ultimately audited by the IRS and the Labor Department. About a week after the Obama attack, an investigator contacted a courthouse in Idaho Falls demanding documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot’s divorces, as well as any other litigation involving him. We traced this investigator to an opposition-research chop shop called Fusion GPS.

Fusion is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson. When we asked how he could justify dumpster-diving into the divorce records of private citizens, he said only that Mr. VanderSloot was a “legitimate” target. He refused to tell us who’d paid him to do this slumming, and federal records didn’t show any payments to Fusion from prominent Democratic groups or campaigns. The money may well have been washed through third-party groups.

Why does this matter? Guess who is behind that dossier against Mr. Trump: Fusion GPS. A Republican donor who opposed Mr. Trump during the primaries hired Fusion to create a file on “the real estate magnate’s past scandals and weaknesses,” according to the New York Times. After Mr. Trump won the GOP race, that donor pulled the plug. Fusion then seamlessly made its product available to “new clients”—liberals supporting Hillary Clinton. Moreover, it stooped to lower tactics, hiring a former British spook to help tie Mr. Trump to the Russians. (Fusion GPS did not respond to a request for comment.)

No media organization has so far been able to confirm a single allegation in the dossier. Given Fusion’s history and tactics, trying arguably isn’t worth the effort. Truth was never its purpose.

The point of the dossier—as with the dredging into Mr. VanderSloot’s personal life, or the smearing of the Koch brothers, or Harry Reid’s false accusation that Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes—was to gin up the ugliest, most scurrilous claims, and then trust the click-hungry media to disseminate them. No matter how false the allegations, the subject of the attack is required to respond, wasting precious time and losing credibility. Mr. Trump should be focused on his nominations, his policies, disentangling himself from his business. Instead his team is trying to disprove a negative and prevent the accusations, no matter how flimsy, from seeping into voters’ minds.

Opposition research and false claims are an equal opportunity game. But it says something about the brass-knuckle approach of the left that it would go so far as to write a dossier suggesting that Mr. Trump is a Manchurian candidate—and then to foist that report into the hands of intelligence officials.

Mr. Trump can expect plenty more of this to come. In winning the election, he blocked the left’s ability to use some of its favorite intimidation tactics. It no longer controls an accommodating federal bureaucracy. It no longer runs a Justice Department willing to threaten political opponents and turn a blind eye to liberal abuse.

So the left will increasingly rely on campaigns of delegitimization designed to force opponents onto a back foot, push them off task, or even bully them out of the public arena. In the absence of a winning policy argument, this is, in their minds, the best they’ve got. Republicans had better be ready for it.





[quote=]No media organization has so far been able to confirm a single allegation in the dossier. Given Fusion’s history and tactics, trying arguably isn’t worth the effort. Truth was never its purpose.


But it sure is great board fodder fro MANY here.[/quote]

Except most people here doubted it was factual.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15198
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
Nas wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
From today's WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/dumpster-di ... 1484265571

Dumpster Diving for Dossiers
The team that created the Trump file went digging for divorce records in 2012.

By Kimberley A. Strassel
Updated Jan. 12, 2017 7:23 p.m. ET
833 COMMENTS

Washington and the press corps are feuding over the Trump “dossier,” screaming about what counts as “fake news.” The pity is that this has turned into a story about media ethics. The far better subject is the origin of the dossier itself.

“Fake news” doesn’t come from nowhere. It’s created by people with an agenda. This dossier—which alleges that Donald Trump has deep backing from Russia—is a turbocharged example of the smear strategy that the left has been ramping up for a decade. Team Trump needs to put the scandal in that context so that it can get to governing and better defuse the next such attack.

The more that progressives have failed to win political arguments, the more they have turned to underhanded tactics to shut down their political opponents. (For a complete account of these abuses, see my book, “The Intimidation Game.”) Liberals co-opted the IRS to crack down on Tea Party groups. They used state prosecutors to launch phony investigations. They coordinated liberal shock troops to threaten corporations. And they—important for today’s hysteria—routinely employed outside dirt diggers to engage in character assassination.

This editorial page ran a series in 2012 about one such attack, on Frank VanderSloot. In 2011 the Idaho businessman gave $1 million to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. The following spring, the Obama re-election campaign publicly smeared Mr. VanderSloot (and seven other Romney donors) as “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.”

This national shaming, by the president no less, painted a giant target on Mr. VanderSloot’s back. The liberal media slandered him daily on TV and in print. The federal bureaucracy went after him: He was ultimately audited by the IRS and the Labor Department. About a week after the Obama attack, an investigator contacted a courthouse in Idaho Falls demanding documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot’s divorces, as well as any other litigation involving him. We traced this investigator to an opposition-research chop shop called Fusion GPS.

Fusion is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson. When we asked how he could justify dumpster-diving into the divorce records of private citizens, he said only that Mr. VanderSloot was a “legitimate” target. He refused to tell us who’d paid him to do this slumming, and federal records didn’t show any payments to Fusion from prominent Democratic groups or campaigns. The money may well have been washed through third-party groups.

Why does this matter? Guess who is behind that dossier against Mr. Trump: Fusion GPS. A Republican donor who opposed Mr. Trump during the primaries hired Fusion to create a file on “the real estate magnate’s past scandals and weaknesses,” according to the New York Times. After Mr. Trump won the GOP race, that donor pulled the plug. Fusion then seamlessly made its product available to “new clients”—liberals supporting Hillary Clinton. Moreover, it stooped to lower tactics, hiring a former British spook to help tie Mr. Trump to the Russians. (Fusion GPS did not respond to a request for comment.)

No media organization has so far been able to confirm a single allegation in the dossier. Given Fusion’s history and tactics, trying arguably isn’t worth the effort. Truth was never its purpose.

The point of the dossier—as with the dredging into Mr. VanderSloot’s personal life, or the smearing of the Koch brothers, or Harry Reid’s false accusation that Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes—was to gin up the ugliest, most scurrilous claims, and then trust the click-hungry media to disseminate them. No matter how false the allegations, the subject of the attack is required to respond, wasting precious time and losing credibility. Mr. Trump should be focused on his nominations, his policies, disentangling himself from his business. Instead his team is trying to disprove a negative and prevent the accusations, no matter how flimsy, from seeping into voters’ minds.

Opposition research and false claims are an equal opportunity game. But it says something about the brass-knuckle approach of the left that it would go so far as to write a dossier suggesting that Mr. Trump is a Manchurian candidate—and then to foist that report into the hands of intelligence officials.

Mr. Trump can expect plenty more of this to come. In winning the election, he blocked the left’s ability to use some of its favorite intimidation tactics. It no longer controls an accommodating federal bureaucracy. It no longer runs a Justice Department willing to threaten political opponents and turn a blind eye to liberal abuse.

So the left will increasingly rely on campaigns of delegitimization designed to force opponents onto a back foot, push them off task, or even bully them out of the public arena. In the absence of a winning policy argument, this is, in their minds, the best they’ve got. Republicans had better be ready for it.





[quote=]No media organization has so far been able to confirm a single allegation in the dossier. Given Fusion’s history and tactics, trying arguably isn’t worth the effort. Truth was never its purpose.


But it sure is great board fodder fro MANY here.


Except most people here doubted it was factual.[/quote]

It is factual.

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23568
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Can nobody use the quote function properly anymore?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Can nobody use the quote function properly anymore?


The dolphin era is one of poor formatting.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
pittmike wrote:

But it sure is great board fodder fro MANY here.


Actually the obviously neutral and objective article Hatchetman posted is fake news. The media didn't put the dossier into the hands of Trump and Obama - intelligence agencies and republican senators did that. If you're angry about the dossier being handed to Trump and Obama, and then that information leaking to CNN, you can direct outrage to the intelligence communities and Senator McCain (R).

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23915
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
veganfan21 wrote:
[If you're angry about the dossier being handed to Trump and Obama, and then that information leaking to CNN, you can direct outrage to the intelligence communities and Senator McCain (R).


This should be the real story. Someone within the govt trying to de-legitimize the presidential election. Treason.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:45 am
Posts: 2940
pizza_Place: Drag's
City of Fools wrote:
Nas wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Hatchetman wrote:
From today's WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/dumpster-di ... 1484265571

Dumpster Diving for Dossiers
The team that created the Trump file went digging for divorce records in 2012.

By Kimberley A. Strassel
Updated Jan. 12, 2017 7:23 p.m. ET
833 COMMENTS

Washington and the press corps are feuding over the Trump “dossier,” screaming about what counts as “fake news.” The pity is that this has turned into a story about media ethics. The far better subject is the origin of the dossier itself.

“Fake news” doesn’t come from nowhere. It’s created by people with an agenda. This dossier—which alleges that Donald Trump has deep backing from Russia—is a turbocharged example of the smear strategy that the left has been ramping up for a decade. Team Trump needs to put the scandal in that context so that it can get to governing and better defuse the next such attack.

The more that progressives have failed to win political arguments, the more they have turned to underhanded tactics to shut down their political opponents. (For a complete account of these abuses, see my book, “The Intimidation Game.”) Liberals co-opted the IRS to crack down on Tea Party groups. They used state prosecutors to launch phony investigations. They coordinated liberal shock troops to threaten corporations. And they—important for today’s hysteria—routinely employed outside dirt diggers to engage in character assassination.

This editorial page ran a series in 2012 about one such attack, on Frank VanderSloot. In 2011 the Idaho businessman gave $1 million to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. The following spring, the Obama re-election campaign publicly smeared Mr. VanderSloot (and seven other Romney donors) as “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.”

This national shaming, by the president no less, painted a giant target on Mr. VanderSloot’s back. The liberal media slandered him daily on TV and in print. The federal bureaucracy went after him: He was ultimately audited by the IRS and the Labor Department. About a week after the Obama attack, an investigator contacted a courthouse in Idaho Falls demanding documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot’s divorces, as well as any other litigation involving him. We traced this investigator to an opposition-research chop shop called Fusion GPS.

Fusion is run by a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Glenn Simpson. When we asked how he could justify dumpster-diving into the divorce records of private citizens, he said only that Mr. VanderSloot was a “legitimate” target. He refused to tell us who’d paid him to do this slumming, and federal records didn’t show any payments to Fusion from prominent Democratic groups or campaigns. The money may well have been washed through third-party groups.

Why does this matter? Guess who is behind that dossier against Mr. Trump: Fusion GPS. A Republican donor who opposed Mr. Trump during the primaries hired Fusion to create a file on “the real estate magnate’s past scandals and weaknesses,” according to the New York Times. After Mr. Trump won the GOP race, that donor pulled the plug. Fusion then seamlessly made its product available to “new clients”—liberals supporting Hillary Clinton. Moreover, it stooped to lower tactics, hiring a former British spook to help tie Mr. Trump to the Russians. (Fusion GPS did not respond to a request for comment.)

No media organization has so far been able to confirm a single allegation in the dossier. Given Fusion’s history and tactics, trying arguably isn’t worth the effort. Truth was never its purpose.

The point of the dossier—as with the dredging into Mr. VanderSloot’s personal life, or the smearing of the Koch brothers, or Harry Reid’s false accusation that Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes—was to gin up the ugliest, most scurrilous claims, and then trust the click-hungry media to disseminate them. No matter how false the allegations, the subject of the attack is required to respond, wasting precious time and losing credibility. Mr. Trump should be focused on his nominations, his policies, disentangling himself from his business. Instead his team is trying to disprove a negative and prevent the accusations, no matter how flimsy, from seeping into voters’ minds.

Opposition research and false claims are an equal opportunity game. But it says something about the brass-knuckle approach of the left that it would go so far as to write a dossier suggesting that Mr. Trump is a Manchurian candidate—and then to foist that report into the hands of intelligence officials.

Mr. Trump can expect plenty more of this to come. In winning the election, he blocked the left’s ability to use some of its favorite intimidation tactics. It no longer controls an accommodating federal bureaucracy. It no longer runs a Justice Department willing to threaten political opponents and turn a blind eye to liberal abuse.

So the left will increasingly rely on campaigns of delegitimization designed to force opponents onto a back foot, push them off task, or even bully them out of the public arena. In the absence of a winning policy argument, this is, in their minds, the best they’ve got. Republicans had better be ready for it.





[quote=]No media organization has so far been able to confirm a single allegation in the dossier. Given Fusion’s history and tactics, trying arguably isn’t worth the effort. Truth was never its purpose.


But it sure is great board fodder fro MANY here.


Except most people here doubted it was factual.


It is factual.[/quote]

Correct. It is absolutely 100% "factual." That Trumpets are so desperate for it to be "untrue" --whatever that means--is very odd.

Factual Facts
-------------------
--Click on the YouTube link above, Trump telling Benza that he has to get out to Russia because the girls have no morals
--Ceaseless swooning over authoritarian, dictatorial Daddy-crush
--Mystifying Anti-NATO foreign policy centerpiece
--Non-denial denial (I'm a germophobe).
--Pathological liar (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump)

Unfactual Facts
--------------------
--Someone diddled his rosary beads for 5 minutes and God told him that a good, fine man like Trump loves America above all, and normal sexual relations within the confines of marriage only for the purpose of procreation.

_________________
Soccer 1,2,3
Spanish Honor Society 1,2,3,4
Forensics 1,2,3,4

"Smiles with Nostrils"

"...no Hmong, go find some blacks"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23568
pizza_Place: Giordano's
DannyB wrote:
Factual Facts
-------------------
--Click on the YouTube link above, Trump telling Benza that he has to get out to Russia because the girls have no morals
--Ceaseless swooning over authoritarian, dictatorial Daddy-crush
--Mystifying Anti-NATO foreign policy centerpiece
--Non-denial denial (I'm a germophobe).
--Pathological liar (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump)


None of those things corroborate the specific allegations in the dossier in question. Actually, a bunch of them aren't even "facts".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80536
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Okay, I don't want to be accused of "defending Trump", but I want to point out a story that may not be fake news in the sense that Nas defines fake news, but one that is definitely attempting to deceive nonetheless, with the reporter maintaining cover via a single disclaiming line that really renders the entire story very mundane.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/14/509780474 ... ere-announ

Gen. Michael Flynn, President-elect Trump's pick to be national security adviser, did speak to Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak by telephone on Dec. 29, the same day the Obama administration announced measures retaliating against Russia for interfering in the 2016 presidential campaign, two Trump transition officials confirm to NPR.

This is different timing than the Trump transition had announced to reporters Friday morning. Transition spokesman and incoming White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said then that Kislyak texted Flynn on Dec. 28, asking to talk. Spicer also said the text messages showed they wished each other Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and added they spoke by phone later that day, the 28, meaning they couldn't have discussed the retaliation measures or Russia's response.

But now, the transition officials, including Spicer, confirm to NPR that was not correct. The phone conversation, initiated by the Russian ambassador, actually didn't happen until the next day, Dec. 29, the same day as the retaliatory efforts were announced.

David Ignatius at the Washington Post broke the story Thursday that Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador Dec. 29, although the transition said it actually happened the day before. AP published a report Friday night that supported Ignatius' version.

Spicer told NPR in a phone call late Friday night that he had misread the timing of Flynn's texts Friday morning and that accounts for the discrepancy.

Spicer said the call took place "around the same time" as when the retaliation measures were announced, which was some time around 2 p.m. ET. But, he insisted that the details of the phone conversation did not change from what he said Friday morning and called it "doubtful" that Flynn and the ambassador discussed the U.S.'s retaliatory measures or Russia's potential response, because Flynn told Spicer they did not.

The first hint that sanctions against Russia were coming was when President Obama said in an interview with NPR on Dec. 15, "We need to take action. And we will." The Washington Post then reported on Dec. 27 that action was imminent. By late afternoon the following day, multiple news sources were quoting government officials as saying the announcement would come on the Dec. 29.

So Kislyak likely knew an announcement was coming when he asked to talk to Flynn.

Another transition official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, said the ambassador invited the Trump administration to participate in a conference in Kazakhstan on the conflict in Syria set for after the inauguration in late January. Were that to happen it could mark a concrete diplomatic shift in the relationship between Russia and the U.S. The Obama administration has opposed Russia's aid to the Assad regime, essentially putting the U.S. and Russia on opposite sides of the Syrian civil war – even as they have attempted to coordinate on parts of it.

Contact between an incoming administration and foreign ambassadors isn't out of the ordinary. But the timing raises questions, especially in light of Putin's decision not to respond to the U.S. retaliatory moves. No one can conduct foreign policy, except for the current U.S. government. If someone did, they would be in violation of the Logan Act, which states, in part:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Others, including Reuters and Ignatius are reporting or have reported that there were multiple phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador the day the sanctions were announced. NPR has not confirmed those contacts.

The news comes hours after the Senate Intelligence Committee reversed course and said it would, in fact, investigate Russian interference in the election, including "any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns."

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Okay, I don't want to be accused of "defending Trump", but I want to point out a story that may not be fake news in the sense that Nas defines fake news, but one that is definitely attempting to deceive nonetheless, with the reporter maintaining cover via a single disclaiming line that really renders the entire story very mundane.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/14/509780474 ... ere-announ

Gen. Michael Flynn, President-elect Trump's pick to be national security adviser, did speak to Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak by telephone on Dec. 29, the same day the Obama administration announced measures retaliating against Russia for interfering in the 2016 presidential campaign, two Trump transition officials confirm to NPR.

This is different timing than the Trump transition had announced to reporters Friday morning. Transition spokesman and incoming White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said then that Kislyak texted Flynn on Dec. 28, asking to talk. Spicer also said the text messages showed they wished each other Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and added they spoke by phone later that day, the 28, meaning they couldn't have discussed the retaliation measures or Russia's response.

But now, the transition officials, including Spicer, confirm to NPR that was not correct. The phone conversation, initiated by the Russian ambassador, actually didn't happen until the next day, Dec. 29, the same day as the retaliatory efforts were announced.

David Ignatius at the Washington Post broke the story Thursday that Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador Dec. 29, although the transition said it actually happened the day before. AP published a report Friday night that supported Ignatius' version.

Spicer told NPR in a phone call late Friday night that he had misread the timing of Flynn's texts Friday morning and that accounts for the discrepancy.

Spicer said the call took place "around the same time" as when the retaliation measures were announced, which was some time around 2 p.m. ET. But, he insisted that the details of the phone conversation did not change from what he said Friday morning and called it "doubtful" that Flynn and the ambassador discussed the U.S.'s retaliatory measures or Russia's potential response, because Flynn told Spicer they did not.

The first hint that sanctions against Russia were coming was when President Obama said in an interview with NPR on Dec. 15, "We need to take action. And we will." The Washington Post then reported on Dec. 27 that action was imminent. By late afternoon the following day, multiple news sources were quoting government officials as saying the announcement would come on the Dec. 29.

So Kislyak likely knew an announcement was coming when he asked to talk to Flynn.

Another transition official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, said the ambassador invited the Trump administration to participate in a conference in Kazakhstan on the conflict in Syria set for after the inauguration in late January. Were that to happen it could mark a concrete diplomatic shift in the relationship between Russia and the U.S. The Obama administration has opposed Russia's aid to the Assad regime, essentially putting the U.S. and Russia on opposite sides of the Syrian civil war – even as they have attempted to coordinate on parts of it.

Contact between an incoming administration and foreign ambassadors isn't out of the ordinary. But the timing raises questions, especially in light of Putin's decision not to respond to the U.S. retaliatory moves. No one can conduct foreign policy, except for the current U.S. government. If someone did, they would be in violation of the Logan Act, which states, in part:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Others, including Reuters and Ignatius are reporting or have reported that there were multiple phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador the day the sanctions were announced. NPR has not confirmed those contacts.

The news comes hours after the Senate Intelligence Committee reversed course and said it would, in fact, investigate Russian interference in the election, including "any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns."


See your point but I think the next sentence or two is sufficient:
Quote:
But the timing raises questions, especially in light of Putin's decision not to respond to the U.S. retaliatory moves. No one can conduct foreign policy, except for the current U.S. government. If someone did, they would be in violation of the Logan Act

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:06 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
What's wrong with the article?

It proved that the Trump administration lied about when they talked to Russia.
It proved that the conversation took place at 10:00pm in Moscow moments after Obama retaliated against Russia.
It mentioned that there may have been multiple conversations according to the reporting of multiple sources.
It let the reader know that contact between an ambassador and an incoming administration is normal but that only the current president can conduct foreign policy.
It allowed the reader to decide what an urgent conversation(s) in the middle of of the night could have been about.


You probably made the assumption that it was about vodka and others may have concluded that it was likely about the actions President Obama took.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23568
pizza_Place: Giordano's
veganfan21 wrote:
See your point but I think the next sentence or two is sufficient:
Quote:
But the timing raises questions, especially in light of Putin's decision not to respond to the U.S. retaliatory moves. No one can conduct foreign policy, except for the current U.S. government. If someone did, they would be in violation of the Logan Act


Which is followed by this:

Quote:
Others, including Reuters and Ignatius are reporting or have reported that there were multiple phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador the day the sanctions were announced. NPR has not confirmed those contacts.


The same weasel-like maneuver used to bootstrap the Trump "dossier" into legitimacy by presenting the unconfirmed reporting of others as tacit confirmation of the matter asserted. This guy knows the doubt he cast on the content of the messages between Trump's team and the ambassador is weak as hell (the general proximity of the call to the day sanctions were announced), so he has to go to the "others are reporting" well in a feeble attempt to bolster his point. Unethical, fake-newsy, bullshit.

EDIT: I mean "she"


Last edited by Juice's Lecture Notes on Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80536
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
veganfan21 wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Okay, I don't want to be accused of "defending Trump", but I want to point out a story that may not be fake news in the sense that Nas defines fake news, but one that is definitely attempting to deceive nonetheless, with the reporter maintaining cover via a single disclaiming line that really renders the entire story very mundane.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/14/509780474 ... ere-announ

Gen. Michael Flynn, President-elect Trump's pick to be national security adviser, did speak to Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak by telephone on Dec. 29, the same day the Obama administration announced measures retaliating against Russia for interfering in the 2016 presidential campaign, two Trump transition officials confirm to NPR.

This is different timing than the Trump transition had announced to reporters Friday morning. Transition spokesman and incoming White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said then that Kislyak texted Flynn on Dec. 28, asking to talk. Spicer also said the text messages showed they wished each other Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, and added they spoke by phone later that day, the 28, meaning they couldn't have discussed the retaliation measures or Russia's response.

But now, the transition officials, including Spicer, confirm to NPR that was not correct. The phone conversation, initiated by the Russian ambassador, actually didn't happen until the next day, Dec. 29, the same day as the retaliatory efforts were announced.

David Ignatius at the Washington Post broke the story Thursday that Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador Dec. 29, although the transition said it actually happened the day before. AP published a report Friday night that supported Ignatius' version.

Spicer told NPR in a phone call late Friday night that he had misread the timing of Flynn's texts Friday morning and that accounts for the discrepancy.

Spicer said the call took place "around the same time" as when the retaliation measures were announced, which was some time around 2 p.m. ET. But, he insisted that the details of the phone conversation did not change from what he said Friday morning and called it "doubtful" that Flynn and the ambassador discussed the U.S.'s retaliatory measures or Russia's potential response, because Flynn told Spicer they did not.

The first hint that sanctions against Russia were coming was when President Obama said in an interview with NPR on Dec. 15, "We need to take action. And we will." The Washington Post then reported on Dec. 27 that action was imminent. By late afternoon the following day, multiple news sources were quoting government officials as saying the announcement would come on the Dec. 29.

So Kislyak likely knew an announcement was coming when he asked to talk to Flynn.

Another transition official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject matter, said the ambassador invited the Trump administration to participate in a conference in Kazakhstan on the conflict in Syria set for after the inauguration in late January. Were that to happen it could mark a concrete diplomatic shift in the relationship between Russia and the U.S. The Obama administration has opposed Russia's aid to the Assad regime, essentially putting the U.S. and Russia on opposite sides of the Syrian civil war – even as they have attempted to coordinate on parts of it.

Contact between an incoming administration and foreign ambassadors isn't out of the ordinary. But the timing raises questions, especially in light of Putin's decision not to respond to the U.S. retaliatory moves. No one can conduct foreign policy, except for the current U.S. government. If someone did, they would be in violation of the Logan Act, which states, in part:

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Others, including Reuters and Ignatius are reporting or have reported that there were multiple phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador the day the sanctions were announced. NPR has not confirmed those contacts.

The news comes hours after the Senate Intelligence Committee reversed course and said it would, in fact, investigate Russian interference in the election, including "any intelligence regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns."


See your point but I think the next sentence or two is sufficient:
Quote:
But the timing raises questions, especially in light of Putin's decision not to respond to the U.S. retaliatory moves. No one can conduct foreign policy, except for the current U.S. government. If someone did, they would be in violation of the Logan Act


Well, that's the spin, obviously. She wants to suggest that something extraordinary and illegal occurred.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
See your point but I think the next sentence or two is sufficient:
Quote:
But the timing raises questions, especially in light of Putin's decision not to respond to the U.S. retaliatory moves. No one can conduct foreign policy, except for the current U.S. government. If someone did, they would be in violation of the Logan Act


Which is followed by this:

Quote:
Others, including Reuters and Ignatius are reporting or have reported that there were multiple phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador the day the sanctions were announced. NPR has not confirmed those contacts.


The same weasel-like maneuver used to bootstrap the Trump "dossier" into legitimacy by presenting the unconfirmed reporting of others as tacit confirmation of the matter asserted. This guy knows the doubt he cast on the content of the messages between Trump's team and the ambassador is weak as hell (the general proximity of the call to the day sanctions were announced), so he has to go to the "others are reporting" well in a feeble attempt to bolster his point. Unethical, fake-newsy, bullshit.


You're still wrong on the dossier. CNN reported that a synopsis of the dossier was presented to Trump and Obama, and was circulated among other officials and senators. Your problem there is with the officials and senators, not with CNN.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:14 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
See your point but I think the next sentence or two is sufficient:
Quote:
But the timing raises questions, especially in light of Putin's decision not to respond to the U.S. retaliatory moves. No one can conduct foreign policy, except for the current U.S. government. If someone did, they would be in violation of the Logan Act


Which is followed by this:

Quote:
Others, including Reuters and Ignatius are reporting or have reported that there were multiple phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador the day the sanctions were announced. NPR has not confirmed those contacts.


The same weasel-like maneuver used to bootstrap the Trump "dossier" into legitimacy by presenting the unconfirmed reporting of others as tacit confirmation of the matter asserted. This guy knows the doubt he cast on the content of the messages between Trump's team and the ambassador is weak as hell (the general proximity of the call to the day sanctions were announced), so he has to go to the "others are reporting" well in a feeble attempt to bolster his point. Unethical, fake-newsy, bullshit.


This is beyond stupid. I guess "MANY people are saying" (without listing who those people are) would have been a bettee move than quoting reliable news organizations. The reporting about the 1 conversation and the lying about the timing of it was verified.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23568
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Nas wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
See your point but I think the next sentence or two is sufficient:
Quote:
But the timing raises questions, especially in light of Putin's decision not to respond to the U.S. retaliatory moves. No one can conduct foreign policy, except for the current U.S. government. If someone did, they would be in violation of the Logan Act


Which is followed by this:

Quote:
Others, including Reuters and Ignatius are reporting or have reported that there were multiple phone calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador the day the sanctions were announced. NPR has not confirmed those contacts.


The same weasel-like maneuver used to bootstrap the Trump "dossier" into legitimacy by presenting the unconfirmed reporting of others as tacit confirmation of the matter asserted. This guy knows the doubt he cast on the content of the messages between Trump's team and the ambassador is weak as hell (the general proximity of the call to the day sanctions were announced), so he has to go to the "others are reporting" well in a feeble attempt to bolster his point. Unethical, fake-newsy, bullshit.


This is beyond stupid. I guess "MANY people are saying" (without listing who those people are) would have been a bettee move than quoting reliable news organizations. The reporting about the 1 conversation and the lying about the timing of it was verified.


Have those other news outlets confirmed multiple calls? They have, if you call this "confirmation":

Reuters wrote:
The three sources stressed to Reuters that they did not know who initiated the five calls between Flynn, a former three-star Army general who headed the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency under Obama, and Kislyak. Nor did they know the contents of the conversations, and declined to say how they learned of them.


There's a reason double confirmation used to be the standard, and why even one "unnamed source" substituted created an ethical shitstorm. Maybe you're fine with this kind of reporting (because it just so happens to conform to your ideology, imagine that!), but this is buuullllshit. I'm beyond even caring whether multiple calls took place and whether foreign policy was actually discussed. Either there are ethics in journalism, or there aren't. This is just wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 566 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group