Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Tero]

Russia showdown, Satan forced to sign bill or veto it
https://news.google.com/news/video/bTFC ... =en&ned=us

[Tero]

[JimC]

What's wrong with that cartoon is that the hackers all look like old farts...

[Sean Hayden]

[Forty Two]

Jeff Sessions discussed Donald Trump’s White House bid with the Russian ambassador to Washington in 2016, according to reported US intelligence intercepts which contradict the US attorney general’s assurances that the campaign was not discussed...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... _clipboard

Liar.

Surely you get it by now; it's been explained to all and sundry here repeatedly. Since this article refers to anonymous sources, it's meaningless. Just more smoke. I mean, who in the hell are "unnamed US official" and "unnamed former official"? If we don't know their names, it's unreasonable to believe anything they say. Rather, we can doubt that the supposed "intelligence intercepts" even exist. People are just trying to traduce poor Jefferson Beauregard III, that's all this is.

The Guardian wrote an article, reporting that the Washington Post is apparently privy to "intelligence intercepts" that nobody else is privy to. Or, maybe they talked to an "unnamed source" which has referred to "intelligence intercepts" which the esteemed Guardian has never seen. What was the access of the unnamed former official, and where did the former official get their information? Did the "former official" have access to the actual intelligence intercepts? Or, is he going on something someone told him? What intelligence agency is this?

From the WaPo article, "Officials emphasized that the information contradicting Sessions comes from U.S. intelligence on Kislyak’s communications with the Kremlin, and they acknowledged that the Russian ambassador could have mischaracterized or exaggerated the nature of his interactions." So, it comes from "US intelligence on" Kislyak's communications with the Kremlin. That doesn't mean they actually intercepted communications. They could have just gotten information relayed to them by an informant, who may or may not, have actual information about the communication.

“Obviously I cannot comment on the reliability of what anonymous sources describe in a wholly uncorroborated intelligence intercept that the Washington Post has not seen and that has not been provided to me,” said a Justice Department spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores, in a statement.

Anonymous sources, wholly uncorroborated, which has not been seen by the reporter reporting on it, and has not been provided for anyone else to verify.

So, who knows. Given the political climate, there's no telling what to believe. I certainly don't trust reporters to get it right.

[Brian Peacock]

Jeff Sessions discussed Donald Trump’s White House bid with the Russian ambassador to Washington in 2016, according to reported US intelligence intercepts which contradict the US attorney general’s assurances that the campaign was not discussed...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... _clipboard

Liar.

Surely you get it by now; it's been explained to all and sundry here repeatedly. Since this article refers to anonymous sources, it's meaningless. Just more smoke. I mean, who in the hell are "unnamed US official" and "unnamed former official"? If we don't know their names, it's unreasonable to believe anything they say. Rather, we can doubt that the supposed "intelligence intercepts" even exist. People are just trying to traduce poor Jefferson Beauregard III, that's all this is.

The Guardian wrote an article, reporting that the Washington Post is apparently privy to "intelligence intercepts" that nobody else is privy to. Or, maybe they talked to an "unnamed source" which has referred to "intelligence intercepts" which the esteemed Guardian has never seen. What was the access of the unnamed former official, and where did the former official get their information? Did the "former official" have access to the actual intelligence intercepts? Or, is he going on something someone told him? What intelligence agency is this?

From the WaPo article, "Officials emphasized that the information contradicting Sessions comes from U.S. intelligence on Kislyak’s communications with the Kremlin, and they acknowledged that the Russian ambassador could have mischaracterized or exaggerated the nature of his interactions." So, it comes from "US intelligence on" Kislyak's communications with the Kremlin. That doesn't mean they actually intercepted communications. They could have just gotten information relayed to them by an informant, who may or may not, have actual information about the communication.

“Obviously I cannot comment on the reliability of what anonymous sources describe in a wholly uncorroborated intelligence intercept that the Washington Post has not seen and that has not been provided to me,” said a Justice Department spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores, in a statement.

Anonymous sources, wholly uncorroborated, which has not been seen by the reporter reporting on it, and has not been provided for anyone else to verify.

So, who knows. Given the political climate, there's no telling what to believe. I certainly don't trust reporters to get it right.

Reporters report. This is common knowledge. Expecting the reports of reporters to adhere to legal or scientific standards of proof and evidence or, presumably, just shut the fuck up not only ignores the issues being reported but disavows great swathes of legitimate media investigation, reporting, speculation, comment, and analysis.

[Brian Peacock]

Trump personally crafted son's misleading account of Russia meeting – report

President Trump personally dictated the press statement issued in the name of his eldest son that misleadingly downplayed the significance of a 2016 meeting with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer, a new report alleged on Monday night.

According to the Washington Post, Trump personally intervened to prevent senior White House advisers from issuing a full and truthful account of the meeting on 9 June 2016 in which Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and then presidential campaign manager Paul Manafort came face-to-face with four Russians. One of the Russian visitors was the well-connected lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.

The report, based on multiple though largely anonymous sources that included the president’s own advisers, has the potential to cause political, and even legal, trouble for the White House because it draws Trump himself much closer into the fray over the Trump Tower meeting, which has become a lightning rod in the Russian affair.

Shunning the guidance of lawyers, and overturning the view apparently reached by Kushner and his team of advisers that a full and frank accounting should be made, Trump reportedly dictated a statement on board Air Force One as he was flying back to Washington from the G20 summit in Germany. As would soon become apparent, it gave a very partial and distorted account of events.

...

Until now, the president managed to keep some distance from the 9 June encounter, with his lawyers claiming that he knew nothing about it. But the new report that Trump personally oversaw the issuing of a misleading account of the proceedings raises questions about the president’s role in what could be conceived as a cover-up....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ia-meeting

[Animavore]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/b ... 4ebb7675a6?

[Brian Peacock]

This Magnitsky business is very nasty. Mysterious poisonings, deaths in police custody, disappearing evidence, and people throwing themselves off tall buildings the day before testifying isn't the half of it.

[Forty Two]

Reporters report. This is common knowledge. Expecting the reports of reporters to adhere to legal or scientific standards of proof and evidence or, presumably, just shut the fuck up not only ignores the issues being reported but disavows great swathes of legitimate media investigation, reporting, speculation, comment, and analysis.

There isn't this great swathe of investigation, reporting, comment and analysis that proves the points being made.

I get that reporters report, and they even use anonymous sources in order to get their stories. However, there was a time, like during Watergate, when Woodward and Bernstein had journalistic ethics, and they needed to have their anonymous sources corroborated before they could use their statements. There was thought put into it, and a story did not get published on one anonymous source which did not provide back-up or was not otherwise corroborated. Today, there are too many examples of reporters just getting it wrong, and publishing flimsy stories.

Political players have relationships with journalists to get them stories. A political player will call the journalist, who needs to get good scoops to advance their career, and hand them a story. Both political parties do this, and they distribute talking points, and press releases to direct the press what to report (not every single thing they report, but a good amount of what they report). That's why you'll see shifts in reporting - and it will cut across all the news shows, and they will all start saying iterations of the same thing.

I simply do not trust uncorroborated stories based only on anonymous sources. I don't care if they're about democrats or republicans. Find some corroboration you can publish, or it's value is just what it is - some reporter (who is generally not someone worthy of particular deference) says they talked to someone who is anonymous and that anonymous person said something bad, probably about a person he's trying to undermine. I'm not giving that much weight at all. It's "cool story, bro."

[Forty Two]

Trump personally crafted son's misleading account of Russia meeting – report

President Trump personally dictated the press statement issued in the name of his eldest son that misleadingly downplayed the significance of a 2016 meeting with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer, a new report alleged on Monday night.

According to the Washington Post, Trump personally intervened to prevent senior White House advisers from issuing a full and truthful account of the meeting on 9 June 2016 in which Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and then presidential campaign manager Paul Manafort came face-to-face with four Russians. One of the Russian visitors was the well-connected lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.

The report, based on multiple though largely anonymous sources that included the president’s own advisers, has the potential to cause political, and even legal, trouble for the White House because it draws Trump himself much closer into the fray over the Trump Tower meeting, which has become a lightning rod in the Russian affair.

Shunning the guidance of lawyers, and overturning the view apparently reached by Kushner and his team of advisers that a full and frank accounting should be made, Trump reportedly dictated a statement on board Air Force One as he was flying back to Washington from the G20 summit in Germany. As would soon become apparent, it gave a very partial and distorted account of events.

...

Until now, the president managed to keep some distance from the 9 June encounter, with his lawyers claiming that he knew nothing about it. But the new report that Trump personally oversaw the issuing of a misleading account of the proceedings raises questions about the president’s role in what could be conceived as a cover-up....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ia-meeting

The President's "own advisers" spilled the beans? Which White House personnel are considered "advisers?" Official Advisers to the President are not particularly numerous. If this really happened in the manner reported, why would the President's advisers, who are there to help him and be in his camp, throw him under the bus and make the pointless disclosure that the President "dictated" the statement? That's not a very good adviser. The Adviser said that Trump should make disclosure X and Trump ignored the advise, so the Adviser takes it upon himself to contact the Washington Post and tell him "it wasn't us, it was the President - we told the President to do the right thing, but he ignored us and dictated a memo on his own?" That's an Adviser to the President of the United States? Really?

Does nothing smell weird about that? Does it make sense?

I mean, I guess we can be sure there's no serious issues going on in the Trump administration. If the Advisers to the President of the United States can't keep from violating their duties as confidants and advisers -- someone the President is supposed to be able to speak freely to and discuss matters openly and frankly -- without spilling the beans when the President decides to ignore their advice on a matter involving what to disclose about a meeting. I mean, imagine how fast they'd be running to the press if it was something really serious or even criminal. The Trump admin can't keep it under wraps that Trump wrote a press release concerning his son's meeting with some Russians, but they are managing to keep under wraps all other evidence of "collusion" with the Russians, and proof of financial misdeeds, his taxes, etc. Weird.

[pErvinalia]

Probably one of the advisors he sacked or belittled.

[Brian Peacock]

Reporters report. This is common knowledge. Expecting the reports of reporters to adhere to legal or scientific standards of proof and evidence or, presumably, just shut the fuck up not only ignores the issues being reported but disavows great swathes of legitimate media investigation, reporting, speculation, comment, and analysis.

There isn't this great swathe of investigation, reporting, comment and analysis that proves the points being made.

Spectacularly missing the point. Reports report. They're not dealing in absolute copper-bottomed truths here but in what people are saying about issues and events, about the circumstances, and the context of the events, about the what-where-when-and-whos, about the possible whys, about the possible implications in light of past events and the ramifications for future events, etc. This is all non-controversial, bread and butter journalistic stuff in-and-of itself.

I get that reporters report, and they even use anonymous sources in order to get their stories. However, there was a time, like during Watergate, when Woodward and Bernstein had journalistic ethics, and they needed to have their anonymous sources corroborated before they could use their statements.

And what makes you think that these anonymous reports have not been corroborated? Indeed, given the viper's nest that is the US litigation system I would imagine corroboration is among a media outlet's highest priorities, a legal necessity in fact, and not just a matter of the personal ethics of individual journalists. I mean, if media outlets weren't concerned about things like fact-checking and corroboration then, well, they could just make up any old shit couldn't they? Are you suggesting that this is what is going on here - that these outlets are dealing in uncorroborated made-up-shit?

There was thought put into it, and a story did not get published on one anonymous source which did not provide back-up or was not otherwise corroborated. Today, there are too many examples of reporters just getting it wrong, and publishing flimsy stories.

How many, and how many is too many? On what are you basing this claim?

Political players have relationships with journalists to get them stories. A political player will call the journalist, who needs to get good scoops to advance their career, and hand them a story. Both political parties do this, and they distribute talking points, and press releases to direct the press what to report (not every single thing they report, but a good amount of what they report). That's why you'll see shifts in reporting - and it will cut across all the news shows, and they will all start saying iterations of the same thing.

Yes, media outlets are bombarded with press releases and phone calls, emails, and personal representations from 'interested parties' all the time, each trying to 'spin' this-or-that issue for that-or-this purpose and effect. Sometimes the the journalists find the news, and sometime the news finds journalists. This is not a new thing. But such complaints are also a red herring, because as I noted before, in moving the discussion onto an examination of the probity of US journalism and ethics of journalists in general the actual issue being reported has been conveniently pushed to the side.

I find myself wondering which media organisations and outlets are forwarding these apparent 'concerns' about the apparent parlous state of journalistic practice among the US's serious 'papers of record' like the Post and the NYT in response to this story (a story, let's not forget, where significant political players party to the actual proceeding reported on have already been caught out peddling untruths as facts, attempting to shift responsibility onto others, and creating distractions to monopolise air time an column inches), and where and by what means they are getting the information which forms and frames their coverage.

Who are the spinners and who are the spun?

I simply do not trust uncorroborated stories based only on anonymous sources. I don't care if they're about democrats or republicans. Find some corroboration you can publish, or it's value is just what it is - some reporter (who is generally not someone worthy of particular deference) says they talked to someone who is anonymous and that anonymous person said something bad, probably about a person he's trying to undermine. I'm not giving that much weight at all. It's "cool story, bro."

You don't have to automatically trust a story based oon an anonymous sources, but you don't have to automatically distrust it either. It is what it is - a report. One always takes a report from an anonymous source or 'an insider' or 'a close colleague who asked not to be named' etc with a pinch of salt - such reports essentially create a conditional situation don't they; if-so-then-what-and-if-not-then-so-what(?)?

But are you raising 'concerns' here because people are actually taking these reports without salt (in which case what people, how many, and on what basis have you formed this view?) or, again, are you latching onto the idea that people are generally too credulous about what they read in print or hear on the TV or radio news, along with the fresh idea of news 'bandwagoning', as a way to avoid contemplation and discussion of some rather uncomfortable possibilities.

[Forty Two]

The article did not say "former" adviser, which is normally what they do if it's not a current person.

Which advisers did he sack or belittle?

And, if he was a "former" adviser...pray tell... how was the "former" adviser privy to what Trump did on Air Force One? Former Advisers fly around with him on Air Force One?

Or, if the adviser was current when it happened, and then fired after it happened, then we should be able to narrow that down pretty quick, no? And, wouldn't the President know for sure who it was, since he knows when he "dictated" the note and knows who he talked to about it? I wonder what Trump would want to do to someone he knows leaked this stuff?

The Senior Advisors to the President are and have been for some time, Jared Kushner and Stephen Miller. Who else is an "Advisor" to the President. Members of the Cabinet, like the Attorney General - Secretary of State - etc?

So...which advisors would have disclosed this information?

Was it even an advisor? Was it even someone who knew first-hand what they were talking about?

The article is so thin, and so short on detail about what happened, is it even something to be taken seriously as factual reporting? What did the advisers want included in the release that Trump left out? Surely the adviser himself or herself would say that - not just "we wanted the whole truth reported" - an adviser doesn't have a job of sitting there on the couch and telling the President "make sure you tell the truth." The adviser advises the president on what to say - how should the truth be worded in the release. Does the adviser reporting to the journalist not know what the President was advised to do, specifically? If not, why not? How does the adviser even know what actually happened - what does the adviser have personal knowledge of? How much is third hand?

I get that reporters don't have to have perfect information to report. But, the weight to be given to a report has a lot to do with how much detail and corroboration is given. I'd be more apt to believe them, too, if there weren't so many instances of them going off half-cocked and reporting stuff that just wasn't so, and given the fact that that the media is infused with political operatives using journalists to spread political attacks and messages (on both sides of the aisle - Republicans and Democrats both do it).

[Animavore]

I see Trump's transparent plan of turning the rubes against the media is working as intended.