L'Emmerdeur wrote:Il Douche just being himself--a petty, vindictive asshat:
'Trump’s gripes against McCabe included wife’s politics, Comey’s ride home'
The day after he fired James Comey as director of the FBI, a furious President Donald Trump called the bureau's acting director, Andrew McCabe, demanding to know why Comey had been allowed to fly on an FBI plane from Los Angeles back to Washington after he was dismissed, according to multiple people familiar with the phone call.
McCabe told the president he hadn’t been asked to authorize Comey’s flight, but if anyone had asked, he would have approved it, three people familiar with the call recounted to NBC News.
The president was silent for a moment and then turned on McCabe, suggesting he ask his wife how it feels to be a loser — an apparent reference to a failed campaign for state office in Virginia that McCabe’s wife made in 2015.
McCabe replied, “OK, sir.” Trump then hung up the phone.
A White House official, who would not speak on the record, disputed the account, saying, "this simply never happened. Any suggestion otherwise is pure fiction.” The FBI declined to comment on the call.
...
In recent weeks the White House has agitated for McCabe’s exit, saying he is part of a broader pattern of bias against the president in the highest levels of federal law enforcement. Defenders of the Justice Department’s leadership say the charges of bias are part of the president’s effort to try to undermine the federal probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
Trump’s repeated criticism of McCabe, both in public and private, made the FBI’s deputy director the leading example of concerns Republicans have increasingly raised about potential impartiality at the Justice Department.
The phone call between Trump and McCabe after Comey’s firing last May underscores the president’s continued fixation on the loyalties of people around him and his frustration with autonomous arms of the government — particularly ones involved in the Russia investigation. It’s also emblematic of his early and persistent distrust of top Justice Department officials.
The combination of those sentiments whipped the president into such a fury over Comey last year that he wanted his firing to abruptly strip him of any trappings that come with the office and leave him across the country scrambling to find his own way home.
McCabe detailed his conversation with Trump after Comey’s firing to several people at the Justice Department, people familiar with the matter said.
"according to multiple people familiar with the phone call." Who? Anonymous sources? Why? This is a phone call. No "sources and methods" and no intelligence. Nothing. Why are we allowing people to make scurrilous remarks about a phone call that they weren't participating in and believing them without knowing who they are and what their motivations might be? Were they listening in on the call? If not, how are they "familiar with the phone call?" What does it mean to be "familiar with the phone call?" Did they hear about it? Did McCabe tell them? The article doesn't say. Wouldn't a decent journalist ask the "source familiar with the phone call" how they are familiar? Who they heard it from?
"Trump, enraged by TV footage of Comey boarding the government-funded plane hours after his firing, believed that Comey should not have been allowed to take the plane, that any privileges he had received as FBI director should have ceased the moment he was fired,
the people familiar with the matter said." LOL - now they're "familiar with the matter." They know what Trump "believed." They weren't on the phone call. They didn't hear what the President said, but they're somehow familiar with the matter. How? Article does not say. Why doesn't it say?
Wouldn't an informative news article say "the people were familiar with the matter and phone call because they say Andrew McCabe told them what the President said," or "the people familiar with the phone call were familiar because they overheard McCabe's side of the conversation," or "...they were listening in on an office phone extension...? Isn't it important to know how the source knows what they're reporting?
Trump's White House apparently says it didn't happen, and the FBI wouldn't comment, and the article doesn't even mention if the reporter picked up the phone to contact McCabe, who was on the phone with the President to ask if it happened.
But we're not just asked to believe it happened based on the anonymous reporting of people who weren't on the phone call and did not hear the President's words.... "The previously unreported exchange between Trump and McCabe was one of a series of attacks the president aimed at McCabe that fueled tensions between the White House and the Justice Department and culminated Monday with McCabe stepping down as the FBI’s deputy director." Now this is "one of a series" of "attacks" by the President which "culminated" in his resignation. So, he didn't resign for legitimate reasons. He resigned because of a series of unjustified attacks by the President. No source for that. No explanation of the "series of attacks" and no confirmation from anyone that there were "fueled tensions."
The author then says McCabe was "reportedly" asked who he voted for in 2016 and asked about his wife's connection to Hillary Clinton and campaign contributions. Only, the reports on that were from people not in the meeting, just more anonymous sources who weren't in the room. The articles report on what McCabe said, but always hearsay - through what "anonymous officials" with no description of what kind of official they are and how they came to know what they know. We don't even know if they heard the information directly from McCabe and the articles always leave out one thing: A contact with McCabe to ask him if that's what was said. Even to get a "no comment" from McCabe. They just don't write anything about calling to confirm the story.
When you read any policy on anonymous sources, the use is supposed to be "rare," and the exception to the rule in situations where important stories of great importance or involving high security matters can only be reported if the source remains anonymous because of danger to the source, whistleblowing concerns, criminal law concerns, intelligence sources and methods concerns, etc. But here, we're talking about stuff that is not a crime -- it's just gossip -- Trump was a dick to McCabe, or Trump was a dick to Comey, or Trump said something uncouth or asked an impertinet question, and every, single report is by anonymous sources. Having a source is now the exception to the rule.
And, they never set forth why the sources need confidential treatment or anonymity. They never explain how the sources know what they know. They never explain how the source was vetted or how the facts were confirmed. They never even provide a note that editors at the media outlet have reviewed the matter have agreed to allow the reporting go forward.
Media outlets are responsible for the veracity of anonymous sources, to some extent. Not completely. But, they are responsible for taking reasonable steps to get named sources wherever possible, and they are responsible to taking steps to verify and confirm what sources are saying.
The article goes on -- "In recent weeks the White House has agitated for McCabe’s exit, saying he is part of a broader pattern of bias against the president in the highest levels of federal law enforcement. Defenders of the Justice Department’s leadership say the charges of bias are part of the president’s effort to try to undermine the federal probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow." Oh, really? When did the White House do this agitating? The White House has said they were not involved in the process at all. So, when did the White House agitate? Is there a single quote from the White House saying anything about McCabe should "exit?" Who is the source for this allegation. Similarly, regarding the "defenders of the Justice Department's leadership" - who are those defenders the reporter is talking about? Who said that the President is trying to undermine the federal proble? Who said that? Someone who knows something? Or, a pundit on MSNBC or CNN?
The author goes on to editorialize about the President's distrust of officials from "autonomous" departments of the Executive Branch (who report to the President) and his demands for loyalty. The author goes on "The combination of those sentiments whipped the president into such a fury over Comey last year that he wanted his firing to abruptly strip him of any trappings that come with the office and leave him across the country scrambling to find his own way home." So, not only does she report on what was said in the phone call, via sources not on the phone call, but these sources apparently know that it was a combination of long term "sentiments" that sent the President into a "fury" (he wasn't just giving McCabe a hard time, these people who were not on the call know he was in a "fury" and knew his motivation).
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
