[Zelandakh]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-02, 02:40, said:

<snip>

So your answer to the FBI investigating members of the Trump campaign regarding Russia is that it is a conspiracy between the media and the intelligence agencies of multiple countries to bring down "the outsider" and put in his place a career politician of the far right? You are right to question why the FBI sat on the information about Trump while at the same time releasing information about HC that materially affected the election but is almost certainly less relevant in terms of criminal/moral wrongdoing. But that is another storyline entirely from the large-scale plotting you seem to have in mind.

[RedSpawn]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-02, 07:09, said:

So your answer to the FBI investigating members of the Trump campaign regarding Russia is that it is a conspiracy between the media and the intelligence agencies of multiple countries to bring down "the outsider" and put in his place a career politician of the far right? You are right to question why the FBI sat on the information about Trump while at the same time releasing information about HC that materially affected the election but is almost certainly less relevant in terms of criminal/moral wrongdoing. But that is another storyline entirely from the large-scale plotting you seem to have in mind.

We are watching a power struggle in Washington between a deeply entrenched political establishment resistant to change and an inexperienced, "suspicious", nonconformist that clearly won't stick to script. This disturbs them.

We are also watching a corporate media complex subvert what news is to accomplish a larger goal that is consistent with the desires and objectives of said establishment. The visceral, frenetic, machine gun paced media attacks against a President who hasn't even been in office for 5 months is not just alarming, it is revealing. The media is firing too many blanks in their preemptive strike and destroying what little credibility they have left.

The ends don't justify the means here, even if a legal case can be made for Trump's impeachment. Too many career politicians in Washington are so worried about Trump's effect on the 2018 midterm elections, that they are willing to bring the government to a slow crawl with a litany of expensive investigations and hearings just to score political points with their constituents. We all know the story ending the D.C. establishment wants.

And it is no surprise that the FBI has named Kushner a person of interest in their investigation. He is Trump's liaison and confidant, so maybe including Kushner in this legal/political dragnet will slow Trump down and compromise his ability to fulfill his campaign promises. Of course such a move will reinforce the confirmation bias the media and D.C. establishment already have about Trump.

And hopefully when the ride on this political carousel ends, we will all be convinced that we should settle for the devil we know (Pence/Ryan) instead of the devil we don't know (Trump/Pence). Maybe then, the establishment can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go back to business as usual. Election be damned.

http://www.politico....nt-trump-238525 ==> President succession planning
https://www.theguard...ticsandthemedia ==> Incisive article about media bias

Stay tuned for the next episode. . .

[PassedOut]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-02, 09:48, said:

We are watching a power struggle in Washington between a deeply entrenched political establishment resistant to change and an inexperienced, "suspicious", nonconformist that clearly won't stick to script. This disturbs them.

We are also watching a corporate media complex subvert what news is to accomplish a larger goal that is consistent with the desires and objectives of said establishment. The visceral, frenetic, machine gun paced media attacks against a President who hasn't even been in office for 5 months is not just alarming, it is revealing. The media is firing too many blanks in their preemptive strike and destroying what little credibility they have left.

I understand what you are saying, but am not aware of all those blanks that have been fired. Seems to me that the news about Trump has been pretty accurate, by and large--much more so than Trump himself and his spokespeople.

To what large number of blanks do you refer?

[RedSpawn]

With all of this Trump kabuki theater going on --- this VERY IMPORTANT financial regulatory "dismantling" has gotten lost in the news cycle.

See link for more information: https://blogs.wsj.co...ns-at-a-glance/

Quote

In an exclusive Wall Street Journal interview, Mr. Trump’s chief economic policy adviser – Gary Cohn, formerly president of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. – ran through a list of regulations ripe for a rethink. Among them: rules setting bank capital levels; mammoth “living will” blueprints banks are required to compile showing how they can go out of business without tapping taxpayer funds; government designation of nonbanks, such as insurers, as “systemically important financial institutions” that face stricter federal oversight; and the Volcker rule restricting how banks invest taxpayer-insured deposits.

Please note how a former President of Goldman Sach Group, now Trump's Chief Economic Policy Adviser, is asking the government to reduce capital requirements for big banks, abolish the Volcker rule, and declaw the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) which was making the financial industry accountable for their client relationships. The CFPA has saved consumers almost $12 billion in the 1st 6 years which equals less graft and corruption and profits for the banking industry. See http://www.nbcnews.c...-agency-n756486 for additional information.

Quote

The Volcker Rule refers to § 619 (12 U.S.C. § 1851) part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, originally proposed by American economist and former United States Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to restrict United States banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments that do not benefit their customers. Volcker argued that such speculative activity played a key role in the financial crisis of 2007–2010. The rule is often referred to as a ban on proprietary trading by commercial banks, whereby deposits are used to trade on the bank's own accounts, although a number of exceptions to this ban were included in the Dodd-Frank law. (bold mine). See https://en.wikipedia...ki/Volcker_Rule for additional information.

So, basically we are trying to recreate a financial regulatory environment similar to the one we had before the housing bubble crash and calling it choice? Which lobbyist(s) asked to have this sweetheart change made to our federal laws? Back in the olden days, banking used to be uninspired and boring; commercial banks did not use customers' deposits for speculative activity like hedge funds and derivative based products and proprietary trading. Now, we are allowing commercial banks to engage in the same financial shenanigans that contributed to the 2008 housing bubble crash?

Here is a summary of the Financial Choice Act which abolishes the Volcker Rule, declaws the CFPA, and reduces capital requirements for big banks:

http://financialserv...mmary_final.pdf

Can someone tell me how dismantling Dodd-Frank is making American better for Main Street, because I can definitely see how it benefits Wall Street? It creates an atmosphere ripe for another financial market crash! The news sharks should have provided frenetic, repeated and continuous coverage of this programming change.

[RedSpawn]

 PassedOut, on 2017-June-02, 10:44, said:

I understand what you are saying, but am not aware of all those blanks that have been fired. Seems to me that the news about Trump has been pretty accurate, by and large--much more so than Trump himself and his spokespeople.

To what large number of blanks do you refer?

http://www.politico....-polling-238947

Thanks for the feedback.

NOTE: I will need to do major editing of this posting:

I am not sure why the corporate media complex is conducting polls to determine whether or not we should be impeaching a President. Either Congress has the evidence that meets the legal standard for "high crimes and misdemeanors" per the Constitution or it doesn't. No one should be conducting a poll to determine the electorate's view on this matter unless a politician is more concerned about his CONSTITUENTS and CAREER than he is the Constitution and rule of law. Congress does not impeach a sitting President based on a plebiscite.

What we have now is a whole lot of innuendo, speculation, dubious business associations and strange behavior, but not much else. Don't get me wrong, we have enough to pursue an investigation but I can not understand the media circus and the desire to undo the results of an election less than one year ago. Now is not the time for political vendettas.

[Winstonm]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-02, 12:11, said:

With all of this Trump kabuki theater going on --- this VERY IMPORTANT financial regulatory "dismantling" has gotten lost in the news cycle.

See link for more information: https://blogs.wsj.co...ns-at-a-glance/


Please note how a former President of Goldman Sach Group, now Trump's Chief Economic Policy Adviser, is asking the government to reduce capital requirements for big banks, abolish the Volcker rule, and declaw the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) which was making the financial industry accountable for their client relationships. The CFPA has saved consumers almost $12 billion in the 1st 6 years which equals less graft and corruption and profits for the banking industry. See http://www.nbcnews.c...-agency-n756486 for additional information.


So, basically we are trying to recreate a financial regulatory environment similar to the one we had before the housing bubble crash and calling it choice? Which lobbyist(s) asked to have this sweetheart change made to our federal laws? Back in the olden days, banking used to be uninspired and boring; commercial banks did not use customers' deposits for speculative activity like hedge funds and derivative based products and proprietary trading. Now, we are allowing commercial banks to engage in the same financial shenanigans that contributed to the 2008 housing bubble crash?

Here is a summary of the Financial Choice Act which abolishes the Volcker Rule, declaws the CFPA, and reduces capital requirements for big banks:

http://financialserv...mmary_final.pdf

Can someone tell me how dismantling Dodd-Frank is making American better for Main Street, because I can definitely see how it benefits Wall Street? It creates an atmosphere ripe for another financial market crash! The news sharks should have provided frenetic, repeated and continuous coverage of this programming change.

The "populist" Trump turns out to be just another oligarch. I am shocked, shocked to hear this news!

[Zelandakh]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-02, 09:48, said:

We are watching a power struggle in Washington between a deeply entrenched political establishment resistant to change and an inexperienced, "suspicious", nonconformist that clearly won't stick to script. This disturbs them.

We are also watching a corporate media complex subvert what news is to accomplish a larger goal that is consistent with the desires and objectives of said establishment. The visceral, frenetic, machine gun paced media attacks against a President who hasn't even been in office for 5 months is not just alarming, it is revealing. The media is firing too many blanks in their preemptive strike and destroying what little credibility they have left.

The ends don't justify the means here, even if a legal case can be made for Trump's impeachment. Too many career politicians in Washington are so worried about Trump's effect on the 2018 midterm elections, that they are willing to bring the government to a slow crawl with a litany of expensive investigations and hearings just to score political points with their constituents. We all know the story ending the D.C. establishment wants.

And it is no surprise that the FBI has named Kushner a person of interest in their investigation. He is Trump's liaison and confidant, so maybe including Kushner in this legal/political dragnet will slow Trump down and compromise his ability to fulfill his campaign promises. Of course such a move will reinforce the confirmation bias the media and D.C. establishment already have about Trump.

And hopefully when the ride on this political carousel ends, we will all be convinced that we should settle for the devil we know (Pence/Ryan) instead of the devil we don't know (Trump/Pence). Maybe then, the establishment can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go back to business as usual. Election be damned.

http://www.politico....nt-trump-238525 ==> President succession planning
https://www.theguard...ticsandthemedia ==> Incisive article about media bias

Stay tuned for the next episode. . .

So your answer is basically yes, that your response to the links between Russia and the Trump campaign is that it is a conspiracy.

From the above it sounds like you believe the only reason Kushner has been named by the FBI is to undermine Trump and that there is no reason for him to be under investigation whatsoever. And not only the FBI either. In Britain it has been reported that GCHQ had evidence of collusion well in advance of the FBI and passed the information on to them. Indeed the Germans (SIGINT) may have been involved before the FBI or CIA acted on the information. I suppose all of these are in on the conspiracy too?

But rather than report on collusion between the upper echelons of the White House and a foreign enamy power, the media should have been writing about financial reforms. Yes, this makes perfect sense. I think you really need to take a step back and look at all of the information out there rationally and how you as an editor in chief might have handled it. Either that or simply accept that you are a product of the right wing media machine and agree to disagree with, basically, everything that "normal" people think.

[PassedOut]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-June-02, 12:11, said:

Please note how a former President of Goldman Sach Group, now Trump's Chief Economic Policy Adviser, is asking the government to reduce capital requirements for big banks, abolish the Volcker rule, and declaw the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) which was making the financial industry accountable for their client relationships. The CFPA has saved consumers almost $12 billion in the 1st 6 years which equals less graft and corruption and profits for the banking industry.

So, basically we are trying to recreate a financial regulatory environment similar to the one we had before the housing bubble crash and calling it choice? Which lobbyist(s) asked to have this sweetheart change made to our federal laws? Back in the olden days, banking used to be uninspired and boring; commercial banks did not use customers' deposits for speculative activity like hedge funds and derivative based products and proprietary trading. Now, we are allowing commercial banks to engage in the same financial shenanigans that contributed to the 2008 housing bubble crash?

Can someone tell me how dismantling Dodd-Frank is making American better for Main Street, because I can definitely see how it benefits Wall Street? It creates an atmosphere ripe for another financial market crash! The news sharks should have provided frenetic, repeated and continuous coverage of this programming change.

I certainly agree with you that making these changes would work against me and against most other Americans. However, changes like these result from the election of representatives committed to acting against the interests of their constituents. Lots of folks didn't like Clinton and voted against her, but she would have stood in the way of those making these proposals.

The news sources that I read do present and critique these ill-advised proposals, but I suspect that the folks who don't figure that these proposals work against them don't look for that kind of information.

[RedSpawn]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-02, 12:45, said:

So your answer is basically yes, that your response to the links between Russia and the Trump campaign is that it is a conspiracy.

From the above it sounds like you believe the only reason Kushner has been named by the FBI is to undermine Trump and that there is no reason for him to be under investigation whatsoever. And not only the FBI either. In Britain it has been reported that GCHQ had evidence of collusion well in advance of the FBI and passed the information on to them. Indeed the Germans (SIGINT) may have been involved before the FBI or CIA acted on the information. I suppose all of these are in on the conspiracy too?

But rather than report on collusion between the upper echelons of the White House and a foreign enamy power, the media should have been writing about financial reforms. Yes, this makes perfect sense. I think you really need to take a step back and look at all of the information out there rationally and how you as an editor in chief might have handled it. Either that or simply accept that you are a product of the right wing media machine and agree to disagree with, basically, everything that "normal" people think.

What you call a conspiracy, I call a clever choreography of coincidental circumstances.

Question: If Kushner is the evil guy that the Western intelligence agencies purport him to be, why not file the charges right now?

Oh that's right, our government needs Kushner to testify under oath in a Congressional hearing so hopefully he will incriminate himself. Why? Because our government doesn't have sufficient evidence in a federal court to win strictly on the code of federal law. If the government already had a compelling case, they wouldn't need to try him 1st in the court of public opinion through media outlets. So the FBI has labeled him a person of interest which means that he has not been arrested or formally charged with a crime. He is "on their radar" as they continue their witch hunt investigation.

Quote

"The United States of America has the most complicated system of evidentiary rules" in the world. The reasons for this complexity are twofold. First, American defendants have the right to a jury trial in the vast majority of criminal cases and in many civil cases. Second, strict guidelines regarding what evidence can be admitted into a trial keeps the incidents of irrelevant and potentially distracting facts from being introduced, which may confuse a jury and adversely affect the outcome of a trial.

There are several major types [of evidence] including: documentary evidence, digital evidence, demonstrative evidence, exculpatory evidence, physical evidence, prima facie evidence, scientific evidence, and testimony.. (Bold & underline mine). See https://www.universa...of-evidence.htm for additional information.

Yet with all of these types of admissible evidence in a federal court, Kushner is still a person of interest. The beauty behind trying Kushner in the court of public opinion is that the electorate will get easily sidetracked by incidents of irrelevant and potentially distracting facts. Politicians can score political points with their constituents by creating a controversy over Kushner. However, that tactic will fail horribly in a federal court because the Federal rules of evidence don't allow a smear campaign of glaring omissions, innuendo, conjecture, and dubious business associations to replace hard core evidence and facts relevant to the commission of a crime.

Kushner needs to explain how he forgot to disclose the discussions he had with Russian ambassadors and a Russian bank official on his security clearance application last year. The request for the back channel with Russia to facilitate a diplomatic discussion is definitely eye-raising and concerning, but it hardly rises to the level of the commission of a crime or a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. He might be guilty under the Logan Act if he did not have the authority of the United States; however, if President-Elect Donald Trump approves of that request for a back-channel, doesn't Kushner have the implied consent of the authority of the United States since a President-Elect endorses the action?

Hmmmm. A federal judge would probably rule in Kushner's favor since the constitutionality of the Logan Act as written is questionable anyway and no one has ever been convicted under it.

[rmnka447]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-June-02, 12:45, said:

So your answer is basically yes, that your response to the links between Russia and the Trump campaign is that it is a conspiracy.

From the above it sounds like you believe the only reason Kushner has been named by the FBI is to undermine Trump and that there is no reason for him to be under investigation whatsoever. And not only the FBI either. In Britain it has been reported that GCHQ had evidence of collusion well in advance of the FBI and passed the information on to them. Indeed the Germans (SIGINT) may have been involved before the FBI or CIA acted on the information. I suppose all of these are in on the conspiracy too?

But rather than report on collusion between the upper echelons of the White House and a foreign enamy power, the media should have been writing about financial reforms. Yes, this makes perfect sense. I think you really need to take a step back and look at all of the information out there rationally and how you as an editor in chief might have handled it. Either that or simply accept that you are a product of the right wing media machine and agree to disagree with, basically, everything that "normal" people think.

The problem is that there is too much "it's been reported" or "somebody said that something may have happened". The "somebody" might have misconstrued, misheard, or purposely colored the "facts" they are disclosing. We've all probably played the party game where one person whispers something into the ear of the first person in a line of people and each person in turn whispers what is said to the person next to them. At the end, what the last person reports is usually dramatically different than what was originally said. The differences take place because people have different perceptions of what is being said and expressing how things are said to the next person. I think the legal term is "hearsay" and the court's don't normally admit hearsay as credible evidence.

Another problem is that the "might have been" gets reported, then by repeated mention of the assertions, the might have been starts getting treated as fact. Additionally, the manner in which the "might have been" is reported can be biased. For example, the story may not provide appropriate context about what is being reported so that it misinforms about the real impact of what is being reported.

I'm thinking about the news story about the President giving classified information to the Russians in a recent WH meeting with them. The story was sensationalized by neglecting to provide the context that Presidents do share such information from time to time when deemed appropriate. But the story was presented as if the information provided were a horrendous gaffe or complicit espionage. The story lost a lot of its legs when subsequently ex-CIA Director Brennan testified that sharing classified information wasn't unusual when pursuing cooperation on common interests. Brennan did say that there was a specific format that needed to be adhered to in order to protect the sources and origins of such information.

The three other Americans in that meeting stated that the President didn't do anything inappropriate. Yet the story attributed to former and current members of the intelligence community asserted that the President revealed the source and origin of the intelligence to the Russians. So a question that needs answering is "How did these 'sources' get their information?" It would seem like you would need to know the verbatim conversation to be factually correct about the assertions.

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2017-June-02, 15:00, said:

The problem is that there is too much "it's been reported" or "somebody said that something may have happened". The "somebody" might have misconstrued, misheard, or purposely colored the "facts" they are disclosing. We've all probably played the party game where one person whispers something into the ear of the first person in a line of people and each person in turn whispers what is said to the person next to them. At the end, what the last person reports is usually dramatically different than what was originally said. The differences take place because people have different perceptions of what is being said and expressing how things are said to the next person. I think the legal term is "hearsay" and the court's don't normally admit hearsay as credible evidence.

Another problem is that the "might have been" gets reported, then by repeated mention of the assertions, the might have been starts getting treated as fact. Additionally, the manner in which the "might have been" is reported can be biased. For example, the story may not provide appropriate context about what is being reported so that it misinforms about the real impact of what is being reported.

I'm thinking about the news story about the President giving classified information to the Russians in a recent WH meeting with them. The story was sensationalized by neglecting to provide the context that Presidents do share such information from time to time when deemed appropriate. But the story was presented as if the information provided were a horrendous gaffe or complicit espionage. The story lost a lot of its legs when subsequently ex-CIA Director Brennan testified that sharing classified information wasn't unusual when pursuing cooperation on common interests. Brennan did say that there was a specific format that needed to be adhered to in order to protect the sources and origins of such information.

The three other Americans in that meeting stated that the President didn't do anything inappropriate. Yet the story attributed to former and current members of the intelligence community asserted that the President revealed the source and origin of the intelligence to the Russians. So a question that needs answering is "How did these 'sources' get their information?" It would seem like you would need to know the verbatim conversation to be factually correct about the assertions.

It sounds as if your complaint is that the media cannot be trusted. But let me ask you a question: how does a reporter name his source if that source spoke only on condition of anonymity? The reporter would never again work in news, never get another tip from that source or likely any source, and he might cause the tipster to lose his job, to boot, or face criminal prosecution. And newspapers - any reliable news outlet, for that matter - will not publish information from a single source unless making it totally clear that the allegation is unsubstantiated. In almost all cases, news organizations do not run with a story until it is substatiated or confirmed by at least one other source besides the original.

The other side of this coin is that if the White House and campaign members were cooperating fully it would be possible to hear what was being said on t.v. instead of reading and hearing about it second hand.

[barmar]

 PeterAlan, on 2017-June-02, 04:37, said:

I don't see this. (b) says you can't appoint them. (c) says if they are appointed "in violation of" (b) they can't be paid - presumably so that if a contentious case arises that is finally deemed to fall foul of (b) they don't get to keep what they've already been paid. But (b) still prohibits appointment, paid or not. The only wriggle room would appear to be over what posts are covered, ie what is a "civilian position in the agency".

I asked about this on politics.stackexchange.com. Someone answered that 3 U.S.C. § 105(a) provides an exception for the President appointing White House staff, and the DOJ OK'ed the appointments based on this law.

[awm]

Trump is known to be extremely hostile to the media and aggressive with lawsuits. He also has some supporters who are quite crazy and violent. If someone from his administration went on the record they would:

1. Be fired immediately.
2. Face both jail time and a civil suit.
3. Probably start receiving death threats, even to their family.

No surprise that it's hard to get anyone on the record! This being the case, we must wait and see what Mueller uncovers. But I'd trust the word of many news organizations over what Trump administration says, given the record of easily falsifiable lies.

[ldrews]

 awm, on 2017-June-02, 18:30, said:

Trump is known to be extremely hostile to the media and aggressive with lawsuits. He also has some supporters who are quite crazy and violent. If someone from his administration went on the record they would:

1. Be fired immediately.
2. Face both jail time and a civil suit.
3. Probably start receiving death threats, even to their family.

No surprise that it's hard to get anyone on the record! This being the case, we must wait and see what Mueller uncovers. But I'd trust the word of many news organizations over what Trump administration says, given the record of easily falsifiable lies.

Are you of the opinion that news organizations don't falsify their reports?

[PassedOut]

 ldrews, on 2017-June-02, 21:01, said:

Are you of the opinion that news organizations don't falsify their reports?

Rhetorical question?

CORRECTING THE RECORD; Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception

Quote

A staff reporter for The New York Times committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud while covering significant news events in recent months, an investigation by Times journalists has found. The widespread fabrication and plagiarism represent a profound betrayal of trust and a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.

The reporter, Jayson Blair, 27, misled readers and Times colleagues with dispatches that purported to be from Maryland, Texas and other states, when often he was far away, in New York. He fabricated comments. He concocted scenes. He lifted material from other newspapers and wire services. He selected details from photographs to create the impression he had been somewhere or seen someone, when he had not.

And he used these techniques to write falsely about emotionally charged moments in recent history, from the deadly sniper attacks in suburban Washington to the anguish of families grieving for loved ones killed in Iraq.

A note to our readers about a reporter who breached our trust

Quote

At the Guardian, we cherish the trust our readers place in us to provide an accurate and vivid account of the world. That’s why we acted immediately to investigate when sources claimed that they had not spoken with the writer of the piece they were quoted in.

The article in question, from February, was by a freelance journalist, Joseph Mayton, who began writing opinion pieces for the Guardian in London in 2009, while based in Egypt. He contributed several opinion pieces before starting to write occasional US news stories, on a freelance basis, in May 2015 from California. These stories ranged from coverage of wildfires to issues related to marijuana farms, urban vineyards and whale deaths on the coast.

When Mayton was unable to provide convincing evidence that the interviews in question in the February article had taken place, we hired an independent fact-checker to investigate all of his prior work, which comprised 37 single-byline articles published between 2015 and 2016, seven shared byline stories from the same period, and 20 opinion pieces written from 2009 to 2015.

In an investigation that included approximately 50 interviews, our fact-checker found articles that contained likely or confirmed fabrication, including stories about two events that organizers said he didn’t attend. Dozens of sources could not be found – either they had no online presence or they were anonymous and could not be substantiated – and several people quoted in Mayton’s articles either denied speaking with him or giving the quotes attributed to them.

Still, responsible news organizations care about the truth. I don't believe that Trump does.

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-27, 17:55, said:

Two versions of this story came out the same day/evening: one by the Washington Post, and the other by the New York Times. The Washington Post article was based on an unsigned letter sent to its offices in December, but the claims of which were not verified until recently through contacts with intelligent officers. So the Post confirmation of the story came from current and former intelligence officers - their story is the more sinister.

The New York Times also reported on this story, but their sources were from the White House - and that's where the Syrian claim came in - supposedly, according to the WH leakers, the reason for the back channel line was to discuss Syria and terrorism directly with Russia.

https://www.vox.com/...a-communication

As you have noticed, the New York Times story - with WH sources - does not pass the smell test.

Wait a minute. Allow me to introduce into evidence, Exhibit A. Please click this following link which shows the unedited suicide note the FBI sent Dr. Martin Luther King (MLK) under the leadership of J. Edgar Hoover. If memory serves me correct, MLK was an (adulterous) minister who led the nonviolent Civil Rights Movement. The FBI had a very difficult time digesting King's message especially since it had conducted unconstitutional surveillance on him and uncovered his deepest secrets and fetishes.

To the FBI, MLK was a fraud who was unfit for leadership or hero status. He was a flawed, hypocritical, sexually deviant clergy member who had the nerve to invoke God's name in stirring, compelling speeches about equality, racial justice, and an integrated society. The FBI needed to be expose King as a fraud to discredit him and slow down the momentum of his (radical) movement.

Technically, MLK was a national security threat who was disturbing the peace and causing social upheaval by bringing the Constitution to the discussion table. He challenged the status quo of the American establishment which knowingly subjugated a group of people based on the melanin content of their skin.

He quickly became an enemy of the state by demanding systemic and structural change. He contended that African-Americans should be treated as 1st class citizens and have equal access to educational, financial, governmental, corporate, legal, and social institutions. That was dangerous revolutionary thought for the 1960s.

Read the chilling suicide note prepared by the FBI and tell me if you are indeed ready for a surveillance state where the intelligence community knows more about you than your own mother!

By the way, I wonder who could have sent the unsigned letter to the Washington Post? Is it remotely possible that a Western intelligence "brother" sent that unsigned letter to WaPo which was later corroborated by the same brother and validated by a "Big Brother" and further substantiated a "Bigger Brother"? Hmmmm.

http://www.eff.org/d...ed-surveillance

[awm]

The news reports come from many different sources, many different reporters. Could one reporter make stuff up? Sure. Could they ALL be making up so many different things? Seems less likely.

And we KNOW that Trump makes stuff up. And that he refuses to disclose tax information that every other president has disclosed. And that he seems weirdly enamored with Putin (and other dictators).

Seems clear who is more believable, but of course we can wait for the investigation. Meanwhile the US withdrawal from Paris agreement has upset many traditional Republican allies (corporate leaders including some surprising ones like Exxon). I guess Trump is trying to fulfill his promise to bring back coal jobs, but this does not seem very realistic or even desirable.

[rmnka447]

 Winstonm, on 2017-June-02, 16:18, said:

It sounds as if your complaint is that the media cannot be trusted. But let me ask you a question: how does a reporter name his source if that source spoke only on condition of anonymity? The reporter would never again work in news, never get another tip from that source or likely any source, and he might cause the tipster to lose his job, to boot, or face criminal prosecution. And newspapers - any reliable news outlet, for that matter - will not publish information from a single source unless making it totally clear that the allegation is unsubstantiated. In almost all cases, news organizations do not run with a story until it is substatiated or confirmed by at least one other source besides the original.

The other side of this coin is that if the White House and campaign members were cooperating fully it would be possible to hear what was being said on t.v. instead of reading and hearing about it second hand.

Well, the public believes the media is biased. So it would seem like their reporting regarding President Trump needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

A recent Harvard study of media coverage in the first 100 days shows major media sources were overwhelming negative about President Trump. CNN and NBC 93% negative, CBS 90% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, WashPost 83% negative, WSJ 70%, and Fox 52% negative. Stories concerning President Trump's fitness for office ran WashPost 96% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, CNN 82% negative, NBC 80% negative, Fox 33% negative.

So it's perfectly fair to question the objectivity of news outlets that are so negative about President Trump.

As a comparison, President Trumps has received overall something like 70% negative reporting, President Obama about 70% positive, President Bush 57% negative, and President Clinton 60% negative.

This is a link to the study https://shorensteinc...first-100-days/

There are several passages in the summary/conclusions that seem apropos.

"Nonetheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump's contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his Presidency."

"At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role. ... The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties"

"Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people's lives. If they had done so during the Presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump's victory -- the fading of the American dream for millions of ordinary people. Nor do all such narratives need to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those outside the Beltway."

But beyond the bias, one has to ask what was the hard information the sources for the story saw that made them make their claims. Was there a verbatim transcript of the meeting or just a summary based on some meeting notes they were basing their comments on? With the American attendees asserting nothing inappropriate was said, anything other than a verbatim transcript would seem pretty iffy for upholding the source's assertions.

[RedSpawn]

 rmnka447, on 2017-June-02, 15:00, said:

The problem is that there is too much "it's been reported" or "somebody said that something may have happened". The "somebody" might have misconstrued, misheard, or purposely colored the "facts" they are disclosing. We've all probably played the party game where one person whispers something into the ear of the first person in a line of people and each person in turn whispers what is said to the person next to them. At the end, what the last person reports is usually dramatically different than what was originally said. The differences take place because people have different perceptions of what is being said and expressing how things are said to the next person. I think the legal term is "hearsay" and the court's don't normally admit hearsay as credible evidence.

Another problem is that the "might have been" gets reported, then by repeated mention of the assertions, the might have been starts getting treated as fact. Additionally, the manner in which the "might have been" is reported can be biased. For example, the story may not provide appropriate context about what is being reported so that it misinforms about the real impact of what is being reported.

I'm thinking about the news story about the President giving classified information to the Russians in a recent WH meeting with them. The story was sensationalized by neglecting to provide the context that Presidents do share such information from time to time when deemed appropriate. But the story was presented as if the information provided were a horrendous gaffe or complicit espionage. The story lost a lot of its legs when subsequently ex-CIA Director Brennan testified that sharing classified information wasn't unusual when pursuing cooperation on common interests. Brennan did say that there was a specific format that needed to be adhered to in order to protect the sources and origins of such information.

The three other Americans in that meeting stated that the President didn't do anything inappropriate. Yet the story attributed to former and current members of the intelligence community asserted that the President revealed the source and origin of the intelligence to the Russians. So a question that needs answering is "How did these 'sources' get their information?" It would seem like you would need to know the verbatim conversation to be factually correct about the assertions.

Excellent points. Always question the collection method, veracity, and motives of the source--especially when the narrative seems askew or conflicts with other sources.

"News has become more superficial and sensational ... News is too often degenerating into 'disastertainment' ... Sensationalism and oversimplification are affecting the output of all media. There is a less room for a balanced approach, for analysis instead of going for the crass headline or extraordinary story."

See https://www.theguard...ticsandthemedia for additional information.

[kenberg]

The media have missed the real story. Donald Trump is a Sunni Muslim, How else to explain his dumping of our historical ties with Europe to embrace Saudi Arabia?