Trump and the Press

[knapplc]

It may be good for ratings that CNN is hammering the Russia probe, but that doesn't make it fake.

 

I mean, are they trying to imply that our intelligence community is completely wrong?

 

 

Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking

 

Donald Trump’s claim that the United States has "no idea" who is behind recent email hacks is just not true.

 

The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.

 

“We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,” Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas.

 

Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had “no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else.”

 

But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

 

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

 

 

 

As you Trumpheads are patting yourselves on the back about this, ask yourself why Trump is waging war against the American press and making zero statements, encouraging zero investigations, and evincing zero alarm that a foreign national government influenced an American election?

 

 

 

And no, "we do it too" is not an answer to that. Bank robbers do not leave their homes unlocked at night. Don't be stupid.

 

 

 

So who is "witch-hunting" Trump? The press, for reporting on ongoing investigations by our intelligence community? The intelligence community, for doing their job and looking into American security?

 

 

Use your head.

[TGHusker]

^^^^ Knapp brings up a good point that has been scratching the back of my mind for sometime - Trump could end this immediately if he wanted to. He could support a full scale, open investigation of the issue. Take the high road and open up his tax records, or I mean his Russian contact records and this would be settled. Give full access and stop denouncing the press. Yes, CNN and NBC will milk it for all of its worth but if Trump hated CNN so much he could destroy their ratings by bringing this to a quick close. Stop defending Flynn, etc, Stop attacking Hillary and the previous admin. This should be alarming to any President - regardless if the hacking was on their behalf or not - it violates the very integrity of who we are as a nation. The vote is sacred and should not be manipulated by an outside agent or by tampering by either party and via the legislative process.

 

Why doesn't trump end it? (1) Maybe the simple version: It creates the political boggy man - we against them (the press) or (2) the more nefarious reason - there is something to hide (like his taxes) and he doesn't want there to be a a 'big reveal'. You choose - what version is it?

[RedDenver]

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/27/cnn-producer-fesses-just-russia-stuff-ratings/

 

That's just crazy.

 

"Why is CNN constantly like Russia this, Russia that?' an unnamed Project Veritas reporter asks John Bonifield, CNN supervising producer, in a video that appears to have been filmed covertly.

 

 

Because its ratings, Bonifield said. Our ratings are incredible right now.

 

Bonifield said CNN CEO Jeff Zucker told his staff to get back to the Russia collusion story after they covered Trumps decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord for two days, and implied that this decision was driven by ratings.

 

All the nice cutesey ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school, youre like: Thats adorable,' he said. This is a business.

 

 

 

Even if Russia was trying to swing an election, we try to swing their elections, Bonifield said. Our CIA is doing sh-t all the time, were out there trying to manipulate governments.

 

When asked if he thought the Russia collusion story was legitimate or all hype, Bonifield said its mostly bullsh-t right now.

 

Like we dont have any big giant proof, he said. I think the president is probably right to say, like, Look, you are witch-hunting me. You have no smoking gun. You have no real proof.'

Be wary, Project Veritas and James O'Keefe are known propagandists and liars, using deceptive editing tactics to promote false narratives.

[zoogs]

Oh, I think Oade knows exactly what they're all about.

[Danny Bateman]

When is someone going to fire back to her about how Trump totally fabricates "facts" in his tweets but the news isn't supposed to hold him accountable.

OR....that he spent how many years promoting fake crap about Obama's citizenship or place of birth.

OR...that he his administration has allowed an outlet into the Whitehouse that actually promoted and still does the idea that Sandyhook was faked by the Government.

 

I am so F'ing sick and tired of this administrations attitude towards what is reality and what isn't.

 

I was hoping that when Spicer was taken out of these briefings, he would be replaced with someone with less attitude. Instead, they throw someone out there that is even worse.

This was my first thought when I watched that back and forth.

 

It's cute that Sanders went on her little rant about the media using anonymous sources and having no accountability for their fake news... blah blah blah.

 

Why is it OK for her to get up there and complain about it but the President of the United States lies EVERY SINGLE DAY with impunity & props up conspiracy theories? Is he not held to that same standard? Because he's WAYYY worse than the press.

[RedDenver]

It may be good for ratings that CNN is hammering the Russia probe, but that doesn't make it fake.

 

I mean, are they trying to imply that our intelligence community is completely wrong?

 

Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking

 

Donald Trump’s claim that the United States has "no idea" who is behind recent email hacks is just not true.

 

The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.

 

“We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,” Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas.

 

Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had “no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else.”

 

But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

 

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

 

 

I've seen conflicting reports about whether the "17 intelligence agencies" claim is true. I'm not sure of the veracity of truthdig, but the Clapper and Brennan statements should be able to be verified:

But Clinton’s statement is false regarding the unanimity of the 17 agencies and misleading regarding her other claims. Both former DNI James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan acknowledged in sworn testimony last month that the Jan. 6 report alleging Russian “meddling” did not involve all 17 agencies.

Clapper and Brennan stated that the report was actually the work of handpicked analysts from only three agencies—the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation—under the oversight of the DNI’s office. In other words, there was no consensus among the 17 agencies, a process that would have involved some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a community-wide effort that would have included footnotes citing any dissenting views.

Instead, as Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8, the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies—CIA, NSA, and the FBI—not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.

And, as Clapper explained, the “ICA” was something of a rush job beginning on President Obama’s instructions “in early December” and completed by Jan. 6. Clapper continued: “The two dozen or so analysts for this task were handpicked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.”

However, as any intelligence veteran will tell you, if you handpick the analysts, you are really handpicking the conclusion since the agency chiefs would know who was, say, a hardliner on Russia and who could be trusted to deliver the desired product.

On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper’s account about the three agencies involved.

“It wasn’t a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies, and for good reason because of the nature and the sensitivity of the information trying, once again, to keep that tightly compartmented,” Brennan said.

Here's a full transcript, but I don't have a Washington Post subscription: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/?utm_term=.c390a2052001

Edited June 27, 2017 by RedDenver

[knapplc]

I think the number of agencies that agree is the least important part of that story...

[zoogs]

Both fair points.

[RedDenver]

I think the number of agencies that agree is the least important part of that story...

I agree. I just don't want to months from now have the debate over whether 5 agencies vs 17 agencies agreed being the central point of the discussion.

[Danny Bateman]

Again, the media bubble at work:

 

[BigRedBuster]

[ZRod]

Again, the media bubble at work:

 

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/879798623223107584

I get the feeling that as long as there is a "Republican" in the white house, we will always be talking about that dern Obama.

[knapplc]

This is from George W. Bush's White House ethics lawyer.

 

[TGHusker]

This is from George W. Bush's White House ethics lawyer.

 

Yes I think we all long for the days of both PRESIDENTS (PRESIDENTIAL) Bush and Obama. Funny in a not so funny way how both look so much better in the rear view mirror. Maybe it speaks to the problem of full force partisanship - it blinds us to the good points of each party and in this case each former president. When that happens we end up with the results we face today.

[Danny Bateman]

 

Again, the media bubble at work:

 

https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/879798623223107584

I get the feeling that as long as there is a "Republican" in the white house, we will always be talking about that dern Obama.

 

 

Too good to not follow up: