Posted by Tina
Victor Davis Hansen at American Greatness, “The Late, Great Russian Collusion Myth”
Andrea Noble, Washington Times, “Senate committee presses acting FBI Director McCabe on involvement in Flynn probe”
Howie Carr, The Boston Herald, “Carr: Fake news… this is CNN”
This is a nice attempt to get ahead of today’s story about Flynn.
Are you talking about the WSJ story on Comey’s friend, Benjamin Wittes, of the Brookings Institution drippong another stink bomb about Flynn and Russian hackers?
Here’s all we need to know from that article via Zerohedge:
Or was it something else?
ZeroHedge, as usual, is lying:
it’s only deeper in the story that the WSJ admits they have no idea if Flynn was even involved with Smith…but no one reads an entire article so it’s fairly irrelevant.
The first two paragraphs of the WSJ article make it very clear that the story is based on what Smith “implied.” They make it clear that the Journal is not accusing Flynn of any wrongdoing, and has not confirmed Smith’s account.
Do you really think this isn’t newsworthy? That it shouldn’t have been published?
Chris you were not clear in your original comment which, to me, seemed a bit snarky las if you expected a big announcement about Flynn that would cause a big “aha” and be damning. So I asked if the WSJ article (posted a Zerohedge) contained the information you seemed to be referencing.
You are still not being forthcoming about your original comment.
Zerohegde did not “lie.” In fact the article in question begins much like your comment:
The Zerohedge article was about Wittes ongoing suggestions of something untoward. So lets stop pretending the activist media and Hillary allies aren’t attempting to undermine Trump with invented accusations based on nothing more than speculation and heavy doses of hate and resentment.
Yes, I was referring to the WSJ story; I thought that was clear.
The media did not “invent” an accusation here. They reported on a possible connection. They did so because the public has the right to weigh the information and come to their own conclusions. I have seen Zero Hedge, and you, report stories with far more tenuous connections than the one suggested by the WSJ piece. You’ve suggested that Hillary Clinton may be guilty of murder over such tenuous connections. The only reason you find this story objectionable is because it negatively implicates someone you see as being on your side.
Chris how would any of our readers know you were referring to the WSJ article when you posted this: “This is a nice attempt to get ahead of today’s story about Flynn”?
It could have been sourced from any number of places! Unless you expect people to hunt to get a clue about your remarks. Libby does this often, I’ve never known you to do it.
I have never suggested Hillary was guilty of murder. I have suggested that the number of people that have turned up dead in the Clinton’s circle of influence is incredibly high. You then asked if I thought she was capable of murder and I said no, but I thought she might know people who are. Like it or not the facts that make up the history of the Clintons include some pretty nefarious people and the sources are not tenuous…they are eye witness and first hand accounts.
“The only reason you find this story objectionable is because it negatively implicates someone you see as being on your side.”
I find the story objectionable because there was nothing to report.
Also, I have never tried to hide my conservative point of view…of course I find it objectionable! I find it objectionable in the same way you find stories about the people you favor objectionable…and Jack and I allow you the space here to express yourself.
So what’s the problem? I posted links to three articles that I had enjoyed, that were not fake news or written just to keep a fake story alive…examples of good journalism, IMO. I had no hidden agenda or purpose.
Chris how would any of our readers know you were referring to the WSJ article when you posted this: “This is a nice attempt to get ahead of today’s story about Flynn”?
Because that was the big story about Flynn that broke yesterday, and the WSJ article broke it. You were obviously able to figure it out. Why wouldn’t your readers, unless they’re stuck in a right-wing bubble that ignored the report?
There absolutely was something to report. This is how Busoness Insider summarized the WSJ article in their lede:
“Hackers believed to be Russian discussed how to steal Hillary Clinton’s emails from her private server and transfer them to Michael Flynn via an intermediary, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, citing reports compiled by US intelligence agencies investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.”
You don’t think the public has the right to know about that?
Are you going to argue that WSJ and Business Insider, both traditionally right-leaning sources, are “fake news” now?
So what stopped you from posting that information instead of the more belligerent comment?
And why the snarky “unless they’re stuck in a right-wing bubble that ignored the report” now?
You must be under the impression that I’m some kind of wizard able to notice every single article that crosses the wires every minute of every day and my readers of equal talents. Do you hold the same standard for everyone or just those of us on the right? In other words do you notice every article every day?
That WSJ article is behind a paywall too, by the way, so I wouldn’t have read it even if I’d seen it. I’m not a subscriber.
This is what I know about the WSJ and Business Insider…both are left leaning for the most part. (You might not get that because of the particular bubble you occupy.) The WSJ has a more conservative opinion page. Not sure about BI.
Our readers and the public have a right to know the whole truth which includes the fact that no clear ties to Flynn were found…the insinuation is speculation.
If YOU have access tot he WSJ article please feel free to excerpt and post the portions you believe are important for our readers to know…something you could have done when you originally eluded to it!
It was an important article, Tina. I assumed this post was motivated by your knowledge of it. But I apologize for being wrong on that, and for not laying out my case more clearly.
I was able to read the initial article at first, but am now seeing the paywall. Business Insider gives a good summary of it though. And of course, the information in it has spread much further than that.
I’m aware that no clear ties to Flynn were found. What we have is a) intercepted communications between Russian hackers and b) the word of a now-deceased man that he was collecting info from the Russians on behalf of Flynn.
We don’t know if these people were telling the truth. But Flynn’s other disturbing contacts with Russia, and his later denials of same, make the accusations plausible. There’s also this:
Russian officials bragged about their close relationship to Flynn last year, according to intercepted communications described to CNN, and boasted that they could use him to influence Trump. The way the Russians were talking about Flynn “was a five-alarm fire from early on,” a former Obama administration official said.
http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-hackers-michael-flynn-hillary-clinton-emails-2017-6
I agree that we cannot make any proclamations of guilt at this point, and have said so from the beginning. But this is still important news.
The latest Project Veritas video at CNN is outlined by The Hill:
Could be voters don’t mind the things Trump tweets because they’ve know this has been the attitude in the left media for a long long time and they’re fed up with the monstrous, illegitimate attacks on conservatives and republicans that have gone on sans “outrage” for decades.
I certainly condemn the CNN producer’s misogynistic remark about Conway, which was unnecessary and sexist. He could have criticized her dishonest behavior, but instead went to appearance, because that is what women are so often judged on. Even though he thought he was saying it in private, not in public, he was still wrong.
Of course, yesterday Trump insulted a woman’s appearance in public.
Many people on the right do mind Trump’s tweets because they hold the president to a higher standard, as they should. Obama never would have publicly attacked a journalist this way.
The National Review has been on fire today. This article by Kevin D. Williams about Trump’s obsession with the media is a masterpiece. Some quotes:
“”He is in the strange position of being a B-list celebrity who is also the most famous man in the world.”
““I always tell the president, ‘You don’t need them,’” says Sean Hannity, the self-abasing monkey-butler of the Trump regime. The president, Hannity says, can reach more Americans via Twitter than he could through the conventional media. That isn’t true, of course: Only about one in five Americans uses Twitter. Hannity might be forgiven for not knowing this, a consequence of his much more general habit of not knowing things.”
“Donald Trump is a man who invented an imaginary friend, John Barron, to call up members of the New York press and lie to them about his business success and his sex life. (He claimed, among other things, to be dating Carla Bruni.) A man who “does not need” the media does not do that.”
“Trump wrote of the third lady that he chose her because he wanted to be able to enter a room with her and make other men envious — to see “grown men weep” — a very strange admission that his satisfaction in his marriage rests neither with himself nor with his wife but with third parties who might ogle her. (His cuckoldry-obsessed fans must surely have noted this.)”
“What do you think he reads first in the morning: His national-security briefing or Page Six?”
“I’d wager that Trump could list at least three times as many cable-news commentators as world leaders. He is much better versed in CNN’s lineup than in NATO’s.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449145/donald-trump-media-mika-brzezinski-tweet
And, of course, there are the accusations by the Scarboroughs of threats and blackmail. Apparently the White House tried to bribe the two into apologizing to Trump in exchange for Trump convincing the National Enquirer, his favorite news source, to drop a story about them. If true, this is illegal, and more evidence that Trump is a threat to the free press.
Good article by Thomas Lifson at American Thinker, “President Trump is changing the norms that empower his media antagonists.”
From elsewhere on the web—
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/httpwwwdailywirecomnews18162another-day-another-russia-retraction-e28094-time-john-nolte.html
I disagree with the comment that DJT is giving them ammunition with his tweets. IMHO, he is giving them (more) rope to hang themselves. Also, interesting new series by Ken Burns mentioned in comments.
He’s hanging himself. His most recent tweet about Joe and Mika confirms that he holds influence over what stories the National Enquirer does and does not publish. Are you really comfortable with your president controlling a tabloid? Are you comfortable with him engaging in feuds on Twitter? This is juvenile behavior, and only juvenile people would support it.
And if he did in fact threaten Joe and Mika as they claim, what he did was possibly criminal, and definitely an abuse of power and a threat to free speech.
I tend to think he’s leading them around by their arrogant snooty noses and keeping them busy with the drama they apparently find more fascinating than the important things that our leaders need to address.
Those who are so deeply offended by Trump have never been so unhinged. The moralizing alone is a hoot given their poor performance and activism. For instance Mika has quite the mouth on her as well (all fun and games when they engage in unprofessional, “juvenile,” behavior). What professional says this about the President of the United States?
And the pair were at Mar-a-Lago for Trumps New Years Eve Party, smiling and talking like they were friendlies.
I doubt if disingenuous back stabbing goes over well with Trump.
Mika and Joe have been on a disrespectful tirade, reflective of the media in general, calling the President all sorts of names on a daily basis (a schmuck, thug, goon, liar, idiot). They don’t limit their scathing remarks to Trump either. She referred to Paul Ryan as “pathetic and weak.”
Does anyone recall the media saying anything like that about any Democrat…ever?
It’s a sad state of affairs but the media has been pushing us in this direction for a long time and it was inevitable that it would eventually blow up.
I tend to think he’s leading them around by their arrogant snooty noses and keeping them busy with the drama they apparently find more fascinating than the important things that our leaders need to address.
*President Trump* finds the drama more fascinating than the important things our leaders need to address, Tina. That’s why he can’t stop tweeting about it. Why can’t you see this? He does not care about healthcare policy, which is why he has never bothered to inform himself on it. He does not care about any part of Republican ideology. He cares about media adulation. That was the whole point of the National Review article I linked to. And it is undeniable.
Does anyone recall the media saying anything like that about any Democrat…ever?
The right wing media, including your preferred sources like American Thinker, Breitbart, Hannity and Rush absolutely said the same and worse about Obama. Trump, a right wing media figure at the time, accused Obama of lying about his birthplace for years. His wife was called “Moochelle.” Pamela Gellar ran articles speculating that his father was Malcolm X, that he was molested as a child, that he was a crackhead and that he worked as a gay prostitute.
Joe and Mika are commentators for the left wing media. None of what they’ve said matches the above. But the main difference? Obama never responded to juvenile taunts with juvenile taunts. Your president is easily baited because he is an impulsive strength. You can keep trying to spin this as a strength, but the majority of Americans are not buying it.
mainstream media? Really? They all publish spin and lies.
You ignore that Vault 7 and other leaks that show anyone can leave the footprints of Russia or any country on communications.
That the Story about 17 agencies and what we call the pee Pee dossier is all fake news perpetuated by the DNC and their Media to cover up their loss.
That said Trumps business dealings with the Russian banks ect are a conflict of interest and the emoluments clause should be invoked.
The cabal of the Cheney’s, Clinton’s ect ect needs to be stopped.
Yet this weekend Jared and Ivanka were at a party in the Hamptons.
Ya know Ivanka, George Soros and David Koch all partying together in the Hampton’s while the people have petty fights.
The banks got bailed out the people didn’t. The Elite all get along, the people do not.
Wake Up