Patterico's Pontifications

1/11/2017

Even If the BuzzFeed Story Is Junk, CNN’s Story on Trump, the IC, and the Russians Is a Responsible Story

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:30 am

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that the Internet and the news are abuzz (yes, I meant to do that, thanks for noticing!) with stories about a salacious BuzzFeed-published document alleging (among other things) that Trump paid prostitutes to pee on a bed that Obama had slept in . . .and that the FSB had recordings of this, and used that to blackmail Trump into taking a more Russia-friendly position during the campaign.

But here’s the thing. Jake Tapper and others at CNN yesterday reported that the intelligence community had briefed Trump and Obama on allegations that the Russians have dirt on Trump:

Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.

Jay Caruso mentioned this morning that Jake Tapper had clarified that the 35-page BuzzFeed-published memo is not the two-page synopsis referred to in the CNN report:

I think this deserves its own post, especially since Tapper has since made it very clear since that the two are not the same:

That is not to say that the two are unrelated. They are not. According to the CNN report:

CNN has reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, from which the two-page synopsis was drawn. The memos have since been published by Buzzfeed. The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats. At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations. But, in preparing this story, CNN has spoken to multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos.

Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.

Meanwhile, people who are very upset about BuzzFeed publishing an unverified report are circulating their own unverified report that the BuzzFeed document was put out by 4Chan.

There may or may not be something to the allegations presented by the intelligence community — but no matter how you slice it, the fact that the intelligence community chose to brief Trump and Obama on these issues is a legitimate story. And the fact that BuzzFeed decided to publish a bunch of unverified allegations does not mean the CNN story is garbage.

I am reminded of the Weiner controversy back in 2011. There, as here, there were several shadowy sources and crazed partisans screaming on both sides. There was a set of alleged contacts between Weiner and some underage girls that seemed suspicious from the beginning, and proved to be a hoax. But the fact that those contacts proved to be a hoax did not automatically mean that Weiner was not inappropriately contacting underage girls (and, as we later learned, he was). But the fact that a story similar to the truth was shown to be dubious and ultimately a hoax made it easier for pro-Weiner partisans to defend him — and to attack those who were trying to report the actual facts in a responsible way. I always wondered, in fact, whether the hoax was perpetrated by pro-Weiner forces seeking to inoculate him from similar allegations that had some facts behind them.

In other words, even if aspects of the memos published by BuzzFeed are wrong, that does not mean that the allegations of the intelligence community are necessarily wrong. (It doesn’t mean they are right, either.)

Partisans are gonna partisan, though, and for many on the Internet, the chances that their views on these stories line up with their partisan views Trump will approach 100%.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

UPDATE: On the other hand, this NBC report, if true, totally undercuts the CNN story. NBC claims that Trump was not actually briefed on the two-page report, although the briefers had it available. Worse, NBC suggests that the intelligence community saw the allegations as disinformation: “According to the official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted ‘disinformation.'”

There is a real conflict here between the CNN and NBC reports. I hope CNN addresses the NBC article.

352 Responses to “Even If the BuzzFeed Story Is Junk, CNN’s Story on Trump, the IC, and the Russians Is a Responsible Story”

  1. In other words, even if aspects of the memos published by BuzzFeed are wrong, that does not mean that the allegations of the intelligence community are necessarily wrong.

    That could have been written by Dan Rather.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  2. 4chan who?

    Oh, yeah, they’re the alt-right neo-nazi group.

    Drudge is telling us that John McCain has his Ruskie-loving fingerprints on this one, too.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  3. ” And the fact that BuzzFeed decided to publish a bunch of unverified allegations does not mean the CNN story is garbage.”

    Though it does fail the occam’s razor test.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  4. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.

    that’s incredibly facile

    tapperpoodle is setting the fake news bar really low

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  5. does anyone think tapperpoodle would report such thinly sourced fake news about his lord and savior barack obama

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  6. There may or may not be something to the allegations presented by the intelligence community — but no matter how you slice it, the fact that the intelligence community chose to brief Trump and Obama on these issues is a legitimate story.

    But what if the IC didn’t brief Trump on this particular issue?

    In any event it’s nice to see America’s Truthy Gatekeepers rolling up their sleeves and keeping tabs on the US executive (and themselves) after an eight year sinecure.

    JP (f1742c)

  7. I read this in a Len Deighton spy novel titled … wait for it … “Spy Story”. It was a disinformation operation to discredit a high-ranking Soviet official carried out by British Intelligence and it worked because the Soviets were backstabbing, backbiting paranoiacs. Deighton also made a point that the MI6 is an architectural farce and it’s true, it is.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. *MI6 building*

    nk (dbc370)

  9. nk,

    Thanks for the link. I’d never seen that before.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  10. CNN issues response, essentially saying they were simply passing along the ‘gossip’ like everybody else (except everybody else wasn’t,) but not reporting content because it wasn’t verified.

    That’s not news. The news is they’re reporting innuendo and gossip as news. This is infotainment.

    Golly. WHO was that retired MI-6 agent source anyway, Jake?

    Blount?
    Philby?
    Burgess?

    Or was it Bond. James Bond…

    “THIS is CNN.” – James Earl Jones

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  11. Moar Golden Shower!!!

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  12. tapperpoodle didn’t even have the story about the role Meghan’s coward daddy had in propagating the fake news on Mr. Trump

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  13. i like the lions

    but they maybe were already there i think

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  14. None of these schleps would even contemplate doing this sort of stuff – much less actually do it – against Obama.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  15. Did Tapper ever respond to the leaks re: his collusion with the Democrats hiring the election cycle?

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  16. During, not hiring.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  17. Depending upon your definition of what the word “brief” means.

    If by brief you mean ‘included a copy as an example of the type totally fabricated bullshat floating around’ then sure.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  18. “And the fact that BuzzFeed decided to publish a bunch of unverified allegations does not mean the CNN story is garbage.”

    Q: How do you whitewash a golden shower?

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  19. What I saw of this morning’s press conference was a blast from the past – 8 years past. I enjoyed it – especially Trump’s repeated refusals to take a question from the hyperventilating CNN reporter, while not taking the reporter’s mic away.

    I’ve so hated the Lord Food Stamp (thank you, happy) lovefests.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  20. I wish I’d stayed to watch that. But I got superlatived out. Doesn’t Trump know anybody who is not tremendous, terrific, or great?

    nk (dbc370)

  21. CBS reports,

    It is unclear whether this was actually discussed with Mr. Trump or just part of the materials presented to him during his briefing last Friday.

    BY CBS news definition of the word “brief” this part,

    There may or may not be something to the allegations presented by the intelligence community — but no matter how you slice it, the fact that the intelligence community chose to brief Trump and Obama on these issues is a legitimate story. And the fact that BuzzFeed decided to publish a bunch of unverified allegations does not mean the CNN story is garbage.


    the part you claim makes this a legitimate story, is false.

    As in, No the intel community didn’t bother to mention during their Friday briefing

    papertiger (c8116c)

  22. Those superlatives can be applied to “assholes” as well… that’s teh beauty of it.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  23. That could have been written by Dan Rather.

    So, we have allegations about a Republican that Mother Jones wouldn’t print, that Buzzfeed prints with the proviso that they might be complete fabrication (i.e. with utter disregard for truth), and which the Clinton camp refused to use during the campaign.

    And the CIA chooses to PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE that they take them seriously. Yes, that’s a story, all right.

    To be followed in a few short weeks with the firing, for cause, of a number of CIA officials. That will be a story, too.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  24. I agree, nk. I couldn’t sit for all of it either, though I do prefer “tremendous, terrific, great” to “I, me, mine.”

    ThOR (c9324e)

  25. “Responsible”…

    You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  26. Obama confirms there was no golden shower 4chan briefing during an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt.

    Mr. Obama told him that he hadn’t read the report.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  27. Just that one and a half minute with the CNN reporter that ThOR mentioned.

    nk (dbc370)

  28. NBC News correspondent Cynthia McFadden reported Wednesday that President-elect Trump was never briefed on a “two-page addendum” alleging that the Russian government has damaging information on Trump.

    In fact, McFadden further stated that the brief — published by BuzzFeed on Tuesday — was in fact an example of “what [U.S. intelligence officials] are calling ‘unvetted disinformation,’” designed to help Trump distinguish between “analyzed intelligence” and unverified reports.

    “A senior U.S. intelligence official who was involved in the preparation for the meeting tells NBC that the president-elect was not briefed on this so-called two-page addendum of these allegations against him,” McFadden stated.

    elissa (770629)

  29. this is a disaster for the credibility of everyone involved in the reporting of this story

    my heart hurts for them

    fake news in haste, repent in leisure

    but the sadness is the sheer unnecessary waste of it

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  30. In Pat’s defense, I did learn that Trump made a lot of money selling real estate to that Russian guy with the tiny giraffe. [YouTube]

    Wouldn’t have read the WaPo article otherwise.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  31. Did Dan Rather write the headline for this piece? Right out of his playbook.

    Bill Saracino (ad0096)

  32. I’m not a Trump guy. Didn’t vote for him in the primary nor in the general. That said, we’re getting into frightening territory when freaking Glenn Greenwald, of all people, is writing more sensible things about this than Patterico.

    radar (acebc3)

  33. Fake but accurate.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  34. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/trump-press-conference-transcript.html

    QUESTION: Appreciate it.

    A couple of aspects of the intelligence briefing that you received on Friday that we’re looking for further clarification on.

    TRUMP: Sure.

    QUESTION: First of all, did the heads of the intelligence agencies provide you with the two-page summary of these unsubstantiated allegations? And secondly to that, on the broader picture, do you accept their opinion that Vladimir Putin ordered the hack of the DNC and the attempted hack of the RNC?

    And if you do, how will that color your attempts to build a relationship with a leader who has been accused of committing an act of espionage against the United States?

    TRUMP: OK, first of all, these readings as you know are confidential, classified. So, I’m not allowed to talk about what went on in a meeting.

    And — but we had many witnesses in that meeting, many of them with us. And I will say, again, I think it’s a disgrace that information would be let out.

    I saw the information; I read the information outside of that meeting. It’s all fake news. It’s phony stuff. It didn’t happen. And it was gotten by opponents of ours, as you know, because you reported it and so did many of the other people. It was a group of opponents that got together — sick people — and they put that crap together.

    So, I will tell you that not within the meeting, but outside of the meeting, somebody released it. It should have never been — number one, shouldn’t have even entered paper. But it should have never have been released. But I read what was released and I think it’s a disgrace. I think it’s an absolute disgrace….

    ….UESTION: From BBC news. Ian Pannell from BBC news.

    TRUMP: BBC news. That’s another beauty.

    QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you.

    As far as we understand it, the intelligence community are still looking at these allegations, this false news, as you describe it. If they come back with any kind of conclusion that any of it stands up, that any of it is true, will you consider your position…

    TRUMP: There’s nothing they could come back with.

    QUESTION: Can you…

    TRUMP: Go ahead.

    QUESTION: (inaudible) published fake news and all the problems that we’ve seen throughout the media over the course of the election, what reforms do you recommend for this industry here?

    TRUMP: Well, I don’t recommend reforms. I recommend people that are — that have some moral compass ….

    TRUMP: Well, I think it’s pretty sad when intelligence reports get leaked out to the press. I think it’s pretty sad. First of all, it’s illegal. You know, these are — these are classified and certified meetings and reports.

    I’ll tell you what does happen. I have many meetings with intelligence. And every time I meet, people are reading about it. Somebody’s leaking it out. So, there’s — maybe it’s my office. Maybe in my office because I have a lot of people, a lot of great people. Maybe it’s them . And what I did is I said I won’t tell anybody. I’m going to have a meeting and I won’t tell anybody about my meeting with intelligence.

    And what happened is I had my meeting. Nobody knew, not even Rhona, my executive assistant for years, she didn’t know — I didn’t tell her. Nobody knew. The meeting was had, the meeting was over, they left. And immediately the word got out that I had a meeting.

    Sammy Finkelman (dcc9ca)

  35. Don’t worry, Democrats and Democrats-with-bylines. Everything’s gonna be alreich.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  36. Fake but “responsible”.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  37. So CNN say they verified some stuff.

    This smells like one of those cases where the “verification” boils down to another person who heard the same wild stories and believes them.

    For Pete’s sake, the man isn’t even president yet. I’d really like people to calm down, and wait for him to actually do something before jumping in. It’s not like he won’t provide plenty of ammunition when he’s finally in the hot seat.

    scrubone (c3104f)

  38. Not only did they run with unsourced oppo garbage that even the Clintons didn’t stoop to using, they can’t even get their stories straight about whether it was presented to Trump or not.

    And you know what this does?

    Makes it nearly impossible to hold Trump to account for anything after this.

    If he actually does shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and he denies it, and there’s no video, all the LIVs are going to remember is that the media ran with pee parties even though they knew it was fake.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  39. When the President shoots someone on Fifth Avenue, they deserved it.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  40. Here’s the vid of Cynthia McFadden essentially calling out CNN as liars.

    McFadden’s report directly contradicts reports by news outlets including CNN and the Washington Post that the addendum was delivered to Trump last week.

    McFadden further stated that Trump’s intelligence briefing “was an oral briefing. One reason is at Trump Tower there’s no place to contain top secret documents.”

    As I stated on the other thread, the newsies rather than being a strictly united front are going to increasingly go after each other for hegemony and access.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/11/nbc-intel-official-trump-allegations-are-unvetted-disinformation-video/

    elissa (770629)

  41. @elissa:the newsies rather than being a strictly united front are going to increasingly go after each other for hegemony and access.

    That’s the free market at work: cartels don’t last. One rats out the others. :)

    They probably realized how far over they’ve gone, and that if they play their cards right they can be one of the few to still get access when this is over.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  42. 41… competition!

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  43. UPDATE: On the other hand, this NBC report, if true, totally undercuts the CNN story. NBC claims that Trump was not actually briefed on the two-page report, although the briefers had it available. Worse, NBC suggests that the intelligence community saw the allegations as disinformation: “According to the official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted ‘disinformation.'”

    There is a real conflict here between the CNN and NBC reports. I hope CNN addresses the NBC article.

    Patterico (89c78f)

  44. The conflict is Reality vs. Purveyors of Bullshi+.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  45. I’m not a Trump guy. Didn’t vote for him in the primary nor in the general. That said, we’re getting into frightening territory when freaking Glenn Greenwald, of all people, is writing more sensible things about this than Patterico.

    Greenwald made his bones on Snowden, who depends on Russia for his safety. If you’re looking for a pro-Russian slant, Greenwald will provide it.

    A couple of people here seem to think that if I don’t angrily denounce all stories about Trump as inaccurate, that means I am saying they are accurate. I did not say that. Try reading the post again.

    Patterico (89c78f)

  46. From Patterico’s link:

    tl; dr version: leaks and leaks and leaks from intelligence officials of the conflicts of classified briefings. Don’t we have a huge, huge problem with this?

    Two U.S. officials told NBC News that materials prepared for Trump in advance of last week’s intelligence briefing included damaging allegations from the dossier — unverified by American intelligence agencies — about his dealings with the Russians.

    Officials prepared a two-page summary of the dossier for Trump’s briefing Friday at Trump Tower in New York.

    Multiple officials say that the summary was included in the material prepared for the briefers, but the senior official told NBC News that the briefing was oral and no actual documents were left with the Trump team in New York. During the briefing, the president-elect was not briefed on the contents of the summary .

    “Intel and law enforcement officials agree that none of the investigations have found any conclusive or direct link between Trump and the Russian government period,” the senior official said.

    According to the senior official, the two-page summary about the unsubstantiated material made available to the briefers was to provide context, should they need it, to draw the distinction for Trump between analyzed intelligence and unvetted “disinformation.”

    The briefers also had available to them unvetted “disinformation” about the Clinton Foundation, although that was not orally shared with Trump.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  47. All I am saying is that the CNN story is not the same as the BuzzFeed story. Which it isn’t, even if partisans want to pretend it is.

    Patterico (89c78f)

  48. how much did Meghan’s coward daddy pay the man he bought the fake news dossier from

    did the pee pee story cost extra

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  49. @Patterico:All I am saying is that the CNN story is not the same as the BuzzFeed story.

    It is certainly very CLOSELY related. The CNN story is that intelligence officials illegally leaked to them that they boiled down the 35-page Buzzfeed memo into two pages and presented to Trump in his classified meeting they are not supposed to tell the media about.

    And the NBC story is that intelligence officials illegally leaked to them that they boiled down the 35-page Buzzfeed memo into two pages and did NOT present it to Trump in his classified meeting they are not supposed to tell the media about., but were prepared to tell him it was unvetted information.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  50. If only these poor unnamed intelligence officials had names so we could keep score and they could get proper credit for their work. That is so sad. We give our dogs and cats and goldfish names fer goodness sake– and sometimes even cows and chickens.

    elissa (1bc8ac)

  51. what happened to the cory borker story

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  52. i can’t see where Borker really brought any substance to the table

    he’s all like Jeff Sessions can’t be AG cause he voted different than I did on some votes and whatever

    i was expecting more actual substance

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  53. How is it a responsible story, there is no evidence, audio or visual, just gossip, a cursory examination would chafe said so.

    narciso (d1f714)

  54. Now publishing this story, indicates buzzfeed hasn’t the ethical judgment of a spirochete, but we suspected that already.

    narciso (d1f714)

  55. Dang, Patterico. So sorry you couldn’t work out a way to make this story have a legit angle.

    School Marm (5999c1)

  56. Everything is pure speculation at this point.

    It won’t stop partisans on either side from making up their minds. That is what partisans do.

    Patterico (89c78f)

  57. I will say that I have respect for Jake Tapper. Trumpers don’t like him but neither did Obamaphiles. He is not infallible (who is?) but he tries to do the right thing and generally succeeds.

    Patterico (89c78f)

  58. @Patterico:Everything is pure speculation at this point.

    Except that intelligence officials are illegally leaking the contents of classified meetings to the media, and are not all saying the same things. That is known for a fact.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  59. One other obvious observation: the pee on a bed story really does not sound like Trump.

    Patterico (89c78f)

  60. Fook mi? No Fook yu!

    You know there’s a mole in our operation.

    Moley, moley, moley, moley, moley!

    papertiger (c8116c)

  61. Gabriel:

    That media outlets are reporting that is a fact. That what you claim is true is probably a fact but who knows? maybe it’s not. Maybe someone is playing a role. How can you be sure?

    Patterico (89c78f)

  62. 39. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/11/2017 @ 12:11 pm

    Not only did they run with unsourced oppo garbage that even the Clintons didn’t stoop to using, they can’t even get their stories straight about whether it was presented to Trump or not.

    Trump saw it before it was published – he says so – but not during the briefing. It is not clear who left it for him, and when, and why they whoever it was said they bbrought it to his attention

    One story it is was material left for him to read after the briefing last Friday.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  63. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/11/2017 @ 12:42 pm

    related. The CNN story is that intelligence officials illegally leaked to them that they boiled down the 35-page Buzzfeed memo into two pages and presented to Trump in his classified meeting they are not supposed to tell the media about.

    But is that actually correct? Did intelligence officials write it? Does the 2-page memo contain different or additional allegations? Was it published? Who gave what to Trump?

    Trump says:

    I saw the information; I read the information outside of that meeting. It’s all fake news. It’s phony stuff. It didn’t happen. And it was gotten by opponents of ours, as you know, because you reported it and so did many of the other people. It was a group of opponents that got together — sick people — and they put that crap together.

    So, I will tell you that not within the meeting, but outside of the meeting, somebody released it. It should have never been — number one, shouldn’t have even entered paper. But it should have never have been released. But I read what was released and I think it’s a disgrace.

    Now what does that mean? Did Trump seeing it have anything to do with any intelligence briefing?

    And the NBC story is that intelligence officials illegally leaked to them that they boiled down the 35-page Buzzfeed memo into two pages and did NOT present it to Trump in his classified meeting they are not supposed to tell the media about., but were prepared to tell him it was unvetted information.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  64. Trying to control myself.

    Mole!

    papertiger (c8116c)

  65. And the NBC story is that intelligence officials illegally leaked to them that they boiled down the 35-page Buzzfeed memo into two pages and did NOT present it to Trump in his classified meeting they are not supposed to tell the media about., but were prepared to tell him it was unvetted information.

    So one version is it wa sleft for him to read afetr the meeting. But mayeb that’s not at all true.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  66. They reported a video was responsible for Benghazi, there was no evidence.

    narciso (d1f714)

  67. @Patterico:That media outlets are reporting that is a fact.

    If that reporting is not true, then the media either does not know who their sources are, but are running with it anyway, which is a much more damning fact. Or they know who the sources are and are lying about who they are, which is also much more damning, than taking this at face value: people in our intelligence agencies are leaking different stories to different people, and it’s all illegal.

    But if they say they talked to intelligence officials, and they lied about that or had no idea who they were talking to, well they may as well lie about dates and bylines at that point and we should just stop bothering with them altogether.

    In my experience the media rarely makes things up completely, you have the Stephen Glasses and the Jayson Blairs but they are rare, and purged. What the media generally does is selectively report, and conflate, and copy each other.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  68. @Sammy: So one version is it wa sleft for him to read afetr the meeting

    But in that version, Trump Tower has nowhere secure to store documents so none were brought in the first place.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  69. Ok,

    What of real importance is going on somewhere that we are missing because of this stuff?
    How Obama spoke last night about how race relations are so much better now,
    and that “they” expected too much when “they” called him a post-racial president?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  70. @Patterico: Anyway, to finish my thought, taking the media reporting at face value indicates that at the very least intelligence officials have no problem illegally leaking the contents of classified briefings to the media, and so many of them are doing it that different ones are saying different things.

    To go from there and say, well if we can’t believe that then we might as well not believe they ever talked to any officials at all–well if they are so untrustworthy as that, why even discuss anything they report as though “the fact that the intelligence community chose to brief Trump and Obama on these issues is a legitimate story”? How much of that characterization survives that?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  71. CNN: Responsible But Fake.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  72. I don’t have respect for taper, for a very longstanding reason,

    narciso (d1f714)

  73. Because I just can’t see how we are supposed to give weight to the “concerns” of the “intelligence community” when so many of them seem to have no problem breaking the law whenever it suits them to do so. Continually, for the last month or so. And not “breaking the law” by beating information out of terrorists; breaking the law to meddle in domestic politics.

    And if, to save the integrity of the intelligence community, you have to suggest that maybe the media never talked to anyone there but are reporting that they did anyway, which comes from God knows who and means God knows what, then how are we supposed to give weight to concerns of the intelligence community when the only people talking about them have no idea if those concerns are real or if the people voicing are who they say they are–or are willing to lie about who they are getting it from, or are making the whole thing up.

    And to top it all off, all these shenanigans are going to do is make Trump less accountable.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  74. Well there was another attack by a fellow of no known religious affiliation in Spain.

    narciso (d1f714)

  75. @Sammt: Since John McCain(!) had the full 35 page memo and gave it to Director Comey there seems to be many ways Trump could have known about the accusations.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  76. One of those much praised jayvee defectors, harry sarfo turns out to have been party to a war crime

    narciso (d1f714)

  77. The 35-page document is unsubstantiated, so therefore the contents of a 2-page synopsis of said document is also unsubstantiated, no? The Intelligence Community Assessment that came out last Friday is a different animal. The NBC report does completely undercut CNN’s reason for breaking the story. Can’t say why, but I’m more inclined to believe the NBC story.

    WarrenPeese (d5b1bb)

  78. This article lists brief explanations by a host of papers, bloggers and TV reporters on why they had chosen not to publish the unsubstantiated allegations and why Buzzfeed was journalistically wrong to do so. It is an interesting read. But the real takeaway is that in toto it reveals how far and wide into the media community this fake “leaked intel dossier” had been shopped by somebody–and for months. This dirt slinging operation was sloppy, indiscriminate and ill conceived but it was certainly not spur of the moment.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/11/journos-blast-buzzfeed-for-publishing-unsubstantiated-trump-dossier/

    elissa (746ada)

  79. Oh, now we do have a name.

    Sources told the Wall Street Journal that ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele — who now works for the London-based private investigative firm Orbis Business Intelligence — had, in fact, prepared the document. Steele’s LinkedIn profile lists him as a former counselor in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with foreign postings in Brussels and New Delhi throughout the 2000s.

    Steele, 52, served as an intelligence officer for MI6 — Britain’s version of the CIA — though its unclear in what capacity.

    A diplomatic service list published by the British government shows that he was once posted to the U.K.’s Moscow embassy in 1990 with the title of “Second Secretary (Chancery),” according to Forbes. He is one of two directors of Orbis, along with 58-year-old Christopher Burrows, who would neither “confirm or deny” whether the firm had produced the dossier.

    The report consists of several unsigned memos, all of which appear to have been penned between June and December 2016.

    In addition to creating the dossier, sources told the Journal that Steele also funneled the document to officials in the U.S. and Europe.

    http://nypost.com/2017/01/11/ex-british-spy-behind-trump-dossier-reportedly-identified/

    elissa (746ada)

  80. President Trump: Easy peasy, lemon-squeasy. What, is this your first day on the job or something? Look, this is how it goes; You try to attack me, one at a time, and I knock you both out with a single punch. Ready? Go!
    [CNN Reporters do exactly as he predicted]
    President Trump: Judo chop. Judo chop.
    Jake Tapper: Oh, he’s good.
    Buzzfeed reporter: [approaches warily]
    President Trump: Do you know who I am?
    Buzzfeed reporter: [nods]
    President Trump: Have you got any idea how many anonymous reporters I’ve killed over the years?
    Buzzfeed reporter: [nods again]
    President Trump: I mean, look at you. You don’t even have a name tag. You’ve got no chance. Why don’t you just fall down?
    [Buzzfeed reporter falls down]

    papertiger (c8116c)

  81. who paid him pls to tell me

    put a lil journalism on a pikachu

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  82. Mole!

    papertiger (c8116c)

  83. There’s only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures and the Dutch.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  84. If the NBC News story is correct, Trump is going to lay waste to part of the Intelligence apparatus, but also to John McCain, who gave the 35 pages of memos to the FBI after he received them from a former British Ambassador.

    McCain might as well resign — he’s a man without a country right now.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  85. One thing about him, no matter how bad things get, McCain has seen worse.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  86. Besides Christopher Steele a former British Ambassador to Russia also got this or similar information and turned it over to John McCAin. Steele is said to have turned it over to a dformer FBI col,league in August.

    Steele is said to have Russian sources.

    It’s probably Russian disinformation, but not intended for the public, but only opponents of Trump.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  87. Steele is the former Brit Intell guy (MI6) who was hired to put together a package of material.

    The supposition is that he wrote the various memos that comprise the 35 pages.

    The 2 page synopsis that was shown to CNN was prepared by Intel folks in the US, for use in the briefing.

    But its use was supposed to be as an example of likely disinformation, as opposed to vetted intelligence findings.

    The 35 pages have been around for a while based on the Mother Jones article from late October.

    But CNN gave mainstream access to the whole mess by reporting on the 2 page memo being part of Trump’s briefing, when that seems to have been false.

    So, Trump crucifying the CNN reporter at the Press Conference as justified.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  88. @Sammy: probably Russian disinformation

    Today they publicly said that the information is a hoax and did not come from them, so if it is disinformation they cannot now make much use of it.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  89. All I know is whoever came up with that dossier would have been smart to stick a memo in there referencing Obama’s real birth certificate, the Kenyan one. Then I’m sure we’d all be an agreement that maybe not all of this is a load of garbage.

    Jerryskids (3308c1)

  90. Iowahawk:

    There’s something vaguely satisfying about watching journalism desperately trying to stop the monster they themselves created.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  91. When the International Man of Mystery is the voice of reason in a thread, Patterico, 2017 is off to an odd start.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  92. I love how the MSM and #NeverTrump are opposed to Russian spying except when Russian spying results in sensationalized stories about Mr Donald! (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  93. I will say that I have respect for Jake Tapper.

    Jake and his colleagues really aren’t at issue. News readers do what the suits tell them to do. This was a CNN management decision and indicative of an identity crisis that’s been festering there for years. In this era, it’s no longer the sole ‘go to’ source it once was.

    A ‘cable news network’ that deploys its news readers for broadcast getting ears pierced, doing shots and partying while all but ignoring an international terrorist attack unfolding– coverage of which was once their strength– now fills air time with cooking shows, documentaries of repackaged news stories and is currently hyping, with straight faces, a ‘journalism’ series labeled ‘The History Of Comedy.’ Infotainment is not ‘news.’

    CNN is desperately seeking audiences. It’s become a joke; a punchline network adrift without a compass.

    Sadly…

    “THIS is CNN.” -James Earl Jones

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  94. Iowahawk headline:

    Breaking: Video of Trump Pissing on Prostitutes

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  95. CNN does fake news terrorism on america they should be banned from airports

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  96. David Burge’s combover is the kind Trump should get. He’ll look like Eisenhower then, or maybe even MacArthur.

    nk (dbc370)

  97. Douse your hair, Patrick.

    Brian Epps (d5cd81)

  98. The problem I had with CNN — other than the fact that they seem to have gotten misinfo from their source about what the 2 page memo was used for (or supposed to be used for) — was that by going at it the way they did, they PRESUMED that the underlying substance in the 35 pages was true.

    Two options:

    1. They think the info is true, but can’t verify it, because why else would it be part of the briefing? Simply bad journalism to think through the “what ifs”.

    2. They don’t think the info is true — if not, then why is it a story, and aren’t the downsides of that info leaking into the public domain greater than the value of a story about non-facts??

    Its a political hit job. If the press is going to be fair, the press needs to understand that their are Trump haters inside and outside government who will try about anything to undermine him, and look at every piece of info that lands in its lap from that angle in vetting the story.

    They got just enough cover from their source, i.e., that the former Brit intel guy had done solid work in the past, has good sources in Russia, and it all looked in order — they just couldn’t verify its accuracy.

    That was the thin reed that CNN relied on to justify publishing the story, even if they didn’t reveal the actual memos.

    IMO that’s half-assed journalism. What they should have said was “Its a story if the allegations in the memos are true. If not, we don’t know what it is, but its not a story.”

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  99. This mess shows why propaganda works, even when it’s exposed as false. The only beneficiary of this story is the person or group that worked to put it into circulation.

    crazy (d3b449)

  100. That entity needs to found and held accountable.

    crazy (d3b449)

  101. it sucked all the oxygen away from sleazy cory borker

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  102. True dat.

    crazy (d3b449)

  103. 90. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/11/2017 @ 2:56 pm

    .@Sammy: probably Russian disinformation

    Today they publicly said that the information is a hoax and did not come from them, so if it is disinformation they cannot now make much use of it.

    What? Do you think they have only one set of lies? And they must tell everybody the same lies?? In the old Soviet Union, theer were vistors who were told lies that nobody else was told.

    Two things stuck out to me, to the extent that we can discern any facts in all of this:

    1) The sources seemed to be Russian – and they were real sources, not made up ones.

    2) And the people told were British – people closely tied to the British government.

    The target might have been Whitehall.

    In 2016, Vladimir Putin maybe wanted to make the British government afraid to tell anything confidential to possible future president Donald Trump. Break up the alliance.

    We actually don’t really know how this story got circulated outside of anyone British.

    It could be, for instance, when former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele asked his Russian contacts what the Kremlin might know that was damaging to Donald Trump, they thought he was asking on behalf of British conservatives, or the British government, not Americans. And the former British Ambassador to Russia who had also been told this or similar stuff decided he had better tell some American he felt could be trusted, and that was Senator John McCain.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  104. today we also learned why lil roob roob needs to be kept far far away from the white house

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  105. Another question is who wrote the 35 pages.

    Jim Geraghty of National Review’s Morning Jolt noticed the following odd things about it:

    1. It contains British spelling of words, but only a few of them. He found “favourably” and “cauterize” And Roubles.

    2. Some things look wrong. Like “a showers” (the kind of mistake a Russian who learned English might make? Russian has no articles.)

    3. It spells e-mail as “e-mail” not “email” This may simply indicate the person’s age.

    4. The United States is abbreviated without periods. “US” and not “U.S.” Now where is that common? Isn’t that government style? It may indicate that whoever composed it is used to reading government documents. Indictments have this.

    5. Some pages have handwritten numbering (indicating that maybe the original text was replaced at some point?)

    6. The document was photographed by a cell phone, nor scanned (indicating lack of access to good equipment?)

    7. The claim is made that PUTIN was motivated both by fear and hatred of HILLARY CLINTON. Jim Geraghty can understand hatred but why should Putin be afraid? (well obviously because she’s supposedly such a big cold warrior)

    8. The claim was made that the TRUMP’s team was giving information to Russia on Russian oligarchs and their families in US (no “the” here, by the way) I suppose here the idea is to give Putin aa motive for helping Trump.

    9. The claim is made that sometime in July, PUTIN felt the fallout from NC e-mail hacking is spiralling out of control. A rather strange assertion (probably included to “explain” some other claim)

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  106. McCain’s sheepish hallway presser today was priceless…

    ‘I did what any good citizen would do; I turned the information over to the FBI.’

    Pass the ketchup.

    “There are exactly 57 card-carrying members of the Communist Party in the Department of Defense at this time!” – Senator John Iselin [James Gregory] ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ 1962

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  107. cauterize is yank cauterise is british

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  108. Now CNN reports former CIA Director Morrell said “This is what you see when you look at raw intelligence. … I was looking at things that I knew – small bits of information that I knew were true.” Good propaganda never dies it just keeps getting rewritten.

    crazy (d3b449)

  109. 77. Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 1/11/2017 @ 1:54 pm @Sammt: Since John McCain(!) had the full 35 page memo and gave it to Director Comey there seems to be many ways Trump could have known about the accusations. Yes, but I don’t think Trump made clear when. But I think probably fairly recently. Like last week.

    Reince Priebus told Face the Nation on Sunday that he first heard about it when it was printed for him off of Buzzfeed. And then he asked Michael Cohen to let him look at his passprt. And then decided that was a way to rebut all of this. Since he was not in Prague. Why would they meet in Prague anyway? Later they discovered he was in California. Still later, suddenly it was a different Michael Cohen.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  110. 107. 109. Jim Geraghty actually wrote that the document spelled it “cauterise”

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  111. If there actually was a real Michael Cohen, but one not associated with Donald Trump, in Prague on a certain date, then some of this came from someone who had access to Czech records. If there was no Michael Cohen whatsover in Prague, then some people (Jake Tapper’s sources) are just protecting their credibility. The other Michael Cohen is supposed to have had the same birthday. But not an American passport. and maybe didn’t visit the same day.

    The original claim also was that Michael Cohen’s father-in-law had a dacha near that of Vladimir Putin.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  112. 92. This is good (or funny)

    Bohemio
    @El__Bohemio
    @iowahawkblog Never buy a Manchurian Candidate Kit from ACME.

    2:23 PM – 11 Jan 2017

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  113. Arizona must be so damn proud

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  114. At his oress conference Trump said he used to warn all the people he was travelling with that when they went to a forign country, theer could be cameras so small you can’t see them.

    TRUMP: Lemme just tell you what I do.

    When I leave our country, I’m a very high-profile person, would you say?

    I am extremely careful. I’m surrounded by bodyguards. I’m surrounded by people.

    And I always tell them — anywhere, but I always tell them if I’m leaving this country, “Be very careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go, you’re gonna probably have cameras.” I’m not referring just to Russia, but I would certainly put them in that category.

    And number one, “I hope you’re gonna be good anyway. But in those rooms, you have cameras in the strangest places. Cameras that are so small with modern technology, you can’t see them and you won’t know. You better be careful, or you’ll be watching yourself on nightly television.”

    I tell this to people all the time.

    I was in Russia years ago, with the Miss Universe contest, which did very well — Moscow, the Moscow area did very, very well.

    And I told many people, “Be careful, because you don’t wanna see yourself on television. Cameras all over the place.”

    And again, not just Russia, all over.

    Does anyone really believe that story?

    This was about the prostitutes and a bed Obama and Michelle had slept in.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  115. i wonder if the whole pee pee thing is like some issue what happen to Meghan’s coward daddy back in the nam and he’s therapeutically working through it by projecting it on Mr. Trump

    get a dog

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  116. If that reporting is not true, then the media either does not know who their sources are, but are running with it anyway, which is a much more damning fact.

    You say “the media” but we are talking about two specific organizations here: NBC and CNN. NBC had one source. CNN had several. Either one could be running incorrect information — but all other things being equal, it’s easier for one source to run a scam than it is for several to do so. Either way, referring to “the media” generally (or “the intelligence community”) potentially lumps bad actors together with good ones. Big Media types might dismiss my blog because they see garbage on Gateway Pundit and conclude that “the blogs” don’t care about facts — but that would be painting with an overly broad brush.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  117. When the International Man of Mystery is the voice of reason in a thread, Patterico, 2017 is off to an odd start.

    Be sure to let me know when that happens.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  118. Gateway pretty much had this story nailed from the git-go

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  119. Any of these news clowns that chose to run with this horsestuff can go shi+ in their hats.

    As can all who assist with their flailing about.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  120. 117.i wonder if the whole pee pee thing is like some issue what happen to Meghan’s coward daddy back in the nam and he’s therapeutically working through it by projecting it on Mr. Trump

    get a dog
    happyfeet (28a91b) — 1/11/2017 @ 5:28 pm

    Someday on the 11 o’clock news I fully expect to see the cops loading a guy identified only as “happyfeet” wearing a suit of human skin with moths flying all around his head into a squad car.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  121. http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/christopher-steele-british-intelligence-officer-mi6-donald-trump-russia-wrote-report-name-golden-showers-linkedin-photos-orbis/

    According to the Wall Street Journal, “No presidential campaigns or super PACs reported payments to Orbis in their required Federal Election Commission filings. But several super PACs over the course of the campaign have reported that they paid limited liability companies, whose ultimate owners may be difficult or impossible to discern.”

    According to The Telegraph, Orbis was hired by a Washington, D.C. firm, and Steele gave his information to them. He also passed along the information to the FBI, The Telegraph reports.

    At the same time, Steele began providing the dossier to several journalists, including David Corn, of Mother Jones. Corn wrote about the report in October 2016, but did not reveal any details of the report, saying it came from an unnamed “former spook.”

    Anyone could have hired him.

    The Mother Jones article which appeared before the election:

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump

    Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer’s conversations with Russian sources, noted, “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.” It maintained that Trump “and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.” It claimed that Russian intelligence had “compromised” Trump during his visits to Moscow and could “blackmail him.” It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on “bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls.”

    I would surmise, as a first guess, that Steele didn’t make this up. That’s what he was told by Vladimir Putin’s minions, and he didn’t just tell the people who hired him, but other people who maybe could do soemthing about it.

    It’s all implausible.

    It could be maybe that some of it is true (attempts to cultivate Trump, or a desire to split the western alliance possibly) and then he got told all kinds of lies once they knew he found out.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  122. Douse your hair, Patrick.

    I do not know what that is supposed to mean.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  123. Gateway pretty much had this story nailed from the git-go

    He nails every story — if your only criterion is whether something helps Trump. And, let’s face it, that is your only criterion, happyfeet. It’s not like you have any principles besides that, so let’s not pretend you do.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  124. If it’s any consolation, your ethic (or lack thereof) is becoming more and more popular these days, happyfeet.

    I’m guessing it is.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  125. “Hail Hydra!”

    –James Earl Jones, for CNN

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  126. Jim Acosta Verified account
    ‏@Acosta

    Fortunately ABC’s Cecilia Vega asked my question about whether any Trump associates contacted Russians. Trump said no.

    what a truly strange little man

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  127. “Ben Smith Defends His Jackassishly Partisan Decision to Publish Trump Dump; Gets Flustered When Asked if He’d Similarly Publish Such Unverified Claims About Other Figures
    —Ace

    One thing I’ll say in his very, very partial defense. Mickey Kaus spoke a long while ago about “Dark Star” news — it’s news that the news media is talking about behind the scenes, but won’t publish it, because they can’t verify it (or, as in Bill Clinton’s case, don’t want to verify it).

    Kaus called it a “Dark Star” situation because while you could not see the massive object itself — see, it’s a Dark Star, shedding no light — you could nonetheless tell its presence by the gravitation it exerted on things you could see.

    Since the #NeverTrump lunatics and liberal lunatics (two categories, by the way, it’s increasingly difficult to tell apart) have been lunacizing themselves over this document, in a way, it’s better that we do all get to see it, and get to see the seed of madness that has germinated so lushly inside the minds of the deranged hyperpartisans.

    We can finally see the lunatic “logic” behind their increasingly inexplicable behavior…”

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/367845.php

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  128. BBC has a pretty good rundown on Trump ‘compromising’ claims: How did we get here?. Interestingly it shows how hard this and other similar stories were the talk of news and intel services on both sides of the Atlantic. If Trump’s falsely accused somebody has made fools out of a lot of people and organizations.

    crazy (d3b449)

  129. Kellyanne Conway had probably slipped the word to Gateway Pundit that the story was a false flag operation, put together by Smersh and the Exxon-Mobil public relations team, to embarrass the media and the Obama transition stooges and to diminish the credibility of real Trump scandals.

    nk (dbc370)

  130. @crazy:If Trump’s falsely accused somebody has made fools out of a lot of people and organizations.

    The people who ran with stuff they couldn’t confirm made fools of themselves.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  131. I have so many good principles. I also have an appreciation for the timer counting down on failmerica.

    This is it.

    It’s up to Mr. Trump to save this sad little poopstain on the planet, a little country what was once so free so proud so prosperous.

    No other savior lies in wait.

    No other hope shall ever be embodied and attendant and afforded you.

    This is it.

    His name is Donald Excelsior Trump, and he is wild magic personified, an ifrit what was summoned by our despair, a trusty St. Bernard at our side as the wintry night assails us.

    oops there goes another rubber tree plant

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  132. The issue is what Trump was briefed about. He knows the intelligence people cannot say anything about the briefing except by leaking, so he has little downside on this. In addition, Trump is smartand savvy enough to want the story to become the media, not the Russians or anything Trump has done.

    Having said that and having read the CNN, NBC, and WaPo stories, I think this is possible:

    The intelligence people briefed Trump about Russian involvement in the election. As a part of that briefing, they included the possibility that the Russians had information designed to attack/discredit the nominees aimed at both Hillary and Trump. The existence of the information (which may or may not have been true), and the fact that only information about Hillary was released before the election, is why the intelligence people believed the Russians wanted to hurt Hillary and help Trump.

    If the briefing was about the election, then the information designed to compromise Trump was discussed in the context of how the Russians could have affected the election, not for the truth of the information. if the list wasn’t the point of the briefing, that might be why the reports were conflicting with CNN saying Trump was given the 2 page list and NBC saying it was discussed but no one gave him the list.

    DRJ (15874d)

  133. Gabriel, I agree but don’t let the intel community who has kept the story alive internally and continued to gossip with the press about it for months off the hook. Notice the public took a story apart in hours that the IC still can’t “assess” the accuracy of after working on it for months. Maybe there’s something else they’re holding back but as quickly as they leak this stuff these days it seems doubtful. To be clear, blame the IC leadership not the rank and file for their behavior in this affair.

    crazy (d3b449)

  134. DRJ,

    Interesting and plausible take. It’s nice to see a jewel of a thoughtful comment like that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  135. The “Dark Star” hypothesis is interesting. IIRC, Kaus is generally in favor of complete openness and while I have not looked, I bet he supports BuzzFeed publishing this, if my memory of his “throw it all out there” ethic is right.

    I tend to disagree, but I am trying not to be too sanctimonious about BuzzFeed (perhaps failing) because I wonder whether the extra information is useful to the public. It’s likely useful to Trump, frankly, since he can conflate the CNN and BuzzFeed stories.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  136. I went and checked to see if I was right. I interpret this tweet to mean that I am:

    https://twitter.com/kausmickey/status/819284117707624448

    Patterico (115b1f)

  137. I have so many good principles.

    Let’s pretend that’s true. None of them are important enough to contravene the principle I identified: your obsequious worship of Donald Trump. Any “principle” that gets in the way of that will be quickly discarded.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  138. the broader context is that buzzfeed and cnn ruined cory borker’s gloriously substance-free takedown of Mr. Jeff Sessions, our next attorney general

    these sleazy propaganda sluts are off their game in a big big way

    you know why?

    eight years of orgasmic food stamp/propaganda slut synergy has effed them right the eff up

    they have to learn to walk on their own again

    to breathe on their own again

    it’s like they’ve been in a glorious food stampy coma for eight years

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  139. Think back to 2007-2008 and the reams of negative info about Barack Obama’s background, his associations, his activities, his politics, etc., that was disregarded, held absolutely no interest for – other than smothering it with a pillow – by so-called reputable news agencies and media institutions. Intelligence organizations sat on their hands for that election campaign. So why the sudden interest? why the leaks? Why do normally sensible people continue to lose their shi+ about the president-elect?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  140. CNN news readers are already spreading well fertilized responsibility on air to include their managing editors in their defensive chit-chat. And CNN bureaus have a lot of them on staff. Plenty of cooks but it’s a lousy recipe for managing information. For the most part, cable news readers aren’t their own managing editors.

    As managing editor of the CBS Evening News, Walter Cronkite would never have gone with this mess, because he was responsible for content in his broadcast. Which makes what Rather let happen, as a managing editor as well, all the more irresponsible– and it cost him his job.

    CNN Domestic needs to decide what it wants to be in this new media universe. They’re running out of decades to commission PlayTone to make documentaries. But if it starts airing MASH reruns over weekends like an entertainment channel, or histories of rock bands in primetime like VH1, you’ll know where it’s headed.

    Past time for them to clean house, restructure, and set course accordingly. Make the news, notthe news readers, the star again, as Turner intended.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  141. I don’t worship Mr. Trump.

    But I do stand with him.

    It just feels right.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  142. 140… Feets, you can be a real piece of work, but THAT is just plain funny.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  143. @DRJ:He knows the intelligence people cannot say anything about the briefing except by leaking, so he has little downside on this.

    Except that the intelligence agencies are staffed by criminals who cannot be trusted not to talk about classified briefings to the media–and tell different people incompatible versions of what happened. That’s a downside, not just for Trump, but for the whole republic.

    And it is also the real issue.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  144. DRJ, that’s not what NBC claimed to be told about the 2 page summary.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  145. Patterico, you’ve lost too much of the necessary skepticism.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  146. Throwing in with the thronesniffers of an outgoing, failed president is not a sustainable business plan.

    I suspect few people would appreciate having salacious crap made up about them and disseminated to the world.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  147. Patterico, you’ve lost too much of the necessary skepticism.

    That’s interesting, because that’s how I feel about a lot of other people.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  148. There’s always Gateway Pundit.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  149. Very well.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  150. Thought for the day (especially this day):

    You can’t have journalism without jism.

    I love it because that statement’s subtle, kind of complex, and rather multi-faceted I think.

    elissa (746ada)

  151. You need u-r-i-n-a-l too.

    nk (dbc370)

  152. Not to mention l-i-a-r.

    nk (dbc370)

  153. How so, SPQR?

    DRJ (15874d)

  154. Or S-N-A-I-L… or j-a-m

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  155. Total tabloid hucksterism.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  156. This isn’t Boggle, guys.

    You cannot hope to bribe or twist
    (Thank God!) the American journalist,
    But seeing what the man will do
    Unbribed, there’s no occasion to.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  157. DRJ, that’s not what NBC claimed to be told about the 2 page summary.

    I think SPQR is right here. Reviewing the NBC story, it says:

    [T]he senior official told NBC News that the briefing was oral and no actual documents were left with the Trump team in New York. During the briefing, the president-elect was not briefed on the contents of the summary .

    I hope it’s not too naive and lacking in skepticism for me to note again that the NBC story depends on the word of a single “senior official” who is not named.

    Very well.

    What does this mean? I rather doubt you’re going to become a Gateway Pundit regular, SPQR. You are too smart for that.

    I just don’t see how the very restrained points I made in this post show that I have lost the requisite skepticism to be a blogger.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  158. NBC said Trump was not given the written summary or addenda about Russian information, but that Trump briefed orally. The report was conflicting about what he was told.

    DRJ (15874d)

  159. I still think DRJ could be right to the extent that if IC believes the Russians had this info, but did not release it, it could support their opinion that Putin was trying to help Trump.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  160. @Patterico:a single “senior official” who is not named.

    The more guys you have who violate the law and their oaths to talk about classified meetings anonymously to selected members of the press, the more credible the story gets.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  161. Maybe so but NBC specifically said:

    The briefers also had available to them unvetted “disinformation” about the Clinton Foundation, although that was not orally shared with Trump.

    NBC said Trump wasn’t given the documents but is more vague about what he was told. The summary is not the same as the annex or addenda, which is where the Russian disinformation was listed.

    DRJ (15874d)

  162. Clapper called Trump to express dismay over this stuff being leaked and that this stuff was not an official intelligence community document it was generated out of the private sector.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  163. No proof, the fact this dead parrot is still being discussed Dorset say much about intelligence or journalism.

    narciso (d1f714)

  164. That is my point, Patterico. The details of the disinformation is what got CNN in the weeds. If the point of the briefing was Russian influence on the election, the addenda listing the disinformation was not the reason for the briefing. It was there to show Trump -‘ and Obama, who was also briefed — that the Russians had information to hurt both nominees.

    Of course, maybe Trump had no interest in what our intelligence agencies think the Russians had to use against him, so he never asked and they never said.

    DRJ (15874d)

  165. @DRJ: You’ve put a lot of thought into what Trump’s motivations may have been, and what he may have done.

    What do you think the leakers’ motivations might be? What do you think drives them to break the law and their oaths by disclosing contents of classified meetings to journalists?

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  166. Except the crowdstrike report is not definitative, this is not the first time they’ve delivered faulty product.

    narciso (d1f714)

  167. Or he realized this is a steaming crock of horseshi+ that deserved the contempt it has received from most people.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  168. 167… now those are some excellent questions.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  169. After re-reading this, I think SPQR is right that the NBC report. Thanks, SPQR.

    DRJ (15874d)

  170. If “journalists” got suckered by Obama’s transition stooges, it was because they wanted to be suckered.
    If Obama’s transition stooges wanted to sucker “journalists”, it was to hurt Trump who will be throwing them out on their ear come January 20.
    To sum up, the motivation for both the “journalists” and the Obama transition stooges was to hurt Trump.

    nk (dbc370)

  171. DRJ, the NBC report is saying the briefers had examples of alleged Russian disinformation that included the 2 page summary of the Trump stuff they told Trump about and some Clinton stuff they didn’t tell him about. The problem is somebody from the IC blabbed to CNN about briefing Trump on Russian interference and CNN decided to air speculation on what they’d been trying to corroborate fro months so they went live with it and Buzzfeed decided to publish the details of what CNN said they had but couldn’t talk about because they couldn’t confirm it and so on.

    So what was the IC blabbermouth who talked to CNN trying to accomplish?

    crazy (d3b449)

  172. Um,
    If there is anything I can count on “intelligence officials” to do,
    from my diligent past observation,
    it is to:
    Obfuscate
    Politicize
    Disseminate disinformation
    Deceive
    Mislead
    Everything short of a direct lie once the language is parsed.

    I won’t even believe anything these folks would say bad about Obama,
    why give them a millisecond of my time hitting Trump?

    When someone in the “intelligence community” wants to tell us about Benghazi and the risk assessment of HRC’s misdeeds,
    Then maybe I will pay attention.

    HRC used an insecure server for official business and Clinton Inc. business,
    And they are worried about Trump being compromised over wetting the bed?????

    What are they doing with the other hand while we watch this misdirection?
    Did they close Gitmo today?
    Give more money to Iran?
    Give a pardon for everyone ever associated with CAIR???

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  173. Gabriel,

    I suspect the leaks come from the Adminustration/liberals but it could be from Trump’s side. Liberals get to trash Trump with bonus of hurting McCain, and Trump gets to hit the media in a way that will help him for a long time. It’s wrong but Washington leaks are inevitable no matter who is President. Unfortunately, it is how things work there.

    DRJ (15874d)

  174. Well they released four seriously nasty characters to the kingdom, there is the matter of the 10 bombs worth of uranium, Iran receiveds

    narciso (d1f714)

  175. It’s rumored that Obama will commute the sentence of Chelsea Manning. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does not allow conjugal visits. Put two and two together.

    nk (dbc370)

  176. What do you think the leakers’ motivations might be? What do you think drives them to break the law and their oaths by disclosing contents of classified meetings to journalists?

    Which ones? The NBC leaker, or just the CNN leakers?

    Why do you think the senior official leaked to NBC, Gabriel?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  177. So if it appears rick Wilson or Liz mar commissioned this report, great use of funds, from which account.

    narciso (d1f714)

  178. So what was the IC blabbermouth who talked to CNN trying to accomplish?

    What was the IC blabberouth who talked to NBC trying to accomplish? Or do we care only about the blabbermouths (plural) who talked to CNN?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  179. DRJ, if the leaks are coming from the Trump side then the media needs to stop covering for them by identifying them as “senior intelligence officials.” The DNI even just announced that the leaks are wrong and must stop. Whether this is a domestic political hitjob as SWC suggested above or Russian disinformation the leaky intel community is feeding this stuff to the media.

    crazy (d3b449)

  180. So if it appears rick Wilson or Liz mar commissioned this report, great use of funds, from which account.

    Wilson has openly said that any news organization can out him as the source if he was, which he denies. Nobody has.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  181. Here I thought I was just being snarky with the usual suspects,
    And wham….

    News Flash!!!!
    Dissent, skepticism, and impugning government is once again patriotic!!!
    Hail Big Brother!

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  182. They’re all wrong, Patterico. As I said, the NBC leak reads like pushback intended to get CNN to dial the story back a bit.

    crazy (d3b449)

  183. This Hill report shows why this is such a confusing story:

    President-elect Donald Trump was never briefed on the allegations that Russian intelligence services have collected compromising information on him, according to NBC and Trump’s transition team. 

    Officials prepared a two-page summary of unverified reports that have been circulating Capitol Hill for months in advance of their Friday meeting with Trump, an intelligence official told NBC, but never discussed it with him. 

    The briefing was shared with Trump verbally, the report said, and no documents were left with the president-elect

    First, Washington has known about this for months.

    Second, if “the briefing” was about Russian influence in the election, then this makes sense. But if the briefing included what the Russian information was, then it doesn’t make sense. That’s why I think it was the former, but who knows? I can see why CNN might conclude the opposite.

    DRJ (15874d)

  184. Well, we know the Russians and our side both use disinformation,
    We know all kinds of people are making doing hit jobs on Trump their main vocation and hobby,
    And if they ever manage to get trump out of office,
    the next day they will start on Pence

    So, are we really going to debate these things every day?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  185. 146. SPQR (a3a747) — 1/11/2017 @ 6:20 pm

    DRJ, that’s not what NBC claimed to be told about the 2 page summary.

    Here’s another link:

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-cites-nazi-germany-rejects-dossier-alleged-russia-dealings-n705586

    President-elect Donald Trump was not told about unverified reports that Russia has compromising information on him during last week’s intelligence briefing, according to a senior intelligence official with knowledge of preparations for the briefing.

    A summary of the unverified reports was prepared as background material for the briefing, but not discussed during the meeting, the official said. During Trump’s press conference Wednesday morning, the president-elect said he was made aware of the information “outside that meeting.”

    And maybe this was not closely connected to that meeting at all.

    Nobody is going to get to the bottom of this until people start talking – maybe under oath.

    And there’s also the issue if someone or some people decided to spread this story now in such a way so that it could sound like it might be true (with the goal perhaps of making sure Trump was intimidated from firing them – or there could maybe be totally different motives.)

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  186. Let me remind you,
    I was early in the line of those saying Trump was unfit to be president,
    I am not interested in defending him for the sake of defending him,
    but this is going to be Lucy with the football nonstop, for years and years.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  187. Thank you, Sammy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  188. Last comment,
    Sammy,
    There are at least 372 things I would like to see handled under oath before this…

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  189. For P. Heh.

    DRJ (15874d)

  190. We should not accept that this was “opposition research” and still less that it was paid for by Republicans. Someone (Christopher Steele of Orbis Business Intelligence) was hired by a Washington,D.C. firm, which was itself hired by God knows who. (according to the Wall Street Journal and the Telegraph)

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/christopher-steele-ex-british-intelligence-officer-said-to-have-prepared-dossier-on-trump-1484162553

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/former-mi6-officer-produced-donald-trump-russian-dossier-terrified/

    If the Telegraph would kindly publish the name of the firm (they didn’t) perhaps people could look in the records and see if any widely known SuperPac or presidential campaign had hired them.

    I don’t know who we are relying on to tell us it was anti-Trump Republicans and then Democrats. If the Hillary Clinton campaign funded it in the end, they probably funded it at the beginning, too, laundering it maybe through some Republicans. Or maybe it was some money that never entered a campaign.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  191. A year after making a major investment in BuzzFeed, NBCUniversal is doing it again.
    Sources say Comcast’s TV and movie arm is finalizing a deal that will put around $200 million into the digital publisher, at a valuation of around $1.7 billion.

    http://www.recode.net/2016/10/20/13352900/nbcuniversal-buzzfeed-investment

    The fact that NBC Universal has a huge financial stake in Buzzfeed makes their current very public squabble over journalistic integrity even more interesting and possibly lethal for Buzzfeed. It started this morning with Mika on Morning Joe, followed by Cynthia McFadden’s “Breaking news” this afternoon, and then early evening the fairly hard hitting Chuck Todd interview with Ben Smith (Buzzfeed’s editor-in chief) when Chuck for example challenged, “you just published fake news!”. The entire interview can be found at Ace and Smith is a babbling idiot.

    When the funding stops and the lawsuits are settled Buzzfeed hopefully will have gone the way of Gawker.

    elissa (746ada)

  192. @Patterico: No, we care about all the leakers, and the “senior official” cannot be assumed to be on Trump’s “side” simply because he contradicted CNN. That’s the sort of partisan thinking you discourage.

    Question for you and the other attorneys: If you could get something out to the public about Trump that would expose something like the “golden shower”, but you had to break the law and your oaths to do it, would you? You know your colleagues and your friendly journalists will cover for you.

    If not, why not, and are there circumstances that would change your minds?

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  193. @DRJ: Am I allowed to quote the rest of Reynold’s post?

    “the press and the Deep State are already going after him, before he’s even had a chance to get out of line. And second, I mean, holy crap, could they be any sorrier at doing so? I mean, “Peegate?” Really? What the hell?

    This is good news for Trump, sort of, but overall it’s really bad news, since it means that both journalism and the intelligence community are both more politicized, and less competent, than even I thought. Sweet Jesus, these people are terrible.”

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  194. “First, Washington has known about this for months.

    Second, if “the briefing” was about Russian influence in the election, then this makes sense. But if the briefing included what the Russian information was, then it doesn’t make sense. That’s why I think it was the former, but who knows? I can see why CNN might conclude the opposite.”

    ========================================

    The document was generated out of the private sector, the intelligence community had nothing to do with it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  195. So many Trump supporters are acting like it’s not possible to distrust Donald Trump and US intelligence agencies at the same time. It is definitely possible. Watch this: US intelligence agencies are not to be trusted, and Donald Trump is a lying, vapid, embarrassing piece of sh*t.

    See? It’s easy! Let’s find some common ground, here.

    Leviticus (70ca80)

  196. @Leviticus:US intelligence agencies are not to be trusted, and Donald Trump is a lying, vapid, embarrassing piece of sh*t.

    See? It’s easy! Let’s find some common ground, here.

    I’m with you on this, Leviticus. Both the things you said here are true.

    However, that doesn’t mean we should accept take extraordinary claims without evidence.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  197. @Colonel:the intelligence community had nothing to do with it.

    Except illegally leaking to the press that they discussed it at classified meetings.

    Other than that.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  198. I don’t see your point, Haiku.

    Washington has known about this for months according to The Hill. Not just the Administration or the intelligence agencies but all of the political world in Washington — which is not surprising since the reports say it started with GOP investigations and then the Hillary campaign took it up. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

    DRJ (15874d)

  199. the Hillary campaign took it up

    Too sleazy for Hillary to touch, but not for CNN, NBC, and Buzzfeed–and not so for the intelligence officials who broke the law and their oaths to gossip about it to the press.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  200. 191. This has gone on long enough that it really should be investigated. There’s probably a lot hiding under that rock.

    Here’s another thing:

    According to the BBC, the allegations weren’t made up out of whole cloth. They came straight from the FSB:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

    Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent.

    Trump ‘compromising’ claims: How and why did we get here?

    By Paul Wood
    11 January

    …. How did Trump “compromise” claims come to light?

    Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent.

    As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK’s embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information.

    They told him that Mr Trump had been filmed with a group of prostitutes in the presidential suite of Moscow’s Ritz-Carlton hotel. I know this because the Washington political research company that commissioned his report showed it to me during the final week of the election campaign.

    I surmised that it was Russian disinformation, and that the FSB did not know who Christopher Steele was working for, because, as instructed, he kept that highly confidential, and they thought that Christopher Steele was making inquiries on behalf of the British government, or people in it, or close to it, or whoever he and partner Christopher Burrows’ more usual clients were. And they told this to Steele, even though they wanted Trump to win, because they thought this disinformation was going only to the British, and they wanted the British to distrust possible president Trump.

    Now the question is, did Steele try to spread this on instructions, or independently, because he thought it was true?

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  201. Do you doubt that the Hillary campaign did opposition research that revealed these claims? Everyone knew about this, including the journalists. They never used it because they thought she would win and/or she told them not to.

    DRJ (15874d)

  202. Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/11/2017 @ 8:01 pm

    Too sleazy for Hillary to touch,

    Well, who had that political research firm (name, please) on retainer the week before the election? And tried to plant that story on the BBC.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  203. @Sammy Finkelman:Now the question is, did Steele try to spread this on instructions

    What’s the evidence Steele got it from the FSB? None. The BBC is reporting what is in the document, that’s all. Which is already fake.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  204. @DRJ: And how about the leakers?

    Would you break the law to gossip about this to the press?

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  205. Sammy,

    Mother Jones adressed this in October when it reported:

     And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jonesthat in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.

    In thr article, a senior government official also confirmed the intelligence officer was a credible source. This isn’t a completely new story.

    DRJ (15874d)

  206. Sammy, the NYT purports to trace the dossier, here.

    nk (dbc370)

  207. I don’t like leaking, Gabriel, and I can’t imagine doing it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  208. @DRJ: And how about the leakers?

    Would you break the law to gossip about this to the press?
    Gabriel Hanna (61adec) — 1/11/2017 @ 8:08 pm

    Somebody leaking a story about leaking prostitutes peeing on beds in Russia? Say it ain’t so Joe!

    Yoda jr (310909)

  209. DRJ (15874d) — 1/11/2017 @ 8:05 pm

    They never used it because they thought she would win and/or she told them not to.

    They never used it because they knew it was like an exploding cigar. (and actually the ones with a better reputation probably weren’t approached)

    The people who tried to plant the story would likely try to plant it in media that they would not have any further use for its credibility in the future.

    The BBC – not an American media outlet – might be nice choice.

    Ace wrote how in 2008 someone tried to plant a faulty anti-Obama story with him. Not because Ace of Spades HQ is so prestigious, but because it could then be picked up by bigger and bigger outlets. He (and David French) says this goes on with everybody. David French was told this.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443769/shame-buzzfeed-journalistic-malpractice-undermines-faith-democracy-news-media

    When you’re a political writer, journalist, or reporter, you’re a rumor magnet. The amount of information that flies at you can be truly staggering, and much of it is pure garbage. Trust me when I say that almost every prominent politician, no matter how squeaky clean, is the subject of salacious and bizarre scandal-mongering. And if there’s a prominent politician who isn’t the subject of rumors, give it time. The rumors will come.

    I say this because I was one of the many people who were told that Trump had been “compromised” by Russian intelligence…

    He doesn’t say when he was told this.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  210. @DRJ: a senior government official

    You mean a guy who broke the law and his oath to gossip about classified meetings to the press? Well if HE vouches for it…

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  211. Where Instapundit goes wrong is that he starts with a false premise: That there is any good reason to have Trump as President.

    Not only that that, but his “scrutiny” rationale pales next to my proposal to keep Illinois governors honest, namely, to carry them off to prison as soon as they’re sworn in.

    nk (dbc370)

  212. I think I already said that I have no intention on being a Trump defender,
    I also have no intention of trying to untangle all of the disinformation of the disinformation.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  213. Gabriel, yes, which it sort of seems Clapper owned up to: http://patterico.com/2017/01/11/even-if-the-buzzfeed-story-is-junk-cnns-story-on-trump-the-ic-and-the-russians-is-a-responsible-story/#comment-1965785

    My point is that this entire exercise is wrong on so many fronts, I’m left to ponder, who does it help but those who want to delegitimize a duly elected president, give aid and comfort to America’s enemies and don’t give a tinker’s damn who or what they ruin in the process. These last 2 months have turned my stomach. This fellow was not my choice there were at least 14 other candidates I would’ve preferred but I am rooting for the guy now. And I think all of this horseshi+ is convincing a lot of former doubters to suck it up and say “screw you, shitheel media, entrenched interests, beltway plotters and elites. Time for a new direction.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  214. DRJ (15874d) — 1/11/2017 @ 8:13 pm

    a senior government official also confirmed the intelligence officer was a credible source.

    He was a credible source.

    It was genuine Russian disinformation.

    Which I think he got because they thought he was working for the British, not American politicians.

    This isn’t a completely new story.

    But obscure. It was one of those stories that people try to plant, but have great difficulty doing so.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  215. Gabriel, yes, which it sort of seems Clapper owned up to: http://patterico.com/2017/01/11/even-if-the-buzzfeed-story-is-junk-cnns-story-on-trump-the-ic-and-the-russians-is-a-responsible-story/#comment-1965785

    My point is that this entire exercise is wrong on so many fronts, I’m left to ponder, who does it help but those who want to delegitimize a duly elected president, give aid and comfort to America’s enemies and don’t give a tinker’s damn who or what they ruin in the process. These last 2 months have turned my stomach. This fellow was not my choice there were at least 14 other candidates I would’ve preferred but I am rooting for the guy now. And I think all of this horseshi+ is convincing a lot of former doubters to reconsider and say “screvv you, shi+heel media, entrenched interests, beltway plotters and elites. Time for a new direction.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  216. “189. Let me remind you, I was early in the line of those saying Trump was unfit to be president…”

    In 2000/2001 the word of the year was “gravitas”.
    Clearly, in 2016/2017 the word of the year is “unfit”.

    Trump is unfit to be President, Sessions is unfit to be Attorney General, etc. …. And coming up, every Cabinet nomineee will be declared “unfit”. Hell, if Scalia rose from the dead, he would be declared unfit to take Scalia’s Supreme Court seat.

    So boring. Don’t any of you people own a thesaurus?

    Tell me again, why should we care if some anonymous internet commenter says Trump is “unfit”?
    In the election, Trump won 3,084 counties, 30 states, and 306 Electoral votes (only the last counts, BTW).

    So the voters disagreed with the anonymous internet commenter and deemed him fit to be President.

    But do go on.

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

  217. Well, nk, I still am relieved that HRC is not the president elect.

    Every so often when my daughter can’t make a decision, she tells me to make it for her,
    then, if she feels relieved, she goes with it,
    if she is disappointed, then she knows to choose the opposite.
    I think there were more people relieved it wasn’t HRC,
    that is all.

    I think the next issue that comes up like this,
    like within the next 8 hours overnight,
    we should all post as sock puppets and actually argue against what we really think.

    I am not trying to insult anyone,
    esp my friend DRJ,
    I’m just saying trying to figure these things out will be worse than untangling old dried spaghetti,
    There is no one to have confidence in about anything,
    I mean, I can’t trust an unidentified intelligence source to tell me if it rained yesterday in my front yard.

    I think we should ask Siri….

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  218. @Colonel: It’s to the point for me where I simply assume that media is trying to mislead me. About whatever. I try to stay rational about it, because this an emotional response and just because someone tried to deceive you 556 times doesn’t mean he’s not telling the truth the 557th time.

    To me now it’s all Prolefeed and Pravda. There’s what they are trying to distract you with, and what they are trying to get you to think.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  219. You shouldn’t care if I think he was unfit because of the way he referred to his wife and Republican opponents just for start,
    I just clarified that for context, that when I said that I thought all of this was bogus,
    it was not as a Trump supporter,
    That one didn’t need to be pro-Trump to criticize this nonsense
    lest I be accused of being a dishonest Trump shill who doesn’t want him criticized.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  220. I think you are on to something there, Gabriel.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  221. All who believe the media raise your hands….
    I don’t see any hands raised.
    That is all.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  222. It is nonsense, isn’t it, MD. It’s been nothing but idiocy for nearly two months now.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  223. I am not a big fan of Trump, myself, but this kind of stuff both offends my sense of justice and arouses my resentment at being manipulated by con artists with false stories.

    On the details, nothing that comes from Russia can be trusted. Nothing and nobody.

    nk (dbc370)

  224. fred-2:

    Have you learned whether they have elections in Russia yet?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  225. All sorts of senior government officials made false claims about the Iran deal.
    All sorts of senior government officials made false claims about Benghazi.

    …ad infinitum.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  226. I think gee, these folks really think they’re clever. But that’s clearly not it, because they are so transparent, and could care less about appearing as such. Perhaps it’s a sign of the end times, where people increasingly take leave of their senses, lose their judgement… their morals… their ethics… their sense of fair play and common decency… and that worries me and makes me think even more about the downward spiral that society seems to be embracing with eyes wide open.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  227. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html?_r=0

    The story began in September 2015, when a wealthy Republican donor who strongly opposed Mr. Trump… [name please] …The identity of the donor is unclear.

    How do you then, therefore, anything about his politics? And doesn’t that mean the New York Times heard contradictory stories?

    Anyway, the company was Fusion GPS, whose head is a man named Glenn Simpson. After Trump was the presumtive nominee, the firm had new clients: “supporters of Hillary Clinton”

    Mr. Simpson hired Mr. Steele, a former British intelligence officer with whom he had worked before. Mr. Steele, in his early 50s, had served undercover in Moscow in the early 1990s and later was the top expert on Russia at the London headquarters of Britain’s spy service, MI6. When he stepped down in 2009, he started his own commercial intelligence firm, Orbis Business Intelligence….

    …he hired native Russian speakers to call informants inside Russia and made surreptitious contact with his own connections in the country as well.

    That part is probably true.

    Then there’s this:

    They continued this work even after they were no longer being paid!

    Or that’s the story they’re sticking to.

    I suppose you could say there are three poossibilties:

    A) Out of patriotism.

    B) On spec.

    C) They are lying about not having a client. Maybe because it may not be quite legal to pay them.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  228. “I am not a big fan of Trump, myself…”

    I always enjoy a good laugh before hitting the sack, thanks, lol. But yeah, I hear what you are saying in the rest of that post. This has to be fought against, or we are properly rogered.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  229. MD,

    Why would I be offended? He will be our President and everyone gets to decide whether he does a good or a bad job. Whatever you decide is fine with me.

    As for me, I hope Trump is a successful conservative President but when he doesn’t do conservative things, I hope he is less successful.

    DRJ (15874d)

  230. I also hope Americans are successful. We need more jobs and good economic news.

    DRJ (15874d)

  231. Barack gave a farewell speech where he talked about himself a lot. But America didn’t pay much attention to it because they were fixated on chit-chat about golden showers.
    What a fitting allegory for Barack’s legacy!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  232. There were two supposed things Steele discovered. They tried (supposedly) to tape trump with prostitutes in hotels. Or maybe they tried to get him involved in business deals. And the hope was maybe he’d give information to friendly Russian contacts.

    The other supposed thing was a series of contacts during the campaign to discuss hacking.

    According to Mr. Steele’s sources, it involved, among other things, a late-summer meeting in Prague between Michael Cohen, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, and Oleg Solodukhin, a Russian official who works for Rossotrudnichestvo, an organization that promotes Russia’s interests abroad.

    Except that that didn’t and couldn’t have happened.

    Christopher Steele supposedly had done good work investigating bribery at FIFA. And supposedly he was acutely aware of the danger of being fed Russian disinformation.

    He was maybe perhaps interested in whether or not a hacking operation agains Trump was going on. If so, maybe his Russian sources told him they had other operations against Trump, and, as for hacking, Trump knew all about the anti-Dem hacking and was co-ordinating with them.

    Mr. Steels’s memos wound up in the hands of the FBI and British intelligence:

    An MI6 official, whose job does not permit him to be quoted by name, said that in late summer or early fall, Mr. Steele also passed the reports he had prepared on Mr. Trump and Russia to British intelligence. Mr. Steele was concerned about what he was hearing about Mr. Trump, and he thought that the information should not be solely in the hands of people looking to win a political contest.

    That is, he was dumb enough or ignorant enough to believe this, or the stories were made up with him in mind.

    Senator John McCain heard about it, and then obtained a copy. The New York Times does not say, like I read elsewere, that Steele sent it to him – it says he got it from David J. Kramer, a former top State Department official who works for the McCain Institute at Arizona State University. It doesn’t say how Kramer got it, or if indeed he only got it so that he could give it to McCain.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  233. If Trump could be a source of the leaks then so could Russia. If the info was widely known, it would not be as useful to Russia but it could be a problem to leave it out there. It might be more helpful to Trump or Russia to release it now and deal with any fallout before the Inauguration.

    It’s a bonus that the media have done such a poor job — or might they have been the subject of disinformation, too?

    DRJ (15874d)

  234. @DRJ:If Trump could be a source of the leaks then so could Russia.

    What evidence is there for that? None.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  235. @DRJ: You can’t make any of this more credible by inventing more fake stuff.

    If you believe any of it has anything to it, then you have to believe that our intelligence officials are breaking the laws and their oaths to peddle gossip to the media. And TRIVIAL gossip at that.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  236. 237 comments and the phrase “Trump Derangement Syndrome” does not appear once.

    It will be quite popular, quite commonly mentioned, quite soon.

    Fred Z (b0a041)

  237. We don’t know if the leaks came from an intelligence agency, but there is evidence that many other sources knew about this so it is reasonable to speculate who that might have been. And what is it with your assertions that people are lying or “inventing fake stuff” when they discuss subjects here? Speculating is not lying or inventing fake stuff.

    DRJ (15874d)

  238. @DRJ:We don’t know if the leaks came from an intelligence agency,

    That is what the media reporting, that you rely on for giving any weight to this at all, is reporting–that they are getting leaks from people in the intelligence agency.

    The whole premise of this is that the intelligence agencies are very concerned. But since what they are concerned about is classified, they can’t legally talk about it.

    You are trying to throw the baby out to save the bathwater by speculating that Trump might be the leaker. If so, the media is lying to you about the source–so how reliable is the rest?

    And if the leaks came from Trump who would be keeping it secret? That would immediately become the whole story.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  239. @DRJ:there is evidence that many other sources knew about this so it is reasonable to speculate who that might have been

    The fake dossier, yes. But the leakers are leaking a classified meeting that happened just the other day.

    So no, it is no reasonable to “speculate” that Trump is the real leaker.

    The real leakers are the government officials who swore oaths to protect classified material and are breaking them to peddle gossip about Trump: trivial gossip so ridiculous no one would touch it for months.

    But now, that “intelligence officials” have “briefed” Trump on this–we know this thanks to their ILLEGAL LEAKING–now it becomes Real News. Intelligence agencies are gravely concerned. They’re notifiying Obama. Must be something to it. Came from someone once rated credible. Oathbreakers and criminals assure it is true.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  240. Full Clapper Statement:

    This evening, I had the opportunity to speak with President-elect Donald Trump to discuss recent media reports about our briefing last Friday.

    I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.

    We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it.

    I emphasized that this document is NOT a US Intelligence Community [IC] product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC.

    The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.

    However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.

    President-elect Trump again affirmed his appreciation for all the men and women serving in the Intelligence Community, and I assured him that the IC stands ready to serve his Administration and the American people.

    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
    Jan 11, 2017

    elissa (746ada)

  241. My review of Garry Kasoarov’s new book is coming early tomorrow morning. It’s a long one but I urge people to stick with it. You’ll see where my antipathy to Putin is coming from.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  242. One thing intelligence analysts do is consider different possibilities, Gabriel. I think it’s good to do that as citizens, too. This isn’t science where we make deductions linearly. This involves human nature and it requires considering a range of possibilities.

    DRJ (15874d)

  243. ==and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC.==

    This is less than conclusive isn’t it?

    elissa (746ada)

  244. @DRJ: I think it’s good to do that as citizens, too

    Of course it is. But you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

    The press says their information is coming from intelligence officials. If the press is lying, or is fooled into thinking people are official when they are not, then their account of the classified meetings cannot be trusted.

    If the press is telling the truth about their sources, their sources are criminals and oathbreakers. No amount of speculation gets you out of that.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  245. @DRJ: Again, classified meeting. Leaking accounts of a classified meeting is a crime.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  246. Yoda Jr 211,

    How are you?

    DRJ (15874d)

  247. Gabriel,

    I have already agreed with you that I don’t agree with leaking, although I also said it is a part of politics. Why are you so upset?

    DRJ (15874d)

  248. @DRJ:Why are you so upset?

    More speculation on no evidence… it’s a bad habit.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  249. I’m not leaking anything. I am not excusing people who leak or suggesting they should not be punished. All I’ve done is speculate that what we read may not be the whole story.

    DRJ (15874d)

  250. @DRJ:All I’ve done is speculate that what we read may not be the whole story.

    I’m sorry madam but you have gone quite beyond that, suggesting that Trump might be the real leaker and conflating the release of the 35-page document with the leaking of the contents of last Friday’s briefing.

    You are trying to have this both ways, and it does not work.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  251. My comments are bad … or bad habits, is that what you are saying?

    DRJ (15874d)

  252. If there actually was a real Michael Cohen, but one not associated with Donald Trump, in Prague on a certain date, then some of this came from someone who had access to Czech records. If there was no Michael Cohen whatsover in Prague, then some people (Jake Tapper’s sources) are just protecting their credibility. The other Michael Cohen is supposed to have had the same birthday. But not an American passport. and maybe didn’t visit the same day.

    The original claim also was that Michael Cohen’s father-in-law had a dacha near that of Vladimir Putin.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc) — 1/11/2017 @ 5:18 pm

    Factually incorrect Sammy. The alleged Cohen is supposed to be born in the same year and NOT have the same birthday. It’s even more implausible and just a pathetic cover for their slanderous act.

    NJRob (43d957)

  253. I think you are mistaken. I have not commented on the Buzzfeed 35 page story.

    DRJ (15874d)

  254. What am I trying to have “both ways”?

    DRJ (15874d)

  255. @DRJ: I am not excusing people who leak or suggesting they should not be punished.

    You agree with me that intelligence officials who leaked the contents of last Friday’s meeting broke the law, broke their oaths?

    Do you agree that what they did was morally wrong as well as illegal?

    Do you agree that their doing so was trivial, since the document was not intelligence, was not classified, and was already known to journalists?

    Not badgering you, looking for common ground.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  256. @DRJ:My comments are bad … or bad habits, is that what you are saying?

    You speculated on my emotional state. You had no evidence for your assertion-in-the-form-of-a-question “Why are you so upset?”

    Why do you have such trouble distinguishing criticism of statements, from personal criticism?

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  257. I agree with you about the dangers of leaking. My only disagreement was that we don’t know who the leakers were. Now please answer my questions at 254 and 257.

    DRJ (15874d)

  258. More speculation on no evidence… it’s a bad habit.

    This is what you said about my comments so it prompted me to ask why you think my comments are bad/bad habits. I am not the one getting upset here. I am not taking it personally. Did you intend it to be personal?

    DRJ (15874d)

  259. @DRJ:My only disagreement was that we don’t know who the leakers were.

    Are you disputing now that intelligence officials were the leakers, which is what the press says is their sources? We do not know their names, I concede.

    Are you an attorney? Because you didn’t answer yes or no to my three questions. They are yes or now questions. Perhaps you think you did answer them. Kindly do so explicitly–humor me–and I will answer your 254 and 257.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  260. @DRJ:I am not the one getting upset here. I am not taking it personally. Did you intend it to be personal?

    I will respond to no more questions of this type, this is rapidly converging on tone-trolling. I explicitly disavowed personal attacks, madam.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  261. Gabriel:

    You agree with me that intelligence officials who leaked the contents of last Friday’s meeting broke the law, broke their oaths?

    Do you agree that what they did was morally wrong as well as illegal?

    Do you agree that their doing so was trivial, since the document was not intelligence, was not classified, and was already known to journalists?

    Assuming the leaks came from the intelligence agencies, my answers are: Yes, Yes, No – no leak is trivial just because it is known. It may not be worth prosecuting but it is not trivial.

    No need to respond further to my questions. I know the answer.

    DRJ (15874d)

  262. @DRJ:No need to respond further to my questions. I know the answer.

    Okay.

    So why do you hedge this:

    Assuming the leaks came from the intelligence agencies

    Does the media not know who their sources are? Or are they mistaken about them? Or are they lying? Which do you think, and on what evidence?

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  263. Yoda Jr 211,

    How are you?
    DRJ (15874d) — 1/11/2017 @ 10:25 pm

    Holding up OK I guess. It makes it easier since I had the time to adjust and accept the situation, unlike when it comes all of a sudden such as when a heart attack takes a loved one
    unexpectedly.

    As Yoda would say, “Now one am I with the True Force! Luminous beings are we…not this crude matter. Death is a natural part of life. Rejoice for those around you who transform into the Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not. Attachment leads to jealously. The shadow of greed, that is.”

    Yoda jr (310909)

  264. Settle down, Beavis Gabriel.

    Patterico (c32ea2)

  265. I do have to confess that some of the dark side still dwells in me! Greedy for the presence of my loved ones I am!

    Yoda jr (310909)

  266. The source of the leaks does not interest me as much as it does you, in part because I don’t think we can know the answer to that at this point and because leaks seem to be business-as-usual in DC. I understand your concern about government leaks but other aspects — like Russia’s role — of this interest me more.

    DRJ (15874d)

  267. Agree with Pat I do! Settle down Francis!

    Yoda jr (310909)

  268. @Patterico:Settle down, Beavis Gabriel.

    Be nice, before I buy a couple hundred dollars worth of Trump ties through your Amazon link.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  269. Yoda jr,

    I don’t think we can know how we will feel until the time comes. In my case, I found the hardest part was not being able to call them or sit down to talk about everyday things. I missed the sharing. I’m glad you can come here. I hope it helps.

    DRJ (15874d)

  270. @DRJ:I understand your concern about government leaks but other aspects — like Russia’s role — of this interest me more.

    And I understand that. But the story cannot be separated from the sources of the leaks. These allegations were known about for months and the media consensus, after trying to substantiate anything at all, was that there was no way to bring this before the public, it was too shoddy.

    But, now that it has been illegally leaked, according to the press, by intelligence officers that it was discussed at a real intelligence briefing, now it is as Patterico said ” the fact that the intelligence community chose to brief Trump and Obama on these issues is a legitimate story”.

    But if the leakers are untrustworthy, then it is not.

    And so that is why I said you were trying to have it both ways–you did not want to discuss that the people who, by being intelligence officials and talking about it gave it any kind of newsworthiness at all, were breaking their oaths and the law by doing so. But you can’t say there’s anything to it unless intelligence officials took it seriously enough to discuss, and the only way you can know that is if they broke the law and their oaths.

    If it wasn’t intelligence officials who leaked that meeting, there’s nothing. We know that already because there was nothing, even though the media knew about it for weeks.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  271. I have been derided here for asserting Russia was behind the hacking. Is it OK to believe that now that Trump says he believes it too?

    Patterico (c32ea2)

  272. I answered your questions but you still think I’m trying to have it both ways? It seems that, on this topic, the only acceptable option to you is that I agree with everything you say.

    DRJ (15874d)

  273. @DRJ:I answered your questions but you still think I’m trying to have it both ways?

    You sure are reluctant that to agree that the media said their sources were intelligence officials.

    the only acceptable option to you is that I agree with everything you say.

    “Acceptable” isn’t the issue, logical consistency is.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  274. @Patterico:Is it OK to believe that now that Trump says he believes it too?

    Trump wouldn’t know hacking if it bit his orange butt. Maybe Trump got to see the super-sekrit evidence that the illegal leakers weren’t sharing with us, or maybe he’s a chump.

    I lean to “chump” myself.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  275. Gabriel:

    You sure are reluctant that to agree that the media said their sources were intelligence officials.

    Initially, you said I must agree that “intelligence officials were the leakers, which is what the press says is their sources.”

    Now you say I must agree the media says their sources are intelligence officials. I agree with that, but that’s not what you were saying before.

    DRJ (15874d)

  276. @DRJ: I’m sorry this is just more hedging.

    If the leakers are not intelligence officials, then why did the media say they were? I outlined three options, invited you to discuss your opinion and evidence, you punted with an accusation. Back to where we were.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  277. @DRJ: It’s a bummer because you frequently accuse me of not wanting to understand other views, and here I am asking about them, and you don’t want to say.

    So now we are back here, and I extend the invitation again:

    Assuming the leaks came from the intelligence agencies

    Does the media not know who their sources are? Or are they mistaken about them? Or are they lying? Which do you think, and on what evidence?

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  278. … now it is as Patterico said ” the fact that the intelligence community chose to brief Trump and Obama on these issues is a legitimate story”.

    As I said above, I think the briefing was about Russian influence on the election, not specific disinformation abut Trump or Hillary. So I wonder who leaked what and to whom.

    Did the leaks involve briefing Trump about hacking and the election, and the journalists filled in the blanks with the already-circulating stories about Trump scandals? Or did the leaks involve everything?

    DRJ (15874d)

  279. @DRJ:So I wonder who leaked what and to whom.

    I have been talking about the leak of the content of Friday’s classified meeting, which we have conflicting accounts of from multiple criminals of what was discussed there, but one set says the abstract of the 35-page memo was discussed

    NBC and CNN both say their sources are “intelligence officials”, who, if true, are criminals and oathbreakers.

    Does the media not know who their sources are? Or are they mistaken about them? Or are they lying? Which do you think, and on what evidence?

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  280. This is getting REALLY hard to follow, and I must confess I am trying very hard to pretend it will go away. But …

    I see several things going on here. One, there is a conflating of completely scurrilous and unverifiable dirt on Trump — attributed to “Russian hackers” — with the thoroughly vetted and undenied dirt that was dumped on Hillary during the election, allegedly again by “Russian hackers.”

    Two, this seems both an attempt to obscure the veracity of the Hillary information as well as promote a raft of false stories about Trump AND use the one to prove the source of the other.

    Obscure. Inveigle. Obfuscate.

    Three, it attempts to keep alive the whole “the election was stolen by hackers” mythos while making any attempt to prove or disprove it disappear into a morass of supposition.

    I just hope it all goes away soon because there are SO MANY actually important things to talk about, and this isn’t one of them.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  281. I have been trying to answer your questions and ask questions and discuss this with you, Gabriel. I am sorry my answers disappoint you but I have done my best. Good night.

    DRJ (15874d)

  282. @DRJ:I have been trying to answer your questions and ask questions and discuss this with you, Gabriel.

    Perhaps you think you have, and I credit you for your intentions.

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  283. I have been derided here for asserting Russia was behind the hacking. Is it OK to believe that now that Trump says he believes it too?

    Again, what hacking? I am willing to bet that some teenager struck gold with his spamamatic email haul and sold it to a guy who sold it to a guy who sold it to someone who knew Russians.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  284. @Kevin M: Yeah it’s been funny, talking about the sophisticated “tools” one needs to phish people.

    Yeah, like a computer and email

    Gabriel Hanna (61adec)

  285. “What does this mean? I rather doubt you’re going to become a Gateway Pundit regular, SPQR. You are too smart for that.”

    It means that you have invited me to leave, and I have.

    I was Never Trump since July, and did not vote for him,but in this you have gotten yourself lost. The CNN story was designed to give a patina of legitimacy to these sordid stories by claiming that they were part of intelligence briefings while giving CNN the room to deny actually reporting on the crap. We have “senior intelligence” figures playing the Democrat game of delegitimizing Trump before inauguration. That’s the real story here and you are playing into it.

    But you decide to answer me with snark. I’ll take my leave and unsubscribe to your email list as well.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  286. Don’t, SPQR. I don’t blame you for being upset but you know it’s hard to deal with how dramatically the comment section has changed here. If you must leave, please don’t leave hurt or mad. You and Patterico go back too far for that to happen.

    DRJ (15874d)

  287. Can we trust Trump, papertiger?

    DRJ (15874d)

  288. Since I’m (sadly) still up, Gabriel, I hope this will please you.

    I think it is likely intelligence officials wrongfully leaked information about the briefing of Trump and Obama. I also think the it is possible and maybe likely the leak was limited to information about the election and Russian hacking, but the salacious details came from other sources or common Beltway knowledge/rumors.

    DRJ (15874d)

  289. But I won’t rule out Obama or his people being involved. After all, he got the same briefing and knew Trump would get it, too. If so, might the press try to redirect blame to another source?

    DRJ (15874d)

  290. @289. The CNN story was designed to give a patina of legitimacy to these sordid stories… That’s the real story here…

    Bingo, SPQR.

    Stick around.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  291. 10 Interesting Facts About YODA

    Example: according to researchers object subject verb language patterns such as is used by Yoda is the way children learn to talk, and is actually prevalent in over half of the two thousand modern languages use here on Earth.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  292. There’s nothing original in Star Wars except the electronically-generated special effects of the first movie which I understand were invented by George Lucas.

    nk (dbc370)

  293. star wars is where you beat people on the head with light-sticks while rolling toasters burble and tweedle approvingly

    it’s effing brilliant

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  294. “To me now it’s all Prolefeed and Pravda. There’s what they are trying to distract you with, and what they are trying to get you to think.”

    – Gabriel Hanna

    I’m curious, Gabriel, about where you get your news. I’m genuinely curious, because I’m always on the lookout for good news sources.

    Leviticus (5d5023)

  295. It means that you have invited me to leave, and I have.

    No, that was not my intent at all, and I would be very sad to see you leave.

    As DRJ said, the comment section appears to have changed radically, and I often find myself criticized. Meanwhile, the wildly successful blogs include the new Breitbart and Gateway Pundit. I find myself snarking about Gateway Pundit a lot when I am criticized, because that blog is so transparently ridiculous.

    I did not realize I was offending you, but I see that I have and I did not mean to. I apologize for that.

    I was Never Trump since July, and did not vote for him,but in this you have gotten yourself lost. The CNN story was designed to give a patina of legitimacy to these sordid stories by claiming that they were part of intelligence briefings while giving CNN the room to deny actually reporting on the crap. We have “senior intelligence” figures playing the Democrat game of delegitimizing Trump before inauguration. That’s the real story here and you are playing into it.

    I’d like to think we can honorably disagree about this. If CNN’s story is accurate, I think that’s news. Of course, now there’s the NBC story (based on a single source) that contradicts it, and if the NBC story is right, then obviously the CNN one was wrong.

    I don’t know what to think at this point. Other than I would rather you not stop commenting.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  296. So it seems that the firm that commissioned steel outfit, fusion, ran interference for moLochs minions

    narciso (d1f714)

  297. IMO, CNN has been slanted for so long, they’ve lost whatever shred of credibility they ever had. One recent example after the next doesn’t indicate a change.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  298. Oppo research firm involved is also employed by Planned Parenthood.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  299. Heft depends on which source he uses, but that is true of other outlets as well.

    narciso (d1f714)

  300. “Oppo research” has no interest in the truth. The truth does not butter its parsnips. The client is paying for dirt. The “truthiest” thing that concerns oppo research is how they can get away with it when they’re caught lying. Plausible deniability, blame shifting, obfuscation, red herrings — the things we see in this story.

    nk (dbc370)

  301. “We have “senior intelligence” figures playing the Democrat game of delegitimizing Trump before inauguration.”

    If the “senior intelligence” sources were advisors with offices in the White House, then it’s wholly a Democrat game. The party organs involved have already succeeded in driving Trump’s favorability numbers down from 59% on election day to 43% today. The Inauguration Day headline they’re looking for is “lowest approval ever”.

    Rick Ballard (1c290b)

  302. The reason I mentioned not wanting to be offending anyone, including/especially DRJ, is that I have been a little subdued and snarky in expressing myself.
    So I will be direct and clear.

    It goes without saying that I have no right to tell our host or DRJ or anyone anything about what they ought to do,
    but with whatever credibility I have as a friendly acquaintance,
    I think you are making a mistake taking this as seriously as you are.

    I don’t need to be reminded multiple times a day of what I already know, that much of Trump’s behavior is very suspect, to the point of making his character and trustworthiness suspect.
    If you want to remind us of that, say once a week, fine,
    but it is getting really old as frequent as it is,
    those of us in the choir are getting tired of it,
    and those not in the choir don’t care.

    But more importantly, this is what I know by diligent looking into the Plame thing with what was available on line.

    The CIA was not at all eager to even clarify whether or not Plame had been under cover within the time period in question. IIRC, their official statement was that she “had been undercover”.
    They were more interested in deflecting the story of why Wilson was picked and how reliable his report was.
    Fitzgerald and I guess some in the DOJ that appointed him, were eager to make their own political life on exploiting the investigation, even to the point of what I consider outright lies in his closing argument during Libby’s trial.
    The press was eager to do nothing other than find ways to undermine W.

    Until someone can prove otherwise, I am using this MO as the blueprint for every beeping thing I hear out of DC unless it is under oath, where then I can hope perjury charges would be forthcoming if necessary,
    not that I can be more than maybe 15% hopeful of that.

    SWC is not in charge of much, if anything, at headquarters in DC, to give me confidence of anything better.

    So, with that being the case, having once parsed official CIA releases for misdirection and obfuscation,
    I am not going to waste my time wading through anonymous-sourced leaked stuff,
    and I would suggest my friends save their energies for more worthwhile pursuits as well.

    This is not meant to be snark, but serious, and feel free to remind me of it,
    our time would probably be best spent for God to humble the proud, lift up the righteous, and expose on the rooftops that which was deceitfully and wickedly said in secret.
    Maybe God heard that prayer from someone before and engineered the Podesta emails getting leaked,
    good show!!!

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  303. IMO, trying to do anything meaningful with this stuff is like handing a lawyer a folder and saying, “This is what we are going to give you about the case you’ve been assigned. No, we will not tell you what else we know, including information that disproves or confirms what is in this folder,
    and we will never give it to you,
    but the trial starts tomorrow,
    whether you like it or not.”

    Really, what responsible conclusions could you make from that? That is what every thing we will ever hear related to the intel community is like,
    everything.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  304. Whilst we wail and clench about CNN, there is an undeniable North Korea-China dynamic in re BuzzFeed-NBC

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  305. 118. 255.

    The other Michael Cohen is supposed to have had the same birthday. But not an American passport. and maybe didn’t visit the same day.

    The original claim also was that Michael Cohen’s father-in-law had a dacha near that of Vladimir Putin.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc) — 1/11/2017 @ 5:18 pm

    NJRob (43d957) — 1/11/2017 @ 10:32 pm

    Factually incorrect Sammy. The alleged Cohen is supposed to be born in the same year and NOT have the same birthday.

    I saw something that he did have the same birthday. It was in a google link to the the Daily Caller. And here’s the story:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/11/govt-source-confirms-trumps-lawyer-was-not-in-prague

    CNN’s Jake Tapper noted Wednesday that his reporting suggested a different Michael Cohen with the same birthday traveled to Prague around the same time under a foreign passport.

    Maybe Russ Read of the Daily Caller made a mistake and Jake Tapper didn’t say that his sources told him he had the same birthday.

    There’s also the question of whether this other Michael Cohen exists at all, although there must be dozens and hundreds of Michael Cohens around the world, although not as many as there are of Bob Smith, and if one of the world’s Michael Cohens visited Prague around that time, and in any case what connection this other Michael Cohen is supposed to have had to Donald Trump.

    The Russian whom he supposedly met with also claims he didn’t visit Prague then, and that’s probably true because the Russian government almost certainly made the whole thing up.

    NJRob:

    It’s even more implausible and just a pathetic cover for their slanderous act.

    Yes. Maybe this story about the oher Michael Cohen has been dropped. Not everybody has the latest developments or the same nuances. CBS News this morning did not know where Senator McCain got the 35 pages from, although it’s been reported in the New York Times, which they work wth – but maybe David J. Kramer was only someone McCain arranged with to get the dossier.

    Sammy Finkelman (9fe80b)

  306. Where this thread went off the rails was at the very beginning– in the headline. “Even if Buzzfeed’s story is junk CNN’s story on Trump and the IC is a responsible story.”

    Obviously, there was no way CNN’s mysterious turd dropping could be known or even considered to be responsible reporting at the time, and since then this has certainly been proven to have been an utterly irresponsible headline. Of course these two publishings were linked and people who took the time to think about it and to follow the story as it unfolded have been trying to demonstrate that linkage in a reasonable and studied way. I was delighted when a new/old voice, SPQR, weighed in and was then appalled when once again the host responded with a snarky insult blow-off.

    SPQR’s comment could not be more on point and well thought out:

    I was Never Trump since July, and did not vote for him,but in this you have gotten yourself lost. The CNN story was designed to give a patina of legitimacy to these sordid stories by claiming that they were part of intelligence briefings while giving CNN the room to deny actually reporting on the crap. We have “senior intelligence” figures playing the Democrat game of delegitimizing Trump before inauguration. That’s the real story here and you are playing into it.

    Whether one believes him or thinks he is blowing smoke about the IC, Clapper’s written statement — a denial which he clearly felt compelled to issue due to the seriousness of the breach– – and which I posted @ 243, should at least give a moment’s pause to those who think that CNN exhibited “responsible” reporting.

    elissa (27bbc2)

  307. Do my eyes deceive me? Are commenters actually using an NBC report as proof that a CNN report is wrong?

    PS to MD – You can decide to believe nothing because you distrust the sources, but then why bother reading or even thinking about politics and government? We have the information we have. It may be unreliable but we have brains that we can use to analyze what we read and discuss it if we choose.

    DRJ (15874d)

  308. I thought the headline was sarcasm, and was dismayed to see that Patterico had fallen for the fake news, hook, line and sinker.

    The last six months have been quite a ride on this blog.

    BobStewartatHome (c24491)

  309. DRJ-

    I have come to visit here and PowerLine as my primary sources of news, assuming that by the time something got here, it had bounced around enough in the public eye to start to get some perspective by those more knowledgeable than I.

    If this site no longer serves that function because people are quick to jump on a bandwagon just because it serves the purpose to reinforce what we already know about Trump,
    then maybe visiting here does serve no purpose.

    Yes, we have brains, which is why I have looked for places where the signal:noise ratio is likely to result in something meaningful. Twain/Clemens said that if one didn’t read the news, one was uninformed, and if one read the news, they were misinformed.

    When the amount of misinformation and unreliable information gets so great that it is a major headache to sift through, there is the question of diminishing return. That is why I went into the explanation of the Plame affair.

    Looking here was because I trusted the combined wisdom to sift through, not jump to conclusions.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  310. The pee part of the story and the ongoing argument over sourcing overlooked the buried lede about ongoing investigation of financial impropriety that mayhave something to do with today’s Politico piece about Ukrainian involvement with Clinton/DNC.

    crazy (d3b449)

  311. Meanwhile VP Biden shows off his DNI provided iPad to Politico while accusing Trump of not knowing anything about how to handle classified information the way grisled old Joe does.

    crazy (d3b449)

  312. I understand that the 35 pages, are actually a compilation of many separate 1 to 3 page reports written from June through December.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  313. MD: You got some things about the Plame affair wrong. You got things right, but you got things wrong too. The whole Joe Wilson trip was an attempt to avoid answering Cheney’s office’s question about the forged documents that said Saddam Hussein had signed a contract to buy uranium from Niger. That’s why it is important who picked him – the real question is why was this whole trip to Niger undertaken in the first place instead of taking a second look at the documents.

    I will explain more later. And also about the Russian source of the 35 pages – it wasn’t hackers, although it mighty have been people who worked in tghe same organization.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  314. Doc, the deciding fact in my mind over the Plame affair was Plame’s behavior. IIRC, she donated to the Democrats in 1996 or 1998, and listed her employer as a CIA controlled enterprise. Her identity and employer thus became public knowledge, available from the FEC. Her contribution is not legally improper under civil service laws, and it is common place. However, as a “secret agent”, it makes no sense. Foreign governments must make great use of all the information that is freely available from our government, and I have no doubt that Plame would have been flagged as an employee of the CIA whenever she traveled to a foreign land, irrespective of what her visa might have indicated. She “outed” herself. And Scooter’s conviction had nothing to do with “outing” her, despite the spin applied by our media, now well known to be a creator of fake myths.

    Poor Scooter made the mistake of contradicting the a statement made by Robert Novac (IIRC) in his interviews with FBI, and the FBI decided that he was lying. And that was what he was convicted of. The trial was a travesty, as Judith Miller documents in her book The Story: A Reporter’s Journey. It is one more symptom of the collapse an ethical and moral leadership at the highest levels in our country. Bush, who stood by and let the lizard-like Fitzgerald emasculate a loyal and honest assistant, allowed his legacy to be dragged into the same swamp that Fitzgerald crawled out of.

    BobStewartatHome (c24491)

  315. Bob, iirc
    In his closing argument, Fitzgerald continued to play the “outed the CIA agent” line even though it had nothing to do with the case being tried.

    I remember being outraged that the legal system would tolerate such behavior.

    Witnesses don’t get to lie in court, neither should lawyers.

    As I said above, careful examination of the CIA statement made it clear that they did not clarify when she was under cover, whether it was in the time frame for a crime to have been committed.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  316. Then there is this:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443792/

    It’s a Mad Magazine spy vs spy out there.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  317. The outfit that hired Steele fusion gfs has a nasty set of clients

    narciso (d1f714)

  318. 321. narciso (d1f714) — 1/12/2017 @ 5:26 pm

    The outfit that hired Steele fusion gfs has a nasty set of clients

    And they were nasty, because they actually tiried to get this stuff used during the election.

    But, contrary to what people might think at first glance, they didn’t invent it. Christopher Steele, to all appearances, didn’t invent it. Russian sources invented it. Actual real Russian government sources.

    Now there’s an obvious question with that: Why, if Putin was trying to help Trump, did he invent this?

    David Satter says no, he wasn’t trying to help Trump. He was trying to turn people against each other.

    I think it’s too much to say that Putin was not trying to do anything, not to help Trump, not to help Hillary, but just to get people mad and distrustful of each other. I would think he had greater goals than that, and he was very, very visibly trying to help Trump.

    I think the reason these stories about Trump were invented was because he thought that Steele was working for somebody British, (who would keep it confidential) so that telling him stories like that wouldn’t interfere with the goal of electing Trump.

    There was an attempt to divide people, but that was to divide the British government in 2017 from what would hopefully be President Trump. If the British Prime Minister thought that President Trump was too close to Vladimir Putin, the U.S. and Britain wouldn’t work together – the United Kingdom would keep secrets from the United States and so on like that. And then the twocountries could really be played against each other.

    Another possible reason for giving Steele these stories is that Christopher Steele did in fact discover one Russian secret or another – perhaps that Russia had this strategy of dividing people. To counteract that damage, they supplied him with all kinds of nonsense in order to turn his reports into garbage.

    Sammy Finkelman (1a8d7e)

  319. David Satter says you can tell it as official Russian government sources for a few reasons.

    There is the repetition of the common Russian claim that Putin is doing something like 19th-century great-power politics (this makes him appear less dangerous, and not too ambitious – he may know his limitations in fact, but he’s probably not thinking of the 19th century.)

    Then the stories bear certain similarities to the work of the “novelists” in the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) – the sexual stories are not very plausible. (probably because they’re designed to disgust and repel everybody,so they have to be something that is very, very rare.)

    Sammy Finkelman (1a8d7e)

  320. If the British Prime Minister thought that President Trump was too close to Vladimir Putin, the U.S. and Britain wouldn’t work together

    The Russians didn’t need to lift a finger to do that, Sammy. Trump did all that on his own.

    nk (dbc370)

  321. If this site no longer serves that function because people are quick to jump on a bandwagon just because it serves the purpose to reinforce what we already know about Trump,
    then maybe visiting here does serve no purpose.

    What bandwagon am I jumping on, specifically, and what is the quote of mine that you can provide to show that?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  322. If this report approximates anything nearvintelligence, just tear the whole thing down, of There was video, audio, intercepted communication would be sething else again.

    narciso (d1f714)

  323. My previous comments were more gentle and supportive, I don’t know if you saw them, I hope you did. (#306, 307)

    You are jumping on the what new bad rumor can we spread about Trump today bandwagon.
    A whole lot of us aren’t fond of Trump, and we’re tired of being reminded of his faults as a major activity of this site.
    I don’t need to come here to see negative stuff about Trump and his crew, even if it is true.

    We used to come here not to see what knee jerk reaction everybody else said, but to see things when the dust cleared like when the press had been dishonest with their editing and such. We found out things here that were new and held the MSM to account.

    As I also said before, we have no way of knowing what is really in the files of intel agencies, what we get from any of them, theirs and ours, is perhaps more likely to be deliberate disinformation than anything else,
    that is what the NRO story above says,
    it is all disinformation to throw US public into chaos,
    newsflash (not) the Russians aren’t for Trump or Clinton,
    they aren’t even for the Russians,
    they are for Putin

    anything and everything that undercuts confidence in the US government is a plus for our enemies.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  324. You are jumping on the what new bad rumor can we spread about Trump today bandwagon.

    I did not see the quote that I asked for.

    By the way, see my latest post. CNN got it right. MULTIPLE outlets are now confirming that Comey briefed Trump on this stuff.

    And all I ever said was: hey, maybe CNN got it right. And everyone jumped down my throat. I’m not skeptical enough. My signal to noise ratio sucks. I’m not worth reading any more.

    Well, CNN got it right. Wow, maybe reading this blog has some value after all, if you care about actual facts.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  325. You are jumping on the what new bad rumor can we spread about Trump today bandwagon.

    I consider that to be a wholly inaccurate and unfair claim. If that were true, I would have been touting the BuzzFeed story. That is why I am asking for a quote, because if you try to provide one maybe you’ll see that you are being unfair.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  326. It seems the Taliban is getting is weapons, but the administration is focused on more pressing issues,

    narciso (d1f714)

  327. Multiple US officials briefed on the matter told CNN on Thursday that FBI Director James Comey and Trump had a brief one-on-one conversation at last Friday’s intelligence briefing.
    It’s during that pull aside that Comey briefed the President-elect on the two-page synopsis of the claims about Trump and Russia. All four intelligence chiefs had decided that Comey would be the one who would handle the sensitive discussion with the President-elect.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/politics/joe-biden-donald-trump-intelligence-report/index.html

    Tillman (a95660)

  328. And it shows once again, he’s not fit to hold the office, said if he hadn’t already proved it re Libby Gonzalez 41st am.

    narciso (d1f714)

  329. As I said earlier, when I was trying to be helpful, I think chasing this thing down is pointless.
    I don’t care if Comey did or did not brief trump on something that we don’t know how factual it is, where it came from, and by definition we will never know

    Whoever it is who is leaking intel is the one who decides what we see and what we react to. like I said above, trying to figure this out is like you being given 1/2 of a case file, no idea what is left out, and trying to come up with conclusions on how to proceed.

    Besides, in a few days it won’t make any difference what Comey did or didn’t do, because he is going to be sucked into the discrediting maelstrom as well.

    Pat, I have been here for years and have generally not be a trouble maker, so has SPQR, so has SWC, who has contributed far more than me. In about 24 hours we are all commenting on being pushed away.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  330. Pat, I have been here for years and have generally not be a trouble maker, so has SPQR, so has SWC, who has contributed far more than me. In about 24 hours we are all commenting on being pushed away.

    “pushed away”

    Christ.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  331. Besides, in a few days it won’t make any difference what Comey did or didn’t do,

    It makes a difference NOW because it shows CNN got it right — when I was excoriated and called insufficiently skeptical for merely asserting that they appeared to have gotten it right.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  332. P, look again at what SPQR said about leaving, and you said you didn’t want him to, and SWC;
    don’t bother listening to me, listen to them.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  333. P, look again at what SPQR said about leaving, and you said you didn’t want him to

    He got upset because I snarked at him, after he called me insufficiently skeptical — something I disagreed with and still do, and a criticism that I think is severely undercut by the Comey revelation.

    I was very surprised that he took what I said as an attack on him, but my immediate clarification as well as immediate email to him seems to have had no effect. Frankly, that’s on him. I did what I could to clarify that I was not attacking him. If he doesn’t want to accept it, I don’t know what else I can do. But somehow something about that episode is something that you want to use as evidence that I am now worthless as a blogger? Really?

    This is surreal.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  334. My point is I don’t care if CNN got something right about some 2 page report that was generated by who knows and leaked by who knows and we don’t know what else we don’t know.

    I don’t trust Trump, I don’t need to be reminded I don’t trust Trump. I don’t trust the media, I don’t need to be reminded I don’t trust the media.

    We didn’t trust Obama, we certainly wouldn’t have trusted Clinton, we wouldn’t have trusted the media under Clinton,
    so all we have is everyone bickering with everyone over things of questionable importance.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  335. Somehow I feel that if I were rah-rah Trump I’d be criticized less. Call me crazy, but there is a distinct correlation between my criticism of Trump and the (sometimes bizarre) criticism of me.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  336. What Doc said @328.

    Comey “briefed” Trump on 2 page document … blah blah blah

    The elephant in the room is the 36 page document. Who knows what Trump heard Comey say, and who cares. If someone comes up to you and say there’s 36 report on you that includes you hiring hookers to pee on a bed, what credibility would you attribute to the report, and what would you think of the person who wants to “brief” you on this fantasy. Personally, I wouldn’t be very polite to anyone who gave such garbage credence.

    It is also the notion that revelations about national security programs will come packaged like a screen play with Putin actively participating. Every country in the world has some form of communications intelligence, and adults take it for granted that this is happening. Now we’re supposed to be upset that Russia is doing what we’ve been doing since the 1930s? Good grief!

    BobStewartatHome (c24491)

  337. I write about what I find interesting. I tell the truth about what I think. It makes me sad to watch people I thought were friends abandon me suddenly, but honestly, that might be preferable to having to be criticized constantly for my choice of topics and the fact that I actually write what I think about those topics. If you really don’t like it any more, I guess I don’t know why you’d read it. But God help me I am tired of constantly being told what I write is not worth reading. Imagine pouring out your heart day after day for 14 years and having long-time friends tell you that. Day after day after miserable day.

    I enjoy writing what I write. I enjoy reading comments, but lately it seems like fewer and fewer people share my world view. I’ll say this, though: the constant grief from everyone else makes me appreciate those very few people an awful lot.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  338. It is surreal.

    DRJ (15874d)

  339. And ditto.

    DRJ (15874d)

  340. It’s as if the more right you are, the more people say you are wrong.

    DRJ (15874d)

  341. What Doc said @328.

    Comey “briefed” Trump on 2 page document … blah blah blah

    The elephant in the room is the 36 page document. Who knows what Trump heard Comey say, and who cares. If someone comes up to you and say there’s 36 report on you that includes you hiring hookers to pee on a bed, what credibility would you attribute to the report, and what would you think of the person who wants to “brief” you on this fantasy. Personally, I wouldn’t be very polite to anyone who gave such garbage credence.

    And the intentional conflation of the two things is complete, and it is working.

    Leon Wolf wrote today that BuzzFeed did Trump a favor. By distracting from a possibly meritorious CNN story, and making everyone believe that the two stories were equivalent — and if the hookers peeing on a bed bit sounds wrong then by God there is nothing to any of it. It’s not such a hot take — I have been saying that from the word Go.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  342. A report is as good as it’s sourcing, that’s your beef with hoft right, oddly the rizzotto tray carriers full menu doesn’t seem to concern so much.

    narciso (d1f714)

  343. That is one way of looking at it Pat. I am sorry I participated in the escalation of this.

    My original point was to reflect on what we had found valuable over the many years, and at least in some of our cases attempt, at least at first, to simply express our concern over what we were seeing more recently. It is because we have valued what you have done over the years that we expressed our concern when we thought we saw it changing.

    People before talked about this being a good community. Some of us were simply trying to give feedback as participants and fans of the site.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  344. A report is as good as it’s sourcing, that’s your beef with hoft right

    My beef with Hoft is that he’ll print absolutely anything that benefits Trump without stopping to think for one solitary moment whether it’s absurd on its face. Latest example: read this dumb post and the updates, and then read this to see the misery Hoft and idiots like him put this woman through.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  345. My original point was to reflect on what we had found valuable over the many years, and at least in some of our cases attempt, at least at first, to simply express our concern over what we were seeing more recently. It is because we have valued what you have done over the years that we expressed our concern when we thought we saw it changing.

    I remain open to specific criticism, and by specific criticism, I mean a specific criticism that uses a link and a quote from me as its jumping off point.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  346. Because right now all I see is me making some very restrained and cautious observations about not conflating two stories, and about not jumping to conclusions — and then being vindicated by further reporting . . . even as I am repeatedly piled on by people for God knows what because nobody will give me a quote of mine as evidence.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  347. I enjoy writing what I write. I enjoy reading comments, but lately it seems like fewer and fewer people share my world view. I’ll say this, though: the constant grief from everyone else makes me appreciate those very few people an awful lot.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 1/12/2017 @ 7:35 p

    People come here because they enjoy your writing and having the open forum to discuss those and others ideas. You have to realize that.

    Just don’t lose perspective. The media has their own agenda. It’s not the same as ours.

    NJRob (43d957)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9790 secs.