Fake news: CNN; NYT; VICE; WaPo; WSJ. ... now ABC .... It's like a trainwreck, but I can't stop watching
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 20:53
VIEWED: 12976
PAGE 7 of 13
The blackmail factor: Trumpworld’s Russia lies are a major risk to national security
Sally Yates, the acting attorney general at the time, warned White House Counsel Don McGahn that “the national security adviser essentially could be blackmailed by the Russians.”
The theory here is simple. If you lie to the public about meetings with the Russian government, the Russian government will know that you lied and could threaten to release embarrassing and personally damaging information unless you take positions they like.
The basic problem Yates identified persists. Unlike the public or the special counsel’s office, Russian intelligence services know exactly what went down between their government and the Trump campaign. Their knowledge of the facts, paired with Trumpworld’s relentless dishonesty and the high consequences of seeing that dishonesty revealed, means a potentially large swath of Trump’s inner circle has been (and may still be) exposed to blackmail.
And that, in turn, makes it hard for the country — and our allies — to trust that American policy toward Russia is being made in service of American interests rather than in service of keeping Trump’s team out of legal and political trouble.
This might be easy to ignore if Trump’s attitude and policies toward Russia were typical for an American politician. But from his contempt for NATO to his unwillingness to punish Moscow for election meddling, they’re not.
For an example of how that works, maybe the meeting between Trump and Putin didn’t go as well as claimed. Maybe Putin didn’t hear what he wanted to hear.
And maybe in consequence Putin took out a hit on Trump’s son, using those emails as a reminder to President Trump that Putin has far worse on Trump Senior. Information is power. And because the Russians have a lot of information about Trump/Russia contacts, and because Trumpworld keeps lying about Trump/Russia contacts, the Russians have a lot of power to increase the legal and political jeopardy facing both father and son at any moment.
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/12/15955314/trump-russia-blackm
ail
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, she's reporting Fake News about Fake News.....how refreshing!
I'm not surprised that it's come to this. Good job guys!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, about Rachel Maddow and fake news ...
After spending an excruciating amount of time on the receipt of a probable forged document she then does on to speculate that "somebody" is deliberately seeding the news feed to entrap unwary news organizations. And so, Maddow has turned fake news into MORE fake news (insinuations).
However, the basis of Maddow's insinuations (That it was a well-connected "somebody" with access to the original document) itself is on shaky grounds. It will take "reading with comprehension" to understand why this is so, and I'm not gong to quote the whole story, so I'll just leave you with the link
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-exclusive-scoop-abo
ut-a-fake-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/
As usual, I expect THUGR to laugh at what he can't comprehend, which is ... just about everything.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK here's a breakdown. SIG lies again. G calls her on it again. SIG has to eat shit again. Yeah, that sounds about right. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here is a provable case where Trump is involved in an accounting fraud. Today the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of Trump’s 2017 budget proposal.
Trump claimed those budget cuts would eliminate the deficit in 10 years — but the CBO found it would do no such thing. Trump made a $3.5 trillion error in his favor.
See page 13, table 6, for the difference, year by year, between Trump’s and CBO’s “Deficit Under the President's Budget”.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3893907/52846-Apb.pdf
I do believe Trump is running a scam against America since the difference between what Honest Abe Trump says and the CBO says is huge. This is where Signym and 1kiki will claim little can be known about the deficit until 2027 has come and gone, which is very convenient for Trump because he will be dead by then.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump’s Border Wall shrinks again as Trump's great betrayal continues.
Trump said, “You don’t need 2,000 miles of wall because you have a lot of natural barriers,” Trump said to reporters on Air Force 1 during his flight to Paris. “You have mountains. You have some rivers that are violent and vicious. You have some areas that are so far away that you don’t really have people crossing. So you don’t need that.”
“You’ll need anywhere from 700 to 900 miles,” Trump said.
Two years ago, Trump said he would build a 2,000-mile wall. A year ago, he said “natural barriers” reduced the needed length to 1,000 miles. Now it’s 700-900 miles.
As it happens, we already have about 700 miles of border fencing, so Trump is suggesting that we really don’t need much more than what’s already in place. In fact, maybe we just need to upgrade our current fencing. Or maybe forget all Trump's speeches about Mexican drugs, rapists, murderers crossing the border to steal your jobs. He was kidding. But Trump says he wasn’t joking about a solar paneled border wall. "Believe me," he said. I had to laugh.
www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates
-no-need-for-full-border-wall-trump-1499975363-htmlstory.html
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/13/trump-says-he-wasnt-jok
ing-about-a-solar-paneled-border-wall/?utm_term=.0d1e7fad9338
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Um ... I changed it to add about the Vice new retraction. Each time there is more "fake news" exposed, I'll add it to the thread.
So thanks for confirming that you lied. I see you changed the title again to hide it better - weak as hell.
Quote:So, G, here's a question for you: When did you stop beating your boyfriend?
I saw the show and read Glen Greenwald's article before your lame attempt to discredit Maddow. Did you read the whole article? This part is interesting, don't you think?
"PRIOR TO PUBLICATION of this article, The Intercept sent a series of questions to Maddow about all of this. She said MSNBC did not contact The Intercept prior to broadcasting her report “because we were really only working on the document you published, not in your reporting on it.” ... blah blah blah ...
Regarding our inquiries about the possibility that the metadata may have been changed, Maddow said: “yes, like I said on the air, we did look into the possibility of altering the metadata to change the apparent creation date, and, as I said, it could definitely have been altered.”
...blah blah blah ...
My conclusions were that she presented a fine piece of detective work to ferret out an attempt to punk her program. She never admitted fake news nor stated unequivocally that her conclusion was the only conclusion, just posed the question.
Quote:
blah ... blah ...blah ... the usual gratuitous insult and trolling ...blah blah blah
Ok, the title could have been clearer. I was trying to figure out how to fit all of that into one line. Maybe "Maddow makes up more fake news" would have been better?
By the way, in your attempt to bolster Maddow, you discredited every attribution of "Russian hacking" by pointing out that it is very possible to CHANGE METADATA, especially using NSA masquerading software. ASIDE FROM the fact that Julian Assange knows who gave him the DNC/Podesta server files (and it wasn't a Russian) attribution is actually very difficult. Even more difficult if you never get to examine the server, which the FBI never did. So all of that paranoia about "Russian hacking" is just that: paranoia.
Speaking of paranoia ...
Quote:Really?? SECOND, you're turning Putin into the world's most, most powerful bogeyman ever, kind of like Dr No from a James Bond thriller.
...And maybe in consequence Putin took out a hit on Trump’s son, using those emails as a reminder to President Trump that Putin has far worse on Trump Senior. - SECOND
Do you know what I think Trump's Big Sin is, as far as "Russia" is concerned? He's not paranoid about them like you are. He doesn't think that they're the most powerful, most cunning, most devious, most aggressive force on the planet. I really think that's what all of this is about: his lack of paranoia.
IMHO Russia, as far as I can tell, is just another nation. A nuclear nation, but a rather small one. I'm more concerned about China, and most concerned about the Russia-China alliance that WE seem to have forged with our utterly aggressive and paranoid reactions to both nations. Instead of creating enemies (and failed states) wherever we go; maybe we really should start looking at where our interests overlap, and start working on that. Are we so afraid of "them" and so lacking in confidence that we can't even deal with other nations??
And of course, we would have to define "our" interests first. That seems to be a problem. For you.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maddow is usually cautious when it comes to reports, plus she's learned from what happened to Rather that I would think that she'd be extra cautious to check and double check her sources.
Right now there's so much bullshit flying about that you need to choose your news carefully. I tend to think, at least for me, that there are certain folks who are not serving the public good with good intentions. Choose wisely, my friends, choose wisely.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, about Rachel Maddow and fake news ...
After spending an excruciating amount of time on the receipt of a probable forged document she then does on to speculate that "somebody" is deliberately seeding the news feed to entrap unwary news organizations. And so, Maddow has turned fake news into MORE fake news (insinuations).
However, the basis of Maddow's insinuations (That it was a well-connected "somebody" with access to the original document) itself is on shaky grounds. It will take "reading with comprehension" to understand why this is so, and I'm not gong to quote the whole story, so I'll just leave you with the link
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-exclusive-scoop-abo
ut-a-fake-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/
So thanks for confirming that you lied. I see you changed the title again to hide it better - weak as hell.
I saw the show and read Glen Greenwald's article before your lame attempt to discredit Maddow. Did you read the whole article? This part is interesting, don't you think?
"PRIOR TO PUBLICATION of this article, The Intercept sent a series of questions to Maddow about all of this. She said MSNBC did not contact The Intercept prior to broadcasting her report “because we were really only working on the document you published, not in your reporting on it.”
As for the issues of the timeline, Maddow stressed that “we explicitly *didn’t* say it was sent to us prior to your publication. I said — and we even showed a calendar graphic to illustrate — that it was sent to us *after* you published. No one falsely made it appear that it was sent to us prior to your publication. It came to us afterwards — which is what I said on the air.”
Regarding our inquiries about the possibility that the metadata may have been changed, Maddow said: “yes, like I said on the air, we did look into the possibility of altering the metadata to change the apparent creation date, and, as I said, it could definitely have been altered.”
As for our question that pointed out that the exact same time appears in the metadata on the document sent to her as the one we published, strongly suggesting that whoever sent her the document took it from The Intercept’s site, Maddow said: “We got a document *different* than yours, with no purported connection to yours, except we sussed out that someone appears to have used your doc as a template for ginning up a fake one to sent to us. And yes the timestamp absolutely goes to our whole point — someone used the document sent to you as a template for forging the fake document sent to us.”
One can listen to Maddow’s original report and draw your own conclusions."
My conclusions were that she presented a fine piece of detective work to ferret out an attempt to punk her program. She never admitted fake news nor stated unequivocally that her conclusion was the only conclusion, just posed the question. Stating that along with how a similar scam brought down Dan Rather helped bring it into focus. Sad that we live at a time with an administration so full of liars that it makes so much sense. Kind of like how it makes so much sense that in your zeal and blindness to discredit Maddow you would tell such a childish and obvious lie. But then you're a Trump/Russia social bot, so it just follows.
==============================
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So you're the one.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Seriously then.... what are you bitching about?
I've lived most of my adult life without health insurance. Even under Obamacare they won't cover the dental work that will inevitably shorten my life, because it's dental work.
They still won't turn you away from the ER because you can't pay. Whenever something really bad happens they have to take me, and I don't ever plan on paying them back anyhow. They can't take my house which I own free and clear, and they can't take my car. I don't have much more than that and I don't need it.
I'm good. You're good. We're all good.
BTW... I never said I make 5k a year. Only that I spend 5k a year. I haven't made any money since October of 2015.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Only if you think that being called gay is an insult. It was the "beating" part that was the insult.
Gay slur for an insult - go to the head of the zero class again.- G
Quote:G, I was merely pointing out that YOU STARTED IT. Hmmm ... let's see, what was it that you posted, again??? Oh, yes ...
Only to follow up her usual gratuitous insult and trolling with this statement:
blah ... blah ...blah ... the usual gratuitous insult and trolling ...blah blah blah
The irony. The hypocrite just can't helpherselfhimself.
Quote:See? You REALLY just can't help yourself, can you? I mean, you ALMOST made it through a whole post, but those habits sure are hard to break, aren't they?
But then you're a Trump/Russia social bot, so it just follows. - G
Quote:Since when is "doing business" with Russia - OR CHINA - a problem? which parts of Trump's policy about Russia - if any- run athwart America's interests? Don't other people also do business with Russia?
Do you know what I think Trump's Big Sin is, as far as "Russia" is concerned? He's not paranoid about them like you are. He doesn't think that they're the most powerful, most cunning, most devious, most aggressive force on the planet. I really think that's what all of this is about: his lack of paranoia. - SIGNY
Wow - finally some clear thinking from SIGNYM. Keep grinding those gears. Yes, he trusts Russia too much because they have had years of breaking bread together (ie., doing deals, trading money). He trusts them so much that he doesn't see it as colluding with a foreign entity, it's just "doing business with friends." Ding. Russians have another description for it, maybe like: "checkmate." - G
We must "HANG ON TO SYRIA BECAUSE ...." ??? We must continue to meddle in Iraq and Libya because .... ? We must break the ABM treaty because ...? And move our missiles ever-closer to the Russian and Chinese borders because....? And Russian sanctions help us by ...???
Hey, I "get" that we (still) depend on foreign oil and so certain shipping lanes and canals must not be interdicted to our oil supplies, and that we (still) need our Gulf sheiks to keep supplying oil. And I "get" that we need to destroy every oil-producing state that threatens the petrodollar, because the thing holding up our currency is our military, not our economy. But in the long run, these are dependencies that we need to eliminate, not encourage. So, in the end, what are our interests and who is threatening them?
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And finally
Quote:Maddow is a commentator, not a news anchor. In that sense, she's more like Rush Limbaugh, not like Dan Rather, which is why she's free to speculate on-air.
Maddow is usually cautious when it comes to reports, plus she's learned from what happened to Rather that I would think that she'd be extra cautious to check and double check her sources.
Quote:Good lord, do you think anyone has "good intentions"?
Right now there's so much bullshit flying about that you need to choose your news carefully. I tend to think, at least for me, that there are certain folks who are not serving the public good with good intentions. Choose wisely, my friends, choose wisely.
CNN's producer, who DOES attend meetings with the chief editor, called the Russia coverage bullshit (or words to that effect) and said it was all about "ratings". The media which runs "leaks" by anonymous sources which are unverifiable ... like the whole Trump "dossier" thing which was utter fabrication, or the CONSTANT insinuation that Trump was under investigation when he wasn't ... not seeing "good intentions" there.
They don't like Trump because Trump has offended the globalists, neocons, and deep state. Trump has many, many flaws but being a "Russian stooge" isn't one of them.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME