Fake News

[Peter]

WILLIAM wrote: I imagine the President was deeply frustrated with the whole Russia Russia Russia programming, and felt like lashing out. If he cannot share the factual information informing his tweets, then this will become a separate thread of Hoopla and the Hoopla will remain intense until the President or the White House or somebody gives details.  Which details will engender fresh storms of Hoopla.  

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia! Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s a good one William, or do you prefer “Wild Bill” or maybe “William The Conqueror?” Seriously William, you should be writing articles for the video magazines.

I want some details and a massive investigation of all wrong doing. Keep the communist press occupied. Go about doing your good deeds for the country, President Trump. Speed things up Republican Congress.

Peter

Excerpts from “Had Putin Not Fixed the Election…” by Jack Kerwick Posted: Mar 03, 2017 10:23 AM: . . . . It is high time for the president to put to rest these allegations regarding his election and Russia. He should address the country and, with thoughtfulness and clarity, reveal to all remotely reasonable Americans both the scandalous silliness of the Democrats’ conspiracy theory as well as their recklessness in saber rattling with the second most heavily armed nuclear power on the planet.

What most Democrats are only implying: The Democrats, beginning with his predecessor, President Obama, would have Americans believe that had Vladimir Putin not “hacked” the election, Hillary Clinton would now be in the White House. Had Putin—all the way from Russia, mind you—not fixed the election, Trump would not have been the first Republican since 1988 to have won, say, Pennsylvania. Had Putin not fixed the election, coal miners and other blue-collar laborers in the 220 or so counties that Obama won just four years prior and that Trump flipped would have voted for Clinton. Had Putin not fixed the election, it would have been Clinton, not Trump, who won more than 2600 of America’s 3100 counties, and Trump, not Clinton, who would have won fewer than 500 of these counties. Had Putin not fixed the election, it would have been Clinton, not Trump, who won 30 of America’s 50 states. Had Putin not fixed the election, Clinton would not have jeopardized national security by using, and lying about having used, a private server while serving as Obama’s Secretary of State. Had Putin not fixed the election, Americans would never have found out about Clinton having used, and lied about having used, a private server. Had Putin not fixed the election, Americans would never have found out about the DNC emails that had been leaked (not hacked), emails exposing considerable corruption in the party. Had Putin not fixed the election, candidate Trump never would have been able to garner more votes, with a higher degree of voter participation, and in the most crowded of GOP primary fields, than any Republican in the history of the Republican Party. Had Putin not fixed the election, the Democratic Party’s losing streak launched by Obama’s election in 2008 never would have occurred. Had Putin not fixed the election, the Democrats would not have lost over 1200 Congressional seats at the state and federal levels. Had Putin not fixed the election, Republicans would not have secured about two-thirds of the country’s governorships and about the same number of state legislatures . . . . 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

How would the whole mainstream press have known about it if Obama was having Trump Tower wiretapped

Ellen,

I don't propose all the reporters knew about it. I do propose the elites who own the media and those who give the orders from the top did.

My evidence is only circumstantial. But I can give an overview--at least of a good part of it that I don't think is questionable.

It's widely known that the liberal side of the press has morning talking points handed out to them for what they have to report on during the day. This comes in various forms and, I suspect, some of the more insidious ones hidden from public view. And these morning orders have incredibly deep penetration throughout the mainstream press.

Sometimes the same jargon from one story to another gets comical. Here's an example. Remember when Hillary Clinton was stumbling into her limo during the election? Finally it came out that she had been suffering from pneumonia and this was attributed as the cause for her odd public displays of physical weakness.

Now let me ask you a question. You have been sick during your life, presumably several times. Did you ever refer to your recovery, or hear anyone else refer to your recovery, as "powering through" the illness? Ever? Even once?

That's such an odd way of saying it, the thing jumped out at me. Suddenly, I started listening to a huge amount of TV and radio pundits and their interviewees, articles in the press, and, hell, even YouTube videos start saying that Hillary Clinton was "powering through" her illness. This happened from one minute to the next like when you open a window to a lot of noise in the street. I don't recall any of these people ever using that phrase "powering through" an illness before that day, but suddenly they all grew a new term in their vocabulary and off they went, yawp yawp yawp. I swear, it reminded me of sheep going "baaaahhh... baaaahhh... baaaahhh..."

The point is, this "morning orders for the top" machine is deep, well-oiled, and serviced by intellectual robots and parrots. The machine does not need to know of any potential Obama involvement. All the robots and parrots need are their orders for the day, each day, every day. And if anyone questions the daily duteous drivel or refuses to put it in their reports, they suddenly find their jobs in peril or get reassigned, etc.

But even these sheep are not stupid. They know that they cannot keep a story going that is totally false. Not on their own. Their natural inclination would be to move on to other things. So the only reason for them to keep keep pounding this Russians-did-it storyline is, in my opinion, that they receive orders each day to do it.

As to the elite possibly being in on it, how many strange coincidences does it take for people to see a pattern? I mean, they've hornswoggled the entire science community about a political putsch dressed up as climate change. And don't forget, Obama kept harping on and on that this was the most serious issue of our times, even more serious than terrorism. Does anyone think he was talking or working backstage in isolation?

So if they can do that, it's reasonable to assume they would do some serious monkey business against Trump.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - It seems like some of the wiretapping was done officially.

That would be one way the elites knew what was going down.

I propose law enforcement found jack shit and the elites now see the need to cover up Obama's actions with a bogus story about Russians they try to ram down people's throats through repetition. 

Because from the looks of it, repetition is about all they've got.

It's funny they would try repetition, too, seeing how poorly repeating all those phony polls and bogus news reports worked during the election.

They fooled themselves, not the public.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So I wonder how the "Obama is sleazy like Nixon" with an illegal wiretapping narrative is going to play out. I have a feeling this one is going to be around for a long time. That Nixon wiretap wound cuts deep in the American psyche.

And don't forget, it doesn't matter if the narrative is true or not. All fake news needs is for enough people to believe it's true.

Obama just blinked.

From CNBC:

Obama spokesperson denies Trump's claim of wire-tapping, calls accusation 'false'

Now the story goes into the mainstream big-time and sticks to Obama (and the Democrats) like perfume on a rose.

 

It's like when he did this:

That was right before Trump got elected.

If Trump were not showing signs of getting elected, Obama would not have said anything.

 

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

[...] Trump tweets [...].

Incidentally - something I thought of months ago but haven't mentioned before:

Try saying "Trump tweet" or "Trump tweets" consecutively several times.  A bitch of a tongue twister.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Even Obama's own Russian guy is saying there's no evidence to the Russian story. It's in the video below from his own mouth. Ed Henry tries to milk it for a little drama, but I don't see why. The tweets were all the drama they needed for a good show.

 

From earlier this morning:

Man, is this fun.

Michael

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia! Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s a good one William, or do you prefer “Wild Bill” or maybe “William The Conqueror?” Seriously William, you should be writing articles for the video magazines.

It's hard to inject humour into fraught subjects, but the Brady Bunch lament leaped into mind, and so I tried. It seems I succeeded.

The trouble today is that fury-tweets should not be the first thing that grabs headlines. I mean, there are headlines and hoopla not because of a thoughtful and determined process (unless you think of Steve Bannon as Savonarola). Every time the President goes off phasers-stun on Twitter, the world sees it in the headlines, which are beyond his control.  I bet there is 'divided opinion' inside the White House over the utility of today's 6 am barrage. I mean, is this what Bannon and Miller wanted to dominate the media landscape today?  

Perhaps. Which would make me think Trump is being manipulated, goaded.

Back down in behind all the hoopla is the tap root feeding the hoopla, the enduring basic question of Russia policy.  What is going to happen in relations between the USA and  Russia over the span of this administration?

At some point, any change will be the news. If sanctions are removed, and if Russian President Putin is given a State Visit to the USA, it will be when the Russia, Russia, Russia allegations will have been thoroughly investigated by the Justice Department and other agencies, and by Congress.  I mean, when the investigations are over is when Trump is free to do what he pleases in terms of changing policy. The media can fuck itself then.

-- if I were a patriotic Russian observer, I would be very pleased at the disarray in the USA over the 'scandal,' true or false or whatever. To Putin, anything that seems to weaken the USA, anything to tarnish its self-image and confidence in its institutions, all of it is gravy.

At some point, Trump will put into place New Era relations with Russia. Or not.   I do think it may depend on a 'clean bill of health' having been delivered by Justice and Congress. 

This will occur around the time the President releases his tax returns, allows states in the federation to elect their own governors, and ends military hostilities in eastern Ukraine and Syria.

 

[tmj]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Incidentally - something I thought of months ago but haven't mentioned before:

Try saying "Trump tweet" or "Trump tweets" consecutively several times.  A bitch of a tongue twister.

Ellen

"Treets" tm

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I hate the term 'Fake News.'

William,

No you don't.

You hate the fact that it boomeranged on the left-wing corporate press.

You hate that it now means the left-wing corporate press when the general public uses that term.

You were fine with it when Hillary Clinton and her folks were using it--a lot--to mean the press you don't like.

   

Confucius say: Press who live in bubble should not stab bubble.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

Wouldnt this idea rest on a theory that there are no leaks from the sieve called press main stream? Comon, even you cant believe it.

I urge a time out. ;) 

Geoff,

Catch 22.

When the sieve does leak and others report it, the mainstream people call it fake news. Tin foil hat. And so on...

What's to do?  What's to do?

I guess we'll just have to trust the left-wing corporate press to keep an eye on itself and let us know when it's cheating and lying...

I mean, they will tell us, right? Otherwise we should believe everything they write, right?

Or we could elect a president who has balls, like we did...  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Which would make me think Trump is being manipulated, goaded.

William,

I wish someone would manipulate and goad me into about 10 billion dollars or the presidency like they must have done with the doofus Trump...

Do you know anyone who can do that for me?

Since it's so easy, I don't need to be president, but I really could use the 10 bil...

 

Michael

[Peter]

Beevis? Snicker, snicker. Michael said “balls.” He wrote, “Or we could elect a president who has balls, like we did...”  

I think Trump the Magnificent’s “Shweaty Balls” are bigger than Alec Baldwin’s when Alec is on Saturday Night Live. I think the female staff, drain them to excess, decreasing their girth. Whereas our leader is faithful. I listened to Alec’s PBS show on radio once, and it was very good.  

In an early, strategic way, driving Russia away may not be such a bad thing but I don’t like the idea of the demoncrats influencing foreign policy. Upchuck Schumer is a baaad man. Remember him calling his buddies on the Left Coast to tell them what just happened in secret at the Senate so they could buy or sell stocks? After that, they tightened the laws so he would go to jail for what he had done.

Peter    

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I can't help having a little more fun.

From the NYT today:

Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones

(I didn't read the article. The headline caught my eye.)

I mean it's outrageous to think that President Obama would ever be interested in the covert surveillance of anything.

He would certainly tell people if he was...

  

Michael

 

[william.scherk]

54 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I hate the term 'Fake News.'

No you don't.

Are you now assuming clairvoyant authority on what I think, Maestro?

On 12/16/2016 at 5:24 PM, william.scherk said:

I don't like the term 'Fake News,' since it fails to distinguish between different kinds of things. For me, false news is better, if only marginally; a 'false news' item is something containing incorrect information --whether by error,  invention, deception, or sloppy investigation.  So, I'd say, "In an erroneous report originating at X.com, blah blah blah" ... with aim of getting at what was falsely reported, which erroneous details were innocent of invention or deception. [...]

Etc. 

On 12/18/2016 at 2:30 PM, william.scherk said:

On 12/16/2016 at 5:24 PM, william.scherk said:

-- since 'fake news' is going to be the label anyway, I think maybe the Objectivish could come up with important qualifiers and criteria -- my above attempts are just rough sketches. [...]

I may be misreading general usage.  If an item purporting to be news reportage is false in claim, unwarranted or invented, misleading  or fraudulent, what do you call it?  What do you call the site that is full of similar items?  Fake, false, erroneous, unreliable, unsupported, invented, pastiche, twaddle, crap?

I will be distinguishing in my mind between site and story item. Meaning, I can write off American Reporter as a 'false'/satiric/humour site.  A story item is distinct from a site. A single significantly wrong story item doesn't 'condemn' a site.

What I found in reviewing objections to the concept "Fake News" was an interpenetration between fact-checking and 'false information.' A body that is otherwise excellent at pure fact disputes in a news story can be shitty indeed when it takes on such as go by "political speech."  For some opinion-leaders, the very fact that Politifact and Factcheck.org and Snopes have 'debunked' opinion pieces or political claims means they require extra scrutiny for bias.  It is a fair point.

Now we get the picture.

On 12/18/2016 at 2:30 PM, william.scherk said:

On 12/16/2016 at 5:24 PM, william.scherk said:

[I do think it pays off  to examine for differences within the category, examine motives, seek to sort out the 'fun' from the 'spun,'  the 'psy-ops' from plain old slop, misdirection from 'party' line, misperception from deliberate misinterpretation, sundry reasons why a given "news" story would be riddled with error, fallacy or plain old fraud. ]

The arguments put across in these various opinion pieces end in judgments and warnings. Against 'mission creep.' Against assuming a separate 'bureau' needs to be tasked with fact-checking -- where each journalist should be his or her own bulwark against  erroneous information ... against  over-broad generalization. 

Thinking about this, I will try not to use the 'false news' or 'fake news' except for Onion analogues and outright masquerade sites.  I think it is important to be skeptical/critical of claims and arguments when they are loosely supported.  Just sticking a "Fake News" label on something does no more work that sticking a "Soros Demon" label on it.  Whatever item come before us with a 'disputed' tag, that is when we can do some work. We can examine the disputed information. We can report our 'findings.'  We can go all cognitive before normative, as they say ...

Here is a story from the ABC network that may or may not have plausible elements. If we are each constructing a personal narrative of what goes on at the apex of administrative power in Washington (and Mar-a-Lago) , then we each have to sort out the wheat from the chaff:

Quote

Trump flashes anger over Sessions recusal, Russia stories in tense Oval Office meeting
By JONATHAN KARL CHRIS VLASTO Mar 4, 2017, 2:12 PM ET

Before heading off to his so-called "winter White House" in Palm Beach, Florida, on Friday, President Donald Trump summoned some of his senior staff to the Oval Office and went "ballistic," senior White House sources told ABC News.

The president erupted with anger over the latest slew of news reports connecting Russia with the new administration -- specifically the abrupt decision by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign.

Sources said the president felt Sessions' recusal was unnecessary and only served to embolden Trump's political opponents. The attorney general made his announcement Thursday just as Trump returned to Washington from a trip to the U.S.S. Gerald Ford in Virginia for a speech about his agenda as president. [...]

“We should have had a good week. We should have had a good weekend. But once again, back to Russia," a senior White House official said, expressing the frustration simmering in the West Wing following the news earlier in the week that Sessions failed to disclose during his confirmation process that he had met with the Russian ambassador twice during the election campaign. Sessions at the time was a senator on the Armed Services Committee and was also helping the Trump campaign.

Among those gathered in the Oval Office on Friday: Chief of staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, White House Counsel Don McGahn, press secretary Sean Spicer, newly-hired Communications Director Mike Dubke, along with Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump, the sources said.[...]

As President Trump was in the air aboard Marine One headed for Air Force One on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews, a last-minute phone call was made from the West Wing to the team on board the president’s plane with a directive to remove Priebus and Bannon from the manifest, sources said. They would not be coming to the Sunshine State.

 

[william.scherk]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Which would make me think Trump is being manipulated, goaded.

I wish someone would manipulate and goad me

No, you don't.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump, Offering No Evidence, Says Obama Tapped His Phones

(I didn't read the article. The headline caught my eye.)

I mean it's outrageous to think that President Obama would ever be interested in the covert surveillance of anything.

I read the article. It is not outrageous to think that Obama was interested in covert surveillance, but that isn't at issue. At issue is Trump's utterances that Obama surveilled Trump Tower in some personal capacity, meddling, pulling strings within ongoing investigations. That is mostly plouffe, I think we can agree. 

Nobody disputes that several agencies were taking a hard look at Trump's links to Russian interests.  That is their job. But the claim that Obama personally targeted Trump at Trump Tower is what some folks do not find plausible.  Maybe it was the delivery.

The funny thing is that the President  has the power to prove his charge, by declassifying the (a) surveillance order.  

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Which would make me think Trump is being manipulated, goaded.

I wish someone would manipulate and goad me

What is the context again?  That after flying down to Florida, having chewed out his staff over the unfairness of Russia Russia Russia, Trump woke up at Mar-a-Lago still pissed off that he doesn't look good in all eyes, the Brady Lament still thrilling him with all its unfairness. I would be pissed too, especially if I knew that I had something up my sleeve for Russia. I mean, something that wasn't what Russia is obviously longing for.

What which was making me think Trump was being goaded or manipulated? We seem to have lost the argument's thread. 

On review, it looks like I was confusing.

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The trouble today is that fury-tweets should not be the first thing that grabs headlines. I mean, there are headlines and hoopla not because of a thoughtful and determined process (unless you think of Steve Bannon as Savonarola). Every time the President goes off phasers-stun on Twitter, the world sees it in the headlines, which are beyond his control.  I bet there is 'divided opinion' inside the White House over the utility of today's 6 am barrage. I mean, is this what Bannon and Miller wanted to dominate the media landscape today?  

Perhaps. Which would make me think Trump is being manipulated, goaded.

My confusion was that Trump seemed goaded into action by the media silo talking point topmost on his breakfast tray today.   Thus my question -- did Bannon and Miller (and Priebus and the folks at the meeting on Friday) provide material that would goad him into a 6 am tweet-barrage? Was this by design or Trump taking wing?

I meant, unless you think of Savonarola.  Or that anyone could nudge Mr Trump to their ends. Which is pretty much what the inquiries known as Russia Russia Russia are pretending to discover. 

Which brings me back to what I see as the tap root.   What is US-Russia policy going to look like when Russia Russia Russia scandals are put to bed?

If the President wanted Russia Russia Russia to dominate the day's hoopla, he got exactly what he wanted. A smoothly functioning machine. 

Tonight at seven he will be meeting with Sessions while Bannon keeps the lights burning back in DC.  Let's see how he feels the next day.

UPDATE:  I erred in assuming that Steve Bannon would be back in DC, simply because he wasn't on the first flight out. According to sources, he too is dining at Mar-a-Logo ...

 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is at Mar-a-Lago tonight. Also there for dinner with POTUS, Kelly, Bannon, Miller, Ross and McGahn https://t.co/9GU6We9dIq

— Tamara Keith (@tamarakeithNPR) March 5, 2017

Edited March 5, 2017 by william.scherk
Bald-faced bolding. Corrected false impression

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

That is mostly plouffe, I think we can agree.

William,

I don't know how I have been communicating so poorly.

We can't agree that this is mostly plouffe because we don't agree on this at all.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

What is US-Russia policy going to look like when Russia Russia Russia scandals are put to bed?

William,

Well right now the world is upside down.

Marxists are calling Russia the devil and spitting hatred at it in some hairbrained attempt at misleading the American public again.

And they expect the world to think this is normal.

btw - The world doesn't think it's normal no matter how much fake news is created by them and other sore losers to try to make it seem normal.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

But the claim that Obama personally targeted Trump at Trump Tower is what some folks do not find plausible.  Maybe it was the delivery.

William,

I have come across this kind of thinking before and I wonder what causes it. I don't think you are being misleading. But there's this big blind spot when you issue opinions like this.

Did you ever hear of backroom deals? And front groups? Do you believe in the existence of these things?

Have you ever been near the halls of real power? I have. And if you have, you know how things like this work. And even if you haven't, jeez, pick up a goddam political thriller. They're fiction and exaggerated, but not that far from reality re human relationships.

In other words, it will be hard to find Obama's personal fingerprints on any dirt he does. Duh... That's what the backroom deals and front groups are for.

I mean, if you want to believe in Obama being an innocent soul surrounded by dirt, or the Easter Bunny for that matter, go right ahead.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Marxists are calling Russia the devil and spitting hatred at it in some hairbrained attempt at misleading the American public again.

And they expect the world to think this is normal.

Yeah, quite the spectacle. The same sort of leftist mentalities that extolled "the great Soviet experiment" are now looking askance at the idea of ties with Russia - while cosseting Islamists.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

 

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

18 hours ago, william.scherk said:

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I mean it's outrageous to think that President Obama would ever be interested in the covert surveillance of anything.

[...] It is not outrageous to think that Obama was interested in covert surveillance, but that isn't at issue. At issue is Trump's utterances that Obama surveilled Trump Tower in some personal capacity, meddling, pulling strings within ongoing investigations. That is mostly plouffe, I think we can agree. 

We can't agree that this is mostly plouffe because we don't agree on this at all.

Can you elaborate?  I'd like to know if you assert that President Obama surveilled Trump Tower in some personal capacity. If that is what you believe, then I wonder why -- what evidence you rely upon.

18 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Which brings me back to what I see as the tap root.   What is US-Russia policy going to look like when Russia Russia Russia scandals are put to bed?

It looks to me like the White House may now zip its official lips and move on. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Can you elaborate?  I'd like to know if you assert that President Obama surveilled Trump Tower in some personal capacity. If that is what you believe, then I wonder why -- what evidence you rely upon.

William,

It's speculation. I speculate that former President Obama is not a blithering idiot.

Since it appears that 6 (or more) top federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been involved in this affair since last June, and it ramped up in October and continued even further, and it was in the news constantly, President Obama had to have been aware of what was going on. That is, if he had minimum of competence and was not a blithering idiot.

Do you believe Obama is incompetent? To that extent? I don't, but that's the only other explanation that makes any sense.

Since this effort kept up for so long with so many different efforts--official and otherwise--to make something Russian stick to Trump, and the wiretapping even continued past its permission, I speculate Obama gave it his blessing, or at worst, a wink and a nod.

This video might help:

This is the same video as that in the following Breitbart article:

Mark Levin on Trump Wiretapping Claims: ‘The Evidence Is Overwhelming’

What's worse, Levin used left-leaning sources and left-leaning press to make his case.

It's not like anybody on Obama's side has been worried about hiding this stuff. Why hide it if Hillary Clinton was going to be president?

It's my belief that back in October they were setting up to make an example out of Trump--to screw him over good with the full power of the government in the hands of a wrathful president--to avoid future serious contenders against the ruling class. This was because, like I said, they thought Hillary Clinton was going to be president. After all, the press and the polls kept telling them that she was going to win in report after report, day after day, hour after hour. The problem is for their "screw Trump over" plan to work, they needed Clinton to be president.

And she ain't...

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

The evidence is overwhelming.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

On 3/4/2017 at 2:19 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I mean it's outrageous to think that President Obama would ever be interested in the covert surveillance of anything.

[...] It is not outrageous to think that Obama was interested in covert surveillance, but that isn't at issue. At issue is Trump's utterances that Obama surveilled Trump Tower in some personal capacity, meddling, pulling strings within ongoing investigations. That is mostly plouffe, I think we can agree. 

We can't agree that this is mostly plouffe because we don't agree on this at all.

Can you elaborate?  I'd like to know if you assert that President Obama surveilled Trump Tower in some personal capacity. If that is what you believe, then I wonder why -- what evidence you rely upon.

It's speculation. I speculate that former President Obama is not a blithering idiot.

Plouffe.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I speculate Obama gave it his blessing, or at worst, a wink and a nod.

Fair enough. At least one Kevin Bacon between the agency investigations into Russia Russia Russia, 'tapping Trump's phone' ... and Obama. Two Kevin Bacons between  "Obama surveilled Trump Tower in some personal capacity"  and "They got a FISA warrant."  

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It's my belief that back in October they were setting up to make an example out of Trump--to screw him over good with the full power of the government in the hands of a wrathful president--to avoid future serious contenders against the ruling class. This was because, like I said, they thought Hillary Clinton was going to be president. After all, the press and the polls kept telling them that she was going to win in report after report, day after day, hour after hour. The problem is for their "screw Trump over" plan to work, they needed Clinton to be president.

I speculate that the President is pissed off that Russia Russia Russia won't go away.  That his staff cannot get their shit together. That he looks bad or at least off his own message.

Here's some further speculation from the tormented at Politico: 

Quote

Trump fumes over Sessions’ recusal from Russia probe

The president vented to aides that he believed the attorney general's recusal was handled poorly.

[...]

President Donald Trump, increasingly frustrated with his White House rollout, vented to top aides on Friday over Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal from any investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Prior to departing for Florida, where he is spending the weekend, Trump convened on Friday a group of senior aides in the Oval Office, including chief of staff Reince Priebus, senior adviser Jared Kushner, daughter Ivanka Trump, chief strategist Steve Bannon, communications director Mike Dubke, and press secretary Sean Spicer.

The meeting was ostensibly to talk about next week’s packed schedule, which is expected to include the release of a new immigration travel ban and possibly an Obamacare replacement bill.

But at one point during Friday's meeting, Trump’s focus turned to Sessions, who on Thursday announced he would step back from any investigation into the presidential campaigns, including allegations that Trump’s team were in contact with Russian intelligence officials as the country was engaging in cyber-attacks designed to tilt the election Trump’s way.

Sessions came under pressure to recuse himself after the revelation that he met twice with the Russian ambassador last year, despite telling senators at his confirmation hearing that he had no contacts with the Russians during the campaign. Sessions, a chief adviser to Trump's campaign, has denied wrongdoing and said the meetings were conducted in his capacity as a senator.

The meeting on Friday got heated once it turned to the topic of Sessions. What, Trump wanted to know, was the logic of the move? The president made it clear he thought the whole thing had been handled poorly, and that Sessions shouldn’t have recused himself, according to sources familiar with the meeting. His exasperation was apparent.

At one point, Trump addressed White House counsel Don McGahn, who was also in the room, directly, and said he was unhappy about the turn of events, the sources said.

“There were fireworks,” said one person briefed on the events.

Priebus, Kushner, and Bannon all weighed in with their thoughts. “There was a robust discussion,” said a second person familiar what occurred.

"Robust discussion" sounds like a lot of fun. Where do we sign up?

Edited March 5, 2017 by william.scherk
FISA, FISC

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I speculate that the President is pissed off that Russia Russia Russia won't go away.  That his staff cannot get their shit together. That he looks bad or at least off his own message.

William,

Why do you think that? Do you have any evidence?

   

In my view, based on what I have seen out of President Trump so far, I think he is treating this whole affair like a sports contest and is having a great time kicking the shit out of his opponents.

And after he demolished them, he will be gracious.

He might prefer to be doing work instead of play, but since play he must, play he will. It's part of draining the swamp.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was going to say I didn't understand Comey's sudden maneuverings when I saw the Drudge headline below.

(Apropos, I think Drudge is having some fun because his "blood in the water" headline goes to an article where Chuck Schumer says Trump is in trouble for what he said about Obama whether it is true or not. So there. Nyah..  )

But then I decided to at least go to the article and read it.

That headline saying Comey turned on Trump leads to one of the weirdest pieces of fake news I have ever seen. And if it is true, it is one of the sloppiest, most propaganda-like news stories the New York Times has ever done so far.

Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claim

This beauty is by Michael S. Schmidt and Michael D. Shear.

Here are the weird parts (the weird parts being my bold).

Quote

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.

Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment. Sarah Isgur Flores, the spokeswoman for the Justice Department, also declined to comment.

. . .

Along with concerns about potential attacks on the bureau’s credibility, senior F.B.I. officials are said to be worried that the notion of a court-approved wiretap will raise the public’s expectations that the federal authorities have significant evidence implicating the Trump campaign in colluding with Russia’s efforts to disrupt the presidential election.

One problem Mr. Comey has faced is that there are few senior politically appointed officials at the Justice Department who can make the decision to release a statement, the officials said. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself on Thursday from all matters related to the federal investigation into connections between Mr. Trump, his associates and Russia.

Mr. Comey’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering is certain to invite contrasts to his actions last year, when he spoke publicly about the Hillary Clinton email case and disregarded Justice Department entreaties not to.

It is not clear why Mr. Comey did not issue the statement himself.

"Senior American officials"?

They are the ones who are yapping on Sunday? They are the sources for the New York Times?

What the hell is a "senior American official"?

What does he or she do other than yap? Officiate or sumpin'? 

 

But that is being presented as breaking news by a company now having to advertise its commitment to the truth.

So think about this. If it is true that Mr. Comey is involved in "behind-the-scenes maneuvering," hasn't it crossed these fake news reporters' minds that Mr. Comey might have learned a trick or two from President Trump? I guess not. They even said "it's not clear why Mr. Comey did not issue the statement himself."

Well... ba-da-beem ba-da-boom... if Comey used different versions of the story he released in his unclear "behind-the-scenes maneuvering" as footprint bait, he sure as shootin' now has a big-ass clue where one leak is.

 

As for everybody else other than these "senior American officials," nobody is talking about Comey on the record. The article makes sure to say this person ain't talking, that person ain't talking, this department ain't talking, that department ain't talking, and so on.

I might be wrong, though. These "senior American officials" might be telling the right story to these journalistic warriors, these paragons of truth, integrity, justice and fake news, just as they might be emissaries of the Easter Bunny. So long as the fake news warriors ain't talking about who the "senior American officials" are, we don't know who the hell they are.

Let's see how it plays out.

Michael

[william.scherk]

I reckon Trump himself understands and accepts that the Russians hacked the DNC. 

15 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

38 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I speculate that the President is pissed off that Russia Russia Russia won't go away.  That his staff cannot get their shit together. That he looks bad or at least off his own message.

Why do you think that? Do you have any evidence?

 For the first item, I go back to his first White House press conference. Trump was exasperated with all the Russia Russia Russia questions. I count fifty-seven mentions of Russia.

That his staff cannot get its shit together is my speculation on the multiple reports that there was a very pissed-off President at the last staff meeting at the White House.  I am sure you agree that Trump may be angry that Russia Russia Russia won't go away. 

That President Trump gets pissed off when he is made to look bad ... gee, where would I have got that impression. I  really can't say (he said in a creepy Carter Page voice).

Anyway, like I said, I don't think (based on his last press conference) that he is going to make any changes in US policy to Russia until the scandalettes are put to bed.   After a few Benghazi-style hearings, perhaps.  And probably not then. I mean, I don't see him really pulling for a Best Buddy Vlad, though I agree with him that good relations between the two powers are a valid and achievable goal. 

In the meantime, he has been fairly solid officially, with Russia. His UN ambassador called out the Russian annexation of Crimea, and from his pre-inauguration press conference I got the impression he may have given up on sanctions-relief. Adding to that is the speculation that he may appoint a Russian 'realist' to be his point-person on strategic relations with the Federation. That's Fiona Hill, who is said to be an expert on Putin's psyche.

I actually think one of the most exciting weeks of the Trump presidency will be the week he gets to spend in a summit with Putin, whether an offside gathering or with full pomp.  I think Trump is canny. I think he wants things from Russia, and that the lead-up to the "deal-making" will also be exciting, or at least, as they say, interesting. 

By this point, President Trump will have got the message from many conduits, that dealing with Russia can be like dealing with an adversary of the USA, or at least an ambitious nation whose subversion of and distrust of Western over-reach and hubris is a given. I am sure in my heart so far that the Putin regime has some very specific "asks" ...

I'd like to think that everyone in the White House and State Department is going to be steely-hearted when The Deal(s) take shape. I wouldn't be surprised if "robust discussion" is taking place within State.  Mainly because we are hearing sweet fuck all from State. Which of course could also mean that State has been replaced by Bannon and Miller and Ivanka's husband Whatsisname.

The afterburners-whining Grand Supreme Hoopla over Russia is composed of some measure of  fears and suspicions, and lashings of plouffe -- but at bottom for a person like me, Russia  is not a Western friend at the moment, not after the last years consolidating autocratic power.  My bottom-line is "would Trump sell out any Western interests or get actually cozy with Putin?"  I don't think there is any but a vanishing chance of that. 

One thing I have learned is that the Trump Presidency contains some fine and intelligent strategic minds.  Those are some Long Game thinkers, in among those serving Trump and within the inner inner circle. I reckon that forging détente with Russia is not strategically urgent, not a 100 days priority.

Long Game: 

I would love to be able to get along with Russia. Now, you've had a lot of presidents that haven't taken that tack. Look where we are now. Look where we are now. So, if I can - now, I love to negotiate things, I do it really well, and all that stuff. But - but it's possible I won't be able to get along with Putin. Maybe it is. But I want to just tell you, the false reporting by the media, by you people, the false, horrible, fake reporting makes it much harder to make a deal with Russia. And probably Putin said "you know." He's sitting behind his desk and he's saying "you know, I see what's going on in the United States, I follow it closely. It's going to be impossible for President Trump to ever get along with Russia because of all the pressure he's got with this fake story." OK? And that's a shame because if we could get along with Russia - and by the way, China and Japan and everyone. If we could get along, it would be a positive thing, not a negative thing.