Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Tuesday, May. 29, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
NEW YORK — In recently released testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a key participant at the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with President Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. said that he “knows” Hillary Clinton and has a personal relationship with her that dates back to the late-1990s.
Besides describing a direct connection to Clinton, Russian-born Washington lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin also testified that he “knew some people who worked on” Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Akhmetshin was one of the participants at the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting that has been the subject of much news media coverage related to unsubstantiated and collapsing claims of collusion with Russia. All meeting participants generally agree the confab focused largely on the Magnitsky Act, which sanctions Russian officials accused of involvement in the death of a Russian tax accountant, as well as talk about a Russian tax evasion scheme and alleged connections to the Democratic National Committee.
Trump Jr. previously explained that he took the meeting thinking it was about “opposition research” on Hillary Clinton and was disappointed that it wasn’t.
Last week, Breitbart News reported that email transcripts and other information disclosed in Akhmetshi’s testimony reveal a significant relationship between the lobbyist and the controversial Fusion GPS firm that produced the infamous, largely discredited anti-Trump dossier.
The Russia collusion conspiracy was sparked by the dossier produced by Fusion GPS, which was paid for its anti-Trump work by Trump’s primary political opponents, namely Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) via the Perkins Coie law firm.
Now it has emerged that in his testimony, Akhmetshin related a personal connection to Clinton via attorney Ed Lieberman, whose late wife Evelyn previously served as Clinton’s chief of staff when she was First Lady. Evelyn Lieberman also served as Bill Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and famously transferred Monica Lewinsky out of the White House to the Defense Department.
Akhmetshin said that he first met Ed Lieberman in the fall of 1998, when Lieberman “was attorney for my first employer here in” Washington, DC.
The New York Times previously reported that Lieberman in 1998 arranged for Akhmitshi’s position at “an organization pushing what he described as a pro-democracy agenda for Kazakhstan.” Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says he met Akhmetshin through Lieberman.
In his testimony, Akhmetshin described taking an Acela train to New York the day of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, and says that Lieberman “may” have been with him.
He says that in the following exchange:
A. I have taken morning Acela train to New York on June 9th.
Q. On June 9th? Did you travel with anyone?
A. I might have been there with Lieberman or I might be traveling alone.
Akhmetshin says his dealings with Lieberman in New York that day were “personal” and centered on a scholarship program that he claims Lieberman started. “And he was in New York that day to discuss arrangements with Metropolitan Museum with kind of taking care of that scholarship award,” Akhmetshi stated.
Akhmetshin says that while he was in New York, he had lunch with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who countered the Magnitsky Act along with Akhmetshi. There, Veselnitskaya told him about the scheduled meeting that day at Trump Tower, but she didn’t say anything about him attending.
He claims that after he had lunch with Veselnitskaya, she called him and asked him to attend the Trump Tower meeting, but she didn’t suggest any role he would play at the meeting or why he should attend.
After the meeting at Trump Tower, Akhmetshin says he went to dinner and a play with Lieberman, and the subject of the meeting that same day did not come up in his conversations with Lieberman at dinner or during the play. Akhmetshin also stated in the testimony that he was not asked to keep the meeting confidential.
In other words, Akhmetshin is claiming that he attended a meeting at the campaign headquarters of Clinton’s presidential challenger with that challenger’s son and other top Trump staffers, and that same night Akhmetshin did not even mention the meeting to his friend Lieberman, a Clinton associate.
He also said he had drinks that same night with another “friend” but could not remember who that friend was.
Later, when Akhmetshin described disclosing another matter to journalist friends, he was questioned about his claim that he didn’t tell Lieberman that same night about the Trump Jr. meeting, yet he seemingly evidenced a lack of discretion with reporters.
During that questioning, a transcript of which is below, Akhmetshin admits to possibly telling Clinton associate Lieberman about the Trump Tower meeting, but says he may have told him on another day and not the night they met the same day as the meeting.
Q. And you thought it was okay to tell the journalists about something you found amusing, but you didn’t think to discuss this with Ed Lieberman? You thought you needed to maintain that discretion?
A. At some point I might have mentioned it to him, but not like right away.
Q. Not at the dinner?
A. Not at dinner, not even like — I do not remember. At some point I might have. He also serves as a legal counsel to me so — on a number of issues. So, you know, I’m almost certain at some point he knew about it, but not immediately.
Q. Do you recall when you might have brought it up to him?
A. I don’t remember.
Akhmetshin detailed knowing Hillary Clinton since the late 1990s and last seeing her at Evelyn Lieberman’s 2015 funeral.
Here is that exchange:
Q. Do you know Secretary Clinton?
A. I do know her, yes.
Q. You know Hillary Clinton? What’s the… how do you know her?
A. Personal.
Q. How long have you known her?
A. Probably I met her first like in late ’90s .
Q. Was that through Ed Lieberman?
A. Through his wife.
Q. And how would you describe your relationship with her now?
A. Nonexistent. Last time I saw her, at the funeral of Evelyn Lieberman.
Later, Akhmetshin says he “knew” some of the people who worked on Clinton’s 2016 campaign:
MR. AKHMETSHIN: I was not involved in her presidential campaign.
Q. Well, regardless of whether you were involved, did you ever have any meetings?
A. I knew her, I knew some people who worked on her campaign.
Q. So you did have meetings with her and did you have meetings with Hillary Clinton?
A. I met her in social setting, not on a professional line.
Q. Not in a campaign —
A. Not in campaign capacity, no, never.
The meeting with Trump Jr., meanwhile, was reportedly set up by publicist Rob Goldstone, who claimed in an email to Trump Jr. that Veselnitskaya had opposition dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Veselnitskaya told the Wall Street Journal that she approached Russian real estate magnate Aras Agalarov, whom she was representing, to help set up a meeting with the Trump campaign as part of her efforts opposing the Magnitsky Act. She was also looking to spread information about Browder, she said.
Agalarov organized the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow when the pageant was partially owned by Donald Trump.
Agalarov’s son Emin, a Russian singer who also knows the Trumps, reached out to Goldstone, his publicist, to contact the Trump campaign on behalf of Veselnitskaya, according to the Journal report.
Speaking to Fox News, Trump Jr. explained that he took the meeting thinking it was about “opposition research” on Clinton and was disappointed that it wasn’t.
“For me this was opposition research,” Trump Jr. said. “They had something, you know, maybe concrete evidence to all the stories I’d been hearing about … so I think I wanted to hear it out. But really it went nowhere and it was apparent that wasn’t what the meeting was about.”
Trump Jr. spoke about the contents of the meeting. “It was this, ‘Hey, some DNC donors may have done something in Russia and they didn’t pay taxes.’ I was like, ‘What does this have to do with anything?’”
Trump Jr. told Fox News that Goldstone apologized for wasting the campaign’s time with the meeting.
“I think what happened [is] he sort of goosed up, he built up, there was some puffery to the email, perhaps to get the meeting, to make it happen,” Trump Jr. said. “In the end, there was probably some bait-and-switch about what it was really supposed to be about.”
Speaking to the Journal, Veselnitskaya indicated there was a mix-up about the intent of the meeting: “My expectation before the meeting was he read my letter of information, he got interested, and he was going to help me. His expectations were totally different, as I can understand now.”
“By the time I stepped into the meeting room to talk with Donald Trump Jr., all I knew was that I approached the elder Mr. Agalarov with a request to help,” Veselnitskaya said. “And I knew his son Emin communicated with Donald Trump Jr.”
Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Written with research by Joshua Klein.
Trump Issues Memorial Day Message
Written by Saagar Enjeti
President Donald Trump issued his Memorial Day message on Twitter Monday lauding the state of the U.S. under his administration saying the fallen would be happy to see the country as it is today.Happy Memorial Day! Those who died for our great country would be very happy and proud at how well our country is doing today. Best economy in decades, lowest unemployment numbers for Blacks and Hispanics EVER (& women in 18years), rebuilding our Military and so much more. Nice!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
Spygate Is a Bigger Scandal Than Watergate
Written by C. Mitchell Shaw
The liberal mainstream media appear determined to either ignore the recent revelation of “Spygate” — the scandal of the FBI having planted a spy in the Trump campaign in 2016 — or spin it as an anti-Trump story. However, the reality is that this is (as President Trump tweeted) the “all time biggest political scandal.”
And, yes, that includes Watergate.
While “Watergate” refers generally to the overall scandal, it specifically refers to the break-in at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters located in the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. in June of 1972 for the purpose of bugging the offices of the DNC. The break-in and bugging were orchestrated within the highest ranks of the Nixon administration — and apparently with Nixon’s knowledge.
The FBI investigated the break-in and quickly discovered a link to Nixon. Cash found on the five burglars was traced back to a secret slush fund associated with Nixon’s re-election campaign. Nixon obstructed the investigation from the beginning, causing Congress to investigate.
While Nixon attempted to dodge being implicated, the “smoking gun” tape was proof that he was at the head of efforts to obstruct the FBI’s investigation. The tape, ironically recorded by Nixon himself just days after the Watergate break-in, is of a conversation he had with his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, wherein they discussed “the Democratic break-in thing.” Specifically mentioned were “the problem area because the FBI is not under control” and the fact that the FBI investigation was “leading into some productive areas,” which Haldeman aptly described as “some directions we don’t want it to go.”
When it was discovered that Nixon used a tape recorder in the Oval Office to record conversations, investigators demanded the tapes. Nixon refused, and the Supreme Court ruled against him. One of the tapes he was eventually forced to turnover was the “smoking gun” tape mentioned above.
As a result of the evidence against Nixon, Congress began what certainly would have been a successful impeachment ending in Nixon’s conviction and removal from office. To avoid that, Nixon followed in the steps of his first vice president, Spiro Agnew, and resigned on August 9, 1974. Less than a month later, he was pardoned for his many crimes by Agnew’s (and Nixon’s) replacement, President Gerald Ford.
By the time the dust had settled, America had a new (unelected) president and vice president, 69 people involved in Watergate had been indicted, 48 (including some top Nixon officials) were convicted, and some 20 of them went to prison. Watergate so damaged the credibility of the Republican Party that it was perhaps the decisive factor in putting Jimmy Carter in the White House.
Largely due to the fact that the media had been involved in breaking the case through solid investigative journalism, the term “Watergate” has become metonymic with political scandal, with subsequent scandals being referred to by simply adding the suffix “gate” to the end of their names. The list of “gate” scandals includes:
• “Travelgate” to refer to the 1993 firing of staff members of the White House Travel Office by President Bill Clinton;
• “Chinagate” to refer to the 1996 Clinton re-election campaign finance scandal wherein China sought to influence the foreign and domestic policy of the United States;
• “Monicagate” and “Lewinskigate” to refer to President Clinton’s sexual relationship with a 22-year-old White House intern and his subsequent perjury to hide it;
• “Cablegate” to refer to the 2010 WikiLeaks publication of more than 250,000 classified (and embarrassing) State Department cables;
Now, you can add “Spygate” to that list. Spygate is a bigger scandal than Watergate. But the liberal mainstream media — acting as the propaganda arm of the Deep State — are trying to cover it up.
Consider the implications of the FBI planting a spy in the campaign of one candidate while violating both the law and the fundamentals of investigation to protect the other candidate from facing the consequences of her crimes. And remember that the text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, DOJ lawyer, Lisa Page, mention both a “secret society” within the FBI and DOJ (including then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe) and an “insurance policy” in the event Trump won.
It now seems clear that — along with the false “Russia collusion” narrative — part of that “insurance policy” was an FBI spy in the Trump campaign.
Furthermore, when the House Intelligence Committee’s investigators managed to uncover the spy — later revealed to be University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper — the DOJ initially refused to comply with a congressional subpoena for more information. In fact, Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) — finally fed up with being “stalled” and “stonewalled” by the FBI and DOJ — had to threaten Attorney General Jeff Sessions with charges of contempt of Congress before the DOJ caved and briefed the committee on Halper.
Going back a little further, the FBI and DOJ — while protecting Hillary Clinton from being charged for her illegal use of a private email server to send and receive thousands of classified documents — abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process to illegally obtain a surveillance warrant on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. That warrant’s application was based on the now-discredited Trump “dossier” written by ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele and illegally financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign (and based on information provided by Russian government sources).
No wonder President Trump tweeted a quote by Fox Business Network anchor David Asman on May 18, saying, “Apparently the DOJ put a Spy in the Trump Campaign. This has never been done before and by any means necessary, they are out to frame Donald Trump for crimes he didn't commit.” And on May 23 — as more information came to light — he tweeted, “Look how things have turned around on the Criminal Deep State. They go after Phony Collusion with Russia, a made up Scam, and end up getting caught in a major SPY scandal the likes of which this country may never have seen before! What goes around, comes around!”
Whatever one’s opinion of President Trump, he is right about this. Spygate could be one of the biggest political scandals in history. It is certainly bigger than Watergate. While Watergate will likely continue to be the scandal by which all other scandals are measured (old habits die hard), the reality is that taken all together, Spygate makes Watergate look mild by comparison.
Watergate was about a president and key officials in his administration breaking the law both to spy on their political opponents and to cover up for their crimes. Spygate is about Deep State operatives in the FBI and DOJ conspiring against a presidential candidate and then against the president to manipulate the entire direction of the United States. In Watergate, the victims were Nixon’s political opponents. In Spygate, the victims are the American people.
President Trump was also right to demand an investigation of this. The Deep State needs to be exposed and in this, it may have left itself wide open to that exposure.
More will likely soon be revealed since the DOJ Inspector General’s next report on this whole debacle is set to be released in the coming days. When more of the truth comes out, it would not be surprising to see a litany of criminal indictments and convictions resulting from Spygate.
Docs Confirm FBI Spy Halper Was Paid $282k From Unidentified Obama ‘Defense Agency’
BY JOSH MANNING
In one of the greatest reversals in recent political history (second only to Trump’s actual 2016 win), efforts by Democrats to frame the president’s supposed shady dealings with Russia have repeatedly blown up in their smug faces.
The latest of these explosions looks less like a grenade going off in the left’s collective face and more like the chained series of explosions Robert Duvall called down on communist Viet Cong guerrillas in that famed “Apocalypse Now” scene.
That might sound overly dramatic, but it’s not. Over the past few days the public has learned that the FBI had at least one spy in the Trump campaign, Stefan Halper. It’s also been revealed that Halper formerly worked for the CIA (and perhaps still does). In addition, Halper allegedly meddled in at least one previous U.S. presidential election and appears to have continued spying at least nine months after the 2016 election.
The latest devastating revelation? The Obama administration paid Halper $282,000 (or $411,000 depending on how the budgeting worked) to work for a mysteriously named “Other Defense Agency” just days after Trump pulled to within a point of Clinton in the polls.
The response from the left and the defunct Obama administration will be predictable. They’ll say it’s a right-wing, fringe conspiracy theory, then they’ll disavow it (unless they’re truly panicking at the prospect of being found out), then they’ll note that Halper was paid to produce an economic study on India and China — the official reason listed for his nearly half-million dollar payout.
We have to admit the chances aren’t zero that Halper was simply hired by an obscure branch of the intelligence community to calculate the number of llamas per square mile in the greater part of Asia. But that’s doubtful.
For much less than $400,000, I could have produced that study. And I’m not the only one. There are literally thousands of academics who would jump at the chance to produce a study like that for far, far less compensation.
No, something’s very wrong here.
Want to hear a remarkable coincidence? On July 26, 2017, Halper appears to have been paid $129,000 for further work on the Sino-Indian study. Two days later, Halper emailed Carter Page, asking what he or the Trump administration (it’s not clear which) planned to do moving forward on the collusion investigation.
He also told Page that Virginia’s summer was pleasant and that it “would be great to catch up.” Civility in spying really has come a long way.
The real point in all of this is that Obama’s government authorized the hiring of Halper, a CIA spook and election puppeteer, for at least $282,000 to produce a paper on India and China for an unnamed “other” defense agency.
At the same time, it appears Halper was plumbing the depths of Trump campaign, looking for intel he could feed back to the FBI. Over the next few months, Halper would be paid an additional $129,000 to continue his work.
Two days after that last payment is cataloged by government documents, Halper hit up Page for an update on how the administration’s response to the Russia investigation was going… and gave him a weather update.
The DOJ, CIA and FBI have screamed “Trump did it” the same way a guilty child tries to throw suspicion on his brother by screaming “He did it!”
And those screams will only get louder. Remember Duvall’s fire support in “Apocalypse Now”? My money says we’re not at the end of that massive chain of explosions. I think we’re only in the middle, if that far, and there is a lot more carnage to come before this Deep State frame-up is fully exposed, along with the Democrats behind it.
Don’t you love the smell of napalm in the morning?
Zullo Reveals “Peculiar Smudge” on Obama Birth Certificate... Lawyer “THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ARE WORRIED”
by Sharon Rondeau
by Sharon Rondeau
In the fourth and final segment of his hour-long interview on Friday with Carl Gallups, Obama birth certificate investigator Mike Zullo said that while studying the composition of the long-form birth certificate image posted on the White House website over the course of his five-year investigation, multiple layers were discovered, with a “peculiar smudge” on one of them.
“That smudge, when it’s digitally-enhanced, literally looks like a partial latent fingerprint on that particular layer,” Zullo said. He declined to identify on which layer the smudge was found.
In March 2012, Zullo announced at a press conference that after six months of investigation, he found probable cause to believe that the birth certificate image is fraudulent. In a second presser four months later, Zullo revealed that the standard of probable cause had been overcome.
On Friday he explained that in regard to the fingerprint, if it had been on the scanner where the document was repeatedly placed to create the layering, “it would have been picked up.”
“There’s something inside the layering that also points to the document being ‘constructed,'” Zullo continued, “and not merely just a document laid on a scanner and a scan made to upload to the internet.”
Zullo’s reports of forgery evidencing what he said is the “foundational lie” of Barack Hussein Obama’s “presidency” have been ridiculed, misreported, marginalized, and ignored by various major media outlets, with none of them willing to launch their own probes into the findings.
The FBI and Congress, too, failed to investigate for reasons upon which Zullo expanded in the firstand second parts of Friday’s interview.
“So there are people out there that are worried,” Zullo further said. “There’s people that know that we know. They know it’s going to go back to the foundational lie of the presidency of the United States.”
Gallups responded by predicting that “people are going to start flipping because people are not going to want to go to prison for the rest of their lives over this if they can make a deal, and they will.”
Both Gallups and Zullo are former law enforcers, with Gallups a Florida deputy sheriff for a dozen years and Zullo a New Jersey police officer promoted to detective in the 1980s.
Gallups then mentioned an article published Tuesday at The Daily Caller which reported that a number of FBI agents wish to testify to Congress about corruption within the agency and are requesting subpoenas as opposed to exposing themselves as whistleblowers, in which case they would fear retaliation.
Zullo said that he hopes the FBI agents receive the subpoenas so that they can testify with “the legal protection” they need to avoid loss of career and reputation as a result of coming forward.
Gallups then reminded his audience that former NSA and CIA contractor Dennis Montgomery, a software developer, had approached the FBI in 2015 alleging possession of evidence of widespread government spying on U.S. citizens. “So there are agents with the FBI that know all about this birth certificate, and they know the truth,” Gallups said, suggesting that Montgomery had testified to the FBI not only about the 600 million records he claimed to have on government surveillance, but also about the birth certificate image.
Last year Montgomery’s attorney, Larry Klayman, reported that Montgomery conducted a forensic examination of the birth certificate image and found it to be fraudulent.
Media Double Down After New York Times Gets Busted Peddling Fake News
There may have been a real White House briefing with real White House officials, but The New York Times couldn't be trusted to accurately summarize what the White House official said. And it wasn't on a minor point.
By Mollie Hemingway
By Mollie Hemingway
On the path to the June 12 summit with North Korea, journalists claimed President Donald Trump would not be willing to walk away from the negotiating table because he was too desperate for a win.
The Washington Post’s David Nakamura wrote that “critics fear that a president determined to declare victory where his predecessors failed will allow his desire for a legacy-making deal to override the substance of the negotiations.” On the same day, the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman mocked Trump’s desire for a win, which he said was turning Trump into a fool who was getting played.
Then President Trump did what media outlets said he’d never do. He walked away from the negotiating table due to North Korea’s behavior. The media outlets didn’t acknowledge their previous analytical missteps so much as come up with new lines of attack on Trump.
Mark Landler and David Sanger of The New York Times wrote an article arguing there were deep divisions between Trump and his advisors. To support the claim, the Times argued that Trump said a June 12 summit was still possible, while his top aides said it was “impossible”:
As with so many issues involving this president, the views of his aides often have little effect on what he actually says. On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.
On Friday, Mr. Trump said, ‘It could even be the 12th.’
President Trump responded by calling it fake news, tweeting:
Trump was incorrect when he said that The New York Times “quotes” the official. They actually characterized his remarks. But they definitely claimed a senior White House official said June 12 was impossible.
Media types rushed to The New York Times’ defense, claiming they heard a White House official say the “impossible” line in a background briefing they were privy to. Someone leaked audio of a background briefing that they said supported The New York Times’ “impossible” characterization.
Yashar Ali, who writes for New York magazine and HuffPo, then outed the name of someone who briefed reporters on background and provided audio that he erroneously claimed supported The New York Times’ characterization:
4. I've obtained audio of the WH press briefing. You can hear Raj Shah, Deputy Press Secretary, introduce Pottinger (along with the terms - which are standard) and then Pottinger makes the statement that POTUS says was never made. Lots of reporters in briefing room and on phone.
The audio says:
REPORTER: Can you clarify that…the President obviously announced in the letter and at the top of the bill signing that the summit is called off. But then, later, he said it’s possible the existing summit could take place, or a summit at a later date. Is he saying that it’s possible that June 12th could still happen?
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: That’s…
REPORTER: Or has that ship sailed, right?
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL: I think that the main point, I suppose, is that the ball is in North Korea’s court right now. And there’s really not a lot of time. We’ve lost quite a bit of time that we would need in order to, I mean, there’s been an enormous amount of preparation that’s gone on over the past few months at the White House, at State, and with other agencies and so forth. But there’s a certain amount of actual dialogue that needs to take place at the working level with your counterparts to ensure that the agenda is clear in the minds of those two leaders when they sit down to actually meet and talk and negotiate, and hopefully make a deal. And June 12 is in 10 minutes, and it’s going to be, you know. But the President has said that he has — someday, that he looks forward to meeting with Kim.
You will note that at no time does the White House official say a June 12 meeting is “impossible,” and at no point does he agree that the “ship sailed” or that time has run out. He definitely says it would be difficult to prepare for the summit given the lack of time to do so. His main point, as he says, is that the ball is in North Korea’s court and they need to act quickly.
As Eric Blair tweeted:
It's not a question of semantics. Take it from someone with an M.A. in English: "very or exceedingly difficult" /= "impossible". People climb Mt. Everest, don't you know? No one says it's "impossible".
Clearly The New York Times peddled fake news. There may have been a real White House briefing with real White House officials, but The New York Times couldn’t be trusted to accurately summarize what the White House official said. And it wasn’t on a minor point.
Recall that the whole point of their characterization was to say this official was at odds with Trump and that Trump wasn’t listening to his advisors. The fact that Trump and his advisors were not disagreeing with each other undermines the entire point of The New York Times story.
But rather than admit that The New York Times was incorrect, and their reporters aren’t good at listening to Trump advisors or accurately conveying their remarks, the media claimed that Trump was the one lying, since, well, White House advisors who give briefings exist. See, Trump said no source existed who said the June 12 date was impossible — but a source exists who did not say that. Ergo: Trump lied.
I’m sure you see the logical failures here, even if President Trump could have or should have said that The New York Times attributed fake news to a real source.
The media, having been outed with benefit of audio tape at being failures at accurately conveying news, quickly moved the goalpost to argue that White House officials exist, as if that was in question. There are countless examples, but The New York Times’Maggie Haberman is a perfect one:
No source exists who said what the Times claimed he said, so I imagine the background briefer probably feels a lot of anger at The New York Times for being utterly incompetent at its job. He probably is angry that The New York Times claimed he said something he didn’t say. Twitter editorialized as well:
Again, if you for some reason thought that Trump was saying White House officials who give background briefings don’t exist, then this would be a great point. If you expect The New York Times not to invent things that weren’t said and attribute them to these sources, then this is a not good point.
Trump is notoriously imprecise. His sentences — tweeted or spoken — are word salads that can be difficult to diagram. His word choices, run-on sentences, and inconsistent capitalization can be frustrating. It is reasonable to critique the president for his communication style, including that he should have condemned The New York Times for fake news attributed to a real source instead of fake news attributed to a fake source.
A media that desires to hold this president accountable simply must be accurate in its newswriting. It failed dramatically here, and failed to hold itself accountable when caught. This is why the media’s credibility is in tatters and why President Trump and others find it so easy to hold them up for ridicule.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
Fake News: Top Liberals Blame Trump for ‘Awful’ Photos of Obama’s Migrant Detention Centers
164
AP Photos/Eric Gay, Jacquelyn Martin
AP Photos/Eric Gay, Jacquelyn MartinDemocratic politicians, journalists, and top staffers in Barack Obama’s White House whipped themselves into a frenzy Sunday, attributing “disturbing” photos of migrant detention centers to President Donald Trump — before discovering the photos were taken during Obama’s second term as president.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2018/05/www_29.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment