Read and React Request for those still Believing Russiagate

[LouderVol]

Even more concerning is the trend mentioned by the author where journalists trust government agencies and the people within who are known to run disinformation campaigns (CIA, NSA, etc)

yeah it was interesting reading the link from private investigations and turning them into phony real investigations in order to sell something.

it was all manufactured from the start. but with the scope Mueller was given he had to run stuff down anyway. the shame is how a false report by Steele started all this, and how the media sold it hook, line, and sinker.

 

[volinbham]

yeah it was interesting reading the link from private investigations and turning them into phony real investigations in order to sell something.

it was all manufactured from the start. but with the scope Mueller was given he had to run stuff down anyway. the shame is how a false report by Steele started all this, and how the media sold it hook, line, and sinker.

a false report paid for by the opposition candidate! seems legit...

 

[LouderVol]

a false report paid for by the opposition candidate! seems legit...

that sold the story that the Russians had absolutely nothing on the Clintons....
nothing, despite years and years of political office, and scandal. absolutely nothing. amazing.

 

[LouderVol]

This was similar to a laundering technique used in the WMD episode called “stove-piping,” i.e. officials using the press to “confirm” information the officials themselves fed the reporter.

the more I read, the more I shake my head.

 

[McDad]

The were involved in the Roy Moore/Doug Jones Senate race. Apparently they faked a bunch of Russian troll accounts then linked them to working with/following/promoting Roy Moore and somehow alerted the media that said accounts were connected to RM's campaign. It was a false flag to make it appear "muh Russia" was trying to get Moore elected.

I'm glad Moore lost but this is downright criminal.

From the article it appears they were doing similar tricks elsewhere and being used a legit "source" in some news stories.

Gotcha. So, they are claiming to be a "watchdog" group to the media when if fact they are politicized and actively trying to get certain candidates elected. That about right?

 

[tennvols77]

I have a question for the author. Why is it that everyone in Trump’s orbit lied about Russia. If there is no there, there why does everyone lie?

Why did Trump (not guilty of but not exonerated from) inject himself into obstructing justice

And why doesn’t Barr just hand the report over the report over to Congress? A process with plenty of precedent. Just hold back the GJ testimony until a Federal Judge authorizes it’s release

Precedent...... it is the way it is currently because in 1999 Congress let the Independent Counsel Act expire. Go ask the Democrats from 1999 why.......listening to the left complain about the law they put into place when its doesn't fit the agenda is the encapsulation of the party.

 

[LouderVol]

the more I read, the more this becomes the "story that was too big to fail"

people let themselves get emotionally/ideologically invested in an idea to the point where the truth stopped mattering.

 

[AirVol]

Don't get me started on what i have on his birth certificate....lol.

Shh, don’t tell because you could end up like Loretta.

 

[hog88]

Even more concerning is the trend mentioned by the author where journalists trust government agencies and the people within who are known to run disinformation campaigns (CIA, NSA, etc)

Makes a person go HMMMM? Who really is controlling the media?

 

[LouderVol]

You know who you are (Mick, Evil, Velo, etc.)

Have you read this? If not, do yourself a favor and take the time.

I'd be interested in hearing your take after reading.

Thanks to NurseV for the original link

It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD

if nothing else they need to skip down to the Isikoff parts. holy smokes I would be pissed if I had formed any opinions based on this crap.

 

[volinbham]

Gotcha. So, they are claiming to be a "watchdog" group to the media when if fact they are politicized and actively trying to get certain candidates elected. That about right?

You know about as much as I do. Had just heard about the Roy Moore thing last week then I see it referenced in this article.

 

[0nelilreb]

if nothing else they need to skip down to the Isikoff parts. holy smokes I would be pissed if I had formed any opinions based on this crap.

Let’s be honest here “ they “ aren’t going to skip down to any of it because “ they “ aren’t going to read it . When you buy into something that hard , reading something like that isn’t going to be a high priority . Just my opinion . I could be proven wrong .

 

[LouderVol]

here is a general opposition post responding directly to some of Taibbi's points. I wasn't familiar with Matt Taibbi before so I was looking into him. Seems like he is pretty much anti-Trump on everything but the Russian aspect.

the article only touches one aspect of what Taibbi brings up, the Steele report, while ignoring the rest. worth a read if you want a second opinion on the matter. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

but the article does agree that the media screwed the pooch on this.

Reporters made lots of bad mistakes along the way. Headlines on news stories sometimes read like headlines on opinion pieces, and impeachment narratives invoked the ghosts of Watergate. Some reporters and pundits queued up for bragging rights, eager to be the first to identify some new twist that surely, finally marked the end of the Trump presidency. Others didn’t bullet-proof their reporting.

 

[LouderVol]

amen

This is a major structural flaw of the new fully-divided media landscape in which Republican media covers Democratic corruption and Democratic media covers Republican corruption. If neither “side” feels the need to disclose its own errors and inconsistencies, mistakes accumulate quickly.

 

[McDad]

yeah it was interesting reading the link from private investigations and turning them into phony real investigations in order to sell something.

it was all manufactured from the start. but with the scope Mueller was given he had to run stuff down anyway. the shame is how a false report by Steele started all this, and how the media sold it hook, line, and sinker.

Agreed. I like how he showed the game of scandal inside DC. Handing a report to someone and then leaking it out in the press that the person is under investigation (or some such). I think it is despicable politics but I like knowing how that stuff gets out and why i should treat such stories with great skepticism.

 

[LouderVol]

Russiagate happened in an opposite context. If the story fell apart it would benefit Donald Trump politically, a fact that made a number of reporters queasy about coming forward. #Russiagate became synonymous with #Resistance, which made public skepticism a complicated proposition.

There is so much truth in this article, even when not discussing the actual case.

 

[volinbham]

here is a general opposition post responding directly to some of Taibbi's points. I wasn't familiar with Matt Taibbi before so I was looking into him. Seems like he is pretty much anti-Trump on everything but the Russian aspect.

the article only touches one aspect of what Taibbi brings up, the Steele report, while ignoring the rest. worth a read if you want a second opinion on the matter. Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

but the article does agree that the media screwed the pooch on this.

See even stuff like this drives me nuts - it implies Barr mischaracterized the original memo when he indeed said from the start it was a summary of the "principle conclusions" how that's any different from "bottom line conclusions" I can't see. However because his memo was characterized by others as a FULL summary and worse, actively suggested that he wasn't planning to release anything more (a claim he never made or even hinted at) he reiterates the purpose of his memo and people like this author say "SEE!!! He was lying and had to correct his mistake"

"The attorney general was clearly aware of all of this and, with Democrats threatening to issue a subpoena for the full report, he waded in again on Friday evening. In a second letter, he promised to release the report by mid-April and was forced to re-characterize his first missive. The first one, he allowed, was never meant to be a summary or an “exhaustive recounting of” Mueller’s investigation. All he meant to offer, he wrote, was a “bottom line” conclusion."

If he was "forced" to do anything it was because people were mischaracterizing his statements and he was correcting them!

 

[davethevol]

Makes a person go HMMMM? Who really is controlling the media?

One very powerful 3 letter agency calls all the shots.

 

[golfballs]

Whats funny is the birther conspiracy held more water than the Russian one. Silly fools will to down in history alright..

And both of them were started by Hillary

 

[LouderVol]

As was the case with the “17 agencies” error, which only got fixed when Clapper testified in congress and was forced to make the correction under oath, the “repeated contacts” story was only disputed when Comey testified in congress, this time before the Senate Intelligence Committee. How many other errors of this type are waiting to be disclosed?

 

[McDad]

See even stuff like this drives me nuts - it implies Barr mischaracterized the original memo when he indeed said from the start it was a summary of the "principle conclusions" how that's any different from "bottom line conclusions" I can't see. However because his memo was characterized by others as a FULL summary and worse, actively suggested that he wasn't planning to release anything more (a claim he never made or even hinted at) he reiterates the purpose of his memo and people like this author say "SEE!!! He was lying and had to correct his mistake"

"The attorney general was clearly aware of all of this and, with Democrats threatening to issue a subpoena for the full report, he waded in again on Friday evening. In a second letter, he promised to release the report by mid-April and was forced to re-characterize his first missive. The first one, he allowed, was never meant to be a summary or an “exhaustive recounting of” Mueller’s investigation. All he meant to offer, he wrote, was a “bottom line” conclusion."

If he was "forced" to do anything it was because people were mischaracterizing his statements and he was correcting them!

Drives you nuts because you think it is intentional or drives you nuts because the oversight and the narrative that is adopted?

 

[05_never_again]

I have a question for the author. Why is it that everyone in Trump’s orbit lied about Russia. If there is no there, there why does everyone lie?

For Trump specifically, I think ego and insecurity about his election win. Trump hates it that there is a narrative out there that he only won the election because Russia intervened on his behalf, either with or without his coordination. I think that's why he's reluctant to say that Russia intervened at all in the election - even if Russia intervened in a way that benefited him but Donald didn't know and didn't coordinate with them, it still diminishes his victory because an outside influence helped him. He wants to make sure everybody believes that he beat Hillary because of what he did, not anybody else.

That's why he lies about a Trump hotel in Moscow, because if he admits to that it makes it seem like there might be something to what the Democrats and anti-Trumpers say about him. It's why he also lied about the crowds at his inauguration. I think most people in his position would be like "I won, who cares," but he's a very insecure man.

 

[LouderVol]

finally finished. good second to last paragraph.

As a purely journalistic failure, however, WMD was a pimple compared to Russiagate. The sheer scale of the errors and exaggerations this time around dwarfs the last mess. Worse, it’s led to most journalists accepting a radical change in mission. We’ve become sides-choosers, obliterating the concept of the press as an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction.

 

[05_never_again]

finally finished. good second to last paragraph.

I find it funny that he attacks sides-choosers, because he's a side-chooser himself. He wrote a book called "Insane Clown President" about the 2016 election, for crying out loud.

There's nothing wrong with being a sides-chooser, but just be open and honest about which side you're on. Maybe that's his point.

 

[LouderVol]

See even stuff like this drives me nuts - it implies Barr mischaracterized the original memo when he indeed said from the start it was a summary of the "principle conclusions" how that's any different from "bottom line conclusions" I can't see. However because his memo was characterized by others as a FULL summary and worse, actively suggested that he wasn't planning to release anything more (a claim he never made or even hinted at) he reiterates the purpose of his memo and people like this author say "SEE!!! He was lying and had to correct his mistake"

"The attorney general was clearly aware of all of this and, with Democrats threatening to issue a subpoena for the full report, he waded in again on Friday evening. In a second letter, he promised to release the report by mid-April and was forced to re-characterize his first missive. The first one, he allowed, was never meant to be a summary or an “exhaustive recounting of” Mueller’s investigation. All he meant to offer, he wrote, was a “bottom line” conclusion."

If he was "forced" to do anything it was because people were mischaracterizing his statements and he was correcting them!

oh I agree, the article wasn't great either. But I was doing background research and this popped up. and considering it commented on the author and the article in question I thought it was worth reading. especially as I knew it would come from the opposite standpoint.

the bloomberg article does bring up that Taibbi never brings up the Padadopoulos stuff. but looking at the timeline of those events, they happened all after everything had been started.