It seems that Comey has a memo documenting a conversation in which Trump asked him to stop investigating Flynn.
Comey has a long history of taking notes on his conversations; this is merely one example (I've actually done the same thing). And apparently such memos from FBI officials have been admissible as evidence in court--they're not just loose scribblings with no legal weight.
We have yet to see the full text of the memo. I hope it is made public; I'm curious to see it.
About the anonymous sources thing: the reason why journalists keep their sources anonymous in certain cases is because the source could be punished for giving embarrassing information to the press. Anonymous sources have the freedom to speak frankly without fear of retribution.
If journalists did not allow government officials to remain anonymous, the administration would have a total stranglehold on all information about their activities, because the people at the top could punish anyone who said anything they didn't like.
I would not give that much unchecked power to any administration.
About the anonymous sources thing: the reason why journalists keep their sources anonymous in certain cases is because the source could be punished for giving embarrassing information to the press. Anonymous sources have the freedom to speak frankly without fear of retribution.
We can stop tip-toeing around this. Flynn was with Trump 24/7 on the campaign trail. Flynn is obviously in serious hot water. The only logical reason to ask Comey to stop investigating Flynn is because he knows and is afraid of what happens if that string gets pulled. But moreover, if Trump asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn, SPECIFICALLY, we don't have to pretend anymore. It is flat-out obstruction of justice. If Comey has half of what I expect he does on Donald Trump, his clock just started ticking. The only question is how craven the Republican Congress will be and if they are willing to go down in flames with him.
This is all happening concurrently, by the hour. Absolutely unprecedented incompetence and criminality.
We are at the point where all the lifeboats are jettisoning. If Republicans, Trump supporters, or anyone else wants to get off, this is the last call. Otherwise, be prepared to sink with his ship.
It's becoming VERY obvious (and has been obvious his entire career) that Comey leaves a paper-trail about everything SPECIFICALLY for moments like this. Trump is so, so stupid. And had no idea what kind of hornet's nest he kicked when he fired THIS particular guy. Or if you've seen The Wire....."you come at the king, you best not miss." And what that means, translated, is that if you are trying to take someone out, you better make damn sure they are dead and don't survive to hit you back. Trump lazily thought he had this all taken care of by simply firing Comey. It's going to be his downfall.
This is NOT intended as a defense of anything Trump might've said or done, but at this point, the media is shamelessly doing FAR more to endanger that poor spy's life than Trump ever did.
This is NOT intended as a defense of anything Trump might've said or done, but at this point, the media is shamelessly doing FAR more to endanger that poor spy's life than Trump ever did.
Jake Tapper addressed this directly, make of it what you will:
Was quite surprised that Morgan Freeman denies that race plays a significant part in income inequality.
Always liked him in Shawshank redemption.
Morgan Freeman is not a reliable source. He has his own issues that make him perfect to invoke for white people who want to claim racism doesn't harm black people, but he's completely wrong.
Do any of these conversations actually take place in real-life outside a bunch of college freshman wanking off on the quad?? I have never heard anyone actually use any of these terms in an actual conversation. Or, better yet, let's say certain groups are playing their "cards" so to speak, to gain....something (whatever that is). What is this idea that something is necessarily being taken away from someone else?? This isn't all a zero-sum game. If a transgender person wants to be called by a certain pronoun, is this REALLY something that is adversely affecting the life of someone who thinks it's ridiculous?? If someone wants to call themselves pansexual (a term I admit I had to look up), I mean....who gives a shit?? What tangible effect does this have on our world?? Is it superfluous and maybe not really needed?? Maybe, but who am I to say. I actually agree some of the words used on the left are needlessly academic in a country that is decidedly NOT that, but again, who cares??
I will agree that Caitlyn Jenner has set back attitudes about transgender people by about a decade, but that has NOTHING to do with her being transgender and everything to do with being a attention-craving media whore, which can be said about hundreds of other people.
My reaction when talking about this subject can be summed up thus: Is it ridiculous that certain portions of the left have thrown out words that most of society can't possibly have kept up with (including me) and that some colleges have so-called "safe spaces". Yeah, I guess so. But what's more ridiculous is that people care enough about this subject to think it's an actual problem, much less the harbringer of some societal apocalypse.
Do you notice that other bit? Many of his own people also use anonymity.
Do you remember when he would go on and on about the leakers, and how they needed to be found and dealt with? And then there's the threat to Comey that he better not leak! Yea, Trump's really concerned about leakers. Not. And look! He's at it again, and doth protest too much. Yesterday he even had one of his GOP cronies preach basically the same thing - even going so far as to call them traitors (for maximum effect). Traitors.
I could see this coming from a mile away.
Trump is the leak. And the information? False. This accomplishes three things - and all three are absolutely devastating as they pertain to the preservation of our republic. You see, when Comey, who had been loyal to Trump long before Trump came right out and asked for such loyalty, will testify. And he'll tell the truth...that there was no such memo. And if there are any other so-called "leaks", they will be shot down, too.
1. Press credibility = Destroyed. 2. Credibility of any future leaks (such as those exposing some kind of horrible activity) = Destroyed. 3. His own credibility = complete validation.
Don't let the little charade with Bannon being forced to live in the proverbial doghouse fool you. What's about to hit this country has Bannon's fingerprints all over it. A media man himself, he works from the shadows, and working to delegitmize anything and everything that will ultimately get in the way of our eventual, and inevitable, "transition".
Trump may be a serial leaker himself, but that does not mean that he's happy for others to leak (rules are for the normal people)!
The idea that the memo is a false leak doesn't seem realistic to me. The story is not only that a memo exists, but that Comey has discussed it with his officials - as that's pretty easy to check it wouldn't make sense to include that as a false leak.
Do you notice that other bit? Many of his own people also use anonymity.
Do you remember when he would go on and on about the leakers, and how they needed to be found and dealt with? And then there's the threat to Comey that he better not leak! Yea, Trump's really concerned about leakers. Not. And look! He's at it again, and doth protest too much. Yesterday he even had one of his GOP cronies preach basically the same thing - even going so far as to call them traitors (for maximum effect). Traitors.
I could see this coming from a mile away.
Trump is the leak. And the information? False. This accomplishes three things - and all three are absolutely devastating as they pertain to the preservation of our republic. You see, when Comey, who had been loyal to Trump long before Trump came right out and asked for such loyalty, will testify. And he'll tell the truth...that there was no such memo. And if there are any other so-called "leaks", they will be shot down, too.
1. Press credibility = Destroyed. 2. Credibility of any future leaks (such as those exposing some kind of horrible activity) = Destroyed. 3. His own credibility = complete validation.
Don't let the little charade with Bannon being forced to live in the proverbial doghouse fool you. What's about to hit this country has Bannon's fingerprints all over it. A media man himself, he works from the shadows, and working to delegitmize anything and everything that will ultimately get in the way of our eventual, and inevitable, "transition".
The shit is going down in DC.
There is absolutely a memo, and people give Trump WAY, WAY too much credit for being some master tactician, when, in fact, he is simply a very dim bulb. Nevermind the fact that all reports are that he is basically flailing about the White House in a rage cussing out his staff for being incompetent. Trump is a child who simply acts impulsively in the moment, and no one can reign him in because no one has told him what he can or can't do for 70 years. Again, any wrongdoing was INEVITABLY going to get exposed because Trump isn't nearly smart enough to cover his tracks.
Ummmm....Putin is now offering to provide transcripts of the Lavrov meeting in the Oval. First off, the idea that the US Senate would accept a transcript from the Russians on it's face is farcical, but, more importantly, does this mean they recorded Trump's conversation with them or bugged the Oval Office?? Is this Putin trying to help, or a very sly way of abadoning ship??
There is absolutely a memo, and people give Trump WAY, WAY too much credit for being some master tactician, when, in fact, he is simply a very dim bulb. Nevermind the fact that all reports are that he is basically flailing about the White House in a rage cussing out his staff for being incompetent. Trump is a child who simply acts impulsively in the moment, and no one can reign him in because no one has told him what he can or can't do for 70 years. Again, any wrongdoing was INEVITABLY going to get exposed because Trump isn't nearly smart enough to cover his tracks.
About the anonymous sources thing: the reason why journalists keep their sources anonymous in certain cases is because the source could be punished for giving embarrassing information to the press. Anonymous sources have the freedom to speak frankly without fear of retribution.
If journalists did not allow government officials to remain anonymous, the administration would have a total stranglehold on all information about their activities, because the people at the top could punish anyone who said anything they didn't like.
I would not give that much unchecked power to any administration.
On the other hand, if a reporter writes "the source said x but only on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media about the subject" or "the source said x but only on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution" then how do you know that that is what the source actually said? Without proof of the statement, without someone willing to put their name to a statement, the reporter could just be making it up to fill words for an article. Anonymous sources may actually be telling the truth but the fact that the source is anonymous leaves room for reasonable doubt.
This leads us to the more general topic: who is telling the truth these days? Which tweets are real and which ones are fake? Which news stories are real and which ones are fake? Since most of us are not privy to the meetings taking place in Washington, D. C. and we don't have access to classified intelligence briefings that leaves us with two clear choices: believe everything which is reported or believe none of it. Believing everything you are told without proof is the idiotic choice for obvious reasons so our only real option is to believe nothing we read until someone can prove it.
Did Trump ask Comey to stop investigating Flynn? Possibly so because it would be in his (Trump's) best interest. Did Trump pass information to the Russians, either directly or inadvertently? This is also plausible because sometimes he doesn't know how to shut his mouth. Can any of us prove either allegation? Of course not because we weren't there so we have to rely on others for proof.
I think Trump is starting to lose it faster than Nixon did during his second term. If things spiral out of control badly enough the House may not have any choice but to act on impeachment. I would have added "against one of their own" but I think many Republicans are beginning to see that Trump is not one of them.
About the anonymous sources thing: the reason why journalists keep their sources anonymous in certain cases is because the source could be punished for giving embarrassing information to the press. Anonymous sources have the freedom to speak frankly without fear of retribution.
If journalists did not allow government officials to remain anonymous, the administration would have a total stranglehold on all information about their activities, because the people at the top could punish anyone who said anything they didn't like.
I would not give that much unchecked power to any administration.
On the other hand, if a reporter writes "the source said x but only on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media about the subject" or "the source said x but only on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution" then how do you know that that is what the source actually said? Without proof of the statement, without someone willing to put their name to a statement, the reporter could just be making it up to fill words for an article. Anonymous sources may actually be telling the truth but the fact that the source is anonymous leaves room for reasonable doubt.
You make this more complicated than it is. Reporters and their sources have track records. If someone constantly quotes anonymous sources and nothing corrobates it later, you lose credibility. In this case, both Trump leaking and the Comey memo are verifiable and actions in that direction are already being taken. We will the.
OTH the whole Seth Rich story has already fallen apart.
Of course, anonymous sources are not enough to convict anyone, just grounds for an investigation in some cases.
Let's again deal with why Comey is such a dangerous enemy for Trump to have created. Comey's reputation stems from having stopped the Bush Administration from using a just out of surgery, sedated John Ashcroft from signing off on torture programs. While the "he rushed to his bedside" might be a bit of myth-making, we know this happened because Comey took detailed notes of the whole scenario and presented them 4 years later. That Comey would have a memo is entirely in keeping with what we know about the man. As I've said before, Comey is a boy scout, and he views himself that way as well. And in contrast to Donald Trump, there will likely be no question as to who is telling the truth.
In addition, last night, one of the ideas being floated by right-wing media was "let's see the notes he has about Obama" which was shot down today by those close to him, as they said he took no notes on Obama because every interaction they ever had was the height of professionalism and normal. Because Obama isn't a raving lunatic.
Edit: the situation with Ashcroft was not in regards to torture, but of signing off on surveillance of US citizens.
If Trump did, in fact, ask Comey to stop an investigation into Michael Flynn re: suspected ties to Russia then his actions could be classified as "obstruction of justice", which is an impeachable offense. At least one Republican in the House, Justin Amash (R, MI), has already floated this idea. Al Green (D, TX), Maxine Waters (D, CA), Tulsi Gabbard (D, HI), and Keith Ellison (D, MN) have already weighed in on the matter, as well.
I did say, months ago, that Trump would be a one-termer. I still don't think he'll be impeached but there is no way he wins another general election, presuming he even gets the nomination from the RNC.
Trump is the leak. And the information? False. This accomplishes three things - and all three are absolutely devastating as they pertain to the preservation of our republic. You see, when Comey, who had been loyal to Trump long before Trump came right out and asked for such loyalty, will testify. And he'll tell the truth...that there was no such memo. And if there are any other so-called "leaks", they will be shot down, too.
1. Press credibility = Destroyed. 2. Credibility of any future leaks (such as those exposing some kind of horrible activity) = Destroyed. 3. His own credibility = complete validation.
If Trump is so incredibly brilliant that he can manipulate massive groups of people all at once, I would question why he is using those abilities to delegitimize the press rather than destroy ISIS, pass an infrastructure plan, build the wall, boost economic growth to 4%, root out corruption, or any number of other, more important things.
I don't think Trump is some ingenious mastermind. But if he is, his choice of enemies is very interesting.
Just like many conspiracy theories the Russia-Trump connection relies on Trump being both a genius and an incredibly incompetent buffoon wherever it best suits the narrative. Trump is genius enough to get away with a massive Russia collusion that won him the highest office in the land yet he's totally impulsive and reckless and ignorant which explains why he's unfit for leadership yet he left no trace of evidence that can seemingly implicate him in any way because he's better than all intelligence services. Sounds legit.
It actually reminds me quite a bit of the old "Bush did 9/11!" from the old days. Bush was intelligent enough to collude a massive attack on his own country yet was so incompetent and dumb he couldn't blurt out a coherent speech and was found out by forums users on the internet.
"This leads us to the more general topic: who is telling the truth these days? Which tweets are real and which ones are fake? Which news stories are real and which ones are fake? Since most of us are not privy to the meetings taking place in Washington, D. C. and we don't have access to classified intelligence briefings that leaves us with two clear choices: believe everything which is reported or believe none of it. Believing everything you are told without proof is the idiotic choice for obvious reasons so our only real option is to believe nothing we read until someone can prove it. "
A topic well worthy of consideration. When you think about it this say, and by that I mean believing nothing until it can be proven, I submit that you simply can't buy the central themes of the left's grand, over-arching narrative and by extension all the conclusions it draws. What Trump would do IF he were guilty of Russia collusion might be exactly what he would do if he WEREN'T guilty of Russia collusion, considering that they aren't our enemies despite the recent rhetoric of the left and we are both united in goals against threats like ISIS.
There's clearly two sides to this story if you're paying attention, the left wing sources and the right wing sources. The left wing is essentially playing into the Trump-Russia conspiracy narrative and presenting him talking about the laptop threat in that light. The right wing is claiming that Trump did talk about it, but what the White House is worried about is that the leaker revealed more information than Trump had or known, and some of this information might be obtainable on the WaPo's servers which could endanger national security and a big investigation is going on which might end up being serious so a lot are in an uproar over the continued leaks. Where is the truth between these two narratives? None of us know for sure but I stated my thoughts above.
"NY TImes, Washington Post, Reuters vs. Trump White House. I'll go to bat with my team over yours anyday."
If you really think you're getting objective journalism from Washington Post or New York Times let's look at some of their recent headlines.
"Trump is dangerously incompetent" - 2 days ago
"A theory: Trump fired Comey because he's taller" - 5 days ago
"Trump has sucked the lifeblood out of Sean Spicer" - 2 days ago
"The only realistic way to destroy Trump" - 2 days ago
"The amatuerish autocrat" - 3 days ago
"The continued beclowning of Trump's administration" - 1 day ago
"Trump must be impeached. Here's why." - 4 days ago
"Trump has a dangerous disability" - 2 weeks ago
"The criminal President?" - 5 hours ago
I'm not gonna tell you where to get your information, but WaPo and NYT are InfoWars and Rush Limbaugh. There is no difference in the amount of agenda pushing, no difference in the amount of partisan spinning, no difference between the distortion between opinion and fact between these groups. The only difference is the direction. If you scoff and sneer at right wing media for all it's biases and opinions, one should at least attempt to apply some sort of rigor to one's own side as well lest one fall into a trap of tribalism over geniune explortation of ideas.
Washington Post has a consistently liberal bent, but most of the New York Times' regular columnists are conservatives, notably David Brooks. The NYT readership is very liberal, but the newspaper itself is fairly neutral. Brooks himself just published a scathing editorial of Trump, despite Brooks having consistently defended the conservative point of view over the course of his career.
That's the thing about criticizing Trump. Even conservatives do it. Criticizing Trump isn't proof of bias when both sides do it.
Regarding the Russia thing: I don't believe that Trump himself colluded with the Russians, but the theory that Trump was in cahoots with Putin does actually have a consistent slant. It doesn't portray Trump as alternately a fool and a mastermind; it just portrays him as a fool--a pawn of Putin, who is portrayed as the mastermind.
I don't believe the theory, but it is internally consistent. Inconsistency is not one of its flaws.
About the anonymous sources thing: the reason why journalists keep their sources anonymous in certain cases is because the source could be punished for giving embarrassing information to the press. Anonymous sources have the freedom to speak frankly without fear of retribution.
If journalists did not allow government officials to remain anonymous, the administration would have a total stranglehold on all information about their activities, because the people at the top could punish anyone who said anything they didn't like.
I would not give that much unchecked power to any administration.
On the other hand, if a reporter writes "the source said x but only on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media about the subject" or "the source said x but only on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution" then how do you know that that is what the source actually said? Without proof of the statement, without someone willing to put their name to a statement, the reporter could just be making it up to fill words for an article. Anonymous sources may actually be telling the truth but the fact that the source is anonymous leaves room for reasonable doubt.
There is something known as "ethics in journalism."
If it got out that a reporter was using a "fake" source, they wouldn't be employed with that media much longer.
That doesn't mean there source isn't providing them fake information to begin with. It's all about trust, which has eroded over the years due to partisan reporting.
I did say, months ago, that Trump would be a one-termer. I still don't think he'll be impeached but there is no way he wins another general election, presuming he even gets the nomination from the RNC.
Just as there was no way he would win the last election?
His voters voted for him because he is the way he is. I've repeatedly said that.
If you think that he will not win a second term that would mean that less people would vote for him in the next election. Why would they do that?
Because of the current developments? You may see that as the reason to note vote for him. His supporters would vote for him all the more BECAUSE of the current developments!
Everything that may be shocking about Trump is what his voters love about him. And if there is indeed something his voters don't like then you gotta blame the democrats for it.
If he doesn't up hold his promises: Create job growth in the rust belt, prevent companies from leaving the US to overseas/mexico, tear up Nafta, build a damn wall, they will leave him especially if who ever he is running against sounds like honey and will cause less controversy.
Can we discuss why Erdogan's thugs were beating up protesters in DC yesterday?? Or why this man who is in the process of destroying Turkish democracy is in town to begin with, much less being at the White House
Can we discuss why Erdogan's thugs were beating up protesters in DC yesterday?? Or why this man who is in the process of destroying Turkish democracy is in town to begin with, much less being at the White House
Comments
Comey has a long history of taking notes on his conversations; this is merely one example (I've actually done the same thing). And apparently such memos from FBI officials have been admissible as evidence in court--they're not just loose scribblings with no legal weight.
We have yet to see the full text of the memo. I hope it is made public; I'm curious to see it.
If journalists did not allow government officials to remain anonymous, the administration would have a total stranglehold on all information about their activities, because the people at the top could punish anyone who said anything they didn't like.
I would not give that much unchecked power to any administration.
He picked a fight with the CIA, FBI, over half the country, and the media. He is going to lose. Bigly.
This is all happening concurrently, by the hour. Absolutely unprecedented incompetence and criminality.
We are at the point where all the lifeboats are jettisoning. If Republicans, Trump supporters, or anyone else wants to get off, this is the last call. Otherwise, be prepared to sink with his ship.
It's worth noting that this video was made almost a full year ago.
I will agree that Caitlyn Jenner has set back attitudes about transgender people by about a decade, but that has NOTHING to do with her being transgender and everything to do with being a attention-craving media whore, which can be said about hundreds of other people.
My reaction when talking about this subject can be summed up thus: Is it ridiculous that certain portions of the left have thrown out words that most of society can't possibly have kept up with (including me) and that some colleges have so-called "safe spaces". Yeah, I guess so. But what's more ridiculous is that people care enough about this subject to think it's an actual problem, much less the harbringer of some societal apocalypse.
Do you remember when Trump decried anonymous sources, suggesting that such sources use their real name? Here's the article:
http://fortune.com/2017/02/25/trump-anonymous-media-sources/
Do you notice that other bit? Many of his own people also use anonymity.
Do you remember when he would go on and on about the leakers, and how they needed to be found and dealt with? And then there's the threat to Comey that he better not leak! Yea, Trump's really concerned about leakers. Not. And look! He's at it again, and doth protest too much. Yesterday he even had one of his GOP cronies preach basically the same thing - even going so far as to call them traitors (for maximum effect). Traitors.
I could see this coming from a mile away.
Trump is the leak. And the information? False. This accomplishes three things - and all three are absolutely devastating as they pertain to the preservation of our republic. You see, when Comey, who had been loyal to Trump long before Trump came right out and asked for such loyalty, will testify. And he'll tell the truth...that there was no such memo. And if there are any other so-called "leaks", they will be shot down, too.
1. Press credibility = Destroyed.
2. Credibility of any future leaks (such as those exposing some kind of horrible activity) = Destroyed.
3. His own credibility = complete validation.
Don't let the little charade with Bannon being forced to live in the proverbial doghouse fool you. What's about to hit this country has Bannon's fingerprints all over it. A media man himself, he works from the shadows, and working to delegitmize anything and everything that will ultimately get in the way of our eventual, and inevitable, "transition".
The shit is going down in DC.
The idea that the memo is a false leak doesn't seem realistic to me. The story is not only that a memo exists, but that Comey has discussed it with his officials - as that's pretty easy to check it wouldn't make sense to include that as a false leak.
Trump Isn’t Playing 8-D Chess
This leads us to the more general topic: who is telling the truth these days? Which tweets are real and which ones are fake? Which news stories are real and which ones are fake? Since most of us are not privy to the meetings taking place in Washington, D. C. and we don't have access to classified intelligence briefings that leaves us with two clear choices: believe everything which is reported or believe none of it. Believing everything you are told without proof is the idiotic choice for obvious reasons so our only real option is to believe nothing we read until someone can prove it.
Did Trump ask Comey to stop investigating Flynn? Possibly so because it would be in his (Trump's) best interest. Did Trump pass information to the Russians, either directly or inadvertently? This is also plausible because sometimes he doesn't know how to shut his mouth. Can any of us prove either allegation? Of course not because we weren't there so we have to rely on others for proof.
I think Trump is starting to lose it faster than Nixon did during his second term. If things spiral out of control badly enough the House may not have any choice but to act on impeachment. I would have added "against one of their own" but I think many Republicans are beginning to see that Trump is not one of them.
OTH the whole Seth Rich story has already fallen apart.
Of course, anonymous sources are not enough to convict anyone, just grounds for an investigation in some cases.
In addition, last night, one of the ideas being floated by right-wing media was "let's see the notes he has about Obama" which was shot down today by those close to him, as they said he took no notes on Obama because every interaction they ever had was the height of professionalism and normal. Because Obama isn't a raving lunatic.
Edit: the situation with Ashcroft was not in regards to torture, but of signing off on surveillance of US citizens.
I did say, months ago, that Trump would be a one-termer. I still don't think he'll be impeached but there is no way he wins another general election, presuming he even gets the nomination from the RNC.
I don't think Trump is some ingenious mastermind. But if he is, his choice of enemies is very interesting.
It actually reminds me quite a bit of the old "Bush did 9/11!" from the old days. Bush was intelligent enough to collude a massive attack on his own country yet was so incompetent and dumb he couldn't blurt out a coherent speech and was found out by forums users on the internet.
A topic well worthy of consideration. When you think about it this say, and by that I mean believing nothing until it can be proven, I submit that you simply can't buy the central themes of the left's grand, over-arching narrative and by extension all the conclusions it draws. What Trump would do IF he were guilty of Russia collusion might be exactly what he would do if he WEREN'T guilty of Russia collusion, considering that they aren't our enemies despite the recent rhetoric of the left and we are both united in goals against threats like ISIS.
There's clearly two sides to this story if you're paying attention, the left wing sources and the right wing sources. The left wing is essentially playing into the Trump-Russia conspiracy narrative and presenting him talking about the laptop threat in that light. The right wing is claiming that Trump did talk about it, but what the White House is worried about is that the leaker revealed more information than Trump had or known, and some of this information might be obtainable on the WaPo's servers which could endanger national security and a big investigation is going on which might end up being serious so a lot are in an uproar over the continued leaks. Where is the truth between these two narratives? None of us know for sure but I stated my thoughts above.
If you really think you're getting objective journalism from Washington Post or New York Times let's look at some of their recent headlines.
"Trump is dangerously incompetent" - 2 days ago
"A theory: Trump fired Comey because he's taller" - 5 days ago
"Trump has sucked the lifeblood out of Sean Spicer" - 2 days ago
"The only realistic way to destroy Trump" - 2 days ago
"The amatuerish autocrat" - 3 days ago
"The continued beclowning of Trump's administration" - 1 day ago
"Trump must be impeached. Here's why." - 4 days ago
"Trump has a dangerous disability" - 2 weeks ago
"The criminal President?" - 5 hours ago
I'm not gonna tell you where to get your information, but WaPo and NYT are InfoWars and Rush Limbaugh. There is no difference in the amount of agenda pushing, no difference in the amount of partisan spinning, no difference between the distortion between opinion and fact between these groups. The only difference is the direction. If you scoff and sneer at right wing media for all it's biases and opinions, one should at least attempt to apply some sort of rigor to one's own side as well lest one fall into a trap of tribalism over geniune explortation of ideas.
That's the thing about criticizing Trump. Even conservatives do it. Criticizing Trump isn't proof of bias when both sides do it.
I don't believe the theory, but it is internally consistent. Inconsistency is not one of its flaws.
If it got out that a reporter was using a "fake" source, they wouldn't be employed with that media much longer.
That doesn't mean there source isn't providing them fake information to begin with. It's all about trust, which has eroded over the years due to partisan reporting. If he doesn't up hold his promises: Create job growth in the rust belt, prevent companies from leaving the US to overseas/mexico, tear up Nafta, build a damn wall, they will leave him especially if who ever he is running against sounds like honey and will cause less controversy.
Also: