Matt Taibbi warns: Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media

Bigdog

Bigdog

Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
" ... But what if there is nothing else to find?

Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it.

In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on.

Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance in the media. What does this mean?

Hypothesize for a moment that the "scandal" here is real, but in a limited sense: Trump's surrogates have not colluded with Russians, but have had “contacts,” and recognize their political liability, and lie about them. Investigators then leak the true details of these contacts, leaving the wild speculations to the media and the Internet. Trump is enough of a pig and a menace that it's easy to imagine doing this and not feeling terribly sorry that your leaks have been over-interpreted.

If that's the case, there are big dangers for the press. If we engage in Times-style gilding of every lily the leakers throw our way, and in doing so build up a fever of expectations for a bombshell reveal, but there turns out to be no conspiracy – Trump will be pre-inoculated against all criticism for the foreseeable future.

The press has to cover this subject. But it can't do it with glibness and excitement, laughing along to SNL routines, before it knows for sure what it's dealing with. Reporters should be scared to their marrow by this story. This is a high-wire act and it is a very long way down. We might want to leave the jokes and the nicknames be, until we get to the other side – wherever that is. "

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...minefield-for-democrats-and-the-media-w471074
 
For instance, the Times mentioned the bizarre (and unverified) dossier prepared by Christopher Steele.

Whether the Steele material was in any way connected to the contacts to which the Times referred was unclear, but the paper plowed ahead, writing (emphasis mine):

"The dossier contained a raft of allegations ... unsubstantiated claims that the Russians had embarrassing videos that could be used to blackmail Mr. Trump. ... The F.B.I. has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive claims..."

These constructions are an end run around the paper's own reporting standards. The Times by itself could never have run that "explosive" Steele dossier, or mentioned the "embarrassing videos" – because the dossier material can't be confirmed.

But since it's all out there in the ether now, thanks to Buzzfeed, it apparently can safely be mentioned. Worse, the Times recounted all this in connection with the other story about alleged contacts with Russian intelligence, adding to the appearance of gravity and salaciousness.

Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out.

Members demand that Trump release his tax returns, for instance, so that Democrats can "clarify the specific financial interests that he has in Russia" – as if it is a given that he has such interests, or that such interests will be meaningful.
 
whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected.
But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on.

Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance in the media. What does this mean?

Hypothesize for a moment that the "scandal" here is real, but in a limited sense: Trump's surrogates have not colluded with Russians, but have had “contacts,” and recognize their political liability, and lie about them. Investigators then leak the true details of these contacts, leaving the wild speculations to the media and the Internet.
 
domer76 said:
I already knew he was a good journalist. The point being, that when the RW douchebags like a story, suddenly Rolling Stone is credible.
Click to expand...

Well I suspect that's true of most people including you.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Milagro said:
Well I suspect that's true of most people including you.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
Click to expand...

The day that you find me quoting Breitbart, WND, Infowars or heatst is the day you can kill me.
 
anatta said:
For instance, the Times mentioned the bizarre (and unverified) dossier prepared by Christopher Steele.

Whether the Steele material was in any way connected to the contacts to which the Times referred was unclear, but the paper plowed ahead, writing (emphasis mine):

"The dossier contained a raft of allegations ... unsubstantiated claims that the Russians had embarrassing videos that could be used to blackmail Mr. Trump. ... The F.B.I. has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive claims..."

These constructions are an end run around the paper's own reporting standards. The Times by itself could never have run that "explosive" Steele dossier, or mentioned the "embarrassing videos" – because the dossier material can't be confirmed.

But since it's all out there in the ether now, thanks to Buzzfeed, it apparently can safely be mentioned. Worse, the Times recounted all this in connection with the other story about alleged contacts with Russian intelligence, adding to the appearance of gravity and salaciousness.

Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out.

Members demand that Trump release his tax returns, for instance, so that Democrats can "clarify the specific financial interests that he has in Russia" – as if it is a given that he has such interests, or that such interests will be meaningful.
Click to expand...

They are also the ones that wrote that Trump was 'wiretapped' that exposed Flynn meeting with the Russian Ambass. and that led to Flynn being fired.....they supposedly got that tip from someone in the government.....

Ahhhh.....the plot thickens.....lol
 
anatta said:
For instance, the Times mentioned the bizarre (and unverified) dossier prepared by Christopher Steele.

Whether the Steele material was in any way connected to the contacts to which the Times referred was unclear, but the paper plowed ahead, writing (emphasis mine):

"The dossier contained a raft of allegations ... unsubstantiated claims that the Russians had embarrassing videos that could be used to blackmail Mr. Trump. ... The F.B.I. has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive claims..."

These constructions are an end run around the paper's own reporting standards. The Times by itself could never have run that "explosive" Steele dossier, or mentioned the "embarrassing videos" – because the dossier material can't be confirmed.

But since it's all out there in the ether now, thanks to Buzzfeed, it apparently can safely be mentioned. Worse, the Times recounted all this in connection with the other story about alleged contacts with Russian intelligence, adding to the appearance of gravity and salaciousness.

Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out.

Members demand that Trump release his tax returns, for instance, so that Democrats can "clarify the specific financial interests that he has in Russia" – as if it is a given that he has such interests, or that such interests will be meaningful.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between a garbanzo bean and a chickpea?
Trump never had a garbanzo bean on his face...

Everything else in Steele's dossier has been checking out to be true ...
Everything...

The garbanzo bean part may well turn out to be true if everything else is any indicator...

Golden-gate-9.jpg
 
Bill said:
I agree he is very good.... How do you know of him??

To the OP, he certainly has a point, but this is always true in politics....... Being wrong wont stop any of them IMHO!!
Click to expand...
Not sure how to answer that question? I am very widely read and that piece he did about GS is infamous.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
domer76 said:
The day that you find me quoting Breitbart, WND, Infowars or heatst is the day you can kill me.
Click to expand...

Yet you'll quite happily quote from Raw Story, Daily Kos, Think Progress or Alternet, no doubt!

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
 
Milagro said:
Not sure how to answer that question? I am very widely read and that piece he did about GS is infamous.

Sent from Lenovo K5 Note:
To piss off snowflakes, bottom feeders and racists
Click to expand...

He's a terrific writer. :)

Vladimir Putin: George Soros Is Wanted “Dead Or Alive”, "a Threat to Russian National Security"

Russia have officially declared that Billionaire George Soros is a wanted man in their country, citing him and his organizations as a “threat to Russian national security”.

Putin banned Soros from Russia last year due to the fact that Soros helped to nearly destroy the Russian economy in the early 1990’s.



Matt Taibbi of the Rolling Stone said of Goldman Sachs:

“The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

“In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who’s Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.”

Obviously Soros wants to be like Goldman Sachs. Phil Butler puts it well when he says: “George Soros has a finger in every political pie there is. If there is a crisis on our world, it’s a safe bet he’s had a hand in it.”


One can say that Soros and Goldman Sachs are ideologically part of the same brotherhood. Their strategy is a little different, but the end result is the destruction of lives via the economic system (be it capitalism or socialism) and political manipulation.

That’s why Soros seems to think that he is invincible. He thinks he can move the political and economic planet in a few blinks of an eye and no one can tell him to stop. In fact, he writes books such as The Alchemy of Finance. Soros thinks he can kill political stability throughout Europe and indeed in America with no challenge.

Soros is certainly old, but he doesn’t want to be obsolete. His organization has recently been caught conducting covert operations designed to destabilize Russia. Here is an interesting quote from the leaked files of Soros’ Open Society Foundation:

“Our inclination is to engage in activities and with actors that will understand and counter Russian support to movements defending traditional values…Naming and shaming from us is problematic: we are also in the business of channeling money into other countries for political purposes.”



According to Butler, this was all Soros’ own infection. Soros wanted to bring down Russia’s traditional families. He wanted to turn Russia into a zoo, but he had to use terms such as “democracy” to deceive the masses.

So, when Soros wrote last February that “Putin is a bigger threat to Europe’s existence than Isis,” he was marshalling his own diabolical plan, which arguably is consistent or congruent with what the Khazarian Mafia and their lackeys have been doing over the centuries. In fact, the Neoconservatives like Noah Rothman of Commentary continue to sing the ideological tune that “Russia is not your friend.” Listen to Soros very carefully here:

“The leaders of the US and the EU are making a grievous error in thinking that president Vladimir Putin’s Russia is a potential ally in the fight against Islamic State. The evidence contradicts them. Putin’s aim is to foster the EU’s disintegration, and the best way to do so is to flood Europe with Syrian refugees.

“Russian planes have been bombing the civilian population in southern Syria forcing them to flee to Jordan and Lebanon. There are now 20,000 Syrian refugees camped out in the desert awaiting admission to Jordan.”

What was the evidence that Russian planes were deliberately bombing the civilian population? Well, the evidence could be found in George Soros himself. Whatever comes out of his mouth is the truth. No further investigation is needed. No rigorous testing is required. Soros is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. And if evidence points to the other direction, then the evidence must be rejected, not Soros’ own words. If Russia is still obliterating ISIS in Syria, then the information is false because Soros did not approve it.

Soros has obviously been making a fool of himself, and he seems to realize that he is more vulnerable than ever before because he is not acting according to the dictates of practical reason. In that sense, he is anti-reason. He aspires to fulfill ideological dogmas and disregard the truth at any cost.




As we have indicated elsewhere, George Soros proves himself to be an agent of the New World Order by going after Russia, the very country that has been obliterating ISIS in Syria. ISIS has been using chemical weapons in the region, and no one, not even Soros, has said a word about this.

Russia obviously had enough of this man and eventually forbade him to enter the country. They eventually called him and his subversive organizations a “threat to Russian national security.” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said similar things. F. William Engdahl argued last January that “George Soros, the hedge fund speculator turned self-proclaimed philanthropist, and his tax-exempt foundations, are an integral part of that pre-emptive war machine.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top