Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Dec 18 09:26:28 PST 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / manafort repeatedly visited assange
werewolf dictator
Member
Tue Nov 27 13:34:15
Seth Abramson@SethAbramson 2h [verified with 557k followers]
Replying to @Missa1969

THE GUARDIAN's Luke Harding isn't just anyone—he's been the top journalist on Trump-Russia collusion for 2+ years. He wrote a book on it. And THE GUARDIAN having a description of what Manafort was *wearing* means he was caught by the embassy's cameras. Ignore WikiLeaks' denials.

----------

Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, sources say

Trump ally met WikiLeaks founder months before emails hacked by Russia were published

http://www...-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy

Luke Harding and Dan Collyns in Quito
Tue 27 Nov 2018 09.23 E

Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.

Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House.

It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last apparent meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

A well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016. Months later WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.

Manafort, 69, denies involvement in the hack and says the claim is “100% false”. His lawyers declined to answer the Guardian’s questions about the visits.

In a series of tweets WikiLeaks said Assange and Manafort had not met. Assange described the story as a hoax.

Manafort was jailed this year and was thought to have become a star cooperator in the Mueller inquiry. But on Monday Mueller said Manafort had repeatedly lied to the FBI, despite agreeing to cooperate two months ago in a plea deal. According to a court document, Manafort had committed “crimes and lies” on a “variety of subject matters”.

His defence team says he believes what he has told Mueller to be truthful and has not violated his deal.

Manafort’s first visit to the embassy took place a year after Assange sought asylum inside, two sources said.

A separate internal document written by Ecuador’s Senain intelligence agency and seen by the Guardian lists “Paul Manaford [sic]” as one of several well-known guests. It also mentions “Russians”.

According to the sources, Manafort returned to the embassy in 2015. He paid another visit in spring 2016, turning up alone, around the time Trump named him as his convention manager. The visit is tentatively dated to March.

Manafort’s 2016 visit to Assange lasted about 40 minutes, one source said, adding that the American was casually dressed when he exited the embassy, wearing sandy-coloured chinos, a cardigan and a light-coloured shirt.

Visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their passports. Sources in Ecuador, however, say Manafort was not logged.

Embassy staff were aware only later of the potential significance of Manafort’s visit and his political role with Trump, it is understood.

The revelation could shed new light on the sequence of events in the run-up to summer 2016, when WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of emails hacked by the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency. Hillary Clinton has said the hack contributed to her defeat.

The previously unreported Manafort-Assange connection is likely to be of interest to Mueller, who has been investigating possible contacts between WikiLeaks and associates of Trump including the political lobbyist Roger Stone and Donald Trump Jr.

One key question is when the Trump campaign was aware of the Kremlin’s hacking operation – and what, if anything, it did to encourage it. Trump has repeatedly denied collusion.

Earlier this year Mueller indicted 12 GRU intelligence officers for carrying out the hack, which began in March 2016.

In June of that year WikiLeaks emailed the GRU via an intermediary seeking the DNC material. After failed attempts, Vladimir Putin’s spies sent the documents in mid-July to WikiLeaks as an encrypted attachment.

According to sources, Manafort’s acquaintance with Assange goes back at least five years, to late 2012 or 2013, when the American was working in Ukraine and advising its Moscow-friendly president, Viktor Yanukovych.

Why Manafort might have sought out Assange in 2013 is unclear. During this period the veteran consultant was involved in black operations against Yanukovych’s chief political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, whom Yanukovych had jailed. Manafort ran an extensive lobbying operation featuring European former politicians.

He flew frequently from the US to Ukraine’s capital, Kiev – usually via Frankfurt but sometimes through London, flight records seen by the Guardian show.

Manafort is currently in jail in Alexandria, Virginia. In August a jury convicted him of crimes arising from his decade-long activities in Ukraine. They include large-scale money laundering and failure to pay US tax. Manafort pleaded guilty to further charges in order to avoid a second trial in Washington.

As well as accusing him of lying on Monday, the special counsel moved to set a date for Manafort to be sentenced.

One person familiar with WikiLeaks said Assange was motivated to damage the Democrats campaign because he believed a future Trump administration would be less likely to seek his extradition on possible charges of espionage. This fate had hung over Assange since 2010, when he released confidential US state department cables. It contributed to his decision to take refuge in the embassy.

According to the dossier written by the former MI6 officer Christopher Steele, Manafort was at the centre of a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between the Trump campaign and Russia’s leadership. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Clinton, Steele wrote, whom Putin “hated and feared”.

In a memo written soon after the DNC emails were published, Steele said: “The [hacking] operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team.”

As a candidate Trump warmly welcomed the dump of DNC emails by Assange. In October 2016 he declared: “I love WikiLeaks.” Trump’s comments came after WikiLeaks released a second tranche of emails seized from the email account of John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman.

The Trump White House subsequently sent out mixed messages over Assange and his legal fate. In 2017 and behind the scenes Assange tried to reach a deal with Trump’s Department of Justice that might see him avoid US prison.

In May 2017, , Manafort flew to Ecuador to hold talks with the country’s president-elect Lenín Moreno. The discussions, days before Moreno was sworn in, and before Manafort was indicted – were ostensibly about a large-scale Chinese investment.

However, one source in Quito suggests that Manafort also discreetly raised Assange’s plight. Another senior foreign ministry source said he was sceptical Assange was mentioned. At the time Moreno was expected to continue support for him.

Last week a court filing released in error suggested that the US justice department had secretly charged Assange with a criminal offence. Written by the assistant US attorney, Kellen Dwyer, the document did not say what Assange had been charged with or when the alleged offence took place.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Nov 27 14:39:30

Manafort denies the entire story.

His lawyers are looking into possible legal action since they printed the story after Manafort denied it.

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Nov 27 14:44:32
you can print stories even when someone denies it

Manafort is a convicted felon & Trump associate... denying something is like an admission of guilt
Rugian
Member
Tue Nov 27 14:47:17
Assange is a hero and a martyr.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Nov 27 14:56:04
http://off...s-luke-harding-what-collusion/

VIDEO: Aaron Maté asks Luke Harding “What collusion?”
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Nov 27 14:56:12

He is also a decorated war hero.



If they print the story after he denies it and takes them to court they better have some really positive evidence to back them up.

hood
Member
Tue Nov 27 15:09:10
Another topic rod knows nothing about: law.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Nov 27 15:45:38

Of course, you are right. The Guardian can get a story from the neighborhood drunk that Manafort fucked his mother and they don't need any proof.

Rugian
Member
Tue Nov 27 15:59:35
I dont know why anyone would have an issue with a publication as objective and evenly-balanced as The Guardian. Why, just take a look at some of their pieces on their Opinion page right now:

"The midterms revealed the power of partisanship and whiteness"

"The week in patriarchy: women are strong when we stick up together"

"Let's give thanks to Trump – at least now we know how not to do politics"

"Michelle Obama took off the mask the public gave her. We can do the same"

"Big Oil v the planet is the fight of our lives. Democrats must choose a side"

"The best way to make fathers help out at home? Home economics classes"



Fox News is way less of a circle-jerk than this garbage.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Nov 27 16:04:04
go watch any of Jeanine Pirro's opening statements
...and then Hannity, and Ingraham, and Carlson, and Dobbs...

also Fox News has a lot more viewers than the Guardian has readers
hood
Member
Tue Nov 27 16:31:16
"The Guardian can get a story from the neighborhood drunk that Manafort fucked his mother and they don't need any proof."

Yes, they actually could. They shouldn't, as it would lack integrity, but legally speaking the guardian could absolutely publish "source claims Paul manafort had incestuous sex with his mother."

You don't understand law. You should just shutthefuckup about it. Feel free to be indignant over the article, but don't erroneously suggest it broke laws.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Nov 27 16:37:38
"can get a story from the neighborhood drunk"
that's what the National Enquirer does

...which Trump considers highly respected


that Ted Cruz affairs story was entirely based on rumors (w/ one source being Roger Stone)... and now we know National Enquirer actually had a deal with Trump... seems like that arrangement should be illegal
Forwyn
Member
Tue Nov 27 16:58:19
"legally speaking the guardian could absolutely publish "source claims Paul manafort had incestuous sex with his mother."

"In an action for defamation per se, the law recognizes that certain false statements are so damaging that they create a presumption of injury to the plaintiff's reputation, allowing a defamation case to proceed to verdict with no actual proof of damages. Although laws vary by state, and not all states recognize defamation per se, there are four general categories of false statement that typically support a per se action:[132]

accusing someone of a crime;
alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease;
adversely reflecting on a person's fitness to conduct their business or trade; and
imputing serious sexual misconduct.
If the plaintiff proves that such a statement was made and was false, to recover damages the plaintiff need only prove that someone had made the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required. However, to recover full compensation a plaintiff should be prepared to prove actual damages."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Defamation_per_se
hood
Member
Tue Nov 27 17:13:51
And what makes you think it wouldn't be the source making the claims that is liable?
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Nov 27 18:35:39

hood - You don't understand law.


All I know is what I hear on the news and read in the funny papers and they said that Manafort and his legal beagles are looking into what can be done against The Guardian.

So I suggest you look up his legal beagles, show them your law degree from Harvard and tell them they are full of prunes.

Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Nov 27 18:40:13

hood - And what makes you think it wouldn't be the source making the claims that is liable?


If The Guardian exposes their source that is the end of getting tips from sources that do not want to be identified.

hood
Member
Tue Nov 27 19:47:46
"Manafort and his legal beagles are looking into what can be done against The Guardian."

Everyone looks into what can be done. Things rarely ever happen.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Nov 27 20:13:31
WASHINGTON — A lawyer for Paul Manafort, the president’s onetime campaign chairman, repeatedly briefed President Trump’s lawyers on his client’s discussions with federal investigators after Mr. Manafort agreed to cooperate with the special counsel, according to one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers and two other people familiar with the conversations.

The arrangement was highly unusual and inflamed tensions with Mr. Mueller’s office when prosecutors discovered it after Mr. Manafort began cooperating two months ago, the people said. Some legal experts speculated that it was a bid by Mr. Manafort for a presidential pardon even as he worked with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in hopes of a lighter sentence.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, one of the president’s personal lawyers, acknowledged the arrangement on Tuesday and defended it as a source of valuable insights into the special counsel’s inquiry and where it was headed. Such information could help shape a legal defense strategy, and it also appeared to give Mr. Trump and his legal advisers ammunition in their public relations campaign against the special counsel’s office.
...
http://www...-lawyer-trump-cooperation.html

quite a crime ring they got going
Forwyn
Member
Tue Nov 27 20:37:06
"And what makes you think it wouldn't be the source making the claims that is liable?"

Might work. Might not. Neutral reportage defense, as far as I can tell, has only worked in Florida and Illinois. Guardian US is based in NY, where such a defense got shot down.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Nov 27 20:43:37
Trump accuses people of crimes and/or suggests they are unfit for their jobs on a routine basis.
(as usual projecting himself onto others)

He deserves dozens of defamation suits.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Nov 27 22:09:18

And when he does he is usually right.


What is so really sad is you have no idea how much good he is really doing for The American people.

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Nov 27 22:42:20
i'd like an example of him being right about any of his defaming (judges, politicians, justice dept employees)


also the midterms had a historic gap between D votes & R votes (9 million)... the American people have spoken, Trump is shit

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Tue Nov 27 22:55:24
btw your pathetic hero just praised Brenda Snipes (the Florida woman he accused of voter fraud)
now "she is a fine, very honorable and highly respected voting tactician!"

just like he praised governor candidate Gillum after calling him a thief

and praised Stacey Abrams after calling her unqualified

and he even praised Nancy Pelosi

the piece of shit has never backtracked on any of his insults until now... he saw how much everyone hates him in the midterms & is trying to change his image w/ obvious insincerity
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 28 06:39:12
Hood:

"but legally speaking the guardian could absolutely publish "source claims Paul manafort had incestuous sex with his mother."

Actually, you are quite wrong. That would definitely be illegal under the defamation act 2013. The Gaurdian is a UK newspaper and could be sued in UK courts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

A Newspaper would never get away with an innocent dissemination defence. Therefor it would be held equally liable even if only repeating the claim of a source.

It would either have to prove the claim was true on the balance of probabilities, and in the public interest.

A single source of dubious trustworthiness would be insufficient.





hood
Member
Wed Nov 28 08:50:48
Nobody gives two shits about British law and nobody was talking about British law.
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 28 09:44:18
Hood:
If you can't figure out which jurisdictions apply, then clearly don't understand law and should probably refrain from lecturing others about their understanding of it.

The Gaurdian is a British newspaper, published from the UK. Therefore, the offence occurred here and it is here that the plaintiff would sue (particularly as it is more favourable jurisdiction for him as the plaintiff as the Gaurdian has fewer protections).

The US law is therefore irrelevant.

If the defendant were solely based in the US they might have some protections under US law, and additionally the UK courts would be less likely to consider the case, particularly after the 2013 reforms.

But that is not the case here. As anyone who understood law would know.

As it happens, Manafort would be very unwise to sue unless he absolutely certain there is no reasonable grounds to believe he did in fact visit Assange repeatedly. Cf. Archer, Aitken etc. Nor will it help him convince Muller and co who will examine primary evidence irrespective of whether the Gaurdian retract. In the event he suffers damages (i.e. loses his plea bargain), that would likely substantiate the Gaurdians defence of public interest and that they had reasonable grounds to believe it true.

In your silly hypothetical though, he'd easily win.
Rugian
Member
Wed Nov 28 09:46:57
Please stop saying Gaurdian.
hood
Member
Wed Nov 28 09:47:41
You are fucking stupid. We are discussing a retarded hypothetical proposed by hot rod. The issue is not the specific newspaper who would print near-slander incest allegations, but how our (US, not some backwater shithole) laws would apply.

Kindly fuck off, dumbass.
Rugian
Member
Wed Nov 28 09:49:15
Did Hot Rod ever limit Manaforts potential legal remedies to US courts? I dont think he did.
hood
Member
Wed Nov 28 09:56:13
Did hot rod think about his comment at all? I don't think he did.

But it's pretty fair to recognize his personality and focus on the US in relation to his general statements.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Wed Nov 28 10:24:32

I think Hot Rod repeated exactly what he heard on Television.


BTW, Public figures and celebrities do have recourse to the courts. The media can print anything they wish about someone as long as it is true.

Though those kinds of lawsuits are rare.

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 28 11:33:59
i believe you have to prove malice to get any meaningful reward

plus shit outlets like National Enquirer are careful to only strongly imply things rather than declare them as true

and its why there are "?"s at the end of headlines that are usually garbage articles
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Wed Nov 28 11:39:20
#morenothingburgerclickbaitforeducatedidjiotsandmentalmidgets
Jack Cafferty
Member
Wed Nov 28 11:58:31
Forwyn and hot rod, two dipwads who speak on a subject they know nothing about: law.
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 28 12:42:08
Hood:

The hypothetical as posed by hot rod clearly stipulates the Gaurdian.

You and Forwyn even went on to discuss which state the Gaurdians US branch is based in.

So clearly you understand jurisdiction matters here and for the scenario hot rod presents.

You may suspect Hot Rod hadn't considered jurisdictions other than the US, and is merely correct by accident. But there is no evidence for that.

Focusing on the US merely because you feel it reasonable to do so given you think hot rod is, well, hot rod, is silly: it begs the question: assuming hot rod has made a mistake in order to demonstrate that he has done so, when actually the source of the error is in your own assumptions.

You are therefore claiming to either explicitly making a bigger legal error yourself, but attributing it to hot rod; either due to confused thinking or bad faith .

If you were acting in good faith and had appreciated Manafort could and would, if he were minded to, sue in the UK - then you would assume hot rod was uncharacteristically well informed. Or you might even say something like "Well, under UK law maybe".

I think it more likely you simply erred than acting in bad faith.

It is however typical of you that you would rather insist that you were acting in bad faith or illogically than simply admit your error in the first instance.

We can never now know whether hot rod made an error. But we do know you definitely did: either in initially misunderstanding the options open to Manafort or in your subsequent dismissal of hot rod.



werewolf dictator
Member
Wed Nov 28 13:13:32
i don't think i have track record of picking on seb's mostly reasonable spelling with dyslexia..

but "Gaurdian" with the "a" before "u" looks extraordinarily wrong.. it's "guardian"

trying to be helpful and not a jerk
Forwyn
Member
Wed Nov 28 14:01:03
"You and Forwyn even went on to discuss which state the Gaurdians US branch is based in."

I did, in relation to a defense against a per se lawsuit. Such a lawsuit would undoubtedly be directed at Guardian US, based in New York.

They could certainly try to initiate separate proceedings against the home office in UK; but this is a whole lot of arguing about a hypothetical whose answer is, "Maybe." A lot of mincing over the potential actions of individuals.
hood
Member
Wed Nov 28 15:09:39
"You and Forwyn even went on to discuss which state the Gaurdians US branch is based in."

I made no such discussion. I think you don't understand hypotheticals or their value. You are pointless. See previous comments about fucking off.
Seb
Member
Wed Nov 28 16:10:13
werewolf:

google Grauniad ;)

Forwyn:

1. Clearly demonstrating that Hood knew, or should have known, about the importance of jurisdiction.

2. You are incorrect to think it would be addressed at the US branch office. The editorial decision would have been made in the UK where the editorial team is based. The US subsidiary is purely a regulatory requirement (e.g. to establish US press credentials etc.).

There is nothing that would prevent them from initiating proceedings in the UK, and as the Guardian is based there, and that is where the libel was committed, there is no immediate reason for the UK courts not to hear the case.

Notoriously so, even after the reforms in 2013 to limit jurisdictional tourism that was seeing foreigners attempt to sue foreign papers on the grounds that the article was viewed in the UK by a handful of people.

Attempting to sue in the US in parallel would therefor be foolish as it would provide an argument for the Guardian to have the case thrown out of the UK courts.

Manafort, if he is going to sue, would sue in the UK where the jurisdiction is most favorable to him.

Hood:

It's a bit pathetic when you can't admit you are wrong Hood. You should at least apologies to Hot Rod.


tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Nov 28 17:20:54
here's Trump accusing 11 people of treason with no basis (& a false claim about collusion being proven a lie)
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtEwcW2WsAADSP2.jpg

...it's a retweet, you'll have to go to his twitter feed to see it yourself if you disbelieve the idiot liar child retweeted it

seems to fit "accusing someone of a crime" quite clearly
hood
Member
Wed Nov 28 17:51:29
Seb clearly doesn't understand "fuck off," and it's laughable that retarded brits still think they're relevant.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Nov 28 18:07:09
"The editorial decision would have been made in the UK where the editorial team is based."

You're basing this on what, exactly?

A cursory search shows an extensive US editorial team.

http://www...m-reporters-and-correspondents
hood
Member
Wed Nov 28 18:15:38
"You're basing this on what, exactly?"

He's basing it on his compulsive need to feel important and relevant.
werewolf dictator
Member
Wed Nov 28 20:24:12
the russians may have planted disinfo to discredit harding's important career reporting on russia.. theorizes ex-cia agent for politico

http://www...manafort-julian-assange-222694

mark ames and yasha levine might start shopping for new country
Seb
Member
Thu Nov 29 01:59:00
Forwyn:

I find it really strange that you guys have a conceptual problem with the idea that a UK based paper would be subject to UK courts.

I'm basing this on the fact the article ran in the UK print edition, and the article is sourced from evidence gathered in the UK where Assange is, and the website is managed from the UK under a .co.uk domain name.

Looking at those roles, none of them are the senior folks who have ultimate accountability for content. Ultimate corporate responsibility for content rests with the editor in chief.

So I'm struggling to see exactly how the Guardian could convince a UK court that they couldn't be sued on the basis that any decision had been taken in a branch office overseas, without oversight or in violation of corporate editorial policies. The investigative work was done in the UK, and the content published on a website managed from that UK, in print media printed and distributed in the UK, by a company headquartered in the UK. Did nobody notice that a regional editor in a branch office had gone rogue and put content out to UK printers without the editor in chief signoff?

If the courts accepted that, what would stop any organisation simply setting up a brass plate branch in NY and saying all decisions were ultimately taken there?

Plus it is hardly unusual. People do this all the time, they even used to do it when better the plaintiff or defendant were based in the UK.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Thu Nov 29 09:51:08
Guardian ups its vilification of Julian Assange

http://www...n-vilification-julian-assange/
Rugian
Member
Thu Nov 29 09:54:43
Tfw Seb is making the most sense of anyone in the thread

Wtf guys
Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 29 13:59:47
"I find it really strange that you guys have a conceptual problem with the idea that a UK based paper would be subject to UK courts."

This applies, as it does to the rest of your rant. You're arguing against a whole lot of straw.

"They could certainly try to initiate separate proceedings against the home office in UK; but this is a whole lot of arguing about a hypothetical whose answer is, "Maybe." A lot of mincing over the potential actions of individuals."
Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 29 14:01:56
Would have been a lot easier to tag-in on my "per se" note and say that due to 2013 law changes, such a lawsuit would be likely to succeed in the UK as well as the US, instead of going on a rant against everyone about potential jurisdiction. /shrug
Seb
Member
Thu Nov 29 17:04:26
Forwyn:

"They could certainly try to..." Implies a secondary course of action.

I'm saying if he sued the Guardian, it would definitely be in a UK court, not in the NY as you say.

Its unlikely the courts in either jurisdiction would hear the case if the defendant pointed out that the plaintiff was seeking remedy elsewhere for the same. Certainly, if sued in the UK, the Guardian might try to demand the case be heard in the US, where the protections are stronger.

Plaintiffs not resident in the EU have to demonstrate the case must be heard in the UK since the 2013 case, so it would be highly foolish of Manafort to sue in the US, it would be helping the Guardian.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Nov 29 18:00:51
Okay, cool. So we can agree that The Guardian is fucked both ways if they publish a story accusing someone of extreme sexual deviance without responsibly verifying its veracity.

Thanks for the jurisdiction clarification.
Seb
Member
Thu Nov 29 18:29:25
Sorry forwyn, reading the thread again I misunderstood your position. Somehow I read "defence got shot down" as the complainant being shot down so had been labouring under the misapprehension you were implying he would for sone reason be compelled to sue in NY to little avail.

If NY is also likely to uphold a libel ruling I can see this looks rather petty! Apologies.
so what
Member
Wed Dec 05 14:08:26
it is also interesting that when the press errs it has always been to incriminate and demonise trump. they never had to retract a story where they had proof that trump's detractors were wrong. so trump has a point when he talks about the lying press and their fake news...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Dec 05 20:04:00
I hope that's a joke, Trump gets bad press cause he's always awful

Although I did accidentally post some proTrump news when I noted his tweet claiming to have gotten the 40% car tariffs reduced or removed in China. I only criticized him for leaving out that the tariffs had doubled -because- of him... I didn't consider his entire tweet was a lie... there never was any deal at all it seems.
so what
Member
Thu Dec 06 11:15:36
just cause you think trump is always awful, does not mean he is. there are plenty of people who think he has done good things. but is is true that the establishment press seems to share your sentiments, which clouds their judgement and professionality, making them eager to write and claim all sorts of awful things about him. presenting opinions and hearsay as facts, which leads them to retract their stories on a regular basis. it is also noticed by a lot of people. which makes trump's claims about the lying press and fake news ring true. no wonder that according to a recent gallup study the trustworthiness of the establishment press is lower than that of trump to the us public.

but more importantly, you are not a journalist. you do not have to verify and validate news. so, it is quite sad for journalists that their actions are compared and defended according to the standards of non-professionals.

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 06 11:29:03
"to retract their stories on a regular basis"

that is not happening on a 'regular basis'

plus i suspect Trump tells people to lie to the press so he can call it fake later... certainly seems like something he'd do (he already admitted he smears the press so people won't believe it when its negative)


as to people trusting Trump over press (not sure that's true, outside of R's), but if you are a total idiot who actually trusts Trump, you automatically won't trust the press... plus Fox News helps him spread that total nonsense... they are traitors to the country by propping up Trump


and the '90% bad press' crap team Trump points out is basing it on headlines... well the only 'good' things Trump supposedly is doing, is stuff like jobs reports & unemployment, and no reason to put 'Trump' in the headline

news about Trump's personal actions & behavior is deservedly 90% negative (& what would have Trump's name in the headline)

what has Trump personally done that deserves praise that wasn't covered?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 06 11:30:59
if he never tweeted or spoke, his press would be fine
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 06 11:52:55
...plus his behavior is actually getting worse

the fact that he's saying 'throw the book' at Cohen as he's cooperating

whereas Manafort is 'being treated so unfairly', and Roger Stone has 'guts' as they aren't cooperating

and suggesting Mueller is wanting/forcing people to lie... (you can find a video of even Tucker Carlson thrilled Mueller was picked at the time & a stellar record, especially from the R perspective)


it is absolutely ridiculous the R's sit back & ignore it all
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 06 11:58:55
... plus the mysterious appointment of Matthew Whitaker, ignoring the line of succession entirely while Trump pretending he barely knows the guy (as if that makes sense for choice of AG)... and w/ multiple public comments against the Mueller investigation which Trump would easily be aware of w/ minimal investigation (plus record of Whitaker going to the White House many times... and that the White House is who picked him to be Jeff Sessions' CoS to begin with...)... god there's so much evidence...


massive corruption in plain sight, R's busy ignoring it all

sorry for the quadruple post :p...
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Thu Dec 06 12:17:24
Ecuador: Enough UK guarantees for Assange to leave embassy

http://apnews.com/0b95cddbe0614d47b71c07c827710210
so what
Member
Thu Dec 06 12:30:54
Google retractions by the press regarding trump and trustworthisness of the press.

The press publishes fake news, but you manage to blame it on Trump...

You sound like one of those people, some Trump official said about Trump haters. If Trump would walk on water, a Trump hater would say that Trump couldn't swim…

Why didn't the press try to verify and validate first before publishing the story.

Plus how many stories did the press have to retract that was favorable to Trump?

It is not just Republicans who distrust the press. The majority of independants also distrust the press and there are now more people who identify themselves as independant than either republican or democrat, because they dislike the partisanship and hypocrisy of either party.

It is clear to independants that the press often reports unfair and misleading stories, or outright lie. Fox favoring the republicans and the rest favoring the democrats.
so what
Member
Thu Dec 06 12:35:14
And if you were Trump would you trust CNN, NBC, WaPo, NYT and such to report what you say fairly and honestly, without getting it out of context and injecting a lot of biased opinion?

Tweeting has helped Trump tremendously to communicate his words directly to the American people without getting filtered by a very untrustworthy press.
so what
Member
Thu Dec 06 12:41:47
And where is the press to stand up for the rights of Assange. Assange has contributed a lot in exposing the wrongdoings and vileness of those in power. Nobody has ever been able to prove that Assange lied about things, that is why they prefer to demonise him with ad hominems and linking him to Russia.

And where are the press and liberals to stand up for whistleblowers like Snowden, who exposed warcrimes.

Celebrities rather stand up for Roman Polanski, who drugged and raped a 13 yo girl, rather than standing up for Snowden or Assange.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Thu Dec 06 18:45:42
The Guardian's Reputation In Tatters After Forger Revealed To Have Co-Authored Assange Smear

http://www...have-co-authored-assange-smear
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Thu Dec 06 19:01:23

Polanski is one of their own.

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 06 19:51:48
"Tweeting has helped Trump tremendously"

it has helped people see how unfit he is for sure... also count how many of those 'unfair' negative stories are merely quoting his tweets (it's a LOT)... I don't know of any stories misquoting Trump, there's no need.

Just recently he has all this blatant witness tampering and obstruction, but he also was suggesting multiple perceived opponents be in prison for treason... you can dismiss as a joke BUT IT ISNT. He has tried repeatedly to get Hillary and others around her and in the Justice Dept investigated both on twitter and to people into govt... with no real evidence of wrongdoing. And his fans certainly believe he means it too.

Then of course his other problem of just lying, like his fake deal with China screwing up the stock market. I've seen Larry Kudlow and Peter Navarro both on TV admit there wasn't actually a deal... and they would know the facts.

Trump is unfit garbage, and that should be the lead story of every show every day.
so what
Member
Thu Dec 13 13:02:21
That is just it, the establishment media often blatantly quote out of context, just to give it their own spin to fit their narrative. To many people that is also regarded as fake news. And it only increases the belief in people's minds that the establishment media is fake news.

The wikileaks documents and Clinton foundation whistleblowers provides more substance to direct Clinton wrongdoings than the Steele Report for Russian collusion, and now it turns out that the Steele Report was financed by Clinton...

And it seems that Trump was correct, since the Chinese confirmed that they agreed on a tariff truce.

Have the people who claimed he lied about that, offered their apologies?

Non-Trump haters notice this. They realise that the establishment press will not give Trump a fair shake. Trump also realises this. That is why he tweets. So they can hear it directly from him, without it being spun by the establishment media to fit their narrative.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Thu Dec 13 15:54:39

And when they get their way we end up with posters such as tumbleweed, hood, and woo.

You do the math.

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share