Trump, the man with a dream of a Wall

[Animavore]

Good article.

The Useful Idiocy of Donald Trump

The problem with Donald Trump is not that he is imbecilic and inept—it is that he has surrendered total power to the oligarchic and military elites. They get what they want. They do what they want. Although the president is a one-man wrecking crew aimed at democratic norms and institutions, although he has turned the United States into a laughingstock around the globe, our national crisis is embodied not in Trump but the corporate state’s now unfettered pillage.

Trump, who has no inclination or ability to govern, has handed the machinery of government over to the bankers, corporate executives, right-wing think tanks, intelligence chiefs and generals. They are eradicating the few regulations and laws that inhibited a naked kleptocracy. They are dynamiting the institutions, including the State Department, that served interests other than corporate profit and are stacking the courts with right-wing, corporate-controlled ideologues. Trump provides the daily entertainment; the elites handle the business of looting, exploiting and destroying.

Once democratic institutions are hollowed out, a process begun before the election of Trump, despotism is inevitable. The press is shackled. Corruption and theft take place on a massive scale. The rights and needs of citizens are irrelevant. Dissent is criminalized. Militarized police monitor, seize and detain Americans without probable cause. The rituals of democracy become farce. This is the road we are traveling. It is a road that leads to internal collapse and tyranny, and we are very far down it.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/usefu ... ald-trump/

[Forty Two]

coup de grâce, ffs.

Oh, no, I made an error. You'll find a lot of them in that stream-of-consciousness post. Guilty as charged.

I was too busy laughing at a "reporter" who apparently reported on someone "familiar with a phone call" who said that Trump wanted to make sure he left James Comey in the lurch, scrambling to figure out a way to get himself home "across the country" by depriving him of free flight privileges on an FBI chartered aircraft. The "source familiar with the phone call" said it, so it must be true. Trump is both so evil and so stupid that he thought that a multimillionaire who had taken a cut in pay to earn only $185,000 per year from the FBI would be seriously inconvenienced by having to coordinate his own route from DC to the faraway, probably mythical, land of Connecticut.

[L'Emmerdeur]

You could have simply typed 'fake news' in all caps and saved yourself a lot of effort.

[Tero]

This is the life! Make America Great! Again!

At the same time, Trump, in his special sauce stained pajamas, sits, bloated, watching three television sets simultaneously, eating a big mac while a porn star fellates him.

[Forty Two]

You could have simply typed 'fake news' in all caps and saved yourself a lot of effort.

I thought my approach was more fun, and might drive the point home for some folks, who seem to think these reports have some credibility.

The utter bullshit that's reported and taken as fact, largely unexamined, is insane. And, I don't care if it's about Trump or anyone else.

I recall how when Trump said that he thought his building has been "wiretapped" the media was apoplectic. No evidence! They said. How can you say something totally without evidence! Little did he know that all Trump needed to say was that he talked to "source familiary with the process" or a "source close to the FBI" and the allegation would not be questioned by the press. The media would never ask who the source was, what their motives were, what it meant to be "familiar" or "close" in that context, and none of them would ever say that there was no reason for there to anonymity. Nobody would ask for explanation as to how someone not party to a phone call came to be familiar with its contents, etc.

[Hermit]

You could have simply typed 'fake news' in all caps and saved yourself a lot of effort.

I thought my approach was more fun, and might drive the point home for some folks, who seem to think these reports have some credibility.

The utter bullshit that's reported and taken as fact, largely unexamined, is insane. And, I don't care if it's about Trump or anyone else.

I recall how when Trump said that he thought his building has been "wiretapped" the media was apoplectic. No evidence! They said. How can you say something totally without evidence! Little did he know that all Trump needed to say was that he talked to "source familiary with the process" or a "source close to the FBI" and the allegation would not be questioned by the press. The media would never ask who the source was, what their motives were, what it meant to be "familiar" or "close" in that context, and none of them would ever say that there was no reason for there to anonymity. Nobody would ask for explanation as to how someone not party to a phone call came to be familiar with its contents, etc.

The main stream media have to protect their sources. And occasionally they do make mistakes, which they correct and apologise for. Trump & Co just keep lying through their teeth. Then they double down on those lies or brazenly repeat them or ignore having lied.

[Scot Dutchy]

It is called brainwashing. Just lie and lie. People get confused and dont know what to believe. Göbbels did it all the time.

[laklak]

This is the life! Make America Great! Again!

At the same time, Trump, in his special sauce stained pajamas, sits, bloated, watching three television sets simultaneously, eating a big mac while a porn star fellates him.

SOunds like a good Friday night to me....

[L'Emmerdeur]

McCabe detailed his conversation with Trump after Comey’s firing to several people at the Justice Department, people familiar with the matter said.

So it's been reported that McCabe told people about what was said in the telephone call at the time. The context of the sentence purposely leaves some ambiguity, but it is entirely possible that people who were informed by McCabe about the conversation were sources for the story.

We know from previous reports that this is a practice top-level FBI personnel use to provide at least a minimal record of interactions with the president. You go out of your way to paint a picture of Trump as hard done by because of the fact that he has earned a reputation for lying, but whether you're willing to admit it or not most of the rest of the world is aware of the fact that Trump is an outstandingly dishonest person. People like Comey and McCabe are aware that he is a liar who is capable, even likely to tell a dishonest version of events. For contentious conversations the best they can do short of actually recording what is said is to relate the details of the conversation to others at the time. The sentence quoted above is entirely in line with what has been reported previously about FBI practices. It's reasonable to accept that McCabe told people at the Justice Department about his conversation with Trump at the time. It's also reasonable to believe that more than one person who was told about the conversation was willing to relate what they were told to a reporter, on the condition that they remain anonymous. If one person tells the reporter, that reporter then seeks out other sources in an attempt to confirm the story. If those people are known to the reporter as reliable sources who are in a position to have spoken to McCabe about the conversation, then the reporter is confident about publishing the story.

You may not like the fact that reporters regularly protect sources by respecting their wish to remain anonymous, but it was a well established practice long before Trump became president and will remain so for the foreseeable future. It leaves room for casting doubt on the veracity of the story, and that also is a reasonable position. However if it's trotted out every time there's a story that you don't like it starts to closely resemble Trump's undeniable penchant for attacking the press because he doesn't like what they report.

[Forty Two]

You could have simply typed 'fake news' in all caps and saved yourself a lot of effort.

I thought my approach was more fun, and might drive the point home for some folks, who seem to think these reports have some credibility.

The utter bullshit that's reported and taken as fact, largely unexamined, is insane. And, I don't care if it's about Trump or anyone else.

I recall how when Trump said that he thought his building has been "wiretapped" the media was apoplectic. No evidence! They said. How can you say something totally without evidence! Little did he know that all Trump needed to say was that he talked to "source familiary with the process" or a "source close to the FBI" and the allegation would not be questioned by the press. The media would never ask who the source was, what their motives were, what it meant to be "familiar" or "close" in that context, and none of them would ever say that there was no reason for there to anonymity. Nobody would ask for explanation as to how someone not party to a phone call came to be familiar with its contents, etc.

The main stream media have to protect their sources. And occasionally they do make mistakes, which they correct and apologise for. Trump & Co just keep lying through their teeth. Then they double down on those lies or brazenly repeat them or ignore having lied.

It's been more than occasional.

And, I'm not even referring to mistakes here. I'm referring to them not providing information generally required of anonymous source usage policies for mainstream media outlets. If you read the New York Times and other outlets' policies, you'll see they are to explain why there is a need for anonymity, they are to explain how the source knows what they know, and they are to corroborate and vet the source, and they are to use anonymous sources rarely and as the exception to the rule. They using anonymous sources over and over to report on what amounts to gossip.

Yes, they have to protect their sources, but they are also supposed to "vet" their sources, and when a reporter asks you to believe their anymous source, the reporter is telling you "I have done the work, and I believe the source is credible." That doesn't mean a guarantee of truth, but it means that the reporter is not being used as a mouthpiece. And, the reporter is supposed to explain why the source needs anonymity. You see that in the case of national security issues - they at least say that the source needs to be confidential to protect "sources and methods" or to guard against retaliaiton or the like

And, of course, much of what are reported as "lies" by Trump are simply differences of opinion, or are unsubstantiated - or substantiated only by use of anonymous sources. The number of actual "lies" that are substantiated is small.

And, it's the media's job to be reporters and journalists. When they write a news article, i want some substance. And, for the love of fucking Pete - "a source familiar with the phone call" (who is not the person ON the phone call) telling us not only what the President said (which he did not hear) but also what the President was thinking and feeling at the time -- without even telling us anything about the person doing the reporting and how that person got their info is, well, a bit weak, i think anyone should be able to agree with that.

[Brian Peacock]

Still shooting the messenger eh?

[Forty Two]

Still shooting the messenger eh?

Not the messenger, the reporter. It's not the paperboy I have a problem with. It's the journalist.

[Tero]

The state of Shithole America! By Shithead-in-Chief Trump!

[Brian Peacock]

Still shooting the messenger eh?

Not the messenger, the reporter. It's not the paperboy I have a problem with. It's the journalist.

ISWYDT.

[pErvinalia]

Il Douche just being himself--a petty, vindictive asshat:

'Trump’s gripes against McCabe included wife’s politics, Comey’s ride home'

The day after he fired James Comey as director of the FBI, a furious President Donald Trump called the bureau's acting director, Andrew McCabe, demanding to know why Comey had been allowed to fly on an FBI plane from Los Angeles back to Washington after he was dismissed, according to multiple people familiar with the phone call.

McCabe told the president he hadn’t been asked to authorize Comey’s flight, but if anyone had asked, he would have approved it, three people familiar with the call recounted to NBC News.

The president was silent for a moment and then turned on McCabe, suggesting he ask his wife how it feels to be a loser — an apparent reference to a failed campaign for state office in Virginia that McCabe’s wife made in 2015.

McCabe replied, “OK, sir.” Trump then hung up the phone.

A White House official, who would not speak on the record, disputed the account, saying, "this simply never happened. Any suggestion otherwise is pure fiction.” The FBI declined to comment on the call.

...

In recent weeks the White House has agitated for McCabe’s exit, saying he is part of a broader pattern of bias against the president in the highest levels of federal law enforcement. Defenders of the Justice Department’s leadership say the charges of bias are part of the president’s effort to try to undermine the federal probe into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

Trump’s repeated criticism of McCabe, both in public and private, made the FBI’s deputy director the leading example of concerns Republicans have increasingly raised about potential impartiality at the Justice Department.

The phone call between Trump and McCabe after Comey’s firing last May underscores the president’s continued fixation on the loyalties of people around him and his frustration with autonomous arms of the government — particularly ones involved in the Russia investigation. It’s also emblematic of his early and persistent distrust of top Justice Department officials.

The combination of those sentiments whipped the president into such a fury over Comey last year that he wanted his firing to abruptly strip him of any trappings that come with the office and leave him across the country scrambling to find his own way home.

McCabe detailed his conversation with Trump after Comey’s firing to several people at the Justice Department, people familiar with the matter said.

"according to multiple people familiar with the phone call." Who? Anonymous sources? Why? This is a phone call. No "sources and methods" and no intelligence. Nothing. Why are we allowing people to make scurrilous remarks about a phone call that they weren't participating in and believing them without knowing who they are and what their motivations might be? Were they listening in on the call? If not, how are they "familiar with the phone call?" What does it mean to be "familiar with the phone call?" Did they hear about it? Did McCabe tell them? The article doesn't say. Wouldn't a decent journalist ask the "source familiar with the phone call" how they are familiar?

How do you know they didn't? Once again, this is not a problem with journalists, it's a problem with you not trusting them. A journalist has to protect their sources, or they'll find that they'll have no more sources in the future. By explaining to Mr RWNJ how exactly their source was "familiar" with the call, they may very well be outing them to Trump.

Wouldn't an informative news article say "the people were familiar with the matter and phone call because they say Andrew McCabe told them what the President said," or "the people familiar with the phone call were familiar because they overheard McCabe's side of the conversation," or "...they were listening in on an office phone extension...? Isn't it important to know how the source knows what they're reporting?

That may be an informative news article, but potentially a really stupid one, as it could out their source. You don't seem to understand the concept of sources and journalism.

But we're not just asked to believe it happened based on the anonymous reporting of people who weren't on the phone call and did not hear the President's words....

Where did you extract this one from?

The author then says McCabe was "reportedly" asked who he voted for in 2016 and asked about his wife's connection to Hillary Clinton and campaign contributions. Only, the reports on that were from people not in the meeting, just more anonymous sources who weren't in the room.

How do you know they weren't in the room?

When you read any policy on anonymous sources, the use is supposed to be "rare," and the exception to the rule in situations where important stories of great importance or involving high security matters can only be reported if the source remains anonymous because of danger to the source, whistleblowing concerns, criminal law concerns, intelligence sources and methods concerns, etc. But here, we're talking about stuff that is not a crime -- it's just gossip -- Trump was a dick to McCabe, or Trump was a dick to Comey, or Trump said something uncouth or asked an impertinet question, and every, single report is by anonymous sources. Having a source is now the exception to the rule.

Don't be daft. It's part of the broader concern that the Trump administration has been compromised by a foreign fascist regime. It's of incredible security concern.

And, they never set forth why the sources need confidential treatment or anonymity.

Because everyone other than those living under rocks can see the seriousness of what is at stake here.

They never explain how the sources know what they know.

Because it would almost certainly out them.

Media outlets are responsible for the veracity of anonymous sources, to some extent. Not completely. But, they are responsible for taking reasonable steps to get named sources wherever possible, and they are responsible to taking steps to verify and confirm what sources are saying.

How do you know that they haven't done this?