Wednesday, February 07, 2018

Memo Proves Media Not Equipped to Handle GOP Lies

Josh Marshall, TPM: The biggest impact of the Nunes Memo -- and the accompanying wave of propaganda -- is that conventional news and commentary is incapable of handling willful lying in the public sphere. This is a pattern we've seen again and again. It's one of the hallmarks of this political age. It's worth saying it again: conventional media is not equipped to deal with willful lying in the public sphere. This is actually quite black and white. There's no evidence of politicized intelligence or law enforcement or counter-intelligence work at all. Actually not any. All the evidence is based on false claims, logical fallacies or intentionally misleading representations of how standard law enforcement procedures work. If the leadership of the FBI or the DOJ had been trying to throw the election against Trump as opposed to doing their counter-intelligence jobs, they had information in their hands that quite possibly would have destroyed Trump's candidacy. It remained secret.

More

There's also a highbrow version of this which redirects the conversation toward longstanding and legitimate concerns about whether the FISA system is consistent with the rule of law in the first place. This is a grave error which only confuses the situation and makes general considerations about the rule of law into a tool of someone trying to trample on it. The FBI and its counter-intelligence branch is and long has been a generally conservative institution. That doesn't mean it's "biased." The possibility that people can remain professional in spite of personal political beliefs is a cornerstone premise of democratic government. But the notion of anti-Republican or anti-Trump bias is really preposterous on its face. The fact that none of information (about the existence of a pre-election Russia/Trump investigation) was leaked -- when it easily could have been -- is the surest proof that the key players were going out of their way not to damage Trump's candidacy. That point is completely obvious.

Comments

What he says....

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-02-06 01:49 PM

Yep.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-02-06 02:02 PM

No lies in the memo.

All facts bore out by evidence and testimony.

The only lying is by Dems.

#3 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-06 02:39 PM

Sure sawdust. How much are you paid per post?

I certainly hope it's not by character count.

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2018-02-06 02:48 PM

The best example of media collusion was proven a long time time ago with the JournoList.

Any rational individual could see the collusion. However the MSM and their supporters can't.

#5 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-02-06 04:16 PM

#yomemo did what Trump wanted... his minions tool their hoods off and came out of the wood works. What more can a lying ----- ask?

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-06 05:06 PM

took

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-06 05:47 PM

No actually the media cannot handle the truth.

#8 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-06 08:54 PM

The memo is crap emblematic of a crap president and the crap sandwiches he sells to his followers at a personal profit.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2018-02-06 09:21 PM

Where is this all going? A deposed president or a president who engineers a coup to evade being deposed.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2018-02-06 09:23 PM

If anyone can produce some credible evidence that "the Media" are all in cahoots with each other, please offer some substance. From what I understand, media is driven by money. There's money in controversy, but there's also money in Patriotism (just look at 'the Media's' role as accomplice to the Iraq War run-up). The anti-Trump angle being perceived on part of 'the Media' today is based on money. IOW, their banking their profits on FBI investigation undermining Trump. In the 2000s, it was more profitable to Warmonger. In 2018, it's more profitable to hammer the Russia probe. Why? Probably because there are FAR more people out there thinking that more of it is true than not. Trump laid his own bed in that matter; putting his credibility against numerous media outlets. He has his base, but his base is minimal.

#11 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-02-06 09:46 PM

Where is all this going? It is going to reveal abuses of the FISA court to spy on citizens of the United States of America.

#12 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-06 09:47 PM

It is going to reveal abuses of the FISA court to spy on citizens of the United States of America.
#12 | POSTED BY SAWDUST

You mean the FISA court appointed by Chief Justice Roberts?

#13 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-02-06 09:51 PM

#13

That's exactly what this article is about, and what the sycophants supporting Trump's naked lying and ongoing criminality show by their very insistence that those pointing out the obvious are engaged in unholy conspiracies. Federal law enforcement has treated this entire scandal with secretive professionalism that wasn't allowed Hillary Clinton while her emails were publicly scrutinized and politically weaponized by her opponents and the GOP.

The idea that the very most conservative bureaucratic entities in the federal government are engaged in some feral blood lust to wrongly persecute Donald Trump is the height of lunacy and ignorance. There would not have been any investigation if there hadn't been contacts between 19 (so far) Trump-orbit personnel and known Russian operatives during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. Why wasn't a single one of these contacts reported to the FBI at the time of their occurence? Should law enforcement draw any inferences to this fact as it tries to figure out the depth of Russian influence and incursion into our electoral process? Four Trump officials have already either pleaded guilty or been charged with crimes tied to their connections with Trump and Russian-related activities or financial transactions. This is not nothing, it's quite something, and apparently only the tip of an iceberg.

The fact that Trump and his GOP protectors lie is incontrovertible for those of us living in the real world. The fact that these same people are knowingly undermining American's needed faith in their federal law enforcement agencies and practices must have Putin and the Russians literally beside themselves with glee as the US political party normally attached to heretofore patriotic ideals seeks to undermine its own belief in the rule of law. The problem isn't law enforcement, it's the intransigence and survive-at-all-costs scorched earth attitude of the criminals law enforcement is trying to bring to justice by the letter of our laws as they've been nominally written and unbiasedly applied.

#14 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-02-06 10:37 PM

The court ruled on what the FBI presented.

When the left out relevant issues like the dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton. Or in the extensions that Steel had been discredited and the FBI had stopped using him.

How is the court to know these things.

The judges appointed by Roberts are not the problem.

Obama's FBI is the problem.

#15 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-07 08:21 AM

#15

Why do you continually lie? Even Devin Nunes has corrected the record that the court was indeed apprised that the Steele information was gathered as paid-for political opposition research. Law enforcement couldn't function if they didn't follow leads or evidence given by those with less than pristine backgrounds. That is how it works, however Steele's work product heretofore had never been questioned by US officials who've utilized his information and services in the past.

And it does not matter: Michael Steele is an honored former member of MI6 and renown for his professionalism and contacts... UNTIL the GOP has used him as a political football to deflect from their own treason-like activities.

Michael Steele had nothing to directly do with Carter Page being surveilled. Carter Page exchanged papers with a convicted Russian spy ring in 2013 and then found his way onto Trump's foreign policy team, went to Russia in July of 2016 and gave a pro-Russia/anti-US sanction speech while having private meetings with known Russian agents. Multiple foreign intelligence services also reported Page's activities to US law enforcement or intelligence agents.

The question should be why did the Trump campaign hire so many individuals who had contacts with Russian operatives and NONE OF THEM ever reported said contacts to the FBI as they should have as a matter of US national security?

#16 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-02-07 08:39 AM

Criminal investigation has been requested for the "honored former member of MI6.

We will see where that goes.

#17 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-07 06:11 PM

Obama's FBI is the problem.

#15 | Posted by sawdust

Obama's FBI?

THAT is the problem.

You Trumpsters need to grow up.

It was never Obama's personal FBI and it is not Trump's personal FBI.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-07 06:25 PM

Criminal investigation has been requested for the "honored former member of MI6.

Yes, because after sharing his concerns that Trump was compromised by the Russians never became public before the election, AND the New York Times quoted the pro-Trump NY field office that there was no ongoing investigation into Russian interference late in October (which was a LIE as we all know), Steele approached various news sources because he believed that the information he compiled needed to see the light of day so the electorate would be educated and informed before voting and he erroneously believed the Times report was accurate. So his "crime" may have been telling the FBI less than the whole truth about his contacts with media members when he was interviewed after he thought for sure the FBI was covering for Trump too!"

Find a jury that will convict him on the facts, lol. It's pathetic.... Steele was trying to help this nation and traitorous partisans like you want him in chains. Go to Russia comrade if you like how they do things cause it's never been that way in America and it damn sure shouldn't be that way now.

#19 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-02-07 07:25 PM

#16 | Posted by tonyroma

Fake news - Alex Jones said so... (that was sarcasm)

#20 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2018-02-07 07:27 PM

The media is rabidly anti-Trump and anti-GOP.

The premise of this thread is absurd.

If only the media had devoted a minute fraction of skepticism toward the previous administration as they do this administration.

For Pete's sake - roughly 90% of the media coverage of this administration has been negative (Google it if you doubt this claim).

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-08 10:43 AM

For Pete's sake - roughly 90% of the media coverage of this administration has been negative (Google it if you doubt this claim).
#21 | Posted by JeffJ

Because roughly 100% of this administration's actions have been negative. Google it if you doubt this claim.

#22 | Posted by truthhurts at 2018-02-08 10:54 AM

"For Pete's sake - roughly 90% of the media coverage of this administration has been negative"

Hasn't Trump failed to live up to like 90% of his promises though?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 10:56 AM

The media is rabidly anti-Trump and anti-GOP.

Maybe that's because Trump and the GOP are anti-federal law enforcement, anti-US national security as it pertains to Russia and their espionage attacks - refusing to demand that their President enact the sanctions precisely in place to punish Russia for their meddling -, and anti-Constitution as each passing day finds yet another example of autocratic behavior and language that this nation has never heard from a sitting US President, while his party is unwilling to reign in his self-serving anti-American impulses and rhetoric constantly dividing citizens into his supporters and everyone else now called 'un-American' for refusing to toe his line.

The reason the media is anti Trump is because Trump attacks the media's existence every single day from his bully pulpit in stark opposition to the First Amendment protections all other Presidents begrudgingly respected. Telling the truth about Trump, his mental deficiencies and his likely criminal and deviant past isn't an example of being anti-anything but instead it is actually pro-truth.

#24 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-02-08 02:32 PM

I didn't even need to click on the link to know that this was a Talking Points Tony thread.

Too funny.

#25 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-08 03:03 PM

#24

Frame it however you wish, it doesn't change the fact that the media is rabidly anti-Trump and is more than well equipped to handle his lies.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-08 03:33 PM

Gotta love the circular argument: Trump's coverage is 90% negative because his policies are 90% negative, according to us, the Democrat Media Complex.

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-08 03:41 PM

Gotta love the circular argument: Trump's coverage is 90% negative because his policies are 90% negative, according to us, the Democrat Media Complex.

#27 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-02-08 03:41 PM | FLAG:

There is nothing circular about that argument. Do you even know what the phrase "circular argument" means?

#28 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 03:45 PM

I wish 90% of Trump's coverage was related to his policy. Instead, 90% of the coverage is related to the lies, contradictions and divisive, trolling things he tweets and says.

#29 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-08 03:50 PM

CNN: Our 90% negative coverage is due to Trump's 90% negative policies. According to whom? According to us. We're CNN, the Most-Trusted Name in News.

#30 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-08 03:53 PM

"CNN: Our 90% negative coverage is due to Trump's 90% negative policies. According to whom? According to us."

According to them and, you know, anyone with any awareness of the policies in question. But why quibble, right?

#31 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 03:57 PM

The court ruled on what the FBI presented.
When the left out relevant issues like the dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton.

How do you know that? Have you read their warrant application? Or are you just blindly accepting whatever Comrade Devin Nunes spoonfeeds to you?

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2018-02-08 04:00 PM

Deporting dreamers and refugees and breaking up families? Positive.

Wasting billions on a wall?
Positive.

Gutting environmental and consumer protections?
Positive.

Military parades?
Positive.

Government shutdowns?
Positive.

Offending allies?
Positive.

Tanking tourism?
Positive.

Coddling the alt-right?
Very positive!

-the world according to Naziffidian

#33 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 04:03 PM

--the world according to Naziffidian
#33 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

I guess Trotsky was offended by my last post.

#34 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-08 04:09 PM

I guess Trotsky was offended by my last post.

#34 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-02-08 04:09 PM | FLAG:

You are the one whining about media bias, slick.

#35 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 04:32 PM

I get that after 8 years of emulating Pravda the MSM had gotten rusty as it pertains to being critical of POTUS but it's been a year since he took office; surely they've shaken off the rust by now.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-08 05:07 PM

"Frame it however you wish, it doesn't change the fact that the media is rabidly anti-Trump and is more than well equipped to handle his lies."

Why is it inappropriate for the media to be opposed to a President who is a pathological liar?

Frame it however you wish, joker.

Just... tell us why that's a problem.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 06:43 PM

Why is it inappropriate for the media to be opposed to a President who is a pathological liar?

It's not.

The media should be skeptical of POTUS, even if he's black.

I was simply pointing out the fallacy of the premise of this thread.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-09 12:06 PM

"The media should be skeptical of POTUS, even if he's black. "

And how should the media have reacted to birtherism?

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-09 12:11 PM

And how should the media have reacted to birtherism?

#39 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

After evaluating the facts with the derision that birtherism deserves.

Any more questions?

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-09 12:45 PM

"After evaluating the facts with the derision that birtherism deserves."

It is telling that your objection to birtherism is merely that it is factually incorrect.

#41 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-09 01:17 PM

JeffJ: If the media couldn't shut down the Birther lie, why do you think they can shut down other Trump lies?

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 01:55 PM

"After evaluating the facts with the derision that birtherism deserves."
It is telling that your objection to birtherism is merely that it is factually incorrect.

#41 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Telling? How so?

JeffJ: If the media couldn't shut down the Birther lie, why do you think they can shut down other Trump lies?
#42 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It's not their job to shut anything down. It's their job to report the news and offer commentary. Birtherism was scorned by the media and rightly so.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-09 02:47 PM

"It's not their job to shut anything down."

So then what does this mean:

"the media is rabidly anti-Trump and is more than well equipped to handle his lies."

Handling his lies... is different from shutting down his lies?

Explain what you mean.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 03:15 PM

"Birtherism was scorned by the media and rightly so."

Plenty of media outlets ran with the Birther story for years.

And rightly so, I presume...

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 03:16 PM

"Telling? How so?"

The accusation was a unique combination of racism (they wouldn't even have asked it about him if he weren't black with a "funny name") and obtuse legalism (imagine removing a hugely popular president on a technicality like that!). It never deserved serious consideration.

#46 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-09 03:38 PM

JeffJ what is the role of the Fourth Estate in democracy?

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-09 03:42 PM

If a Jew runs for office and someone puts out there some blood libel or other against her, the appropriate response is not to sit back in your easy-chair and say "Well now, let's wait until all the facts are in before jumping to conclusions."

#48 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-09 03:47 PM

The accusation was a unique combination of racism (they wouldn't even have asked it about him if he weren't black with a "funny name") and obtuse legalism (imagine removing a hugely popular president on a technicality like that!). It never deserved serious consideration.

#46 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Completely agree with what is in bold. The coverage reflected that. The purveyors of that lunacy were treated with the derision they deserved.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-10 11:10 AM

"The purveyors of that lunacy were treated with the derision they deserved."

Not by the media purveying the lunacy.
We wouldn't even know about Birtherism if it weren't for right-wing media repeating the lie for years on end.

Why aren't you addressing that fact???

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-10 01:49 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Why Always the AR-15, Homicidal Nutjobs? (106 comments)

Trump Wants to Arm Teachers (89 comments)

Trump Needed 'Cheat Sheet' When He Met Survivors (70 comments)

How Low Are You Willing to See America Go? (63 comments)

Far-Right Kooks Smear Parkland Survivors (60 comments)

32 More Indictments for Manafort, Gates (53 comments)

NRA Opposes Age Limits on Gun Purchases (47 comments)

Parkland Survivors Confront Legislators in Tallahassee (44 comments)

How 'Thoughts and Prayers' Became a Joke (42 comments)