Connecting The Dots

What Else Does the Donald Trump–Russia Dossier Tell Us?

Connecting some of the dots between the Steele Dossier and what's been reported.

By Ben Roazen
2-21-17
GQ

When BuzzFeed News published the Steele dossier in January, the media was naturally drawn to the salacious details (hotels! hookers! golden showers!), but beyond the juicy bits there were also stories of backroom meetings between powerful figures in Russian politics and business.

In the immediate aftermath, Trump dismissed the dossier as “crap” and outright refused to answer questions from outlets that published and retransmitted the dossier’s contents.

Perhaps most telling, though, was Trump’s decision to repeatedly ignore and deflect questions about whether members of his campaign had made contact with Russian officials during the election—contact that has since been confirmed by intelligence officials and reported by The New York Times. U.S. investigators have since corroborated certain details, namely that, as CNN reports, “some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier."

 

Feb. 14: One Hell of a Buried Lede

The Claim: "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

The Source: The New York Times.

The Facts: This entry is slightly different from most of the others on this list.

The Times reported Trump's people communicated with Russian intelligence officials at around the same time hackers were publishing personal email stolen from of Democratic National Committee staffers and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.

By all accounts this appears to be a legitimate story, and it raises serious questions about the Russians and the 2016 election.

However, the issue with this particular Times report is that there is a crucial bit of information that the paper doesn't mention until after the reader has already been introduced to the idea of Trump/Russian collusion.

The story opens with these two paragraphs:

Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

It doesn't look good for Trump. The report's headline alone leads readers to suspect a disturbing partnership between the president's people and the Russians.

But buried at the third paragraph in the Times report is a crucial detail: "The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation."

Oh.

That's an important piece of information, and it should have been included in the story's first paragraph.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...dias-bias-fueled-failure-fest/article/2614432

 

Hahaha. Liberals will believe anything!!

 

Like the Bowling Green Massacre? Like the terror attack in Sweden? Like Flynn saying he didn't discuss the sanctions? Like Trump's claims that millions of people voted illegally? Like all the fraudulent votes in New Hampshire? Like the Dakota access pipeline creating 30,000 jobs? Like using US companies to make the pipes? Like bringing back coal jobs? Like anything and everything that comes out of Trump's pie hole?

Tell me about it.

 

Like;

Jan. 20: Melania And a Conflict of Interest?

The Claim: Melania Trump is using the White House website to "promote" her business interests.

The Source: The Washington Post.

The Facts: The White House website includes a brief biography of first lady and former model Melania Trump. That bio lists some of her professional accomplishments, which includes launching a line of jewelry and posing for several major magazines.

This is hardly the scandal promised in the Post's headline. The word "promotes" suggests some sort of abuse of the White House website for personal gain and/or profit. If not, then who the hell cares?

Jan. 20: MLK Is Still There

The Claim: The Trump transition team removed a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office.

The Source: Time magazine's Zeke Miller.

The Facts: The MLK bust was never moved. It was merely obstructed from Miller's line of vision. The Time magazine reporter, who claimed in his pool report that the bust had been removed, quickly corrected his mistake. Unfortunately, the initial claim had already been repeated by several of his colleagues on social media and took on a life of its own.

Jan. 20: Website Down?

The Claim: The Trump administration has removed several important issues pages from the White House website, including pages for climate change and LGBT rights, signaling they may ignore these topics in the future.

The Source: The Washington Post, CBS News, the Hill and others (mostly reporters on social media).

The Facts: The White House website is normally wiped clean with each new administration. The older pages are archived elsewhere. This is how it was done during the transition periods between presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and between Bush and Barack Obama. There is nothing at all unusual about pages disappearing, despite reports suggesting otherwise.

This database is a work in progress. It will be updated constantly. If you feel there is an example missing from this list, please send me a note at: badams@washingtonexaminer.com.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/m...dias-bias-fueled-failure-fest/article/2614432

 

AND;

Jan. 27: Big Hands

The Claim: Trump's team digitally altered a White House photo to make the president's hands appear larger than they really are.

The Source: The New York Observer's Dana Schwartz, who admitted later she had only been kidding.

The Facts: The White House did no such thing, as the Washington Post's Philip Bump noted almost immediately after Schwartz' claim went viral on social media. Schwartz eventually deleted all her tweets about the supposedly doctored photos. She argued that her joking remarks on Twitter aren't the same thing as reporting facts.

Jan. 26: A Chilling Phone Call

The Claim: Trump "pressured" and "ordered" the National Park Service director into digging up photos of the president's inauguration crowds.

The Source: The Washington Post.

The Facts: Once you make it past the tendentious headline, the story is about how the president requested photos of his inauguration from the one federal agency that would have them. That's the entire story.

Jan. 26: The State Department Debacle That Wasn't

The Claim: The U.S. State Department's "entire senior administrative team" has resigned en masse in protest of Trump

The Source: The Washington Post.

The Facts: Four mid-level State Department officials were told their services were no longer needed, which is common during White House transition periods. As is customary, the four officials tendered their resignations. They were accepted. That's a long way off from what the Post initially reported.

Jan. 24: Gag Order

The Claim: The Trump administration has taken unprecedented steps to silence scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Source: The Associated Press, BuzzFeed and dozens of reporters on social media.

The Facts: The federal agencies, which were instructed in memos to halt all "public-facing" documents temporarily, said the press oversold the story.

"I've lived through many transitions, and I don't think this is a story," one senior EPA official told the New York Times. "I don't think it's fair to call it a gag order. This is standard practice. And the move with regard to the grants, when a new administration comes in, you run things by them before you update the website."

The agency's communications director, Doug Ericksen, added, "We're just trying to get a handle on everything and make sure what goes out reflects the priorities of the new administration."

A USDA spokesman said separately, "This is what has happened at the transition of every administration … it's just a pause."

 

AND;

Jan. 31: What's a Tank?

The Claim: "A fleet of tanks drove around Kentucky this weekend flying a Trump flag."

The Source: Vice.

The Facts: A group of approximately eight Humvees was spotted on Jan. 29 near Louisville, with the lead vehicle flying a large Trump campaign flag. The convoy was associated with an East Coast Navy SEALs unit. The U.S. Navy has launched a formal inquiry, a Naval Special Warfare Group spokeswoman told the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The convoy vehicles were based at Fort Knox.

Though the incident raises real questions about martial decorum and an apolitical military, it's hard not to get distracted by just how many things Vice managed to screw up in its headline.

Jan. 31: Secret SCOTUS

The Claim: Trump managed somehow to keep his SCOTUS nominee a secret until he made the announcement at 8:00 pm on Jan. 31.

The Source: The Washington Post.

The Facts: The story is just flat-out wrong. News that Trump had picked Judge Gorsuch was scooped first by the conservative news site Townhall. The Independent Journal Review was close behind, claiming in a post of its own that it had two anonymous sources confirming the pick. National Review followed suit with sources of its own. Each individual report came out hours before Trump formally announced his SCOTUS nominee.

Jan. 31: A Retroactive 'Gotcha'

The Claim: Trump greatly undersold the number of people who were affected by his immigration executive order.

The Source: The New York Times.

The Facts: Trump claimed in a tweet on Jan. 30 that, "Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage."

The Times published a story on Jan. 31 titled, "721 People (not 109) Were Denied Entry Under Trump."

The problem with the Times report is that it attempts to fact-check Trump with DHS data that became available only after the president's Jan. 30 tweet. Further, the Times report didn't even paraphrase Trump accurately.

The report's original opening paragraph stated incorrectly that Trump referenced the number of individuals who "were denied entry into the United States." That is incorrect because Trump used specific DHS figures to say 109 people had been detained, not denied entry.

The Times has attached a correction to its story, but it still fails to mention the timing and context of the president's Jan. 30 remarks.

Jan. 28: Never Mind

The Claim: The Justice Department "had no input" on Trump's immigration executive order, and the federal agency was reportedly left in the dark when the law was drafted.

The Source: CNBC's John Harwood.

The Facts: Harwood said on social media, "senior justice official tells [NBC News] that Dept. had no input. Not sure who in WH is writing/reviewing. Standard [National Security Council] process not functioning."

But then Harwood tweeted a clarification about an hour later, stating, "new info from [NBC's Pete Williams]: another DOJ official says proposed immigration order was reviewed by department lawyers before it was issued." Acting Atty. Gen. Sally Yates later stated that attorneys at DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel did approve the order as lawful on its face and properly drafted.

 

AND;

Feb. 1: Mexican Invasion

The Claim: Trump threatened to invade Mexico during a phone call with Mexican president Enrique Pena.

The Source: The Associated Press.

The Facts: The AP reported that Trump allegedly told Pena the U.S. military would do something about Mexico's "bad hombre" problem if Mexican authorities couldn't. CNN then published a report disputing AP's characterization of the call.

The Mexican government stated later that no such thing was said during the phone call between Trump and Pena. The White House claimed the same.

The AP reported later that a White House official said Trump was only kidding.

The Washington Post published a story on Trump's calls that relied heavily on the AP's initial characterization of his conversations with world leaders. The Post later stripped its article of all references to the AP's claim that Trump threatened to invade Mexico.

It's entirely possible that neither government is shooting straight, and that Trump sort of threatened military action. But newsrooms don't seem to have any idea what actually happened, and the inconclusive and contradictory reporting has only made things more confusing. That's a failure of journalism that typically results when you claim to know more than you know.

Feb. 1: Aussie You

The Claim: Trump pitched a fit during a phone call with Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull, which ended with the U.S. president abruptly hanging up on the prime minister.

The Source: The Washington Post.

The Facts: Like Trump's call to Mexico, no one seems to have any hard knowledge of what actually happened. After the Post reported that the phone call went terribly wrong, journalists went wild on social media. Then the clarifications and walk backs started pouring in from Australian and American officials.

Turnbull himself disputed the press' coverage of the call, and he said Trump "did not hang up."

Like reports on Trump's call with Mexico, it's entirely possible that the White House and the Australian PM are being less-than-honest about the nature of their conversation. But we really have no idea, and the Post's thinly sourced story doesn't clear anything up.

Feb. 1: Worlds Apart

The Claim: Melania Trump will continue to live in New York City, even though her husband is taking up residence in the White House.

The Source: Us Weekly, The Hill, Daily Mail.

The Facts: Melania Trump will divide her time between New York City and Washington, D.C., at the end of the school year, her advisor, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, told CNN.

The clarification came only after groups like Us Weekly ran headlines like, "First Lady Melania Trump May Never Move Into the White House." The Feb. 13 edition of celebrity gossip magazine was published with the headline, "SEPARATE LIVES."

Also, it's worth noting that Melania Trump stated during the election that should would split her time as first lady between D.C. and New York City. She explained at the time that it would be for the benefit of their son, Barron.

Feb. 1: Fascist Club

The Claim: Trump's Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch, founded and presided over a group in high school called the "Fascism Forever Club."

The Source: The Daily Mail.

The Facts: Gorsuch did no such thing. His claim in his senior yearbook to have created and presided over such a club during his four years at Georgetown Prep was just a gag, a bit of self-deferential humor regarding his conservatism and his frequent back-and-forths with his left-leaning teachers.

The whole thing was "a total joke," Steve Ochs, who teaches history at the elite high school, told America Magazine.

"There was no club at a Jesuit school about young fascists," added Ochs, who served as student government advisor when Gorsuch was a junior and senior. "The students would create fictitious clubs; they would have fictitious activities. They were all inside jokes on their senior pages."

Jan. 31: The Deadly Travel Ban

The Claim: An ailing woman died in Iraq because of Trump's immigration executive order.

The Source: Fox 2 Detroit.

The Facts: The Detroit man, Mike Hager, claims Trump's executive order killed his mother. There's nothing to corroborate this claim. A local imam said later that Hager lied about his mother dying as a result of the travel ban. Hager's mother allegedly died five days prior to the order going into effect.

As of this writing, there is nothing to prove Hager's claim. There is also very little corroborate the imam's assertion. The closest we have to proving the imam's claim is the fact that Hager has stopped replying to Fox 2's requests for comment.

Jan. 31: Twitter Trolling

The Claim: In an attempt to keep Trump's SCOTUS nominee a secret, the White House set up two separate Twitter accounts for Judges Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman.

The Source: CNN's Jeff Zeleny.

The Facts: Zeleny is responsible both for the claim and the eventual correction.

"White House is setting up Supreme Court announcement as a prime-time contest: @JusticeGorsuch and @JusticeHardiman identical Twitter pages," the CNN reporter tweeted.

He followed that up with this embarrassing clarification, "The Twitter accounts of @JusticeGorsuch and @JusticeHardiman were not set up by the White House, I've been told."

 

The republicans comrades here really work hard to prevent anyone from considering the evidence of trump's Russian connections. Every last one of them is a traitor.

 

Do you ever have even one single thought that you can claim as your own, parrot?

 

NY Times;
"The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation."

 

"No evidence", but liberals still believe it. I don't expect them to believe much, though, since all they listen to is fake news.

 

And if you read the blurp I posted (#2), the NYT actually reported that his team communicated with the Russians, but that line was embedded in the middle of their story.

 

Of course! Most liberals don't read past the headline, if even that.

 

Quoting it like gospel are you?

 

Should I lie like you did when you said that you've never quoted the Daily Mail? Actually, I couldn't care less if you quote them, just don't lie about it when you do.

 

How much Uranium did Trump sell to Russia and how much $$$ did his chief of staff pocket?
Clueless? Try not to be articulate, stupid pics and memes seems so much more your style.
Connecting the dots? Isn't that how you color pictures with crayons?

 

putin is entertained by the republican party, at how easy it is for him to manipulate them into doing his dirty work. The party, and it's incredibly foolish so-called conservative base of supporters, are "good comrades" to putin's agenda.