In shake-up, Trump to set up 'war room' to repel attacks over Russia probe

[Credo]

37 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

It's not up to whether the editors think the story is credible or not. It's up to the public.

 

Which is why the Society of Professional Journalists' Ethics Committee states the rules as:

 

1. Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

2. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information.

 

The never-ending stream of anonymous sources issuing damaging — never positive — versions of what is happening inside President Trump's administration tells you all you need to know about journalistic ethics and motives nowadays.

 

Reuters may have the story right, or they may not. But only a fool would take what any of the legacy media says on trust.

It is not always feasible, as the above says, to give sources.   Do you remember Deep Throat?   

 

People are judged by the Courts (or Congress), the public may have an opinion, but outside the ballot box, they don't pass legal judgement, nor should they.   

 

 

[RickBradford]

3 minutes ago, Credo said:

It is not always feasible, as the above says, to give sources.   Do you remember Deep Throat?   

 

People are judged by the Courts (or Congress), the public may have an opinion, but outside the ballot box, they don't pass legal judgement, nor should they.   

 

 

It's not always feasible, certainly.

 

But neither is it very beneficial, or convincing, for the media to run endless anonymous sourced stories which are overwhelmingly hostile and damaging to President Trump and his administration.

 

According to a study from Harvard University, in the first 100 days of the Obama administration, news coverage was 59%-41% favourable towards him; for the same period of the Trump administration it was 20%-80% unfavourable.

 

You could take the fundamentalist point of view and say "Oh, well, that just proves what a rotten egg he is" or you could apply some rationality and consider whether the media has a systemic bias against President Trump.

[mtls2005]

In days gone by, the "anonymous source" was the last refuge of a reputable journalist. Now it has becomethe first resource of disreputable journalists. 

 

See Mark Felt. Many, many, many sources are coming from Trump's inner circle.

 

President Trump's only response needs to be, "You said it, now Prove It!".

 

If only this applied to President Trump's outlandish claims.

 

There is an ongoing FBI investigation. Would you be happier if the FBI released the results so far? You think that's a sound practice for an investigative agency?

 

Only if it applies to Hillary and email.

 

You could take the fundamentalist point of view and say "Oh, well, that just proves what a rotten egg he is" or you could apply some rationality and consider whether the media has a systemic bias against President Trump.

 

Trick question? Trump has caused 99% of his own problems with idiocy, incompetence, illegal actions, stupidity and Twitter.

 

But only a fool would take what any of the legacy media says on trust.

 

The alt-Right has also been waging war on Jared.

[iReason]

13 hours ago, RickBradford said:

In days gone by, the "anonymous source" was the last refuge of a reputable journalist.

 

You are just making stuff up.

[iReason]

18 hours ago, KenKadz said:

With no tangible evidence, after months of investigation, his critics look pretty foolish.

 

"With no tangible evidence, after months of investigation"

 

You are just making stuff up.

 

[Traveler19491]

19 hours ago, KenKadz said:

President Trump's only response needs to be, "You said it, now Prove It!".

With no tangible evidence, after months of investigation, his critics look pretty foolish.

Wow. Just...wow. Eight Benghazi investigations and never-ending demands for more email investigations. A sitting President has oral sex in the Oval Office and the right comes unglued, then goes all in for a kangaroo impeachment over what was, in reality, a marital matter. And you have the cojones to suggest that Trump's critics look foolish? Dude, when it comes to foolish...the mirror...check it out. Oh, and for the record, it was Trump who said that he fired Comey over the Russia thing. Might want to try keeping up. And they are working to "Prove it"...that's what investigations do. But, all of this is a highly complex issue that I realize your simple mind is probably having difficulty absorbing.

[Traveler19491]

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

But neither is it very beneficial, or convincing, for the media to run endless anonymous sourced stories which are overwhelmingly hostile and damaging to President Trump and his administration.

Given that the orange one is noted for his hair-trigger temper and his willingness to fire anyone he sees as "disloyal", anonymity is the understandable shelter for those within his so-called administration who are concerned about his incompetent behavior. They are overwhelmingly hostile due to his overwhelmingly hostile attitude toward long-established procedures toward governance, procedures that have served the nation well; for his constant contradictions of explanations his staff spent hours putting together to try and explain his inexplicable behavior; for his open hostility toward the separation of powers; for his inability to grasp even the simplest concepts concerning politics and his dealings with both Congress and foreign governments; for his ready willingness to abandon virtually all of his campaign promises that even the GOP is recognizing threaten to overturn their newly minted majorities; for his inability to focus on the actual issues that confront the nation, as illustrated by his 140 character long attention span; by his rantings and temper tantrums over his so-called administration's inability to make the Russian boogeyman go away and leave him alone; by his obsessive fixation on cable news and the non-stop press he is receiving on negative issues that he himself created; for his incompetence at not even filling the 100's of open positions within his so-called administration, many of them critical. I could go on, but my life expectancy is probably not that long. The fact is that the damage being done to Trump and his so-called administration is virtually all self-inflicted, so blaming the media for simply reporting on what this buffoon is screwing up on a daily basis is barking up the wrong tree.

[elgordo38]

19 hours ago, KenKadz said:

President Trump's only response needs to be, "You said it, now Prove It!".

With no tangible evidence, after months of investigation, his critics look pretty foolish.

Bravo Clouseau

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, RickBradford said:

It's not up to whether the editors think the story is credible or not. It's up to the public.

 

Which is why the Society of Professional Journalists' Ethics Committee states the rules as:

 

1. Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

2. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information.

 

The never-ending stream of anonymous sources issuing damaging — never positive — versions of what is happening inside President Trump's administration tells you all you need to know about journalistic ethics and motives nowadays.

 

Reuters may have the story right, or they may not. But only a fool would take what any of the legacy media says on trust.

If the reporters know the sources and know they are employed in positions where they have access to sensitive information, they have a reliable source. 

 

If the source is a career civil servant with a family to support, and would lose his/her job (and the reporter lose this person as a source) if their identity is revealed, there is a legitimate reason to keep the identity secret.

 

If the source is acting out of belief that the administration is acting in an irresponsible, possibly illegal manner that is harmful to the country, the source's motives are laudable.

 

The Washington Post is well positioned to find sources that fit the above criteria, and are keeping with the Society of Professional Journalists rules by keeping such sources anonymous. 

 

Nobody is going to be convicted of anything based on anonymous sources. However if the publication is reliable and much of the information confirmed, investigations are warranted.  That's how Watergate played out, with the once notorious source Deep Throat (identified as Associate Director of the FBI Mark Felt) providing the clues to identify criminal activities directed by the Nixon administration.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, RickBradford said:

It's not always feasible, certainly.

 

But neither is it very beneficial, or convincing, for the media to run endless anonymous sourced stories which are overwhelmingly hostile and damaging to President Trump and his administration.

 

According to a study from Harvard University, in the first 100 days of the Obama administration, news coverage was 59%-41% favourable towards him; for the same period of the Trump administration it was 20%-80% unfavourable.

 

You could take the fundamentalist point of view and say "Oh, well, that just proves what a rotten egg he is" or you could apply some rationality and consider whether the media has a systemic bias against President Trump.

Barrack Obama took office after a deeply unpopular president, with the nation in economic freefall and two unfinished wars.  The whole world was happy for a change.  It's surprising news coverage wasn't more favorable, but I'm sure Fox News did what it could to make it unfavorable.

 

Donald Trump took office after a deeply popular president, with an electoral college victory but a large loss in the popular vote, the nation with low unemployment and enjoying seven years of economic growth, and the military largely disengaged from foreign wars.  Trump's first 100 days in office has been an unprecedented display of incompetence and gaffes.  It's surprising his unfavorable coverage isn't greater, but I'm sure Fox news is doing what it can to make it more favorable.

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed. 

[boomerangutang]

21 hours ago, jerojero said:

Indeed. Meanwhile he and the GOP ensure huge tax breaks for themselves and elites, while f.the poor. Sad. Feel sorry for the Americans who were conned by Trump. Double sad.

Some numbers out yesterday show how true that is:

 

Trump's replacement for Obamacare (not one Republican who voted for it, had read it):  cuts $829 billion, I repeat CUTS $829,000,000,000, in medical outlays for poorest Americans, .......while giving tax cuts to the very wealthiest Americans of, $623 billion.

[Scott]

This discussion is about the Russia connection, not about Health Care or Tax cuts.  

 

Please stay on topic.  

[riclag]

On 5/27/2017 at 9:22 PM, boomerangutang said:

He's like a bird caught in a filmy net.  It will flap and twist vigorously, but will only succeed in getting itself further enmeshed.  

 

                                    One of his supporters is a rich and very tricky-minded lawyer named Gershowitz. Gershowitz was part of the multi-million dollar law team which got OJ off of a double-murder wrap which every reasonable person (who followed it) knew OJ was guilty as hell.   In other words, tricksters like Gershowitz will always opt for tricks & money, over doing what's morally right. 

 

                      Gershowitz's latest trick is to say Jared is not guilty of a particular law (having to do with a private citizen not being allowed to represent the US gov't) because.... get this; .....because the law is old.

 

                     As for evidence:   THERE IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE.  There's much evidence which we, the public, have seen and heard,  .....and there's even more evidence which intelligence services (particularly US and Russian) have.  Transcripts of recorded conversations are evidence, btw. As are proofs of meetings, traveling, statements, bank account data,  .....and there's a lot more.  Stay tuned.

Gershowitz ????What's his first name.I don't recognize  this name

[iReason]

13 minutes ago, riclag said:

Gershowitz ???? What's his first name.I don't recognize  this name

 

Do you recognize Google?

[riclag]

10 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

Do you recognize Google?

No such person according to google

Edited May 28, 2017 by riclag

[Basil B]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

Some numbers out yesterday show how true that is:

 

Trump's replacement for Obamacare (not one Republican who voted for it, had read it):  cuts $829 billion, I repeat CUTS $829,000,000,000, in medical outlays for poorest Americans, .......while giving tax cuts to the very wealthiest Americans of, $623 billion.

Presume Trump pocketed the small change ($206 Billion)  

[iReason]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

No such person according to google

 

Troll.

Note his most famous quote:

Edited May 28, 2017 by iReason

[boomerangutang]

7 hours ago, riclag said:

Gershowitz ????What's his first name.I don't recognize  this name

                       I mistakenly put a G instead of a D as the first letter.  However, a Google search will easily pull up the correct person, as iReason's post asserts, above.

 

                           Alan Dershowitz would have been a good choice for a lawyer - for defendants at the Nuremberg trials, or the trials of Serbian generals accused of mass murders.   I agree that every defendant deserves a defense attorney.  However, those attorneys should not twist the interpretation of the law to such an extreme as to let guilty people walk free.  There must be a line between being a crafty attorney and tricking the system to allow obviously guilty people to go free - to commit more crimes.   Dershowitz crosses that line.  He would be ideal choice for Kushner, Flynn, Trump and the other criminals who stink up the Oval Office.

 

                        Judges and juries are mortal, therefore they can be flawed and/or able to be manipulated and bribed.  Attorneys like Dershowitz know how to take advantage of such human flaws.   He's like an adept magician who can trick whole groups of eyewitnesses.  No, the woman didn't really get sawed in half, but many witnesses saw the blood dripping to the floor, heard the woman screaming - then lay lifeless, .......and would swear it happened.

[RickBradford]

^^^

A very eloquent plea on behalf of totalitarianism.

 

Just who gets to decide whether Dershowitz is "tricking the system" in favour of "obviously guilty people"?

 

Shall we appoint a State Commissar for the Protection of Truth who decides guilt or innocence without tiresome matters such as trials, judges and juries?

 

Who gets appointed to that position, and by whom? How do we know that they are not corrupt, in turn?

 

The argument is classically Leftist totalitarian in that it says: "Ordinary people are too stupid to know how to run things, which should all be left in the hands of wiser people - like me and my friends. We will decide what is best for them."

 

Your reference to the Nuremberg trials is very apt in this context.

[soalbundy]

Why not set up a war room to ascertain the truth....Oh, they already know the truth.

[mtls2005]

I can't understand Dershowitz' tireless defense of Trump, and his minions? I assume he's looking for one last, big case (defending Trump), or his pro-Israel stance means Trump is best?

 

That said, if I were caught standing over my wife's corpse holding a syringe or knife, he's the first one I'd call.

[RickBradford]

9 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

I can't understand Dershowitz' tireless defense of Trump, and his minions? I assume he's looking for one last, big case (defending Trump), or his pro-Israel stance means Trump is best?

 

That said, if I were caught standing over my wife's corpse holding a syringe or knife, he's the first one I'd call.

The second, surely.

 

The first would be Bob Massingbird....

 

http://www.anvari.org/fortune/Miscellaneous_Collections/137451_i-remember-massingbirds-most-famous-case-the-case-of-the-bloody-knife.html

 

 

[Traveler19491]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                       I mistakenly put a G instead of a D as the first letter.  However, a Google search will easily pull up the correct person, as iReason's post asserts, above.

 

                           Alan Dershowitz would have been a good choice for a lawyer - for defendants at the Nuremberg trials, or the trials of Serbian generals accused of mass murders.   I agree that every defendant deserves a defense attorney.  However, those attorneys should not twist the interpretation of the law to such an extreme as to let guilty people walk free.  There must be a line between being a crafty attorney and tricking the system to allow obviously guilty people to go free - to commit more crimes.   Dershowitz crosses that line.  He would be ideal choice for Kushner, Flynn, Trump and the other criminals who stink up the Oval Office.

 

                        Judges and juries are mortal, therefore they can be flawed and/or able to be manipulated and bribed.  Attorneys like Dershowitz know how to take advantage of such human flaws.   He's like an adept magician who can trick whole groups of eyewitnesses.  No, the woman didn't really get sawed in half, but many witnesses saw the blood dripping to the floor, heard the woman screaming - then lay lifeless, .......and would swear it happened.

While I greatly respect your thought processes and enjoy reading your opinions, this time I fear I must disagree. One of the pillars of our judicial system in the U. S. (that the right has yet to tear down, although they have made a valiant effort, and continue to do so) is that the defendant is entitled to the best defense available (one reason why some guilty verdicts have been overturned...the defense attorney was inept or unqualified). I respect the work of Dershowitz in the main, especially his work for human and civil rights.

 

I agree that OJ's guilt seemed obvious, however, his acquittal was not Dershowitz's fault. All he did was mount a vigorous defense, exploiting holes in a weak case brought by an unprepared and ill-equipped prosecution team. That case should have been a slam-dunk, but the prosecution blew it at every opportunity. Who has a defendant try on a glove that the prosecution hasn't determined beforehand that it fits the accused? What prosecutor, when trying a person of color, puts a witness on the stand who has a known history of racist statements? One rule in the courtroom that every lawyer lives by (or should, if they want to succeed)...never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. OJ's defense team did their job. The prosecution did not. Had they, OJ would have been convicted, as he should have been.

 

The long and short of it is this...I am thankful for the Constitutional requirement that I am to be provided with an adequate defense if I am ever accused of a crime, and that I am entitled to ensure that that defense is the best it can be. If I am ever accused of something I didn't do (which happens all too often in America), I would hope that I could get my hands on someone as skilled as Dershowitz.

 

If Kushner has hired Dershowitz, that is a smart move on his part. "Smart" being something his father-in-law is totally unfamiliar with. Understand, I believe that the investigation will ultimately discover that Trump, Kershner, Bannon, Miller, and all of the assorted sycophant minions have collaborated to undermine our democracy...an act of treason. But employing Dershowitz may turn out to be one of the only legitimately smart things any of these malicious idiots has done.

[Traveler19491]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

 

The argument is classically Leftist totalitarian in that it says: "Ordinary people are too stupid to know how to run things, which should all be left in the hands of wiser people - like me and my friends. We will decide what is best for them."

 

 

As opposed to "ordinary people are undeserving of the wealth I created and therefore that wealth needs to remain in the hands of he who has the most"? Or, "The little people are nothing more than tools for my use in creating yet more billions to slake my greed, and therefore I will keep them in poverty lest they get used to making ends meet and start asking for more"?

 

Your statement is ludicrous. No one on the left feels that "ordinary people are too stupid". Were that the case, we would have been breaking down the door on election day to cast our ballots for Trump. I will admit the there exists an elitist element on what is laughably referred to as "the left", namely the suits in the DNC. Please understand...those people are NOT leftists/Progressives. They are neo-liberals in the same vein as Reagan, and most of them are nearly as conservative. Were we of the genuine opinion that "ordinary people are too stupid to know how to run things", then I can assure you that we would be gerrymandering Congressional districts, passing voter ID laws, closing polling places, restricting voting hours, purging voter rolls, sending out blatantly false (and illegal) notices specifically designed to intimidate people into not voting or misinforming them as to their polling date and location, and every other devious method we could think of to deprive people of their right to vote. But I can't imagine any group resorting to such immoral tactics...can you?

Edited May 29, 2017 by Traveler19491

[maewang99]

and he has a 'new' strategy and a 'new' war room on how to deal with terrorism too... which just happens to also involve spending a couple more trillion dollars.

but ain't new.

in fact, maybe as old as when we first found kerosene in Iran.





 

Edited May 29, 2017 by maewang99

[RickBradford]

@Traveller 

The evidence is in everywhere that self-appointed elites in the West detest democracy.

 

Clinton lost the electoral college but won the popular vote. Ergo, let's get rid of the electoral college (as Sen. Barbara Boxer has tried, and many academics approve).

 

In the UK, the "deplorables" voted in a referendum for the UK to leave the European Union. This triggered a wave of elitists trying to overturn the result, rerun the referendum, downplay its legal impact, and hobble it in any way they can. The opposition is still going on almost one year after the referendum. And yes, they state publicly that they think anyone who voted to leave is stupid (and bigoted and xenophobic).

 

The EU, in particular has ridden roughshod over several national referendums in the past, ordering that they be done over until the "right" result emerges.

 

There may be good reasons that elites detest democracy — other than their feeling that the people are too stupid to know what's best for them — but I'm not sure what they would be.

 

And I don't think these self-appointed elites are immoral; I think they're amoral. There's a difference.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

First of all, Democrats have been overwhelmingly opposed to the electoral college since polling began on the subject.

Republicans, too, until that started to change with Bush's victory in 2000 and now with Trump in 2016.  So who is sticking to their principles and who is not?

And the notion that the electoral college is more democratic than a popular vote is drivel.

And you might recall Nigel Farage said that a 52-48 vote against Brexit shouldn't settle the question definitively.

 

" And yes, they state publicly that they think anyone who voted to leave is stupid (and bigoted and xenophobic)."

Who says that? What political leaders? You mean some private citizens? So what? And are the Brexiters polite in all their references to people who voted to remain?  Such drivel.

 

And what do you mean by self-appointed elites? Did they select themselves? More drivel

[billd766]

14 hours ago, iReason said:

 

Do you recognize Google?

 

14 hours ago, riclag said:

No such person according to google

 

In less than 1 minute I found this.

 

However according to Wikipedia the lawyers at the O J Simpson trial were

 

Simpson was represented by a very high-profile defense team (also referred to as the "Dream Team"), which was initially led by Robert Shapiro[6][7][8] and subsequently led by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.

 

The bolding and font size are mine.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

 

Dershowitz has been involved in several legal cases and is a commentator on the Arab–Israeli conflict.[6] As a criminal appellate lawyer, he has won 13 of the 15 murder and attempted murder cases he has handled,[7] and has represented a series of celebrity clients, including Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, and Jim Bakker. His most notable cases include his role in 1984 in overturning the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny, and as the appellate adviser for the defense in the O. J. Simpson murder trial in 1995.[8]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case

[riclag]

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

 

In less than 1 minute I found this.

 

However according to Wikipedia the lawyers at the O J Simpson trial were

 

Simpson was represented by a very high-profile defense team (also referred to as the "Dream Team"), which was initially led by Robert Shapiro[6][7][8] and subsequently led by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.

 

The bolding and font size are mine.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

 

Dershowitz has been involved in several legal cases and is a commentator on the Arab–Israeli conflict.[6] As a criminal appellate lawyer, he has won 13 of the 15 murder and attempted murder cases he has handled,[7] and has represented a series of celebrity clients, including Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, and Jim Bakker. His most notable cases include his role in 1984 in overturning the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny, and as the appellate adviser for the defense in the O. J. Simpson murder trial in 1995.[8]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case

Oh!   Dershowwitz  Alan, A true American Civil Libertarian .The famed defense lawyer and self-described liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton .The Harvard Law School professor emeritus  said Thursday that reports that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner was under FBI scrutiny on Russia pointed to an inquiry that was "being done backwards" and "raises great concerns about civil liberties." He’s ridiculed by Democrats who accuse him of angling for a seat on a hypothetical Trump defense team. His own relatives tell him he’s embarrassing them.

 

In one article he said ,there is no crime or statue  that's cited  and that a criminal  investigation in so many words is ambiguous .

The one fact that should be taken from  the pre and post election  is,they will never find the truth.Dem's, Gop 's and global elites at their best, hacking away at American Liberties .

 

Dershowwitz said "We'll probably never end up finding out the truth." 

 

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/05/24/dershowitz-defending-donald-trump-not-quite-says/JXhTmSoeUdtxWtuxC1NiNL/story.html

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/alan-dershowitz-jared-kushner-washington-post/2017/05/26/id/792690/

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/alan-dershowitz-civil-liberties-jared-kushner/2017/05/25/id/792471/

Edited May 29, 2017 by riclag