Who?.........Well d.j[ackass] trump does. I was researching what breitbart looked like and found the following in Bloomberg:
"The president, who regularly has access to classified information and intelligence briefings, relied on a Breitbart News report for his information about the alleged wiretap"
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-04/trump-calls-obama-sick-claims-trump-tower-was-wiretapped
Ok......tiime to start digging. I find the following in the Washington Post:
"Our colleague Robert Costa has reported that White House aides have internally circulated an article on [b]reitbart titled “[m]ark [l]evin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. [t]rump.”"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/05/trumps-evidence-for-obama-wiretap-claims-relies-on-sketchy-anonymously-sourced-reports/?utm_term=.c9d145e279da
I look up Robert Costa to find out who he is and found that he has a Masters in Politics from Cambridge University. He was a Robert L. Bartley Fellow at The Wall Street Journal. He was later hired by the conservative magazine National Review as a reporter in 2010. He is now a reporter for the Wsahington Post. The beat he covers is listed as National Review.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Costa_(journalist)
Check.......Costa looks like a legitimate journalist, so I'll buy what he's selling.
So, I look up the story that little lord trumpy boy read. The article leads off by saying:
"Radio host [m]ark [l]evin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine [d]onald [t]rump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration."
It proceeds by laying out certain points in time with stuff that is in no way corroborated. The following are some of the ramblings that this guy, levin, spewed:
June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving [d]onald [t]rump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.
October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in [t]rump [t]ower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.I
I will note here that if either of these events occurred there would be a paper trail of court filings, of which none have been found. Private sector phone companies would have been involved, and there are no reports by anyone in such a company to confirm such actions.
The following steps in levin's case are where his logic becomes twisted and, to me, unintelligible.
January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the [t]rump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.
Hold it..........how in the world does this guy think that "monitoring several associates" equates to wire taps and even, even if associates of "the [t]rump campaign" were being wire tapped, how does that equate to trump being wire tapped? Ok, let's continue.
February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.
I have to pause here again. What a load of donkey dung. There is no "supposedly" going on here. It is common knowledge that the Russian Ambassador's phone conversations are routinely tapped. The fact that flynn was on the other end of that phone conversation is coincidental, not a targeting of a private citizen. Secondly, "FBI transcripts" versus "Flynn earlier denied discussing" (re: sanctions against Russia); what the hell am I expected to believe, a recording that can be listed to or flynn's denial? Next.......
February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.
Again, how does this equate to wire tapping?
March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.
Again, how does this equate to wire tapping? Not only that; who is this guy that he puts words in someone else's 'mouth' re: "“preserve” it really means “disseminate”"?
Ok......tiime to start digging. I find the following in the Washington Post:
"Our colleague Robert Costa has reported that White House aides have internally circulated an article on [b]reitbart titled “[m]ark [l]evin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. [t]rump.”"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/05/trumps-evidence-for-obama-wiretap-claims-relies-on-sketchy-anonymously-sourced-reports/?utm_term=.c9d145e279da
I look up Robert Costa to find out who he is and found that he has a Masters in Politics from Cambridge University. He was a Robert L. Bartley Fellow at The Wall Street Journal. He was later hired by the conservative magazine National Review as a reporter in 2010. He is now a reporter for the Wsahington Post. The beat he covers is listed as National Review.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Costa_(journalist)
Check.......Costa looks like a legitimate journalist, so I'll buy what he's selling.
So, I look up the story that little lord trumpy boy read. The article leads off by saying:
"Radio host [m]ark [l]evin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine [d]onald [t]rump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration."
It proceeds by laying out certain points in time with stuff that is in no way corroborated. The following are some of the ramblings that this guy, levin, spewed:
June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving [d]onald [t]rump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.
October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in [t]rump [t]ower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.I
I will note here that if either of these events occurred there would be a paper trail of court filings, of which none have been found. Private sector phone companies would have been involved, and there are no reports by anyone in such a company to confirm such actions.
The following steps in levin's case are where his logic becomes twisted and, to me, unintelligible.
January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the [t]rump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.
Hold it..........how in the world does this guy think that "monitoring several associates" equates to wire taps and even, even if associates of "the [t]rump campaign" were being wire tapped, how does that equate to trump being wire tapped? Ok, let's continue.
February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.
I have to pause here again. What a load of donkey dung. There is no "supposedly" going on here. It is common knowledge that the Russian Ambassador's phone conversations are routinely tapped. The fact that flynn was on the other end of that phone conversation is coincidental, not a targeting of a private citizen. Secondly, "FBI transcripts" versus "Flynn earlier denied discussing" (re: sanctions against Russia); what the hell am I expected to believe, a recording that can be listed to or flynn's denial? Next.......
February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.
Again, how does this equate to wire tapping?
March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.
Again, how does this equate to wire tapping? Not only that; who is this guy that he puts words in someone else's 'mouth' re: "“preserve” it really means “disseminate”"?
Think of a slinky that's been stretched out and then released. See that tangled mess? That's what levin's and breitbart's attempts to link information looks like to me. A tangled mess of illogical who knows what and a case that is at best, at best mind you, the weakest circumstantial evidenced conspiracy theory possible. I flinch at using the words 'evidenced' and 'theory' in relation to this pap.
So........who reads 'fake news'?...........trump! And who else reads and believes fake news? Well I don't know anyone personally, and I don't mean to come off as an intellectual snob, but I'm thinking people with limited abilities to think.
So........who reads 'fake news'?...........trump! And who else reads and believes fake news? Well I don't know anyone personally, and I don't mean to come off as an intellectual snob, but I'm thinking people with limited abilities to think.
No comments:
Post a Comment