Former President Donald J. Trump

[bobzilla77]

I know right? Every picture I see of him looks like he should have stink lines coming off him.

[Snarfyguy]

Trump's defense seems to be that, although he hired a criminal to run his campaign, he didn't *know* the guy was a criminal, and in any case, the criminal conduct pre-dated the hiring.

Even though the time periods of the criminal conduct and the campaign-running overlap.

Also, I like how Trump immediately throws Manafort overboard. No "innocent until proven guilty" or "we'll get to the bottom of this." Just straight to "Well, that doesn't affect me!"

I wonder what he'll have to say if/when the feds bag Flynn.

[Sneelock]

I’ll bet Flynn sings like a canary.

[sloopjohnc]

The man should be impeached for doing a Pizza Hut commercial back in the day. Nasty shit - the tomato sauce is like battery acid.

[Sneelock]

Now, he’s eating America crust first.

[BARON CORNY DOG]

I know right? Every picture I see of him looks like he should have stink lines coming off him.

There’s a funny story about his “rich tastes” in the NYT today where they tried to find the places where he has dropped hundreds of thousands on rugs and suits and he’s basically described as a classless rube with more money than sense. It’s a little sad, actually.

[Snarfyguy]

It’s a little sad, actually.

Careful!

[Sneelock]

I wonder why him and DJT hung out together.

[Matty Red Sox]

So I haven't been around much since the election, let me see if I'm following this correctly: Jimbo is a pro Trump and Putin guy and the rest of you seem to not be insane?

Yeah I don't really know what happened there. The conspiracy theorist has gone all in for the authoritarian state "winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world."

I think it's possible he is himself one of those Russians that earns a living posting fake news stuff on western message boards and chat rooms. It's less of a stretch than some of the stuff he accepts as plausible. I mean - we know for a fact that those people exist. Why wouldn't they target good old BCB?

Or else he's just one of the millions of people reeled in by that stuff.

Thanks for the responses everyone... and yeah, this makes the most sense to me.

[Sneelock]

Good to see you, Matty Red Sox!

[Matty Red Sox]

Good to see you, Matty Red Sox!

Are you on Facebook? I live there...

[Sneelock]

Yass I yam.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News. Parry somehow manages to demolish the official NYT or WAPO story about "Russia-gate" every time. Parry is on top of it. This morning I was at a loss about Snarf's entry about Papadopolus. I had a peek at CN and there it was, the anti-official Papadopolus narrative! And Parry is the real deal when it comes to investigative reporting. Parry is not a "911 truther" (worse luck). Forget Davey's denigrations of Parry. Davey usually only manages some snark and a roll-eye emogee and can't refute what a veteran independent reporter has to say, certainly not well enough to dissuade me and 1000s of other CN readers.

Note how Parry is almost always comparing his Russia-gate story to what's in the NYT and then shows how the NYT is wrong, i.e, that 17 security agencies agreed that Russians hacked HRC's emails. He knew that there were only three and sure enough after much time when all the MSM pundits were saying 17 the NYT corrected themselves to say only three. In a media world where there are so many different story versions it would behoove the NYT, etc., to include a paragraph or two of what others say about the same story and then debunk or agree with them. That's what Parry does. But the NYT doesn't because of what? They hate Trump enough to print fake news about him? Surely someone over there reads Parry. Why no rebuttals?

Let’s settle this Robert Parry thing once and for all. You insist that he’s a great “investigative journalist”? Fine. Let’s put that to a test.

Here’s his most recent article (surprise...more Russia)...sight unseen by me. I’m going to bet that you can’t point out a few instances of investigative reporting.

Here’s the link:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/31/s ... ssia-mess/

Oh...and feel free to do the same with his next article. I feel pretty confident that they tend will extend into the his future writings.

[Jimbo]

Let’s settle this Robert Parry thing once and for all. You insist that he’s a great “investigative journalist”? Fine. Let’s put that to a test.

Here’s his most recent article (surprise...more Russia)...sight unseen by me. I’m going to bet that you can’t point out a few instances of investigative reporting.

Here’s the link:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/31/s ... ssia-mess/

Oh...and feel free to do the same with his next article. I feel pretty confident that they tend will extend into the his future writings.

No.

From Wikipedia - Robert Parry (born June 24, 1949) is an American investigative journalist best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra affair for the Associated Press (AP) and Newsweek, including breaking the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) and the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal in 1985. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984 and the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard's Nieman Foundation in 2015. He has been the editor of Consortiumnews since 1995. … persona non grata among those who worship at the altar of conventional wisdom.

My kind of guy!

[Moleskin]

He can't be a great investigative journalist because he disagrees with Davey.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

It’s got nothing to do with agreeing with me. I’ve just noticed over the dozens of articles Jimbo has posted a striking lack of investigative journalism. Every single one has been an opinion piece.

I’m have no doubt that Parry did some investigative work at some point in his career to earn his reputation. Maybe he still does. But there’s not much of it to be found in these Russia pieces - and he doesn’t label them as “commentary.”

If Jimbo is happy to keep taking Parry as some kind of demigod of journalism because he’s won some awards - that’s fine. But it sure tells you something about BCB’s own Mr. “Flies-in-the-face-of-conventional-wisdom” that he isn’t confident that he can point out a single example of investigation in a Parry article, yet answered me back with his Wikipedia bio.

But let’s face it - Jimbo wouldn’t be able to spot the difference between jouralism and commentary if they were soaked in 9/11 jet fuel.

[toomanyhatz]

He can't be a great investigative journalist because he disagrees with Davey.

He's not an investigative journalist.

Seriously, anyone. Not just Jimbo. Point out a piece ANYWHERE where he uses EVIDENCE to conclude something. He's very good at damning the evidence of others. He never offers his own.

[sloopjohnc]

Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News. Parry somehow manages to demolish the official NYT or WAPO story about "Russia-gate" every time. Parry is on top of it. This morning I was at a loss about Snarf's entry about Papadopolus. I had a peek at CN and there it was, the anti-official Papadopolus narrative! And Parry is the real deal when it comes to investigative reporting. Parry is not a "911 truther" (worse luck). Forget Davey's denigrations of Parry. Davey usually only manages some snark and a roll-eye emogee and can't refute what a veteran independent reporter has to say, certainly not well enough to dissuade me and 1000s of other CN readers.

Note how Parry is almost always comparing his Russia-gate story to what's in the NYT and then shows how the NYT is wrong, i.e, that 17 security agencies agreed that Russians hacked HRC's emails. He knew that there were only three and sure enough after much time when all the MSM pundits were saying 17 the NYT corrected themselves to say only three. In a media world where there are so many different story versions it would behoove the NYT, etc., to include a paragraph or two of what others say about the same story and then debunk or agree with them. That's what Parry does. But the NYT doesn't because of what? They hate Trump enough to print fake news about him? Surely someone over there reads Parry. Why no rebuttals?

Let’s settle this Robert Parry thing once and for all. You insist that he’s a great “investigative journalist”? Fine. Let’s put that to a test.

Here’s his most recent article (surprise...more Russia)...sight unseen by me. I’m going to bet that you can’t point out a few instances of investigative reporting.

Here’s the link:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/31/s ... ssia-mess/

Oh...and feel free to do the same with his next article. I feel pretty confident that they tend will extend into the his future writings.

So, I majored in Journalism my first three years in college, wrote for the college newspaper, as well as high school. I just had lunch last weekend with a friend of mine, who was a features writer and columnist for a major metro paper. My point is I think I have a fairly good background in identifying article sources and what a journalist concludes or reports from those sources. The only sources cited in this article are court documents, with no actual citations, and a purported interview with an intelligence official honestly reported as months ago. And a lot is inferred from these vague sources. The reporter sneakily draws a lot of conclusions where there's little evidence and makes lots of leaps that don't seem to be there from my reading.

That was my takeaway. I don't know the reporter, but he seems to lean on distinguished reports from 20 years ago and older.

[toomanyhatz]

Bingo. Anyone who's ever taken a journalism class can spot it in a second. There's a lot of inference. That's not investigative journalism. It's not that there aren't other people doing what he does, it's that there's an essential dishonesty in how he presents himself.

[Goat Boy]

I'm confused though because it clearly states: "Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995"