Former President Donald J. Trump

[BARON CORNY DOG]

I prefer pleaded but pled is commonly used in colloquial American speech. For better or worse. The word choice is no big deal, particularly as it was meant to come from a barely literate person.

[Snarfyguy]

According to your Hill article Trump's lawyer did not say collusion is unlawful he says collusion is not a crime. If you interpret that as some kind of tacit admission to collusion then fine, what is your meaning of collusion, especially in the original sense in this case that Trump and Putin colluded - conspired - to rig the election in Trump's favor?

I've never advanced a theory about Trump and Putin getting together and hatching a plan to get Trump into the White House. Obviously, it suits Putin's purposes to have him there rather than Hillary and I'm sure Putin did whatever he could to stir the pot in that regard. I don't think the election was "rigged" in any formal sense, but was there undue outside influence? It seems so. To what extent, I don't think anyone can say.

I have been extremely skeptical that Trump's increasingly shrill insistence that there's nothing untoward with respect to his business relationships with Russian nationals/oligarchs or his team's communications with interests adversarial to ours or his conduct w/r/t Comey and federal law enforcement generally -- any of that -- is on the up and up.

And indeed the whole house of cards is apparently on the verge of collapse.

So why are we supposed to be "over" the Russisan thing now that Mueller is unraveling a snake pit of duplicity and obstruction?

[sloopjohnc]

TRUMP tweeted that he fired Flynn for lying to the F.B.I.
That opens a whole can of worms. Comey’s notes say TRUMP told him to lay off Comey. Now he’s calling Comey a liar.

Sure, people are scattering to cover for him like always but he just hung himself with his own belt.
The only thing that keeps this from blowing up in his face is the fact that most Americans are accustomed to The President of the United States talking out of his ass.

I also like the tweets about Clinton lying before FBI and the agency in tatters.

HRC feels that Comey's comments before the election helped lead to her downfall, which Trump conveniently forgets, and seems to forget what the agency and Comey reported and said, which sure didn't hurt him for those on the fence about who to vote for.

[sloopjohnc]

According to your Hill article Trump's lawyer did not say collusion is unlawful he says collusion is not a crime. If you interpret that as some kind of tacit admission to collusion then fine, what is your meaning of collusion, especially in the original sense in this case that Trump and Putin colluded - conspired - to rig the election in Trump's favor?

I've never advanced a theory about Trump and Putin getting together and hatching a plan to get Trump into the White House. Obviously, it suits Putin's purposes to have him there rather than Hillary and I'm sure Putin did whatever he could to stir the pot in that regard. I don't think the election was "rigged" in any formal sense, but was there undue outside influence? It seems so. To what extent, I don't think anyone can say.

I wonder.

If the Wikileaks/Clinton/Podesta email leak could be done and the Eastern European social media accounts set up to influence the election, I don't think electronically rigging the election is out of the realm of possibility. I doubt it, but it could've happened.

[Sneelock]

even if it didn't, what if it were discussed?
Roger Stone used to brag about being in touch with that Guccifer character. Also, the guy who set up the "dirt on Hillary" meeting had a history of hacking.

that Alexander Nix guy said Cambridge Analytica contacted Wikileaks to ask them if they could produce Hillary's personal emails. TRUMP campaign wrote many big checks to Cambridge Analytica.

what they actually did doesn't seem as important as what they tried to do and what they tried to do sounds very much like fucking with the results of the election.

[sloopjohnc]

Lewandowski is making his rounds in advance of his book on the campaign, Let Trump Be Trump.

On a news show yesterday, some pundit remarked on Trump's increased weight in light of Muller's heightening investigation.

Here's an excerpt as reported on Jezebel:

https://jezebel.com/heres-donald-trumps ... 1820977547

How the man doesn't have diabetes yet is amazing in itself.

[sloopjohnc]

JUST IN: @BrianRoss on @ABC News Special Report: Michael Flynn promised "full cooperation to the Mueller team" and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians." http://abcn.ws/2AhU3Iq

Holy fucking shit!

If this is true, and I hope the report is confirmed by more than two sources, this is a bombshell. It puts Trump on the firing line.

When I wrote this, I suspected that the source wasn't confirmed and it was a hasty rush to get it out there.

I kinda expected more out of Brian Ross.

[Snarfyguy]

JUST IN: @BrianRoss on @ABC News Special Report: Michael Flynn promised "full cooperation to the Mueller team" and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians." http://abcn.ws/2AhU3Iq

Holy fucking shit!

If this is true, and I hope the report is confirmed by more than two sources, this is a bombshell. It puts Trump on the firing line.

When I wrote this, I suspected that the source wasn't confirmed and it was a hasty rush to get it out there.

I kinda expected more out of Brian Ross.

That reminds me: what is the degree of difference in a candidate doing something and the president-elect doing the same thing? I understand respectable media has a responsibility to be accurate, but so what if he said "candidate" instead of "president-elect?" Why is the distinction that important? (asking anyone who may have an understanding on this point)

[Thang-y]

"And last Friday, under the cloak of darkness and with handwritten notes senators didn’t even have time to read, the GOP-controlled Senate passed a tax bill which will redistribute wealth to the one percent whilst hurting the very people who put Trump in office and adding trillions to the deficit."

From the Indy. If this is accurate, I wonder whether it's dawned on the poor who voted for Trump.

Is the penny dropping yet?

[BARON CORNY DOG]

If they pay attention to current affairs AND get their news from Fox or talk radio, they’ll never know. If they know, they believe in trickle down economics and/or aren’t disposed to resent wealth.

[Thang-y]

Stunning.

[Neige]

Stunning.

Indeed. Baffling.

[sloopjohnc]

If this is true, and I hope the report is confirmed by more than two sources, this is a bombshell. It puts Trump on the firing line.

When I wrote this, I suspected that the source wasn't confirmed and it was a hasty rush to get it out there.

I kinda expected more out of Brian Ross.

That reminds me: what is the degree of difference in a candidate doing something and the president-elect doing the same thing? I understand respectable media has a responsibility to be accurate, but so what if he said "candidate" instead of "president-elect?" Why is the distinction that important? (asking anyone who may have an understanding on this point)

No idea.

[sloopjohnc]

If they pay attention to current affairs AND get their news from Fox or talk radio, they’ll never know. If they know, they believe in trickle down economics and/or aren’t disposed to resent wealth.

I heard this being discussed yesterday too. Trump supporters think the WAPO, NY Times and CNN are all "fake news."

I respect their reporting, but how many people really read or go to these sites to get hard news? It's seems news is just preaching to the converted nowadays.

It's brilliant on Trump's part - convincing millions of people that reputable news sources aren't valid. I think that's one of the canniest feats he's performed.

While NY Times digital subscriptions went up by 500,000 in 2016, newspaper circulation continues to fall pretty precipitously. But these gains did not translate into circulation growth for the industry overall. A Pew Research Center analysis of data from AAM shows that total weekday circulation for U.S. daily newspapers – both print and digital – fell 8% in 2016, marking the 28th consecutive year of declines. (Sunday circulation also fell 8%.) The overall decline includes a 10% decrease in weekday print circulation (9% for Sundays) and a 1% decline in weekday digital circulation (1% rise for Sundays). Total weekday circulation for U.S. daily newspapers fell to 35 million, while total Sunday circulation declined to 38 million – the lowest levels since 1945.

While the print circulation figures include the large papers cited above, digital circulation is more difficult to assess. Three of the largest U.S. daily papers – The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal – do not fully report their digital subscriptions to AAM, so they are not included in the overall circulation estimate above. Had the independently produced digital circulation figures from the Times and Journal been included, total weekday circulation would have fallen by 4%, rather than the 8% figure shown in the AAM data alone.

[BARON CORNY DOG]

If they pay attention to current affairs AND get their news from Fox or talk radio, they’ll never know. If they know, they believe in trickle down economics and/or aren’t disposed to resent wealth.

On the other hand ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... d13b666643

[sloopjohnc]

If they pay attention to current affairs AND get their news from Fox or talk radio, they’ll never know. If they know, they believe in trickle down economics and/or aren’t disposed to resent wealth.

On the other hand ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... d13b666643

What I don't get is where are all these deficit hawk tea party Republicans that were all up in Obama's grill a few years ago.

Conspicuously quiet.

[Sneelock]

It's brilliant on Trump's part - convincing millions of people that reputable news sources aren't valid. I think that's one of the canniest feats he's performed.

well, he had a lot of help priming the pump. Like a lot of what TRUMP does - he states flatly and defiantly what has been more or less accepted dogma for years. the "untrustworthy liberal media" routine has been part of the right's playbook for a while. Hate Radio & Tabloid News have badgered at this pretty relentlessly. TRUMP ups the stakes even further but I think a lot of the heavy lifting was done for him - still, it takes a lot of nerve.

as for the failing media stuff - I'm certainly part of the problem. the two headed monster of very bad reporting and not getting my paper delivered for days at a time cured me of subscribing to the L.A.Times. they still have some good writers and they still do some good work. BUT, just as I was learning to live without paying for news, along came the internet.

Nowadays, if I click on a link and there's a paywall, I go somewhere else. I doubt I'm alone in this. Also, I personally think much of the coverage is SUPER lame. take the Tax Bill, almost every reputable news source played this in the favored "horse race" manner. "Do Republicans have enough votes to win?"
sure, there was SOME analysis and context and I do understand that the bill was Top Secret but still, news without analysis isn't really news at all.

[sloopjohnc]

JUST IN: @BrianRoss on @ABC News Special Report: Michael Flynn promised "full cooperation to the Mueller team" and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians." http://abcn.ws/2AhU3Iq

Holy fucking shit!

If this is true, and I hope the report is confirmed by more than two sources, this is a bombshell. It puts Trump on the firing line.

When I wrote this, I suspected that the source wasn't confirmed and it was a hasty rush to get it out there.

I kinda expected more out of Brian Ross.

Maybe I shouldn't have expected more out of Ross

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/04/media/a ... index.html

[Snarfyguy]

Maybe I shouldn't have expected more out of Ross

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/04/media/a ... index.html

Sounds more like the editor or fact-checker's fault to me.

[sloopjohnc]

Maybe I shouldn't have expected more out of Ross

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/04/media/a ... index.html

Sounds more like the editor or fact-checker's fault to me.

It's everyone's fault. The reporter knows he needs two sources. And it's the editors fault for not asking what they were.

That's why CNN was questioning ABC's process. That's the larger problem.