Media Tracker (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?

 

[JRad]

Biden did say that gates of hell line.

Joe Biden: America Will Follow ISIS to 'Gates of Hell'

Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday promised to avenge the murders of Americans James Foley and Steven Sotloff, saying the U.S. would follow Islamic State terrorists who beheaded the two Americans "to the gates of hell."

www.wsj.com

Biden: ISIL will reside in hell

“[W]hen people harm Americans, we don’t retreat. We don’t forget,” he says.

www.politico.com

 

[MT15]

You can't be serious. You are spinning the bombshell about the intelligence community backing off the bounty story, which was supposedly independently verified by multiple new agencies, as Trumps fault?

If the bounty report isn't true what in the hell does that have to do with Trump supposedly being inept and not able to read reports?

I think you are conflating news stories with actual intelligence reports. Not the same thing. I would have expected a president to read the reports and question them.

Actually, I remember he tweeted that the info wasn’t confirmed at the time, indicating that he knew, yet he weakly let the news stories rule the day. He really only cared about his business dealings, his Twitter feed, and his popularity anyway. It just didn’t matter enough to him to actually follow through. Its a pattern.

 

[SaintForLife]

I think you are conflating news stories with actual intelligence reports. Not the same thing. I would have expected a president to read the reports and question them.

Actually, I remember he tweeted that the info wasn’t confirmed at the time, indicating that he knew, yet he weakly let the news stories rule the day. He really only cared about his business dealings, his Twitter feed, and his popularity anyway. It just didn’t matter enough to him to actually follow through. Its a pattern.

Question the bullshirt bounty story? The same bounty story that was most likely leaked to delay the exit from Afghanistan? He let the news stories come out? What power did he have over the news stories?

This is definitely your worst attempt at spin. It's laughable.



Here's one of your favorite sources to post here:




This list is up to 21 now with the bounty bullshirt story.

 

[MT15]

Sigh, I’m saying he obviously had the same intelligence reports that Biden has now, he tweeted that it was not as likely to be true at the time. When I said reports, I’m talking about intelligence reports, which he obviously had access to, because he said as much at the time.

Problem is that Trump had zero credibility by then, because he had been so deferential to Putin for years that nobody believed him. And instead of setting the record straight (similar to what the current administration just did) he tweeted about it and then just let it drop. He didn’t push back because he basically just didn’t care enough, IMO.

And since you’re still beating the drum of “no collusion”, the government confirmed today that Kilimnick gave the internal Trump polling data and strategy plans directly to Russian intelligence. You remember, the internal Trump campaign documents that Manafort gave to him? But, yeah, the very idea that the Trump campaign was working with Russian intelligence is clearly just crazy.

 

[SaintForLife]

Sigh, I’m saying he obviously had the same intelligence reports that Biden has now, he tweeted that it was not as likely to be true at the time. When I said reports, I’m talking about intelligence reports, which he obviously had access to, because he said as much at the time.

Problem is that Trump had zero credibility by then, because he had been so deferential to Putin for years that nobody believed him. And instead of setting the record straight (similar to what the current administration just did) he tweeted about it and then just let it drop. He didn’t push back because he basically just didn’t care enough, IMO.

And since you’re still beating the drum of “no collusion”, the government confirmed today that Kilimnick gave the internal Trump polling data and strategy plans directly to Russian intelligence. You remember, the internal Trump campaign documents that Manafort gave to him? But, yeah, the very idea that the Trump campaign was working with Russian intelligence is clearly just crazy.

OMG he provided polling data to Russians. Thats like giving them the nuclear codes.

 

[samiam5211]

I had talked about it being possible that the bounty story was leaked to sabotage the withdrawal from Afghanistan and a few people here mocked me for bringing it up.

I actually think this is one of the most likely explanations for this.

After Trump abandoned the Kurds, I suspect (hope) that there were people in the intel and military power structure who decided to undermine Trump. I am sure that the majority of career public servants in the intel community and military leadership (I guess the deep state?) did not want Trump to be re-elected.

Leaking a questionable report that Russia was putting bounties on our troops in Afghanistan would be a perfect way to help their cause.

If that story was made into a movie, it would be called the deep state and they would be the heroes.

 

[MT15]

OMG he provided polling data to Russians. Thats like giving them the nuclear codes.

This statement needs clown shoes.

This is actually the definition of collusion, but you know that already. It was internal, non-public polling data and the campaign’s strategy documents. Straight to Russian intelligence, straight from the campaign. You’ve been saying for years that it didn’t happen, yet we now know officially that it did. Of course, a lot of us were pretty sure it happened all along.

Trump was up to his neck in it, as evidenced by all his obstruction and his corrupt pardon of Manafort and Stone too for that matter. I’m sorry you’ve been hoodwinked all these years by the anti-anti-Trump crowd of media grifters who have decided to make money off of folks who are easily fooled into believing that an elderly failed real estate tycoon who has been a crooked SOB his whole life suddenly became an Uber-patriot who cares about this country.

Trump is about as un-American as a person can be, but in his defense he’s also a bit simple. He cares only about his brand and his money. Manafort is a straight up traitor.

 

[samiam5211]

OMG he provided polling data to Russians. Thats like giving them the nuclear codes.

What specifically is “polling data” referring to?

I admit I do not know what information was included in this “polling data”, but I assume you do since you are attempting to minimize it through mockery.

 

[DaveXA]

Actually, I guess I missed the boat because I wasn't aware that polling data was part of the collusion line of thinking. Where did that come from? Was it in the Mueller report?

 

[MT15]

Yes, and in the Senate intelligence committee report. The new thing here is the information that the information given to Kilimnik went straight to Russian intelligence. Most people informed on the matter suspected that to be the case, but now it is confirmed. Basic steps:

Mueller called Kilimnik “associated with Russia intelligence. Didn’t say what he did with info.
Senate report said Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence officer, but said they couldn’t confirm whether the information was forwarded to Moscow.
Today‘s report connects the dots finally. The Trump campaign chairman was actively colluding with Russian intelligence. Knowingly. Manafort knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[DaveXA]

Yes, and in the Senate intelligence committee report. The new thing here is the information that the information given to Kilimnik went straight to Russian intelligence. Most people informed on the matter suspected that to be the case, but now it is confirmed. Basic steps:

Mueller called Kilimnik “associated with Russia intelligence. Didn’t say what he did with info.
Senate report said Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence officer, but said they couldn’t confirm whether the information was forwarded to Moscow.
Today‘s report connects the dots finally. The Trump campaign chairman was actively colluding with Russian intelligence. Knowingly. Manafort knew exactly what he was doing.

Thanks, I'll read up on it. Hadn't followed the story in a long while.

 

[wardorican]

You can't be serious. You are spinning the bombshell about the intelligence community backing off the bounty story, which was supposedly independently verified by multiple new agencies, as Trumps fault?

If the bounty report isn't true what in the hell does that have to do with Trump supposedly being inept and not able to read reports?

What do you think independently verified means? It doesn't mean the various News outlets asked Russians, or saw documented proof. It means they asked the Pentagon or CIA is this was true.

So, did they lie? What changed?

 

[wardorican]

Well, well, well. This was one of the stories that was "confirmed" by multiple newspapers.


It was a blockbuster story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great Game” in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.

But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.

...According to the officials on Thursday’s call, the reporting about the alleged “bounties” came from “detainee reporting” – raising the specter that someone told their U.S.-aligned Afghan jailers what they thought was necessary to get out of a cage. Specifically, the official cited “information and evidence of connections to criminal agents in Afghanistan and elements of the Russian government” as sources for the intelligence community’s assessment.

Without additional corroboration, such reporting is notoriously unreliable. Detainee reporting from a man known as Ibn Shaikh al-Libi, extracted from torture, infamously and bogusly fueled a Bush administration claim, used to invade Iraq, about Saddam Hussein training al-Qaeda to make poison gas.

...There were reasons to doubt the story from the start. Not only did the initial stories emphasize its basis on detainee reporting, but the bounties represented a qualitative shift in recent Russian engagements with Afghan insurgents. Russian operatives have long been suspected of moving money to various Afghan militants: an out-of-favor former Taliban official told The Daily Beast on the record that Russia gave them cash for years. But the Russians had not been suspected of sponsoring attacks on U.S. forces outright – an escalation that risked confrontation with the U.S., and occurring long after it could have made a difference in the war.

As well, there seemed to be no “causative link” to any actual U.S. deaths, in the judgment of Gen. Frank McKenzie, the senior U.S. general for the Middle East and South Asia. Former U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers told The Daily Beast last summer that they viewed the bounties account skeptically. One retired diplomat suspected, “someone leaked this to slow down the troop withdrawal.”




I had talked about it being possible that the bounty story was leaked to sabotage the withdrawal from Afghanistan and a few people here mocked me for bringing it up.

BTW, did you read all of that?

They have a pretty strong suspicion, but they can't totally prove it. It's also possible that they're slightly backing off their presumption, because they'd be forced to retaliate in some fashion.

Echoing comments in July by Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, McKenzie said that if he could establish that the Russians were offering payments to kill Americans, he would push to forcefully respond. But the intelligence is far from conclusive, he said.

"I found what they presented to me very concerning, very worrisome. I just couldn't see the final connection, so I sent my guys back and said, look, keep digging. So we have continued to dig and look because this involves potential threats to U.S. forces, it's open," he said, adding, "I just haven't seen anything that closes that gap yet."

A U.S. military official familiar with the intelligence added that after a review of the intelligence around each attack against Americans going back several years, none have been tied to any Russian incentive payments.

The suggestion of a Russian bounty program began, another source directly familiar with the matter said, with a raid by CIA paramilitary officers that captured Taliban documents describing Russian payments.

A Taliban detainee told the CIA such a program existed, the source said, although the term "bounty" was never used. Later, the CIA was able to document financial transfers between Russian military intelligence and the Taliban, and establish there had been travel by key Russian officers to Afghanistan and by relevant Taliban figures to Russia.

That intelligence was reviewed by CIA Director Gina Haspel and placed in Trump's daily intelligence briefing book earlier this year, officials have said. The source described the intelligence as compelling, but meriting further investigation. Nonetheless, current and former U.S. officials have said, many CIA officers and analysts came to believe a bounty program existed. They concluded that the Russians viewed it as a proportional response to the U.S. arming of Ukrainian units fighting Russian forces in Crimea, the source said.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

BTW, did you read all of that?

They have a pretty strong suspicion, but they can't totally prove it. It's also possible that they're slightly backing off their presumption, because they'd be forced to retaliate in some fashion.

Exactly, considering the IC community doesn't really deal in absolutes, what they are saying that their level of confidence in the information they had on the "bounties" didn't meet their threshold for recommending action.

 

[TaylorB]

Thanks, I'll read up on it. Hadn't followed the story in a long while.

SFL and I argued about Kilimnik and the polling data for months. This is him ragging on me about Kilimnik a year ago, before the bipartisan Senate intel report concluded Kilimnik had links to Russian intel, and before it was revealed that he was actually sharing the polling data with the Russians

With all due respect I do have to laugh at the importance that you are placing on the polling data. Just about the entire premise of your post relies on Kilimnik having links to Russian intelligence when there is zero evidence for that and we now know that he was a State Department source which Mueller did his best to hide. Maybe you should recalibrate your argument based on what you didn't know about Kilimnik.

Sharing proprietary polling data with the Russians was a big deal because the data identified key swing states and districts at which Russians could direct the bulk of their digital psy-ops and influencing campaigns to get the best bang for their buck. Manafort, the Trump campaign manager who met in secret with Kilimnik to give him this data, at the time owed a Russian oligarch tens of millions of dollars and thought that assisting their covert interference in our election would help him “get whole” with the oligarch.

That is a subplot to a larger and much more complex and nefarious story but it is a clear example of why the “no collusion” line is and has always been a shameless lie.

 

[TaylorB]

What specifically is “polling data” referring to?

I admit I do not know what information was included in this “polling data”, but I assume you do since you are attempting to minimize it through mockery.

It was proprietary data collected by a private pollster for the Trump campaign that contained really detailed information about voters in certain swing states (MI, PA, and a few others I think). They were trying to identify and profile potential swing voters who could be most easily manipulated either to vote red or to not vote at all so they could micro target people with highly personalized digital ads. The Russians were doing the same thing using bots and fake news ads so it was useful for them to know the best places to direct their efforts.

Some former Cambridge Analytica folks describe that sort of psy-ops in the Great Hack on Netflix. Give that a watch and you’ll know exactly why the info was valuable to the Russians and their covert election interference ops.

 

[samiam5211]

It was proprietary data collected by a private pollster for the Trump campaign that contained really detailed information about voters in certain swing states (MI, PA, and a few others I think). They were trying to identify and profile potential swing voters who could be most easily manipulated either to vote red or to not vote at all so they could micro target people with highly personalized digital ads. The Russians were doing the same thing using bots and fake news ads so it was useful for them to know the best places to direct their efforts.

Some former Cambridge Analytica folks describe that sort of psy-ops in the Great Hack on Netflix. Give that a watch and you’ll know exactly why the info was valuable to the Russians and their covert election interference ops.

I wonder exactly what the information was though. Was their any PII at all in the data? Could Russia use it to identify individual people and profile them, target them specifically, and radicalize them.

I am sure that Russia is playing a long game, and that "polling data" is being used for more than just swaying elections.

 

[bdb13]

OMG he provided polling data to Russians. Thats like giving them the nuclear codes.

You think it's bad but you just don't really give a shirt about it, or you don't think it's actually that bad or uncommon? Or you think it's 'fake,' or something else?

I'm curious.