ABC News’ fake news
Yesterday morning, according to CNN Money, ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross reported that an unnamed single source told him that Michael Flynn was going to testify that candidate-Trump asked him to make contact with Russians before the election last year. Before last night’s evening news broadcast, ABC News had retracted the story. This appeared on the text story and on Twitter;
CORRECTION of ABC News Special Report: Flynn prepared to testify that President-elect Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians *during the transition* — initially as a way to work together to fight ISIS in Syria, confidant now says. https://t.co/ewrkVZTu2K pic.twitter.com/URLiHf3uSm
— ABC News (@ABC) December 2, 2017
The story was altered to read that Trump had asked Flynn to make contact with the Russians AFTER he had won the election.
Meanwhile, before the correction;
A tweet published by ABC News containing Ross’ initial report had been retweeted more than 25,000 times and embedded in various news stories online before it was deleted. ABC posted a “clarification” on Twitter around 8 p.m.
And they wonder why Trump calls them “fake news”.
Category: Media
It’s those little things that trip people up, isn’t it?
The DNC-owned and operated liberal media will stop at nothing to make a smear on someone and they wonder why nobody trusts them!
ABC = Always Bull Crap
Or Always Broadcasting Communism.
When I saw Brian Ross’ name on it, I knew it was a hit piece… he’s made a career on half-assed “investigative journalism”
Correction or retraction be damned: the lefties are going to crow about this shit as if it were holy writ.
A Lib acquaintance is now peeing herself with joy on FB and speculating the succession alternatives.
Still wondering why Russia would have wanted DJT? Hillary would “service” Putin in Red Square whereas DJT has been a ball buster towards him.
Yeah, just like Clinton would have been the choice of Wall Street, Russia would have had a much more friendly Pres if she has won.
The Russians do not “donate” that kind of money without an expectation of a return on investment.
Nobody does. On a lark I looked up what the Clinton Foundation does compared to another former president’s pet project, Habitat for Humanity.
Clinton – https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
HFHI – https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3789
Total revenue for the two is comparable, with Clinton at $286m and Habitat at $271m. What’s much more interesting to me is that the CF receives $100m in government grants! HFHI gets under $18m.
I can point to at least a half dozen Habitat for Humanity homes in my small, suburban city. For the life of me, I have no idea what the Clinton Foundation does. Carter isn’t out making himself rich or traveling the world making friends with world leaders for his pet project.
Whatever criticism I may level at Mr Carter for political or social failings, I sincerely respect Habitat for Humanity and the work they do. His work on their behalf is worthy of praise.
a friend of mine who participated in relief efforts for Hurricane Andrew in 1991 said that in some neighborhoods the only homes left standing, and habitable, were Habitat homes.
Kudos to Mr Carter for supporting this fine organization.
Now, for contrast, go ask the Haitians what they think of Clinton Foundation relief efforts.
They only believe the parts they want to believe. Any corrections or retractions because of mistakes or bad information don’t count. If the first thing they see matches their ignorant state of mind, they groove on it.
Going off trail a bit, but I’d kick a confidant’s ass up around his shoulders for rolling on me.
Circling back, is it against the law for anyone, especially a presidential candidate, to contact people of importance in other countries to get relations started or smoothed over? The libs want so bad to find collusion between Trump and Russia that they are grabbing this and running. Is working with someone/ group to defeat your opponent against the law, now?
Seems to be much ado about nothing, but the left loves adoing to be doing.
And a statement regarding my recently deceased uncle: we may see him here on TAH. I hope it’s true what was claimed in his obit, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. He lived in Colorado/Utah much of my life while the rest of the fam lives in the SE, so I’ve never heard any bragging or derring do by him. But that doesn’t mean either way if he did or didn’t. I need to FOIA his records.
Actually, there is – it’s commonly called the Logan Act. Text of the statute can be found at 18 USC 953.
One could argue that technically this provision prohibits such activities by a candidate and/or his representatives until the candidate takes office. However, IMO a common-sense interpretation would allow such contacts by transition team members during the interim between election and taking office.
Thanks for replying, Hondo. The legalese makes my head hurt something fierce. I need plain, short text to understand law. Glad we have you to do that interpretation of verbose law language for us.
Obama and Holder still sold guns to cartels and American law enforcement were killed with those guns. Why are they not in prison? Real news is out there and they refuse to report on it.
Yep, because these folks live by: “The end justifies the means.”
And if they screw up, no matter how many lives it cost, they can always say “I didn’t INTEND for anyone to be harmed.”
They didn’t intend for anyone that -mattered- to them to be harmed.
Brian Ross was FIRST at least – even if phony baloney. Too bad if the truth is barely getting it’s pants on. I’m shocked LTG Flynn wasn’t linked to the Tea Party.
Yeah, but the shame of this is that the left will be able to use this for months if not years as leverage, even though it is fake. Recall “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”
It doesn’t matter if it is true or not, it plays.
And remember the phony, “I can see Russia from my porch!” attributed to Sarah Palin.
That was an actual quote, only it came from Tina Faye in a SNL skit.
It’s astounding how many people believe that lines from that skit were actual quotes from Palin. I saw it happening even during that election campaign.
When I initially read that Trump asked him to reach out to the Russians after winning it seemed like obvious diplomacy. Part of a regular transition.
Just like it’s obvious that any campaign would explore when someone says they have dirt on your opponent. Even paying people to explore each others background. Thats politics as usual.
so, you don’t see an issue with a private citizen negotiating with a hostile foreign power contrary to the aims of the current administration? What about a political candidate inviting the intelligence and information warfare apparatus of that same foreign nation to influence an election? I do.
This is a dangerous precedent. I honestly don’t think anyone in the administration “colluded”,which is not a legal term (the right term would be treason, and I don’t see that here earthier).
What we all have to come to grips with is that the Russians succeeded in interfering in the election- potentially unwittinglynsupported by the incompetent a Trump team. We need to figure out how this happened and prevent it from happening again.
The Russians didn’t necessarily want Trump to win- their aim was to discredit our system and therefore our status as leaders of the free world. We can’t really preach democracy to the world if ours has been exposed as a rigged system.
Remember that Meuller was appointed by the Trump AG office to investigate “any links an or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”
No, I don’t have a problem with an incoming president’s national security advisor meeting with the ambassador of a foreign nation in the run up to taking office. Seems to be part of the transition.
You don’t really expect a lame duck president to put everything in place for the new guy’s agenda, especially if the new pres is of a different party.
To be honest, I haven’t seen much to show that Russia tried to do anything untoward in the election. If anything, it’s the MSM that have been clinging to these false narratives for a year plus now that have cast doubts on our election system.
Virtually every election we have some reason to re-discover that our election system is a disjointed mess. It was designed that way. Each state decides what system or form it wants. For election of president, we don’t use “one person, one vote”. Never have.
The First Amendment is pretty broad in its scope fo protection.
What is “a hostile foreign power” -legally- defined? Who decides?
What -legal- loyalty does -anyone- owe the current administration, beyond following laws that exists within the bounds of the constitution? An opposing candidate in particular is -expected- to oppose the current one, right?
What is the -legal- definition of “negotiate” within the scope of any private citizen?
In the entire history of the “Logan Act”, as far as I know, not one single person has ever been convicted under it. I rather doubt SCOTUS would ever uphold it.
And in the case of an incoming president, is it not his job to manage international relations? Foreign Policy is Executive branch. In what way is the president-elect not free to speak like anyone else? Or not allowed to discusss like any other president?
And if one is going to go there, what then is the legal peril of “after my election, I will have more flexibility”. Was -that- not a wide-open invitation to “collusion” in the upcoming election?
If -Trump- gets hassled officially for the weak-soup currently on the table, that hot-mike tape of Obama will wind up being a seven course meal of disaster.
That tape certainly would meet the “two witnesses” standard, I believe.
Were you this outraged when Candidate Obama sent retired Ambassador William Miller to Tehran in 2008, to tell the mullahs that they would much prefer his policies when/if he got elected? I don’t recall anyone saying much of anything then.
And, please, specify how the Russians “interfered” with the election. Did they “hack’ the voting machines? The voting machines that were not hooked up to the internet. Did they do a Russian mind-meld to make people vote for Trump?
You don’t think hacking and releasing e-mails from the DNC counts? What about Russian interests selectively targeting people with racial-based ads on Facebook? We, as a country, do PSYOPS on enemies because they work – we can’t claim they work when we do them, but don’t when done to us.
As for voting machines, it’s unlikely they were hacked (although funny things seem to have happened in Georgia’s special election), but for correctness’ sake, it’s worth pointing out they don’t have to be connected to the ‘net. See Stuxnet, Flame and Duqu for examples.
As for President Obama and Amb. Miller, I’m skeptical:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/jun/02/kimberley-strassel/did-obama-seek-back-channel-talks-iran-during-his-/
Are there independent, corroborated reports of this that don’t track back to Ledeen? Clearly, we have significant evidence in the case of Flynn and the Russians, and as others have pointed out.. even if the actions themselves aren’t bad, the lying about it certainly is.
That “releasing emails” thing would have had negligible effect on the election – it was the subject matter of those emails that affected the election.
Sure, but it was still a targeted attack interfering in the election.
I thought Clinton was a terrible candidate and have said so many times; I take a certain amount of joy that both candidates have harmed their respective parties. This isn’t political, it’s just pointing out that a foreign adversary attacking the DNC and releasing that info was, in fact, interfering in the election.
So, exposing fraud and abuse by a political candidate is -harmful- to the democratic process?
If they had not committed heinous acts, how exactly does Russia interfere?
In what election has Russia -not- interfered?
Did the prior administration interfere in the elections of other nations? Are you OK with those acts, but not the expected response in kind?
Do you honestly believe it was -Russia- that resulted in a Trump victory, not Democrat party corruption in rigging the primary for an -awful- candidate, plus Clinton’s own pathological lying and corruption?
You seriously -want- someone like that to have -that- kind of power? I am forever greatful that the United States -soundly- rejected that monstrosity of corruption.
Whoever turned on the spotlight of her depth of corruption, they probably saved the Republic.
Leaving the USA quite capable of opposing and hemming in various bad actors on the world stage. So much for “hostile foreign power” efforts to cripple us, huh?
Speaking of emails, WHICH Candidate had Classified Information on a private server in someone’s bathroom and had over 30,000 emails “disappear “?
All in all, I think that bit of pure idiocy on her part is one of the minor reasons why I found Clinton’s campaign so loathsome.
It doesn’t invalidate the fact that Russians hacking the DNC and releasing them is still interference in our elections.
It hasn’t even even definitively proven it was Russians behind it. Probably never will since it wasn’t a “hack”, it was a phishing scam that took them down.
Anyone with an e-mail account can phish. I’ve received a half dozen of these things this year on my personal accounts. They take the shotgun approach and eventually get lucky and an idiot gives them their password. Just so happens, they hit Podesta. Their idiot was found.
Maybe it was the Russians. Even if it was, it just aired the Democrats dirty tricks. It would have had as much effect on voters as the Access Hollywood tape did later on. It can be argued that the FBI interfered more in that election as much or more than did the Russians.
It also will never be proven because the DNC didn’t allow the investigators access to the servers. Zero chance to do forensics with nothing.
It would appear that what they still had on the servers was more valuable (or damning) than getting to the truth.
Or the DNC already knew who did it but needed the Russians as the collusive boogie man and an investigation would destroy that ruse.
No proof, just the conclusions of the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.
https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf
The Russians were the first to overrun a Nazi death camp. They exposed that massive obscenity of mass-murder. Does that render the Reich innocent, or require us to ignore the monstrosity?
No.
I’m not sure where you are going with this.
The innocence or guilt of the DNC or Hilary personally are not the question here.
The Russians wanted to discredit our entire process, which is a major source of US prestige in the world. I don’t think they really cared who won, although Trump did endorse some things they probably liked- disbanding NATO, for instance.
“You don’t think hacking and releasing e-mails from the DNC counts?”
That wasn’t hacking; that was a phishing scam. They tried (unsuccessfully) the same thing with the Republicans, who were smart enough to use secure passwords and to not fall for the scam, unlike Podesta and the DNC. Russia (assuming it really WAS Russia) was an equal-opportunity scammer. Not Trump’s fault that the Democrats fell for it.
Yes, actually, I was outraged by that. I thought Candidate Obama was dangerously naive and I disagreed with most if not all of his policies. I agree with the concepts behind Trumps policies, but I think he is dangerously ignorant, hubristic, and needlessly antagonistic.
The Russians interfered in the election by manipulating social media, hacking into the DNCs email, and releasing information through Wikileaks.
Look at how Russia used hybrid war fare tactics in Ukraine and the Baltics.
For the record, I don’t think Russia really cared who won the election, and I don’t think Trump committed any crimes. I do think Russia wanted to discredit our democratic system, and that the Trump team was an unwitting accomplice.
If we don’t learn from this it will happen again
https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2017/01/266932.htm
The Obama State Department didn’t have a problem with it either. Scroll to the very bottom to see the exchange.
QUESTION: So there’s nothing – this building doesn’t see anything necessarily inappropriate about contact between members of the incoming administration and foreign officials —
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: — no matter what country they’re from?
MR TONER: No.
This is all like watching a hamster in a wheel. Going nowhere just as fast as it can.
Gosh, all this revelation that them rooshians are meddling in our way of life. Only since the 20s. Shows how aware of history the maroons are. Oh, but we don’t teach that anymore. Golly, I heard a rumor that communism was aiming to take over the world. Naw! That couldn’t be true. My perfessers would have told me. Socialism (aka commie light) is not only benign and successful, but if implemented by the perfessers and their comrades, will work even better here. (cue the Internatiale and the red banners)
If Socialism isn’t part of Communism then why did the Soviet Union refer to itself as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
According to a recent poll, 44% of our Millenials would like to live in a socialist political system instead of a free enterprise system.
It sounds like utopia. So yeah, the idea of socialism is appealing. The reality however is the gotcha!
I say let them move to Venezuela if they want that shit.
A somewhat larger percentage of today’s youth are willing to expend four years of their lives, and the debt-peonage-money for a nice house, to be indoctrinated by the idiots who think “the right people” can finally make Socialism work.
Since they demonstrate -that- idiocy, repeatedly, why should I believe them on anything else?
For what it’s worth, ABC and Brian Ross have been getting savaged by the journalism community for both the original story and for the insipid way they handled the retraction as a “clarification.”
Ross screwed up badly, and it was at a J-school 101 level: He should not have relied on a single anonymous source, and it was a big mistake to run the story without giving the White House a chance to comment.
Such errors back in the day might have earned him a new career opportunity writing bus schedules…
Ross has been suspended from ABC News for four weeks.
Oops should have refreshed me screen.
Right at Christmas time? Really?
Did he happen to actually say “don’ throw me in Dat dere briar patch!”
No one has said “unpaid” either , right?
Whoops missed that “unpaid” in your cite.
But a month off unpaid at christmas for the highly paid is not nearly the hit it is for the guy making ten an hour.
Suspended 4 weeks w/o pay. Well I’m sure that will sober Brian up.
He’ll print some other bullshit lie as soon as he’s back to work…
It’s not like he went to Moscow and asked the KGB to help him beat Hillary.
Oh wait, that was the Lion of the Senate, Swimmin Ted Kennedy
But what about Flynn’s betrayal? I expect to hear crickets.
As a point of order, the media routinely gets the information wrong at first reports. The reason this guy was suspended was because it is blaming his reporting as affecting the stock market???? Something’s off here. Is it a matter of consequence if he was a candidate or president elect? These investigations have demonstrated that everytime this admin screams Fake News more lies are uncovered that draws a line straight to Putin. Enough of this crappy denial. When will y’all see through the smokescreen and stop blaming others for the REALITY and lies?
When? Well, in my case, when hell freezes over. The option you suggest is that I blame myself for what others are doing. That is not gonna happen.
I am not responsible for your words. Conversely, you are not responsible for mine. See how easy that is?
He made unsubstantiated allegations, as if factual, with zero support.
That is not a “mistake”.
If he told anyone he was going to publish this crap, and they shorted the market…
When has the nedia ever got it 💯? So this dingle head reported something inaccurately. Trump’s administration has and is doing this over and over again by their own admissions, yet those Democrats have to be the ones to call them on their own lies aka Fake News. See the irony?