Our Majority Main News Media's Hold Back On Trump Finally Called To Task.

[Joe Bauer]

On 5/15/2020 at 9:41 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

Joe I think your idea that the press, making a statement and just walking out on Trump for his mistreatment, and abdicating their responsibility as the press is a terrible idea. It would be like waving a white flag, when they've won so many skirmishes with Trump. 

Kirk. The press has won so many skirmishes with Trump?

If that is so, how has our national press lost so much credibility and respect in public polls since Trump has been elected?

Trump is "winning" the propaganda battle against them.

And I see a different scenario playing out if half the WH press corps walked out from the briefing room or Rose Garden immediately after Trump verbally insults one of their own again.

Let me explain using my lifetime experience common sense take.

I clearly remember encountering bullies in my younger years and even in adulthood.

The kind of guy who pushes someone from behind for no reason. Then laughs about it.

Someone who insults or name calls other smaller kids to their face just to humiliate them, especially in front of girls. Someone who taunts others. And even slaps someone on their head and dares them to do something about it. 

Trump continually treats members of the press corp and democrats in general this way. Taunting, insulting name calling in thousands of tweets or in person when they challenge him with questions he doesn't like.

I can remember when bullies I have seen finally encountered something that stopped their bullying to a noticeable degree.

It was when someone finally stood up against them in the Bully's own aggressive manner way. Sometimes it resulted in a physical fight. Even if it didn't end in a victory or a close draw and was maybe a losing one.

But just the courageous effort alone would often knock some humiliating public sentiment turning sense into the bully's head to bring them down off their deluded tough guy egos. They could feel the hate for them by those watching them hurt others.

And it could be even a woman who finally stands up and verbally confronts the bully. Telling them in front of others what they truly are...cowards.

I am not sure of the specific psychological reasons, but bullies usually only change when others finally stand up to them. And ESPECIALLY if this standing up is done in front of others.

Trump does and says outrageous and super aggressive things almost daily. Bully toned words and actions.

He has taunted and verbally abused the press and Congress for 3 and 1/2 years.

When and if the more mild mannered victims of Trump's bully taunting and verbal abuse ever do stand up to him in a way that is just as outrageous and aggressive as his doing ( a coordinated press briefing walk out )  I think much more of the public will respond in a positive way ( you obviously disagree ) just like those who witness someone finally confronting a bully and winning the skirmish as we have all seen in our real lives.

Trump's outrageous verbal abuse bullying will only stop when something like this occurs. Could you imagine the headlines ... "Press Corps Finally Let's Trump Know They've Had Enough!"

A walkout while the President is speaking would be humiliating to Trump. But the bully in him needs to be confronted like this imo.

But I doubt this is going to happen.

The corporate owners of the main media press are in Trump's 1% ideology camp and they would fire every WH press person who participated in a walkout. And the individual press corp members know this.

When Trump repeatedly insulted Jeb Bush on national TV in the 2016 primaries by calling him weak "You're weak Jeb...weak" and even insulted Bush even more by saying maybe Bush's mother should be running instead of him when Bush praised her as the strongest woman he knows... I really thought Bush should have challenged Trump back just as aggressively and boldly.

Something like "hey fella...how about saying that to my face again right here and now ... mano o mano ?" while walking aggressively away from his place on the podium towards Trump.

Bush's poll numbers would have jumped 10 or 20 points just for standing up to those extremely humiliating personal manhood insults of Trump towards him.

Instead Jeb Bush just kind of took it without any manly response, which actually did make him look weak.

Any WH press member who might walk out of a briefing right after a Trump verbal abuse insult and presented a written press release summary to the media explaining why they finally did something this bold, would be considered a hero to many imo. Yet, they would also be fired from a highly coveted career position they have worked their whole life to achieve. It's a sacrifice I don't think any of them will take.

 

 The real and most immediate test of Obama where he could have achieved some greatness involved standing up to the banks. Period! And he didn't.

I agree.

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Aaron Mate on Manafort:

Those who believe that there is a conspiracy or that there is likely a conspiracy between Trump and the Russian government believe that Manafort was doing the Kremlin’s bidding in Ukraine and that’s why that case is relevant. But actually if you look at the case, what’s emerged from it, in Manafort’s first trial and the indictment that resulted from the subsequent cooperation deal with Mueller to avoid a second trial, is what people who have been observing Ukraine closely I think have known for years, which is that when Manafort was in Ukraine he was pushing a pro-EU, pro-West agenda on his client at the time, Yanukovych. Yanukovych, in the end, decided to reject a trade deal offered by the EU and go with Russia. But that, by all accounts, including documents included by Mueller, was against Manafort’s wishes.

[James DiEugenio]

More Aaron mate on Manafort:

 

[W. Niederhut]

On 5/17/2020 at 2:02 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Aaron Mate on Manafort:

Those who believe that there is a conspiracy or that there is likely a conspiracy between Trump and the Russian government believe that Manafort was doing the Kremlin’s bidding in Ukraine and that’s why that case is relevant. But actually if you look at the case, what’s emerged from it, in Manafort’s first trial and the indictment that resulted from the subsequent cooperation deal with Mueller to avoid a second trial, is what people who have been observing Ukraine closely I think have known for years, which is that when Manafort was in Ukraine he was pushing a pro-EU, pro-West agenda on his client at the time, Yanukovych. Yanukovych, in the end, decided to reject a trade deal offered by the EU and go with Russia. But that, by all accounts, including documents included by Mueller, was against Manafort’s wishes.

Jim,

     Your above version of Manafort's (and Kilimnik's) history with Yanukovych-- and his suspected role in Trump's Russiagate scandal-- are the diametric opposite of what others, including Robert Mueller, have alleged.* 

     Obviously, both versions of Manafort's history cannot be correct.  Someone is making stuff up.

     My question.  Which version of Manafort's history with Russia is abjectly false? 

 *Ukraine Continued: How a Crucial Witness Escaped

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/10/08/ukraine-continued-the-key-witness-who-was-allowed-escape/

"... For more than a decade, Kilimnik had been Manafort’s right hand man in Kiev. During that time, the two men collected tens of millions in fees as political consultants for Viktor Yanukovych, who served as the president of Ukraine from 2010 to 2014. Yanukovych advocated that his country sever ties with the United States and other Western nations, and align itself more closely with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Manafort and Kilimnik also consulted with Yanukovych’s political party, the Party of Regions, and with Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs with close ties to Yanukovych and Putin.

According to evidence contained in the Mueller report, throughout 2016 Manafort shared confidential polling data from inside the Trump campaign with Kilimnik regarding four states Manafort presciently believed might go for Trump: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. Manafort, in turn, instructed Kilimnik to turn over the polling data to a former client, Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to Putin. During the course of his investigation, the special counsel also disclosed that Kilimnik himself was “a former Russian intelligence officer” who still “has ties to a Russian intelligence service and had such ties in 2016.”

A covert social media campaign by operatives working for Russia’s military intelligence service, the GRU, was then already working to defeat Hillary Clinton and elect Trump. Russian agents intensified their targeting of voters in those four states in the final days of the campaign. Trump went on to win the presidency by winning Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania by a margin of fewer than 80,000 votes cast in all three of those states, out of a total of 136 million ballots cast in total across the country. (In Michigan, the vote was so close that if more than 5,400 had voted for Clinton, she would have won the state.)

Besides Manafort and Kilimnik, the special counsel had no other potential witness who could say whether the polling information was shared with Russia."

*

Edited May 18, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim, it seems like Mate' is your new matinee idol. You posted the clip not once but twice, you've also made 2 other posts about this since .

Manaforte has ties to Kilimnik , Kiliminik  has ties to  the GRU, and Russian oligarchs close to Putin. Ok, you don't buy it. It must be important to you to exonerate Manaforte of something. It would seem there would be more money for Manaforte in promoting the EU. And Manaforte goes where the money is. So it wouldn't surprise me. But what's your point?

I'm sure there a number of issues between Russia and the Ukraine. Look at it this way. Being friends of the U.S. or the G7 or the EU, is like being friends with a bank. If you're a young and struggling country, who doesn't want to be friends with a bank? If you're Ukraine there's no love lost with being friends of the Russians, besides the bottom line is,what can Putin really do for you?

[Jeff Carter]

Before hooking up with Manafort, Kliminik spent almost a decade working for the Republican Institute in Moscow. The Republican Institute is part of the National Endowment for Democracy apparatus. It works with the State Department and CIA to influence foreign governments, political parties, labour unions etc in the interests of US policy goals. To suggest that Kliminik was an active GRU agent while employed with NED is ridiculous, and holds about the same credibility as insisting Oswald was a genuine Marxist Marine while based at Atsugi. 

The "polling data" theory amounted to nothing, because no one on Mueller's staff could actually describe what alleged nefarious purpose the data was supposed to serve. Far more likely, the polling data was uncontroversially utilized to emphasize Manafort's skills as a campaign manager, and strengthen his bona fides as an influence peddler. 

Presenting Ukraine politics as a hard binary - pro-Russia or pro-EU - ensures fundamentally misunderstanding the place. Yanukovych, for example, was leaning towards an EU Association Agreement - which Manafort lobbied in favour of - but had to hold back after the fine print of the agreement was finally unveiled in September 2013. The fine print revealed numerous issues which would have severe political consequences, not least was the IMF imposed austerity program.

[Cliff Varnell]

16 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Before hooking up with Manafort, Kliminik spent almost a decade working for the Republican Institute in Moscow. The Republican Institute is part of the National Endowment for Democracy apparatus. It works with the State Department and CIA to influence foreign governments, political parties, labour unions etc in the interests of US policy goals. To suggest that Kliminik was an active GRU agent while employed with NED is ridiculous, and holds about the same credibility as insisting Oswald was a genuine Marxist Marine while based at Atsugi. 

No it doesn’t. Working both sides of the street is common intel practice.

Savvy “cover story”?

16 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The "polling data" theory amounted to nothing, because no one on Mueller's staff could actually describe what alleged nefarious purpose the data was supposed to serve.

You have no idea what the polling data amounted to.  

16 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

16 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

[W. Niederhut]

This just in-- apropos of our recent discussion here about the House Intelligence Committee, the suppressed Mueller Report, and Russiagate.

They keep mentioning Trump's obvious obstruction of justice in the Russiagate scandal, but the Manafort/Kilimnik/GRU grand jury material must be at least as important.

Why was Paul Manafort willing to lie repeatedly to Mueller about his contacts with Kilimnik, even after agreeing to cooperate with Mueller (and then being sent to prison?)  What are Manafort and Trump hiding?

House tells Supreme Court its investigation into possible impeachable offenses isn't over

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/18/house-supreme-court-mueller-grand-jury-key-impeachment-inquiry/5215950002/

Edited May 18, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[Joe Bauer]

On 5/15/2020 at 9:41 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

 

Trump and team's aggressive purging of inspector generals who investigate them is just another action so clearly abusive of authority and power it should be uniformly addressed in our media as such more than just "reported" as the following article relates.

This consistent unprecedented number purging of IGs who Trump deems as his enemies is another major Trump abuse of power issue you would think would draw an across the board condemnation editorially throughout 90% of our national media.

Front page headline editorials.

The huge majority of our citizenry can only feel as much concern about such abuse as their media informs them of it. If our main stream media doesn't portray it with the concern it deserves, then it just continues...imo.

 

These are all the inspectors general Trump has fired or replaced

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

I think the closest I've seen anyone depict the situation with the MSM is William, just in passing, calling it the M$M, though I don't pretend to understand how the MSM plays up or ignores every story. One big example I see that MSM seems to ignore, is in Chuck's post  ( I mistakenly said Steve's post earlier) in the other thread about Trump's finances, his bankruptcies. I've always wondered why that story doesn't have more legs,  but I'm sure we'd know more if he released his taxes.

But it's really about  the aspect that's often ignored here, that is the  money To understand what stories get however much attention, the whole game in the MSM  should be looked at in regards to gaining market share outside of their perceived niche. For example , with some of the statements made here about the MSM, I wonder, "Do you  guys get cable TV?"  If you want to watch 24 hours straight of anti Trump television , watch MSNBC. That's their market niche and they thrown in some Republican neocons and never Trumper Republicans to expand their niche. If you're an ardent Trump fan,  you watch Fox. I think it's very unfortunate it's come to this because it reinforces an idea that there is no objective reality and you can believe  whatever source confirms your bias.

It's obvious you  think the press has more power than at least I do, Joe. So you think if they played this up and jammed it down enough people's throats it would make a real difference? After the Mueller investigation, and the Ukraine impeachment and trial in the Senate? I don't think so. I think the majority of people want the election to decide and at this point if they play up this story too much, it could back fire, and I think the press knows that they just won't get traction, or maybe I'm  speaking too soon. Maybe  this story does get more traction and they start making a good case against Pompeo , and say if there is reasoned to be a definite legal case against the President, they will play it up more. But at this point, I think everyone knows that unless the President dies of chloroquine poisoning, he's probably going to fill out his term.

I think Jim propagates the idea that the press is really threatened by the JFKA and will try to suppress it at very turn. I think for 20 years after the JFKA he was right, and he did a lot of good research about the MSM coverup. But too may generations have passed and all the major journalistic schools in the major universities as well as the standard college history classes have taught the WC findings. So a person who peddles  it is not received as any kind of threat to the establishment, but kind of a wacko. As unfortunate as that is. Maybe a well received movie like the one Jim and Ollie are working on could change that. I would think  getting say 100 million dollars to investigate the JFKA from some Silicon Valley billionaire would be the best prospect I could see. I think it's best for the JFKAC movement if Trump is not re elected, as I think it's important that the JFKAC movement is not confused with the  Trump wacko conspiracy movement. JMO

 

.

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Kirk Gallaway

[W. Niederhut]

So, the Trump/Barr/GOP Russiagate cover up continues...  🤨 

The GOP-controlled SCOTUS has just blocked the one year-old Congressional subpoena of the Mueller Report!

In overturning the lower court ruling, the Trump/GOP SCROTUS has broken with all legal precedents* regarding Congressional subpoenas of grand jury evidence relevant to potential impeachment investigations.  (The House attorney had clearly indicated to the SCOTUS that their investigation of Trump's misconduct in the Russiagate scandal has not been concluded.)

Outrageous.  Congress can, apparently, subpoena grand jury evidence about Bill Clinton's private sex life, but not grand jury evidence about Donald Trump's treason and obstruction of justice.

 

Supreme Court Blocks Release of Full Mueller Report for Now

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/20/us/supreme-court-blocks-mueller-report-release.html?action=click&auth=login-email&login=email&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

*  “Federal courts have authorized the disclosure of grand jury materials to the House for use in impeachment investigations involving two presidents and three federal judges,” Judge Rogers wrote. “It is only the president’s categorical resistance and the (DOJ) department’s objection that is unprecedented.”

In particular, Judge Rogers noted, Judge John J. Sirica in 1974 “ordered the disclosure of the grand jury report and accompanying materials to be delivered to the House Judiciary Committee, which was then engaged in an impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon.”

Lawyers for the House said that order was part of an unbroken series of precedents. “To our knowledge,” they said, “no court has ever turned down a request for grand jury materials by Congress in connection with an impeachment.”

 

 

[Joe Bauer]

On 5/20/2020 at 11:59 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

I think the closest I've seen anyone depict the situation with the MSM is William, just in passing, calling it the M$M, though I don't pretend to understand how the MSM plays up or ignores every story. One big example I see that MSM seems to ignore, is in Steve's story in the other thread about Trump's finances, his bankruptcies. I'm sure we'd know more if he released his taxes.

But it's really about  the aspect that's often ignored here, that is the  money To understand what stories get however much attention, the whole game in the MSM  should be looked at in regards to gaining market share outside of their perceived niche. For example , with some of the statements made here about the MSM, I wonder, "Do you  guys get cable TV?"  If you want to watch 24 hours straight of anti Trump television , watch MSNBC. That's their market niche and they thrown in some Republican neocons and never Trumper Republicans to expand their niche. If you're an ardent Trump fan,  you watch Fox. I think it's very unfortunate it's come to this because it reinforces an idea that there is no objective reality and you can believe  whatever source confirms your bias.

It's obvious you  think the press has more power than at least I do, Joe. So you think if they played this up and jammed it down enough people's throats it would make a real difference? After the Mueller investigation, and the Ukraine impeachment and trial in the Senate? I don't think so. I think the majority of people want the election to decide and at this point if they play up this story too much, it could back fire, and I think the press knows that they just won't get traction, or maybe I'm  speaking too soon. Maybe  this story does get more traction, say if there is reasoned to be a definite legal case against the President, they will play it up more. But at this point, I think everyone knows that unless the President dies of chloroquine poisoning, he's probably going to fill out his term.

 

 

.

 

Kurt, yes, MSNBC is our main news station we watch most of the time.

Yes, it is anti-Trump.

Fox is the opposite, but has a much, much larger viewing audience.

These two news sites don't "balance each other out" in influence because of this huge difference in viewer numbers for Fox.

I am a news junkie for sure. Off and on everyday I scan the main internet news pages of up to 10 of our largest media corporations. 

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Huffington Post, AOL, Politico, and occassionally Yahoo, Alternet, Salon, The Hill.

I want to see stories of the day from as many perspectives as possible.

In the car I mostly listen to our San Francisco CBS affiliate station "KCBS."

Yet, with just a press of the "scan" button you can also find 24 hour broadcasts of political commentators. 95% of which are of the Trump defending and promoting right wing variety.

Limbaugh, Mark Levine, Michael Savage, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, and others and up until a few years Bill O'Reilly. I can't name a well known left wing radio talk show host anymore as I just don't see or hear of them being broadcast nationwide. 

24/7 radio political propaganda talk shows are the sole proprietorship of the extreme right wing and have been for decades and are a massively funded and hugely influencing medium. They all echo the Fox News line and often are even more right wing and Trump defending.

Getting back to my take on the large main TV media so-called "between" MSNBC and Fox News;

I don't agree that this larger body of news broadcasting is somehow less inclined to report political news stories with an extreme left or right bias as so many frame MSNBC and FOX News.

What I see is a very watered down version of reporting controversial political stories with hardly any investigative depth of true worthiness or weight.

Yes, many big investigation stories are broken by the New York Times, Washington Post and Huffington but rarely do we hear of the big letter news organizations like ABC, CBS, NBC doing their own digging and breaking these.

If someone wants to know the true deeper facts of important biographical or political context on Trump or most of his past and present cohorts in this regards or the deeper stories involved with events such as the Ukraine affair, you have to search for alternate news sites including watching MSNBC to find out what is really going on.

Americans who want to know the full truth about such nefarious doings as the Ukraine affair and the involvement of Trump and Guiliani and Guiliani's sneaky errand boys Igor and Lev in this, just couldn't find meaningful investigative information through the larger, watered down MSM.

It's a clear void and one that is purposely created imo.

I can go all day listening to radio news and never once hear anything of substance or that is seriously conveyed as concerning regards controversial Trump actions and abuses. Leading up to the impeachment hearings if all you listened to was national radio news, you would be asking yourself...what in the world is this hearing about? I haven't heard anything very bad about Trump on the radio.

My wife and I watched a documentary titled "Scandalous. The True Story Of The National Enquirer." a few nights ago.

This organization was basically exposed as a shakedown/extortion racket in many incidents of their doings going back to their Mafia connected roots in the 1950's

The latter part of the Mark Landsman documentary goes into Donald Trump's connection to this media company and especially when it was purchased and run by Trump's friend David Pecker.

Once again, the Trump involvement seems extremely disturbing.

And here again we can only find this information about Trump's involvement with this sleazy enterprise through an independent production outside of what we see in the MSM daily reporting.

Although I will say that CNN was apparently the financial backer of this production and they are mainstream. That is some what surprising and hopeful.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

George Will is really laying it out there now regards Donald Trump. His Washington Post editorial today is about as strongly critical of Trump as any we have seen.

That's a hopeful sign regards the MSM finally beginning to lessen their protection of Trump through downplaying.

Also, lots of public criticism of the latest New York Times watered down and mis-directed front page title reporting of Trump and his latest Rose Garden speech.

 

[James DiEugenio]

George Will has been against Trump almost from the beginning.

Because Trump was from outside the GOP,  and Will was a dyed in the wool insider who was so inside he impersonated Jimmy Carter back in 1980 for Reagan's debate rehearsals.

ABC was so much in on Will that they then allowed him to praise Reagan's performance afterward--without revealing he was working with the guy!

Which is as bad as it gets journalistically. 

Very few people savaged Oliver Stone as badly as Will did back in 1991. It was a disgrace.

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Andrew Prutsok]

I missed Risenstein today. Did he say anything about the Trump campaign’s 200 contacts with Russians before the election?