Priebus answered:
Well, look, why was Fusion GPS involved in putting together this dossier? I don't know, Chris. And I don't think too many people know why or how this meeting came about. However, what I can tell you is in my communication with our team on the subject, there was nothing to it, it was a 20 minute meeting, it ended after everyone was decidedly sitting there saying there's nothing happening here. They moved on. And I think, in the end, what you’re going to find in the story, if you read the Circa column, because I think there’s more questions on the Democrat side than anywhere else....
Posts
223 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 223 of 223Michael K said... Nice dinner this evening. Scallops and black rice. Key lime tart for dessert
--
A better way to..assuage..the appetite.
Wait a second, Jon. You promised you would never be back again. Even promised to ignore email notification of comments--which I wasn't aware we even had here.
Fabi said...
They planned for it to go away when Hillary won, Achilles -- never to be discussed again.
I know what they planned and what they are really covering up. They are covering up that a Bernie supporter outed the DNC for screwing Bernie.
If the democrat base was allowed to think about what happened in the primary and how corrupt the party is it would self immolate. It needs to be torn down.
Jon--sorry about the assumption. Truly.
darel, it's called refresh
thanks darrell. sorry for the misspelling.
I knew you did, Achilles -- all of this is the work of the DNC and its allies on the "right".
So. Wait. Somehow, it is Trump's team's fault that someone came to them trying to sell them crap, but they cut the meeting short and didn't pursue it?
I mean, come on. What next are you going to blame Trump for, the guy who shot Scalise?
Also, people keep claiming Clinton was hacked and Russia tried to sell that to Trump.
But... why? Russia could have, as someone else did (maybe Russia) just give it to *anyone in the world* to publicize it if they wanted.
We don't even know if Clinton was hacked, as she refused to allow the FBI to investigate it--something that leads me to think it wasn't hacked, but rather, human error, much like Podesta being phished, that compromised her security.
The Russia Collusion story is full of holes -- and getting harder to continue insisting on as we move on. Just let this one die folks.
I've never heard of Circa.
Really good journalism over there.
Interesting to read the background of Circa.
I'm guessing the Trump administration is
talking to Circa reporters
and revealing stuff to them
and now they are mentioning them in press briefings.
What impresses me is how non-partisan the article is. It's not like Breitbart or the Blaze or the New York Post. They're not doing inflammatory stuff. It's more low-key and factual. Even if you want to say this is right-wing media, its right-wing media in the style of the New York Times. An attempt by the right to do factual journalism, not this sort of inflammatory stuff that so often passes for news.
The editor-in-chief used to run The Washington Times.
here's more on Sinclair Broadcast Group, which bought out Circa when they ran into financial trouble.
A December 22, 2016 Washington Post review of Sinclair's internal documents, as well as reviews of the newscasts and public affairs programming on the company's stations, revealed that more broadcast time was given to favorable or neutral coverage of Trump's campaign than to other candidates in the primary and general election campaigns of 2016. The coverage included distribution of reports favorable to Trump's campaign or challenging to Clinton's on a "must run" basis (i.e. Sinclair management required its stations to make room for the stories on their newscasts), as well as Sinclair managers offering local reporters and anchors questions of "national importance" to use in interviews with candidates (a common company practice, according to Livingston, so that other Sinclair stations can share the content).
I'm glad the WaPo is on the case, doing investigative reporting, making sure that ideology is not influencing the reporting of its competition!
more…
On December 16, 2016, Jared Kushner, son-in-law of then-President-elect Donald Trump, stated that it had reached deals with Sinclair to give the company extended access to the Trump campaign, in exchange for airing, without further commentary, interviews with the Republican Party candidate on its stations, which Kushner said had a better reach than cable networks such as CNN. Sinclair VP of news Scott Livingston stated that the company wanted to "give all candidates an opportunity to voice their position and share their position with our viewers", as part of an effort towards "tracking the truth and telling the truth" and allowing Trump to "clearly state his position on the key issues". He also stated that Sinclair had made similar offers to the Hillary Clinton campaign (Clinton did not do interviews with Sinclair, according to Livingston, though her running mate, Tim Kaine, did).
Even if you want to say this is right-wing media, its right-wing media in the style of the New York Times. An attempt by the right to do factual journalism, not this sort of inflammatory stuff that so often passes for news.
I think you mean to say: "right-wing media in the style of the New York Times of a generation ago." The current New York Times makes no attempt to do "factual journalism," and in fact is largely "inflammatory stuff that so often passes for news." The same for the WaPo and the AP.
From the Weekly Standard:
"...Fusion GPS has an institutional reputation for doing shoddy and underhanded political work, and nearly all of it has been at the behest of Democrats looking to attack Republicans. In 2012, Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel did some blockbuster reporting on Fusion GPS's alarming efforts to dig up dirt on donors to Mitt Romney and socially conservative causes..."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-sordid-history-of-the-firm-behind-the-trump-russia-dossier/article/2006254
LINK HERE
chickelit said...
When did you stop beating your sausage?
Outstanding comments in this thread. There's at least three plot lines interweaving and calling back on each other. How will it end? (I'm only up to 10:34 pm)
Maybe I got here late.
Tommy Duncan said...
From the Weekly Standard:
...
Funny; whenever I cite the Weekly Standard or the WSJ (Kim Strassel), they get blown off as having been "neverTrump," or "GOPe."
Opinion pieces versus reporting.
Some commenters are unwilling to grant good faith to the other side.
HWMNBN: "Funny; whenever I cite the Weekly Standard or the WSJ (Kim Strassel), they get blown off as having been "neverTrump," or "GOPe.""
Strange that these Never Trumper GOPe folks would be labeled as such.
Very very strange indeed.
Predicted Next Strange Occurrence: Nancy Pelosi is labeled a Democrat.
Chuck said:
Funny; whenever I cite the Weekly Standard or the WSJ (Kim Strassel), they get blown off as having been "neverTrump," or "GOPe."
So Chuck, is it a bad thing when your enemy supports your position? Silly me. I thought it made your argument stronger when those who normally oppose you agree with you.
Of course, you just said that because it allows you to reference your own experience as a supposed victim on Althouse. It's always all about "Chuck".
I, for one, am shocked, SHOCKED! that Donald Trump, Jr. was interested in information damaging to Hillary.
chickelit,
I cannot imagine what would be more damaging to Hillary than the fact she is, well, Hillary.
Post a Comment