Isn't this fake news? The authors — Katie Rogers and Maggie Haberman — do not know how Trump really felt on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. They only know what he chose to say publicly, how he spun it, first when the indictment was announced, and later, after other people had taken their turn spinning it. He could have been happy or angry the whole time or anxious and later coolly amused. You cannot know! Yet Rogers and Haberman* themselves are spinning the story, and at best they are making up what they believe Trump must have felt but more likely, I think, they are bolstering the interpretation of the indictment propounded by Trump's antagonists:
President Trump began the weekend believing that something good had just happened to him... But ... watching TV... [t]he president’s mood began to darken as it became clearer to him that some commentators were portraying the indictment as nothing for him to celebrate, according to three people with knowledge of his reaction.....I see that there are sources, but even assuming these were good sources, all they seem to have known is that Trump became aware — I can't believe this could have been a surprise — that his antagonists had a way to spin the indictments against him and they were getting a lot of TV time.
What followed was a two-day Twitter tirade that was unusually angry and defiant even by Mr. Trump’s standards.We can all read Trump's Twitter feed. I read it over the weekend, and it never crossed my mind that Trump had become "unusually angry" or beset with "fury." He put out some great tweets that pushed back his antagonists and restated his interpretation of the indictments. One tweet struck me as his best ever:
If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing their asses off in Moscow. Get smart America!That's totally on point and completely intelligent. In very few words, he's saying the damage done to America has been mainly the work of Americans doing the chaos the Russians could only have hoped to see. They're laughing at us, and we need to stop doing what must be so damned funny to them.**
I don't know what emotion he felt as he wrote those words, and assertions about his emotions are a bizarre distraction. When someone makes a great point in a debate and your response is "Ooh, you sound so angry!," what are you doing? First, you are trying to make the person angry (or angrier). Second, you're stepping away from the substance of the argument, perhaps because you have no good response. Third, you might really believe that the substance of arguments isn't what really matters. It really is emotion that draws you to one position or another. If X sets forth an interpretation and Y writes an article saying "Ooh, X is so angry!," Y is speaking to the readers and, I assume, hoping they will feel their emotions — fear or hatred of the angry, angry man.
____________________
* Those names... seems like they should write a Broadway musical together....
** Trump is only guessing at how the Russians feel. He can't really know. Maybe they fear American chaos.
पोस्ट्स
१३१ टिप्पण्या:
Will Althouse still read the NYT by the end of the year?
Or will she reach her breaking point and realize it stopped being a news organization long ago?
Usually I would agree with Althouse's critique over this. Too many people assume Trump is angry, when he could very well be nothing of the sort.
Maggie Haberman is the author for this article. She's got access to Trump that many do not. He talks to her off the record a lot. She might have an accurate read on him.
Or, it may be the mistaken perceptions of the people around him who are telling this to Haberman. This White House is leaky. Very leaky.
Or, it may be the mistaken perceptions of the people around him who are telling this to Haberman.
Or maybe she drew the short straw to write something about the weekend's Tweets, and decided to go with "Trump thought this would vindicate him, but no."
Althouse rightly points out the Tweets are the news, but all that leaves the NYT is reprinting the Tweets.
They don't want to do that.
@Kevin
The main thing I've done for 14 years on this blog is read the NYT. I'm just not reading it the way people who think I should stop must be reading it.
1. There is no better newspaper to read. I want it to be better, but even if it doesn't get any better, it is just as good as we're getting in the United States. That may be sad, but there's nowhere else to go. There isn't even a close second. And the places you might suggest are, I bet, places I can't stand to read at all (I'm thinking of Breitbart and The Daily Caller).
2. I read mostly to blog, and unlike the many bloggers (such as Instapundit) who link to things that they like, I link to things I've read where I've found something to talk about that is usually something I think is wrong with the article. The only "breaking point" would be just me getting tired of blogging or deciding to write a completely different type of blog.
Well, the Trump is Hitler storyline has failed, and the Trump White House is chaotic storyline didn't turn out, so they've turned to the Trump is Angry storyline.
And now we read above that it's leaky, very leaky.
It's a Cathy Newman interview of Trump's day. They have assumed the animus and have gone after their target to paint the daily narrative for the NYT reader. We are building tools to deconstruct and describe this stuff by now. They are still a few years away from realizing why thne old tools don;t work like they used to.
In J school they teach you that you don't know how someone feels; you know only what he tells you he feels.
English majors learn something different I guess, and they get the plum jobs.
When someone makes a great point in a debate and your response is "Ooh, you sound so angry!," what are you doing? First, you are trying to make the person angry (or angrier). Second, you're stepping away from the substance of the argument, perhaps because you have no good response. Third, you might really believe that the substance of arguments isn't what really matters. It really is emotion that draws you to one position or another.
LOL! Makes you wonder if certain commenters will appear on this tread to explain why Althouse is wrong. But really, it’s also an attempt to dismiss without consideration. It’s another variation of the famous “Reject first! Ask rhetorical questions later!” tactic so beloved of liberals here.
The Wall Street Journal is the competition Ms Althouse and it is superior.
Let’s do apples to apples comparisons as opposed to apples to oranges.
What if the emotional characterization is accurate? Does it matter that he was feeling good about the situation at first and then got pissed off about it? Regardless, I think they want us to draw a conclusion about the veracity the whole Russia probe based on his anger. However, if he's angry about the meddling and wants us to be smarter about our consumption of politically targeted information the conclusion that he's angry about the probe putting heat on him personally doesn't follow.
I long ago stopped reading the NYT, but when I did, I read it the way they say people read Pravda, the truth is in there somewhere, between the lines, no matter what they try to write. It’s the same as “What Happened.” Hillary couldn’t, as Mark Twain pointed out about autobiographies, help but put the truth about herself in her book. It’s also like Bagdad Bob, we could see the American Tanks in the background!
Disinterested Reporters' Delight Over Russia Indictment (because there finally was one) Hardens to Disappointment (because Trump was not busted); Feelings Projected onto Others.
"Isn't this fake news?"
Is it the NYT?
"There is no better newspaper to read."
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
When you read the NYT you're reading lies.
Sometimes it's obvious, like this silly article wherein the author(s) claim they can read Trump's mind, but the NYT scribblers are lying even when you don't recognize it. They can't help it; it's their job.
"unserious journalism" I like a little pleonasm with my coffee.
"You cannot know!" Progs don't do uncertainty. If there's anything they know, it's that they know. Epistemic humility ruins the project.
I like Althouse fiskings as much as the next person, but taking strategic propaganda as argument or reporting can become a form of misreading.
Of course, I gave up on the NYT years ago, triggered especially by the SWIFT debacle. The idea that those bastards can do better, and with a little prompting will do better, strikes me as slightly, umm, implausible.
I actually felt some relief from Trumps Russian GOAL tweet. I've been thinking the same for sometime. Quietly, rationally, not panicked because my candidate won fairly. Still, I couldn't find a succinct way to say what he accomplished in that one tweet. His tweet relieved that frustration.
Also, it is not just Russians laughing at the US. The FBI has lost credibility. We can laugh at that failure on their part for trying to go after Trump only to destroy themselves. But as Trump noted, their failure has sad consequences such as Parkland. For that, there should be fury!
MadisonMan: I’m not sure the Trump Is Hitler line has totally failed. They’re still pushing it but it’s more of a Trump is Early Hitler. Also the leakiness of the White House pushes a chaotic scenario.
The left can't spot humor. So the right takes the left as idiots.
Journalists are dumb rich kids who couldn't get into law school.
That said, we don't get straight reporting any longer. Who, what, where, when, and how are gone. Now we just get the reporters' interpretation of the news, ran through their ideological filters. Of course, it was always thus. But when 20-100 people in NYC controlled the mass media it was easier to disguise that. Walter Cronkite wasn't the most trusted man in America because he was trustworthy. How would you know? He was trusted because he looked fatherly and had a deep voice and all the other sources of information told you that he was trustworthy.
You know, the CIA conducted experiments on unwitting subjects, giving them LSD without their consent.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/23/the-legacy-of-the-cias-secret-lsd-experiments-on-america/
The FBI surveiled Martin Luther King Jr and tried to get him to kill himself.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=martin+luther+king+fbi&view=detail&mid=9889306FB9ED9ACEA1AC9889306FB9ED9ACEA1AC&FORM=VIRE
But nonetheless, those agencies are beyond criticism and any doubts concerning their commitment to transparent governance is beyond the pale and damaging to our democracy. Because reasons.
Nice clip. Who knew in 1956 the bald look would be so popular in 2018?
It is easier shorthand to express an opinion about someone by describing their ascribed emotions, rather than analyzing their words and actions.
The person is assigned emotions that then can be discounted or mocked -- or honored. Actual words don't matter: they simply trigger.
The same words can be seen as those of an angry person, or those of one who is passionate. And it seems the emotions that resonate with empathy are the ones many people choose to value highly.
People may not feel confident analyzing issues, but most everyone believes they are an excellent armchair psychologist.
But situations can make this change.
When we have a cold we want the doctor with the kindly bedside manners. When we have a brain tumor, though: we are now okay with the dispassionate -- even cocky -- surgeon with the steady hands.
The Germans have a word for this.
"The president’s mood began to darken..."
Let's say you were right there with him, watching television. How would you perceive this "darkness" inside his head? You couldn't! When you watch TV with someone, and the news is on, and this or that person is bullshitting some stupid theory that your companion hates, he may talk back to the TV, but is he really in a bad mood? Often when we watch the news shows, we reject what somebody's saying, and you might casually say we "got angry" at it, but did we experience a mood change, such that our vision generally darkened? That's not how I experience watching TV.
Now, for Trump, a big difference is that they are talking about him, constantly attacking him, trying to hurt him, often being completely unfair and biased and bullshitting for hours on end. And we hear that he chooses to watch it. Why? Maybe it's like the way I read the NYT... and then some. The man has 48 million followers on Twitter. Whatever blah blah blah happens on CNN, it's heard by maybe a million people (for the best-rated show), and those people have to sit around listening for several minutes to hear any given opinion expressed. Anything they say, he can hit back with a tweet that takes about 5 seconds to read and reaches 48 million. Do you think his mood, when he does that, is "dark"? If it's full of fury, I'm imagining it much more upbeat and gleeful or steely and smug.
If Trump were as darkly moody as the NYT portrays him, how could he still be rolling on after more than a year? Obama got so much praise for his "temperament," but I think Trump deserves admiration for his exuberant resilience. They love to say his a narcissist, but that doesn't explain how he's been able to weather the vicious attacks — all the hate — for so long.
Personally, I lost respect for the NYT after having close second-hand knowledge about one of their stories.
Writing to a higher grade level doesn't make a newspaper "better."
Haberman's bosses may be anticipating the need to establish Trump has a crazy angry level as a necessary counter narrative to real news about to break.
If there really are 13,000 sealed indictments at Federal District courts waiting on Presidential Order as the Marines at Gitmo construct new facilities for 13,000 prisoners and 5,000 personnel, then the "Trump just went off crazy and angry" narrative needs plausibility.
My big problem with the New York Times is the stuff they leave out. Can anybody tell me the logical difference between “All the news that’s fit to print” and “All the news we see fit to print”?
”The president’s mood began to darken..."
It’s a wink to their readers that they are getting to him.
Can anybody tell me the logical difference between “All the news that’s fit to print” and “All the news we see fit to print”?
Never mind, I got it, it’s hubris.
Politico: Confessions of a Russiagate Skeptic
To repeat what many others have said: "AA, I'm glad you read the NYTimes so we don't have to".
I used to be a regular viewer of Chris Mathews on Hardball to get the opposition's viewpoint. He was entertaining and fairly informative. That was, until he went completely off the radar screen. Stayed with Morning Joe for the same reason (what's the opposition thinking?) until his show became virtually unwatchable. It's now a parody. They now have the same disease that has always afflicted the NYTimes - zero credibility. As a news organization, if you lack credibility, what do you have?
Whatever blah blah blah happens on CNN, it's heard by maybe a million people (for the best-rated show), and those people have to sit around listening for several minutes to hear any given opinion expressed. Anything they say, he can hit back with a tweet that takes about 5 seconds to read and reaches 48 million.
Which is why there was so much pressure from the MSM after he was elected to get him to stop using twitter, because it is effective. That's roughly about 1/3 of the electorate that he is reaching directly. No filtering by the PTB whatsoever. I also think he is enjoying himself. Trump is a guy who likes a challenge. Most people fold under extreme stress, he seems to thrive on it.
What does it take to get someone to abandon a lying fool who comes every morning with stories to tell - not just some foul-smelling homeless guy mumbling to himself, but an educated well-respected, well-dressed liar who passes on every one-sided piece of gossip if it hurts the right people? What does it take to stop paying him to come every day, and taking up your morning, keeping you away from stories from more honest, informative people?
No, I’m not denying the voluminous evidence that Russia, at Kremlin strongman Vladimir Putin’s personal direction, sought to meddle in the 2016 election, and that Donald Trump was clearly his man.. - Maybee’s link
It’s kind of hard to get past that statement of clear bullshit, but I guess maybe the guy is taking baby steps to overcome his tribe hive-mind thinking, so maybe I will go further.
Rilke has the face darkening, not the mood (Duino Elegy X alternate version); in fact not the mood at all.
Far too much you belong to grief. If you could forget her--
even the least of these figures so infinitely pained--
you would call down, shout down, hoping they might still be curious,
one of the angels (those beings unmighty in grief)
who, as his face darkened, would try again and again
to describe the way you kept sobbing, long ago, for her.
Angel, what was it like? And he would imitate you and never
understand that it was pain, as after a calling bird
one tries to repeat the innocent voice it is filled with.
"Confessions of a Russiagate Skeptic" opens in part with: "No, I’m not denying the voluminous evidence that Russia, at Kremlin strongman Vladimir Putin’s personal direction, sought to meddle in the 2016 election, and that Donald Trump was clearly his man."
So... even Politico's "Russiagate Skeptic" isn't actually that.
Tim in Vermont- my thought exactly. You have to make the anti-Trump declaration to get anybody to listen.
The skeptic goes on to say that by indicting 13 people who will never be brought to trial and have the indictment tested, Mueller has scored some serious points.
Who wrote such an obviously, patently false, headline?
It’s kind of hard to get past that statement of clear bullshit, but I guess maybe the guy is taking baby steps to overcome his tribe hive-mind thinking, so maybe I will go further.
Dear sweet lamb, you think that Russia and China are not trying to meddle in our affairs, or would not?
"Mueller’s team has had nothing to say—yet?—about the hacked emails of the Democratic National Committee or Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta."
-- Have they let the FBI look at their servers yet? Even if they have, were the servers preserved or were they meddled with after the alleged hack?
Without the servers, how do you even press charges related to the hack? It is like a murder case without a body -- technically possible, but not many prosecutors would risk it.
"The fact that he hasn’t directed any effort to safeguard the 2018 midterms."
-- ... They know Obama didn't do anything about the known Russian efforts in 2016, right? And that since this is a counter intelligence operation, even if Trump DID do something, it probably is secret?
How do idiots get to write for Politico?
I read the whole thing now, and he does display a kind of murky awareness that a lot of the case is nonsense.
"There is, of course, plenty of public evidence that Trump was all too happy to collude with Putin. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” springs to mind, not to mention Trump’s endless invocation of WikiLeaks in the closing weeks of the 2016 campaign."
-- Yeah... so this was kind of a waste of time to read.
"Mueller's team doesn't leak, and he's repeatedly surprised us, as he did again on Friday."
-- ... The author does realize that the entire special prosecutor started based on an illegal leak of the dossier and Comey's stealing and leaking of FBI documents, right? Right?
Maggie Haberman is seeing a narrative that she has created and maintained for more than a year collapse.
She is projecting. We are reading her feelings as this whole charade is exposed.
Trump did nothing except state the obvious. She didn't like that one bit, got angry, furious in fact.
Serious question: did anyone reading the comments actually recognize any of these alleged Russian posts?
Personally, I haven't seen anything that got enough traction to reach my attention.
Memo to Ann - we have been living in a style over substance culture since the 60s (sontag essay, nihilism). Your sudden epiphany is surprising for a cosmopolitan.
What do the Mueller indictments have to do with the DNC hacks, err I meant hack? My understanding the indictments were about fraud and identity theft. Did the use take identities to fool Podesta? Is there some evidence they gave data to Wikileaks? If so, I haven't heard that connection in the indictment. I agree with Sablan, do these Politicos even know the story they are covering?
I had never seen any of the Russian ads. But, I wasn't the target audience (which was people who are likely to take direct action on Facebook/social media or attend political rallies), so I probably didn't trip whatever requirements Facebook has to show me political ads.
I had never seen any of the Russian ads. But, I wasn't the target audience (which was people who are likely to take direct action on Facebook/social media or attend political rallies), so I probably didn't trip whatever requirements Facebook has to show me political ads.
Some material for Rogers and Haberman. They should go for it, it's cheap. Knock Parker and Stone right out of catbird's seat!
Great post.
You want to discuss anger? I'm getting angry at the constant, deliberate, lies about Trump's tweets. Even worse, they don't even quote the whole damn tweet(s). The tweets consist of only a few sentences, and could easier fit into a news article.
But no. They will only quote *part* of the tweet. Guess its easier to lie about it, that way.
Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse published an informative article titled "The Battle Within The Department of Justice: Black Hats -v- White Hats".
The guilty plea of Michael Flynn was reported to the public on December 1, 2017.
On the following day, a series of leaks began that subsequently devastated "The Resistance" in the US Justice Department. The series of leaks gradually informed the public about Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Peter Ohr and other key members of this "Resistance", a conspiratorial group that in this article is called "The Black Hats".
The Black Hats have surrendered unconditionally. McCabe is gone, but Strzok, Page, Ohr and others are keeping their jobs (and perhaps their pensions) by cooperating fully with the investigation being conducted by the DOJ Inspector General.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/18/the-battle-within-the-department-of-justice-black-hats-v-white-hats/
"Why are you so angry?" is the classic troll response to any internet comment you don't like.
Glad to know the NYT reporters read internet comments.
BTW, no one has explained to me how these Russians are going to stand trial or be arrested.
"The president's mood began to darken...'
When narrating a Narrative, the Omniscient Point of View is commonly agreed to best simplify the task both for writer and reader. The NYTimes readers have a lot in common with the consumers of bodice-ripper novels. From the broad sunny uplands of Obama, America has descended to 4 years of dark and stormy nights.
Isn't it wierd that every time Trump watches TV there is a crowd around him? And there are three people in the crowd who dislike him enough to speed dial the NYT with not only what he saw, but how he felt about it? And he was never disappointed, or even angry, but always FURIOUS (or words to that effect)?
But the NYT feels justified in printing the story, without hard corroboration or other evidence, based apparently and solely on the "credibility" of their sources. (Kind of brings to mind the FBI attesting to the dossier before the FISA court based solely on Steele's "reputation".)
This is getting so tiresome.
Does anyone really believe this stuff.
"Why are you so angry?" is the classic troll response to any internet comment you don't like.
-- u mad bro?
Yes, to answer Althouse’s question, it is fake news. Why such a focus on emotions, unknowable emotions? Because nothing Trump does betrays any of it. Projection. Pure projection.
There is a youtube channel called Terrible Writing Advice. I would suggest that the NYT reporters view there video on writing Dark Lords.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npEX8uRvUEo
My first thought for a Rogers and Hammerstein clip was "Younger than Springtime" (from "South Pacific"). Don't know why that popped into my head, but I love the shirtless guy singing — while holding up a leaning-back woman the entire time. The line "gayer than laughter am I" went well with the shirtlessness.
When narrating a Narrative, the Omniscient Point of View is commonly agreed to best simplify the task both for writer and reader. The NYTimes readers have a lot in common with the consumers of bodice-ripper novels
LOL I wish I had written that!
Yesterday, I came late to another comment thread in which Matthew Sablan described very astutely what "Crazy Comey the Leaker" was doing to President Trump.
Comey was gaslighting Trump.
Well put.
Comey was telling Trump privately that Trump was not being investigated by the FBI. Meanwhile Comey and his ilk were insinuating and leaking to the public that the FBI was investigating Trump.
Comey was gaslighting Trump.
ALTHOUSE says: Rogers and Haberman "should write a Broadway musical together...."
Yes, yes! But it would have to be even 'darker' than Sweeney Todd, talking constantly about the dark nemesis Trump, "...constantly attacking him, trying to hurt him, often being completely unfair and biased and bullshitting for hours on end."...but wait they already do that every morning in the NYT!
Yes, Dark indeed.
Modern media is so devoid of human interaction that it cannot fathom the President experiencing relief, then anger at the foolish wastefulness of Mueller's investigation. Usually, the media inability to understand common human reactions manifests itself in an inability to understand humor and sarcasm. Having accepted there was no "Russia collusion" months ago, they have moved on to "obstruction" It never occurs to them that there is no justice to obstruct. The President gets aggravated at the ridiculous rhetoric and herculean efforts to prop up a false narrative, distracting the country from important issues. Like the heel in professional wrestling, the media provokes and plays dirty, and then demands accountability when the President reacts to their provocations and dirty play. Nice.
It is well to remember that the Clinton campaign described Maggie Haberman as someone who the campaign "has a very good relationship with,” and who had been called upon to “tee up stories for us before” and had never disappointed. She has not changed a bit.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/john-podesta-emails-wikileaks-press-214367
Good catch by cronus titan.
Why should we believe anything that Maggie Haberman writes?
Best line from South Pacific was “Too many laws, people get angry.”
Isn’t that the musical where a bunch of the gayest dancers ever sing “There’s nothing like a dame”?
That’s right. Maggie was one of the early beneficiaries of Fusion leaks. She introduced salacious dossi-gossip into the news stream on behalf of Hillary. But we are supposed to trust her writing about Trump now. I’d still like to see Fusion’s payolla list to see who else besides Maggie was spoon fed lies about Trump and offered it up as “journalism” to their unwitting subscribers and the public.
The Professor like South Pacific musical . Good to hear. Also get Mitchener's book "Tales of the South Pacific." Great writing by a beginner.
Today's J majors are required to take 24 hours of psychic reading classes.
Get with the times, people.
What the public wanted from a special counsel was NOT a pathetic indictment of a few Internet trolls in Russia.
What the public wanted from a special counsel was a fair, nonpartisan, objective investigation -- that was PERCEIVED BY THE PUBLIC to be fair, nonpartisan and objective -- explaining the suspicion that the Trump campaign had collaborated with Russia in the 2016 presidential election.
Instead of that, the public got Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller, who hired a gang of Trump-hating lawyers in order to try to get Trump's tax documents in order to leak them and thus cause the destruction of his Presidency. That was the only real "investigation" conducted by Mueller and his gang.
Mueller (and Rosenstein) did not care a rat's ass what the public perceived about this Special Counsel's investigation.
Mueller never will issue any report that explains how the RussiaGate hoax was concocted and propagandized.
Mueller knows only how to issue stupid indictments. He is disgracing himself, his "investigation", and the FBI.
Mueller apparently believes that he still is serving some purpose -- which is to drag his "investigation" out until the 2018 elections, in order to enable DOJ/FBI officials to continue to refuse to provide information and documents to Congress. Mueller still is hoping that he can help the Democrats win control of Congress and thus cripple the Trump presidency.
There has been a series of disgraceful Special Counsels, but Mueller will go down in history as the very worst Special Counsel ever.
It's unlikely that Flower Drum Song will get revived anytime soon, without some serious rewrites.
Mike Sylwester said: "What the public wanted from a special counsel was a fair, nonpartisan, objective investigation"
A slight correction: "What half the public wanted from a special counsel was a fair, nonpartisan, objective investigation" The other half wanted a public lynching.
>I had never seen any of the Russian ads.
Thanks. And I agree it doesn't mean a lot that I didn't. Still, I'd be a little more impressed with this Russian intelligence operation if anyone here had.
Also, it is not just Russians laughing at the US. The FBI has lost credibility.
This combination of political activity and incompetence in the long list of failed FBI investigations of mass shootings and bombings may be fatal to the bureau.
The Sharyl Attkinson interview with Nunez.
Sharyl: There appears to be a serious conflict of interest that the intelligence community, FBI, who are in charge of the investigation some of these things, are implicated in some of these alleged misdeeds. How do you get around that? How can this be investigated fairly, when the only prosecutorial authority really rests with the people accused of wrongdoing?
Rep. Devin Nunes: Yeah and I think what you’re, and now what you’re getting into is the FISA abuse. So I want to, I think we want to make sure we make that change, the difference there. So there was unmaskings that we unearthed, then there are the FISA abuse that we’ve discovered.
Sharyl: That’s the secret court. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, where intelligence officials can go to try to get wiretaps on US citizens or foreign actors.
Rep. Devin Nunes: That’s right. And so this is where the FBI and the Justice Department because they’re involved in this FISA Abuse. Because they’re the ones who make, to go before the secret court to get the warrants, they’re all involved, they’re all implicated in this.
I have read elsewhere that the counterintel function will be taken away from the FBI and given to Homeland Security.
The FBI can stay with bank robbery and common crime, which is does not do that well with.
They can fumble along with that using a third of the staff they have now.
Ann Althouse at 7:40 AM
... places I can't stand to read at all (I'm thinking of Breitbart and The Daily Caller).
I like The Daily Caller.
I recommend that everyone read it.
http://dailycaller.com/
South Pacific was immediately post war and followed Mitchner's personal experiences in the Pacific when reality was still in vogue to deal with PTSD. The film noir genre took over that need. But the level of reality in South Pacific still astounds us. The musical approach added In some happy time.
One of the very best reporters about the RussiaGate hoax has been The Daily Caller's staff writer Chuck Ross.
http://dailycaller.com/author/chuck-ross/
"the president’s mood began to darken"
It was a dark and stormy night....Hahahaha.....hahaha. The desperation, it reeks. This isn't even high school level stuff. To the extent I give a rats ass about MSM reporting it makes me sad for ALL of us, not angry.
And I think he fired Tillerson in a fit of pique too.
"...the president’s mood began to darken, & then in came Stormy Daniels."
"I have read elsewhere that the counterintel function will be taken away from the FBI and given to Homeland Security.
The FBI can stay with bank robbery and common crime, which is does not do that well with.
They can fumble along with that using a third of the staff they have now."
What does your FBI daughter say about that?
Not sure Homeland would be any better, over the long run. One big federal agency with a lot of agents with guns, versus another one. It might work, because they are younger as an agency, and the FBI has a long history of playing politics. At least at their DC headquarters.
Personally, I think that the solution is ruthless prosecution- not just nicking their pensions, but locking up the perps at the DOJ and FBI for extended sentences, and not at country club prisons, but, rather the type of prisons that they send people who aren't of their class. Won't happen, of course. The in terrorem effect of that happening to some of the most powerful people in these agencies would do wonders in keeping them to the straight and narrow in the future.
The President's mood ring began to darken.
"It was a dark and stormy night at the White House."
ARM is free to insert "Daniels" into the above headline.
The only "breaking point" would be just me getting tired of blogging or deciding to write a completely different type of blog.
I think there is another. It comes when you find yourself writing the same critiques over and over because the paper is no longer interested in getting things right and focuses instead on pursuing its own version of the truth.
Maybe that's what you meant by "getting tired of blogging", but I see it differently.
For example, this is not the first time you've written about the NYT's mind reading. How many more posts on the topic before you skim past those articles altogether?
I wouldn't presume to tell you what to read, but I am concerned you're going to have to find new sources to maintain your interest.
And we all want that.
"It was a dark and stormy night at the White House."
Suddenly many, many shots rang out.
Suddenly many, many shots rang out.
Many doors slammed. The Maid Screamed.
Suddenly, the NYTimes Press Bus appeared on the Horizon!
While Millions of Russians meddled with elections, the King lived in ignorance.
Meanwhile, in a luxe condominium in Manhattan, a mogul was descending an escalator.
I still don't get what is the core of the Russian thing . So far it's about exposing Democrat misconduct and for that we ought to thank the Russians.
NYTimes has the best website for sure.
>So far it's about exposing Democrat misconduct and for that we ought to thank the Russians.
This has baffled me since day one. Why run with a story unless people care if it's true?
There's (it's perhaps apocryphal) an old country tune that goes "Dropkick me Jesus through the goal posts of life". I'm certain that there are a whole bunch of Dems and newspaper types that Trump would like to dropkick through some goalposts.
I thought Nixon was a statesman and a patriot when he did not protest the stolen election (the dead can and did rise up in Chicago in November 1960----and the ghost riders in the sky in Texas all stopped to vote that year). Gore was a contemptible weasel and no patriot in 2000. Hillary and the Dems joined that shameful parade when she woke up the morning after she lost the 2016 election.
They can't know Trump's emotional state without him telling them, and it is extremely unlikely that he did that.
On their face, the indictments are ridiculous. The Russians, as stated in the indictment document itself, did nothing in the American political realm's discourse that real Americans themselves don't do every single day. It even occurs in the comments sections here, too. Disinformation cannot be quashed- the best that can be done is to point it out. The only alternative is to put prior restraint on the speaking privileges of anyone accused of being some sort of foreign agent- and make no mistake- this is the direction we are heading, and it is what the Left definitely seems to want- the ability to shut up people who are not approved purveyors of facts and opinions.
Haberman's piece is a clear indication to me that I was right on Friday- the indictments basically showed the the Russian Collusion story was a hoax. Trump's pointing this out has people like Haberman on the run to find a fall back position- this story today is it.
A lot of people still believe the NYT is impartial critical journalism and that's why we can't just ignore it. My own brother reads the Washington Post for information and checks it by listening to NPR. During the 2016 campaign, I suggested he read Instapundit and Althouse for just one week so that he could understand my positions better. I said I read articles from WaPo, NYT etc. all the time and knew his positions but he did not know mine. He tried but gave up after 48 hours. He said those two blogs were incomprehensible. For instance, he said, they mentioned the "Fast and Furious" gun sale scandal, which, he said, he knew about but it was "over" months ago. That was part of it - still talking about stuff that was "over" and the rest of his problem was that the blogs were talking about issues he'd never heard of or having positions which he found very difficult to comprehend. I don't mean disagreement - I mean a bewildered "where is this coming from." As if Althouse and Glen Reynolds were n.n. to him.
So, as long as we have family we are trying to talk to, I don't think we can simply disregard the "mainstream media." I do not regard it as a news source, however, (except about what certain members of my family will soon be saying) and it is getting worse and worse. The longer Trump is President, the further it is from any realism about what is going on. The initial error is constantly growing. And they can't even cover sports anymore either - see the NFL and the Olympics.
Here is a very good essay about the indictments by Byron York, but even he doesn't really get it at one point when he writes:
"All Americans should be grateful that the Mueller team has gone after the Russian interference project. Russia needs to be prevented from doing it again, and also not allowed to get better at it."
You can't prevent it. This is a dangerous thing to believe and act on. Think about what one would have to do to prevent the initiation and spread of disinformation by any foreigner. The ends will never justify those sorts of means. To even try to prevent such things is to concede to the Russians their apparently stated goal- exactly the point Trump was making in that tweet from this weekend.
As I wrote the other day, the Russians could have done all of the things described in the indictments without using false identities to conceal the payments. Indeed, I strongly suspect that they do much more that violates nothing in the US code cited by the Mueller indictments. Note that Mueller didn't charge the Russians with violation of the election laws- only with the identity thefts and underlying financial concealment. So if the Russians had just bought the same ads under their own names, they wouldn't have been charged with anything, right? It isn't a crime to create an anonymous Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram ad, nor is it a crime to create fake news- otherwise the NYTimes broke the law about the Tillerson firing that was to have occurred in January.
However, what the indictments do presage is this- coming this Summer and Fall, the social media companies will shut down the accounts of anyone openly accused of being a foreigner, and this standard won't be applied evenly- if you are a conservative, the onus on you will be far greater to prove you are who you say you are. If Christoper Steele hadn't been a thing, you can bet the house that Mueller would have charged the Russians for the actual political meddling, it was only the fact of Steele that prevented that from happening, but the media companies in Silicon Valley won't act on that distinction.
The authors — Katie Rogers and Maggie Haberman — do not know how Trump really felt on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. They only know what he chose to say publicly.
I'm generally supportive of your running critique of the New York Times, but this statement demonstrates your naivete of how stories like these are built and how high-level journalists do their work. Maggie Haberman knows exactly how Trump felt on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, for the simple reason that she talks to him every day on deep background (meaning she may use what Trump tells her without attributing it back to Trump). It's a mutually beneficial journalistic relationship that long predates her tenure with the Times. If there's one man on earth who knows how to play this game, it's Donald Trump.
Trump’s Delight Over Russia Indictment Hardens to Fury.
If anything, it's been Trump's opponents and the press whose delight over the Mueller investigation that has turned to fury.
>... but this statement demonstrates your naivete of how stories like these are built and how high-level journalists do their work.
I'd bet on "made it up."
Earnest Prole wrote:
"Maggie Haberman knows exactly how Trump felt on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, for the simple reason that she talks to him every day on deep background (meaning she may use what Trump tells her without attributing it back to Trump). It's a mutually beneficial journalistic relationship that long predates her tenure with the Times
We know this how? And if this were even true, did she not attribute this implicitly to Trump for all the reasons stated above? I would guess her access to Trump himself is extremely limited, though I don't doubt for second a journalist would claim better sources than they actually had.
I would guess her access to Trump himself is extremely limited.
Start here. The idea that Trump is some kind of helpless victim of the Times' coverage is laughable. He's been playing this game for most of his adult life; he's a master's master.
Mike said...
Yes, to answer Althouse’s question, it is fake news. Why such a focus on emotions, unknowable emotions?"
Because everyone at the NY Times and 95% of their readership appear to have morphed into 14 year old Mean Girls.
If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing their asses off in Moscow. Get smart America!
So Professor Althouse, if you agree so strongly with Trump, in what way do you think that America has not been smart?
1. Is it smart to deny a Russian effort to influence the election, as Trump has repeatedly done.
2. Is it smart to denigrate and refuse to accept the findings of the intelligence agencies regarding that effort, even though those agencies are now headed by his own appointees?
3. Is is smart to fire the guy who was investigating the matter because you've decided the investigation is threatening your former foreign policy and is a nothingburger? Even though that investigation has now produced a raft of felony indictments and at least three pleas by people at the heart of Trumps' campaign and White House?
4. Is it smart to take no interest in planning to prevent or minimize similar efforts in the 2018 and 2020 election cycles.
5. Or is it smart, as Senators like McCain and Graham--moderate and conservative Republicans--to urge an honest, vigorous bi partisan good faith inquiry into all these issues led by a Republican investigator who has the highest standing in the American law enforcement community?
6. Althouse, are you with Trump on 1-4, or the moderate patriots on 5? Unless you're with Trump, you'd have to admit that most of our problems are on him, not on those seeking solution 5.
Someone may have already pointed this out, but Haberman is the Hill shill identified by Wikileaks (while at Politico) as a simpatico reporter who could "tee up" some softball questions for Her Ladyship. That she's now employed by the Grey Lady speaks volumes.
Here Ann expatiates on people doing jobs she's not professionally qualified to get, not that that should stop her. But she doesn't seem to know that NYT reporters don't write their own headlines, nor does any reporter in any news room have the final say: an editor does. In some places like the NY Post and I'll bet the Daily Mail, the headline writer can be among the highest paid people on the staff.
Another thing that baffles Ann about NYT reporters is how they ever get ideas about how Trump thinks, beyond, as Ann does, reading his tweets and determining that's he's totally on point and completely intelligent. Ann, reporters like Maggie Haberman are actually talking to people in the White House ( or mara Lago) who tell her what Trump is saying and doing beyond his tweets: people who have been in meetings with Trump, talked with Trump, and so on. You may believe that or not, you may feel that the people who are talking to Maggie aren't serving Trump well, you may say they are motivated by the Clinton prog crime conspiracy, but there it is. People around Trump talk to reporters like Haberman about Trump. Trump himself is known to offer background to reporters as well. He could be a source in his own story.
Ann is always going on about this issue, smacking her head in frustration and wailing, how the Heck do they know? Ann, in the real world people like reporters find things out by not just reading the Internet, but by seeking out the important people in a story and persuading them to talk. Ann likes this idea so little that it leads her to even start wondering how the heck the Trump knows what the Russians think. Ann, Trump talks to Putin on the telephone. His people talk to the Russians all the time. When you talk to someone, you can find out how they feel.
It's ok for Ann to expatiate on the media, it's all fun, just like pretending to presume about the FBI or the Federal judiciary, but it's a reminder that Ann's only interested in promoting the echo chamber. Hey, what about getting in touch with Regnery on that book?
Earnest,
I had already read those- there is literally nothing there but Haberman's claim that Trump takes her calls sometimes. In fact, in the one about the Trump book deal Haberman and Thrush had with Random House, Trump explicitly mocked it as people with no access.
Mexico via NYT, globalists vi WaPo, have managed to influence American politics, almost succeeding to disenfranchise American citizens, even using American taxpayer funds, beyond their wildest dreams.
So, Obama spied and turn government against American citizens; Clinton colluded with Britain, Kiev, etc.; and the rabidly diverse DNC denied the nomination to the Jew (wrong color, sex).
Stephen,
Every developed country in the world has an interest in and tries to influence the American elections. Pretty much no one denies this, including Trump, but what is denied in this specific case is that the Trump Campaign colluded with the Russian effort. People can differ on whether or not the Russians wanted Trump to win, but the indictments from Friday made it pretty fucking clear that the goal was disruption of the presidency of whoever won the election- and this was made clear by the sudden switch over to anti-Trump disinformation after he won the election- an event that took about 99% of the world by surprise. I assert that if the Russian government had any belief that their operation would have led to Trump's win, they would never have run it, and I think it clear that if Trump had been ahead in the polls as consistently as Clinton was, the operation itself would have had a completely different character.
"Trump’s Delight Over Russia Indictment Hardens to Fury."
Musta put it in the refrigerator overnight.
Yancey, floating down the river called Da Nile, rebuts Stephan by saying No Way the Russians acted to promote Trump -- if they thought he would win they would have stopped. Yancey hasn't noticed the news about Gates and Flynn and the 13 Russians, but that's okay.
Stephan I don't think you will get a straight answer from Ann, who has been posting recently how pleased she is by the financial support she is getting from her readers, presumably not you or me. As some silly lefty once said, it's hard to get a person to understand something, when her salary depends on her not understanding it.
One thing I know: If Hillary had won, this Russians interfered with the election indictment would never have happened. Because the whole investigation has made the Democratic Party look bad.
And I agree it is a mostly meaningless indictment -- you wonder why it was announced on a Friday before a 3-day weekend for Feds? -- and means that the Collusion story is nothing.
@John Pickering I think you are doing Ann a disservice and are way too impressed with reporters such as Haberman who has demonstrated repeatedly that she will spin anything Trump does negatively with she has sources that say so or not.
As to reporters making stuff up based on their own ideas or in their own interest I direct your attention to the recent kerfluffle when the Boston Herald printed a story claiming what Brady's contract demands would be. The reporter, Ron Borges, fell for a source who turned out to be an imposter. Did he corroborate the story before the paper printed it? Of course not; because it was bound to be great click bait. The Herald had to retract the story and apologize.
Reporters are more often than not victims of their own biases. Haberman and this story is a great example of that .
The president's mood began to darken while watching Gorilla TV, and hardened into delighted fury as he tweeted Trumpily about Russians and suchlike.
I am with those who feel the Mueller indictments are ridiculous. To me it is the proverbial elephant giving birth to a mouse. An indictment that can not be followed up in any way. All those indicted are untouchable and it is not clear that other than being foreigners, they did anything not done every day.
I think Trump's comments were right on the money and show no signs of "fury" at all.
John Pickering said...
Yancey, floating down the river called Da Nile, rebuts Stephan by saying No Way the Russians acted to promote Trump -- if they thought he would win they would have stopped.
Consider the possibility that the Russians wouldn't have stopped if they thought Trump would win, but they'd've switched to doing exactly what Trump's opponents are doing right now, and that's the point Althouse is making.
Ann is always going on about this issue, smacking her head in frustration and wailing, how the Heck do they know? In the real world people like reporters find things out by not just reading the Internet, but by seeking out the important people in a story and persuading them to talk.
It has an almost childlike naivete to it, as though powerful people wait around for journalists to call so they can offer their on-the-record quote for the day. Trump has known Maggie Haberman since she was a tabloid reporter for the Post and the Daily News. Their relationship is based on the ancient principle of "You give me something of value and I’ll give you something of value." Neither has to wait around until the other calls. Most of what Trump tells her is for publication without attribution. I assure you that Trump, of all people, is not being screwed by this relationship.
And to return for a moment to the headline Althouse called unserious journalism, not only is the essence accurate but Trump likely wanted it to be communicated. Like some people around here, Trump initially thought the indictment was an exoneration. He now realizes it was a pretext setup.
John P: Inga with logorrhea.
Khesanh takes as assumed that Haberman and the Times are corrupt, and their motive is .. perhaps advancing the Clinton prog crime conspiracy.
But over at the Herald, the reporter was fooled by his sources. Whatever checking they did wasn't good enough. Then the paper's editors retracted and apologized. That's not corruption, that's what a paper that makes a mistake is supposed to do. Do you agree, Khesanh?
Check the clips and it's quite likely that Maggie Haberman has published something that the Times has corrected. Let's watch whether they correct this one.
Why did Steele and certain elements of the FBI develop such opposition to the prospects that Trump might become president, and act to prevent it? Because they were afraid that Trump may be being blackmailed by the Russians.
Why do outlets like the NYTimes, CNN, NBC and the rest of the places that actually pay for real journalists show such animus to Trump?
Because their reporting has led them to fear that
Trump is either trying so hard to hide [his Russia ties] or is so naïve about Russia that he is ready to not only resist mounting a proper defense of our democracy, he’s actually ready to undermine some of our most important institutions, the F.B.I. and Justice Department, to keep his compromised status hidden.
Those are reasons to oppose the President and his policies, his coarse and undignified character notwithstanding.
Proletariat getting rather prolix too.
The end is near.
Journalism generally seems to have diverted its coverage to appeal to the interests of target demos. The Trump election led to a huge boost in online NYT subscriptions and, if you look at reader reactions to the paper's op-ed pieces (I stopped months ago, but I doubt it's changed) they boil down to hallelujuah choruses of progressive backpatting.
Smart businesses give their customers what they want. In a dying industry, this isn't a stupid strategy. It's just not neutral journalism. There may not be such a thing anymore.
While I'm at it, CNN's strategy seems to be to reduce newsgathering costs. It's much cheaper to film a panel of political hacks talking in a studio than to send reporters and editors and camerapersons out to cover a story. I also have stopped watching CNN, but last I checked, the usual protocol was to have a good-looking young person (ideally a woman) argue for the dominant narrative and a middle-aged pudgy dweeb make the case for the other side. Not subtle, but there it is.
I wish Pickering would go back to her stilted style. At least the pretentiousness provided some entertainment value in her mundane, vapid comments.
Isn't 'john pickering' a crime in about 38 states?
For these journalists anyone with whom they disagree who speaks or writes lucidly and with conviction must be angry. That is because such speaking or writing challenges the inaneness of their own positions and creates in them fear or insecurity. If they are fearful and insecure, it must be because "the other" is angry and therefore threatening.
Addressing the supposed anger is so much easier than addressing a superior argument.
Althouse: "And the places you might suggest are, I bet, places I can't stand to read at all (I'm thinking of Breitbart and The Daily Caller)."
Really? You think that's what we read for "serious journalism" because we don't read the unserious NYT? Wow! We must be neanderthals, eh?
Isn't 'john pickering' a crime in about 38 states?
Yes, but in many places you can still get your john pickered.
So the Russki's got their start in election "meddling" under the JD & FBI of Obama, Lynch, and Comey, Lynch, and Obama were either unaware of what Ivan was up to or they didn't care.
But how realistic is it to believe Putin started his monkey business in 2016? Putin has been running Russia since 1999.
Why aren't the news media asking questions about this that they should be asking? How much did the Russians "meddle" in the elections of 2004, 2008, 2012?
If Trump were as darkly moody as the NYT portrays him, how could he still be rolling on after more than a year? Obama got so much praise for his "temperament," but I think Trump deserves admiration for his exuberant resilience. They love to say his a narcissist, but that doesn't explain how he's been able to weather the vicious attacks — all the hate — for so long.
Embarrasingly naive. She wants him to be who she wishes he were, so she’ll create him in her mind.
FF: Meow!
"1. Is it smart to deny a Russian effort to influence the election, as Trump has repeatedly done."
Trump has repeatedly said there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia. Why twist what he has said? I haven't heard him deny any of the facts brought forward during any of the investigations. I have heard him state several times he wants the investigations to go forward to a conclusion. Influence? Sow discord? Same thing to you? Don't start with a lie and word twists as your first point if you want to be taken seriously. If you have quotes from Trump *since he took office* to rebut this please provide.
"2. Is it smart to denigrate and refuse to accept the findings of the intelligence agencies regarding that effort,"
Since all facts of consequence point to corruption of these agencies by Clinton, and increasingly Obama, smart would be the least of the descriptors I would use. How about necessary for the continued health of the Republic?
"even though those agencies are now headed by his own appointees?"
You do understand how the whole beauracacy thing works, right? Delay appointments, public employee rules and such?
"3. Is is smart to fire the guy who was investigating the matter"
You will be able to predict my answer. Once Comey's bias and dishonesty were exposed- Yes.
"because you've decided the investigation is threatening your former foreign policy and is a nothingburger?"
I understand your perception re increasing cooperation with Russia, even though such a move seems logical to me. Obama tried it too. Different lenses. What was a nothingburger?
"Even though that investigation has now produced a raft of felony indictments"
Raft??
"and at least three pleas by people at the heart of Trumps' campaign and White House?"
Heart of? That's rich.
"4. Is it smart to take no interest in planning to prevent or minimize similar efforts in the 2018 and 2020 election cycles."
But isn't that supposed to be what Mueller is doing? Hasn't Trump expressly said that is what he would like Mueller to do?
"5. Or is it smart, as Senators like McCain and Graham--moderate and conservative Republicans--to urge an honest, vigorous bi partisan good faith inquiry into all these issues led by a Republican investigator who has the highest standing in the American law enforcement community?"
Bipartisan? Hahaha. It is to laugh. I would love nothing more than for #5 to happen. Were it only possible. I would prefer honest NON-partisan if I were to get this fairyland wish though. Perhaps you should run it.
Althouse writes:
"1. There is no better newspaper to read. I want it to be better, but even if it doesn't get any better, it is just as good as we're getting in the United States."
I started reading the NYT everyday starting in the early 80's and at that time it really was a great paper. But I quit reading it when I discovered the Wall Street Journal, currently, just as good as we're getting in the United States.
From what I gather in the IT press and private information is that the real danger to the US is China, especially on the matter of probes, attacks and insertion of backdoors and "sleepers" in US economic strategic systems such as financial transaction operations, utilities, government databases, communications, etc.
And, note, the US dispatches carrier groups not to oppose Russia but China. One is in the China Sea (ahem, West Philippine Sea) right now, challenging the Chinese on sovereignty and transit rights.
"One is in the China Sea (ahem, West Philippine Sea) right now, challenging the Chinese on sovereignty and transit rights."
There are several nations with overlapping zones in the South China Sea. And that is a large consideration when discussing NK nukes. China benefits if NK has them.
“I like The Daily Caller.“
It looks so bad I could barely give it a chance but I do read occasional things there when I follow links and find the shallow, biased, and uninteresting.
the real danger to the US is China, especially on the matter of probes, attacks and insertion of backdoors and "sleepers"
China inside. A product of collusion between Clinton and the Communist state, which enabled, among other things, the so-called "green" revolution, liberal fiscal and social policies, through labor, environmental, and regulatory arbitrage. And here is the overlapping and convergent interest between the left and left of center, and a nexus of left and right interests.
Its got a certain amount of clickbait, but your not going to get any pressing stories like the awan scandal now, the IRS Benghazi and fast and furious then.
Haberman, is a member of the rizzotto press, as the Clinton emails showed, occasionAlly she gets it right, but more often its fan fiction.
I hope the Prof will not loose interest in blogging and also in this type of blogging. Imagine what will happen to Chuck to ARM and now that John P. It is a good past time to read some comments. I see now a pattern of trying to undermine the Prof by this bunch of commenters, the Prof is getting dangerous in their quest to destroy the status quo.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा