Democratic Party has Seth Rich killed because he leaked to Wikileaks and the authorities are deep sixing any investigation

paulsurovell said:


Just heard a far more nuanced discussion on Greta Van Susteren's show, especially from Alan Dershowitz.  One point that was agreed is that Comey did not think that Trump's request was intrusive enough to raise a concern and the investigation went forward unimpeded.  Keep in mind that the memo was written 3 months ago.


Also, what we think we know about the memo comes from anonymous sources.

True, we haven't seen the document (if it exists) yet. However, Congress will certainly request the memo and Comey should be testifying soon, so we'll know one way or the other for sure. As for now, it's a personal decision on whether you trust the rectitude and honesty of Comey and these two anonymous FBI sources or that of President Trump.

Though Dershowitz embarrassed himself in that interview by repeatedly getting the name of Sally Yates wrong ("Sally Flynn" and "Sally Quinn"), his interpretation might be correct. Trump made an improper request to Comey, who ignored it and didn't think it merited starting a crisis. So he noted it and moved on with his investigation as if nothing had happened. Had Trump let it lie, Comey would have as well. But when Trump fired him for failing to kill the investigation, then there was no reason not to reveal the truth.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Finally, why should anyone rely on anonymous sources on the Russia story cited by WaPo after this one:

Because anonymously sourced stories are more often right, and unlike the Burlington Electric malware story, this one has been affirmed by other newsrooms as well. (Are they all relying on the same anonymous sources, each with an ax to grind? Possibly, but unlikely.)

Personally, I wish more people would read anonymously sourced reports with a skeptical eye. On the other hand, I'm not inclined to start from the position that they're false.

The WaPo article on the Laverov meeting was written based on anonymous sources (one of whom is oddly a former official) without any attempt to interview those who were in the meeting, like McMaster.  At best unprofessional.

Was Watergate sourced anonymously or did someone get the unfortunate name of Deep Throat at birth? I forget.

Content matters, doesn't it? Otherwise, what does "mainstream" even mean?

Anyway, your standard includes Alex Jones.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

Fox News is not part of the mainstream media. Why would you say such a thing?

Because the stream is wide enough to include media that draw nearly two million viewers every day.

Stoughton said:

paulsurovell said:


Just heard a far more nuanced discussion on Greta Van Susteren's show, especially from Alan Dershowitz.  One point that was agreed is that Comey did not think that Trump's request was intrusive enough to raise a concern and the investigation went forward unimpeded.  Keep in mind that the memo was written 3 months ago.


Also, what we think we know about the memo comes from anonymous sources.

True, we haven't seen the document (if it exists) yet. However, Congress will certainly request the memo and Comey should be testifying soon, so we'll know one way or the other for sure. As for now, it's a personal decision on whether you trust the rectitude and honesty of Comey and these two anonymous FBI sources or that of President Trump.

Though Dershowitz embarrassed himself in that interview by repeatedly getting the name of Sally Yates wrong ("Sally Flynn" and "Sally Quinn"), his interpretation might be correct. Trump made an improper request to Comey, who ignored it and didn't think it merited starting a crisis. So he noted it and moved on with his investigation as if nothing had happened. Had Trump let it lie, Comey would have as well. But when Trump fired him for failing to kill the investigation, then there was no reason not to reveal the truth.

I don't think Dershowitz or anyone else gave a second thought about his saying "Sally Quinn," except to have a chuckle.

However, the substance of what he said about Sally Yates is important -- that her claim that the Russians could blackmail Flynn with information possessed by the White House is "moronic" (I think that was his word).

He also gave a clinic on a President's authority over the FBI, citing the example of Thomas Jefferson's direct involvement and control over the investigation and trial of Aaron Burr.

Another important point that Dershowitz made is that if WaPo and the rest of the media herd had not promoted the story, there is no way that ISIS would have learned about the intelligence details it allegedly revealed.  I think McMaster may have made a similar point, but not sure.

dave23 said:

Was Watergate sourced anonymously or did someone get the unfortunate name of Deep Throat at birth? I forget.

Woodward and Bernstein did not report exclusively on what they were told by anonymous sources.  Deep Throat led them to sources and information, but was not cited as a source in their articles.

This, frankly, is idiocy.

Spend two seconds thinking about the absurd implications it would lead to.

paulsurovell said:


...

Another important point that Dershowitz made is that if WaPo and the rest of the media herd had not promoted the story, there is no way that ISIS would have learned about the intelligence details it allegedly revealed.  I think McMaster may have made a similar point, but not sure.

paulsurovell said:

The WaPo article on the Laverov meeting was written based on anonymous sources (one of whom is oddly a former official) without any attempt to interview those who were in the meeting, like McMaster.  At best unprofessional.

What makes you rule out the possibility that McMaster or someone else at the meeting was the "U.S. official familiar with the matter"? (I notice that the Post's reference to that source does not append "who refused to be identified," which would leave an opening even for McMaster, say, to be identified elsewhere in the article when he issued a public statement.)

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

Was Watergate sourced anonymously or did someone get the unfortunate name of Deep Throat at birth? I forget.

Woodward and Bernstein did not report exclusively on what they were told by anonymous sources.  Deep Throat led them to sources and information, but was not cited as a source in their articles.

Mark Felt was not their only anonymous source.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

Was Watergate sourced anonymously or did someone get the unfortunate name of Deep Throat at birth? I forget.

Woodward and Bernstein did not report exclusively on what they were told by anonymous sources.  Deep Throat led them to sources and information, but was not cited as a source in their articles.

Do you really not know how journalism works at this level or are you just pretending?

I didn't realize the FBI existed when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were alive.  Fascinating. I learn something new every day from Mr. Surovell.

paulsurovell said:


He also gave a clinic on a President's authority over the FBI, citing the example of Thomas Jefferson's direct involvement and control over the investigation and trial of Aaron Burr.

The GOP Congressional leaders might finally be giving members the all clear on abandoning the SS Trump. McCain compared the situation to Watergate at a dinner and Ryan is backing the Oversight's Committee subpoena of the Comey memo.

Also, the Seth Rich/Wikileaks story has fallen apart.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/1...

"But Tuesday afternoon, Wheeler told CNN he had no evidence to suggest Rich had contacted Wikileaks before his death."

Wheeler instead said he only learned about the possible existence of such evidence through the reporter he spoke to for the FoxNews.com story. He explained that the comments he made to WTTG-TV were intended to simply preview Fox News' Tuesday story. The WTTG-TV news director did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

"I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News," Wheeler told CNN.

Wheeeeeee

I don't know anything about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.  I am trying to follow the DNC lawsuit related to fraud during the primary.  This is going forward, but not getting media coverage.  Here's an update (might have to skip through a lot of "conversation" for the first half - there is another video following with some more info).  They are saying that the DNC scammed people who donated to Bernie Sanders since it was not a fair race (as evidenced by Wikileaks).  

I can't think of a greater waste of liberal time and energy than this lawsuit.

nan said:

I don't know anything about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.  I am trying to follow the DNC lawsuit related to fraud during the primary.  This is going forward, but not getting media coverage.  Here's an update (might have to skip through a lot of "conversation" for the first half - there is another video following with some more info).  They are saying that the DNC scammed people who donated to Bernie Sanders since it was not a fair race (as evidenced by Wikileaks).  

Re Woodward and Bernstein: FBI Finds Nixon Aides Sabotaged Democrats

A story based on anonymous sourcing including "federal investigators,"  "law enforcement sources," "one federal investigative official" and "sources close to the Watergate investigation," as well as on "FBI and Justice Department files" that the reporters themselves did not produce for public scrutiny.

DaveSchmidt said:

Re Woodward and Bernstein: FBI Finds Nixon Aides Sabotaged Democrats


A story based on anonymous sourcing including "federal investigators,"  "law enforcement sources," "one federal investigative official" and "sources close to the Watergate investigation," as well as on "FBI and Justice Department files" that the reporters themselves did not produce for public scrutiny.

. . . and including physical evidence and interviews with real people on the record.  We don't know from this article whether Woodward and Bernstein had the files or just saw them, but we do know that the NY Times did not have or see the Comey memo reported yesterday.

In a related matter,

Regardless of whether you think Snowden should be free or prosecuted, remember that he's not a reporter. he took a bunch of information and handed to wikileaks and let them decide what to do with it (not all of it was wise).

Also, are you sure that Trump actually said that? It was reported anonymously.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find an anonymously sourced story from a reputable publication that did not also include interviews with real people on the record, including these Comey memo and Trump intel articles. As for physical evidence, if it all hangs on whether reporters have actually seen or possess it themselves, you may end up never wrong, but also less informed.

DaveSchmidt said:

I think you'd be hard pressed to find an anonymously sourced story from a reputable publication that did not also include interviews with real people on the record, including these Comey memo and Trump intel articles. As for physical evidence, if it all hangs on whether reporters have actually seen or possess it themselves, you may end up never wrong, but also less informed.

The letter to the Union-Leader was a big part of the article.

To elaborate just a little: What you find in the on-the-record interviews in the Woodstein story are reaction to and context for the news that was anonymously sourced, which is what you also see in the anonymously sourced stories we're getting now.

And, again, while Burlington Electric, Judith Miller, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke and Walter Duranty are important reminders of the perils and the need for scrutiny, I think the cost of discrediting any and all anonymously sourced reporting simply because of those exceptions is rather steep.

dave23 said:

Regardless of whether you think Snowden should be free or prosecuted, remember that he's not a reporter. he took a bunch of information and handed to wikileaks and let them decide what to do with it (not all of it was wise).

Has nothing to do with what Trevor Timm wrote.

dave23 said:

Also, are you sure that Trump actually said that? It was reported anonymously.

No I'm not.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

Regardless of whether you think Snowden should be free or prosecuted, remember that he's not a reporter. he took a bunch of information and handed to wikileaks and let them decide what to do with it (not all of it was wise).

Has nothing to do with what Trevor Timm wrote.

OK, I'll slow down. Snowden is and was not a reporter.

DaveSchmidt said:

To elaborate just a little: What you find in the on-the-record interviews in the Woodstein story are reaction to and context for the news that was anonymously sourced, which is what you also see in the anonymously sourced stories we're getting now.

And, again, while Burlington Electric, Judith Miller, Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke and Walter Duranty are important reminders of the perils and the need for scrutiny, I think the cost of discrediting any and all anonymously sourced reporting simply because of those exceptions is rather steep.

I never said that "any and all anonymously sourced reporting" should be discredited.  But when all the reporting on a story is anonymously sourced -- as it is on alleged Russian collusion -- then the story should not be credited.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

I think you'd be hard pressed to find an anonymously sourced story from a reputable publication that did not also include interviews with real people on the record, including these Comey memo and Trump intel articles. As for physical evidence, if it all hangs on whether reporters have actually seen or possess it themselves, you may end up never wrong, but also less informed.

The letter to the Union-Leader was a big part of the article.

The fabrication of which was verified on the record only by a colleague who, if I recall "ATPM" correctly, had been involved in a romantic relationship with the fabricator. If that sourcing floats your boat where anonymous sourcing does not, welcome aboard. 

paulsurovell said:

I never said that "any and all anonymously sourced reporting" should be discredited.  But when all the reporting on a story is anonymously sourced -- as it is on alleged Russian collusion -- then the story should not be credited.

Am I mistaken to infer from comments earlier in this thread that the Comey notes and Lavrov meeting are also on your list?

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

I never said that "any and all anonymously sourced reporting" should be discredited.  But when all the reporting on a story is anonymously sourced -- as it is on alleged Russian collusion -- then the story should not be credited.

Am I mistaken to infer from comments earlier in this thread that the Comey notes and Lavrov meeting are also on your list?

I don't think it's controversial to say that we won't know what Comey wrote until we see the memo.

With regard to the Lavrov meeting I think one can choose between participants on the record and anonymous sources whose connection to the meeting is unknown.

paulsurovell said:

With regard to the Lavrov meeting I think one can choose between participants on the record and anonymous sources whose connection to the meeting is unknown.

With the administration barring American journalists--while including Russian state-run media--we've entered a new paradigm. And this administration is so dismissive of media that journalists have little choice but to rely almost exclusively on anonymous sources.