Trump claims victory over Russian FAKE NEWS

by The Right Scoop

This morning Trump took to Twitter to blame ‘sleazebag political operatives’ for pushing this phony fake news about Russian operatives having compromising information on him:

What Trump is referring to is a report by the WSJ that blames both Republican and Democrat opponents of Trump for creating the dossier in the first place:

A former British intelligence officer who is now a director of a private security-and-investigations firm has been identified as the author of the dossier of unverified allegations about President-elect Donald Trump’s activities and connections in Russia, people familiar with the matter say.

Christopher Steele, a director of London-based Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., prepared the dossier, the people said. The document, which an official close to the matter said was prepared under contract to both Republican and Democratic adversaries of Mr. Trump, alleges the Kremlin colluded with Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and claims that Russian officials have compromising evidence of Mr. Trump’s behavior that could be used to blackmail him.

Well that certainly adds a new twist. The news made it sound as though this British intel officer had just come across these things on his own in a covert way or something. But now we find out that he was hired by Trump’s adversaries to come up with this.

Looks like CNN fell for this hook, line, and sinker.

Yossi Gestetner, a TRS reader and PR guy in New York, has written an interesting article explaining why he thinks CNN is just as culpable, if not more so, than Buzzfeed in this Russian dossier saga.

Here is why CNN is much worse than Buzzfeed regarding the gossip file which made news this week:

1. CNN reported about the gossip file two hours before Buzzfeed posted it. CNN basically set the stage on this thing.

2. Buzzfeed’s sub headline and its first two paragraphs called it a dossier. A “dossier” is a collection of info that anyone can put together; Buzzfeed was basically telling you the file is work of what appears to be a civilian, but CNN’s online report never called it a dossier. Instead, CNN repeatedly called it “memos” giving it a more intel-sounding appearance. In one place CNN calls it “raw memos” suggesting these are “raw memos” straight from the intel field. (BF used the term dossier four times, and 1 time each of the following: memo, memos, report and reports.)

3. CNN wrote that the former intelligence operative has a “vast network throughout Europe”; again giving the impression that the author is still in the thick of the intel business and thus his “raw memos” are likely credible.

4. Buzzfeed wrote in the sub-headline “the allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors” but CNN wrote “US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.” With this paragraph CNN a) suggested that the Intelligence Community deemed the gossip file “credible enough” to be relevant, b) that the file is sourced and c) that the sources too are deemed credible by the IC, but the fact is the file has no real sourcing such as wiretap transcripts, photos or names, and James Clapper said “the IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable.” Quite notably, Clapper’s statement does not use the term “memo” even once! His statement calls it a “private security company document.”

5. Buzzfeed’s item said the file has “unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations,” but CNN wrote the FBI “has not confirmed many essential details in the memos” which leads you to believe – falsely – that a substantial portion of the “memos” has been verified just not “many essential details.”

6. Buzzfeed wrote its reporters “have been investigating various alleged facts in the dossier but have not verified or falsified them.” Basically, Buzzfeed admits that they are chasing this to no avail but CNN wrote “at this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations.” These words on its own and especially in context of CNN building up the validity of the file have you thinking that CNN got hold of the file a few hours ago and that CNN thinks the report is potentially true but they just didn’t get around to independently checking it. These insinuations by CNN are false because CNN – like many news outlets likely – had this file for months and was – likely – unable to confirm any of its content.

7. Buzzfeed gives specific problems that they identified in the file such as spelling mistakes and inconsistencies in easy-to-verify facts, but CNN has not shared any anecdote of their investigative work that would give the reader doubt about the credibility of the gossip file.

8. Buzzfeed once again sounded the warning bells by writing, “It is not just unconfirmed: It includes some clear errors” but CNN has not once sowed doubt in the reader’s mind about the gossip file the way Buzzfeed did by writing “It is not just unconfirmed: It includes some clear errors.”

Basically, Buzzfeed told you in so many ways that the file is a joke but CNN via Jake Tapper and others gave it as much credibility as possible including in the opening: “Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump.” Well, most if not all IC briefings to a PEOTUS and POTUS are “classified,” so of course it was “classified documents” but the terminology by CNN and especially in context of what they wrote in the rest of the news item had you believe that the gossip file is based on sensitive intel and thus the need for the intel to be placed in “classified documents.”

It is fair to say that the reason the gossip file went viral so fast is because CNN built up the credibility of it while Buzzfeed – its decision to publish it notwithstanding – kept telling everyone that the file is a pile of garbage. CNN’s journalistic malpractice is not in whether Trump was or was not “presented” a 2 pages summary of the gossip file. CNN’s malpractice is in hyping the credibility of the gossip file!

So how much more fake news will the media fall for in their rush to create a cloud of controversy over Trump?


Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.