Comment: The mainstream media keeps talking despite their now total lack of credibility and some people keep listening for mysterious reasons. Let's deconstruct some of their lies to see how they operate.
Russian officials bragged in conversations during the presidential campaign that they had cultivated a strong relationship with former Trump adviser retired Gen. Michael Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team, sources told CNN.
The conversations deeply concerned US intelligence officials, some of whom acted on their own to limit how much sensitive information they shared with Flynn, who was tapped to become Trump's national security adviser, current and former governments officials said.
"This was a five-alarm fire from early on," one former Obama administration official said, "the way the Russians were talking about him." Another former administration official said Flynn was viewed as a potential national security problem.
Comment: Note the complete lack of citing any source for the nonsense these people are peddling.
The conversations picked up by US intelligence officials indicated the Russians regarded Flynn as an ally, sources said. That relationship developed throughout 2016, months before Flynn was caught on an intercepted call in December speaking with Russia's ambassador in Washington, Sergey Kislyak. That call, and Flynn's changing story about it, ultimately led to his firing as Trump's first national security adviser.
Officials cautioned, however, that the Russians might have exaggerated their sway with Trump's team during those conversations.
Flynn's lawyer declined to comment.
Comment: Makes sense: why comment on completely made up nonsense?
"We are confident that when these inquiries are complete there will be no evidence to support any collusion between the campaign and Russia," a White House official said in a statement. "... This matter is not going to distract the President or this administration from its work to bring back jobs and keep America safe."
Flynn has emerged as a central figure -- and Trump's biggest liability -- in the intensifying investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. His financial ties to Turkish government interests, which paid him $530,000 in a lobbying deal that he failed to disclose during the campaign, are also under scrutiny by federal investigators.
Comment: Note the attempt to tie Trump and Russia financially by immediately following those allegations with alleged links to Turkey, despite being completely unrelated to Trump and Russia.
And nevermind the large amounts of actual evidence that exists that Hillary Clinton was running a pay-to-play scheme for probably as long as she's had any kind of relevancy in politics:
- Pay to play: Clinton Foundation donor got State Department invite — and Bill got $17M
- Pay to play: Ukraine oligarch, big Clinton Foundation donor, demanded meeting with Bill to discuss Maidan failure
- Pay for play: Latest Podesta emails reveal Clinton's demanded large donations for meetings with influential figures
- 15k new Hillary emails discovered - more evidence of Clinton Foundation pay-to-play scheme
- State Department begins cover up of Hillary's "pay-to-play" Clinton Foundation scandal
One major concern for Obama administration officials was the subject of conversations between Flynn and Kislyak that took place shortly after President Barack Obama slapped new sanctions on Russia for meddling in the election. Sources tell CNN that Flynn told Kislyak that the Trump administration would look favorably on a decision by Russia to hold off on retaliating with its own sanctions. The next day, Putin said he wouldn't retaliate.
Comment: "COINCIDENCE? WE THINK NOT!" - or, one could just observe how Russia has operated over the last decade or two to know that they don't engage in the same petty retaliatory politics that the west does.
Sources say Flynn also told Kislyak that the incoming Trump administration would revisit US sanctions on Russia once in office. The US has applied sanctions on Russia since 2014 for its actions in Ukraine.
Comment: Which is also nonsense because what happened in Ukraine was that the west funded a color revolution to get neo-Nazis into power while Crimea overwhelmingly voted (96.8% at final count) to leave that crazy nonsense and reunite with Russia:
- Crimea votes to leave Ukraine and 'no one has complained about referendum'
- People Power! 95.7% of Crimeans vote to join Russia in preliminary results
- Crimea chose wisely: Growth fastest in 20 yrs thanks to Russia, sanctions
- 'Everything is great': Crimea celebrates 2 years since historic referendum to rejoin Russia
- Third anniversary of Crimean referendum: 'Everyone I spoke with in Crimea wanted to secede from Ukraine'
Flynn's calls with Kislyak in December have received the most attention, but his relationship with the Russian ambassador goes back four years.
He first met Kislyak in June 2013 during an official trip to Russia, according to The Washington Post. He led the Defense Intelligence Agency at the time and met his counterparts at the Russian military intelligence agency known as the GRU.
Comment: Wow, the first actual citation in the article! Well, except it's citing the CIA-linked Washington Post:
The Post's new owner, Jeff Bezos, is the founder and CEO of Amazon — which recently landed a $600 million contract with the CIA. But the Post's articles about the CIA are not disclosing that the newspaper's sole owner is the main owner of CIA business partner Amazon.There goes any sense of credibility there.
In December 2015, Flynn attended a gala honoring the Kremlin-run TV network RT. Documents released last month revealed that Flynn was paid $45,000 to attend the event, where he sat at the same table as Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Officials noticed an uptick in communication between Flynn and Kislyak shortly after Flynn's trip to Moscow in December 2015.
Trump angrily denied any collusion with Russia this week and denounced the newest investigation -- now in the hands of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III -- as "a witch hunt."
Comment: If Trump "angrily" denied any collusion with Russia, which is questionable in and of itself, it's probably because there was and is no collusion and he's getting tired and annoyed with baseless accusations.
And he has remained steadfast in his loyalty to Flynn, even as the scrutiny surrounding his fired aide continues to weigh down his presidency. Trump urged then-FBI Director James Comey in February to drop the bureau's investigation into Flynn and "let this go," according to a memo Comey wrote at the time. The conversation, first reported by The New York Times earlier this week, has opened the President up to charges from critics of obstruction of justice.
Comment: Well that's ridiculous, because Comey already stated under oath that Trump didn't obstruct any investigations and the firing likely had a lot more to do with his own questionable connections and overall incompetence:
Trump's obvious bond with Flynn, like his relationship with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other top advisers, appears rooted in the fact that they supported his then-longshot presidential campaign last year at a time when most Republicans were ostracizing him.
Comment: Wow, so much nonsense in one article. Who makes this stuff up? Oh wait, the author names are right on the article: Gloria Borger, Pamela Brown, Jim Sciutto, Marshall Cohen and Eric Lichtblau. Apparently they're the ones who made this stuff up, while CNN, with its utter lack of journalistic integrity, ran a story that was nearly entirely uncited, with no critical analysis and factually verifiable lies, doing an incredible disservice to everyone reading its "news".
Let's start with the facts: there are 2 actual citations in this article, one overtly funded by the CIA (The Washington Post), and the other with ties to the CIA (The New York Times). From The CIA is one of the main peddlers of fake news: Newly-declassified docs: So basically, the only actual sources in the article are from the CIA.
Worth considering at this point is why, aside from creating propaganda, would the CIA fund a "news" outlet for any reason, ever? How is influencing the "news" in America in its charter in any way whatsoever?
Well, it isn't, so the only reasonable conclusion is that they have an agenda and they want people to believe in their agenda. Since they aren't funding news that is based on objective facts, then it's clear that they want people to believe in something other than the truth. Thus, their goal is to get people to believe in lies. Isn't that the definition of fake news?
Next, there are 10 uncited sources in the article. Without citing a source, there's no way for that source to be critically analyzed--that is, to determine the level of accuracy of their information. At best, the people this article cites exist and don't understand what's actually going on--maybe they have personal agendas and biases, or bad information, or simply lack the context and understanding to provide any kind of useful insight into the political situation. At worst, an uncited source is an extremely easy way to completely make something up to take advantage of the trust that some people have in CNN. Because their sources are uncited, there's simply no way to know for certain.
The article also clearly makes a number of statements that are factually false; we include citations so that one can determine that they are factually false--note the difference. If CNN had any sense of journalistic integrity or a sense of duty to help inform the populace, they would do the same.
Considering all this, what else is there left to call this
garbage"journalism" but fake news?