There’s fake news, and there’s FAKE NEWS. There’s spin, and then there’s such complete imbecilic fuckery disguised as “reporting,” that the moment you read it, you should ridicule it and block the site. Anyone with a shred of knowledge or an inclination to check actual links in a story that claims to be “news,” should be able to discern fact from bullshit, but just in case, let me demonstrate.
A few days ago, some rabid cock weasel writing for some outfit named DC Memo, that claims to provide “news and commentary from our nation’s capital,” wrote an article titled, “Obama Using Top Secret iPad to Take Pics of Michelle.”
The title unequivocally claims that Barack Obama, who left office in January, is publicly using a classified device that he took from the government to take photos of his wife. This is a federal crime, and the headline is misleading and libelous. Let me explain.
After leaving the presidency, Barack Obama has been spotted using his favorite iPad to take photos of his wife while on a David Geffen-owned megayacht in Tahiti. But this may be no ordinary iPad. A government watchdog speculates that he may have taken the Top Secret version out of the Oval Office, a big no-no.
Note the language.
Barack Obama is using his favorite iPad to take photos of his wife, but it MAY be no ordinary iPad. This is already speculative. The idiot who wrote the piece links to Judicial Watch, claiming that the organization speculates Obama may have taken the TS version of the tablet out of the Oval when he left.
This is no longer fact, as claimed in the title, but conjecture. Further, if you click on the links provided as evidence for said claim, you will see this:
We can’t tell what iPad is being used by the former president, and the story postulates that this is a TS tablet that he somehow stole from the intelligence community and is now publicly using it to take photos of his wife.
But do you know what photo comes up when the story is linked on social media?
Does this look like the photo was taken on a yacht, as the article claims? What kind of fucktard would wear a suit and tie on a yacht?
So what is this absurd claim based on?
The link to Judicial Watch claiming that the organization speculates he may have taken the iPad leads to the organization’s home page. I have done several different searches to find out what, if anything, Judicial Watch has written about an ostensibly missing presidential daily brief (PDB) tablet. I couldn’t find a thing. No speculation about any missing iPad. No accusation – not even an indirect one – about Obama having taken the tablet out of the White House.
Additionally, the TS tablet that contains the PDB is completely disabled and cannot in any way connect to any wi-fi, why in the world would Obama take a photo of her that he cannot share? Being a pretty tech savvy guy, one would think any device he would use to photograph his wife would be able to connect to the net, so that these photos can be shared.
The report claims there is a top secret iPad that went missing during the transition, and claims White House staffers were searching for it. There is no link to any reporting confirming this claim, and no actual source is named. Additionally, the fuckwit who wrote this travesty claims, “The iPad device that Obama is suspected to have taken with him into civilian life still has access to current Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs). Trump associates believe this device may be giving the ex-president an “over the shoulder” view inside the secret workings of the Trump Administration.”
Now, I’m wondering how it is that a tablet that is not wi-fi enabled, and requires the intelligence community to load the information onto it in a secure location daily, which means the old data on it is deleted, can possibly contain information about the “secret workings of the Trump Administration.”
Here’s a clue, it can’t. The “journalistic” douche circus is so eager for a “gotcha” story against Obama, that he contradicts himself in froth flecked zeal to nail the former POTUS. And if you don’t think there’s a mechanism on this tablet that erases all the information on it automatically after a certain amount of time, in case the device gets accidentally lost or left behind, you’re as much of a moron as this “writer” is.
The National Archives, this chucklefuck claims, was also “unaware” of the existence of the iPad, because somehow he thinks the PDB staff can’t reuse the tablets and would hand them over to the National Archives instead.
“A member of the Obama team declined to comment for this report,” he concludes, as if somehow this is a condemnation against the former President.
Perhaps said member thought the story was so stupid, that he considered it to have been a waste of his time to even bother talking to this retardified butt penguin.
So let’s recap.
The title makes a definitive claim that Obama is committing a crime.
The story then speculates that Obama is committing a crime, based on the fact that he has a personal iPad and on spurious claims that there’s a missing presidential iPad that somehow, even though it’s not wi-fi enabled, is receiving current presidential daily briefs, and that Obama is reading them to get intel on the Trump administration… or something.
And to add insult to injury, it provides links that absolutely do not support said speculation and sets a default photo that when shared shows the President in a completely other situation, at another time, that has nothing to do with the original claim that he was using an iPad on a boat while on vacation to take photos of his wife.
This, boys and girls, is how you spot bullshit.
By the way, if you want to keep your sanity, do NOT read the comments at the bottom of the original story. The retardulous FAIL will make your brain bleed.
Don’t say you haven’t been warned.
UPDATE: Looks like the idiotarians removed that “story.” Maybe someone sent them my article? Hmmmmm?
Normally, I wouldn’t call someone a Filthy Antifa Whore (FAW). However, since Moldylocks, who was shown getting punched out at this weekend’s Berkeley protests by some dude everyone claims is a fascist/racist/neo-nazi/somethingorother, is a nasty, unwashed, slovenly sow, and since she did, in fact,
demonstrate riot, throw bottles, and assault people at a rally for a President whom she apparently does not like, and since there are photos of said skank on the Internet baring her unshaven, unwashed, beaver and sprocket, that probably reek of week-old garbage and decaying pork, wide for the world – and presumably her parents – to see, I think FAW is appropriate.
No, I’m not giving you a link, pervs. When I ran across it while doing an image search on the protests the other day, I’m pretty sure I developed a severe case of post-traumatic stress, and I may or may not have gone blind for an unspecified period of time, while desperately stumbling around my house trying to find enough brain bleach to erase that image from my mind forever. Suffice it to say that cum-gurgling sausage junkie gives the term “bearded clam” an entire new meaning.
Her mommy and daddy must be so proud!
The FAW decided to speak out to the uber-friendly media – journowhores who will take any opportunity to make Trump supporters or anyone who didn’t worship at the cankles of Queen Pantsuit – look like a horde of fascist monkeys.
She was just a peaceable protester, you see.
She was just there to show her support, you see.
They were “rushed” by the counter-demonstrators, you see.
Her boyfriend disappeared, you see (oh-so-brave soul, who probably saw some pissed off demonstrators, who decided they’d had just about enough bullshit from the black-clad fascist crowd, and decided to hide, while his filthy hippie whore decided to engage in some assault) and she was just trying to protect herself.
“There was no time for emotion,” she said. “I was just terrified. I didn’t have time to process what was happening to me. All I knew was I was trying to find my boyfriend and not get hit…When it was happening I realized they were trying to crack my skull on the curb and on the rocks in the planter.”
During the entire attack, Rosealma said she never saw any Berkeley police officers. She also said the attack was unprovoked.
“I didn’t exchange words with anyone,” she said. “I was just standing there.”
Funny how the journaljizzer reporting on this story didn’t include photos that clearly show the FAW is lying.
Oh, whoops! Who would that be holding a bottle with the all-telling dreadlocks snaking out from under her hat?
And who would this be, viciously attacking that guy before getting “equal treatment” at the hands of her would-be victim?
Oh, did you want a clearer photo of the FAW getting her ass handed to her as she holds said bottle?
What’s that red arrow pointing to? Would that be a bottle? Gee, but she was just an innocent protester, lending her support, right? She only accidentally ran into that guy’s fist!
And she didn’t plan on violence, right?
Except that she did. Publicly. On Facebook. With her barely literate minions encouraging her “beat they ass.” Of course, now her account has been locked tight, but the Internet is forever, you noxious cum dumpster, and there are plenty of screen shots out there.
None of the “news” outlets covering this story mention this awkwardly inconvenient visual evidence. None of them even tried to appear balanced in any way! They’re simply all falling all over themselves to paint this hairy, walking septic tank of spectacular FAIL as a victim.
I’m used to the media being a completely biased, cocked up horde of communist-fellating fucknozzles. But to pretend to be objective, when there’s so much visual evidence available that contradicts the FAW’s claim of innocent victimhood? Come on!
She was not a victim. She was not innocent. She came to that protest fully prepared to attack those who dared to hold different political views than she did. What she didn’t expect is for the targets of her rage boner to fight back.
Recall when I said to prepare for civil war?
Just remember how that fucking fist felt cracking into your face, you miserable, lying sack of cunt. I’m pretty sure no one is going to play nice with you any longer.
Karma is a bitch.
So the New York Times writes a piece about 45’s CPAC speech quoting him as having “included a promise to throw undocumented immigrants ‘the hell out of the country.'”
Only that was actually an outright lie, as caught by the Gateway Pundit.
Trump said no such thing, according to the transcript of his speech.
We are also going to save countless American lives. As we speak today, immigration offers are finding the gang members, the drug dealers and the criminal aliens and throwing them the hell out of our country.
So what he said was that drug dealers and criminal aliens are getting tossed “the hell out of our country.”
So is the NYT guilty of the very thing of which they accuse Trump – of being a bigoted asshole who pigeonholes all “undocumented” immigrants into the “violent drug dealer” box?
Because it certainly sounds like that’s what the New York Times is doing. They paraphrased the President’s speech and took his words, which referred very specifically to a certain type of alien, and applied them to “undocumented immigrants” writ large.
This says more about the “journalist” who wrote the piece – Glenn Thrush – than it does about Trump.
And, yes, I’m perfectly aware that they’re simply trying to paint the President as a bigot by misquoting him. Question is, how many believe it? If there wasn’t a market for bullshit, the crap would fly.
Take, for example, the flag flap. Apparently, the Russian flags with Trump’s name on them were handed out prior to the 45’s CPAC speech by Democratic operatives. Question is, why did so many CPAC attendees take them and proceed to wave them around?
Because there’s a market for bullshit. They were either too ignorant to know what the Russian flag looks like, or they didn’t care, and grabbed it in their frothing zeal to show Trump their blind adoration.
Whatever the reason, they grabbed up those flags. And whatever the reason, those anxious to believe that Trump is a an anti-immigration bigot, would immediately believe the NYT piece without doing any fact checking.
The fact that the quote is utter bullshit doesn’t matter. It supports their preconceived notions, so it’s good to go.
If there wasn’t a market for bullshit, it wouldn’t exist.
Retired General Michael Flynn was shitcanned from his job as National Security Adviser this week, which gives him the distinct “honor” of being forced out by not just one, but two Presidents! Yes, that’s a pretty impressive feat, and we need to look at this event from an objective perspective.
First and foremost, spying on foreign ambassadors is nothing new. The press has been reporting on this since before Snowden stole millions of files from NSA and handed them over to foreigners to peruse, and if you think we’re the only ones who spy on foreign ambassadors on our soil, I have this bridge.
U.S. installations abroad also remained a primary target for espionage, particularly by the Soviet Union. Twice in one year, the Department learned that the Soviet intelligence agency had seriously compromised security at the embassy in Moscow. In January 1985, the U.S. Marine Corps announced that one of its security guards at the Embassy had passed classified information to a Russian woman.
The fact that Flynn was talking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak made him the subject of what is called “incidental collection.” It means he wasn’t the target, but since conversations are two-way things, he was captured in the intercept as well. That’s a concept that has apparently escaped House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence chair Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who is shitting himself, because “an American citizen had his phone calls recorded.” For the record, no one was spying on Flynn. The target was Kislyak, and the collection on Flynn was incidental. That’s first and foremost.
First, he was talking to the Russian ambassador, who is an agent of a foreign power. Agents of foreign powers are acceptable foreign intelligence targets and the government could have a warrant to surveil Kislyak under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) since 1978.
Next, phone calls are wiretappable. Congress ensured that would be true with the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA).
Further, while wiretapping in the criminal context involves only recording when the targets talk about illegal activity, foreign intelligence wiretapping is comprehensive. All conversations are collected and important bits mined out after the fact.
So, no. This wasn’t a matter of Obama targeting Trump and trying to destroy him, as some conspiritards claim. It also wasn’t Obama operatives conspiring to target the Trump administration.
Fact is Flynn has been a concern to the Intelligence Community long before Trump decided to even run for President.
Let’s remember Flynn in 2010 was removed by current Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, then-CENTCOM commander, and investigated for sharing classified information with Pakistan. Pakistan! Not exactly a close ally. And revealing sensitive U.S. intelligence capabilities being used to monitor the Haqqani network to Pakistan is not exactly something that’s encouraged. This from the same guy who screeched “LOCK HER UP!” about Queen Pantsuit during the Republican National Convention for putting “our nation’s security at extremely high risk with her careless use of her private email server”
So while Hillary used her private email server “carelessly,” Flynn intentionally shared classified information with other countries – more than once – and never punished for it, because he apparently didn’t know better. Sound familiar?
Although Flynn lacked authorization to share the classified material, he was not disciplined or reprimanded after the investigation concluded that he did not act “knowingly” and that “there was no actual or potential damage to national security as a result,” according to Army records obtained by The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act.
Flynn was even bragging of the fact that he shared classified information he was not authorized to share with our allies Britain and Australia! “I’m proud of that one. Accuse me of sharing intelligence in combat with our closest allies, please.”
Whether he likes it or not, there are protocols and channels through which one has to go to release intelligence – even to our closest allies. Flynn, who was accused of telling allies about the activities of other agencies in Afghanistan, including the CIA, apparently felt he was above such constraints. He wanted to do it, so intelligence protocols be damned! He did what he did, because apparently he felt he was too important to follow procedures, and his mission was too critical to be limited by bureaucracy.
This was all long before Trump, as was Flynn’s now infamous trip to Russia to celebrate RT’s anniversary alongside President Putin and rub asses with Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU). While Flynn was no longer DIA director, having been forced out by the Obama Administration, he received a DIA briefing before heading out to Russia and got paid for speaking there.
Of course, these “speaking fees” weren’t exactly for a traditional address. Flynn received an undisclosed amount of money for agreeing to be used as a propaganda tool by the Russian owned and controlled RT.
‘I was asked by my speaker’s bureau, LAI. I do public speaking. It was in Russia. It was a paid speaking opportunity,’ Flynn told the paper.
‘The gig was to do an interview with [RT correspondent] Sophie Shevardnadze. It was an interview in front of the forum, probably 200 people in the audience,’ he said.
‘I had a great trip. I was the first U.S. officer ever allowed inside the headquarters of the GRU [Russian intelligence]. I was able to brief their entire staff,’ Flynn said.
‘I gave them a leadership OPD. [a professional development class on leadership] and talked a lot about the way the world’s unfolding.
Flynn believes Russia could be an invaluable ally in the war against Islamic extremism. He said so during the RT forum. And he’s not wrong. The problem with sharing those views on a forum like RT is the optics. The forum took place after Russia illegally annexed Crimea, after more than a year of Russian funding of militant separatists in Ukraine, and after two years of the United States imposing economic sanctions against Russia for threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors. It doesn’t look great when the ousted director of DIA heads over to Russia and advocates for closer relations. It looks like a bitter former employee impugning his former boss’ foreign policy.
But besides that, we have no idea what was said in the GRU briefing. Given Flynn’s former penchant for briefing sensitive intelligence about IC operations “unknowingly” in a presentation in Afghanistan, the concerns about his trip aren’t unwarranted.
Again, this was all pre-Trump, so to claim that somehow the IC is targeting the President through Flynn is just disingenuous, given the concerns about Flynn’s continued flaunting and disregard for good intelligence practices, since long before the Presidency was even a gleam in Trump’s eye.
Once Trump won, and announced that Flynn was to be his National Security Adviser, I can’t blame old intel hands for freaking out a bit, given Flynn’s history. When Flynn spoke with Kislyak the day sanctions were announced, and then lied about the conversation to the Vice President, this became an even bigger concern. I said at the time that even if he didn’t mention sanctions – about which the President-Elect Transition Team was briefed prior to them being announced – the optics were worrying, to say the least.
Is it any surprise that a National Security Adviser to the President of the United States who doesn’t understand what he should and should not release to foreign powers, who doesn’t see that perceptions about him impugning U.S. foreign policy on an adversary’s state-owned media channel and chatting with said adversary’s Ambassador prior to a critical foreign policy announcement would be concerning as the leader of our country’s national security apparatus?
No, the IC is not trying to bring down Trump by targeting Flynn. They’re right to be concerned.
Which brings me to the leaker, whoever it might be.
The screeching conspiritards are right in one regard. Whoever leaked the information about the intercepts between Kislyak and Flynn did so illegally. While it’s common knowledge that we spy on the Russians (DUH!), releasing that information is illegal.
Listen I get it. Whoever leaked these conversations to the public had to have been paralyzingly concerned about Flynn. Hell, I was worried about having someone like that sitting in charge of the National Security Council and receiving sensitive information. Flynn was a profound concern for the IC, and whoever leaked that information had to have known that if caught, they would be prosecuted and would likely lose their job and their freedom, but was concerned enough to do it anyway.
And while identifying Flynn internally was legal, because his identity was critical to the analysis of Kislyak’s calls, the leak of the unminimized (unmasked) identity of Kislyak’s interlocutor to the public is and should be punishable by law.
Whoever leaked this information wreaked indescribable havoc.
They gave an adversary information about collection methods – signals intelligence – without which, we probably no longer have the ability to conduct surveillance on our targets.
They handed our enemies insight into the workings of the Presidential administration. Such insight is gold for our adversaries.
It gave Russia a window into the chaos in our national security apparatus.
It showed Russia our weaknesses.
This is unacceptable under any circumstances, no matter how concerning Flynn’s actions were, and make no mistake, they were worrisome.
But there was more at stake than just Flynn, and while we don’t know how compromised he was by the Russians, if at all, and whether his actions were due to arrogant stupidity or an actual desire to betray our country to the Russians, incalculable damage was done by whoever leaked this information to the public, and that cannot be ignored.
So while Flynn’s connections – and anyone else in the Administration who has had questionable interactions with the Russians – are a fair target for law enforcement and intel investigators, so are the people who are leaking this sensitive information.
Leaks are no reason to cheer. They’re a reason to be afraid.
I read an interesting opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today. BLUF: Donald Trump has spent the past year and a half trolling the news media with everything from outright lies, to outrageous statements, to egotistical exaggeration, but it’s all part of a greater strategy: to send the media off on pointless “fact checking” errands in search of intrinsically worthless data.
Meanwhile, Trump does what Trump does.
Now that he is president, reporters assigned to Mr. Trump are in a tough position. They have to pay close attention to what the White House says, but they know the White House may give them garbage and dare them to spend an entire working day trying to verify or debunk it. Meanwhile Mr. Trump will make the ordinary decisions any president must make—court nominations, executive orders, negotiations with foreign leaders—while reporters are off trying to disprove some idiotic claim about the president’s approval ratings. They’ll feel as if they’re in an impossible bind, trolled into looking the other way, futilely insisting on their authority as the nation’s guardians of truth.
I’ve often said on this very blog that I don’t care about the idiot minutiae that the media digs up on 45. I don’t care how many books he’s sold. I don’t care how big his inauguration crowds were compared with 44. I don’t care if and when he opposed the Iraq war. He wasn’t a public official back then – merely a bloviating rich guy – and it’s completely irrelevant to me what he said on the Howard Stern show about the Iraq war more than a decade ago. While the media goes off chasing down Trump’s latest claims, blows hot air about which Trump lawsuits we should be keeping track of in 2017, and dutifully covering Charlie Sheen’s tweets about how much he hates Trump, Trump’s National Security Adviser Flynn was chatting on the phone with his Russian counterpart – on the day sanctions were announced. Now, I’m not saying he revealed anything about the sanctions, but the optics aren’t good, given his connections to the Russians. Two weeks later, the media was catching up. “Oh! He spoke to the Russians on the day Treasury announced sanctions!”
Barton Swaim, the author of the column, suggests that the media are going to have to find new ways to deal with Trump. He doesn’t do business in any way they’re used to, whether you agree with him or not.
I would suggest the media start actually covering the story, covering the presidency, and letting us know what is going on, rather than wasting time spinning, “fact-checking,” and analyzing every word he says to death, in an attempt to discredit him.
If you’re going to be the “nation’s guardians of truth,” perhaps you should start by reporting actual news rather than chasing down silly, inconsequential claims. Stop digging for ways to discredit Trump on stupid issues, such as how many people attended his inauguration. Nobody gives a shit! You are reporters. So report, goddamit! Report accurately. Report the truth. Leave spin and analysis at the door, because frankly, most of you aren’t sufficiently versed in policy to analyze it.
Stop blurring the line between journalism and editorializing. No one gives a fuck what you think. Report the story, and let the audience decide what they think about it.
Confirm accuracy before publishing stories with buzzwords such as “unverified,” in a pathetic effort to beat everyone to the story. Verify.
And most of all, make rational decisions about what is important to the American people, and leave Buzzfeed, Breitbart, and other clickbait purveyors to their tabloid chaff.