Finally, some real news about the Mueller indictments

I don’t read MSN very much, so I’m not familiar with their editorial practices, but I do read the NYT and Washington Post almost every day, and they frequently print editorials with viewpoints opposite to their general editorial stances, at least several a week. I also read Fox News, and they do, the same thing. For example, today Fox News has an editorial titled Trump's war on media is truly dangerous.I think those who approach what they read with an attitude dependent upon the source and/or whose opinions are already locked and loaded are going to find only what confirms their views. A better approach to opinion pieces from both sides is to examine how much of what they say is based upon established facts.Percy

I can't help but feel you're confusing news with opinion. Regarding news pieces, what are some examples from anti-Trump sources that are reporting actual fake news, i.e., news that isn't true?I can use an article from today's New York Times: Trump Belittles Aide Caught in Russia Inquiry; Calls Him ‘Liar’First let's examine the headline. Did Trump belittle the "aide caught in Russia inquiry" (George Papadopoulos), or is that a lie? Trump wrote on Twitter, "Few people knew the young, low level volunteer named George, who has already proven to be a liar." So it is absolutely true that Trump called Papadopoulos a liar, but did he belittle him by calling him a "young, low level volunteer." Well, in 2016 when Trump introduced Papadopoulos as a member of his 5-person foreign policy team he described him as, "He's an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy." So it is also true that Trump tried to belittle Papadopoulos.By the way, it is true that Papadopoulos is a liar. That's what he pleaded guilty to, lying to the FBI.Score so far for this NYT article: Truth: 1; Lies: 0Now let's examine the first paragraph of the article:

quote:

---

President Trump on Tuesday tried to diminish the significance of a former foreign policy adviser who admitted to lying to the F.B.I. about how, during last year’s presidential campaign, he sought to meet with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton based on purloined emails.

---

That first part was already covered in the headline and found true. About whether "he sought to meet with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton based on purloined emails," that is also true.Current score: Truth: 2; Lies: 0

quote:

---

In his first comment on this aspect of the case being developed by the special counsel investigation, Mr. Trump did not deny that the foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, worked to collaborate with Russia. He simply brushed off his significance and focused on the fact that Mr. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. to cover up the contacts with Russia.

---

It's true that Trump did not deny that Papadopoulos tried to collaborate with Russia, that he tried to minimize his significance, and that he focused on the fact that Papadopoulos is a liar.Current score: Truth: 3; Lies: 0

quote:

---

As for the indictment of his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, the president repeated that the crimes alleged took place outside the context of the election contest.

---

It is true that Trump repeated that Manafort's alleged crimes did not involve the election, and Trump was accurate in stating that.Current score: Truth: 4; Lies: 0

quote:

---

As he has repeatedly in recent days, Mr. Trump sought to turn attention to Democrats, pointing to the resignation of Tony Podesta, the powerhouse Democratic lobbyist who also faces scrutiny by Mr. Mueller and whose brother, John D. Podesta, was Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman.

---

It is true that Trump has repeatedly responded to news from the Mueller investigation by seeking to focus attention on the Democrats, usually by asking why no one's investigating Clinton, but in this case by mentioning the resignation of Tony Podesta. The specific tweet: "The biggest story yesterday, the one that has the Dems in a dither, is Podesta running from his firm. What he know about Crooked Dems is earth shattering. He and his brother could Drain The Swamp, which would be yet another campaign promise fulfilled. Fake News weak!"Current score: Truth: 5; Lies: 0

quote:

---

Mr. Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, were charged in a 12-count indictment with a series of money laundering, tax evasion and foreign lobbying crimes stemming from work for pro-Russian political leaders in Ukraine. While the crimes alleged began years before Mr. Trump’s campaign, the indictment asserted that Mr. Manafort’s scheme to defraud continued through last year until early this year.

---

This is what everyone is reporting about the Manafort indictment, so I don't believe it's necessary to go off and actually read the indictment to judge this true.Current score: Truth: 6; Lies: 0

quote:

---

Mr. Papadopoulos was named by Mr. Trump in March 2016 as one of five foreign policy advisers. While the president and his team now seek to minimize Mr. Papadopoulos’s importance, at the time Mr. Trump described him in flattering terms. He’s an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy, he told The Washington Post.

---

This is just straight reporting. The link is to a transcript of a meeting with Trump, so there's little doubt about what he said then about Papadopoulos.Current score: Truth: 7; Lies: 0

quote:

---

According to a statement of offense signed as part of his guilty plea, Mr. Papadopoulos admitted that he spent months last year cultivating contacts in an effort to arrange meetings between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian government officials.

---

If you doubt this paragraph then just click on the link that includes relevant excerpts from the Papadopoulos indictment.Current score: Truth: 8; Lies: 0This is getting time consuming so I'm going to stop now. If you like you can read the rest of the article and let me know if you find any lies. An opinion piece is not "fake news." It's not news at all. It's an opinion piece, in this case an opinion piece you don't agree with. Trump's biggest problem is with the truth. Anything he doesn't like is "fake news" to him, whether it was true or not.--Percy

I agree about the tendency to report sensationalistic news, that's what brings readers, but I disagree about any general bias in straight news reporting toward the outlet's general editorial stance. Unless your standard is perfection in both fact and objectivity, most respectable news sources print straight factual news. Here's an example of straight factual reporting from today's New York Times: 8 Killed in ‘Act of Terror’ in Manhattan. After reading the article I'd say it's a typical example of factual reporting from the Times.CNN, that supposed icon of "fake news", printed a straight factual article while still displaying their sensationalistic side: New Yorkers defiant after deadliest terror attack in the city since 9/11Here are some other news sources that filed straight factual stories:

• BBC: New York truck attack: What we know and don't know
  
• Chicago Tribune: Truck Attack leaves 8 dead in 'cowardly act of terror' in New York
  
• Chicago Sun Times: ‘Cowardly act of terror’: Truck driver kills at least 8 on bike path
  
• Los Angeles Times: Driver kills at least 8 in Manhattan in what officials say was a terrorist attack
  
• NPR: Suspect In New York City Truck Attack Worked As Commercial Truck, Uber Driver
  
• Fox News: NYC terror attack leaves 8 dead, several injured; suspect's notes pledged ISIS loyalty

All these articles say pretty much the same thing. Some had facts others didn't, that's about the only difference. This is the nature of most news, just reporting the facts.--Percy

No, you don't know the difference between an opinion piece and a news article. You demonstrate that clearly in your very message. No it doesn't. More about that later. The Flaherty piece (Manafort Indictment Shows That Mueller Is A Fraud) is an opinion piece, not a news story. The opinion starts right at the very headline where he calls Mueller a fraud. You're making this up. I just broke down half a news article from the NYT in my Message 44. It was all truth and no lies and certainly no opinion. You're again making this up. In your first sentence you claimed to know "an opinion piece is not news," and now you're claiming that there's no difference between news and opinion. You can't even stay consistent across a single paragraph. But the article isn't about "the overarching claim that Trump colluded with Russia." The article is about the Mueller indictments. By the way, apparently from a legal standpoint collusion isn't a crime, while conspiracy is. Likely Mueller will be trying to prove conspiracy. So you are conceding that the article was factual and did not contain "fake news". As far as the NYT article about the Mueller indictments (Trump Belittles Aide Caught in Russia Inquiry; Calls Him ‘Liar’), what are the "irrelevant truths", what are the "big truths", and how did one cover up the other? So far all we have is an example of straight factual news reporting. Where is an example of this "fake news" reporting you claim exists? News that reflects poorly on your guy is not "fake news". Not that Trump isn't occasionally right, but mostly he lies. Right from day 1 when he made false claims about attendance numbers at his inauguration to the present day with his Monday tweet of, "Report out that Obama Campaign paid $972,000 to Fusion GPS. The firm also got $12,400,000 (really?) from DNC. Nobody knows who OK'd!" Turns out this is false, see Trump’s latest Mueller distraction: An incorrect tweet on a misleading story. A great deal of negative news about Trump would go away if he would just stop tweeting falsehoods and repugnant opinions. Flaherty's *opinion* piece, you mean. The possibility that the Trump campaign may have conspired with the Russians in 2016 to bolster Trump and harm Clinton has nothing to do with a uranium deal in 2010, which has been debunked numerous times anyway,
for example, The ‘dossier’ and the uranium deal: A guide to the latest allegations.The two are not connected. Mueller was appointed by deputy attorney general Rod J. Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, in response to concerns about Trump's dismissal of then FBI director Comey, Trump's admission that it was because of the Russian allegations and Comey's refusal to drop the investigation of former national security advisor Michael T. Flynn over related concerns. Yes, we know what Flaherty is saying in his *opinion* piece. I think all you have to catch up on is telling the difference between news and opinion.--Percy

Link to the Flaherty piece: Manafort Indictment Shows That Mueller Is A Fraud

quote:

---

More than anything else, the indictments of Paul Manafort and his partner Rick Gates demonstrate the fraudulent nature of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The probe has little to do with Russian interference in last year’s election. Instead, it is calculated to protect Mueller and a cabal within the FBI and Justice Department who covered up crimes by Hillary Clinton because they believed it was likely that she would be elected president.

---

Mueller was appointed by deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee. Rosenstein's motivation as a Republican appointee to appoint an anti-Trump special counsel is completely lacking. He appointed Mueller to investigate Trump campaign connections to the Russians. He did not appoint Mueller to investigate, let alone cover up, Hillary Clinton crimes from seven years ago. That's absurd.

quote:

---

And once Mueller and then his friend and successor James Comey covered for Hillary, they had to keep covering. There was a reason that Mueller was so available when he was so swiftly appointed Special Counsel in May by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The Comey firing threatened to expose all that these same officials had swept under the rug. Yes, Rosenstein bit the bullet and drafted the memo that was the legal basis for firing Comey, but it would be followed by appointing Mueller.

---

There's a lot of undescribed accusation and little logic in this paragraph. Again, Rosenstein is a Trump appointee. His appointment of Mueller was widely praised by both Democrats and Republicans.

quote:

---

In July, Comey preemptively exonerated Hillary despite her maintenance of a private email server and mishandling of classified material. By accusing her of being extremely careless, he purposely distracted attention from the context of the emails.

---

This is untrue. The content and context of the emails were extensively examined.

quote:

---

Hillary and Bill Clinton operated an aggressive shakedown operation of domestic and foreign interests, many of which are unsavory and criminal.

---

This is a completely unsupported and undescribed allegation.

quote:

---

Concealing the true nature of the operation was at least part of the Clintons’ motivation for the private server.

---

The FBI was able to recover around 17,000 of the 31,000 deleted emails that Clinton said were personal. There's was no indication of "an aggressive shakedown operation of domestic and foreign interests." One wonders how, if the Clinton's were so successful at covering up all their supposed illegal activities, Flaherty came to know about them?

quote:

---

The outlines of the Uranium One deal were not a secret. Media outlets like the New York Times reported on the U.S. government approval of a partial sale of the Canadian mining company to Rosatom, a Russian firm, while those who benefitted donated to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a single speech in Moscow.

---

The uranium deal was outside the purview of the State Department, but I object to the donation to the Clinton Foundation by the Rosatom chairman and to the $500,000 Bill Clinton speech. While the Clinton Foundation is a non-profit dedicated to promoting globalization from which neither Clinton receives any financial compensation, it looks bad, and the State Department was one of the nine agencies that had to sign off on the deal. Maybe nothing illegal took place, but that doesn't make it right.

quote:

---

Then came more detailed reports about how the FBI cracked the case of a major Russian effort to penetrate the North American uranium industry through a host of illegal activities, but somehow the whole matter was slow-walked and kept from U.S. government officials who had to approve the Uranium One deal. Mueller and Comey ultimately supervised the probe.

---

The only reference I was able to find to this on the web was Flaherty's own link. I don't know if it's true or not, but the charge that Clinton gave away 20% of American uranium has been debunked many, many times, for instance, No, Hillary Clinton did not "give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in the US.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, the FBI’s email investigation was supervised by now-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who has significant connections to the Clintons through his wife Jill McCabe. Hillary headlined a fundraiser for a group supporting Jill McCabe’s campaign for the Virginia state senate, as first reported in the Wall Street Journal. The National Legal and Policy Center subsequently exposed more Clintonista support, including from then-Clinton Foundation operative Doug Band who wrote a personal check for $50,000.

---

Nothing in this paragraph seems anything but innocuous.

quote:

---

The plot thickened last week when the bombshell hit that it was Hillary’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee that paid for the Fusion GPS dossier. Reporters were chagrined to realize that they had been lied to repeatedly for months and months. Hillary now claims that the first she heard of it was when the dossier memo was printed by BuzzFeed in January, a likely lie. As long as this what did Hillary know and when did Hillary know it question is of no interest to Mueller, his investigation has no credibility whatsoever. But therein lies the dilemma for Mueller. A real probe of Hillary would mean a review of his own actions and those of his colleagues. He’s cornered.

---

I agree that the funding sources for the dossier should be investigated, but investigating Hillary Clinton is not Mueller's mandate. They'll need another special counsel for that. Of course, much has already been uncovered about the funding of the dossier, and there doesn't seem to be much there, except in Trump tweets and opinion pieces by Trump supporters.

quote:

---

Mueller’s strategy is clear. He has to rescue himself, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein and others from their complicity in Hillary’s dealings with the Russians. Mueller is creating a diversion by going after Manafort, the lowest of low-hanging fruit. Just about any inquiry into Manafort’s dealings over the years was sure to yield results.

---

This is just silly. Mueller cannot investigate Clinton about a uranium deal that took place in 2010 while she was Secretary of State because he's supposed to be investigating the possibility that the Trump campaign worked with the Russians in the 2016 campaign.

quote:

---

Donald Trump’s demeanor invites assumptions by some about his commitment to democratic values, but it is Hillary and her campaign that colluded with the Russians, paid the hit squad Fusion GPS to manufacture and plant information on her opponent, and hired people to provoke violence at Trump rallies.

---

This is just a list of unsubstantiated allegations.

quote:

---

The Clintons’ ruthlessness, along with the unwillingness of the nation’s top enforcement officials to stand up to them, has created a Constitutional crisis.

---

The election was a year ago. How long do Trump and his supporters think they can continue distracting attention from their own problems by crying "Clinton"?--Percy

It's obvious you're not even reading my posts. You're just repeating your talking points like a parrot.Mueller was appointed by Trump appointee Rod Rosenstein. In effect you're claiming that Trump's White House appointed Mueller to carry out the investigation so that he could instead cover Hillary Clinton's "tracks" and his own. Why on earth would the Trump White House do that? You're not making any sense.You didn't reply to my Message 53, so I'm still wondering:

• How could you possibly know the difference between an opinion piece and a news article if, "News these days is really just opinion?"
  ​
• How do you reconcile my break down of half a new article from the NYT in my Message 44 showing that it was all truth, no lies, and no opinion, with your claim that, "News and opinion are so blurred on the left anyway it hardly matters."?
  ​
• Why are you still using the word collusion when, as I said in Message 53, "By the way, apparently from a legal standpoint collusion isn't a crime, while conspiracy is. Likely Mueller will be trying to prove conspiracy."
  ​
• What are the "irrelevant truths" covering up the "big truths" in the NYT article (Trump Belittles Aide Caught in Russia Inquiry; Calls Him ‘Liar’)?
  ​
• Where is an example of this "fake news" reporting you claim exists? News that reflects poorly on your guy is not "fake news".
  ​
• Given how often and determinedly Trump lies, what makes you think he's right that the Mueller probe is a witch hunt?
  ​
• If Trump and his campaign is innocent, why isn't he determined that the special counsel that his administration appointed get to the truth of things and prove everyone innocent? By the way, the likelihood of proving everyone innocent at this point is nil given that George Papadopoulos has already pled guilty.
  ​
• Why does it make any sense for Trump to respond to developments in the Mueller investigation with accusations against Clinton that are totally unrelated? Do you think judges are reading Trump's tweets and reasoning, "Mueller's request for indictments fulfill all legal requirements, but I'll rule against them because no one is investigating Clinton."? What sense does that make?

--Percy

Hi Faith,Taq already replied to your message, but he was kind of brief and I'd like to examine your post in greater detail. Someone's sure bought a line, but I don't think it's Taq. The Flaherty opinion piece is full of "either false or unverified allegations." You seem to be accepting them unquestioningly. But that's not a fact. That's a fiction made up by the alt-right. How is it "fake news"? Isn't it true that Mueller obtained indictments of Mannfort and Gates? Isn't it true that Mueller obtained a guilty plea from George Papadopoulos? What is it, exactly, that you're alleging is fake? The "alt-right" calls everything fake news that they disagree with. Calling stuff fake news they've been very successful at, actually demonstrating fake news barely at all. That's because the problem of "fake news" is made up, not real. The Republicans control the executive branch and both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court again has a conservative majority. All the power lies on the side of the Republicans and the conservatives. If anyone has the power to suppress truth it is Trump and his administration, and they've been doing their darndest at it so far.--Percy

What evidence would that be? If the evidence says that nothing took place, why did George Papadopoulos plead guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian government? How are Breitbart, American Renaissance, Radix Journal, Daily Stormer, VDARE and The Right Stuff (to name some of the more popular alt-right websites) suppressed if their websites are out there for anyone to access any time they like? Flaherty affirmed nothing, merely propagating a popular narrative among the alt-right. So far you've been able to muster not a whit of evidence for any of it.--Percy

If you're not, as you say, "really stupid" and you realize that repeating opinions doesn't turn them into facts, then why do you keep attempting it? Running out of alternatives? Of course Flaherty's opinion is not just "one man's opinion." He's parroting the opinion of the alt-right. There was no need to make this obvious point, especially since the point Taq actually raised was that repeating opinions many times doesn't turn them into facts. You haven't answered anything. Will you at some point be describing at least some of this evidence, or will you continue stonewalling? Assuming that by "Trump" you actually mean the "Trump campaign," since that is what Mueller is investigating, and reminding you once again that collusion isn't a crime and that it is more likely that Mueller is seeking evidence of a conspiracy, if there were "absolutely NO evidence of any [conspiracy] between [the Trump campaign] and Russia" then why did George Papadopoulos plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian contacts? Why were Mannafort and Gates indicted and placed under house confinement, since that means a grand jury was presented some pretty compelling evidence? Modulous has already explained your error here, but it bears repeating. The Republicans hired Fusion GPS first when they were working hard at preventing Trump from becoming the Republican nominee. That failed, and then the Democrats hired Fusion GPS. The information about Trump came from Fusion GPS, not the Democrats, and it was paid for by both the Republicans and the Democrats. Them's the facts. And that evidence would be? You're the one who mentioned this evidence. What is it, and please provided links to your sources?--Percy

I wasn't aware of the Daily Stormer's difficulties, but at least as of today their website seems to be alive and kicking.--Percy

Mueller's mandate is to investigate the Trump campaign, not Trump, so assuming by "Trump" you mean the "Trump Campaign", and assuming that by "colluding" you actually mean "conspiring", you're asking for evidence that the Trump compaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election. (Actually, more accurately, Mueller's mandate is to investigate Russian interference in that election.)Why do you expect evidence now while the investigation is ongoing, before it has completed and generated a report and so forth? But as mentioned a couple times earlier, Papadopoulos has already pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians, so the evidence of his meetings with the Russians represents some of the evidence that exists already at this early stage of the investigation. Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, admits to four meetings with the Russians during the 2016 campaign, and whatever details of those meetings that are uncovered will represent more evidence.It is possible that nothing may come out of the Mueller investigation regarding the Trump campaign, though it does kind of look pretty bad for Mannafort and Gates given all their money laundering activity, and Flynn seems on pretty thin ice, too.Whatever the eventual outcome of the Mueller investigation, one thing we can say with certainty is that Trump is very poor at selecting staff.--Percy

What factual information would that be? I went through the Flaherty opinion piece in detail in my Message 54, and I didn't find much factual. You're response in Message 59 was to ignore the entire analysis and repeat your accusation that the Mueller investigation was actually a coverup of Clinton misdeeds.So what is this factual information that you keep mentioning but never describing? In fact, where is anything of a factual nature from you in this entire thread?--Percy

Well, I see you're already reduced to single word responses. Papadopoulos has already pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his meeting with the Russians, and Trump Jr. held four meetings with the Russians. Is this all just smoke, or is there fire, too? How would we know without an investigation?One thing we do know is that innocent people don't try to inappropriately influence investigations or, God forbid, shut them down. Trump is not behaving like someone who has nothing to hide.As Taq already eloquently explained in Message 93, your Clinton collusion charge is absurd: By the way, did you hear the news that two popular Trump supporters on Twitter were revealed to be the creation of a Russian troll factory, Jenna Abrams and Pamela Moore: Two popular conservative Twitter personalities were just outed as Russian trolls. I think it's safe to expect that no Russians trolling for Clinton will ever be identified.--Percy

Source: Trump attorney: We’ll challenge Mueller if he investigates old real estate dealsJay Sekulow of Trump's legal team was quoted as saying, "We’d view that as outside the scope of legitimate inquiry.
We’d raise it."In a July interview in the NYT Trump responded to the possibility of Mueller investigating his personal finances by saying, "No, I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia. So I think if he wants to go, my finances are extremely good, my company is an unbelievably successful company."Trump doesn't sound like someone who thinks his business transactions could stand up to legal scrutiny.And what does, "So I think if he wants to go..." mean? It could be interpreted as, "If Mueller wants to be fired, he should just try going after my finances."--Percy

The investigation may already have wandered off the "all things Russia" ranch, depending upon how you define it. While Papadopoulos pleaded guilty about lying to the FBI about a meeting with the Russians, the Mannafort and Gates indictments are about hiding their income from lobbying efforts for pro-Russian groups in the Ukraine. From the NYT article Former Trump Aides Charged as Prosecutors Reveal New Campaign Ties With Russia:

quote:

---

The tax and money laundering case against Mr. Manafort describes a complicated scheme in which he lobbied for a pro-Russia party in Ukraine and its leader, Viktor F. Yanukovych, and hid proceeds in bank accounts in Cyprus, the Grenadines and elsewhere. Prosecutors say he laundered more than $18 million, and spent the money extravagantly. A home improvement company in the Hamptons was paid nearly $5.5 million, according to the indictment. More than $1.3 million more went to clothing stores in New York and Beverly Hills, Calif.

---

The Gates charges are basically the same.Does lobbying for a pro-Russia group in the Ukraine qualify as "all things Russia"?--Percy