A new INTELLIGENCE LEAK from the Amazon Washington Post,this time against A.G. Jeff Sessions.These illegal leaks, like Comey's, must stop!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 22, 2017
The Hill: Trump slams 'illegal' leak alleging Sessions discussed campaign with Russian envoy
President Trump on Saturday morning blasted a Washington Post article based on U.S. intelligence reports claiming Attorney General Jeff Sessions discussed Trump campaign issues with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S.
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak recounted two such conversations with Sessions to his superiors in Moscow. Kislyak’s version of events was intercepted by U.S. spy agencies that monitor Russian communications, according to the Post.
The report does additional damage to allegations that Trump campaign officials colluded with Russian officials at a time when the Kremlin was seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election.
Read more ....
Previous Post: Washington Post: US Attorney General Sessions Discussed Trump Campaign-Related Matters With Russian Ambassador (July 21, 2017)
WNU Editor: The Justice Department has already come out and blasted the Washington Post story as untrue .... Justice Department hits back at report citing anonymous sources that Sessions may have lied about Russia contacts (FOX News). On a side note (and personal observation) .... with the exception of the Washington Post that posted the original Jeff Sessions story and The Hill posting President Trump's tweet and response .... every other article that I read this morning (about 20) was nothing but speculation and quoting anonymous sources. Almost all of them have also chosen to not post the Justice Department's statement that the leak is not true .... nor have they bothered to post President Trump's remarks .... just saying that he went on a "twitter rant". It is surreal to read and watch the U.S. media today .... they are following and posting stories while providing no evidence, only using anonymous sources (that I no longer believe are actually true), and reprinting stories that were posted days if not weeks ago and thereby repeating the cycle again.
18 comments:
“A new INTELLIGENCE LEAK from the Amazon Washington Post, this time against A.G. Jeff Sessions,” Mr. Trump wrote. “These illegal leaks, like Comey’s, must stop!”
that, to me, says that (1) the story, ie, leak, is True and is not denied by Trump (2) that Trump is concerned not about the leak but about leaks in general.
As for other papers not carrying the story: why would they since only the one paper seems to have access to the NSA story. All another paper could do would be to report the story and note that a rival paper got the story and they were repeating it and thus crediting a rival paper for outdoing them.
Has Sessions denied the story?
A U.S. official confirmed to Reuters that Ambassador Sergei Kislyak's accounts of two conversations with Sessions, then a U.S. senator and key foreign policy adviser to Republican candidate Donald Trump, were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was nothing automatically inappropriate about Sessions, then a U.S. senator as well as a Trump supporter, discussing policy matters or even Trump's thinking about them with a foreign diplomat.
"The question is whether he crossed the line and discussed classified information or talked about deals like lifting sanctions if the Russians were interested in investing in the U.S. or had dirt on Secretary Clinton," said a second official familiar with the intercepts, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. "His memory is another matter."
“@iowahawkblog: Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.”
Don't you get it? I explained it several times now.
All this is for money .."anonymous sources".. that's the media's clickbait.. the story the WP put out easily made them $200k in the last 48 hrs.
Not much. .but. .It adds up..it's been going on for nearly 10 months and over those 10 months I'd bet the WP made double digit millions in additional Ad revenue...same with NYT and CNN (cnn made about $150mn more).. and to be objective here. ..Trump feeds into this. ..wouldn't be surprised if he holds stocks or has some other interest in seeing this continue. ..getting out of the presidency early. ..or a multi billion dollar lawsuit. ..increasing his name recognition for free and have a big surprise turnaround (from negative to positive)..not sure. .but what I do know is that -everyone- in the media is making a lot of money off this modern spy thriller.
Anon complains about anon sources??? You work for NSA and give out information, you do not allow your name to be used. Why give out stuff? Simple: our intel groups no longer trust Trump...he has already passed on stuff to Russians that was very secret stuff from an ally ...fact: intel no longer gives a real hoot about Trump nor do they trust him.
I don't think Trump trusts intel either. Given the track record of US intel of general incompetence, it would be unwise to trust them on pretty much anything.
".fact: intel no longer gives a real hoot about Trump nor do they trust him."
How do you "know" that?
How do you "know" that? Good question.
As I have pointed out here and elsewhere many times, we cannot "know" the outcome of any war until it is actually fought. The same would generally apply here as well. We cannot "know" what US (un)intelligence thinks about POTUS unless we are physically present at the meetings and are directly observing the interactions between them. Even then it can be hard to "know" what someone is thinking.
With that said we can reach conclusions based upon observation and applying common sense. Even then we must be VERY careful to try and prevent our own biases from coloring our judgments. As I was once told be careful of your biases or they can destroy you!!
Given the inglorious track record of US (un)intelligence, it would be prudent not to trust them. Also, they generally have cushy, high paying jobs, where competence is not a requirement. As such, we would expect these people to not "trust" a person with a business background who is used to getting results. As such, US (un)intelligence not trusting Trump would be expected.
As for the intel passed on to the Russians, we don't even know what he passed on. How secret was it? We don't know any of this. I suspect what he passed on if anything was information about how to track Islamic terrorist pertaining to airline security. If this is something that would have been beneficial to the Russians here in helping prevent a terrorist attack, POTUS and his team would have amoral obligation to share any and all pertinent information.
Generally speaking business people are among the most moral and honorable people on earth. In order to get business and grow their companies, people must trust them. This is not the case for politicians in general. If information that could have assisted the Russians in the fight against Islamic terrorism is not passed on to the Russians and they are later attacked because WE WITHHELD VITAL INFORMATION FROM THEM how would this reflect on us? How would this reflect on our ally to have withheld such information? I suspect not well. Perhaps POTUS acted morally here. In any event, we do not "know."
Even if Mueller and his team come up with the most damming information possible, we will not "know" as he and his team have the appearance of being Democrat party hacks. As such, the findings cannot be trusted. Of course I don't believe an honest investigation was ever the intention.
You trust no one unless they agree with your assessment
I know people in intel and you insult their dedication
WNU Editor:
"The Justice Department has already come out and blasted the Washington Post story as untrue ."
Nope,
Session's Spokeswoman issued a denial.
As Session's and his Staff are "recused" from the Trump/Russia case for perjured testimony to the House and Senate about meetings with Russians,
The only people in Justice whi could deny/confirm the leak are AAG Rosenstien and SC Meuller, and they arn't commenting.
LMFAO
So .... denying a story is not the same same as saying a story is not true.
Hmmmm ....
I am learning the nuances of the English language everyday.
Russian is simpler .... Da/Nyet .... no in between.
"You trust no one unless they agree with your assessment." Actually people who agree with my assessment are the least trustworthy. We must be very careful to gather information from multiple sources, carefully analyze it, and formulate our opinions on which our decisions are made. At some point common sense has to apply as well and things need to pass the "smell test." It is very easy to get caught up in our own echo chamber.
As for US intel, look at the poor track record. These are generally incompetent. I'm sorry if someone takes offense at this. For those who are dedicated and competent, perhaps with new management they might be more successful.
I think the important question that nobody asked is:
If it is untrue why POTUS is so angry and call it a leak ?!?
isn't something fishy here?
Jeff Session's spokeswoman denying a story is not true,
despite the fact she works for Jeff Session's in the Justice Deparment, is not the same thing as the Justice Department denying the story is true.
Due to Session's recusal, any contact between Session's and his staff, with the Trump/Russia Investigation or it's gathered evidence, is Contempt of Congress and Subversion of Justice.
The only people who are capable of confirming or denying the story are AAG Rosenstien, SC Meuller, and their staffs, and they arn't leaking one way or another.
AG Session's spokeswoman, and those who are reporting the story as "The Justice Department is denying", are knowingly casting shade,
Rumour is, the leaks are coming from inside the House, as a further Truminstiltskin effort to get Session's to resign, due to his recusal, so that the Alt-Reich House can appoint a new AG, unconnected to the Trump Campaign, with minimal Russian contacts, who is willing to subvert justice and fire Rosenstien and Meuller, and shut down Trump/Russia.
On CNN this morning:
"All of them were discovered through leaks and media reports"
Don't you see anything wrong with that? Cnn admits that all of this is by anon sources
Of course it's anonamous sources.
The only people currently collecting "evidence" are AG Rosenstien, AC Meuller, and their staff, and they arn't "leaking",
The Alt-Reich House however, is leaking like a sieve as the different factions try to stab the other factions in the back with anonamous leaks.
Anonamous leaks to reporter's arn't "anonamous". The reporters know exactly whom they are talking to, and their sources position, reputation and their relationship with the reporter, is what create's "trust" in the source.
"You trust no one unless they agree with your assessment
I know people in intel and you insult their dedication"
Really, so you "know" people in intel, I insult no one, an assessment is not evidence, it is an opinion. Since you "know" people in Intel you should know that. It is you who have made an public declaration of "fact", not me. Please give evidence that what YOU claim is "fact" is indeed that. I await.
BTW:
"But Adam Entous, one of the three journalists on the story (and all the stories based on leaks of intercepts) reportedly said on the telly they’ve had the story since June."
https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/07/21/the-long-delayed-jeff-sessions-reveal/
Post a Comment