Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

JoeRedskin · 02-17-2017, 02:09 PM

A recent story by CNN included the following facts all of which I will accept as true. In brackets, I will also include things I consider salient facts which were known at the time of CNN's story that were not included. After listing the story's reported and omitted facts, I will post the headline verbatim along with the opening and closing sentences of the article. You decide for yourself if CNN's characterization was misleading with an anti-Trump bias:

- During Presidential campaigns, it is common for candidates' staffs to have communications with foreign officials.

- During the past campaign, “high level” Trump staffers had a higher frequency of contact with Russian officials and “other Russian nationals known to US intelligence” than is normal for such staffers.

- [Only three staffers are implicated – Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone - are under investigation as a result of these contacts.] Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-michael-flynn

- [The legal standard for opening such investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare.] NYT - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/u...ion.html?_r=0]

- [It is unclear which Russian officials were being monitored by the intelligence community, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers.] Same NYT article as above.

- [Because the Russian government will imbed its operatives in its own and neighboring countries business organizations, it is not known if the staffers even realized they were talking to suspected Russian operatives.][From a Bloomberg report article, cannot find the link]

- The frequency of the contacts and the closeness of the individuals to Trump created a concern within the intelligence community.

- Shortly after the election, both Obama and Trump were notified of the communications and the concerns raised by the frequency and closeness to Trump.

- The nature and intent of the conversations was not revealed to the author of the CNN reporter.

- Intelligence investigators have not yet reached a judgment on the intent of the staffers’ conversations.

- [Of the half-dozen current and former officials who confirmed the existence of the investigations, some said they were providing information because they feared the new administration would obstruct their efforts. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the cases.] Same NYT article previously cited.

- [While still the sitting President and apparently privy to precisely what was discussed and with whom, Obama has never indicated that the communications he reviewed relating to Trump staffers were a national security risk that needed Congressional investigation.] [This is my recollection – If Obama has commented, I would be interested to see it.]

02-17-2017, 02:09 PM	#11
JoeRedskin Contains football related knowledge Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Second Star On The Right Age: 63 Posts: 10,401	Re: What would it take? A recent story by CNN included the following facts all of which I will accept as true. In brackets, I will also include things I consider salient facts which were known at the time of CNN's story that were not included. After listing the story's reported and omitted facts, I will post the headline verbatim along with the opening and closing sentences of the article. You decide for yourself if CNN's characterization was misleading with an anti-Trump bias: - During Presidential campaigns, it is common for candidates' staffs to have communications with foreign officials. - During the past campaign, “high level” Trump staffers had a higher frequency of contact with Russian officials and “other Russian nationals known to US intelligence” than is normal for such staffers. - [Only three staffers are implicated – Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Roger Stone - are under investigation as a result of these contacts.] Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-michael-flynn - [The legal standard for opening such investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare.] NYT - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/u...ion.html?_r=0] - [It is unclear which Russian officials were being monitored by the intelligence community, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers.] Same NYT article as above. - [Because the Russian government will imbed its operatives in its own and neighboring countries business organizations, it is not known if the staffers even realized they were talking to suspected Russian operatives.][From a Bloomberg report article, cannot find the link] - The frequency of the contacts and the closeness of the individuals to Trump created a concern within the intelligence community. - Shortly after the election, both Obama and Trump were notified of the communications and the concerns raised by the frequency and closeness to Trump. - The nature and intent of the conversations was not revealed to the author of the CNN reporter. - Intelligence investigators have not yet reached a judgment on the intent of the staffers’ conversations. - [Of the half-dozen current and former officials who confirmed the existence of the investigations, some said they were providing information because they feared the new administration would obstruct their efforts. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the cases.] Same NYT article previously cited. - [While still the sitting President and apparently privy to precisely what was discussed and with whom, Obama has never indicated that the communications he reviewed relating to Trump staffers were a national security risk that needed Congressional investigation.] [This is my recollection – If Obama has commented, I would be interested to see it.] __________________ Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.