The Atlantic’s Goldberg Defends Trump Piece

[jimnyc]

IF Trump said this, he's gonna lose a lot of support, and deservedly do.

That's a big if thought IMO. The doubt starts because again it's anonymous sources. And while Trump is an arrogant ass, I've never seen anything but respect from him towards law enforcement and our military. Then a little backup from Bolton, who pretty much hates him I think. It's election season, and the tide is turning in the past month.

Why are the sources anonymous? Did they demand so? The easiest way to resolve this issue is to simply ask them. But will someone be able to get that to happen, or will the folks that heard this come out and speak up about it?

Not saying it's a lie. But with all things considered, and we know the media very well, I'll believe it when sources speak out about specifics and there is corroboration. I'm not simply going to take the media's word for it, THAT'S for damn sure.

---

The Atlantic’s Goldberg Defends Trump Piece — ‘Extensively Sourced and Entirely Accurate'

Editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, defended his article claiming President Donald Trump said Americans who died in war were “losers” and “suckers” Friday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports.”

President Donald Trump denied the story saying, “It’s a fake story, and it’s a disgrace they’re allowed to do it.”

Goldberg said, “It is not fake, it is real. This story is extensively sourced and entirely accurate. That’s all I can say. This is not the first time, of course — certainly not the first time today that the president has cast aspersions on journalism that doesn’t reflect well on him. So his reaction is completely predictable.”

He added, “You’re right, it’s very vigorous, and I think that these vigorous denials are motivated by a realization —I think you were talking about this earlier in your show— a realization that these kinds of comments that he’s made really don’t reflect well on him among a certain kind of voter he actually needs very much in a couple of months. So I think that’s a little bit of the energy there, is from that realization.”

Mitchell said, “I want to give you a chance to respond also to John Bolton, who has said now that he was in the meeting in France, in the morning meeting discussing going to the American cemetery and had not heard any of the disparaging comments that you have reported.”

Goldberg said, “Right. I have very, very good sources. There were more than one meeting and many discussions during that period. I am completely confident that Donald Trump said those exact words.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/09/04/the-atlantics-goldberg-defends-trump-piece-extensively-sourced-and-entirely-accurate/


John Bolton Rejects Atlantic Story: ‘I Was There’; ‘I Didn’t Hear That’

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton has disputed a story in The Atlantic claiming that President Donald Trump called fallen World War I soldiers “losers.” Bolton told the New York Times Friday that “I was there” and “I didn’t hear that.”

The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg published an article titled “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’.” The story also claimed that Trump skipped a 2018 visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris, where the fallen of the battle of Belleau Wood are buried, because he feared rain would ruin his hair. Goldberg’s sources were all anonymous.

The White House vigorously denied the report, and several officials who accompanied Trump on his trip to Europe in 2018 denied that the president had ever said anything like that. Public documents also support the idea that the president’s visit was canceled due to weather, not because the president worried about his hair.

https://i.imgur.com/soHHVPF.png

Bolton, who has emerged as an adversary of the president since leaving the administration last fall, wrote in his tell-all book about Trump that the visit to the cemetery by helicopter had been canceled because of weather. Driving, Bolton wrote, was not an option because of the “unacceptable risk” of being stuck in traffic if an emergency arose. He criticized the media for falsely reporting that Trump skipped his visit because he was “afraid of the rain.”

https://i.imgur.com/xUeOcuA.png

On Friday, Bolton confirmed his account in an interview with the Times, and added that he never heard Trump say “losers” or “suckers”:


He got support from an unlikely source on Friday when John R. Bolton, his former national security adviser who has broken with him and called him unfit for office, said he was on the trip in question and never heard Mr. Trump make those remarks. “I didn’t hear that,” Mr. Bolton said in an interview. “I’m not saying he didn’t say them later in the day or another time but I was there for that discussion.”

Democratic Party presidential nominee Joe Biden angrily demanded Friday morning that Trump apologize for his remarks, “if these statements are true.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/04/john-bolton-rejects-atlantic-story-i-was-there-i-didnt-hear-that/

[Black Diamond]

If trumps enemy Bolton says he didn't
say it...

[Kathianne]

I believe Bolton over Goldberg. Still, it would be much easier if Trump had never said what he did about McCain.

[aboutime]

I remember when all of this supposedly took place. The President wanted to go, but the Helo pilot had early warnings about LOW OVERCAST...which is dangerous for Helo's. The site was several hours away by car, and that simply wasn't a good idea. But those who absolutely hate the President can make A Ham Sandwich sound like the Idiots THEY ARE.
As far as what they claim he said. Yes. He did say that about McCain. I heard it. But the other crap is just that...CRAP. Someone has intentionally Distorted, or taken whatever the President may have said out of TRUE CONTEXT.

There's an election coming and the HATERS will do, and say everything they can. Including Telling Biden what to say...without checking to see if any of it was true.

MAGA. And I don't care if anybody doesn't like what I said. IGNORANCE TRULY IS BLISS.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I believe Bolton over Goldberg. Still, it would be much easier if Trump had never said what he did about McCain.

In my book, Trump could not say--enough-- bad words about that asshat John MACLAME.
Guy was a damn disaster for this nation in his career as a politician.
Also a turncoat-siding with the socialist/leftists Dems too many times for it not to be him being a spiteful POS..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

I love this woman! She's well spoken, doesn't take shit from any of the liars and puts the MSM in their place quite often.

---

Kayleigh McEnany: The Atlantic’s Four Anonymous Sources Are ‘Cowardly’ And ‘Probably Do Not Even Exist’

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany did not take questions during Friday’s briefing, but she launched an attack against The Atlantic for publishing a story highly critical of President Donald Trump’s posture on the military.

“The story in The Atlantic has been categorically debunked by eyewitnesses and contemporaneous documents,” McEnany stated before putting screenshots of emails from Trump’s team allegedly debunking one of the story’s claims on the video boards in the Brady Briefing Room.

“The Atlantic reporting is based on four, cowardly anonymous sources, who probably do not even exist,” she continued. “Meanwhile, within hours, ten sources, ten, went on the record debunking these lies. Eight, with first hand knowledge stating on the record one common truth that this story is false. It never happened.”

McEnany additionally rolled out two new rebuttals current and former administration officials: the first from White House staff secretary Derek Lyons and the second from former deputy chief of staff Dan Walsh.

“Why would a publication abandon all journalistic integrity and publish the story?” McEnany finally posed. “It’s because the liberal activists at The Atlantic are uninterested in the truth and are only interested in peddling conspiracy laden propaganda.”

The Atlantic article in question accused Trump of making multiple disparaging remarks about fallen U.S. soldiers, including directly to former chief of staff John Kelly while he and Trump were visiting Kelly’s son’s grave. The article further accused Trump of canceling a trip to visit fallen American soldiers in France, and trying to force a parade to remove all disabled veterans from its roster.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/04/kayleigh-mcenany-donald-trump-atlantic-military-anonymous-sources-cowardly/


Here's How We Know The Atlantic's Hit Piece on Trump Is Pure Fiction

A report published Thursday by The Atlantic cited anonymous sources claiming that President Donald Trump didn’t want to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018 because the troops there who died in battle were “losers” and “suckers. The media has largely reported on this story as though it were true or at least likely to be true.

“The Atlantic Magazine is dying, like most magazines, so they make up a fake story in order to gain some relevance,” Trump tweeted on Friday. “Story already refuted, but this is what we are up against. Just like the Fake Dossier. You fight and fight, and then people realize it was a total fraud!”

Even CNN’s Brian Stelter seemed to acknowledge that the claims of anonymous sources aren’t as convincing.

“But it is also incumbent on the sources, on the people that are talking to [Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey] Goldberg, on the people that are talking to other outlets — the president’s denying it explicitly, so it’s put up or shut up time,” Stelter said. “Why aren’t these people coming forward and putting their names to these quotes?”

Perhaps because it’s a lot easier to lie when your name and reputation aren’t on the line. But there are at least five witnesses who have gone on the record disputing the allegations made in The Atlantic.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s former press secretary, called The Atlantic story B.S. on Twitter, “I was actually there and one of the people [who were] part of the discussion – this never happened. I have sat in the room when our President called family members after their sons were killed in action and it was heart-wrenching,” she said. “These were some of the moments I witnessed the President show his heart and demonstrate how much he respects the selfless and courageous men and women of our military. I am disgusted by this false attack.”

https://i.imgur.com/uKZWYeF.png

Dan Scavino, White House deputy chief of staff for communications was also with the president that day. “I was with POTUS in France, with Sarah, and have been at his side throughout it all. Complete lies by ‘anonymous sources’ that were ‘dropped’ just as he begins to campaign (and surge). A disgraceful attempt to smear POTUS, 60 days before the Presidential Election! Disgusting!!”

https://i.imgur.com/6Cc4ILu.png

Jordan Karem, personal aide to President Trump, also denied the allegations made in The Atlantic story. “This is not even close to being factually accurate. Plain and simple, it just never happened.”

https://i.imgur.com/C8Ok9T3.png

He tweeted about the allegations again, saying, “I was next to @POTUS the whole day! The President was greatly disappointed when told we couldn’t fly there. He was incredibly eager to honor our Fallen Heroes.”

https://i.imgur.com/pjR8GsW.png

Also present during the event was Trump’s former deputy White House press secretary, Hogan Gidley, who called the allegations “disgusting, grotesque, reprehensible lies.”

“I was there in Paris and the President never said those things,” Gidley said. “In fact, he would never even think such vile thoughts because I know from firsthand knowledge that President Trump absolutely loves, respects, and reveres the brave men and women of the United States military. He always has and always will. These weak, pathetic, cowardly background ‘sources’ do not have the courage or decency to put their names to these false accusations because they know how completely ludicrous they are. It’s sickening that they would hide in the shadows to knowingly try and hurt the morale of our great military simply for an attack on a political opponent.”

https://i.imgur.com/7Jp0d2l.png

White House Senior Advisor Steven Miller called the story a “despicable lie.”

“The president deeply wanted to attend the memorial event in question and was deeply displeased by the bad weather call,” Miller said in an interview with The Washingon Examiner. “The next day, he spoke at Suresnes American Cemetery in the pouring rain and refused an umbrella. No one has a bigger, more loving, or more loyal heart for American veterans and fallen heroes than our president.”

But perhaps the most convincing evidence that The Atlantic’s absurd story is completely false comes from a rather unlikely source: Former National Security Advisor John Bolton. Bolton is someone who undeniably has had an axe to grind with Trump and he even wrote about the event at which Trump allegedly made those comments in his anti-Trump memoir, but made no mention of them.

https://i.imgur.com/gWCWRiP.png

While Trump’s supporters have countered many claims in Bolton’s memoir, it’s beyond dispute that, had Trump actually made the remarks alleged in The Atlantic‘s smear piece, Bolton would have had every incentive to include them in his description of the events.

Documents released as the result of a FOIA request also debunked the allegation that weather wasn’t the true reason behind his canceled visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery.

https://i.imgur.com/LbVIB5w.png

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/04/heres-how-we-know-the-atlantics-hit-piece-on-trump-is-pure-fiction-n890999

[pete311]

You won't take the word of the media who some still have some ethical standards, but you dead stop believe people who are PAID to protect Trump. Right.

[aboutime]

You won't take the word of the media who some still have some ethical standards, but you dead stop believe people who are PAID to protect Trump. Right.


Whoever you are trying to be. Nobody asked you! Keep drinkin' the Kool-aid AOC.

[Black Diamond]

You won't take the word of the media who some still have some ethical standards, but you dead stop believe people who are PAID to protect Trump. Right.

Media and ethical standards. That's funny stuff

[hjmick]

If it matters, Jennifer Griffin, National Security Correspondent for Fox News, is saying (via twitter) that she has confirmed the story...

https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC/status/1301975321495973889

[Russ]

"The Atlantic" is already known to be a frequent liar with almost every article they write. They lead the league in anonymous sources and unprovable attacks against conservatives. Not to mention unprovable fluff pieces for liberals. The Atlantic's word means less than nothing.

[Black Diamond]

I wonder if Bill Clinton really told the military men who were protecting him "I really hate you guys".

I didn't believe that story either.

[aboutime]

I wonder if Bill Clinton really told the military men who were protecting him "I really hate you guys".

I didn't believe that story either.


The pant suit witch of 1600 hated, and didn't like anyone in Uniform near her. She didn't want to see them.https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/hillary-clinton-secret-service-treatment-abuse/

I also remember when we in Haiti, anchored out with the former USS America. The Clinton staff actually STOLE many items from the Ships Store. This is TRUE. And don't forget how the Clinton Staff also took all of the W's off the many keyboards in offices before they left. HILLARY is the worst.

to File Antitrust Charges against Google

POLITICS & POLICY
Hillary Clinton, Bane of the Secret Service
By DEROY MURDOCK
October 1, 2015 5:00 PM
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Flipboard
Email this article
Print this article

Clinton with her Secret Service detail in 2008. (Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty)
Her temperament is perfectly unsuited for the presidency.

‘​Good morning, ma’am,” a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton.

“F*** off,” she replied.

That exchange is one among many that active and retired Secret Service agents shared with Ronald Kessler, author of First Family Detail, a compelling look at the intrepid personnel who shield America’s presidents and their families — and at those whom they guard.

[KarlMarx]

Well I can say something because I work in Defense and have worked in Defense for 40 years.

I’ve seen good times and lean times throughout the years. The worst was under Obama, no question. A LOT of people lost their jobs because of that guy. When Trump took office, defense spending went up and times have been good.

Considering Trump’s overall positive attitude towards defense and the military in general, the “sucker” story is inconsistent with Trump in general. Also, Bolton’s comments are just further evidence that the story is a fabrication.

No, this is a hit piece from the DNC Propaganda Ministry plain and simple.

Too bad the Atlantic can’t be sued for libel.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

"The Atlantic" is already known to be a frequent liar with almost every article they write. They lead the league in anonymous sources and unprovable attacks against conservatives. Not to mention unprovable fluff pieces for liberals. The Atlantic's word means less than nothing.

A leftist/liberal rag publishes a political hit-piece, declaring that unnamed sources -said this , said that, and as usual those that hate Trump and would gladly roast him alive jump on it like a fly on a fresh turd. Eating it up with glee and relish.
Yet it is well known that these same idiots glorified and loved the America hating, U.S. armed forces hating obama with a feverish , slavish abandon..
If these dem/lib/leftist morons did not also hate Christianity so much -they'd be accusing Trump of being the Anti-Christ.
I have zero respect for such assholes and the horse they rode in on..-Tyr

[pete311]

If it matters, Jennifer Griffin, National Security Correspondent for Fox News, is saying (via twitter) that she has confirmed the story...

https://twitter.com/JenGriffinFNC/status/1301975321495973889

Of course it doesn't as you can see from the responses above, we're dealing with a bunch of cult zealots that won't believe anything unless it comes straight of his mouth on camera or is reported by his propaganda networks (OANN).

[jimnyc]

Of course it doesn't as you can see from the responses above, we're dealing with a bunch of cult zealots that won't believe anything unless it comes straight of his mouth on camera or is reported by his propaganda networks (OANN).

Sure, and WHO are the folks that she "confirmed" things with? The original was anonymous - so I'm sure that she found out WHO those sources were, and also confirmed it with others.

Who was it that confirmed it Pete?

And while many here have condemned many things from the right over time. Someone gets nailed with wrongdoing, hold them accountable. History and posts can easily be produced to prove this, so go ahead and challenge me on that one. Please!

And you, you too are good at condemning wrongdoing when you see it and if it's been proven. Problem is, apparently you are yet to see folks on the left doing anything wrong, ever. So nothing for you to condemn since you never 'see' it.

You are a hack. Condemn everything from the right, whether it has legitimacy or proof with it aside. You have jumped on no less than 5,000 things since being a member here - that have ultimately been proven wrong. The media or someone on twitter regurgitates it, and you believe it and make an ass of yourself endlessly. Literally like 0-1,275 now.

And the left. Wrongdoing all the time, not a peep from you. None over the years. You disappear and/or LIE so as never to have to see anything wrong with them. And if and when the media lies - which is a daily basis, and busted for it endlessly, you remain *chirping* silently.

You have zero credibility. No one believes a single solitary word you type. You have EARNED that. Not just because you're a hack, but a dishonest one. Some folks can be more dishonest than most even without lying. You post garbage as if it is fact. And when it's proven wrong as usual, you disappear EVERY TIME. You ignore hundreds and hundreds and endless stream of lies and wrongdoing from the left - and then when you act like they are perfect. You're like Obama or Biden claiming "we had no scandals during our term". Lie and proud of it.

But you can earn a little back by posting for us the 4 folks who spoke out as anonymous as first, at least now that it's been confirmed with them by this woman.

[jimnyc]

Ohhhhh, now I understand, and now it has more credibility and makes complete sense as to why the sources would be listed as anonymous.

I mean, who does want to be abused on Twitter, right? And yes, folks can be mean. :laugh:

Please, maybe lefties fall for this garbage. :dunno:

Either tell us the sources, or sources speak out now to confirm - or add it to a very very long list of accusations that were made up. Jennifer Griffin states that her sources are "unimpeachable" and not anonymous to her. :rolleyes: That may be true as well. But she may as well claim it was the queen herself if she's not stating WHO.

Want to truly convince people? Have folks that were there, first hand knowledge & have them simply speak up. Short of that, it's nothing more than an expectation for us to take the word of the media.

---

Goldberg Says He Kept Sources Anonymous Because People Would Be Mean On Twitter

The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief said Friday he kept sources anonymous in a story about President Donald Trump because the sources didn’t wish to face “angry tweets and all the rest.”

Jeffrey Goldberg explained why he allowed sources to remain anonymous in his Sept. 3 story, “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers,’” during a Friday interview on CNN’s New Day. The story alleges that Trump called fallen soldiers “losers” and “sucker” and cites four anonymous sources with “firsthand knowledge.”

Multiple former and current members of the Trump administration who were on the trip where Trump allegedly made these remarks have denied Goldberg’s story, according to NBC News.

“They don’t want to be inundated with angry tweets and all the rest,” Goldberg said of the anonymous sources. “And we push hard, and that’s why you have to sort of do this reporting with even more belt-and-suspenders approach. You know, dotted i’s and crossed t’s and find multiple sources for it.”

“Each time, this is a judgment call, right,” Goldberg continued. “Does the public’s interest in needing this information outweigh the ambiguities or the difficulties of anonymous sourcing? And in this case, I decided that I felt I knew this information well enough from high enough sources and multiple sources that I thought we should put it out.”

Rest - https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/04/jeffrey-goldberg-atlantic-twitter-anonymous-sources/

[pete311]

Point proven, unless it's from the completely unbiased and strict ethical standards of the DailyCaller, it can't be trusted.

[Gunny]

Point proven, unless it's from the completely unbiased and strict ethical standards of the DailyCaller, it can't be trusted.You've proven nothing. Neither has the Atlantic. Neither has Fox News security who the f- ever.

I'm definitely not a Trump zealot and I don't see him saying it. As dumb of sh*t as has ever come out his mouth and made me want to pound my head against the wall, this accusation would be out of character for him.

But don't you mind the voice of reason, Pete. That would be out of character for YOU.

[jimnyc]

Point proven, unless it's from the completely unbiased and strict ethical standards of the DailyCaller, it can't be trusted.

Lameness from an idiot.

You're worthless. At debating it's useless as you haven't a clue. And not to mention your years of refusals to back up any crap, endless disappearing acts & some of the funniest lies as excuses we've ever seen. You know every single person on this board would make a joke out of you in debating your one liners. As for me, I'd play games with it and still destroy you. Fact.

But worthless with even discussing anymore. Tried encouraging too many times to get you to ignore this, or try and participate. Simply isn't your goal here, so why in the world would you do that. I get it. No biggie. But what IS the goal then I wonder. And we both know the answer to that one.

So sometimes I enjoy a tiny destruction of you and whatever lameness you write & entertaining other.

But never mind me, in the words of a man of wisdom, NightTrain would kindly tell you to go eat a dick. And since I'm guessing that you have gobbled on the corn on the cob a time or 23.... :lol:

[jimnyc]

You've proven nothing. Neither has the Atlantic. Neither has Fox News security who the f- ever.

I'm definitely not a Trump zealot and I don't see him saying it. As dumb of sh*t as has ever come out his mouth and made me want to pound my head against the wall, this accusation would be out of character for him.

But don't you mind the voice of reason, Pete. That would be out of character for YOU.

Just one more time he jumps on a story, never mind facts, and then will quietly walk out the door when nothing comes of it. Upon return he'll never answer a question and it never took place.

[Gunny]

Just one more time he jumps on a story, never mind facts, and then will quietly walk out the door when nothing comes of it. Upon return he'll never answer a question and it never took place.I have no idea what Pete's doing nor why. You and I (and others) have had more than a few discussions about Trump and his twitter/mouth and have generally agreed he needs an editor :laugh:

But for Trump to say something like the Atlantic is accusing him of just doesn't fit. Minus some hard, factual evidence, the Atlantic is lying. Again.

I can't say too much about Pete. I think you handled it. I almost had this split second of feeling sorry for him. Then I remembered it's Pete :)

[jimnyc]

I can't say too much about Pete. I think you handled it. I almost had this split second of feeling sorry for him. Then I remembered it's Pete :)

If it makes you feel better - I think in person that Pete is probably an OK bloke when not discussing politics with him. I picture him of being able to drink maybe 3 beers tops, but I'd buy him those if he were cool in person. I'll bet he's humorous and probably a lot more fun when not trolling. Dunno. Doesn't matter though when all we ever get to see of him is purposely coming to try and troll. Was his choice to go down that route and never to return from the abyss.

[Black Diamond]

If it makes you feel better - I think in person that Pete is probably an OK bloke when not discussing politics with him. I picture him of being able to drink maybe 3 beers tops, but I'd buy him those if he were cool in person. I'll bet he's humorous and probably a lot more fun when not trolling. Dunno. Doesn't matter though when all we ever get to see of him is purposely coming to try and troll. Was his choice to go down that route and never to return from the abyss.

You're very kind.

[NightTrain]

Point proven, unless it's from the completely unbiased and strict ethical standards of the DailyCaller, it can't be trusted.

Eat a dick.

[jimnyc]

Eat a dick.

Wise words, wise. I'd say gobble on an entire bowl...

Can't find better quality, but ever see the movie Yonkers Joe? Was a lower B movie, but attracted me as Yonkers is just a few towns over from me. Stars Chaz Palminteri. Kids got Downs syndrome and isn't the best speaker out there.

.
.
.
.
.
.
****************** NSFW - And don't watch if easily offended. Just a movie scene is all *****************

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trb6HFjPda8

[jimnyc]

These accusations are from sources above reproach. Inside high level sources, but anonymous. And threats of more to come. Of course in time for the election. :rolleyes: Sorry, but if you are going to label your sources as such, they simply have to be named. You can claim anything you want when you don't ever have to reveal a source for something (right, Adam?). And when months and closer to an election, reports take on much much more weight, and require that much more scrutiny and sources and links and corroboration and backup should be impeccable.

Instead, thus far we have outlandish allegations from superb sources without a name. Nothing more or less.

[aboutime]

These accusations are from sources above reproach. Inside high level sources, but anonymous. And threats of more to come. Of course in time for the election. :rolleyes: Sorry, but if you are going to label your sources as such, they simply have to be named. You can claim anything you want when you don't ever have to reveal a source for something (right, Adam?). And when months and closer to an election, reports take on much much more weight, and require that much more scrutiny and sources and links and corroboration and backup should be impeccable.

Instead, thus far we have outlandish allegations from superb sources without a name. Nothing more or less.


Does it seem slightly odd that this information wasn't released WHEN IT TOOK PLACE?

And, other than the fact...it's less than 2 months till the election. If the Anonymous Sources are ACTUALLY FACTUAL...like an ADAM SCHIFF whistleblower that never existed. Why is there such secrecy as to WHO the SOURCES really are?
Bottom Line....The DEMS have never stopped their Promised Tactics I spoke of in another thread many times. Written by NEAL BOORTZ...when George Bush was running the first time.


BUT I ALSO FOUND THIS ONE. It is lengthy, but VERY IMPORTANT READING I thankfully Kept.
I was unable to find the Original AUTHOR of this piece. But it describes EVERYTHING Pelosi Schiff, and Schumer are doing.

As the media has made clear, progressives are the good guys. We’re always right. We’re also hip, cool, and trendy. That said, we need a good playbook to ensure that progressive candidates win no matter what. With that in mind, here are some key points from the Democrat Playbook. Follow these points, and we’ll be a progressive one-party state in no time!

Always call your opponent racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and Islamophobic.
Also call your opponent an idiot, fascist, paranoid, etc. — whatever names you think work best. Focus on character attacks — not policy.
Use anecdotal examples of extremists who allegedly support your opponent to portray him or her as sharing the same views (e.g., David Duke, the KKK, etc.).
Select a political associate of your opponent for a public demonization campaign. Attack your real target using guilt by association (e.g., use Steve “The Grim Reaper” Bannon to attack Donald Trump).
Vigorously support the Federal Reserve and oppose any efforts at imposing checks on the Federal Reserve in order to draw major financial support from elites in the financial industry. Blame your opponent for the “gap between the rich and poor.”
Vigorously support open trade and open borders in order to draw major financial support from major importers (e.g., Apple), foreign countries (e.g., China), and families of undocumented workers. Blame your opponent for “outsourcing” and the lack of “good-paying jobs.”
Award extreme no-bid contracts to government unions while in office in order to draw major financial support and get-out-the-vote support from unions. Blame your opponent for the “unbalanced budget” caused by your profligacy.
When speaking to a largely white audience, blame “the rich” for everything and say that we could solve all of the country’s problems if only the rich “paid their fair share.”
When speaking to a largely minority audience, blame “White Privilege” for everything and say that we could solve all of the country’s problems if only we had equality.
When speaking to a largely female audience, blame men for everything and say that we could solve all of the country’s problems if only we had “equal pay for equal work.”
When speaking to a largely Muslim audience, blame “Islamophobia” for everything and say that we could solve all of the country’s problems if only we followed the underlying message of the “religion of peace.”
When speaking to a largely LGBTQ+ audience, blame “homophobia” for everything and say that we could solve all of the country’s problems if only we had gender and sexual orientation equality.
Aggressively interpret campaign finance laws in your own campaign so as to avoid all real limitations on fundraising — while interpreting the same laws aggressively against your opponent.
Aggressively push for more campaign laws to limit your opponent’s ability to raise funds even further while blaming your opponent for “big money” in politics.
Seed the bureaucracy with cronies who will never prosecute you for anything, making sure that all political-related cases are handled by them (e.g., James Comey).
Have billionaires who are allied with you buy up media companies to support you (e.g., Carlos Slim’s ownership of the New York Times). Exchange media support for government approvals, government contracts, and favorable policy.
Use your financial advantage to buy off huge amounts of advertising space from media companies, making them even more predisposed in your favor.
When in office, bribe the media to give you favorable coverage by giving them access to new stories.
Push for media companies to hire your former campaign team as journalists (e.g., George Stephanopoulos). Keep them on the payroll while they act as journalists (e.g., Sidney Blumenthal), and threaten to withdraw advertising from the media if they refuse to hire your former campaign team or treat you favorably.
Coordinate your campaign message with media “friendlies,” using the “mockingbird effect.” Make sure that they use the same buzzwords, like “racist,” “Russia,” “hacked the election,” “lack of empathy,” “lack of gravitas,” “intersectionality,” “White Privilege,” “dog whistle,” “code word,” etc. Using the same buzzwords helps the propaganda message stick.
Block unfavorable reporters from receiving breaking news stories. Use threats, wiretapping, and other controls to ensure that no one reports anything unfavorable.
Have multiple cronies contact media friendlies so they can run stories based on “multiple” anonymous sources, claiming that the story has been “corroborated.”
Pay off pollsters to run polls with Democrat-friendly sample selections and biased questions designed to elicit pro-Democrat responses.
Have media friendlies print results from phony polls in order to use the “bandwagon effect” to win more votes.
Use focus groups to test campaign messaging. Hire your own private pollsters to run polls to test messaging. Never release unfavorable results to the public.
Have media friendlies distort coverage of your events to exaggerate support. For example, work with a friendly celebrity rockstar to give a concert at one of your rallies, and then have media friendlies print stories about 20,000 people coming to visit you — with pictures of the enormous crowd. Conversely, make sure media friendlies never show the crowds of your opponent when he or she outdraws you.
Hire private investigators to dig up dirt on opponents. Seek to unseal divorce records, bankruptcy filings, and anything else negative. Try to win by disqualifying opponents from even running.
If you can’t find any dirt, pay off trailer trash or crazy people to make up fake allegations and then have media friendlies print the allegations as true. Coordinate the allegations so that multiple people come out with the same allegations at the same time, further enhancing their credibility. If possible, have these people file lawsuits to add further legitimacy to the allegations.
Have friendly lawyers file as many lawsuits as possible to attack your opponent and drain your opponent of funds through “lawfare.” Don’t worry about sanctions for filing frivolous suits. Progressive judges will always let you off the hook.
Oppose any efforts at tort reform so as to gain the support of trial lawyers.
Start wars and international crises immediately before elections so as to win votes through the “rally ’round the flag effect.” Blame international scapegoats, like Russia and Syria, for starting the wars or crises.
Enter into treaties with enemy countries where the United States gives billions of dollars in exchange for fake promises, such as halting nuclear weapons programs (e.g., Barack Obama’s agreement with Iran and Bill Clinton’s 1994 agreement with North Korea). Use the issue to pretend that you are an effective leader and peacemaker, like Gandhi.
Always favor expanded welfare spending so you can claim to be in favor of the “little guy” while also garnering the support of major business interests that benefit from the expenditures.
Always support expanded regulations so you can use bureaucratic approvals to extract more campaign finance support from businessmen looking for project approvals.
Focus regulatory and spending efforts on urban areas. Urban areas have more votes and more money than “flyover country.”
Pretend to be against deeply unpopular positions that you actually hold, but then use activist judges and unelected bureaucrats to implement those same positions (e.g., gun control, LGBTQ+ marriage, etc.). When a court rules in your favor, say that the “issue is settled” and that “it’s time to move on.”
Any time a disaster hits, blame your opponent.
Any time a disaster hits, say that your opponent has mismanaged the situation and shown a lack of empathy.
In fact, always blame your opponent for everything, including the weather.
Any time your opponent raises questions about unethical behavior, laugh and treat it like a joke. If you opponent persists, call him or her an “extremist” or “conspiracy theorist.”
Hire teams of unofficial campaign workers to engage in “black hat” political operations, including arranging “astroturf” protests, illegally busing voters into important areas, illegally bribing homeless people for votes (typically with cigarettes/alcohol), picking fights with your opponent’s supporters at rallies, blocking roads, and even starting riots. Blame your opponent for any violence and attack anyone as racist if they question your activities.
Vigorously oppose any efforts at reigning in voter fraud.
Claim that it’s ludicrous to believe that voter fraud is an issue, even where the number of votes counted exceeds the number of votes by large margins.
Claim that efforts to reign in voter fraud are racist. Use the courts to overturn any such laws.
Support progressive “Republicans” in places where Democrats stand little-to-no chance of winning.
Have media friendlies prop up progressive “Republicans” with more media attention, treating them as if they were important leaders. Their political positions will help lower turnout from conservatives and also move the needle on public debate further in your favor.
Have allied media organizations seed the media with fake “conservatives” that also just happen to agree with you on all of the major issues (e.g., Charles Krauthammer). They will play the role of the “Washington Generals” to your “Harlem Globetrotters.”
Pretend that only two positions exist on any issue — your position and the position of the fake “conservatives.” Ignore libertarian and other small government positions.
Work with friendlies in other establishment organizations (e.g., academia) to blackball potential political opponents and only hire allies. Focus on capturing leading organizations so as to pressure other organizations to follow suit (e.g., Harvard, Columbia, and Yale).
Insist on debates only with media friendlies as moderators. Have media friendlies ask questions in line with your focus-group-tested positions.
Use media friendlies on the inside to give you the questions before debates. Prepare focus-group-tested responses in advance.
Arrange to have fake “opponents” in primaries in order to deter real opponents from joining the race and to make it seem like you won as a “moderate” in a tough contest. Pay off your fake opponent after the election with plum committee assignments or other benefits.
Loot as much money as you can while in political office — for yourself, your friends, and your family members. The money will help fund campaigns and help you use business contacts for even more funding. Money is power.
Nurture relationships with other career politicians. Since career politicians ordinarily have no other career on which to fall back, they will almost always support you if you have enough money and power. Always oppose term limits.
Nurture relationships with celebrities so that you can seem hip, cool, and trendy.
Pressure major companies to support you and oppose your opponents by threatening them. For example, while calling your opponent “racist,” have allies in “civil rights” organizations threaten to file class action lawsuits against major companies for discrimination. Then extract money from the companies as “donations” for the “civil rights” organizations, which can be used to support your campaign.
Pressure major companies to censor your opponents on social media and the Internet. Organize campaigns of paid people at “nonprofit” organizations to harass companies if they provide services for your opponents (e.g., PayPal, ISP services, etc.).
Use government spending to fund your political allies — for example, through Congressional appropriations or even through extracting promises by companies to fund allied “nonprofits” in settlement agreements involving alleged unlawful activity (e.g., Planned Parenthood). Doing so essentially institutionalizes progressivism.
Always vote for bigger government. Bigger government means more power and more money for you.
Think like Machiavelli. Pretend to be Gandhi.

[jimnyc]

This is going to be used as an election hit, no matter how you slice and dice it. Did he say it? It's being used now as a hit. Is it a lie? It's being used now as a hit.

They are talking to military folks, where some are divided - but of course it seems as if those who voted for him believe him and those who didn't don't believe him. In other words, the same as already decided Trump and Biden voters.

But if it is to be believed by the undecided, the independents, they are going to want sources and facts, no unknowns and anonymous. Simply give that out and question them, or have them come forward, and it will be extremely harmful to Trump and the election due to it being so close. And if Jennifer Griffin's sources are different than those of Goldberg, then perhaps she can do the same.

If this is to be believed, it cannot be on anonymous sources. The sources and facts can't be hiding because of Twitter being mean. :rolleyes: And sources are NOT un-impeachable if they are unidentifiable.

And if this doesn't happen, at all, due to the proximity to the election, I see it as a lie and others will too. Have an important figure or 4 speak up, that can be proven were there, and I'm on-board believing it too.

Quite frankly, I hate when writers use anonymous sources, even though it happens all the time.

[jimnyc]

I can't see many veterans or connected to the military folks just eating such words and keeping quiet, now from what I know of our military. I'm sure there are exceptions but not many.

As it points out, John Kelly is a general, and loyalty to Trump or not, I believe he's likely loyal to the Marines before anything.

And this was reported on to an extent back in 2018, and the liberal MSM made it's lame comments then about him not attending the event. But no accusations as such back then. And if someone heard it back then and was angry, why didn't they speak up? And why wait until just the right time prior to the election? Doesn't add up.

---

Zach Fuentes, Top Aide to John Kelly, Denies Atlantic Story About Trump

Former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Zach Fuentes denied to Breitbart News The Atlantic’s account of President Donald Trump’s comments about troops in Europe.

Fuentes unequivocally denied The Atlantic’s report last week, a huge blow to the establishment media narrative. Fuentes personally briefed President Trump on the weather situation that led to the trip being canceled. He is also a close personal confidante of former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.

“You can put me on record denying that I spoke with The Atlantic,” Fuentes told Breitbart News on Monday. “I don’t know who the sources are. I did not hear POTUS call anyone losers when I told him about the weather. Honestly, do you think General Kelly would have stood by and let ANYONE call fallen Marines losers?”

He specifically also stated that he believes The Atlantic’s sources “are unlikely first hand accounts.”

“They are conflating those people from something the day after,” Fuentes said.

Fuentes also told Breitbart News he is upset that Trump has been speaking negatively about Kelly.

“On a separate note, I am disappointed to see POTUS talk about General Kelly so negatively in the middle of being accused of saying negative things about the military,” Fuentes said. “If anyone understands selfless service, it’s General Kelly.”

The fact that Fuentes—Kelly’s closest ally—is now publicly denying the report from The Atlantic is a monstrous strike against the credibility of the report. Several Trump critics, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton, have also denied this happened.

Every person who was allegedly in the room who has spoken up so far has denied the account of what happened. Fuentes’ denial, reported here exclusive on Breitbart News first, deals another strike against The Atlantic’s credibility.

“I also think any President, regardless of political affiliation, deserves to have candid and private conversations with trusted advisors,” Fuentes added in a text to Breitbart News. “If the President decides to talk about it, that is his right, but generally, I don’t think it is my place to divulge private conversations I’ve had with him.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/07/exclusive-zach-fuentes-top-aide-to-john-kelly-denies-atlantic-story-about-trump/

[Black Diamond]

Is trump team addressing this thing?

[jimnyc]

Another article about those who have come forward in defense of Trump. Mostly we knew, but I think a few new on this list?

--

‘This Never Happened’: Sources Close To Trump Rally To His Defense Over Atlantic Story

President Donald Trump was quick to deny a recent report from The Atlantic, which alleged that he had said a number of disrespectful things about fallen American service members — and in the days that followed, a number of others have gone on record to support him.

Trump claimed that the story had been invented to help The Atlantic “gain some relevance.”


The Atlantic Magazine is dying, like most magazines, so they make up a fake story in order to gain some relevance. Story already refuted, but this is what we are up against. Just like the Fake Dossier. You fight and and fight, and then people realize it was a total fraud!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2020

First Lady Melania Trump made a rare public statement as well, saying that the story was “not true” and adding, “It has become a very dangerous time when anonymous sources are believed above all else, & no one knows their motivation. This is not journalism – It is activism. And it is a disservice to the people of our great nation.”


.@TheAtlantic story is not true. It has become a very dangerous time when anonymous sources are believed above all else, & no one knows their motivation. This is not journalism – It is activism. And it is a disservice to the people of our great nation.

— Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) September 4, 2020

Former White House press secretary Sarah Sanders noted that she was there at the time Trump was supposed to have made the reported comments — and she said simply, “This never happened.”


Former Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “I was actually there and one of the people part of the discussion — this never happened.”https://t.co/h0eZ9AEFoQ

— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) September 4, 2020

Dan Scavino also said that he was with President Trump in France and called the report “complete lies.”


Dan Scavino: “I was with POTUS in France, with Sarah, and have been at his side throughout it all. Complete lies by ‘anonymous sources’…” https://t.co/yDa4iZlCL6

— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) September 4, 2020

General Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, also defended the president, saying, “The Atlantic story is completely false. Absolutely lacks merit. I’ve been by the President’s side. He has always shown the highest respect to our active duty troops and veterans with utmost respect paid to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice and those wounded in battle.”


The Atlantic story is completely false. Absolutely lacks merit. I’ve been by the President’s side. He has always shown the highest respect to our active duty troops and veterans with utmost respect paid to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice and those wounded in battle.

— Keith Kellogg (@generalkellogg) September 3, 2020

Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie joined CNN’s Dana Bash and offered his own defense of the president Sunday, saying that he had not heard Trump disparage American service members and adding, “I would be offended too if I thought it was true. Again, I think ‘anonymous’ are the same people that brought you fake heart attacks, fake strokes, Russian collusion.”

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton — who left the White House and the president’s favor in very public fashion — said in his book that weather and security were the primary factors that ultimately canceled Trump’s visit to Belleau Woods in France.


Bolton, no fan of Trump’s, on the decision for Trump to skip Belleau Woods pic.twitter.com/OG4hGFwIfQ

— Meridith McGraw (@meridithmcgraw) September 4, 2020

Bolton also told Fox News White House correspondent John Roberts that if the canceled trip had been the result of a presidential temper tantrum, he would have given it a full chapter in his book.


.@AmbJohnBolton told me today that if @realDonaldTrump had said he didn’t want to visit Aisne-Marne because the interred heroes were “losers” and “suckers”, he would have written an entire chapter about it in his book #TheRoomWhereItHappened

— John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) September 4, 2020

The Federalist’s Ben Domenech acknowledged the many hurtful things President Trump had said about his late father-in-law — Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain — but also noted that The Atlantic had not exactly “clothed itself in glory” with regard to journalistic integrity.

Domenech tweeted a similar sentiment when the story broke, saying, “I’m confident I have better sources within this White House than JeffreyGoldberg, and I expect that upon investigation his anonymously sourced story will live up to the quality we can expect from The Atlantic under his leadership.”


I’m confident I have better sources within this White House than JeffreyGoldberg, and I expect that upon investigation his anonymously sourced story will live up to the quality we can expect from The Atlantic under his leadership.

— Ben Domenech (@bdomenech) September 4, 2020

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany called the story “garbage,” adding, “the liberal activists at The Atlantic are uninterested in the truth and they are only interested in peddling conspiracy laden propaganda.”


I see President @realDonaldTrump consistently express his heartfelt gratitude and absolute admiration for our brave men and women in uniform.

Just yesterday, he was truly humbled to be in the presence of our courageous World War II veterans.

This Atlantic story is garbage!

— Kayleigh McEnany (@PressSec) September 4, 2020


.@PressSec: “Why would a publication abandon all journalistic integrity and publish this story? It’s because the liberal activists at The Atlantic are uninterested in the truth and they are only interested in peddling conspiracy laden propaganda.” pic.twitter.com/PiKApNXX11

— CSPAN (@cspan) September 4, 2020

And they were not alone.


Steven Miller: ““The President deeply wanted to attend the memorial event in question and was deeply displeased by the bad weather call. The next day, he spoke at Suresnes American Cemetery in the pouring rain and refused an umbrella.”https://t.co/koa1sSge5f

— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) September 4, 2020


Former deputy assistant to the president, Jared Karem: “This is not even close to being factually accurate. Plain and simple, it just never happened.” https://t.co/Mi1AtIgKuZ

— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) September 4, 2020


Not a soul brave enough to put their name on any of these accusations. That’s because they are false. Just another anonymously sourced story meant to tear down a Commander-in-Chief who loves our military and has delivered on the promises he’s made. What a disgrace! https://t.co/NInGxeDcI2

— Judd Deere (@JuddPDeere45) September 3, 2020


On that Atlantic piece: It’s offensive & patently false. @realDonaldTrump holds the military in the highest regard. He’s demonstrated his commitment to the force: delivering a pay raise to our troops, increasing military $$, signing vets reform & supporting military spouses.

— Alyssa Farah (@Alyssafarah) September 3, 2020

Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin said that she was able to corroborate some details of The Atlantic’s story — but her sources were kept anonymous as well.


NEW, @JenGriffinFNC confirms former Trump admin official confirms details in The Atlantic story, including quotes about veterans. When the President spoke about the Vietnam War he said, “It was a stupid war. Anyone who went was a sucker.”

— Jacqui Heinrich (@JacquiHeinrich) September 4, 2020

https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/06/never-happened-sources-close-to-trump-rally-defense-atlantic-story/


But yeah yeah yeah, I know, "The Atlantic" has never lied much before, the Daily Caller is all lies & of course all anonymous sources just prior to the election are spot on, legit and un-impeachable. :rolleyes::coffee:

[jimnyc]

Of course, it's quite easy to wait a week, see what happens, and then follow-up with more BS and lies from anonymous sources.

John Bolton, who states he would have wrote an entire chapter on condemning him for this - if it were true. But he states it is "simply false".

And he is the first now to come out and give detailed specifics and also name names of everyone who was in attendance. Ok, now go ask them.

---

The Atlantic’s Goldberg: ‘Expect More Reporting’ on Trump Disparaging Military — People Have ‘Excellent Sources’

Editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine Jeffrey Goldberg said there is a lot of follow up reporting coming on his article claiming President Donald Trump said Americans who died in war were “losers” and “suckers” Monday on MSNBC’s “All In.”

Hayes said, “You said something, I think, over the weekend about you expect there will be more reporting in this day. Obviously, there has been a lot in the aftermath. What do you mean by that?”

Goldberg said, “I mean just that. I mean, I know that there are a lot of reporters moving around on this story, people with excellent sources, people that are excellent reporters. And, you know, one of the things that you —again, there is this surprising — there is this shocking but not surprising quality to all of this. This discourse that Trump has about soldiers, about the military, it is no secret to anyone who has spent any time with him. It’s no secret to the military at the highest levels. So I just know of reporters who are trying to figure out other aspects of this, and I expect more reporting on this and everything else in the coming couple of months.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/09/07/the-atlantics-goldberg-expect-more-reporting-on-trump-disparaging-military-people-have-excellent-sources/


Bolton: The Atlantic Report Claiming Trump Disparaged Military ‘Simply False’

Monday on Fox News Channel’s “The Story,” former National Security Advisor John Bolton called allegations President Donald Trump disparaged the military dead as reported by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic “simply false.”

“According to what that article said the president made disparaging remarks about our soldiers, the people buried at the Aisne-Marne cemetery in connection with the decision for him not to go to the ceremony that was planned that afternoon and that was simply false,” he said. “I don’t know who told the author that but that was false and I recounted that in my book, ‘Room Where It Happened’ and reaffirmed that in response to questions, the next day.”

Bolton also rejected Fox News Channel’s Jennifer Griffin’s report that supposedly confirms The Atlantic piece.

“Well, she’s just flatly wrong,” Bolton said. “Look, I can tell you exactly what it was. We were in the Ambassador’s residence in Paris. We were supposed to be having a 10:30 meeting to brief the president for his meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron at 11. The president was late, which was frequently the case. I don’t think the entire fair lasted more than 10 or 15 minutes and the main issue was whether or not weather conditions permitted the president to go out to the Aisne-Marne cemetery. The people I recall being there were John Kelly, one of his aides, Mike Pompeo, myself, Jamie McCourt, our ambassador to France.”

“We had this discussion, it was mostly John Kelly presenting the logistical reasons why the trip couldn’t take place and the president assented to the recommendations that he not go,” he continued. “He didn’t protest that he really needed to go. He just sort of took the facts as they were, a very straight weather call. After that meeting just for what it’s worth, we then went to the Elysee Palace for the President to meet with Macron. That lasted until about 12:45. The two presidents were joined by the two first ladies for lunch, just the four of them that lasted into the afternoon. The president then went back to the embassy and a dinner that night for the heads of state who were attending and that was the schedule that day.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/09/08/bolton-the-atlantic-report-claiming-trump-disparaged-military-simply-false/

[Kathianne]

and just like that, walk back and lies admitted:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/399352/


SEPTEMBER 8, 2020


MR. GOLDBERG, THERE’S A MR. RATHER ON LINE ONE: Atlantic Editor Concedes Central Claim Of Trump Hit Piece Could Be Wrong. (https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/07/atlantic-editor-concedes-central-claim-of-trump-hit-piece-could-be-wrong/)
UPDATE: (https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/1303306985505542146)
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Screen-Shot-2020-09-08-at-11.41.17.png
Plus: (https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/1303119379027111936)
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Screen-Shot-2020-09-08-at-11.42.36.png
Meanwhile, about the living generals: What wars have they won?
ANOTHER UPDATE: From the comments:


The point of the lie isn’t the substance, it’s the attention.
This week there was a spectacular jobs report, an incredible diplomatic triumph, peace in Kenosha the moment the national guard arrived (proving the President’s point), and a nasty anonymous rumor about something the President is supposed to have said two years ago. Three of these are newsworthy. The fourth is what the news professionals are talking about.
The biggest power the biased media has isn’t the lies they spread, it’s choosing what we talk about.

Well, that’s certainly their game.



Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 10:52 am

[Black Diamond]

and just like that, walk back and lies admitted:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/399352/

Good stuff. And I was thinking yesterday this story took attention away from Nancy Antoinette's haircut.

[Black Diamond]

And how long will it take for Biden to take the ad down.

[jimnyc]

and just like that, walk back and lies admitted:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/399352/

Amazing and not surprising at the same time. :rolleyes: If this turns out to be the case, then Goldberg needs to come out with an apology in the same manner in which he delivered the news, IMO. As do man many others that instantly took it for gospel and condemned him to hell and back. And the MSM which of course used it and abused it.

But my guess? It continues for some and others just move on to other and better lies.


And how long will it take for Biden to take the ad down.

Just like Russia and everything else, they will not admit to any of this being wrong, and it will now forever be used by many democrats to accuse Trump of hating veterans and those who died serving our great nation.

And it will grow by election day and those who still ramble about it, like Maddow will inevitably do, and others, won't mention anything else. Just like ranting and raving from so many of them with misquoted and/or incorrect statements Trump made about Mexicans. All part of their blame game if you ask me. And if it may help them in the election, the truth matters not.

[Kathianne]

Amazing and not surprising at the same time. :rolleyes: If this turns out to be the case, then Goldberg needs to come out with an apology in the same manner in which he delivered the news, IMO. As do man many others that instantly took it for gospel and condemned him to hell and back. And the MSM which of course used it and abused it.

But my guess? It continues for some and others just move on to other and better lies.



Just like Russia and everything else, they will not admit to any of this being wrong, and it will now forever be used by many democrats to accuse Trump of hating veterans and those who died serving our great nation.

And it will grow by election day and those who still ramble about it, like Maddow will inevitably do, and others, won't mention anything else. Just like ranting and raving from so many of them with misquoted and/or incorrect statements Trump made about Mexicans. All part of their blame game if you ask me. And if it may help them in the election, the truth matters not.


I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an apology:

The hubris is breathtaking, almost puts Pelosi's stylist in perspective.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/07/atlantic-editor-concedes-central-claim-of-trump-hit-piece-could-be-wrong/


...Despite conceding that the cancellation due to weather might be true, Goldberg stood by his story about President Trump’s trip to the cemetery, claiming that “the public’s interest in meeting this information outweigh the ambiguities or the difficulties of anonymous sourcing” and that he will “be continuing to make that effort to move this material directly onto the record.”

...

[jimnyc]

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an apology:

The hubris is breathtaking, almost puts Pelosi's stylist in perspective.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/07/atlantic-editor-concedes-central-claim-of-trump-hit-piece-could-be-wrong/

---

What other "publications" confirmed the story he wrote? (asking out loud, not u Kath!) And then you have anonymous sources vs. the very people that were with Trump. But he still backs up his story and the use of anonymous sources - and sticking with these 4 folks ALL not wanting to be named and apparently ALL because they were afraid of mean people and condemnation on Twitter.

Then the liar states himself that anonymous sources are NOT GOOD ENOUGH. But felt he had an obligation to tell the public? But doesn't feel the same about sharing sources names, even if weirdly all 4 use twitter as an excuse? And then when half the world doesn't believe him, most folks there claimed it never happened. I believe all but one person. But yet 4 sources. So someone somewhere is lying.

--
The Atlantic Editor In Chief Jeffrey Goldberg Says Anonymous Sourcing Is ‘Not Good Enough’ After Backlash Over Trump Story

Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor in chief, conceded on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes” Monday that anonymous sourcing is “not good enough” after backlash over a story about President Donald Trump.

Goldberg faced criticism after a Sept. 3 story used four anonymous sources to allege that the president referred to fallen soldiers as “losers” and “suckers.” Since its publication, Fox News and other publications have confirmed details of the story. Meanwhile, multiple current and former Trump administration members on the trip where the comments were allegedly made have denied the report, according to NBC News.

After saying the sources were allowed to remain anonymous because they feared “angry tweets and all the rest,” Goldberg elaborated and suggested criticism regarding the sourcing is fair. Despite the comments, Goldberg also backed up his decision on anonymous sourcing for the article as well as the contents of the story.

“These are people just like other people, and they have this anxiety,” Goldberg said. “It is a reasonable question to ask why people who have had direct exposure to Donald Trump, who know what Donald Trump has said, who know what Donald Trump has done, won’t simply come out and say it.”

“And I share that view that it’s not good enough,” he continued. “But, you know, like other reporters, I’m always balancing out the moral ambiguities and complications of anonymous sourcing with a public’s right to know.”

Goldberg reiterated his past defense, saying, “there is a fear on a kind of superficial level of a Twitter mob.” He also said that he thinks “people are torn” with interfering “in Democratic electoral processes” and dealing with “a president unlike something” people have experience before.

“There is also real fear of personal safety, fear for your family, fear for what you’d put everybody around you through if you started talking about this sort of thing,” Goldberg said.

Rest - https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/08/the-atlantic-editorial-in-chief-jeffrey-goldberg-anonymous-sourcing-not-good-enough/

[Kathianne]

---

What other "publications" confirmed the story he wrote? (asking out loud, not u Kath!) And then you have anonymous sources vs. the very people that were with Trump. But he still backs up his story and the use of anonymous sources - and sticking with these 4 folks ALL not wanting to be named and apparently ALL because they were afraid of mean people and condemnation on Twitter.

Then the liar states himself that anonymous sources are NOT GOOD ENOUGH. But felt he had an obligation to tell the public? But doesn't feel the same about sharing sources names, even if weirdly all 4 use twitter as an excuse? And then when half the world doesn't believe him, most folks there claimed it never happened. I believe all but one person. But yet 4 sources. So someone somewhere is lying.

--
The Atlantic Editor In Chief Jeffrey Goldberg Says Anonymous Sourcing Is ‘Not Good Enough’ After Backlash Over Trump Story

Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor in chief, conceded on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes” Monday that anonymous sourcing is “not good enough” after backlash over a story about President Donald Trump.

Goldberg faced criticism after a Sept. 3 story used four anonymous sources to allege that the president referred to fallen soldiers as “losers” and “suckers.” Since its publication, Fox News and other publications have confirmed details of the story. Meanwhile, multiple current and former Trump administration members on the trip where the comments were allegedly made have denied the report, according to NBC News.

After saying the sources were allowed to remain anonymous because they feared “angry tweets and all the rest,” Goldberg elaborated and suggested criticism regarding the sourcing is fair. Despite the comments, Goldberg also backed up his decision on anonymous sourcing for the article as well as the contents of the story.

“These are people just like other people, and they have this anxiety,” Goldberg said. “It is a reasonable question to ask why people who have had direct exposure to Donald Trump, who know what Donald Trump has said, who know what Donald Trump has done, won’t simply come out and say it.”

“And I share that view that it’s not good enough,” he continued. “But, you know, like other reporters, I’m always balancing out the moral ambiguities and complications of anonymous sourcing with a public’s right to know.”

Goldberg reiterated his past defense, saying, “there is a fear on a kind of superficial level of a Twitter mob.” He also said that he thinks “people are torn” with interfering “in Democratic electoral processes” and dealing with “a president unlike something” people have experience before.

“There is also real fear of personal safety, fear for your family, fear for what you’d put everybody around you through if you started talking about this sort of thing,” Goldberg said.

Rest - https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/08/the-atlantic-editorial-in-chief-jeffrey-goldberg-anonymous-sourcing-not-good-enough/


Yep. He's simply saying,'All this might be lies of opportunity, but it's the intent that matters, so I'll keep doing this...'