Reporter who has covered Donald Trump for thirty years says the evidence strongly suggests that he is a traitor.

This is from an interview with Pulitzer winner David Cay Johnston posted over at Raw Story:

Let me be very clear and quotable about this. At an absolute minimum, Donald Trump has divided loyalties, and the evidence we already have suggests that Donald Trump is a traitor. In fact, I would say that the evidence we already have, the public materials such as emails for example, strongly indicate that Donald Trump is a traitor. However, I don’t even think he understands what he’s done.

I have said this before but I think at this point the evidence to support that allegation is incontrovertible.

If it walks like a traitor and talks like a traitor, it's Donald Trump.

Johnston also had a few more observations to share.

About his feelings about Christians:

I think it is very important for religious Americans to know that Donald Trump says that his personal philosophy of life is revenge. He has called anyone who turns the other cheek — which is a fundamental teaching of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount — a fool, an idiot or a schmuck. Trump is a man who says things that are absolutely contrary to the teachings of the New Testament. He also denigrates Christians. Yet you see all of these ministers endorsing him. 

I’ve followed Donald for 30 years, I don’t see any evidence that he has changed and he certainly hasn’t repented, which is a fundamental Christian obligation. 

He is a racist through and through. He has been found in formal judicial proceedings to discriminate against nonwhites in rentals and employment. 

It’s important to understand that Trump is aggressively anti-Christian despite claiming to be one. He is bluntly a racist. Most importantly, he is literally ignorant about almost everything.

On Trump's removal from office: 

There is no good ending to the story. America will survive this, we’ll get past it, but whenever Trump leaves, there’s no good ending. If Trump is removed by impeachment or by the voters, whether in a Republican primary or a general election, I know what he will do. He’s already told us what he will do by his actions. Trump will spend the rest of his days fomenting violence and revolution in this country. 

He’ll be careful not to directly say “revolution,” but he will call the government illegitimate. He might even call it criminal, since he called Democrats who didn’t stand up during his State of the Union speech treasonous. If they’re going to impeach Trump, I believe they have to have a plan to indict, try, convict and imprison him. But Trump will be a role model for some people and there may well be violence over it.

Well, there's something to look forward to.

Keep in mind that David Cay Johnston has covered Trump for decades, and probably knows him better than just about any other journalist.

That cannot help but add weight to his predictions.

Chairman of Sinclair Broadcasting met with Donald Trump during the election, promising that "We are here to deliver your message."

David D. Smith

Courtesy of The Guardian:  

The chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group met Donald Trump at the White House during a visit to pitch a potentially lucrative new product to administration officials, the Guardian has learned. 

David D Smith, whose company has been criticised for making its anchors read a script echoing Trump’s attacks on the media, said he briefed officials last year on a system that would enable authorities to broadcast direct to any American’s phone. 

“I just wanted them to be aware of the technology,” Smith said in an interview. He also recalled an earlier meeting with Trump during the 2016 election campaign, where he told the future president: “We are here to deliver your message.” 

Sinclair is the biggest owner of local TV in the US, and may soon reach 72% of American households if a proposed $4bn takeover of a rival is approved by federal regulators. It is accused by critics of having a conservative bias, which it denies.

The company has been a driving force in the development of a new broadcasting standard known as Next Gen TV, and is one of the first involved in making chips for televisions, cellphones and other devices to receive the new transmissions. 

Gee I wonder if those chips can also report back information, such as viewing habits, news sources, and possible political affiliations?

Because I kind of bet they can.

The CEO of Sinclair recently apologized to their employees for all of attacks they are receiving from "extremists."

Courtesy of Politico:  

Sinclair Broadcast Group CEO Chris Ripley apologized to employees Tuesday for having to endure what he called “politically motivated attacks” over the right-leaning media company’s recent promos, which drew widespread criticism for echoing President Trump’s attacks on the “fake” news media. 

In a memo sent to staff, Ripley defended the scripts that anchors at more than 60 Sinclair stations were compelled to read, telling staff that the practice “is not unique to Sinclair, however, the blowback we received for doing so certainly is.” 

“For having to field nasty calls, threats, personal confrontations and trolling on social media, I am truly sorry you had to endure such an experience,” Ripley wrote. “However, as an organization it is important that we do not let extremists on any side of the political fence bully us because they do not like what they hear or see.”

Oh yeah Sinclair is being attacked for doing what EVERY other news outlet does.

Once again, which news outlets force their reporters to do this?

It is not an "extremist" point of view to point out that this is atrocious, nor is it extremist to be very uncomfortable with a "news" agency that meets with a presidential candidate and promises to deliver their message.

That is not news reporting, that is propaganda.

Donald Trump does best among people who have less access to reliable news outlets. Go figure.

Courtesy of Politico: 

President Donald Trump’s attacks on the mainstream media may be rooted in statistical reality: An extensive review of subscription data and election results shows that Trump outperformed the previous Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, in counties with the lowest numbers of news subscribers, but didn't do nearly as well in areas with heavier circulation. 

POLITICO’s findings — which put Trump’s escalating attacks on the media in a new context — were drawn from a comparison of election results and subscription information from the Alliance for Audited Media, an industry group that verifies print and digital circulation for advertisers. The findings cover more than 1,000 mainstream news publications in more than 2,900 counties out of 3,100 nationwide from every state except Alaska, which does not hold elections at the county level. 

The results show a clear correlation between low subscription rates and Trump’s success in the 2016 election, both against Hillary Clinton and when compared to Romney in 2012. Those links were statistically significant even when accounting for other factors that likely influenced voter choices, such as college education and employment, suggesting that the decline of local media sources by itself may have played a role in the election results. 

That gives new force to the widely voiced concerns of news-industry professionals and academicians about Trump’s ability to make bold assertions about crime rates, unemployment and other verifiable facts without any independent checks. Those concerns, which initially were raised during the campaign, were largely based on anecdotes and observations. POLITICO’s analysis suggests that Trump did, indeed, do worse overall in places where independent media could check his claims.

And as we know Trump also outperforms in places where the local news comes from Sinclair Broadcasting, and where Fox News is the favorite cable news outlet.

We always wonder how Trump can continue to simply make shit up all the time, and not have it destroy his credibility.

The answer is that people don't know that he is making it up unless a reliable news outlet fact checks him.

Which of course is also why there are so many attacks on the established mainstream media, and accusations of "fake news" directed at respected newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times.

So long as there are Americans isolated from fact based news reporting there will be a Donald Trump to take advantage of their ignorance.

If we want to help this country perhaps it's time to start buying our friends and family their own subscriptions to some of that "liberal" news media.

Rachel Maddow is killing it.

Courtesy of Forbes:  

In March, The Rachel Maddow Show finished as the highest-rated show in cable news, with an average total audience of 3.058 million viewers--the show's best-ever performance in the 9 p.m. ET hour. FNC's Hannity was second, with 3.000 million viewers. Maddow also won among viewers 25-54, the demographic most valued by advertisers, finishing March with an average audience of 671,000 compared to Hannity's 616,000. CNN finished a distant third in the hour, with 382,000 viewers 25-54. 

MSNBC has been experiencing a dramatic rise in ratings, finishing the first quarter of 2018 as the only cable news network to grow compared to Q1 2017: MSNBC ratings were up 30%, while both Fox News and CNN experienced declines. 

In March, MSNBC's programming in prime time, daytime and total day all broke records for the network. The network's prime-time lineup averaged 2.398 million total viewers, finishing as the No. 2 network across all of cable TV. While Fox News continued its run as the top-rated network in cable news, MSNBC's prime lineup was up 8% from 2017, while both Fox (down 18 percent) and CNN (down 16 percent) were off year-over-year. 

The March ratings results suggest Fox News' unrivaled status as the dominant force in cable news may be facing one of the strongest challenges in years.

I know that people are starting to turn away from cable news, and looking for alternative information sources, but for my money MSNBC is consistently the highest quality news that you can get via television.

Their reporting is top notch, they have tons of contributors from the world of print journalism, and they deliver the facts in a straightforward manner.

Sure they lean left, but then typically so do the facts.

And Rachel Maddow is clearly the shining jewel in the MSNBC crown.

Even if I think I know a story that I have been reporting on all day, she will almost always add a different dimension to it, and dredge up facts that had not yet been reported.

By the way she also terrifies those on the Right, who constantly attack her, and Donald Trump, who takes great pains not to.

So yesterday Donald Trump tried to write the Washington Post's headline for them.

The Fake News Washington Post, Amazon’s “chief lobbyist,” has another (of many) phony headlines, “Trump Defiant As China Adds Trade Penalties.” WRONG! Should read, “Trump Defiant as U.S. Adds Trade Penalties, Will End Barriers And Massive I.P. Theft.” Typically bad reporting!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 5, 2018

Well, SOMEBODY is a little thin skinned about this upcoming trade war with China.

Unfortunately for Trump the Washington Post focuses on the facts.

Besides they likely remember what happened the LAST time that Trump wrote a headline.

Talk about fake news.

Chairman of Sinclair Broadcasting completely distrusts print media which he believes "serves no real purpose."

David Smith, killing journalism one bullshit propaganda piece at a time.

Courtesy of New York Magazine: 

David Smith, the executive chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, said he dislikes and fundamentally distrusts the print media, which he believes “serves no real purpose.” In emails to New York, Smith said that print — as in newspapers and magazines — is a reality-distorting tool of leftists. Print media, he said, has “no credibility” and no relevance. 

“I must tell that in all the 45 plus years I have been in the media business I have never seen a single article about us that is reflective of reality especially in today’s world with the shameful political environment and generally complete lack of integrity. Facts and truth have been lost for a long time and likely to never return,” Smith said. 

“The print media is so left wing as to be meaningless dribble which accounts for why the industry is and will fade away. Just no credibility.”

Yeah how can anybody trust the New York Times and the Washington Post with all their left leaning facts?

This statement is not one that a real newsman would ever make.

You might disagree with a story or two, but to discount ALL of print media as biased against your view of reality, really says more about your view of reality than on their reporting.

Keep in mind that Fox News was created by Roger Ailes as an alternative to the real journalism which he blamed for destroying the career of his former boss and hero Richard Nixon.

Right Wing new outlets are not about informing the public, they are about building mistrust for the media and pushing a conservative agenda that they realize is vulnerable to fact checking.

Here, let John Oliver explain it better than I can.

Oliver, as you might remember, was one of the very first to reveal to us just what Sinclair was up to way back in the summer of last year.

If this does not terrify you, well then you have lost the ability to be terrified.

Probably due to Right Wing brainwashing.

At least one political candidate is taking a stand against this obvious propaganda.

Courtesy of TPM:  

A Kentucky Democratic congressional candidate has pulled all of her campaign advertisements from her local, Sinclair Broadcasting-owned news channel after the controversy that exploded when anchors all over the country echoed the same script warning of fake news and biased reporting. 

Amy McGrath is challenging incumbent Republican Andy Barr in Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District. “Today, I have instructed my campaign team to cease and pull all campaign advertising on WDKY-TV (Channel 56), the Sinclair-owned television station in our congressional district, as soon as possible,” she wrote in a Facebook post on Monday. “Sinclair’s corporate-mandated ‘must-read’ right-wing script on its nearly 200 television stations about ‘fake news’ is itself an extreme danger to our Democracy and eerily mimics the propaganda efforts that authoritarian regimes often use to control the media in their own country.”

Admirable. But let's face it she is a Democrat, so Sinclair Broadcasting would not even tap their brakes if they saw her laying unconscious in the middle of the street.

However if others join Amy McGrath, and not just politicians but businesses as well, that might be enough to force at least the semblance of fair and balanced reporting from this conservative propaganda machine.

Hey, maybe somebody can convince the Parkland students to tweet about them, that seems to work pretty good.

Donald Trump claims he didn't say he had a relationship with Kim Jong Un, because it wasn't recorded. But he did, and it was. Update!

The Wall Street Journal stated falsely that I said to them “I have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un” (of N. Korea). Obviously I didn’t say that. I said “I’d have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un,” a big difference. Fortunately we now record conversations with reporters...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2018

...and they knew exactly what I said and meant. They just wanted a story. FAKE NEWS!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2018

Courtesy of Mediaite:  

This morning, President Donald Trump got his Sunday started by taking to Twitter to rail against the Wall Street Journal over an interview he gave the paper last week. One of the big revelations from that conversation was Trump’s declaration that he actually has a “very good relationship” with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Of course, this raised many eyebrows considering that Trump has publicly denigrated the reclusive and erratic leader numerous times. 

At the start of his morning tweetstorm, Trump claimed that the WSJ falsely represented what he said. According to the president, his actual words were “I’d have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un.”

That followed this tweet from Sarah Huckabee Sanders which claims that the Wall Street Journal misquoted Trump.

pic.twitter.com/u9MHhxkOt0

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) January 13, 2018

The problem with all of this of course is that the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch by the way, DID record the comments.

We have reviewed the audio from our interview with President Trump, as well as the transcript provided by an external service, and stand by what we reported. Here is audio of the portion the White House disputes. https://t.co/eWcmiHrXJg pic.twitter.com/bx9fGFWaPw

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) January 14, 2018

So yeah, Trump and his Huckabee attack dog are once again simply lying.

And that is why I simply reject EVERYTHING this Trump White House says as purposefully inaccurate.

Update: For those who are still unsure, this the statement in question and what Trump said immediately following.

Here’s the salient portion of the @WSJ interview with Trump. Note what he says in response to the follow-up question. https://t.co/wfjttZKwaz pic.twitter.com/0fqGHjhXzp

— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) January 14, 2018

 Yeah, he knew what impression he was trying to give.

It is only after being called out for it later that he and his sycophants try to change the facts.

Fox News

Fox News almost destroyed journalism in this country.

But journalists fought back.

If it continues it may yet destroy our democracy.

Will we have the courage to fight back?

The Pope calls the spreading of "fake news" a "very serious sin." Seriously?

Courtesy of the AP:

Pope Francis is criticizing journalists who dredge up old scandals and sensationalize the news, saying it’s a “very serious sin” that hurts all involved. 

Francis, who plans to dedicate his upcoming annual communications message to “fake news,” told Catholic media on Saturday that journalists perform a mission that is among the most “fundamental” to democratic societies. 

But he reminded them to provide precise, complete and correct information and not to provide one-sided reports. 

The pope said: “You shouldn’t fall into the ‘sins of communication:’ disinformation, or giving just one side, calumny that is sensationalized, or defamation, looking for things that are old news and have been dealt with and bringing them to light today.” 

He called those actions a “grave sin that hurts the heart of the journalist and hurts others.” 

Look I totally agree with the Popester here that the spreading of fake news is a bad idea.

However does he really want to talk about "disinformation, or giving just one side, calumny that is sensationalized?"

Because I am pretty sure that his entire religion depends on much of that.

For the record there is very little in the Bible that is backed up by actual facts or secular historical documentation.

The entire religion depends on the continued spreading of disinformation and calumny ( the making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone's reputation; slander.) Just ask those who have been tortured and killed for heresy or accused of witchcraft.

Yes fake news is bad.

So how much longer will the Pope and his fellow Christians continue to spread it?

Barack Obama says that if he'd watched Fox New he would not have voted for himself either.

Courtesy of The Hill: 

Speaking at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit in New Delhi, Obama took shots at the network, which is widely criticized for its negative coverage of Democrats. 

In discussing social media and traditional media outlets, Obama said that networks like Fox News have created “information silos,” where different groups of people are getting different information based on what they consume. 

“Those who watch Fox News and those who read The New York Times occupy completely different realities,” he said. 

He pointed specifically to Fox News, saying that the network portrays him “in weird ways.” 

“If I watch Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me,” he said. “I would watch it and say who is that guy? This character Barack was portrayed in weird ways. It is all edited and shaped. ... The point is, you get multiple realities.”

This is absolutely dead on. The President Obama as presented by Fox News seemed to have absolutely no similarity to the one that existed in the real world.

And that is also true of their characterization of Hillary Clinton, who in their eyes appeared to be a cold hearted criminal, incapable of telling the truth.

Fox New is of course Donald Trump's cable news outlet of choice, because they are essentially Trump TV these days, and before that they worked as a propaganda arm of the Republican party.

I actually do not think that Fox News should be allowed to call itself a "news" outlet or to be invited to cover political events as journalists.

In fact the only reason they should be invited to the White House Correspondent's Dinner is to park the cars and bring drinks to the actual reporters who show up for the celebration.

Nazi sympathizer upset that he lost his job after the Washington Post revealed that he was a Nazi sympathizer.

Courtesy of WaPo: 

Tony Hovater, the white nationalist and Nazi sympathizer featured in a controversial New York Times article this weekend, said he lost his job and would soon lose his home following a swift backlash over the article. 

Hovater, a 29-year-old Ohio resident, told The Washington Post on Wednesday that he has been fired from his job and that he and his wife, Maria, are in the process of moving out of their home in New Carlisle, Ohio, for financial and safety reasons. They could no longer afford to pay the rent, he said, and somebody had published their home address online. 

“It’s not for the best to stay in a place that is now public information,” he said, adding later: “We live alone. No one else is there to watch the house while I’m away.” 

The lengthy Times profile that was published Saturday portrayed the daily and seemingly normal life of Hovater, whom writer Richard Fausset described as the “Nazi sympathizer next door” and a “committed foot soldier” of the far-right movement. The article also described Hovater as a “Seinfeld” fan whose “Midwestern manners would please anyone’s mother.” 

Hovater said that he, his wife and his brother-in-law were fired Monday. All three worked at 571 Grill & Draft House, a small restaurant in New Carlisle. 

The restaurant’s owners said in a statement Wednesday that they did not know of Hovater’s white nationalist views until the Times article was published. They said the article illustrated “some very disturbing images and thoughts” that they do not share.

That is the problem with people finding out you are a Nazi, they tend to be less than impressed by the news.

Personally I do not feel even a little remorse that this asshole lost his job. I do feel a little pity for his children however, and I certainly do not support the threats made against his family or the restaurant where he once worked since that is indefensible.

As for suddenly being unemployed, well I am sure there is a job at Bretbart just waiting for him.

P.S. Here is the original article that started the trouble.

Journalist Sarah Kendzior explains that the end of net neutrality may also signal the end of the resistance against Donald Trump.

Courtesy of the the Globe and Mail: 

We Americans may be a captive audience to our reality-TV star who thinks he's an authoritarian, but we are a chatty audience, and our loquaciousness has been our salvation. For nearly a year, we have exercised First Amendment rights like we were working a defibrillator on democracy's damaged heart. We debunked lies, catalogued crimes, demanded justice and created a vast, informal movement dedicated to the pursuit of truth over alternative facts. 

But that may be about to end. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission announced it was planning a sweeping rollback of net neutrality, allowing corporations to decide what content is available online while pricing most citizens out of equal access to information. 

For nearly a year, America has stood at the crossroads of a damaged democracy and a burgeoning autocracy. If net neutrality is destroyed, we will cross firmly into the latter, and our return is unlikely. 

The threat to net neutrality highlights the reliance on social media and an independent press for political organizing in the digital age. Should net neutrality be eliminated, those avenues will likely become curtailed for much of the public or driven out of business due to loss of revenue. Without the means to freely communicate online, citizens will be far less able to challenge the administration. It doesn't matter what cause someone prioritizes: The elimination of net neutrality will impede the ability to understand the cause, discuss it and organize around it.

She's not wrong.

The best bulwark we have against fascism is our 1st Amendment which has now evolved to include our ability to communicate online in a variety of social media platforms.

Including this one.

This is one of those moments in history where a people are confronted with a choice which may determine the survival of their society as it exists in the present.

Just imagine for a moment what it would be like if Donald Trump and his cronies were able to use their connections to big telecom companies to put the squeeze on CNN, MSNBC, Raw Story, Mother Jones, Politico, etc., and quiet their voices to a low murmur in the background.

If you do not think that is ultimately the plan then you have not been paying attention.

P.S. For those of you who do not know who Sarah Kendzior is, here is video of her going off on a representative from Breitbart.

This video went viral again, so a little context. It's from a late Nov 2016 panel at the News XChange conference in Denmark. I was responding to Matthew Boyle of Breitbart, who is seated at the end of the row. https://t.co/OCMuaglwvD

— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) November 26, 2017

We are dealing with a lot of important issues right now, but arguably net neutrality is one of the MOST important.

James O'Keefe attempts to undermine reporting by Washington Post by sending in an operative who lied about having underage sex with Roy Moore and becoming pregnant by him.

Man that is some cringe worthy video right there.

Here's the story courtesy of the Washington Post:  

A woman who falsely claimed to The Washington Post that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager appears to work with an organization that uses deceptive tactics to secretly record conversations in an effort to embarrass its targets. 

In a series of interviews over two weeks, the woman shared a dramatic story about an alleged sexual relationship with Moore in 1992 that led to an abortion when she was 15. During the interviews, she repeatedly pressed Post reporters to give their opinions on the effects that her claims could have on Moore’s candidacy if she went public. 

The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.

But on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups. The organization sets up undercover “stings” that involve using false cover stories and covert video recordings meant to expose what the group says is media bias. 

James O’Keefe, the Project Veritas founder who was convicted of a misdemeanor in 2010 for using a fake identity to enter a federal building during a previous sting, declined to answer questions about the woman outside the organization’s offices on Monday morning shortly after the woman walked inside. 

“I am not doing an interview right now, so I’m not going to say a word,” O’Keefe said.

O'Keefe later posted a heavily edited video of that brief conversation with the Post reporter, which made him look like the hero, but WaPo then released the entire thing, which did not. 

So to be clear about what happened here that sniveling POS James O'Keefe hired somebody to pretend to be an actual victim of sexual assault, so that he could attack the actual victims of Roy Moore, and  undermine the journalistic integrity of the mainstream media.

That is a level of fucked up that is almost impossible to comprehend.

Donald Trump takes to Twitter to promote Fox News over CNN. Because really, what else does he have to do with his time?

.@FoxNews is MUCH more important in the United States than CNN, but outside of the U.S., CNN International is still a major source of (Fake) news, and they represent our Nation to the WORLD very poorly. The outside world does not see the truth from them!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 25, 2017

Fox New is only "important" if you are desperate to keep people ill informed so that you can lie to them and manipulate them.

CNN for its part did respond appropriately.

It's not CNN's job to represent the U.S to the world. That's yours. Our job is to report the news. #FactsFirst 🍎

— CNN Communications (@CNNPR) November 25, 2017

Promoting one news outlet over competing news outlets, is that one of the new presidential duties?

Next I will assume that he will try to convince folks that Breitbart is a far more reliable news source than the New York Times. 

I swear Trump is one of the most transparent idiots on the planet.

Former Fox News employee claims that she was blocked from investigating Trump's ties with Russia.

Courtesy of Bloomberg:  

A former Fox News employee said the network blocked her from going to Moscow to investigate President Donald Trump’s links with Russia, one of several claims of news bias at 21st Century Fox Inc. made by former and current workers opposing its takeover of Sky Plc. 

“You can’t do in-depth reporting if you’re not there,” said Jessica Golloher, a former Fox Radio correspondent who is suing the division for gender discrimination, at a gathering with U.K. lawmakers and citizens in Parliament on Monday. 

“Fox didn’t let me go to Moscow to dig into Trump’s Russian connections, even when I offered to pay my own way.” “Fox is just buying what the White House is selling,” she said. 

Golloher’s claim follows allegations earlier this year that Trump colluded with Fox on a story to divert attention from his ties with Russia. She made the remarks shortly after meeting the Competition & Markets Authority, which is investigating the 11.7 billion-pound ($15.5 billion) Sky merger on grounds of media plurality and whether Fox has a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. 

When reached for comment, a Fox representative cited a Fox News statement from May without reference to Monday’s hearing. In May, the company said, “Jessica Golloher’s claims are without merit. Her allegations of discrimination and retaliation are baseless. We will vigorously defend the matter.”

I'm not sure we even need confirmation that Fox News had no interest in pursuing this story.

After all they have done virtually everything they could to bury it and deflect attention from it.

That is why every time there is a new revelation about the Mueller investigation on CNN or MSNBC a new allegation against the Clintons gets trotted out on the Sean Hannity show and Fox and Friends.

At this point they should simply rename Fox News "The Donald Trump Network of Deflection and Misinformation."

Bill Moyers has updated his Russia/Trump timeline. You might want to take a look at it.

Courtesy of Bill Moyers.com:

When it comes to Donald Trump, his campaign and their dealings with Russia past and present, sometimes it’s hard to keep track of all the players without a scorecard. We have one of sorts — a deeply comprehensive timeline detailing what actually happened and what’s still happening in the ever-changing story of the president, his inner circle and a web of Russian oligarchs, hackers and government officials. 

Since first launched in February 2017, the Trump-Russia Timeline has grown to more than 600 entries — and we will continue to add updates regularly. What have reporters and investigators already uncovered and made public? 

What are the connections and patterns? Review the timeline to see.

The new information about George Papadopoulos is now included, as well as the revelations from Carter Page which came out during his testimony and his many bizarre cable news appearances.

Simply put once you scroll through it there is no longer any way to doubt that there was absolutely collusion between the Trump campaign and Kremlin operatives. 

On that note Seth Abramson is also convinced that recent information provided by Papadopoulos proves collusion as well:

You will likely have to actually visit the site if you want to read that on your phone or I-Pad.

So have we proven collusion yet?

Yeah, I think we have. 

Facebook "corrects bug" which scrubs data from the internet that allowed investigators to learn ads bought by the Russians reached far more Americans than previously reported by the company.

Courtesy of WaPo: 

Social media analyst Jonathan Albright got a call from Facebook the day after he published research last week showing that the reach of the Russian disinformation campaign was almost certainly larger than the company had disclosed. While the company had said 10 million people read Russian-bought ads, Albright had data suggesting that the audience was at least double that — and maybe much more — if ordinary free Facebook posts were measured as well. 

Albright welcomed the chat with three company officials. But he was not pleased to discover that they had done more than talk about their concerns regarding his research. They also had scrubbed from the Internet nearly everything — thousands of Facebook posts and the related data — that had made the work possible. Never again would he or any other researcher be able to run the kind of analysis he had done just days earlier.

“This is public interest data,” Albright said Wednesday, expressing frustration that such a rich trove of information had disappeared — or at least moved somewhere the public can’t see it. “This data allowed us to at least reconstruct some of the pieces of the puzzle. Not everything, but it allowed us to make sense of some of this thing.” 

Facebook does not dispute it removed the posts, but it offers a different explanation of what happened. The company says it has merely corrected a “bug” that allowed Albright, who is research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, to access information he never should have been able to find in the first place. That bug, Facebook says, has now been squashed on a social media analytics tool called CrowdTangle, which Facebook bought last year.

CrowdTangle had allowed advertisers to view the metrics concerning the reach of their ads.

Now that Facebook has "fixed" it viewing that information is no longer possible.

I think it is now time to stop viewing Facebook as a benign social media platform who were simply used to help an adversarial foreign government hijack an election. 

It appears now that they have revealed their true nature.

So now Trump sets his sights on the 1st Amendment. Knew this was coming.

Why Isn't the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2017

Courtesy of The Atlantic:  

Frustrated with a set of damning reports about his relationship with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson—including the nugget that Tillerson called him a “moron” (perhaps with an R-rated modifier)—the president offered a new suggestion on Twitter Thursday morning: Why not explore government censorship of the press?

Trump had been relatively quiet on Twitter for a few days, following the massacre in Las Vegas and his trip to hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico, but the Tillerson stories on Wednesday set off a new tirade of tweets against the press. Most of them are the standard “Fake news!” variety—never mind that there have been stories of Trump-Tillerson tension for months, and that multiple outlets have confirmed the “moron” anecdote—but the president is calling for something different here. He is suggesting that the Senate bring its investigative powers to bear on news reports that are, from all indications save Tillerson’s non-denial denial, entirely accurate.

Those of you who have been paying attention, may remember that this is not the first time that Trump has threatened the American press.

Courtesy of an NPR story from back in February 2016: 

Feeling maligned by the media, Donald Trump is threatening to weaken First Amendment protections for reporters if he were president and make it easier for him to sue them. 

“I love free press. I think it’s great,” he said Saturday on Fox News Channel, before quickly adding, “We ought to open up the libel laws, and I’m going to do that.” 

The changes envisioned by the celebrity businessman turned Republican front-runner would mean that “when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” he said at a rally Friday in Fort Worth, Texas. 

Trump added that, should he win the election, news organizations that have criticized him will “have problems.” He specifically cited The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Make no mistake, Trump does not see himself as a president. He sees himself as a dictator.

And just like his idols Adolph Hitler and Vladimir Putin he has no patience with a press that insists on reporting accurately about him and his administration.

Donald Trump is upset that people are writing books about him.

Courtesy of The Hill: 

MSNBC anchor Katy Tur in her new book compares covering then-presidential candidate Donald Trump at campaign rallies to being "caged in the center of the arena like a modern-day Roman Coliseum." 

"They turn as one to boo at us in unison. Six thousand Trump supporters railing against 30 or so journalists — caged in the center of the arena like a modern-day Roman Coliseum," Tur wrote in "Unbelievable: My Front-Row Seat to the Craziest Campaign in American History." 

Trump criticized Tur during several speeches throughout the campaign, calling the then-33-year-old a "third-rate reporter," "disgraceful" and "not nice." 

At one point during the general election season in July 2016, Trump openly accused Tur of supporting Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

If you watched any of MSNBC's coverage of the election, you could not have missed Keay Tur's excellent reporting from the very belly of the beast, the Donald Trump rallies.

She was verbally assaulted, threatened, and even stalked by Trump supporters, not to mention being verbally attacked by the presidential candidate himself.

However in Trump's eyes none of this qualifies Tur to write a book about her time on his campaign.

As evidenced by this tweet he sent not long after it was announced that Tur's book was set for release yesterday.

Fascinating to watch people writing books and major articles about me and yet they know nothing about me & have zero access. #FAKE NEWS!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 12, 2017

Of course as we know Donald Trump's version of "fake news" is any news which disagrees with his version of reality.

Personally I think the very fact that he felt the need to attack her like this just reinforces that what she wrote is something he does not want us to read. I imagine it will only help the book sales. 

This is why I will never have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal.

Courtesy of The Guardian:  

The Journal, a New York-based institution more than a century old, remains one of the nation’s most-read newspapers, with the power to move markets and shape political agendas. Like the Financial Times in London, it’s long been the must-read for the business and financial class – with a business-friendly conservative editorial page to match – known for its deeply-reported stories and calm design.

Dozens of reporters, editors, and copy staff have left the paper in the past year, an exodus attributable to a combination of buyout incentives, poaching and frustration with management at the title which Rupert Murdoch added to his media empire a decade ago. 

The talented staff that remain still produce memorable journalism. But when it comes to covering Trump – according to interviews with 18 current and former Journal staffers, some of whom have provided the Guardian with previously unpublished emails from Baker (Wall Street Journal’s editor-in-chief Gerry Baker ) – many say this is no thanks to management. 

“The Journal has done a lot of good work in covering the Trump administration, but not nearly as much as it should have,” another recent departee said. “I lay almost all of that at Gerry’s doorstep. Political editors and reporters find themselves either directly stymied by Gerry’s interference or shave the edges off their stories in advance to try to please him (and, by extension, Murdoch).” 

Meanwhile longtime observers like Sarah Ellison, a former Journal reporter and author of the book War at the Wall Street Journal about Murdoch’s takeover of the paper, is not entirely surprised to see what has happened to Murdoch’s paper under Trump. 

“This is the most access he has had to a sitting president ever – that is something he’s tried to do and has done in other countries particularly with British prime ministers,” Ellison said. “He’s choosing his own personal access over having any journalistic clout.”

For most of my career (?) as a blogger I have avoided paying for subscriptions, because to be frank I really cannot afford to pay money to every news outlet I enjoy on the internet.

However after Trump was elected I realized just how important it was to really start to financially support the news media in this country.

So I purchased two subscriptions, one to the Washington Post and one to the New York Times.

And clearly that is money well spent because they have been at the forefront of some of the best reporting to be found on the Russia investigations, the White House drama, and the Donald Trump's insane presidency.

I also contribute in other ways by clicking ads on sites I visit frequently, watching cable news (Including the commercials.), and sending all of you to less well known news outlets which I think are deserving of our attention.

However I will not, EVER, support any news outlet like Fox News, Breitbart, and now the Wall Street Journal, which attempts to either support or give a free pass to Donald Trump.

We are in a war, and these should be identified as the propaganda outlets for the enemy.