It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Kushnergate’ is a big fat nothing-burger

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 05:44 AM
link   
nypost.com...


The February story noted that Kushner had secretly met with foreign officials in New York and even established “back-channel communications” with other nations. But back then it portrayed the off-the-grid talks as healthy, because Kushner was “a moderating influence” among what it viewed as foreign-policy “extremists” in the new White House. “Some of the leaders who have dealt with Kushner said they were initially skeptical but found him to be a good listener and courteous intermediary who quickly intuits the core of their issues,” the paper reported. But then, as the manufactured “Russiagate” conspiracy was fizzling, the WaPo published its sensational May 26 story that made it seem as if there was something nefarious about what the paper three months earlier had known Kushner was doing. This time, his private, back-channel meetings with Russia were cast in a dark and sinister light. The new story, “Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin,” got wall-to-wall coverage on CNN and NBC, but in fact there was no there there.


And now, for the final cut:

The Washington Post also based its story last week on an anonymous letter. That’s right: It has no idea who wrote it.


I'm not sure what else I can say about this. It was bull# from the start, it seems the entire Russian Hacking story is false.
And we have the slight problem of the entire IC signing off on the initial RUSSIA HACKING scenario, so if this goes bad, it's going to go really, really bad.

At this point, I doubt it even needs to be said, but Wa Post needs to run some credible stories like "Batboy saves drowning son of Theresa May" or something equally sane and boost their credibility.




posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The only reason this story has legs is several times now Trump has appeared to outright admit obstruction of justice during several interviews. If he would keep his feet out of his own mouth the story might go away!



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

If those damn news folks would quite putting microphones in front of him, perhaps his discussions would be limited to twitter, where there is always an element of cofeve.

(hate to admit it, but you are right on that)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Is anyone surprised?

This weeks big nothing-burger: CNN currently has a 3 DAY countdown timer running until Comey is suppose to testify before congress. You know, the guy who's resignation they were calling for until he got fired last month.

This will surely destroy Drumpf!




posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

His message and motivation is CLEAR

His delivery SUCKS!

I'm smellling 1963 real bad!

Covfefe



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
FYI, anonymous doesn't necessarily mean fake, but I'm sure you guys don't care about those particulars anymore in your sycophancy of Trump.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Anonymous also doesn't mean reliable. Whose to say the letter wasn't written by a DNC staffer?



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Where in my post did I claim reliability?



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So "anonymous" and now "unreliable"; what is it that you're trying to defend?



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Just saying that you can't write a story off because the source is anonymous. That is what investigations are for.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Back in the olend days, journalists used to do the investigation BEFORE the story broke.
But it's better to be first than correct. Amirite?



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude



I'm not sure what else I can say about this. It was bull# from the start, it seems the entire Russian Hacking story is false. And we have the slight problem of the entire IC signing off on the initial RUSSIA HACKING scenario, so if this goes bad, it's going to go really, really bad.


Didn't Putin all but admit that the hacking did occur, blaming it on Russian "patriots"?



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

This Sunday our Pastor (from Poland BTW), cited none other than Josef Goebbels as having said, "You repeat a lie 99 times and upon the 100th recitation, its a fact!"

Seems to be the game plan of the MSM at the moment. I particularly like the way CNN works the lie into extraneous interviews by reciting the lie as a predicate (as if it were established fact) to a question about something else. Sneaky that! But it strikes me as a form of subliminal suggestion and its repeated over and over and over, and all day long across all their shows.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Back in the "olden days" people didn't write sources like "Deep Throat" off just because they were anonymous.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Back in the "olden days" people didn't write sources like "Deep Throat" off just because they were anonymous.


Back in the old days people didn't jump to conclusions and try people in the media based on every unnamed source, just because some unnamed sources have been correct in the past.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't recall jumping to any conclusions in this thread. I do recall one or two jumping to conclusions FOR me though. Furthermore, this thread is an example of jumping to conclusions by saying that there is nothing to see here JUST because the source is anonymous. If anything you should be lecturing the OP with that line.
edit on 5-6-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't recall jumping to any conclusions in this thread. I do recall one or two jumping to conclusions FOR me though. Furthermore, this thread is an example of jumping to conclusions by saying that there is nothing to see here JUST because the source is anonymous. If anything you should be lecturing the OP with that line.


The OP makes an excellent point that WaPo already knew about this and had reported on it in a different light... they are recycling stories to build a narrative. That should be cause for concern to anyone interested in a media leaving agendas aside and informing the public - good or bad - in an even handed way.


In fact, the WaPo knew Kushner served as the official “primary point of contact” with the Russians and other foreign ambassadors as early as Feb. 10, when it published a fairly flattering story about him serving as “a shadow diplomat” in talks with “more than two dozen countries.” The February story noted that Kushner had secretly met with foreign officials in New York and even established “back-channel communications” with other nations. But back then it portrayed the off-the-grid talks as healthy, because Kushner was “a moderating influence” among what it viewed as foreign-policy “extremists” in the new White House.


Now that Kushner has become the latest target to attack in a bid to bring down the Govt, WaPo are spinning.

edit on 5/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Ah I see. Thanks for the hypocrisy.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Ah I see. Thanks for the hypocrisy.


Thanks for not addressing the point - which clearly means you can't.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Ah I see. Thanks for the hypocrisy.


Thanks for not addressing the point - which clearly means you can't.

What's to address? You lectured me on jumping to conclusions when I didn't jump to any conclusions and have been saying the whole thread NOT to do that and you are defending the OP (and the NY Post) jumping to conclusions because of some flimsy bs reasoning about building a narrative.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join