“No, Not You…Your Organization’s Terrible…You’re Fake News”

“CNN’s decision to publish carefully sourced reporting about the operations of our government is vastly different than BuzzFeed’s decision to publish unsubstantiated memos. The Trump team knows this. They are using BuzzFeed’s decision to deflect from CNN’s reporting, which has been matched by the other major news organizations. We are fully confident in our reporting. It represents the core of what the First Amendment protects, informing the people of the inner workings of their government; in this case, briefing materials prepared for President Obama and President-elect Trump last week. We made it clear that we were not publishing any of the details of the 35-page document because we have not corroborated the report’s allegations. Given that members of the Trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify, specifically, what they believe to be inaccurate.” — CNN statement about yesterday’s reporting about an unsubstantiated dossier that included salacious allegations about Trump’s behavior in Russia during a visit in 2013 (i.e., “Goldwater Republican”).

  • Edward

    Interesting exchange between Trump and a CNN reporter at Trump’s news conference this morning. The reporter demanded he be allowed to ask a question about Trump calling out CNN for their shabby reporting. Trump refused, of course.

    • Brad

      this is part of that new “Make America Great Again” program, great huh?

  • otto

    What I love most about this is that he had henchmen planted in the audience to shout and applaud during his prepared statements. It was like May Day in the USSR.

    • gruver1

      Where’d you read that?

    • Pete Miesel

      At this rate, when it comes time to announce labor statistics, GDP, deficit, etc, why even bother with the truth, just go full on fake. Instead of announcing that 125,000 jobs are created in February, announce that 11 million jobs were created. His followers will believe it and quote it as gospel, and any reporter in the real world questioning that will be called “fake news”

      • JeffMc2000

        That’s exactly what he’s going to do. I don’t even think there’s any question about it.

        • You have to admit, he must have been pretty clever to convince Buzzfeed and CNN to help him lay the groundwork for it.

          In fact, I’m starting to get suspicious that a lot of people in this thread are working for him.

      • whargarbl

        If you think those numbers haven’t been heavily manipulated ever since Carter was voted out of office, well … I’m afraid I’ve got some bad news for you.

    • Pertwillaby

      Yeah, and I’m sure the protesters at Session’s and Tillerson’s confrimation hearings were henchmen handpicked by Hillary Clinton.

      • Frasier Crane

        Aside from the false equivalency (these protesters are in sections allotted to the general public; the ‘applauders’ at Trump Tower were actual transition staffers in an event admitting credentialled guests *only*), your sarcastic reply actually reinforces what otto said, rather than negating it in any way.

      • Magga

        Is there a time of day when you don’t think about Hillary Clinton?

      • edinburgh1993


        • otto

          I took me about two hours to understand this. funny!

  • The Bandsaw Vigilante

    It’s pretty funny how suddenly the right wing is concerned about — and able to identify — fake news.

    Not sure I trust ’em to know up from down at this point.

    • Paul Marzagalli

      This is the problem with the Buzzfeed report. Whatever moral high ground the left was claiming regarding the impact of fake news, they just pissed (har har) out the window. Everybody had their fun, including this site, but they’ve just handed Trump a cudgel to beat the press with that they can’t refute.

      • Pete Miesel

        What Buzzfeed did really is no different than the patented “some people say” move from Foxland. Yeah, a lot of it is noise, but Trump is foolish in the extreme if he thinks he can make the Russian collusion questions vanish by screaming at the occasional reporter.

      • Jeff

        Except those on the right never ceded the high ground in their opinion. It doesn’t matter what the left does so long as Fox and Breitbart dominate the narrative by making shit up or approaching everything through a far right prism. TMZ could release the video of the Golden Showers with the two hookers confirming the story and Trump would say they were lying and Hollywood used crummy CGI to doctor the footage or admit to it but say that’s nothing compared to Hillary loving Cleveland Steamers. This is where we are at.

  • bentrane

    I’m waiting for Trump’s version of the Brownshirts to announce their formation.

  • “Given that members of the Trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify, specifically, what they believe to be inaccurate.”

    Lazy bastards.


  • Charles Peligro

    “Informing the people of the inner workings of their government”
    Hmmm, Wikileaks actually did that but apparently they are also Putin stooges. The bullshit piles up so high, you need wings to stay above it.

    • Mr. F.

      Sure. And as the intelligence agencies reported: Wikipeaks got the info from Russian hacks.

      You also didn’t mention that they successfully hacked Republicans… but never passed along the data. Hmm…

      • Charles Peligro

        Intelligence agencies reported without any actual evidence. Sorry if I’m skeptical of the “Iraq is a slam dunk” people.

        • Magga

          That is certainly a big sin, but you do have to consider the context, which was the administration asking for evidence that Iraq had WMD’s, rather than finding out IF they had it. They do work for someone, and those someones were convinced to the point of religion

        • Mr. F.

          You mean Tenet and the Bush administration?

      • Yet strangely they won’t explain how they know the wikileaks and the Russian hackers were more than just concurrent events. They’re content to let everyone assume they’re connected because they get mentioned together, even though wikileaks outright denies it – a risky move if they know someone out there can prove it.

        But I guess even if Russia did do it, and the democrats and the media had to lie a little to make their case stronger, that really makes them no worse than the LAPD, right? Nobody really minds that stuff. I mean, if it were Trump that got hacked people would cheer it on, right? Oh shit, I got turned around there for a second about what was happening and what people were cheering for.

        • Mr. F.

          No, and the heads of our intelligence agencies don’t generally explain the methods used to procure intelligence, nor the names of employees who uncover it, spies who traffic in it, etc.

          What they DID agree on is that they are all more confident than not, and have evidence, that the Russians handed off the hacked files to Wikileaks through an intermediary. So both Assange and our government… can actually be telling the truth, so far as the evidence indicates. But why on earth would you take what Wikileaks says at face value anyway?

  • Pete Miesel

    The Golden Showers thing, while hysterical, does distract from what in my opinion are the main questions that are more relevant.

    1) Trump’s fawning attitude towards Putin seems to be way beyond deference or a desire to improve relations. His praise of Putin and unwillingness to even acknowledge fault in the man is bizarre to say the least. So, why exactly is he so unwilling to even be mildly critical of the man? Is he simply that vain and naive, or do all those inner circle members with Russian ties have something to do with it? Since he won’t show us his financial records, why is he so insulted at the long standing reports that his businesses have Russian investors (something his kid said OUT LOUD in 2008).

    2) Are the Crimean sanctions being lifted or not? If so, why? If not, why not? If they are lifted, we basically give Putin the green light to finish the job in Ukraine as well as go after the Baltics. So why are we even considering doing this?

    The Trumpies can say “yeah, he won” but the potential blowback and unintended consequences of playing pattycake with the world’s most powerful dictator for short term gain can and will be enormous.

    • Charles Peligro

      Why are liberals itching for war against Russia? That too will have blowback and unintended consequences.

      • bentrane

        I think what liberals are concerned about is that the next President seems to be having a bromance with a dictator who kills his political opponents and investigative journalists, steals businesses from other opponents, invades sovereign nations, tries to influence another nation’s election by using illegal hacking, etc. There have been many books written about Putin and his depredations, but one I would highly recommend is Bill Browder’s ‘Red Notice,’ written by an American who tried to do legitimate business in Russia, but was thwarted by institutionalized thievery and murder.

        • Charles Peligro

          Read your history. US presidents have been cozy with dictators who did all those things. Are certain murderous dictators more acceptable than others?
          (yes, if they serve American “interests”)

          • Michael Gebert

            I’d be a lot more impressed if the people freaked out by this had been freaked out by the money Obama gave Iran to finish the job of becoming a nuclear power in the middle east.

            • Zerowing

              Ha. I enjoyed how you wrote that as if it’s something that actually happened. Quality trolling.

            • Pete Miesel

              We didn’t “give” money to Iran, we unfroze their own money.

              It is kind of funny to hear the “why do you want war with Russia” crowd barely concealing their desire for war with Iran.

              The hysterical thing is that no doubt at this very moment Putin is quietly selling Iran enough weaponry to make it a fair fight when the US invades and attempts to “liberate” the population.

          • bentrane

            How many of those dictators had nuclear weapons? How many of them did business deals with U.S. Presidents? Most of the many, many despicable leaders we have dealt with were, in fact, Third World military dictatorships we supported primarily because they were anti-Communist. There is a big difference between a Somoza and a Putin. Read your history.

        • Pertwillaby

          Liberals don’t get to be concerned about Trump not disliking Putin as much as they do when they never had any problem with the Clinton family’s ties with the Saudis. (and I don’t give a shit that Saudi-Arabia is formally an ally of the US, we know the Saudi leaders are at least as bad as Putin)

          • Magga

            And you would have had good reason to bring attention to that if Clinton had been President Elect, especially if Saudi Arabia had sabotaged Trump’s campaign

            • Pertwillaby

              So anyone who is not a president elect is allowed to be friendly with dictators?

              • Magga

                No, but anyone who doesn’t seem like they have a future in government is of less important than the President of the US. You can’t keep going back to campaign mode every time Trump has a meltdown. That’s like five times a day

                • Pertwillaby

                  The more you write, the stupider you seem. My point was that you and other Hillary fans did not care about the Clinton family’s ties with the Saudis at a time when it was very likely Clinton would be the next president.

                  • Magga

                    Yes, I’m a total moron for pointing out that when you defend your President, the worst case scenario of a hypothetical Hillary presidency isn’t an argument. You have to at least justify him on his own merits.

                    • Pertwillaby

                      I wasn’t defending him, I was pointing out that Hillary fans don’t get to attack him for not disliking Putin as much as they do. There is a differentce between those two things, but I am not surprised you are too dense to understand that.

                    • Magga

                      I get your rhetorical distinction, but the fact is that Trump’s strategy, as the most disliked presidential candidate in history according to polls, was to make Clinton the second worst liked candidate of all time. And every time something bad was revealed about him, he doubled down on attacking Clinton. And every time he does something now, someone chimes in with something about her. And it doesn’t matter. Last I checked, Saudi Arabia didn’t sabotage Trump’s campaign and blackmail Hillary. Maybe that’s not the case with Trump and Russia either, but don’t you wanna find out?

                    • edinburgh1993

                      “I was pointing out that Hillary fans don’t get to attack him for not disliking Putin as much as they do.”

                      And why exactly don’t we get to do that? You should post your full list of things we don’t get to do so we don’t accidentally do them.

                      I’m sure on Jan. 20th Trump will augment whatever rules you have about what we can and can’t do, but it would be great to get a head start on what’s permissible in this new era.

                      Is this comment OK? Let me know ASAP because I often don’t know the “differentce” between a comment that’s allowed and one that isn’t, or even how a word is spelled. Or are you letting us know that in our time of Trump every word must have an unnecessary T in it?

          • Pete Miesel

            So, what EXACTLY is Mr. Trump’s approach to Saudi Arabia going to be? Bueller? Bueller?

        • Don’t liberals care about Clinton’s bromance with Saudi Arabia money? No, because they’re hypocrites.

      • Magga

        Why jump straight to war? If a candidate had sung Saddam Hussein’s praises in 2002 it wouldn’t be a good sign, even if you weren’t for the war, right? Especially if all the government agencies said that Hussein worked hard to get the candidate elected

        • Charles Peligro

          McCain called what Russia supposedly did, “an act of war”. He didn’t throw that out there for shits and giggles. This whole degrading spectacle seems designed to prepare public opinion for war against Russia (and to explain Clinton’s embarrassing loss).

      • otto

        Wait, are you kidding? Russia invades a sovereign nation, buzzes our ships overseas, engages in systemic and violent human rights violations against its people, harbors US fugitives who have betrayed state secrets, threatens smaller nations, and you think it’s fine that Trump is cozy with them?

        Are you 10 years old, or simply a fucking idiot?

        • Charles Peligro

          The US has been cozy with some fucked up regimes. Are you for war against Saudi Arabia? I’m sure you were just as outraged when Obama and Clinton looked the other way as the coup regime in Honduras murdered those demanding the return of their democratically elected president.

          • otto

            Do your homework. When did Saudi Arabia or Honduras threaten NATO? Invade another sovereign? They didn’t. Russia did. Only a moron would attempt to draw some equivalency between those acts.

      • Jeff

        Liberals aren’t itching for war with pretty much anyone, they are just less than psyched at aligning with a Russian dictator with a history of human right’s violations and no free speech. I haven’t read any mainstream takes from the left about declaring physical war with Russia.

        • But liberals align with Clinton, who’s sponsored by Saudi Arabia billionaires. Pot, meet kettle.

      • I’m genuinely amused by how quickly these erstwhile “peace-loving” lefties get all hawkish when told by their media that Some Big, Bad Force out there is responsible for their defeat this election. I mean, aren’t these largely the same people who shrieked “NOT! IN! MY! NAME!” on the eve of Bush taking us into Iraq?

        And here’s what’s even funnier: were the U.S. actually to engage in military aggression against Russia, it would largely be the Trump-supporting, Second Amendment advocates who populate the military who’d be doing their dirty work for them. You know, the very same people they’re oh-so-quick to deride and condescend to simply because they tend to be right-leaning.

        • Magga

          No one is suggesting war with Russia. It’s a straw man argument. People are suggesting investigating how much influence they have on America’s decision-making.

          • Nonsense. Any thinking person can see that Old Media’s 24-7 demonizing of Big Bad Russia has all the earmarks of a ramp-up to armed conflict.

            No, no one is flat-out saying, “let’s go to war!” You have to get the people’s support for that first. And to do that, you have to build your case about what an incorrigible villain the other side is. You have to whip the people into a frenzy. Skew things so that conflict is “the only possible resolution.”

            Pretty funny, too, how these sudden reports of Russia’s alleged hacking mastery seemed to rise the more it looked certain that Hillary was going down in flames. A year ago, were people like you even talking about Russia? Now, “Putin” is every third word out of a leftist’s mouth.

            • Magga

              Well, I was talking about Putin, but that’s because we get a lot of Russian immigrants (and are happy to have them) who escape arrest, violence etc for political opinions and sexual orientation and so on. They’ve been threatening us so many times, too, flying planes along the borders, acting all tough, and there have been plenty of people over there for work, before Putin stole companies from his people, jailed the owners and enriched himself to the tune of who knows, but close to 80 billion dollars according to some. His antagonistic relationship with the press has led to several murders, his political opponents work from the US and other places to escape assassination, and he has invaded another European country, Hitler-style. Europeans have witnessed the rise of authoritarianism many times, and Trump bears all the hallmarks of that tradition. Which is not to say he’ll go that way, but he is definitely in the strongman tradition. This unholy collaboration is already driving American allies away (our chicken-shit government went back to China, hat in hand) and we know the sanctions are working to undermine Putin, and they have been imposed by the international community. Trump looks likely to relax those sanctions, which I see as a kind of appeasement, and it’s incredibly difficult to see what Trump’s aim is here, considering his aggression towards the rest of the world. Therefore, I’ve suspected that they’ve had something on him for a long time, and the hacks were an indication that something was very wrong. I posted about it here quite often.

              Having said that, American liberals had a relaxed attitude about Russia until Russia actively sabotaged the electoral process in America. That tends to happen, though I’ll concede that there’d be way less uproar on the left if they went after Trump, if you concede that there’d be way more uproar on the right in the same circumstances 🙂

              His meltdown at the press conference today made a lot of people quite convinced that this wasn’t some brilliant plan, but the brainfarts of an unstable individual

              • difficult to see what Trump’s aim is here, considering his aggression towards the rest of the world

                Ah, yes, his “aggression” toward the rest of the world. You mean Trump’s statements to the effect that we don’t have nearly enough evidence to start accusing Russia of espionage and recklessly antagonizing another world power? You mean like when Trump contradicted his own running mate’s hawkish stance on Syria? Or maybe you’re referring to when Trump stated that he’d support the creation of a safe zone in Syria but that our allies abroad should bear the bulk of the cost of doing so? Oh. Yeah. That “aggression.”

                the hacks were an indication that something was very wrong.

                Indeed. What they indicated was that something was very wrong with the Clinton campaign — many things, in fact. Too bad your media deliberately ignored most of it then decided to pin it all on Russian super-hackers.

                Russia actively sabotaged the electoral process in America.

                Nice unsourced “fact” there. But whatever helps you to deal with the fact that your side lost the election and a huge swath of the country has had enough of what you and your ilk think is best for the rest of us.

                His meltdown at the press conference today made a lot of people quite convinced

                “His meltdown”? More like “his refusal to let gross overreach and slander by a wounded globalist media go unanswered.”

                “A lot of people” = you and your buddies locked away in that snug little echo chamber you call reality.

                • Magga

                  If you are actually making the claim that not many people have an issue with Trump, that it’s just me and my friends, that’s… I don’t think you’re really saying that. He’s the least popular President elect in history according to (the admittedly flawed) polls.
                  Would you blame the Watergate break-ins on bad security at the DNC? Because that was all about stealing DNC documents for use in a campaign.
                  His meltdown consisted of comparing his own government to nazis, pointing to a stack of papers when asked about his sons running his business, dodging the question about whether someone from his campaign had been in contact with Russia regarding the leaks and on and on. It was pure, free-assosiation brain-jazz, and maybe that’s cool, but it certainly flies in the face of any idea of world diplomacy.
                  And this idea the globalist media out to get you is such dopey thinking. The definition of globalist, Hollywood elitism IS Trump, who lives in a tower bearing his name and has had his own TV show since 2000. His Presidency feels like an extension of that

                  • He’s the least popular President elect in history according to (the admittedly flawed) polls.

                    Yeah, yeah. I know. “Hillary actually won by more than two mill– n-no, three million votes! More dead people and illegals voted for Hillary than they did for Trump!” Tough shit, cookie. Two words: electoral college. Donald Trump is the next President of the United States.

                    Would you blame the Watergate break-ins on bad security at the DNC?

                    What does Watergate and Nixon (by extension) have to do with this? You have the Clintons and LBJ (who, it is said, was at least in the know about the hit on JFK) on your side. Then, you’ve got the lifetime of kickbacks and five- and six-figure “donations” that Hill and Bill have pocketed. Or, you know, that strangely long list of people close to the Clintons who just kinda somehow wound up taking dirtnaps. Hill covering up for Billy the one-man rape squad because it benefited her down the line to do so. Is the “your side is more corrupt than my side” angle really the one you want to go with here?

                    And this idea the globalist media out to get you is such dopey thinking.

                    You mean the same globalist media that told us of Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski “assaulting” reporter Michelle Fields despite videotaped evidence showing us that nothing even remotely close to “assault” actually happened?

                    You mean the same absolutely unbiased media that’s told us how “racist” Trump is without bothering to clarify what he’s proposing or what he’s said or done that actually makes him so?

                    You mean the same absolutely unbiased media that breathlessly reports easily debunked hoaxes of gays and immigrants getting attacked by evil Trump supporters while completely ignoring the well-documented instances of Trump supporters being physically attacked and threatened? (The videos of which are all over YouTube and other such sites.)

                    You mean the same absolutely unbiased media that never bothered to report on half of what Wikileaks revealed about the Clinton campaign?

                    You mean the same absolutely unbiased media that breathlessly played up Clinton’s last-minute attempts to defame Trump as a rapist without even bothering to investigate said claims or examine just how truly flimsy they were when held up to the merest bit of scrutiny?

                    You mean the same absolutely unbiased media that’s been absolutely opposed to Trump’s rise from day one of his campaign, and who did everything in its power to skew the facts and ensure his defeat?

                    Yeah, dopey me. What was I thinking?

                    • Magga

                      Watergate was about stealing documents from the DNC to use in a campaign, the e-mail hack was about stealing DNC documents for use in the campaign. Biggest political scandal in America in the 20th century, nobody gives a shit in the 21st if their TV star wins.
                      Trump has bragged about all the free media he’s gotten, and has put several of his media allies on his staff.
                      Trump is definitely a racist, because he claimed his private investigators could prove Obama wasn’t an American. And before he shows us what he found, he has no argument to make regarding fake news stories, as he’s behind the biggest of them all

                    • Watergate was about stealing documents from the DNC to use in a campaign, the e-mail hack was about stealing DNC documents for use in the campaign.

                      False analogy. Nixon had involvement in the stealing of DNC documents and perpetuated its cover-up. That came to light. You have no evidence that Trump was in on, or assisted with, the leak of internal DNC emails and memos.

                      Trump is definitely a racist

                      Yeah. Another -ist term that you guys have beaten into the ground so relentlessly over the last forty-odd years, by slinging it at everyone who disagrees with you, that it’s now useless. Worthless. It’s practically lost all meaning.

                      And Election 2016 has shown that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Your media did everything they could to slander and defame Trump and, thus, ruin his bid for the White House — “he’s a racist! he’s like Hitler! he wants to kick out all immigrants! he hates women!” And clearly, none of it fucking worked.

                      The old leftist playbook is losing its effectiveness. The old shit isn’t working anymore. And you guys are scared. You don’t know what to do because that old garbage was all you had.

      • Zerowing

        Are you aware that there is a whole swath of middle ground between “war with Russia” and “licking Putin’s rectum clean”?

        Those of us who are not fans of Trump pursuing the latter policy are not itching for the former.

        • Charles Peligro

          It may not be what you want but it might be what you get.

      • Pete Miesel

        Oh fuck you. You’re basically saying that unless we roll over and give Putin literally everything he wants no questions asked we want a shooting war? Jesus you clowns are such binary thinkers.

        I love the implication that we should openly sell out our allies like Ukraine and the Baltics because Trump gets an erection thinking about Putin.

        Fuck you.

        • “Jesus you clowns are such binary thinkers.”

          You mean folks on the left? Or was that a binary conclusion?

  • azmoviegoer

    I think he is taking the “bully pulpit” aspect of his job a little too literally. Sad. You should have called the original thread “if these reports are true urine trouble Mr. Trump.”

  • Ben Kabak

    These are totally unsubstantiated and they’ve been sitting on them for over a year. This isn’t journalism. Sourcing and fact checking I guess have disappeared. Or it is done after the hit job by other journalists.

    • Magga

      That means they did him a favor, no? Could have been an October surprise

      • I knew it, the media and the intelligence community is totally in cahoots with Trump. THIS GOES DEEPER THAN WE THOUGHT.

        • Magga

          Not what i said, but… still fair 🙂

    • Pete Miesel

      BBC says there is a second source

  • The Bandsaw Vigilante
  • These posts are like that old joke about the drunk guy who steps in shit. A minute later he starts smelling it, then soon realizes he smells it everywhere, so he goes around making fun of everyone else for stepping in shit.

    Not an old joke? Should have been.

  • Padre la Tiempo

    This is only the beginning. Donnie is not going to come out of this unscathed. You don’t call the entire intelligence community idiots and not expect serious repercussions. President Pence here we come…or President Ryan.

    • Spicerpalooza

      Deep down, wouldn’t the rank and file GOP prefer a Ryan presidency?

      • Jeff

        Absolutely but they need to delay it until Trump is a few years in.

      • John Cope

        Ryan would be infinitely worse than Trump.

        • Pete Miesel

          But Pence and Ryan don’t inspire the kind of fascistic fervor that Trump does.

      • Padre la Tiempo

        Of course, it’s exactly what they would want.

  • The Bandsaw Vigilante
  • The Bandsaw Vigilante
    • Ednamgonzales

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj77d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash77HomeSocialGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj77d:….,……

  • Pertwillaby

    The moment Trump became a samurai poet warrior. Jeff, you may not like his worldview and his specific political views, but do you really not respect his mojo, bravado and pizazzy aura?

  • Magga

    Under the headline “Welcome to an insane world”, our biggest newspaper said it all quite well, I think:

    “Today’s press conference was a fist in the face of everyone who thought this might work out”
    “When American Presidents speak in Public, every word carries weight (…) Today, Donald Trump delivered a stream-of-consciousness performance where he compared America’s intelligence agencies to the Nazis”
    “Open war between a new American President and America’s secret services is a new low in American politics. This is great news for America’s enemies”
    “Everyone who saw the press conference understand that anyone who gives Trump resistance will have a short life span in his administration. Here, everything must be “great” and “fantastic”. This is the recipe for disaster.”

    • Pete Miesel

      Unless Trump replaces the totality of the CIA/NSA with his loyalists, he’ll miss purging those pissed off analysts who are as we speak covering their tracks. He’s setting himself up for Snowden 2.0

      • Magga

        Sure, but his supporters will think whatever he’s revealed to be doing is GENIUS

  • whargarbl

    It took what, two months, give or take, for the “fake news” smear to be co-opted by the “wrong” side? This is a perfect demonstration of why it was a dumb idea to go down that road in the first place.