From the New York Post, in part:
“Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign paid an internet company to “infiltrate” servers at Trump Tower and the White House in order to link Donald Trump to Russia, a bombshell new legal filing alleges.
The Friday filing from a Department of Justice prosecutor tasked with investigating the origins of the FBI’s Russian probe served to throw cold water on Democrats’ longstanding allegations of collusion.
Special Counsel John Durham filed a motion related to potential conflicts of interests in connection with the case of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, who is charged with lying to the feds, according to Fox News.
Sussmann allegedly told the FBI he was not working on behalf of Clinton when he presented the agency with documents that supposedly linked the Trump Organization to a Kremlin-tied bank two months before the election.
The lawyer has pleaded not guilty to the charge of making a false statement to a federal agent.
Durham’s motion reportedly alleged Sussmann “had assembled and conveyed the allegations to the FBI on behalf of at least two specific clients, including a technology executive (Tech Executive 1) at a U.S.-based internet company (Internet Company 1) and the Clinton campaign.”
Records showed he “repeatedly billed the Clinton Campaign for his work on the Russian Bank-1 allegations,” which involved an investigative firm, a tech executive, cyber researchers and numerous employees at internet companies, the motion reportedly stated…
Among the accusations leveled at that time was that suspicious DNS lookups by Russian-affiliated IP addresses “demonstrated Trump and/or his associates were using supposedly rare, Russian-made wireless phones in the vicinity of the White House and other locations,” the motion reportedly said.
The allegations “relied, in part, on the purported DNS traffic” that Tech Executive-1 and others “had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump’s New York City apartment building, the EOP, and the aforementioned healthcare provider,” according to Fox’s report.
Durham said his office found “no support for these allegations,” claiming the supposed evidence Sussmann provided was incomplete and skewed…”
If you only follow the mainstream media, meaning only those outlets that are directly doing everything they can, every day, in every way, to bolster Democratic Party narratives, progressive agendas and the prospects of minimizing the public’s support of the Republican Party, you are learning about this for the first time. If, however, you also check the conservative news and commentary sources that perform a service with their own biases by preventing the ongoing betrayal of public trust by the mainstream media from completely deceiving the nation, then you know about this breaking story already. Memeorandum, a valuable and neutral internet news aggregator that reliably assembles most major news while linking to reporting from all sides of the political divide has these links to the Clinton campaign report as I write this:
Alia Shoaib / Insider:Trump claims allegations that Clinton operatives tried to infiltrate Trump Tower, White House servers are crimes that ‘would have been punishable by death’Joe Hoft / The Gateway Pundit:BREAKING: Evidence Shows Hillary Team Paid Tech Company to ‘Infiltrate’ Servers in Trump Tower and Later the Trump White House in an Attempt to Link Trump to RussiaAlejandro Avila / OutKick:New Durham Filing Claims Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Paid Tech Companies To Mine Data On Trump-Russia HoaxLarry Schweikart / Larry’s Commentary:Durham’s Big Discovery Isn’t What You Think…Gretchen Clayson / The Daily Caller:Clinton Campaign Paid Tech Company To ‘Infiltrate’ Trump Servers at White House, Durham SaysWilliam A. Jacobson / Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion:Durham Court Filing: Hillary’s Campaign Spied On Trump Tower, Trump Apartment Bldg, White House Internet TrafficJesse O’Neill / New York Post:Clinton campaign paid tech workers to dig up Trump-Russia connections: ReportMatt Vespa / Townhall:BOMBSHELL: Clinton Campaign Lawyers Paid Tech Company to Infiltrate Trump White House ServersJohn Hinderaker / Power Line:The Dirtiest Trick Gets Dirtier [Updated]
33 thoughts on “It’s Too Early To Make Ethics Judgments On The Story, But Not To Judge The Mainstream Media’s Disgusting Bias In Ignoring It So Far”
The fact is that there are those who are capable of objectivity and those who aren’t. Partisan people, by their very nature, have a hard time being objective, otherwise they wouldn’t be partisan, and the more partisan they are, the less capable of being objective they are. Some people are just incapable of objectivity with regard to certain things. Family is commonly one such thing, many people cannot believe family members have done something wrong even when they have. Other issues include homosexuality, Ireland, and of course Trump. Some people’s brains just turn to acetone and run out their ears at the first mention of them. Politics is the granddaddy of them all, though, especially in the last 2 decades. People wear either the red jersey or the blue jersey and they just don’t follow their thoughts beyond whatever the powers that be on that team say.
But we’ve already talked this issue to death: people judge themselves and those who agree with them by their best intentions and those who don’t agree with them by their worst examples. It’s not that they choose not to be objective, it’s that they can’t be. Let’s also face it, most of the liberals who have passed through here are or were true believers. Some, like resident drunk fattymoon, just believed and acted on their beliefs, others, like that guy who was the resident atheist for a while, tried to put a veneer of reason over it, but almost all of them ended up in the same place. I think a lot of them are or were probably regular posters on a lot of other sites where it was a lot easier just to throw insults or call in a lot of like-minded folks with the imagination of seventh-graders to drive the conservatives off the site. Not so here, where the conservatives won’t fold, will argue back, and in some cases will give as good as they get in terms of insults.
The fact is that those who have since left, or eventually been thrown off (i.e. Chris), weren’t capable of seeing that those who didn’t agree with them might have had reasons for disagreeing. That’s not unsurprising when you’ve spent your life believing that you are on the right side, that there are no valid views other than your own, that you and those who agree with you are the smartest people in the room, because if they weren’t they wouldn’t agree with you. It’s twice as unsurprising when you think those who don’t agree with you are not just dumb, not just low class, not just racist, but are also whatever clever or profane label you choose to put on them. It’s THREE times as unsurprising when those who disagree with you won’t just either crumple or do a 180 when you “set them straight on a few things.” That’s why Chris laughed in your face when you said the Mueller investigation wasn’t going anywhere. That’s why the folks I was near at that concert in 2019 said that “they” would still get Trump when Mueller admitted he came up empty. That’s why a lot of folks are still saying they’re going to put Trump and his supporters in jail. Don’t waste your time asking them to admit they were wrong then, and you shouldn’t waste your time asking them to admit they were wrong when the attempts to put Trump in jail come to nothing. All you’ll get is a bunch of rationalizations, and who needs that?
I guess the point is, while all true, journalists can’t be this way, or if they are, they shouldn’t be journalists.
Mrs. OB had a funny report from this week’s convocation of her women’s drinking club, er, book club. A newly invited member said she gets all her information from “The New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN.” The longer-term members all collapsed in gales of laughter.
The ideological core of the political left in the 21st century and what binds their hive mind together are these four tenants of “truth”…
…that’s the dead end of their ability to think critically.
If an ideologically consumed “progressive” or an end justifies the means, morally bankrupt, progressive enabling Democrat openly admitted that they were wrong it would be like Billy Graham publicly burning his Bible and saying God doesn’t exist – the wrath of their totalitarian hive minded cult would destroy them. When you’re as ideologically consumed as many in the political left are you never apologize or admit to being wrong to a “righty” for anything to do so would violate their tenants of “truth” which is the ideological binding adhesive that binds their hive mind together.
Update: It’s almost noon, and several conservative outlets have added reports on the story. So far, only Mediaite has done so among the left-leaning sources. No Times, No WaPo, no ABC,CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, HLN, NPR, BBC, TIME, Newsweek, Bloomberg, etc.
Someone ask “A Friend” how the Times’ silence fits into his “the NYT is an exception and isn’t the biased source EA claims it is” theory.
How interesting. The comment of mine that will probably appear just below was written before I saw your challenge. Let’s see what occurs.
Kudos–and I apologize for not trusting you to see the issue here. I should have. Mea culpa.
Except that all last week, on the front page of the New York Times almost every day, was a story about the ongoing near-panic in blue states about mask mandates and other longstanding overreach in the pandemic. It’s accurate to note that the coming rollback of the rules is as much about the politics as the quote-unquote “Science.” And that politics seems to be working against the Democratic Party, or at least seems to be impelling the Democratic governors and legislatures to change course in advance of the midterms. So why is this news so prominent in the supposedly all-biased New York Times?
Plus which, as I’ve now repeatedly pointed out in this forum, the most fascinating parts of these NYT stories are the well-moderated but still open-to-all-opinions comments. Repeatedly you see doctors, parents, and even teachers say they’re done with the school restrictions in particular and why. And they’re saying it in the New York Times! Isn’t that interesting? To Ethics Alarms? Other than Ukraine right now, isn’t the pandemic still by far the biggest story going, indeed arguably the central news event of our lives?
Jack, I’m as frustrated as anyone about story selection in all of the media these days. As I often tell friends when we agree to discuss “politics,” I’m not really bothered by anyone’s “opinions,” far left to far right (within reason of true prejudice, of course). What I’m concerned about is the way that much if not most of the media has discovered the profitability of information silos, where news consumers appear to pick stories not for its immediacy nor even for the old standard of prurience but for its value in confirmation bias, including now the important problem of withholding big but troubling news from the selected audience if it goes against their “team.”
But now it seems like YOUR eye keeps going to sometimes fairly marginal matters that do obsess over this problem from one side of the political aisle only, frankly leading to the same old speeches by the same old people here. And to the note of resentment about former commenters – I have a feeling that it went both ways, that people assumed they could make comments without being jumped on by the host, which was likely part of the problem.
So a challenge: I’d like to hear FIRST from Steve O. in New Jersey and Steve Witherspoon what their reaction is to what I’ve just observed. I can take it, and seeing as I’m hardly the most liberal person around in my politics, I’d like to see if they can take it too. Thanks, and let’s see what happens.
A Friend wrote, “So a challenge: I’d like to hear FIRST from Steve O. in New Jersey and Steve Witherspoon what their reaction is to what I’ve just observed.”
You’re welcome to your opinion.
Steve, did you see this prominent story in the New York Times toward the end of the week? I don’t know about the print edition, but it was at the top of my tablet’s online presentation last Thursday or so:
Why Liberal Suburbs Face a New Round of School Mask Battles
How about the first comment that appears, presumably permanently, at the top of the now-closed comment section, where Michael in Iowa calls local Democratic Party officials in nearby Minnesota where his relatives send their kids to school “petty tyrants”?
Gotta run but will pick up your response later this afternoon. I need to hear it because you’ve explicitly called the New York Times a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. (Comically it was the day before the NYT ran a lead story blasting the Democrats for hypocrisy on dark money, implying that they’re better at it than the Republicans.)
If I can, I’ll reference the dark money story later today. Also in that category are the NYT stories last week about Democrats gerrymandering just like Republicans. Not that this should surprise anyone who has followed the issue, as that has always been a weapon for both parties, but the narrative for most of the past year was that it was the GOP doing all the gerrymandering.
A Friend, the Times looks at which way the wind blows. I suspect their suburban woman readership is tired of school closures and masking for their kids. Even the NYT demographic (well to do coastal urban- and suburbanites) has grown tired of Covid overreach, so The Times has done a one eighty. Besides which, I’m sure the polling on mask mandates and even vaccine mandates has turned violently against the Times’ previous position of carrying the left’s water on this issue. (I bet the Times, as does any political operation, has a massive internal polling operation, come to think of it.) I’ll bet the Ron Klain administration will change direction this week. I also think the Canadian parliament will take action this week to meet the truckers’ demands and end the roadblocks in Canada.
(HT, why hasn’t the Canadian government accommodated the truckers’ demand to some reasonable extent? What’s going on? Seems totally out of the Canadian ethos of everyone getting along inside the fort.)
Of course everyone is affected by changes in overall sentiment. But you’re acting as if the NYT does nothing but write what it feels like. The reporters put a lot of work into this. Most people here seem to be using the term “The New York Times” as a term of opprobrium. My question is whether you’re actually familiar with the product. It’s complicated. And when you go in, OPEN THE READER COMMENTS. They are fascinating. Yes, some of their reader base is always furious when an article goes against narrative. But I think that’s great. It’s a very valuable tool to see where things are heading in the country. And a whole lot of you guys are missing this phenomenon. If you’re angry at Jamelle Bouie because of something he wrote on page A87 or whatever, just remember that a lot of Times readers are forever peeved that the Times also runs Ross Douthat and Bret Stephens.
So why do you think the Times is still ignoring the Durham story? isn’t it because “it doesn’t feel like” publicizing it? Is there a valid reason?
A Friend wrote, “Steve, did you see this prominent story in the New York Times toward the end of the week?”
I canceled my subscription to the New York Times a few years ago.
A Friend wrote, “Gotta run but will pick up your response later this afternoon. I need to hear it because you’ve explicitly called the New York Times a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.”
Are you confusing me with someone else?
Support your claim.
Please reference this time I “explicitly called the New York Times a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party”.
I don’t recall ever using the word “mouthpiece” in any of my comments unless it was contained within something I quoted. I just searched the thousands of my comments on Ethics Alarms all the way back to December of 2015 and I couldn’t find any time I’ve used the word “mouthpiece” much less in the context you just claimed, maybe I missed something but it’s not likely.
“The New York Times has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it is engaging in activist journalism and is a proven that it’s a partisan liar, a pure propaganda arm, a media outlet tool of the Democratic Party.”
– Steve Witherspoon, January 29, 2022, 11:16 a.m.
(in one of Jack’s posts of January 28 about, yes, a poorly reported story on economic “growth”)
Fine, “media outlet tool,” a shorter term for which would be “mouthpiece.” Come on, Steve.
Meanwhile, here you say: “I canceled my subscription to the New York Times a few years ago.” Precisely my point. So how would you know? Steve, maybe you WANT Ethics Alarms to be an echo chamber. As we’ve discussed before, it’s a comfortable place for many people to be, left OR right. But that runs reverse bias-makes-you-stupid risks. And why would you want to emulate the mistakes of “the other side”? But gee, I’m sorry to invade your safe space with something uncomfortable.
I want to make sure I’m getting your implication right. Are you saying that the NYT is NOT a “mouthpiece” for the Liberal Democratic Party?
A Friend wrote, “Fine, “media outlet tool,” a shorter term for which would be “mouthpiece.” “
Okay, so you didn’t mean “explicitly called” in a literal way as implied only in a figurative way, got it.
I’m guilty as charged. So what?
Is what I have written about the New York Times reasonably true or not?
A Friend wrote, “Meanwhile, here you say: “I canceled my subscription to the New York Times a few years ago.” Precisely my point. So how would you know?”
You get an official DUH on that point. Just because I’ve chosen not to give my money to the New York Times so they can dump their partisan biased bull shit in my in box every day doesn’t mean that I’m not exposed to the New York Times articles. Yes A Friend, I’m exposed to the New York Times articles regularly but I can’t see, and I don’t care to see, any of the comments on any of their articles and frankly Scarlett I don’t give a damn what’s in their article comments, those don’t represent the media outlet. I’m sure the comments on their articles are similar in nature to the comments on Fox News articles, a bunch of partisan attack dogs trolls and partisan apologists trolls rhetorically duking it out on a daily basis.
I’m getting the impression from you that when the New York Times prints a token article or two that’s not their usual pure pro Democratic Party & anti-Republican propaganda that they’ve been printing since 2016 then you think that means that they’re some kind of balanced media outlet like they were say about 40, 50 or 60 years ago. I’m curious, would you say the same about the non-partisan articles and practices on Fox News, are they just token articles and practices so they can falsely claim to present balanced news or do those articles and practices actually make them a balanced media outlet?
A Friend wrote, “Steve, maybe you WANT Ethics Alarms to be an echo chamber. As we’ve discussed before, it’s a comfortable place for many people to be, left OR right.”
That would contradict what I’ve written about this topic in the past; so to beat a dead horse, no A Friend I don’t “WANT Ethics Alarms to be an echo chamber”. I have absolutely no problem talking with those that have serious political disagreements with me but if they choose to whip out their usual tactics I’m ready with my brand of retorts; I don’t mind being in a hot kitchen. Let’s make it simple for you, I’m not much interested in comfortable echo chamber conversations I’m interested in simulating intelligent conversations and that is what we generally get here on Ethics Alarms.
A Friend wrote, “But that runs reverse bias-makes-you-stupid risks. And why would you want to emulate the mistakes of “the other side”?”
What the hell are you trying to say in this segment of your comment?
A Friend wrote, “But gee, I’m sorry to invade your safe space with something uncomfortable.”
Oh bite me asshole.
You sound triggered, Steve. I’ll respond in a fresh box at the bottom so it’s easier to read.
I’ll cop to it, though. The Times has frequently flogged Democratic talking points and narratives, most prominently the false “insurrection” label, and the doomsday pandemic reporting.
The Times started becoming a liberal rag in the middle 1990s, and just went over the edge completely in 2016. I believe almost nothing that comes from their writers. And why don’t they fire Charles Blow?
That’s nice, but I’m not here to argue or debate you. I went through enough of that BS with Chris. Not going there again.
Steve, I don’t know who Chris is, but it’s fascinating that you call a discussion where somebody might actually disagree with you “BS.” This is an Internet website, indeed a blog, so what else is the point of a comment thread? And to think that I associate the inability to take disagreement more with woke liberals! Meanwhile, you said something above about Charles Blow, as if that’s the entirety of the New York Times. It’s ridiculous.
I fear that this is a trolling rabbit hole trying to suck Steve in but I’m going to address it.
A Friend wrote, “Meanwhile, you said something above about Charles Blow, as if that’s the entirety of the New York Times. It’s ridiculous.”
Your extrapolation to absurdity is what’s ridiculous.
Keep on writing ridiculous misrepresenting extrapolations like that about the people you converse with and eventually no one will converse with you. Your choices have consequences.
P.S. You are miscomprehending and misrepresenting others just like Chris used to do.
Steve-O, please see my comment to Steve W, which I just as easily could have entered here. first, I think your end game with the now-banned Chris was his low-point on the blog; before that, he provided some astute perspective and useful debate. Second, AF isn’t anything like Chris: for one thing, he is not a knee-jerk progressive by any means. I think you pigeon-holed him, and I recommend a new start. But it’s your call.
It’s reassuring to know this wasn’t my imagination, or that I missed something: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2022/02/13/the-media-blackout-of-durhams-bombshell-report-alleging-clinton-campaign-infiltrated-trump-tower-n1558817?utm_source=pjmedia&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm&bcid=db6bf1fa1bd2989334941cff073cc2f3e03e40175a79675c7d6d7d826e062257&recip=28435793
I am pissed that no one is noting that during the reign of “Putin’s Cockholster”, Ukraine was a sovereign nation, except for a small portion ceded by the previous Democratic incumbent.
Now, the current Democratic incumbent seems hellbent on ceding the entire country. Maybe Putin will be content with the Borderland.
Oh no! Haven’t you heard? The President promises serious consequences if Russia invades. Serious!
Awesome, so “Nancy Pelosi Bobblehead” day really is coming. I can’t wait!!!
The following is a response to Steve Witherspoon above. Steve, you claim you want a discussion but the slightest disagreement triggers you to classic Internet rudeness. Obviously that’s because you’re not used to substantive disagreement here and, I suspect, most anywhere else. I’ll observe for the second time in this forum in 2022 that these days, people – and I mean liberals, conservatives, everyone – tend to think that other people are smarter, nicer, and better-looking provided they agree with them POLITICALLY. That’s not a valid conclusion and it’s really unfortunate.
Now specifically, and with regard to my concern over information bubbles, you said this about the New York Times in your comment, and it’s disastrously incorrect:
“Frankly Scarlett I don’t give a damn what’s in their article comments, those don’t represent the media outlet. I’m sure the comments on their articles are similar in nature to the comments on Fox News articles, a bunch of partisan attack dogs trolls and partisan apologists trolls rhetorically duking it out on a daily basis.”
The nature of comments in the New York Times are absolutely, completely unlike anything at Fox News, or for that matter almost any other news site, “conservative,” “liberal,” or otherwise. All you’re doing is aggressively advertising that you don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t know quite how they do it, but the New York Times has figured out a system to moderate their comments to let all opinions through and yet keep the useless ad hominem back and forth out. I’m certain that you, and Steve O., and others here are IMAGINING that the NYT comments on stories and columns are an echo chamber, and they’re absolutely not. I’ve already said, and I’m aware that I’m repeating myself, that in fact the comments serve as a barometer, almost a leading indicator, of evolving or diverging sentiment in blue America (because, yes, their paid audience is bound to be overwhelmingly on that “side”). You are cheating yourself if you are not checking it out.
Finally, I’m aware this is a repeat, but it must be said. This thing where you DID say that the New York Times is a direct representative for the views of the US Democratic Party occurred on the very same weekend as the NYT ran the following lead story in their entire Sunday paper:
I hope this helps, and thanks for calling me a troll again while I was writing this comment. It just reinforces everything I said, all in an attempt to sincerely help this site. See ya, man.
When I got to this sentence from A Friend, “…thanks for calling me a troll again while I was writing this comment” the rest of A Friend’s comment became useless to me.
I did not call you a troll again; that A Friend is not a misunderstanding or a disagreement on your part, that was a lie. Trolling is a verb used to describe an action, troll is a noun used to name a particular class of people, what I used was the verb not the noun; that said, I’ll say this now, you’re showing a pattern of misrepresenting “lies”, I personally think it’s intentional and I don’t think you are arguing in good faith. Choices have consequences.
I won’t go down any more of your rabbit holes.
I tried; we’re done.
Steve…it’s your choice, but I’d appreciate it if you would engage AF. I’m not sure how the exchanges with you and Steve-O got so adversarial so quickly, but I can vouch for A Friend:he’s interested in a good faith debate, and both of you are very capable of accommodating him. He’s also no ideologue, and his claim that EA is hostile to any dissent would be best rebutted by a vigorous and civil exchange.
I confess that I haven’t reviewed his most recent comments, but I’ve had plenty of exchanges with AF off site, and he has always been reasonable, if tough, but then so are you, and, for that matter, me.
Again, your choice, but I view this as an opportunity.
Thanks for the input Jack and consider it considered. Looking forward to it in a different thread.