Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Scarborough: MSM Ignoring Unmasking Of Trump Aides by Obama Admin

Scarborough: MSM Ignoring Unmasking Of Trump Aides by Obama Admin

MSM doesn’t want to discuss “improper activity” by members of the Obama admin that most in the media “like and admire”

On today’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough argued that the MSM is failing to cover the story of the Obama admin “unmasking”and leaking the names of Trump campaign people caught up in the intercepts of Russians.

According to Scarborough, 95% of the story is the attempt by the Russians to influence the election. But that still leaves the 5% that the MSM is ignoring because the people unmasked were disliked, and in the case of Michael Flynn, “loathed” by the media. In contrast, said Scarborough, the improper activity was “by people who, let’s face it, most of the people in the media like and admire.”

So Scarborough admits that there is real media bias at work here. It’s also notable that Scarborough says the “improper activity” was by people in the Obama admin that the MSM “likes and admires.” That suggests that he and others have a good idea of just who those people in the Obama admin involved in the unmasking and leaking were. Let’s name names.

Note: for years, Scarborough has caricatured conservative bloggers as people in their mothers’ basement covered in Cheeto dust. He broke it out again this morning, suggesting those were the people interested in this 5% story. For the record: I’m not in the basement. I’m in the attic. And that’s not Cheeto dust. Those are Twinkie crumbs.

Note segundo: Governments are constantly trying to interfere in elections in other countries. President Obama, for example, did what he could to defeat Bibi Netanyahu. But if the Obama admin was unmasking and leaking to the press the identities of Trump campaign people caught up in intercepts, that is, IMHO, a BFD.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Right now this morning, though, I’m just trying to investigate, just want to dig in to what the Trump people, their claims, and let’s say that’s only 5% of the story. It’s still 5% of the story.

And that’s why I’m asking you that story: do they have a point?

. . .

I want to be very clear, though. The incidental collection is not illegal.

STEVE RATTNER: It’s not illegal!

JOE: What would be illegal, and what some people inside the intel community have told me: come on, you’ve got to focus a little bit on this is, the improper unmasking of American citizens could be a real problem.

MICHAEL SCHMIDT [NY Times reporter]: And in Flynn’s case that happened. That is true. That is true.

JOE: There is no doubt that if Flynn were not as loathed as Flynn was loathed, and this happened to somebody else: let’s say it happened to Colin Powell, Washington would be on fire right now.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Oh my God.

JOE: And charges would be dropped [brought.] And we have to look at that as reporters. The unmasking and also the leaking of this information also. Those are problems.

RATTNER: That’s fair. But remember the 95/5 ratio in terms of —

JOE: I do. But here’s my point: nobody’s looking at the 5%. We’re all looking at the 95%. We have to look at the whole story. We’re not looking at the whole story. The 5%.

. . .

JOE: I want everybody to remember this morning. As the Cheetos dust is flying in the basements—their mothers’ basement, as they sit in underwear, with their stomach going over. I want you guys to understand again: it’s a 96/5 issue. The lead story is the Russians tried to influence our election. It is frightening. They’re trying to destroy our democracy. But that does not give us a free pass to ignore what happened in 5% of the story, just because we don’t like the principals who got caught up by improper activity from people, from people: who let’s face, most of the people in the media like and admire. That’s what I’m saying! That is what a newspaper ombudsman should do.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“as they sit in underwear”

I go commando.

Yo, Joe! It’s called institutional bias… it’s how you make your money.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Merlin. | March 31, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    LOL

    Who needs Circus Clowns when we’ve got CNN and MSNBC – as well as CBS, PBS, and ABC!!!!!

Remember when the infamous DNC and Podesta e-mails were made public and the only concern the Dems had was who leaked it, not what was in the e-mails? Now, it is the exact opposite. They only want to focus on the contents of the conversation and not who leaked it. Just another day in the hypocritical world of the progs.

What is really sad about all of this is that the MAIN story is not about the Russians attempting to influence the last Presidential election. Four months after the election there is still no conclusive evidence that the Russian government was responsible for any of the claims made by the Dem/liberal/Progressive cartel in this country. And, even if the Russians did try to influence a Presidential election, so what. The US, and every other nation on the planet does the same thing. Heck, we have documentary evidence that the CIA has actually deposed elected leaders and our last President publicly attempted to directly influence the election of leaders in other countries, our of whom was a long time ally. If the “Russian Influence” story involved anyone other than Trump, it would have disappeared three months ago.

Of course the MSM exhibits an institutional bias. It’s an institution. The national press has always been somewhat monolithic in its positions on large issues. Part of that is the human propensity to congregate with those who you feel comfortable with. And, part of that is the need to cultivate sources who are influential in government. And, government sources will provide information to those that they consider their friends rather than their adversaries. So, the MSM and the politicians, most of whom are now members of the Liberal/Progressive Establishment, become fellow travelers who share much of the same agenda.

Enter the “pajama media”. No longer does a person have to follow the same path as the traditional journalist to provide accurate information and analysis. Because of the rise and spread of the general communications network [internet, social media, etc] it is now possible for virtually anyone to reach a large audience without the necessity for a large established organization. And, it also allows those people who wish to make their own decisions based upon factual information to do so more easily. These members of the alt-media take full advantage of the resources available to the MSM, by using those organs’ disseminated information as the basis for their reporting and analysis. That the conclusions drawn by the alt-media is often significantly different from that of the MSM outlets, using the same information, suggests that a significant bias exists on one side or the other.

One last thing here about “incidental collection”. We do not know if all of this information is, in fact, incidental to the surveillance of a legitimate foreign national security target. We have been led to believe that the Flynn intercept was the result of legitimate surveillance of the Russian ambassador. However, what if that is not true? What if the information was acquired through surveillance of communications to and from Trump’s organization? If all of this information was the result of “incidental collection”, the release of such information, without proper authorization, would be bad but would not greatly affect an administration of government. However, if the source of this information was NOT incidental collection but the result of direct surveillance of a US citizen, or citizens, especially those affiliated with a presidential campaign and President elect which was from a rival party to that of the sitting President at the time, by official agencies of this government, this would be shattering to the permanent government of this country. So, ask yourself WHY the people who have been using this leaked information so heavily are now desperately trying to sell the idea that the source of this information was legitimate, legal “incidental collection: of intercepted communications. That is the BIG STORY here.

    One last thing here about “incidental collection”.

    That whole paragraph sums up something that’s been on my mind, too. If it’s “improper” to unmask identities unrelated to an investigatory wiretapping — so-called “incidental collection” — there really are two reasons Michael Flynn’s name might be on the transcripts: either Flynn was improperly unmasked (The Narrative[TM], currently), or Flynn and others were the targets of the surveillance.

    If it’s option #1, then whoever did the unmasking needs to be outed. If it’s option #2, then we need to know why an American citizen was under surveillance in connection with an investigation into the Russians.

    Needless to say, if any investigation is ongoing (as The Narrative[TM] portrays), none of this should have been revealed at all — which is just one more unanswered question in the back of my mind.

    Something about this whole story stinks.

I think differently. Incidentally spying on American citizens, unmasking their names and distributing the information to governmental entities that do not have proper security clearances seems like a big freaking deal to me.

Joe they are spying on you too. I would be concerned if I were you.

Wonder if Joe would be keen to having His and Mika’s co secrets broadcast ?

Wonder if Joe would be keen to having His and Mika’s co secrets broadcast ?

Blaise MacLean | March 31, 2017 at 3:02 pm

Who says it’s only 5% of the story? Where does THAT number come from?

    The same place “85%” and “92%” came from, as related to Hillary’s chances of winning the election. It’s all part of The Narrative[TM].

    In short: That’s what the MSM wants it to be, so that’s The Narrative[TM].

Let’s say the Russians did try to influence the election. This does not necessarily mean the interference was bad for America or democracy. Maybe Putin just despises Hillary and wanted her defeated. Maybe he just considered Trump a more worthy opponent on the foreign policy battlefield and was tired of wasting his time with an administration that “leads from behind.” Certainly Hillary had policy ideas that arguably would have been to the benefit of the Russians, such as her anti-fossil fuel stance, that would have put dollars into the Russian energy business, or her anti-military slant that could possibly have crippled American military might. Exactly how did the Russians benefit from Trump’s election? If you know the story of the lion and the skunk, then you may understand why a lion wants to avoid fighting a skukn and may prefer to fight another lion.

At best, Mr. Scarborough has the relative percentages of importance backward. At best!

I would say 95% of what Joe says is BS….and the other 5% in just dumb….

I would say 95% of what Joe says is BS….and the other 5% is just dumb….

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend