Fake president blames leaks on ‘fake news’

Ok, Donald Trump is the real president of the United States, but he is faking the problems he has with leaks from within the White House, the FBI and wherever else they are coming from by blaming it all on alleged ‘fake news’.

He’s making more excuses than Hillary Clinton made about losing the election to him.

That’s pathetic, and it’s alarming when coming from the president. Going on about conspiracies like fake birth certificates was bad enough, before he was a real candidate, but now he’s President he needs to get real about the problems he faces or he will become known as the president who faked it.

It’s fair to question media accuracy, but trying to dismiss all news he doesn’t like as deliberately concocted fake news is unbecoming of someone in his position.

There will no doubt be inaccuracies and mistakes in news, there always has been and always will be, but it is alarmingly childish of Trump to blame all his problems on something he himself is making up, his claims are based on “my opinion” with no evidence and not any sources.

He is at least as bad as those he accuses, and I think he’s worse for a person in his position.

Every politician ever has probably claimed about media coverage. I’ve never seen any go as far, promoting conspiracy theories as an excuse for every unfavourable story.

News (from ‘sources’) seems to be getting a bit too close to home for Trump – with reports about investigations into Russian collusion possibly involving his son-in-law Jared Kushner – “is part of the federal investigation into the alleged Russia collusion, though not a target of the probe”.

News reports last week said Kushner, married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka, is part of the federal investigation into the alleged Russia collusion, though not a target of the probe.

They were followed by stories, also based on sources, that Kushner during the presidential campaign was trying to set up a back-channel communications network with the Kremlin and that he had two previously undisclosed conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

Kushner’s lawyer has said his client is willing to talk to federal and congressional investigators about the matter.

The US Homeland Security Secretary actually sees contact with Russia “is a good thing”. It depends on what sort of contact, and whether proper disclosures have been made.

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told “Fox News Sunday” that any channel of communication between the United States and another country, including Russia, “is a good thing.”

“It doesn’t bother me,” Kelly also said about the reports about efforts to create the back channel. “I don’t see it as a big deal.”

Some of the US authorities, including oversight committees of elected representatives,  obviously see it as potentially a big deal, hence the ongoing investigations.

A number of leaks have been real:

British intelligence on their Manchester bombing investigations was also leaked from the US.

Trump seems to have a habit of attacking when attacked, so the more ridiculous claims he makes the bigger the concern there should be over his conspiracy rants.

A real president wouldn’t just blame all bad news on conspiracies he has no evidence of. He should be bigger than that.

If he makes too many fake claims his protestations may back fire, and he may become known as the Fake President.

73 Comments

  1. What if it’s Trump who is destroying his and US credibility?

    One thing so far that Trump has proven the hugest at – media blame. With help from Gingrich and others.

    It may help him with his base of supporters who agree with any claim he makes, but his crying wolf when he doesn’t like what’s in the news is likely to make more people more sceptical about anything he says.

    It’s difficult to differentiate the outlandish from the real.

  2. Someone who doesn’t try to write off leaks as ‘fake news’:

    I would be surprised if there is just one leaker.

  3. I get that people hate Trump. He presents as an oaf and buffoon. He’s not a man who
    liberal, globalist Americans see when they look into the mirror. They see themselves as urbane, sophisticated and outward looking/reaching. Obama was their hero. He showed them how far they’d come since Rosa Parks and KKK lynchings.

    These people are my American friends. They’re embarrassed. Trump seems to embody all they hate. He’s all about the good ole USA, MAGA, anti TPP, pay your 2% of GDP towards NATO and show the US some respect – respect we’re owed! He embodies all they feel they’ve kept behind. However, Trump’s aspirations clearly sat well with the good citizens of 77 more electorates than Hillary managed to get on side. These people, their struggles, hopes and aspirations are increasingly being kept down and forgotten by the media as they breathlessly wait for the next leak. Morning Joe, Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow – wherecis their reporting on the poverty and generations lost to Methamphetamine in the Rust Belt? It’s more than fair to say they’re far too busy waiting for the daily story or worrying about whether Melanie holds Donald’s hand.

    To me, it’s ridiculous to say there aren’t leaks. The leaking of classified information, including transcripts of his conversations with foreign leaders, the scope of WH and State Dept leaks are unprecedented. WaPo’s story on the Comey firing was based on “the private accounts of more than 30 officials at the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI and on Capitol Hill, as well as Trump confidants and other senior Republicans.” Yes, that’s fully 30 officials they had access to!!!

    There was nothing like this under Obama or Bush. There’s nothing vaguely conspiratorial or paranoid to assert leaks, but it would be more presidential and germane of Trump to moderate his responses, despite this media seige.

    Judge Jeanine is right when she says the US MSM are more fixated on the daily leaks than anything else. The irony will be that with no obvious or inspirational leader, without forward thinking policy development, failing to address the lack of blue collar jobs, the attendant social misery and an abysmal public healthcare system they risk Trump taking another 4 years.

  4. Blazer

     /  May 29, 2017

    your last paragraph is the antithesis of why Trump was elected.He is/was percieved as the inspirational,straight talker who will make ‘America great …again’…and restore american jobs,put the U.S first.As he has only been in the job 5 minutes’….a bit hard to judge him…yet.

    • Some perceived him like that. Some saw him as a less bad option than Clinton. Some saw his flaws but hoped that a shake up of Washington would end up doing some sort of good.

      I’m sure there were other reasons why people voted for Trump or didn’t vote for Clinton.

      And more people still voted for Clinton overall.

      • Blazer

         /  May 29, 2017

        so in your view what was the number one reason Trump was elected by….voters to become POTUS?

        • Because Clinton was too flawed.

          Second reason – Clinton’s campaign was badly flawed.

          • HC has openly acknowleged her own part in the loss but has also-quite rightly-said that there was dirty work done at the crossroads. Which there was. I would have voted for her-and NOT just because she is a girl. As a girl, I find it very patronising when people think that we must have things handed to us when men have to work for them….

            • Blazer

               /  May 29, 2017

              you creating your own argument …again…no one cares why you would have voted for…Clinton…no one.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  May 29, 2017

              What a nasty little person you are; full of bile and spite. It’s very sad to see this, you must be very lonely and insecure.

          • Conspiratoor

             /  May 29, 2017

            So nothing to do trump then? He just sort of happened along at the right time

            • I didn’t say anything like that, but I think a strong and uncompromised Democrat candidate would have been difficult for Trump, with all his flaws, to beat.

        • It’s to cover all the promises he made on the campaign trail – here’s the most memorable ones he made:

          Build The Wall & make Mexico pay for it
          Temporarily ban Muslims from entering the US
          Bring manufacturing jobs back
          Impose tarriffs on goods made in Mexico & China
          Repeal & replace Obamacare with something better
          Preserve Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
          Renegotiate or withdraw from NAFTA & TPPA
          Renegotiate the Iran deal
          Cut taxes
          Spend Big League on Infrastructure
          Roll Back Financial Regulation
          Drain the swamp
          End Common Core
          Loosen gun laws on day 1
          Stop killing of cops
          Improve VA health system including private option paid by govt
          Take $1 as a salary
          Release his tax returns
          Bomb &/or take oil from ISIS
          Bring back torture because it works
          Deport all 11 million illegal immigrants
          Cancel DACA
          Remove funding for sanctuary cities
          Lock her up
          Create 25 million jobs & 4% annual growth
          Tarrifs on goods of companies which manufacture overseas
          Bring back coal jobs
          Eliminate the National Debt
          Expand the military
          Make NATO pay more
          Better deal with Cuba
          Stop North Korea’s nuclear program
          Withdraw from Paris Climate Change Accord

          I think the main reasons people probably voted for him were Lock Her Up, Drain the swamp, & jobs, jobs, jobs – in that order?

          • Conspiratoor

             /  May 29, 2017

            G, many of these are simply an opening gambit to a negotiator. Nothing he’s done to date is inconsistent with his broader goals and some goals he’s made significant progress towards simply by signaling. No doubt many Americans will heartened to hear he’s slowed the muslim tide despite the best endeavors of a few rogue bush lawyers…

            “The Trump effect: There was a 55% decrease in the number of visas granted among the six countries targeted by Trump’s travel ban (Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen).” Axios

            On foreign policy he’s deliberately ruffled feathers in Europe, while schmoozing in the ME. The man’s a bloody genius and you will come to this realization in time. Cheers,c

  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  May 29, 2017

    Breitbart is running a report that says three Obama appointed leakers have been identified and will be fired.

    • Named sources or fake news?

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  May 29, 2017

        One of them is CBS so your call, PG:

        “CBS News has confirmed from two sources that three leakers of classified information at the White House have been identified and are expected to be fired,” CBS News reported this week, adding, “Officials within the Trump White House believe leaks of Mr. Trump’s conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are a ‘deliberate attempt’ by officials who are holdovers from President Obama’s administration and are trying to damage the Trump presidency.”

        In addition, this week, chief One America News Network (OANN) White House correspondent Trey Yingst also reported that three White House leakers have been identified and referred to the proper authorities.

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/27/reports-at-least-three-anti-trump-leakers-identified-referred-proper-authorities-expected-fired-soon/

        • If Trump was consistent he would call “from two sources” fake news.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  May 29, 2017

            That’s as silly as saying to be consistent if he calls any news fake news he has to call all news fake news. You really are descending into the pathetically absurd with your anti-Trump stance, PG.

            • I’m not anti-trump, I’m anti-fake whether it be media or politicians or administrators doing the faking.

              It’s the trump way to attack anyone who criticises him, and that seems to be a practice adopted by some of his supporters too.

              Can you see nothing that concerns you about Trump’s presidency?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  May 29, 2017

              I find it quite unnecessary to worry about concerns re Trump’s presidency when so many others are doing so to completely ridiculous extremes. I find it far more productive to look at what they ignore – which is very substantial.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  May 29, 2017

              Absolutement AL. I find it useful to separate “fake” from “leak”. Where trump has established the source of a leak he has acted decisively. Where he has been hit with successive waves of “fake” he has been less successful. We must look to facts to verify the leak …and on that score we have virtually no conclusive evidence

  6. Joe Bloggs

     /  May 29, 2017

    Here’s an interesting spin on fake news. A recent study of the mainstream coverage of trump’s first 100 days in office has been released by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy.

    It finds that 80% of coverage of trump in major US dailies, US tv channels, and European newspapers is negative – no surprises. What is surprising is that it’s not the Dems or Liberals driving the bad press, it’s law-enforcement sources and pissed-off Republicans :

    “Republican voices . . . accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency, compared to only 6 percent for Democrats and 3 percent for those involved in anti-Trump protests.”

    So the coverage has not featured a bunch of liberals complaining about Trump—Democrats and those engaged with the anti-Trump resistance were few and far between.

    “The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising,” the report says. “The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever.”

    Then there’s the leaking:

    We can’t know the ideological breakdown of the people speaking to reporters anonymously, but we do know that Trump’s own staff—people close to him—have been the source of a number of negative stories, and we know, thanks to White House leaks, that Trump’s staff often leaks information to the press because, as the very conservative Erick Erickson reported, “sometimes the president will not take advice. Sometimes the president treats suggestions as criticism. More often than not, the president is vastly more interested in what the media says about him than what his advisers in his employ say to him.”

    According to Erickson, who personally knows “an ardent Trump supporter” in Trump’s orbit who was the source of one such leak, “White House staff have ample incentive to leak to the press when they believe the president needs to pay attention or be admonished.” Just think for a moment how often you’ve read a story in which an anonymous source criticizing the president is identified as a current or former supporter or adviser or donor.

    Law-enforcement and intelligence agencies have been the other big source of leaks. They’re not all right-wingers, of course, and their motives for leaking include, depending on how you look at it, either revenge for Trump’s many assaults on the intelligence community, or a principled defense of institutions they see as vital to our national security. Neither of those things represents ideological bias.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/conservatives-complain-republicans-liberal-bias/

    It’s a strange old world when the cannibals eat their own babies.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  May 29, 2017

      So the undisclosed context is that anti-Trump media seek out dissident Republicans to front their agenda?

      • Or dissident Republicans seek out media.

        More likely a combination of the two.

      • Anonymous Coward

         /  May 29, 2017

        The nature of leaks is that they come to you, you can’t ‘seek them out’.

        • The nature of journalism is that journalists are frequently trying to seek leaks and encourage potential leakers.

          • Anonymous Coward

             /  May 29, 2017

            You can’t make someone tell you something.

            • No, but journalists can be far from passive participants in leaking.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  May 29, 2017

              Well you can’t leak something without someone to leak it to – and from there your argument gets cyclic.

            • No it doesn’t. Leakers have worked in tandem with reporters since forever.

              And I’m fairly sure more than a few leakers have been prompted, encouraged and even pressured.

              And some have had confidences breached.

          • Anonymous Coward

             /  May 29, 2017

            From the Brietbart story Al linked above….
            “Multiple White House aides, asked for comment about the CBS News and OANN reports, declined to comment when reached by Breitbart News.”

      • Joe Bloggs

         /  May 29, 2017

        Spin away little washing machine … but you’re stuck on rinse cycle

        The disclosed context is that Republicans and White House staffers seek out media to get trump’s attention. That’s not too demanding to comprehend, is it?

        https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/

        So to recapitulate:
        – Republican voices accounted for 80% of what newsmakers said about the trump presidency in the first 100 days, compared to only 6% for Democrats and 3% for those involved in anti-trump protests.

        It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process. It’s a pretty poor showing when spokespeople for the opposing party get only 6% of the airtime.

        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  May 29, 2017

          B.s. analysis, Joe. Republican voices may account for 80% of what newsmakers say. Lefty journalists account for 95% of what the media publishes. Quotes from “newsmakers” are an insignificant portion of that. 80% of 5% is just 4%.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  May 29, 2017

            As per the link above:
            Never have journalists fixated on a single newsmaker for as long as they have on Trump. If he sees journalists as his main opponents, one reason is that between Trump and themselves there’s not much air time for everyone else. Journalists need to resist even the smallest temptation to see themselves as opponents of government. It’s the competition between the party in power and the opposing party, and not between government and the press, that’s at the core of the democratic process. When spokespersons for the opposing party get a mere 6 percent of the airtime, something’s amiss.

            Yes, and that “something” is journalists interviewing their typewriters and quoting each other.

          • Joe Bloggs

             /  May 29, 2017

            spin spin spin

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  May 29, 2017

              No, just the facts you don’t like.

  7. High Flying Duck

     /  May 29, 2017

    Fascinating article in NBR saying Trump will almost certainly be re-elected in 2020:

    From the article:

    “Popularity is overrated

    Trump won his first term despite record low approval ratings, triumphing over the marginally less unpopular Hillary Clinton. He will probably be able to repeat this feat if necessary.

    The president continues to enjoy staunch support from the voters who put him in the White House. He has raised millions of dollars in small donations for reelection, pulling in twice as much money as Barack Obama in his first 100 days. And he’s already putting that money to use running ads in key states that trumpet his achievements and criticise political rivals.

    Although most don’t like or trust Trump, polls show he seems to be meeting or exceeding Americans’ expectations so far. In fact, an ABC News/ Washington Post survey suggests that if the election had been held again in late April, Trump would have not only won the Electoral College, but the popular vote as well – despite his declining approval rating.

    To further underscore this point, consider congressional reelection patterns.

    Since World War II, the incumbency rate has been about 80 percent for the House of Representatives and 73 percent for the Senate. Going into the 2016 election, Congress’ approval rating was at an abysmal 15 percent. Yet their incumbency rate was actually higher than usual: 97 percent in the House and 98 percent in the Senate.

    As a function of the default effect, the particular seats which happen to be open this cycle, and Republican dominance of state governments which has allowed them to draw key congressional districts in their favor – it will be extremely difficult for Democrats to gain even a simple majority in the Senate in 2018. The House? Even less likely.

    Trump … or who?

    Due to the default effect, what matters most is not how the public feels about the incumbent, but how they feel about the most likely alternative.

    Carter didn’t just have low approval ratings, he also had to square off against Ronald Reagan. “The Gipper” was well-known, relatable and media-savvy. Although the Washington establishment largely wrote off his platform with derisive terms like “voodoo economics,” the American public found him to be a visionary and inspirational leader – awarding him two consecutive landslide victories.

    Trump’s opposition is in much worse shape. The Democratic Party has been haemorrhaging voters for the better part of a decade. Democrats are viewed as being more “out of touch” with average Americans than Trump or the Republicans. Yet key players in the DNC still resist making substantive changes to the party’s platform and strategy. Hence it remains unclear how Democrats will broaden their coalition, or even prevent its continued erosion.

    Trump is not likely to follow in Carter’s footsteps. Other modern precedents seem more plausible.

    For instance, Truman had an approval rating of around 39 percent going into the 1948 election, yet managed to beat challenger Thomas Dewey by more than two million in the popular vote, and 114 in the Electoral College. The president had been holding raucous rallies in key states and districts, growing ever-larger as the race neared its end. However, the media disregarded these displays of support because his base was not well-captured in polls. As a result, his victory came as a total surprise to virtually everyone. Sound familiar?”

    https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/trump-will-probably-win-re-election-2020-ck-203491?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NBR%252520Heads%252520Up

    • I think it’s stupid to claim “Trump will almost certainly be re-elected in 2020”. Trump was quite different to any previous candidate, and there were many claims that he alsmost certainly wouldn’t be elected in 2016, so trying to guess what might happen in three years is nonsense.

      • High Flying Duck

         /  May 29, 2017

        Your reply suggests you didn’t read the article PG?
        It shows exactly WHY he will probably win based on the entire history of US elections pointing to that outcome.
        It also points out many similarities of Trump with previous administrations.
        The writer is not some conservative political pundit spruiking his view – based on what he does he is almost certainly a liberal.

        • It is incontestable that the Dems have nobody up to the job – unless you count Elizabeth (Pocahontas to Trumpites) Warren. It’s too early to say either way, but we’ve seen all American pundits call 2016 wrong and there is no reason to see Trump voters have been turned off him. Sure, we hear all about what Washington, NYC, California and Academia think of him, but those who voted him in aren’t on any panel at CNN, MSNBC. Their opiinion is not sought by WaPo, NYT, Buzzfed or HuffPost.

          Just like they were pre-election, the forgotten millions have no voice and they figure that perhaps Trump might be that for them. Time will tell, however, apart from a couple of outliers, the MSM remains an echo chamber to liberal thought.

          • Blazer

             /  May 29, 2017

            ‘It is incontestable that the Dems have nobody up to the job –’it is not though.Exactly the opposite actually.4 years is time enough for a realistic candidate to… come through.

            • Yes, it’s impossible to tell whether the democrats will come up with a good candidate or not for the next election.

              I don’t know how close she could get to succeeding but Michelle Obama could shake things up. The downside is she would be seen by some as more of the same old.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 29, 2017

              I think the guy’s point is that with less than 4 years until the next election, the Dems have done nothing but deteriorate. It is a long term malaise.
              There could be some shining light come through, but they would need to be an outsider as none of the inner circle appear to have what it takes.

              And the main point of the article was that statistically it is very difficult not to get 2 terms.

              History shows you can be incredibly unpopular, make giant gaffes and govern in a polar opposite direction to what you campaigned on and still be an overwhelming favourite to win a second term.

              Unless you are a pantywaist Peanut farmer.

            • It’s not long since there was despair that the Republicans had no one suitable to put forward.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  May 29, 2017

              I’m not sure the despair has dissipated PG…
              Trump is not a textbook Republican by any stretch, and while he was voted in, I don’t think the party are really behind him.

            • If it’s someone new, as you suggest, it’ll have to be someone extremely rich and/or well supported to push against the establishment machine. I wouldn’t put it past Mrs Clinton to try and rally support from the swamp crew. Whoever goes into the ring for the Dems will have to take the pulse of the Nation a little more assiduously and really listen to the people this time. Weasel words and catering to the liberal luvvies won’t cut the mustard. Mind you it’s a long way off.

            • Gezza

               /  May 29, 2017

              I’ve been thinking about it & I think it’ll have to be Alec Baldwin. Can’t see anybody else with a dog’s show at the moment.

  8. Now you want to believe that 80% of the negative news is from Republicans. Then you want me to believe that because Trump identifies statements made from unnamed official sources or unnamed former senior officials from unnamed former administrations that make outrageous unverified evidence lacking claims of a Russian disinformation and cultivation of agents of influence in one administration. You want me to believe that the Trump Presidency was not legitimately elected (look at the headline)?o hunt with the
    There is more to come.
    No I do not believe all of the fake news from either side of the equation but I challenge you to be a lot more balanced about events that affect all of us inevitably. I refuse to hunt with the pack but I am prepared to eat humble pie if my judgement is wrong. I hope you all are prepared to do the same.

  9. Now you want to believe that 80% of the negative news is from Republicans. Then you want me to believe that because Trump identifies statements made from unnamed official sources or unnamed former senior officials from unnamed former administrations that make outrageous unverified evidence lacking claims of a Russian disinformation and cultivation of agents of influence in one administration. You want me to believe that the Trump Presidency was not legitimately elected (look at the headline)?o hunt with the
    There is more to come.
    No I do not believe all of the fake news from either side of the equation but I challenge you to be a lot more balanced about events that affect all of us inevitably. I refuse to hunt with the pack but I am prepared to eat humble pie if my judgement is wrong. I hope you all are prepared to do the same.

  10. Sorry that is published in broken fashion I meant to say “…because Trump identifies as false news statements…” etc. Also, a bogey duplication of “To hunt with “was added. Sorry.

    • Gezza

       /  May 29, 2017

      I’m waiting for Jonesy to get to the Truth.

    • Anonymous Coward

       /  May 29, 2017

      I’m waiting for your “dutch intelligence report”

    • Gezza

       /  May 29, 2017

      For Bj, via Kim Dotcom:
      http://sethrich.info/

      • Tks Gezza. Yes, I had seen it a couple of days ago. I have watched all of the George Webb Videos during which he has been over the whole ground if the area Rich went on the night (morning) he was murdered talking to everyone who was in the area, Police, Doctors etc. 217 Days worth of short, sometimes long video clips up to 20 in each day. He was the guy I told everyone to follow including you, and you said it was too complex etc. Well I did follow and will follow and I still do not have a complete case yet, but I think, given his support group we will learn the truth eventually. No, I am not fixed in my conclusions as is normal. But this has to be the biggest story of them all that needs to be sorted one way or the other. I have counted at least 4 unusual deaths, plus 2 that were linked to the story from the Union who allegedly are involved in the fixers and cleaners. Dramatic and easily labelled as unproven, but the smoke circles around the fireplace. Well Wednesday is predicted as “big reveal day” and we will evaluate then. The truth is out there!

        • Anonymous Coward

           /  May 29, 2017

          George Webb, from the dozen or so videos I’ve seen, is just pulling stuff out of the air. As we’ve seen yesterday he was prepared to name someone as Guccifer 2 on absolutely no evidence at all, and in another one I saw today he was claiming that the Pakistani’s that worked in IT are also tied up in a network of VA hospitals across America that hare harvesting the organs of children.
          He also believes, with a straight face, that the Clintons wealth comes from selling children to perverts since forever. And Pizzagate, and he’s a 911 truther.
          Absolutely unbelievable claptrap. Luckily hardly anyone watches it, even the nutjobs on VOAT delete stories about him as he’s too crazy. Imagine that, too crazy for VOAT.

        • Anonymous Coward

           /  May 29, 2017

          OH BJ …speaking of George Webb … where’s my dutch intelligence report?

  11. Joe Bloggs

     /  May 29, 2017

    There have been seven specific times on which trump has called things fake news in tweets.
    So far, every fake news item has been proven correct in sworn testimony.

  12. Alan Wilkinson

     /  May 29, 2017

    Really? So you believe Trump pissed in Obama’s Russian hotel bed?

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  May 29, 2017

      @JB above.

      • Yes Alan, and we should not forget the “golden shower” report was repudiated as unproven and nt substantiated by the author of the quoted report. He also has said his report was edited without his permission. That is why it is labelled as fake news.

  13. Trump concedes this wasn’t fake.

    • WHAT ! Where the hell did you get the news that Trump conceded the “Golden showers” narrative wasn-t false? I call that excessive bullshit an totally unprovable Pete. If you really want to know the truth behind the Democratic Party in the US and their reall narrative have a deck at their offical assessment of Trump”s a candidate and ask whether the authors were rational and truthful. Oh and this is an intercept from the Democrats.
      https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/

      • I haven’t referred to that at all, this is the about the Manchester bombing intelligence leak.

      • Anonymous Coward

         /  May 29, 2017

        2 Questions BJ. Honest answers.

        1) what is sinister about the Democrats putting together a factsheet on Donald Trump?
        2) Would you question wether the Republicans were “rational and truthful” if it was their factsheet on Hillary Clinton that had been hacked? (because you realise they have one too don’t you?)

    • High Flying Duck

       /  May 30, 2017

      This plays in to Trumps hands though doesn’t it? He has said there are leakers in the FBI who need to be found and dealt with.
      The Manchester information being leaked gives him an external damaging event to use as a catalyst for investigating further.