BOMBSHELLS AWAY: A fuzzy, air-filled bombshell report!

TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2018

Part 2—Not unlike a Hostess Twinkie:
College bookstores sell beer mugs and t-shirts. Health Valley sells Blue Corn Flakes.

Nova is currently selling the notion that Professor Levin can "explain" black holes in a way we rubes will be able to grasp. Meanwhile, cable news channels sell BREAKING NEWS—and occasionally, "bombshell reports."

Under current arrangements, the "bombshell report" is a highly important news product. Last Thursday night, a bombshell report was identified and christened on CNN, then on MSNBC. By Friday evening, almost everyone agreed that such a report had been delivered on target.

This particular bombshell report topped the front page of Friday morning's New York Times. Hard-copy headlines included, the bombshell had started like this:
TRUMP ORDERED MUELLER'S FIRING BUT WAS REFUSED/
President Relented After the White House Counsel Threatened to Resign

President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter, but ultimately backed down after the White House counsel threatened to resign rather than carry out the directive.

The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel. Mr. Mueller learned about the episode in recent months as his investigators interviewed current and former senior White House officials in his inquiry into whether the president obstructed justice.
By Friday evening, Schmidt and Haberman's latest report had moved from the realm of BREAKING NEWS into the realm of the bombshell.

Almost everyone called it a bombshell, but was it even a sound report? On our own award-winning campus, inquiring minds wanted to know—and they felt vastly unsure.

In what way was that bombshell report perhaps not fully sound? This morning, we'll try to count the ways. Let's start with those four sources.

In fairness, this was an exciting report. It told a dramatic tale.

According to the Times report, Donald J. Trump had issued an "order." But then, after an underling "threatened to resign," the commander in chief had been forced to "back down."

This report was highly dramatic. Also, as bombshell reports typically do, it fit preferred story lines.

That said, how do we know that these events really occurred? How do we know that they occurred in the way implied and described?

Again, let's look at those four sources. Schmidt and Haberman sourced their report this way:

"according to four people told of the matter"

According to four people told of the matter! That's a rather murky description, but it seems to say that none of the sources had direct knowledge of what occurred.

They'd been told about what had occurred. Apparently, they hadn't seen what occurred with their own eyes. This seems to mean that Don McGahn, the White House counsel in question, actually wasn't a source.

That said, by whom whom had the four sources been told? Had they been told by people who did have direct knowledge? Had they been told by Don McGahn? Or was the sourcing even more attenuated than that?

The reporters didn't say. At best, Schmidt and Haberman were getting second-hand reports—someone's account of someone's account. As readers, that means that we're getting Schmidt and Haberman's account of someone's account of someone's account—and the The information chain could be even more strung out than that.

To what extent did Schmidt and Haberman feel that they actually knew what had happened? We don't know how to answer that, but their story seems like a Hostess Twinkie to us once we get over all the excitement—excitement which is pimped along by the fact that they're telling a story we like.

We've shown you the first two paragraphs of this bombshell report. Below, you see paragraphs 5 and 6, where the scribes' report, such as it is, is a bit more fully fleshed out:
SCHMIDT AND HABERMAN: After receiving the president’s order to fire Mr. Mueller, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, refused to ask the Justice Department to dismiss the special counsel, saying he would quit instead, the people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a continuing investigation.

Mr. McGahn disagreed with the president’s case and told senior White House officials that firing Mr. Mueller would have a catastrophic effect on Mr. Trump’s presidency. Mr. McGahn also told White House officials that Mr. Trump would not follow through on the dismissal on his own. The president then backed off.
We can now tell this story in a bit more detail. Here's how the basic story goes:
President Trump "ordered" Don McGahn, the White House counsel, to fire Robert Mueller. But uh-oh!

In spite of this order, McGahn "refused to ask the Justice Department to dismiss the special counsel, saying he would quit instead."
Already, we note a bit of confusion. Did Donald J. Trump order McGahn to fire Mueller? Or did he order McGahn to tell the Justice Department to fire Mueller?

The reporters have stated it two different ways. Which of the two is accurate?

(Based on a roughly a million past reports, we're fairly sure that McGahn couldn't have fired Mueller himself. But so what! Weirdly, the bombshell report doesn't discuss this technical point. This helps the confusion mount.)

We've already noted one point of confusion. Now we'll note a point of uncertainty in this bombshell report:

To whom was Don McGahn actually speaking when he threatened to resign? Was he speaking to Donald J. Trump, or was he speaking to someone else?

To whom did McGahn issue his threat? Can you answer that basic question based on this murky report? It seems to us that you can't!

Already, there's lack of clarity and a bit of confusion, but whatever! Let's continue with the story as the story's been told:
After receiving his order from Trump, McGahn told unnamed "senior White House officials" that firing Mueller would be a lousy idea.

He also told unnamed "White House officials" that Trump "would not follow through on the dismissal on his own."
McGahn made that first statement to White House officials. Did he ever say it to Trump?

Meanwhile, what did McGahn mean by that second statement? Could he possibly have meant that Trump would forget all about his moment of pique?

Did he possibly mean instead that Trump would change his mind about firing Mueller upon reflection? Could that be what McGahn meant? The reporters don't seem real sure.

The reporters don't explain these points. Instead, they make this dramatic statement:
The president then backed off.
The president "backed off?" That doesn't sound like he changed his mind or simply forgot. But why do the reporters say that Trump "backed off?" That makes it sound like someone directly confronted him about his order.

Is that what actually happened? The reporters never say. Did Trump back down or back off in somebody's presence? In the face of McGahn's alleged threat? There's no sign that the scribes know!

We're sorry, but this is a very fuzzy, extremely air-filled report. Let's consider the possibilities:

Did Donald J. Trump lose his nerve concerning the firing of Mueller? Did he explicitly back down, or relent, in the face of direct opposition?

Or did he simply change his mind as the hours or days went by? Beyond that, is it possible that this highly erratic man simply forgot that he'd given McGahn this "order?"

The reporter show no sign of knowing the answers to these questions. In truth, there's little sign that Schmidt and Haberman know what happened at all.

In fairness, they do know how to tell a pleasing story. Let's return to this part of their bombshell report:

"The West Wing confrontation marks the first time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel."

Starting on Thursday night, many pundits were confused by that reference to "the first time." Did that mean what it seemed to mean? Did it mean that Trump is known to have tried to fire Mueller on other occasions?

No, it didn't mean that, Schmidt and Haberman told several cable pundits. That said, their construction encouraged this exciting sense. Below, you see what they apparent meant to say:

"The West Wing confrontation marks the only time Mr. Trump is known to have tried to fire the special counsel."

Based on what the reporters said on the air, that looks like what they actually meant. Why didn't they simply state their point in that unambiguous way? Readers, please! Such specificity would have served as a big giant major buzzkill!

Let's assume that Donald J. Trump really did order McGahn to fire Mueller. From that point on, this bombshell report is almost completely murky.

To whom did the reporters speak? The point is unclear. Did their sources have any first-hand knowledge at all? The reporters never say.

Meanwhile, is it possible that something like this might have happened:

In a fit of rage, Donald J. Trump told McGahn to tell the Justice Department to fire Mueller. McGahn went to chief of staff Priebus and said, "I'm sorry, but for legal reasons I could never do that. Let's just ignore what this idiot said and he'll just forget all about it."

Assuming this story isn't completely bogus, what actually happened last June? We're sorry, but there's no clear sign that Schmidt and Haberman know.

Tomorrow, we'll show you what Michael Wolff said about this bombshell report. Meanwhile, the fuzzy prose of Schmnidt and Haberman is typical of their several years of crappy work for the Times.

Why does no one challenge their murky writing when these Timespersons appear on cable? Tomorrow, we'll start with that question. After that, we'll show you what Michael Wolff told Lawrence.

Meanwhile, one last sad story:

Josh Marshall read that bombshell report and didn't see that it was full of air. Twenty years later, our brightest stars still haven't learned that, in the realm of the New York Times, "no one will be true."

When the flip will Marshall wise up? By now, the answer seems clear.

Tomorrow: Michael Wolff rolls his eyes at the air-filled bombshell report

What manner of confrontation: Did someone directly tell Trump that his order wouldn't be followed? If so, who did that?

Early on in the bombshell report, the word "confrontation" gives the impression that someone actually did that. But who "confronted" Donald J. Trump? The reporters never directly say!

People, did any such thing occur? After reading a bombshell report, shouldn't you know the answer?

14 comments:

  1. Somerby questions whether Trump tried to fire Mueller, but provides no evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Already, we note a bit of confusion. Did Donald J. Trump order McGahn to fire Mueller? Or did he order McGahn to tell the Justice Department to fire Mueller?"

    McGahn presumably knows that he himself can't fire Mueller, and that the Justice Dept has to do that. Trump, on the other hand, simply orders McGahn to do it, without making the distinction. This means that the article can perfectly accurately represent what happened. The "confusion" may very well have been Trump's, not the reporters'.

    "To whom was Don McGahn actually speaking when he threatened to resign? Was he speaking to Donald J. Trump, or was he speaking to someone else? "

    The article clearly says that McGahn spoke to White House staff, and not directly to Trump.

    "Did he possibly mean instead that Trump would change his mind about firing Mueller upon reflection? Could that be what McGahn meant? The reporters don't seem real sure."

    The reporters are not speculating about motives or intentions. I assume, if this is true, that McGahn felt that Trump would not order the firing himself, but rather get a lackey to do it.

    'But why do the reporters say that Trump "backed off?"'

    They are presumably reporting what they were told, and not necessarily trying to be "dramatic."

    "Starting on Thursday night, many pundits were confused by that reference to "the first time." Did that mean what it seemed to mean? Did it mean that Trump is known to have tried to fire Mueller on other occasions?"

    That is not the way I read it. It simply says that this is the first evidence we have, from sources, that Trump actually attempted what everyone knows he would like to do. The reporters do not imply there are other such cases.

    "Meanwhile, is it possible that something like this might have happened:
    In a fit of rage, Donald J. Trump told McGahn to tell the Justice Department to fire Mueller. McGahn went to chief of staff Priebus and said, "I'm sorry, but for legal reasons I could never do that. Let's just ignore what this idiot said and he'll just forget all about it."

    How does this scenario of Somerby's disprove anything the reporters wrote? And more importantly, does this lessen the gravity of what Trump did, or tried to do?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Starting on Thursday night, many pundits were confused by that reference to "the first time.""

    None of them gets confused, Bob.

    If someone was ordered to do something, it's these clowns: they've been ordered to manufacture a hysteria.

    And judging by the fact that they had to manufacture a hysteria from Trump not firing Mueller, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel now...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CMike (and Leroy, of course) - your take?

      Delete
    2. The Kremlin talking points that 'Mao' recites seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

      Delete
    3. Mao is here to spread anarchy, nothing more. Things are going well in his native land as Владимир Путин arrests his opponents and murders the free press, just like what his hero the orange pussygrabber would like to do.

      Delete
  4. "Meanwhile, is it possible that something like this might have happened:
    In a fit of rage, Donald J. Trump told McGahn to tell the Justice Department to fire Mueller. McGahn went to chief of staff Priebus and said, "I'm sorry, but for legal reasons I could never do that. Let's just ignore what this idiot said and he'll just forget all about it."

    And this isn't troubling? The president gets enraged, orders his minions to do something potentially catastrophic, and they refuse because they think he's an idiot?

    Hot-tempered idiot as commander in chief trying to cover his ass, a dysfunctional staff who disregards his orders?...all the more reason for oversight and investigations, I would say.

    Of course, one has to buy the notion that Trump is an "idiot", and not actually malevolent. But the latter is a distinct possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Somerby continue's his gallant defense of Trump !

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ah, black holes. I wrote a paper on them when I was a senior in high school way back in 1979. Way back before I had taken calculus or much physics.

    Probably they will not say this - black holes can be largely empty space. Given the formula for escape velocity (which I had to calculate because I could not google it back then). If you set the escape velocity equal to the speed of light, then for a given R and M if R (in meters) is less than M (in KG) divided by about 6.74 E26, then you have a black hole.

    Google tells me the universe weighs about 3 E52 kg. Thus if R is less than 4.45 E 21 meters then IT is a black hole. About 4.7 million light years. Barely twice as far as the Andromeda galaxy.

    A couple of points though.
    1. Just for fun (ha) calculate the density of an object that big with that much mass. (I get about 8 E -11 grams per cubic meter - which is pretty airy stuff)
    2. Imagine a thought experiment where you go to 100 years after the big bang. Unless you believe in a continuous creation theory where matter flows out of a singularity for millions of years - the mass of the universe is the same. However, the radius is much smaller. Stuff has only been flying away from the explosion for 100 years. Since it cannot exceed the speed of light, the entire universe is less than 200 light years across.

    An object that small with that much mass MUST be a black hole. And if it was a black hole then, it must be a black hole now.

    Of course, when I explained that theory to one of my astronomy professors, he did not buy it. His objection was based on uncertainty, which I accepted, even though I did not understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If reporters are too specific about who their sources are, they place them in jeopardy. Some vagueness is needed to protect them from reprisals.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hope you will continue to have similar posts to share with everyone!

    ReplyDelete
  9. URGENT GENUINE LOVE-SPELL TO GET YOUR EX BOYFRIEND/GIRLFRIEND OR HUSBAND/WIFE BACK FAST.
    I have something to share with you!!! There is a great joy in my heart
    which I want to share with everyone. My name is Jessica Jack, from united States. I had a misunderstanding with my lover last year which led us to
    break up and he never wanted to hear my voice again. He saw a beautiful
    woman which he find more prettier than me, but as time went on I met god Dr Purity He is a great spell caster. I contacted him through his email and
    explained everything to him. He said that I shouldn't worry, that my lover
    will come back to me on his knees begging for forgiveness before 24
    hours. My greatest joy now is that he actually came back to me and fell on
    his knees begging for forgiveness, and today we are happy and he also cured
    my Sister's breast cancer. Do you have any problem? worry no more because
    Dr Purity can provide lasting spell solution to any problems:email him puritylovespell@gmail.com or call him +2348070980389 or add him on whats- app +2348070980389

    (1)If you want your ex back.

    (2)You want to be promoted in your office.

    (3)If you want to be cured of HIV, Cancers and other diseases.

    (4)You want to be rich.

    (5)You want your husband/wife to be yours forever.

    (6)If you need financial assistance.

    (7)If you went to get pregnant.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My name is Antonio Jefferson Cole, I'm in Salt Lake City, Utah. It is a pleasure for me to write this testimony about how I got healed from genital herpes 12 hours ago. I have read so many comments from some people who have been cured of HIV by Dr. Ekpiku, but I never believed them. I was hurt and depressed, so I was very curious and wanted to try Dr. Ekpiku, so I contacted him on his email Ekpikuspellhomeofgrace@gmail.com when I get in touch with him, he assured me 100% that it will heal me, I begged Him to help me. My treatment was a great success, he healed me as he promised. He sent me his medication and asked me to go for check-up after 2 weeks of taking the medication. I agree with him, I took this medication and went to the check-up after 2 month, to my greatest surprise my result was negative after treatment, I am really happy that I am healed and healthy again. I waited for four months to make sure I was completely healed before writing this testimony. I did another blood test today and was still negative Herpes, so I think its time I tell someone out there with Herpes HSV-1 or HSV-2, HIV, HPV, hepatitis B, diabetes, cancer and so on, Dr. Ekpiku in the email: Ekpikuspellhomeofgrace@hotmail.com . Your phone number is +2348073673757, He is also on whats app. I completely understand how you can feel skeptical about it, because it happened to me, it can be expensive for you, but I'm telling you now that there is a cure for these diseases and I am a living witness firsthand.or you can email me on antoniojeffersoncole@gmail.com for any assistance.

    ReplyDelete
  11. REAL AND POWERFUL LOVE SPELL TO GET YOUR EX BACK FAST,STOP DIVORCE GET BACK YOUR LOST ONE BACK WITH THE HELP OF DR. TRUST SPELL EMAIL HIM AT: ULTIMATESPELLCAST@GMAIL.COM

    My Wife divorce me for no reason, Thanks to Dr. Trust for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family once again, My name is Bobby Foret. i live in US, I`m happily married to a lovely and caring wife,with two kids A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my wife so terrible that she took the case to court for a divorce she said that she never wanted to stay with me again,and that she did not love me anymore So she packed out of my house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get her back,after much begging,but all to no avail and she confirmed it that she has made her decision,and she never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my wife So i explained every thing to her,so she told me that the only way i can get my wife back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for her too So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow her advice. Then she gave me the email address of the spell caster whom she visited. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address she gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my wife back the next day what an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my wife who did not call me for the past seven {7}months,gave me a call to inform me that she was coming back So Amazing!! So that was how she came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and she apologized for her mistake,and for the pain she caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster . So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same Doctor ,if you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to "bringing your ex back. Thanks you sir, for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family once again. His spell is a 100% Guarantee for your situation. Email him now. Ultimatespellcast@gmail.com or Ultimatespellcast@yahoo.com Call or WHATSSAP him now: +2348156885231

    View his website for more testimony: https://utimatespellcast.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete