SATURDAY, JUNE 28, 2025
Leavitt then swung into action: Karoline Leavitt, the scolder-in-chief, had finally just about had it with CNN's Natasha Bertrand.
The smash-and-grab crew at oppo research had handed the youngster a big stack of claims concerning Bertrand's past work. Also, the sitting president had said that he wanted to see Bertrand fired by CNN—to see her "thrown out like a dog."
It isn't like her party's philosopher king to say such things as that! On that basis, the spokesperson knew that the claims against Bertrand just plain had to be true.
On that basis, Leavitt hurried to the White House briefing room, eager to warn the public. In this report for Mediaite, Zachary Leeman cited some of the things she now said:
‘She Should Be Ashamed of Herself!’ Karoline Leavitt Unleashes on CNN Reporter Trump Wants Network to Fire
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt laid into CNN national security correspondent Natasha Bertrand on Thursday, one day after President Donald Trump demanded the reporter be “thrown out like a dog” over her reporting on the U.S.’s strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
[...]
At a Thursday White House press briefing, Leavitt called out Bertrand by name and suggested she was being “used” by Washington, D.C. insiders with an anti-Trump agenda to “push a false narrative.” She also claimed only “bits and pieces” of the initial report were leaked.
As Leavitt called out Bertrand from her podium, she listed out other reporting the administration takes issue with, including reporting in 2020 on dozens of intelligence officials chalking up Hunter Biden’s infamously abandoned laptop to Russian disinformation, as well as reports on the origins of Covid-19.
“This is a reporter who has been unfortunately used by people who dislike Donald Trump in this government to push fake and false narratives. She should be ashamed of herself,” Leavitt said.
And so on from there, with tape.
Bertrand should be ashamed of herself, the thoughtful press spokesperson said. Indeed, Bertrand had even been used in the past! As one example, Leavitt cited Bertrand's past reporting for Politico about that infamous "laptop from Hell."
How phony was Bertrand's reporting back then? By clicking here, you can start to see for yourself.
Below, you see the start of Bertrand's report on the statement made by those intelligence officials. The report was published by Politico on October 19, 2020:
Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say
More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
The letter, signed on Monday, centers around a batch of documents released by the New York Post last week that purport to tie the Democratic nominee to his son Hunter’s business dealings. Under the banner headline “Biden Secret E-mails,” the Post reported it was given a copy of Hunter Biden’s laptop hard drive by President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who said he got it from a Mac shop owner in Delaware who also alerted the FBI.
While the letter’s signatories presented no new evidence, they said their national security experience had made them “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case” and cited several elements of the story that suggested the Kremlin’s hand at work.
“If we are right,” they added, “this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.”
Nick Shapiro, a former top aide under CIA director John Brennan, provided POLITICO with the letter on Monday. He noted that “the IC leaders who have signed this letter worked for the past four presidents, including Trump. The real power here however is the number of former, working-level IC officers who want the American people to know that once again the Russians are interfering.”
The former Trump administration officials who signed the letter include Russ Travers, who served as National Counterterrorism Center acting director; Glenn Gerstell, the former NSA general counsel; Rick Ledgett, the former deputy NSA director; Marc Polymeropoulos, a retired CIA senior operations officer; and Cynthia Strand, who served as the CIA’s deputy assistant director for global issues. Former CIA directors or acting directors Brennan, Leon Panetta, Gen. Michael Hayden, John McLaughlin and Michael Morell also signed the letter, along with more than three dozen other intelligence veterans. Several of the former officials on the list have endorsed Biden.
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said on Monday that the information on Biden’s laptop “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” though the FBI is reportedly conducting an ongoing investigation into whether Russia was involved.
And so on from there.
Just this once, we'll be honest. We have no idea what's supposed to be wrong with that news report:
A group of major former officials had published a letter about a matter of public interest. Their statement had been made available to Politico, and Bertrand had been assigned to report what the former officials had said.
The letter "presented no new evidence" about the matter at hand, Bertrand quickly noted. She also noted that several of the former officials had endorsed then-Candidate Biden.
She quoted a denial by President Trump's DNI, though she also said that the FBI was reportedly investigating the matter. This strikes us as straight-ahead, standard news reporting of the most obvious kind.
On Thursday, the scolder-in-chief burst into the briefing room and let the miscreant have it. The president wanted her "thrown out like a dog"—and as Leavitt went on and on, it sounded like she did too.
For the record, Leavitt never ventured into specifics. She never explained what was supposed to be wrong with Bertrand's past or present work. So it frequently tends to go in the wake of a recent arrival.
In yesterday afternoon's report, we wondered about the arrival on the scene of players like Leavitt and Pete Hegseth. What in the world have they come from? we asked. What explains their unusual impulses and characteristics?
In the 2016 film Arrival, a group of "mysterious tentacled beings" had suddenly appeared on the scene. All next week, we'll be trying to develop a language with which to describing the ways of this latest new group.
Pro tip:
ReplyDeleteLeave the listening to what Trump says, to the morons.
Mediaite's "Zachary Leeman covered pop culture and politics at outlets such as Breitbart, LifeZette, BizPac Review, HollywoodinToto, and others.
ReplyDeleteDon't know what Ivy League university he graduated from, though.
IMO Leavitt was clear. Bertrand was involved in the promotion of around seven false narratives. That's something to be ashamed of. Period. We have no way to know whether Bertrand knew that she was helping to promote false narratives, or whether she should have known. But, just being a part of so many hoaxes is embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteThat some of Bertrand's articles were not literally false is not an adequate defense. Bob understood this principle when the false narrative was that Obama was born in Africa. Many articles and statements promoting this hoax were not literally inaccurate. They used words like "might". But, Bob rightly condemned all these articles as helping to promote a false narrative.
Reporting on events is not "promoting" them. She was in no way "a part of" what she was reporting. Bertrand's only role was to report on what was being said and done by others, which is what a reporter does. She did this for Fox News, which was at the time a Trump-supporting news outlet.
DeleteToday, Leavitt's target is Bertrand, solely because Trump called her out as an enemy. Leavitt calls her a stooge because she reported on legitimate news in 2020, informing readers that intelligence sources considered the Hunter Biden conspiracies to be based on Russian disinformation. She is saying that Bertrand was "used" by those advancing that theory, not that she originated it or advanced it by reporting on it. Her editors at Fox allowed the story to go forward. This is paltry evidence, especially since they had to go back to 2020 to find an accusation against Bertrand.
My objection is to the idea that if Bertrand was a dog, she was being used, not the agent or perpetrator of any anti-Trump story herself. It diminishes Bertrand intelligence and competence to call her a stooge or pawn and not a player or active enemy.
Somerby's failure to make any direct statement of support for Bertrand, coupled with sarcasm that he doesn't signal as such, makes his attitude toward Bertrand unclear.
It should be obvious that Bertrand did nothing wrong with either her past or current reports and that she embarrassed Trump by contradicting his own lie about the Iran bombing. Leavitt is Trump's agent of discrediting Bertrand's reporting. Her job is clearly not to inform the public or tell the truth, but to aid the president in achieving his political goals.
Somerby's clumsy references to Leavitt and Hegseth as arrivals (continuing his irrelevant mention of a film that has nothing to do with this situation) is silly. There are no eight-legged aliens in this situation. Just a liar in chief and his minions who will tell any lie Trump wants at peril of losing their jobs. Trump cannot directly fire Bertrand or he would do it himself.
Here's a better movie reference. Trump is saying "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest" and his foot-soldiers are rushing to do his bidding in full view of the public. Nothing more complicated than that. Because that is how you instill fear in the press when you are a wannabe dictator.
If the Leavitt statement about Covid being established as a lab leak, suggesting a false narrative promoted by Bertrand, is one of your seven, DiC, you have been brainwashed.
DeleteEthically, a reporter’s job is more than relaying what powerful sources say. It also requires interrogating those claims and reporting any limits to its evidence so audiences can gauge credibility.
DeleteCriticizing a story without coming up with any supportig evidence of problems with it would show bias, just as failing to include criticisms that were supported by evidence would be biased. Reporters do this by giving all relevant participants a chance to comment on their article before publication, then reporting what was said by all parties. I believe Bertrand did that.
DeleteIt's not biased to question a story when, for example, the sourcing is anonymous, the evidence is thin or entirely absent, the claims are speculative and the timing is politically advantageous.
DeleteAnonymous sourcing is not really anonymous when the reporter (and editors) know who the sources are and there are several of them, independently corroborating information. Reporters do not print stories without evidence, without atributing them to a figure such as Trump, who said "They don't know what the fuck they're doing." What is the evidence for that, how thin is it? It was reported because of who said it, not because anyone thought it was true. The politically advantageous timing has nothing to do with the veracity of news and is not supposed to be a consideration. Speculation depends on who said it. When Bill Maher or Roger Moore speculated that Trump could win the election, their claims were speculative and lacking in evidence but were important because they were celebrities not on Trump's team.
DeleteYou don't seem to know very much about how news reporting works. You perhaps think that only stories advantageous to your preferred candidate should be reported.
Reporting that “Trump said X” is not the same as proving “X is true.” The example of Maher and Moore confuses categories: speculative predictions by pundits (opinions) are fundamentally different from reporting alleged statements by a president (factual claims about speech acts). Your comment seems confusing and inconsistent. But perhaps that is because you know more about journalism that I do.
DeleteOK, if I stipulate that you know something about journalism, what is your bad faith commenting about besides trying to justify Leavitt's complaints?
DeleteHere is a new Truth David. The old oligarchs like the Koch bros are dying off. The new tech bro oligarchs are in charge. Have you read Project 25 David? They see you as a cost center now. You are not an asset paying them, you are a cost center sucking out more money than you are putting in. You produce nothing and will only suck more money from them until you finally just die already. They don't want you saving money for distribution when you die to heirs, they want to take away SS & Medicare so you deplete your life savings paying them on your way out. They want you dead David, voting for them until it happens, but dead. That is why all the policies attacking the working poor, old people health care, food assistance to kids, etc. All these cost centers must be extinguished. Only those sending money to their tech overlords will be allowed to live. Parasites must die. As an old man cost center, please hurry up and die is the message and the plan.
Delete"Bertrand was involved in the promotion of around seven false narratives."
DeleteBut as Our Host demonstrates very clearly, in at least one of those seven instance, Bertrand wasn't engaged in "promotion of a false narrative." She was doing ordinary straight reporting.
A bunch of former IC personnel issued a statement. Bertrand reported on the statement in an even-handed way as she is paid to do.
Step back and keep the full context in view. Trump ordered a bomber strike. Immediately afterward, he declared that the target was "completely obliterated."
Was he correct in his assessment? Apparently, it doesn't matter whether he was correct or not. Anyone who raises questions about his assessment becomes a target for the administration.
“Ordinary straight reporting” can become a vehicle for spreading an intentionally misleading narrative, even when no bad faith is involved.
DeleteIn political propaganda, it is entirely possible and common for a journalist to be doing what looks like ordinary reporting and following standard sourcing practices yet nevertheless participating in the spread of intentionally false or misleading narratives. There are too many recent examples of this to count, some of which that have led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.
This is why responsible journalism requires rigorous scrutiny not just repeating officials’ claims. Especially when there are political stakes on the part of the leaker.
A conservative columnist in the Wall Street Journal wrote this in an op-ed about what Hegstaff said:
"Such stories aren’t the product of journalistic enterprise. They are products of leakers who know a reporter will let them get away with an illegal leak and not embarrass or expose them even if it becomes clear the source was lying."
I'll go ahead and leave the red herring of your last paragraph alone.
“Ordinary straight reporting” can become a vehicle for spreading an intentionally misleading narrative, even when no bad faith is involved.
DeleteSo what? Bad faith is exactly what Trump and Leavitt allege in their attacks on Bertrand.
The last paragraph is no herring. It is Trump's entire motivation. Someone dared to contradict his premature assessment of the bombing damage. He can't let that stand.
Quaker, it's not clear what kind of point you're trying to make. Could it not be said that “ordinary straight reporting” can be made in bad faith as well? I actually was going to point that out but I thought the inclusion of the quote from the Wall Street Journal opinion writer would make that clear. But I really didn't .. I'm sorry, I forgot the quality of intellect with whom I was engaged. I'm sorry about that.
DeleteLet me just say that whatever you say, I agree. Whatever you disagree with that I have written, I will take back. Let's just leave it at that.
“'Ordinary straight reporting' can become a vehicle for spreading an intentionally misleading narrative, even when no bad faith is involved."
Delete"I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's Hell" --H. Truman
Bob, she was taking part in a disinformation tactic. By orchestrating a public letter from credentialed ex-spies, the Biden camp "information-laundered" its own talking point: the claim was injected into the press as expert alarm, then cited by the campaign as ‘independent’ confirmation, which Biden did many times. It created a closed echo loop - like the aluminum-tubes episode.
ReplyDeletePowerful partisan figures want to engineer a belief abut something to the public, they get former officials to issue a warning, a reporter to print it uncritically, let the headline amplify it, then wave that headline as "proof" even though the circle begins and ends with the same political actors.
It's propaganda.
We now know that all the former intelligence officials, despite their wisdom and experience, were completely wrong in their assessment. That hardly matters, however, because the tactic’s sole purpose was to carry Biden through the 2020 election without the public seeing the laptop’s revelations about Hunter Biden’s business dealings with shady international actors from the very countries where Biden himself was conducting diplomacy.
DeleteDelusion is strong in this one.
DeleteThe Right's obsession with Hunter Biden was always penis envy.
DeleteIt was photoshopped. That’s not really Hunter’s penis, which is smaller than average.
DeleteAnd you know this how?
DeleteIf you haven't read Marcy Wheeler's Emptywheel discussions of the laptop's saga, you should probably shut the hell as you are an uninformed person. Or you could keep whistling Putin's tune.
Delete"We now know that all the former intelligence officials, despite their wisdom and experience, were completely wrong in their assessment."
Delete"We" now "know" this? Are you sure?
I don't the "we" do.
Yes I am sure that we now know this. It is known with 100% certainty. We now know the FBI had the laptop in its possession since 2019 and never found evidence it was Russian disinformation, no government investigation (Senate Intelligence, DOJ IG, Durham) has ever uncovered proof it was planted or faked by Russia, multiple media outlets have authenticated the relevant portions of the emails and the laptop has been used as evidence in federal court (Hunter Biden’s gun trial).
DeleteThis does not mean they were dishonest, only that their professional assessment that the story was likely a Russian op has been completely and totally been proven false and without any question whatsoever was 100%, totally incorrect.
With Rudy Giuliani jetting around eastern Europe, hobnobbing with Russian operatives, why wouldn't the intel community--including some who had served under Trump--be suspicious?
DeletePro Publica:
In December 2019, as an impeachment inquiry was at full tilt, Giuliani flew to Ukraine and met with a member of Ukraine’s parliament, Andrii Derkach, in an apparent effort to discredit the investigation of Trump’s actions. Derkach, a former member of the Party of Regions, went on to release a trove of dubious audio “recordings” that seemed to be aimed at showing Biden’s actions in Ukraine, when he was vice president, in a negative light.
Within months, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned Derkach, describing him as “an active Russian agent for over a decade” who tried to undermine U.S. elections. Derkach has called that idea “nonsense.”
https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/01/24/embarrassingly-wrong-the-ongoing-misinformation-campaign-about-the-hunter-biden-hard-drive/
DeleteMarcy Wheeler is one of a rare few doing careful work on the laptop story.
I have no idea that they were not suspicious or what that has to do with the intelligence officials claim that the laptop was likely a part of a Russian disinformation campaign being 100%, without any shadow of a doubt, completely and totally wrong. And that isn't even important either. The claim was only made to get through the election cycle without evidence of Hunter Biden's business dealings with shady international political actors from the countries where his father was engaged in diplomatic relations and that netted him and his associates $20 million dollars being made public.
DeleteThe FBI didn’t prove that it was Russian disinformation, but they didn’t prove that it wasn’t, either.
DeleteThe burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. They haven’t proven Bigfoot doesn’t exist, either.
Delete"I have no idea that they were not suspicious or what that has to do with the intelligence officials claim that the laptop was likely a part of a Russian disinformation campaign being 100%, without any shadow of a doubt, completely and totally wrong. "
DeleteFor starters, you're misrepresenting what was said in the letter. They didn't say it was a Russian disinformation campaign.
Never. Said. That.
Go ahead. Read it.
Deletehttps://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000
What do we actually know? The FBI had possession of the laptop since December 2019. No evidence of Russian fabrication or tampering has been produced, ever. In sworn testimony and public statements, the FBI has consistently said it had no evidence it was Russian disinformation. Michael Morell testified the letter was deliberately drafted to provide a talking point for the Biden campaign, the letter was cited in headlines as authoritative, shaping editorial censorship decisions across many outlets and social media,. Authenticity of evidence is independent of the motivations of whoever delivers it. Large portions of the relevant emails and documents were cryptographically authenticated by multiple outlets (Washington Post forensic review in 2022, CBS News, etc.) And there is no evidence has emerged that the relevant business communications were faked.
DeleteWheeler, bless her heart, can poke holes in claims that the intelligence officials claims were "Embarrassingly Wrong" but that doesn’t change the reality that their warning was widely taken as stronger proof than it actually was and helped justify headlines and censorship decisions that prevented voters from learning about the information found on the laptop that is unquestionably true.
I've read it several times. You're right that the original letter did have hedging language in order to provide plausible deniability. But Natasha Bertrand Did. Say. That. That's the whole point young'n.
DeleteThe intelligence officials publicly speculated that the laptop appeared consistent with a Russian disinformation campaign and expressed suspicion about Russian involvement, while acknowledging they had no evidence. Let's look at the headline of how Bertrand reported it: "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.” It was described in media at the time in the same way: “Intel officials say it’s Russian disinformation.” Biden characterized it in this way during a debate "There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant."
Quaker what is it that you want to say about this issue? What is the point you are trying to make?
DeleteWhy should Russia be involved in any way, to any extent, in any US election? There are laws against it. Debating the specifics makes no sense.
DeleteNo one is debating specifics of why should Russia be involved in any US election. Are you people OK?
DeleteOne of you Nonny Mooses are moving the goal posts around.
DeleteScroll back up and find the point at issue.
"We now know that all the former intelligence officials, despite their wisdom and experience, were completely wrong in their assessment."
That statement is based on the mistaken idea that the letter called the laptop "a Russian disinformation campaign."
The letter didn't say that. It can't be ;proven that they were wrong about something they didn't say.
Here's the lede to Bertrand's story for Politico:
More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
The headline says "disinfo." The story does not. If this is the basis for slamming Bertrand, it's weak.
@8:00
DeleteThe point is this. Trump and Leavitt are going out of their way to accuse a reporter of dishonesty and partisanship. Their evidence is weak. Pro-MAGA trolls in these comments and elsewhere roll out some of their favorite stories to prove it is so true.
They continually misstate some basic facts while ignoring others. They show scant indication they have read the documents at the center of their preferred stories.
I've already stated my point, but I'll do so again. All the yelling about whether the Iranian nuclear facilities were "significantly damaged" or "obliterated" is happening because Trump jumped ahead of the intelligence to declare the mission another resounding success under his powerful leadership.
When a reporter filed a story that brought his over-the-top claims into question, his whole team launched a campaign of character assassination against that reporter.
The man is as fragile and thin-skinned as a, as a...fragile, thin-skinned person.
Dang. Similies never were my strength.
How do you know Russia wasn’t involved?
ReplyDeleteMaybe Putin told him so.
DeleteThe accusers bear the burden of proof for their claims, and thus far, they have not met it. No hard evidence has surfaced linking the laptop or its data to Russian fabrication or manipulation. The letter’s authors themselves now characterize their statement as cautionary speculation rather than a definitive conclusion. U.S. agencies and major news outlets have publicly stated they have no evidence that Russia was involved. While it’s possible Russia played a role, any claims to that effect remain unsubstantiated and, in really, never made much sense.
DeleteThe claims were only meant to last through the election to help suppress information on the laptop about Hunter Biden's business dealings from the public.
Just as Republicans claims about Biden, with their star witness being a Russian asset, were only important as pre-election propaganda.
DeleteThe letter was propaganda intended to deceive the public about damaging information to the Biden campaign that fell into the hands of Trump campaign who intended to use it as an October surprise. That's all it was. It was a successful propaganda campaign.
DeleteI don't think it was successful with anyone except the right wing, who were already Trump supporters.
DeleteThe biggest problem with the clains agaist Hunter Biden, aside from the unfairess and ridiculousness of the attempts to discredit him, was that the info was all discovered after the laptop passed into Republican hands (Giuliani). At that point the veracity of anything found couldn't be proven because anything could have been added to the computer. The chain of evidence was broken by the Republicans who had a motive to discredit Biden.
DeleteThe veracity of the emails could be and were easily proven by checking with their recipients.
DeleteThe New York Times reported in March of 22 it had authenticated the emails. Their reporters cross-checked emails with those received by people on the other end of the correspondence.
DeleteCBS News, in November 2022, commissioned a forensic review by two independent experts (Minerva Enterprises and Maryman & Associates). They concluded there was no evidence of tampering with many of the emails and documents.
Any claims the veracity of anything found on the laptop couldn't be proven because anything could have been added to the computer is demonstrably false. That is a propaganda point disseminated to cast doubt on the fallout of the episode but is false and does not make any sense as anyone who investigates the matter in an even a cursory, objective way will see.
They confirmed that the laptop had belonged to Hunter, but not the dick pics and other garbage. Saying that "many of the emails and documents" had been substantiated doesn't verify all of the contents of the laptop. But, as I pointed out, Hunter was not president, so what did those maligning them really prove with the laptop? Nada.
DeleteI’m having trouble following your line of argument because it seems to sidestep the main point of the debate. The main concern is (whether or not the laptop also held personal junk or whether Hunter ever occupied the Oval Office) did U.S. platforms, officials, and news outlets suppress a story containing verifiable evidence of influence-peddling that could reflect on a presidential candidate? And did Bertrand help make it easier to bury the story?
DeleteBenghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! But her emails also, maggot breath.
Delete2:02,
DeleteAll signs point to No.
He is a recovering very skeevy drug addict who was on the board of Burisima with an CIA asset. So? Jared Kushner pocketed $3.6billion from KSA, UAE, and Qatar. So? Unlike Biden, he has a small penis.
DeleteSomerby says several negative things about Bertrand, such as:
ReplyDelete"How phony was Bertrand's reporting back then?"
He may have been taking Leavitt's voice and using sarcasm as he repeats their accusations against Bertrand, but it is very hard to tell whether Somerby means these accusations against her himself.
This paragraph is obviously sarcastic:
"It isn't like her party's philosopher king to say such things as that! On that basis, the spokesperson knew that the claims against Bertrand just plain had to be true."
But without signalling that Somerby doesn't agree that Trump is a philosopher king and that Leavitt's attack is corrupt, how will someone who supports Trump know that Somerby should not be taken at face value? Good writers signal their intentions when they take on another voice like this.
It would be very foolish to use sarcasm with a visitor from another planet, especially if they have eight tentacles. How does it benefit Bertrand or falsify Leavitt's disinformation to repeat Trump's criticisms of her instead of saying directly that she did nothing wrong except tell the truth about Trump's Iran fiasco? Sarcasm doesn't work in earthly diplomacy either and probably is a bad tactic for addressing those who hold different political views too. It is great for disguising one's own views, because you can always deny whatever anyone accuses you of meaning, retreating to the face value of your statements. Somerby was just showing us the bad stuff Bertrand said, he can always claim, having things both ways at once. Because there is no such thing as intonation in written language and no body language (eye rolls, smirks) to disambiguate the intended meaning.
The Trumpies created a new hat based on Trump's statement "They don't know what the fuck they're doing" except they misspelled "they're" and said "They don't know what the fuck their doing" and some on the right endorsed that, misspelling and all. To cover up they said:
Delete“I posted all morning intentionally misspelling it, and my followers had a blast calling me out for it…. I can’t imagine being unable to understand satire, and taking something like this at face value in this day and age.”
MAGA meant to do that — and you played right into their trap! HA HA, WHO’S THE MORON NOW?"
Just like when Peewee fell off his bike and quickly said "I meant to do that." Obviously someone who makes and sells those hats made a mistake. Maybe because they were made in China? Who knows?
Then Jeff Tiedrich showed the gif of Martin Short in character (looking a lot like Steven Miller) saying:
"You don't think I know that? It's so funny that you don't think I know that."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjciBesIiPM
https://www.jefftiedrich.com/p/this-week-in-stupid-june-28-edition
Proof that the Fox debating techniques were developed back in Reagan's time.
DeleteToday is Stonewall Day -- 56 years since the day that started a revolution. As Ash Anderson describes:
ReplyDelete"Stonewall Day, which is held each year on the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, is a reminder of why we fight. It is a legacy of protest, resilience, and community care that inspires our work every single day.
There would be no Pride — and no modern LGBTQ+ rights movement — without the courage of Black and Brown transgender women, who led on the frontlines at Stonewall [June 28-July 3].
Earlier this year, we were shocked to see the Trump Administration remove transgender people from federal content about Stonewall. This was one of their many efforts to erase transgender people from our history and from public life."
One way to combat the attempts to disappear those whom Trump finds inconvenient is to contribute to activist organizations fighting to keep the progress already made and advance the rights of all in our society.
Donate to Equality CA at: eqca.org/give or support your local human rights campaigns.
"The letter "presented no new evidence" about the matter at hand, Bertrand quickly noted. She also noted that several of the former officials had endorsed then-Candidate Biden."
ReplyDeleteBob, this is true but it didn't matter. The job was done in the headline. "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo". That's all it took and all that was needed. Biden himself in one of the presidential debates and on 60 Minutes repeated the headline’s categorical claim, not the cautions you point out. He repeated the headline’s certainty as if it were settled fact. This was the entire intent of the propaganda campaign.
James Clapper, a signer, later said the headline had “distorted” what the letter actually asserted. He made this comment after every relevant U.S. institution stated there was no evidence of Russian involvement, when he was being pressed to defend his suggestion that Russia might have been involved.
Bertrand probably didn't write the headline, as Somerby has noted several times before.
DeleteIn view of all the help Putin has given Trump through two elections and during his first and current terms, it seems obvious this attack on Hunter Biden came from Russia. Too bad Hunter Biden wasn't the actual president or it might have had an actual impact on voters. It would be discriminatory to vote against a man because his penis is too big, don't you think?
Superman came from another planet, and he spoke American English.
ReplyDeleteThat's because Kal El include language-learning crystals in his son's meteorite space-ship along with the other educative material intended to make Superman brilliant by the time he landed, along with his stretchy super blanket that his adoptive mom made into a costume. Her sewing machine was able to pierce the fabric but not bullets and other projectiles.
DeleteCorrection — Jor El.
Delete"SATURDAY: Trump wanted the journo "thrown out like a dog!"
ReplyDeleteMost people like their dogs and treat them nicely. It reflects very poorly on Trump that he thinks dogs should be mistreated.
Nuestro perro es parte de nuestra familia. Weirdos.
DeleteTrump does think of the Supreme Court justices as his justices. A CNN panel agreed:
ReplyDelete"New York Times congressional correspondent Annie Karni said she found it "bizarre" to see a president in the press briefing room thanking the justices.
"I mean, they're a separate branch of government. They don't work for him. It was just a strange moment to me," she said.
"I cringed so hard when he did it," Honig agreed. "And he's done it before. And I guarantee you the justices hate that, right?"
The panel recalled Trump thanking Chief Justice John Roberts when he saw him at the first address before the joint session of Congress. When Trump had Justice Brett Kavanaugh sworn in, the conservative justices attended the event, and he thanked them there as well."
What is Trump doing in a press briefing room anyway?
Nothing to see here, move along. ""As President Donald Trump made his way out of Congress following his first speech to the body since retaking office in January, he stopped to shake hands with the four Supreme Court justices in attendance. While shaking the hand of Chief Justice John Roberts, he said, “Thank you again, I won’t forget it,” then slapped the chief on the back.""
DeleteTrump isn't making any sense in his reasons why the uranium was not evacuated ahead of his strike on Iran.
ReplyDeleteMaria Bartiromo asks whether the uranium was removed ahead of the strike and Trump said:
"MARIA BARTIROMO Do you think that the Iranian regime hid some of the enriched uranium before the strikes?...
TRUMP I don’t think they did. No, I think, first of all, it’s very hard to do. It’s very dangerous to do, it is very heavy, very, very heavy. It’s a very hard thing to do plus we didn’t give much notice because they didn’t know we were coming until just, you know, then. And nobody thought we’d go after that site because everybody said that site is impenetrable.
BARTIROMO Because I saw reports that there were 400 kilograms, 800 pounds that they moved, but I wonder if it’s traceable. I mean, if they were to have moved something,
TRUMP They didn’t move anything.
BARTIROMO They didn’t move anything.
TRUMP You know, they moved themselves, they were all trying to live, they didn’t move anything."
First he tries to say it is too heavy to have moved. That is ridiculous, given that we know the weight and quantity involved and it was about as heavy as two upright pianos or a single baby grand. Then he just insists nothing was moved, but then what were the trucks there for?
Well anyone would know that the Iranians made their uraniums containers so large and heavy that they could never be moved out from under the mountain. That is just common sense, ifns' you are a weirdo.
DeleteAh I see 3:19 you know nothing about nuclear energy, good to know.
DeleteLOL!!!
My dad was a senior nuclear research physicist for the DOE nimrod.
DeleteTransfer of knowledge is not hereditary.
Delete"we didn’t give much notice because they didn’t know we were coming until just, you know, then."
DeleteRight. They had no clue, even after Trump blabbed his plans all over TV and social media.
Well it works for Trump, then it works for me, nimrod.
DeleteYou might not be a nimrod, you might not figured I was being sarcastic. That is hard to believe. But either way, the facility is going to be designed to receive and distribute materials. What da fck does nuclear knowledge have to do with the capacity of the elevator?
DeleteI’m a numb rod.
DeleteTrump does not know what the fuck he is doing.
ReplyDeleteTrump is bombing all over the world, but to no effect, other than killing innocent civilians, including children.
Trump's actions and policies are deeply unpopular, his poll numbers are in the toilet, overall and on nearly every issue.
There is evidence that Hunter's laptop was processed by Russian assets, yet even so, Hunter's laptop was a giant nothingburger, revealing no corruption or crime.
Trump and his family are using the presidency to grift to the tune of billions, and from the shadiest people from Russia to the Saudis.
Trump is a disaster, he is trying to overturn our democracy, and institute authoritarianism/fascism.
Americans are suffering as a result of Trump, but the few wealthy people left in this country are laughing all the way to the bank, while Somerby tries to distract with trivialities that push his right wing agenda.
I am not positive, but I gathered that these things are true
ReplyDelete1. The report said it was low confidence
2. The figure of a month or two in the report was actually the lower edge of a range.
3. These two key facts were not included in Bertrand's report.
Why weren't #1 and #2 included? Possibilities.
1. Bertrand knew about them and chose not to report them
2. Bertrand didn't know about them, because the leakers gave her a selected part of the report, chosen to make the attack look less significant than it was.
3. Bertrand didn't want to know about #1 and #2. She built a career on presenting false or misleading narrative as if she were gullible.
If #1, that's clearly unethical. If #2, that's either unethical or remarkably naïve. An experienced reporter like Bertrand ought to be aware that partial leaks are often presented in a way that's intentionally misleading.
Hurry up and die you worse than useless cost center. Your betters demand your compliance or it will be forced upon you.
DeleteHer report included the fact it was low confidence.
DeleteIt was included as a fact, but in a quote from Hegstaff:
DeleteHegseth, who is also at the NATO summit, said Wednesday the assessment was “a top secret report; it was preliminary; it was low confidence;” adding that there were political motives behind leaking it and that an FBI investigation was underway to identify the leaker.
Paragraph 8 out of 32.
" not as a fact"
DeleteHere's the AP report:
DeleteThe DIA’s assessment was preliminary and will be refined as new information becomes available, the agency wrote in a statement Wednesday. Its authors also characterized it as “low confidence,” an acknowledgement that the report’s conclusions could be mistaken. According to the DIA statement, analysts have not been able to review the sites themselves.
Quaker - do you have a link to that AP report?
DeleteIt's actually from a Washington Post report:
Deletehttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/24/iran-nuclear-program-military-strikes-trump/4244d0fa-513d-11f0-baaa-ba1025f321a8_story.html
Here is Bertand's original article:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/24/politics/intel-assessment-us-strikes-iran-nuclear-sites
It does appear that the WaPo report was distributed by AP. I found it here:
Deletehttps://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-program-military-strikes-trump-f0fc085a2605e7da3e2f47ff9ac0e01d
The authors and the text are the same as the WaPo report @8:11 linked.
Thanks Quaker. IMO the actual headline was misleading. It should have said "Low Confidence US intelligence report suggests US strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months" rather than "Early US intelligence report suggests US strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months". The fact that the report was low confidence is more significant than the fact that it was early.
DeleteThe headline was fine.
DeleteYou can see on Wayback Machine that Bertrand's initial report did not include the fact it was "low confidence".
Deletehttps://web.archive.org/web/20250624190114/https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/24/politics/intel-assessment-us-strikes-iran-nuclear-sites
That was added to the story 22 hours later:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250625145734/https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/24/politics/intel-assessment-us-strikes-iran-nuclear-sites
And Bertrand herself in appearances on the network neglected to tell viewers it was low confidence. Some people may wonder why, as a seasoned reporter, she didn't make that clear to her viewers and readers from the very beginning.
The person who cares most that the report is low confidence is Trump. Bertrand does not work for Trump and has no duty to emphasize whatever benefits Trump and not readers in general. Despite the early nature of the report, it may be true.
DeleteActually the "months" idea was pretty much debunked in a day or two by Gen. Caine's detailed presentation and by the Israeli evaluation. The media who ran with this story, including the NY Times, alas, shot themselves in the foot. The man on the street doesn't care much about the minutiae of the precise headline or when "low confidence" was added to the report. The man on the street knows that the media told him that the damage could be fixed in a couple of months, but that turned out not to be true.
DeleteThat is point of the leak. To get the man on the street to think something about a political adversary that isn't true.
DeleteAs the man on the street, let me interject. I followed that story, and the NYT updated the information as new assessments were made. On the other hand, what am I to make of this Zohran Mamdani, when the President of the United States informs me that he is "100% communist lunatic"? Oh, I see, reporting news as it comes in: bad because it might mislead a segment of the public. Slandering a NYC councilman is ok when your Orange Jesus engages in it in order to affect public perception of a mayoral candidate.
DeleteThe issue isn't that Bertrand didn't update the information as new assessments were made. It was that she didn't include or know it was low confidence. And that was left out of the initial report and her TV appearances which misinforms the man on the street. Even the ones filled with righteous indignation who deflect issues using whataboutism.
Delete"the actual headline was misleading. It should have said "Low Confidence US intelligence report suggests US strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months" rather than "Early US intelligence report suggests US strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months"."
DeleteAre you putting me on? That's your quarrel? Then you have no complaint with Bertrand, but with a copy editor who wrote the headline.
Quaker's not the sharpest knife in the chandelier drawer.
DeleteThe Trump administration has agreed to release from prison a three-time felon who drunkenly fired shots in a Texas community and spare him from deportation in exchange for his cooperation in the federal prosecution of Kilmar Abrego GarcÃa, according to a review of court records and official testimony.
ReplyDeleteJose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, 38, has been convicted of smuggling migrants and illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. He also pleaded guilty to “deadly conduct” in the Texas incident, and is now the government’s star witness in its case against Abrego.
Fascist gonna fascist, and folks like DiC will throw ketchup on the wall to weaseled out of discussing just how ugly things are. Tiresome. But this time around Project 25 has done a very good job of deploying the fascist shitstorm of "action" that DiC goons over. (Step 1. in the fascist handbook.) Doesn't matter what the true impact of the action is exactly, just amazing everything they are doing!, amiright!!!
Delete
ReplyDeleteBecause I don't care about CNN, I don't care if that scummy journo is thrown out like a dog, or not.
Keep your scummy journos, and remain a scummy "cable news network" forever, if that's what you want.