Trump-Russian Link or Just Carelessness?

The quotes below are from Newsweek online dated yesterday, but—

A Washington Post article today points out that the truth about Trump quoting from a falsified account put out by Sputnik is likely more mundane than Eichenwald’s conspiracy innuendo—i.e. that Trump’s people found it on Twitter and he just regurgitated it without question. Sputnik has apparently removed the article in question. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/11/the-trump-putin-link-that-wasnt/]*

So, Russian-Trump link? Or just carelessness? (I go with carelessness.)

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

This false story was reported only by the Russian-controlled agency (a reference appeared in a Turkish publication, but it was nothing but a link to the Sputnik article). So how did Donald Trump end up advancing the same falsehood put out by Putin’s mouthpiece?

At a rally in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.”

“This just came out a little while ago,’’ Trump said. “I have to tell you this.” And then he read the words from my article.

“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.”

The crowd booed and chanted, “Lock her up!”

This is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin? (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

The Russians have been obtaining American emails and now are presenting complete misrepresentations of them—falsifying them—in hopes of setting off a cascade of events that might change the outcome of the presidential election. The big question, of course, is why are the Russians working so hard to damage Clinton and, in the process, aid Donald Trump?

(Bold mine.)

__________________________________________

Here is his 2015 essay that Eichenwald references, excoriating the deceitfulness of the Republicans on the Benghazi Committee:

http://www.newsweek.com/benghazi-biopsy-comprehensive-guide-one-americas-worst-political-outrages-385853

Here is the e-mail containing Eichenwald’s essay: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2038. The Newsweek cite is referenced at the top, and the essay apparently copy/pasted in full.

_________________________________________

* I read Eichenwald’s piece first, and then tried to track more down. That’s how I found the WaPo article.

EDIT: Apparently the original tweet repeating the Sputnik account has also been deleted. https://twitter.com/passantino/status/785692409183150081

Originally posted by vistesd
The quotes below are from Newsweek online dated yesterday, but—

A Washington Post article today points out that the truth about Trump quoting from a falsified accsia nount put out by Sputnik is likely more mundane than Eichenwald’s conspiracy innuendo—i.e. that Trump’s people found it on Twitter and he just regurgitated it without question. Sputnik has ...[text shortened]... Sputnik account has also been deleted. https://twitter.com/passantino/status/785692409183150081

I am trusting less information sources for all I know blaming the Russian is just an another sham.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I am trusting less information sources for all I know blaming the Russian is just an another sham.

Well, thus far it has seemed to me that you have put a lot of faith into sources that demonize Clinton, but not any sources that challenge those sources. If you don’t rely on any information sources, then you’re reduced to reaching your conclusions based on an uniformed faith or a random guess (if they are any different).

You will note that at least I did some digging before just throwing out the charges by Eichenwald. Checking sources against sources, in order to be better informed, may not be perfect—but it’s more reasonable than universal skepticism.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, thus far it has seemed to me that you have put a lot of faith into sources that demonize Clinton, but not any sources that challenge those sources. If you don’t rely on any information sources, then you’re reduced to reaching your conclusions based on an uniformed faith or a random guess (if they are any different).

You will note that at lea ...[text shortened]... er to be better informed, may not be perfect—but it’s more reasonable than universal skepticism.

What sources are you referring too?
The people who said she had a private server and deleted 33K emails after a they got a
Subpoena?
Those that said there hundreds of request for help in Benghazi that were not granted?
That people died and no one was sent to help them in Benghazi when attack was happening?
That lies were told about a film when everyone knew it was an attack?
That Bill Clinton abused women and Hillary damaged them to keep them quiet?
That Hillary called the families that did say she blamed a video liars in front of their children caskets?

What sources do you think were bad in any of those?

Originally posted by KellyJay
What sources are you referring too?
The people who said she had a private server and deleted 33K emails after a they got a
Subpoena?
Those that said there hundreds of request for help in Benghazi that were not granted?
That people died and no one was sent to help them in Benghazi when attack was happening?
That lies were told about a film when everyone ...[text shortened]... liars in front of their children caskets?

What sources do you think were bad in any of those?

Do you have sources for those claims? Or is this that game that I already called you out on—where you make claims, and we spend the effort to fact-check them, only to have you dismiss out of hand whatever is presented, and then just repeat the claims (as you are doing here).

As far as I can tell from a cursory glance, every claim on your list has been debunked—with sources—on here, except the next to the last one, which I’m not sure has been addressed on here. I personally posted (with sources) on the “hundreds of requests for ‘help’” and what she did or did not say to families about the video. Marauder has replied extensively (with sources) to the video question generally, as well as the e-mails and the purported refusal to send help while the consulate was under attack—and he doesn’t even support Clinton or plan to vote for her..

You just dismiss those with a wave of the hand, and keep making the same false claims. And then you want us to go through it all again? Searching out everything that has been posted? That’s a disingenuous game Kelly. I’m not going to be your bait for it.

I will await with interest others’ comments on the specifics of this particular thread.

LATE EDIT: I realize that your claims here were originally sourced somewhere, and that the sources we have cited are follow-up sources fact-checking those. As I say: checking sources against sources. I am not accusing you of making those claims up out of whole cloth.

With regard to this thread, whether or not you trust (or even should trust) Media Matters, here at least you can see a youtube of trump reading from the falsified document: https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/11/trump-s-latest-lie-comes-straight-state-owned-russian-media/213731

So you can at least see that. Since I’ve already linked Eichenwald’s 2015 article, you can check the factuality of his claim in yesterday’s Newsweek article. If you wish.

Originally posted by vistesd
The big question, of course, is why are the Russians working so hard to damage Clinton and, in the process, aid Donald Trump?

The bigger question is how a presidential candidate can get away with passing on nonsense with none of his supporters seeming to care. If I had a potential president that careless about sources, I would be very worried.
The problem is, as we have seen with Kelly, the truth simply doesn't matter to most republicans. Its all about partisan politics - stick with your party regardless.

Putin and Trump have a secret deal to take over the world.

It's all part of the vast right wing conspiracy Hillary used to talk about.

Originally posted by vistesd
Do you have sources for those claims? Or is this that game that I already called you out on—where you make claims, and we spend the effort to fact-check them, only to have you dismiss out of hand whatever is presented, and then just repeat the claims (as you are doing here).

As far as I can tell from a cursory glance, every claim on your list has been de ...[text shortened]... ng sources against sources. I am not accusing you of making those claims up out of whole cloth.

Sorry, what one don't you think happen?

Originally posted by vistesd
Do you have sources for those claims? Or is this that game that I already called you out on—where you make claims, and we spend the effort to fact-check them, only to have you dismiss out of hand whatever is presented, and then just repeat the claims (as you are doing here).

As far as I can tell from a cursory glance, every claim on your list has been de ...[text shortened]... ng sources against sources. I am not accusing you of making those claims up out of whole cloth.

With respect to family members...you don't believe them when they said that was what
she claimed when she talked to them? Instead you believe Hillary when she denies it?

I don't read some posters here due to history I have with them, so their points can be
without a doubt valid and I'll miss them, or junk and I'll miss them either way I'm not at all
concern about what they say.

Originally posted by vistesd
Do you have sources for those claims? Or is this that game that I already called you out on—where you make claims, and we spend the effort to fact-check them, only to have you dismiss out of hand whatever is presented, and then just repeat the claims (as you are doing here).

As far as I can tell from a cursory glance, every claim on your list has been de ...[text shortened]... ng sources against sources. I am not accusing you of making those claims up out of whole cloth.

Well think about it, fact checking wars...you think someone who is willing able and actually
pulled off deleting government emails that were under subpoena, can have several who
support her calling everything into question that highlights her faults? Trump HAS faults
I've never denied he did, but she has lied so many times about big and little things it isn't
even funny.,

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sorry, what one don't you think happen?

Here we go again. You repeat the claims and I’m supposed to provide evidence that they’re wrong. This is the last time—

1. Did Clinton delete 33,000 emails after they were subpoenaed?

The emails were deleted (not by Clinton, and not “bleached” ) after the subpoena came in, but had been scheduled to be deleted for some time before. There is no evidence that they were deleted in order to avoid anything.

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/10/13222360/trump-emails-clinton

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/

[EDIT: Why is she supposed to save personal emails? I delete them regularly. There is no evidence she tried to cover up anything.]

2. Were hundreds of requests for “help” at Benghazi denied?

No. I dealt with this in the other thread, directly to you.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/maybe-mr-trump-is-not-the-problem.170282/page-10

3. That people died and no one was sent to help them in Benghazi when attack was happening?

No available help was denied. Marauder covered this somewhat in the RHP thread cited above. You can also read this: http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/28/comprehensive-guide-benghazi-myths-and-facts/211240#Response Saved Lives

And this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/18/mark-geist/stand-down-story-ignores-critical-facts-about-effo/

4. That lies were told about a film when everyone knew it was an attack?

Not true. Already covered: http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/hillary-lied-about-trump.166762/page-6#post_3514076

5. That Bill Clinton abused women and Hillary damaged them to keep them quiet?

I think that Bill Clinton at least used his power positions abusively over women. But Bill is not running for President, so it’s the second claim that is relevant. I’m still looking at that one—because I am not willing to make judgments just on say-so. I don’t view HuffPo as a particularly reliable source, but this seemed fairly balanced: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-clinton-broaddrick_us_57fae930e4b0e655eab54dee.

I would not rely on that alone, however.

6. That Hillary called the families that did say she blamed a video liars in front of their children caskets?

Already covered (by me to you): http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/maybe-mr-trump-is-not-the-problem.170282

Also, see 4 above.

_____________________________________________

As referenced in the OP, I don’t just take the original source for a story as definitive (though I will consider the source)—when I read the Newsweek article, I went looking, rather than assume it’s “whole truth”. A source with newer information that seems solid trumps older information, for example.

All of the RHP posts cited above contain references to other information sources.

Now, KJ, do you have anything to say about the question asked in the OP, re the topic of this thread?