HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Friday, November 10, 2017

 
How would Rove/Hughes Cover Up A Trump Pee Tape?
by Spocko
Earlier today Digby posted about the report that in preparation for the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow, a Russian told Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller, he could "send five women" to Trump's hotel room. Schiller said he told the Russian, “We don’t do that type of stuff,” sources told NBC.

The story of Trump and the 5 women in Moscow got me thinking. What if you worked for Trump and knew the real story about this entire incident, as well as the rumors. How would you clean this story, or knock it down? I asked myself, What Would Karl Rove and Karen Hughes Do? WWKRKHD?

War criminal, his wife, Karl Rove

War criminal, Karen Hughes, some guy, war criminal

There are multiple ways to discredit this story, and the media covering it.  You are already seeing some of them in the story from NBC,
In a statement, Schiller's lawyer said "the versions of Mr. Schiller’s testimony being leaked to the press are blatantly false and misleading. "

"We are appalled by the leaks that are coming from partisan insiders from the House Intelligence Committee," said Stuart Sears. "It is outrageous that the very Committee that is conducting an investigation into leaks — purportedly in the public interest — is itself leaking information and defaming cooperative witnesses like Mr. Schiller. The Chairman and Ranking Member should investigate and hold accountable whoever is responsible for leaking false and misleading versions of Mr. Schiller’s testimony. This conduct is indefensible and calls into question the credibility and motives of the Committee’s investigation."
Out of Context and Hair Splitting
Any versions of the testimony leaked can correctly be labeled "false and misleading"  because anything that it isn't the word for word transcript, in complete context, can be categorized as misleading. If anyone gets a single word wrong, it can be called false.

(By the way, this was a technique of Rumsfeld, if someone paraphrased a comment he made he could say, "That's not what I said." the reporter often didn't have the text in front of him. Rumsfeld could also say, "That's out of context." which gave him room to push a different interpretation.)


One Bad Detail Spoils the Whole Bunch
Another method to scuttle this story is to find and discredit one detail of the story which will be used to discredit the rest of the story. Remember how Dan Rather and 60 Minutes got busted  over a type font?

True Details in a Faked Document
The other method is to fabricate a piece of evidence then get it to the "liberal media."  If the media outlet is cautious, they won't run it until it's vetted. They might see that it's too good to be true and hold back, but not all media will wait.  After one runs it, the others will need to acknowledge it.  This plays into the media's desire for a scoop and gives them an opportunity to comment without taking sides for a "both sides do it" story.

The key to this method is to make the fake evidence and sources look really good.   So for example, they could have real information, like the names of the women who were offered by Putin to go to Trump's Room. But the document it is on is forged     Then someone tips off a blogger named Buckhead who just happens to know what to look for to prove that the email was forged . Third party experts will be brought in to confirm that document is false.

This tactic is a twofer.  It gives right wing media an opportunity to attack "the liberal media" for promoting "fake news" during their witch hunt against Trump and if more evidence shows up later, it can be dismissed as another fake.

True Details, Real Evidence from a Compromised Source

What if you know that evidence with real details will eventually be dug up?  Get it to someone who is already compromised or seen as crazy. Expose the problems with the source. Get others to disavow the source, which taints the story.

Is there anyone in the Trump White House who can plan three steps ahead, understand what the media wants and how to manipulate them,  use cut outs so their fingerprints aren't on the fake evidence  and then implement it without being caught?   I don't know. I do know that these kind of people exist. They work for law firms, PR firms, and intelligence agencies --both foreign and domestic.

You don't have to be playing 11 dimensional chess to use some of these tactics, smearing sources and crying "fake news" is easy.  But when dumb, inexperienced people try to pull off these tactics they can be busted by people who are paying attention and know what to look for.  And there are a lot of dumb inexperience people in the Trump White House.