On Those Five AT&T Phones Manafort Wanted To Learn About

Yesterday, Amy Berman Jackson rejected Paul Manafort’s effort to get the last of the affidavits used to get warrants against him unsealed. The challenge started as an effort to get seven warrant affidavits unsealed; along the way, Manafort got a completely unredacted copy of the affadavit behind the search of his condo (which would have been the first one reflecting the government’s knowledge of his role in the June 9 meeting), and the name of a confidential source — actually a known former employee of his — behind the warrant to search his storage facility.

Along with some other government disclosure, that left two affidavits. A warrant to search his email account.

In the Matter of the Search of Information Associated with Email Account [email protected] (D.D.C.) (17-mj-00611).

Based on the DC docket, I think this warrant would have been obtained sometime between August 14 and 18 of last year. This is the email address that Mueller’s team caught Manafort using to conduct ongoing discussions with Konstantin Kilimnik last November (though Kilimnik’s side would have been accessible via a Section 702 served on Google).

The other warrant is one to obtain information relating to five AT&T phones.

In the Matter of the Search of Information Associated with Five Telephone Numbers Controlled by AT&T (D.D.C.) (18-sc-609).

In her order, ABJ explained that the government is only withholding the names of confidential sources and stuff pertaining to investigations other than the money laundering investigations currently pending against Manafort.

The government argues that the information that is currently being withheld fell within two categories: the names of confidential sources who had provided information to the government, and information relating to ongoing investigations that does not bear upon the allegations in either of the two cases now pending against Manafort.

An earlier filing explained that the second, AT&T, affidavit was obtained on March 9 and it covers “ongoing investigations that are not the subject of either of the current prosecutions involving Manafort.”

On April 4, 2018, the government produced in redacted form, and for the first time, an affidavit supporting a search warrant that had been obtained on March 9, 2018. That affidavit likewise contains redactions—albeit more substantial ones—relating to ongoing investigations that are not the subject of either of the current prosecutions involving Manafort.

As I believe others pointed out at the time, this would put it just a few weeks after Rick Gates pled on February 23, and so might reflect information obtained with his cooperation.

In her ruling, ABJ cited the last week’s hearing, suggesting that the phones still redacted in the affidavit materials might not be Manafort’s.

THE COURT: What if — I think one of them is about phone information. What if the redacted phones are not his phone?

MR. WESTLING: I don’t have a problem with that. I think we’re talking about things that relate to this defendant in this case.

Since just before this phone data was obtained, Mueller’s team has focused closely on Roger Stone, starting with the Sam Nunberg meltdown on March 5, including a retracted claim that Trump knew of the June 9 meeting the week beforehand (there’s a phone call Don Jr placed on June 6 that several committees think may have been to Trump, something Mueller presumably knows). Ted Malloch was stopped at the border and interviewed (and had his phone seized) on March 30, and scheduled for a since aborted grand jury appearance on April 13. Stone assistants John Sullivan and Jason Kakanis were subpoenaed earlier in May. Of particularly interest, Michael Caputo was interviewed about meetings he and Stone had with Gates before and during the campaign.  Stone’s finances have been probed. Stone says he expects an indictment, but claims it would pertain to issues unrelated to colluding with Russia.

These details may, of course, be entirely unrelated. But Mueller sure has focused closely on Stone in the wake of obtaining information on those phones that don’t belong to Manafort.

Meanwhile, Manafort has started a fund to pay what must be astronomical legal bills. He may make bail this week, or Mueller’s team may move the goalposts.

Update: Jason Sullivan appeared before the grand jury today (Friday June 1), though he was originally subpoenaed to appear on May 18. That, plus the Ted Malloch detail, suggests Mueller is juggling the Stone witnesses.

51 replies
  1. Rugger9 says:

    If the phones aren’t Manafort’s whose were they and why did Manafort have them to be picked up in the raid?  What information is on them (i.e. have they been searched yet)?

    There seems to be a lot of protest over something that would seem inconsequential for Manafort if there’s nothing on his (non-) phones tied to (someone other than) him. Was this a palace burner phone stash? Were these used for that purpose in the notorious “back channel”? This seems to have the palace’s level of sophistication and planning.

    • emptywheel says:

      They weren’t picked up in the raid. FBI got the stored communications from the phones that AT&T had. One or more was his. But not the others, presumably.

    • tjallen says:

      Could they be the phones of Manafort’s family members? If the family was on a calling plan with 5 phones from AT&T, Paul, wife, 2 daughters, and 1 more phone (?). There have been persistent news stories about Manafort’s daughters allegedly discussing the issues openly on their phone, texting, etc. about money problems and Ukrainian murders.

  2. Bob Conyers says:

    Why was the warrant only for Manafort’s email at dmpint.com? Googling that domain it appears that email addresses for Gates and Kilimnik were hosted on dmpint.com as well. Would there be separate warrants for separate email accounts?

    By the way, Googling also shows that Manafort used the password “bond007” for some of his other online stuff. Master criminal, for sure.

  3. Old Lawyer says:

    For what it is worth, I don’t think there is any source anywhere that goes into the details you pull out, the intricacies you understand and the resulting analysis and excellent suppositions you draw out.  Thank you for all you do.  Did I miss it or are there any writings by you on whether or not Mueller will allegedly not indict Trump according to DOJ guidelines?  Or is Giuliani just blowing smoke, for whatever reason, to create a false narrative?

  4. SpaceLifeForm says:

    Tapes or just digital audio recordings these days?

    I think Avenatti baited Ryan today into admitting that recordings exist that Cohen made. And they likely are not all regardng Stormy and Davidson. Think Trump and Manafort.


    Probably lots of audio recordings.

    Audio bugging someone with bad opsec is easy if you get to their PC.

    You use a cell phone plugged into the back of the PC with micro-USB cable to keep the cell phone powered up. The cell phone listens for the audio and records and sends over cellnet to wherever.

    The person will bad opsec never notices it it there.

  5. SpaceLifeForm says:

    Tapes or just digital audio recordings these days?

    I think Avenatti baited Ryan today into admitting that recordings exist that Cohen made. And they likely are not all regardng Stormy and Davidson. Think Trump and Manafort.


    Probably lots of audio recordings.

    Audio bugging someone with bad opsec is easy if you get to their PC.

    You use a cell phone plugged into the back of the PC with micro-USB cable to keep the cell phone powered up. The cell phone listens for the audio and records and sends over cellnet to wherever.

    The person will bad opsec never notices it it there.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      Sorry, but duplicate not due to me. Purely network glitch (or other bs). In fact, the edit timer never appeared. Anyway…

      Cohen’s atty Ryan: “The audiotapes that we have, if any, that pertain to him, under lock and key, they are controlled by my law firm, TO, and POTUS, to the extent that there may be a claim of privilege related to them. I am unaware of any release of an audio file of this kind.”

      And now, Avenatti says he has evidence that at least one of the audio recordings involves potus. Key point is that Ryan was baited.

      And, yes the media wil spin the issue of Avenatti withdrawing his request to appear pro hac vice.

      But, what the media will *completely fail to note*, is that he withdrew his pro hac vice request *without prejudice*.

      (because, that would be too complicated to explain to Fox viewers)

      And, they will totally fail to notice that he did *NOT* withdraw his request to appear as intervenor.

      (way too much for Fox viewers)

  6. Avattoir says:

    This clarification isn’t aimed Fearless Leader, who’s already recognized this fact. It’s for readers who haven’t reviewed the source materials, or did review them but maybe misunderstood.

    As Marcy points out, Judge ABJ describes these ‘5 phones’ in today’s Order as:

    “7. In the Matter of the Search of Information Associated with Five
    Telephone Numbers Controlled by AT&T (D.D.C.) (18-sc-609).”

    Manafort’s motion here does NOT concern any warrant to ‘seize 5 phones from Manafort or from premises under his control’. IOW, the motion didn’t target seizure of the actually physical mobile phone hardware.

    Instead, it’s about a warrant to obtain from AT&T
    “Information [/] Associated with Five Telephone Numbers”,
    in relation to which AT&T was the (or a) service provider.

    What KIND of “information”? In theory: meta-data, or that plus content. Given the recency of the warrant tho, I think it’s far more likely it aimed at the latter, based on other info the OSC obtained, directly or indirectly, by other means / from other sources.

    • emptywheel says:

      Given that it is generally referred to as a “warrant,” wouldn’t that necessarily be the case? I took the case notation–sc–to mean stored communication.

      So texts, calendars, maps and location data, address books, pictures, and other app based data.

      • SpaceLifeForm says:

        Thinking billing/account info.

        Maybe, inter alia, names and addresses.
        (no proof they are valid)

        Even if they were tied to burner phones.

        Think about comms to a burner phone, where no texting happens, and the holder never calls and never answers.

        *BUT*, the holder *DOES* see that there were incoming calls and from what number.

        Two players, each with two (or more) burners, can comm without any text or voice.

        • SpaceLifeForm says:

          Note that this is SS7 stuff.

          One end does not even need to have two burners if they have the right hardware and software that can forge CallerID. (this would be the broadcast side, the sender)

          But, even if one can not forge CID, with two paths (burners), you can always do this.

          It’s like Numbers Station, but is actually more secure because it goes over SS7, which prevents radio receivers from catching and detecting.

          SS7 is a huge security hole, yet for some reason Numbers Station ops continue anyway.

          Why? Numbers Stations can be operated from anywhere as long as they have power. Relying on SS7 means one is relying on other players infrastructure. And their possible spying.

          Who do you trust?

        • SpaceLifeForm says:

          Actually, I made a mistake.

          SS7 actually could go over radio, it’s just that most of time, it does not. Performance and/or security reasons.

  7. Peterr says:

    Manafort has started a fund to pay what must be astronomical legal bills. He may make bail this week, or Mueller’s team may move the goalposts.

    Hmmmm . . . looking at that legal defense fund site reminded me of our old pal Scooter Libby and his legal defense fund. Chasing back through the Wayback Machine, a big difference soon stood out.

    They started out similar enough. Libby’s defense fund’s website has a quote atop the site from Dick Cheney: “Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and talented individuals I have ever known.” Below this came the main pitch to contribute, signed by Ambassador Mel Sembler, which said “A distinguished group of friends, business leaders and former government officials have joined The Libby Legal Defense Trust to help Scooter defray his legal costs from the recent charges. We hope you will join us in supporting this effort.”

    And then there’s Manafort’s site, where the opening words to greet you are “Longtime friends of Paul Manafort have established this Legal Defense Trust Fund to assist Paul and his family in meeting the tremendous legal costs resulting from the proceedings commenced against him by the Office of Special Counsel following the historic 2016 presidential election.”

    So far, they’re pretty similar.

    But that changes pretty fast. Along the right sidebar on the Libby site was a list of dozens of those friends, who served as members of an “advisory committee” which included all manner of major DC rightwingers, and a trustee who presumably ran the operation. On the Manafort site, however, there are no names at all, save for “Paul Manafort.” None. No testimonials to Paul signed by influential supporters, no list of advisory committee members standing behind Paul, and no trustee willing to put his/her name out in public.

    On the other hand, there is a notice in boldface type that catches the reader’s attention: “The Trust will maintain strict confidentiality of the identity and information of those who choose to contribute.” Apparently that strict confidentiality also extends to those running the Trust.

    The contrast is stunning. Libby had a parade of supporters, who viewed him as a martyr to the cause and put their names out in public for all the world to see. Manafort, OTOH, has a chorus of crickets.* Libby has friends, and Manafort has “friends”.

    It’s as if Manafort is surrounded by folks who say “OK, I’ll help you out and set up this legal defense fund, but for God’s sake don’t let anyone know I have anything to do with it.” Either that, or Manafort’s legal team set it up themselves as a kind of fancy GoFundMe-style way to get paid, but don’t want word of their self-serving “friendship” to get out.

    Right now, I’d bet on the latter.


    * Manafort’s site has some kind of “do not copy” code built into it, so you can’t copy-and-paste any of it into some other document. You’d think with a legal defense fund, they would want to encourage people to copy and paste the stuff into emails and pass it along to their friends, but this has been blocked. Is someone worried about hackers, and so they put some intensely harsh security protocols into the code that had the side effect of eliminating copy-and-paste?

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      It’s as if Manafort is surrounded by folks who say “OK, I’ll help you out and set up this legal defense fund, but for God’s sake don’t let anyone know I have anything to do with it.”

      If there are legit supporters — I mean, it’s Paulie the Rug we’re talking about here — then they’re probably NoVa lobbyists who are getting twitchy about their own FARA registrations and foreign bank accounts. But having a PO Box in Clifton, NJ is… curious.

    • Trip says:

      I don’t know why this wouldn’t give supporters pause. This sounds like a gofundme site where someone sets up a donation drive in a different someone’s name and then just runs off with the money themselves. There has to be a way to determine who is behind it, it could be a fraud to collect money from saps who want to help Manafort (not that I agree with this in the least).

      Additionally, the Trumps should not be able to secretly coerce Manafort via hidden incentives.

    • Anne says:

      @peterr I was curious about the copy functionality you mentioned, and was able to look at the page source code.  They are definitely blocking selection when dragging the mouse over certain blocks of text.

      But you can still get to it, so they must be trying to prevent just casual copying for some reason. For example,
      “Long time friends of Paul Manafort have established this Legal Defense Trust Fund to assist Paul and his family in meeting the tremendous legal costs resulting from the proceedings commenced against him by the Office of Special Counsel following the historic 2016 Presidential Election.”

    • Avattoir says:

      As to a hammer everything is a nail, so to a laundromat everything needs cleaning.

      I don’t believe any comparable urgency applied to the GF Scooter site.

    • Frank Probst says:

      Rachel Maddow covered this last night.  She’s not convinced that the site isn’t a “prank”, as she describes it.  In any case, I have a hard time seeing any of this money being used by Manafort to make bail.  Manafort can’t really lauder it without getting caught, and if he tries to use the funds directly, he’ll be asked where the money came from, and I don’t think “I don’t know.” will go over well with this judge at this point.

      @bmaz, what’s your opinion here?  From a legal standpoint, what can Manafort get away with using this money for (if he really has access to it)?

      • Anne says:

        I didn’t see Madow’s segment, so I’m don’t know how she came up with that opinion.  I traced from the contribution button, down to two Wild West Domains businesses in AZ.  One is an “INC” and inactive, and the other is an “LLC” registered as a Foreign LLC.  I think what I’m seeing is the old websites for the INC, fronted to collect money for the LLC.  The bold Updated Dates below are important.  The INC people would have had to let the LLC grab the wwdomains urls.

        All the WHOIS record updates in February 2018 make it seem like Manafort has some access to the home-grown, semi-abandoned business from the original INC and he’s fronting their websites as a legitimate business that is hosting the contributions, but it’s just a paypal account on a website created on WordPress for/by an LLC with a similar legal name, with a principle address in Wilmington, Delaware.

        1) The money is going to a paypal account, and the site is built in WordPress.
                     <form action=”https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr” method=”post” target=”_top”><input
                            <p><input name=”hosted_button_id” type=”hidden” value=”LVD3MN5JQWTKE”></p>
                            <p><input alt=”PayPal – The safer, easier way to pay online!” name=”submit”  src=”https://manafortdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/pm_defensefund_paypal_button.png type=”image”></p>
        2)  This WHOIS record shows when the Manafort URL was created.  The Updated Date for Manafort probably represents a change to who is administering the account (i.e. to the LLC), or that the address was switched to the WordPress site (same difference).

        Raw WHOIS Record

        Domain Name: MANAFORTDEFENSE.ORG

        Registry Domain ID: D402200000004655818-LROR

        Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com

        Registrar URL: http://www.wildwestdomains.com

        Updated Date: 2018-02-26T03:47:11Z

        Creation Date: 2017-12-27T19:40:26Z

        Registry Expiry Date: 2018-12-27T19:40:26Z

        Registrar Registration Expiration Date:

        Registrar: Wild West Domains, LLC

        Registrar IANA ID: 440

        Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]

        Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505

        Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC

        Registrant State/Province: Arizona

        Registrant Country: US

        3) The Wild West Domains site seems partially dormant, or staged, or recently scrubbed, and the Updated Date is a few weeks before entity approval for the LLC.  It’s updated/transferred to the LLC just before the official incorporation record is updated with the State of AZ.

        Several of the links  –  Legal and About Us, and Privacy Policy – are broken, and the last copyright date is 2014.  Also, there is no email Support option, you can only call.  That’s really odd.  Serious hosting sites have forms where you submit a service request and the requests are tracked.

        WHO IS: wildwestdomains.com

        Updated Date: 2011-11-01

        Created Date: 2000-08-22

        Registrar Expiration Date: 2021-11-01

        4) Information at the BBB seems to show a page added in 2018, for WWDomains.  I think the 2018 BBB page “thinks” it’s referring to the INC from 2002.

        This association is listed with the BBB – http://www.ethicalaz.com/wildwestdomains/

        Wild West Domains, INC, registered with the BBB as shopping cart service and the copyright on that page is in 2002, but this ethicalaz page copyright shows 2018, so I think it was added recently, not in 2002.

        ” © 2018 Wild West Domains, LLC”

        Original WWDomains INC page for the BBB was created before ethicalaz was created (see #5):
        Phone Number
        (480) 505-8857
        Date Joined the BBB
        5) ethicalAZ is registered to the BBB, and was created in 2006 and updated in February 2018, perhaps for the LLC.  I wonder how/who got this approved by the BBB!

        Domain Name: ETHICALAZ.COM
        Registry Domain ID: 429541290_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
        Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
        Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com
        Updated Date: 2018-02-02T12:10:04Z
        Creation Date: 2006-04-28T18:23:27Z

        Registrant Organization: Better Business Bureau
        Registrant State/Province: Arizona
        Registrant Country: US

        6) Wild West Domains LLC and INC.
        The INC is inactive, and LLC is an entity type Foreign LLC as of 12/7/2011, shortly after the http://www.wildwestdomains.com URL WHOIS record was updated.

        Domestic For-Profit (Business) Corporation
        Statutory Agent

        Foreign LLC
        Statutory Agent

  8. Peterr says:

    Per wiki, Manafort got his JD in 1974 which would have been a heckuva time to study law related to executive privilege, obstruction of justice, campaign dirty tricks, and such things. Making it more interesting, he got that JD from Georgetown Law, just two miles from the Nixon White House.

    You might think that Manafort spent that time studying the mistakes made by Nixon, John Mitchell, HR Halderman, John Ehrlichmann, and all the rest (including Georgetown Law alums Donald Rumsfeld and John Dean), so that when Manafort’s time to chair a presidential campaign came, he would be ready. Ready, not as in he didn’t want to break the law, but that he wanted to avoid getting caught when he broke the law.  Yes, you might think that, but as recent events are proving out, you would be wrong.

    I think Georgetown Law may want their JD back.

    • Avattoir says:

      It’s a lovely sweet tale of idealism, but … no. Take it from me: I attended a similarly traditional law school in mostly the same time frame.

      Manafort is Georgetown Law Class of ’74. He was gone from there not later than sometime in April 1974.

      As Class of ’74, he was L1 in 71-72, out of school for the summer before either Watergate burglary. L1s don’t get lectured to on anything current; they’re there to dive deep, hold long breaths, learn quick, and survive or leave – mostly the latter. There was then – in many law schools, there still is – a traditional cull at the end of the first term: quite a massive one for Boomers, they typically involved taking out a third to half of all L1s that started in September. A lot of L1s find that their former ‘outstanding’ status in ‘scholarship’ as undergrads doesn’t amount to beans in law school and take a heck of a hit right in the ego (It wasn’t unusual for law schools to lose 1 or 2 L1s over the Christmas break to suicide.); lots of others hated/hate the grind, or the grinders (who are legion), or both; and many figure – correctly – that the route to riches lies easier with an MBA.

      In trad law schools like Georgetown, following L1 there tended/tends to be a lot of mixing of L2s and L3s in many of the individual subject classes. But most of those would have nothing at all to do with the sorts of interests you fancy must have been indulged (tho in truth were mostly not), and it’d be but a minority of L2&3s who managed to last out L1 with any idealism intact & still retain an interest in court work – a very small minority.

      Most L2s in those days secured offers for post-law school jobs, often multiple, during the L2 second term. The few who didn’t either weren’t planning on practicing or else spent their L3 time consumed with anxiety over getting an offer.

      L3 were not so much hard to find as hard to find in class: they spent most of their time in Law Review, or in one or more of the special projects of the Institutes that proliferate around law schools, or in feeding some inspiriting interest such as working pro bono in elections, jails or housing projects, or in cutting class to watch actual trials, or hanging out even working with the firms they’d be joining as associates come May or June.

      Whatever: the common thread was that L3s tended to be insufferable know-it-alls, eager to get out, get away & get going with their careers.

      Moreover, having met my quota of Manafort types, not just in law school but thereafter, he just doesn’t strike me as the sort to cultivate academic interests in the subjects you describe. And to the extent that those all might involve rat-fucking, that’s not really something law schools have standard on their curriculum; rather, education in those dark arts comes from some combo of character, bent, greed & power lust.


  9. Trip says:

    emptywheel‏ @emptywheel
    The timing of this specific claim is quite interesting as I’ll lay out tomorrow. Trump may be getting more info than we know.
    Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1
    Giuliani on Fox: “Even those Russians, the phony indictment they have of the Russians who will never come here for trial, they colluded with each other. Russians colluding. Oh wow that’s big news. Russians have been colluding since the Soviet Union to interfere in our elections.”

    I don’t get his quote. He says the indictment is phony, but then goes on to claim the Russians do collude. Also, if the indictment is of no consequence, he doesn’t explain why there are actually US attorneys who took on the case. I look forward to your write up, and why you think Trump is getting more inside info.

  10. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The Don has found time, after meeting Kim Kardashian, to give a full pardon to – Dinesh D’Souza.   Hahahahahahahahaha.

    D’Souza is an alt-right performance artist cum provocateur, and a naturalized American from Bombay/Mumbai.  His crime – felony campaign finance law violations.  His penalty?  Eight months in a “halfway house” near his home in San Diego, five years probation, and a $30,000 fine.

    As ever, the Don is transparent in his obsessions.  Out of all the pardon requests in the president’s in-basket, the Don came up with D’Souza’s.  He would also be sending a message to Manafort, Cohen, and others:  Play ball with me and I’ll keep you safe.

    To paraphrase Ilsa’s response to Major Strasser’s promise to keep Victor safe, we all know what your promises have been worth in the past.

    • Trip says:

      I’m curious why Charles Kushner hasn’t received a full pardon. It would be in line with Trump’s appreciation of blackmail, it’d please the Clown Prince, and score points with Bibi, all in one act. Maybe we have to wait for one of the Jersey housewives to visit the WH first.

  11. earlofhuntingdon says:

    CNN is in full pearl clutching mode over Samantha Bee’s use of the “c” word to describe Ivanka Trump’s enabling of her and her father’s policies.  The context was a takedown of Ivanka’s tweet of an idyllic picture with her son, both of them clean, white, fresh, and blond.  Many noted the disconnect and the intentionality in Ivanka tweeting that pic and her daddy’s forced separation of immigrants and asylum seekers.  Not to mention his ICE having misplaced 1500 odd kids.

    CNN will spend considerable airtime today to talk about “civility” and what’s “over the line”.  Its desperation to find a “she said” to the right’s “he said” is palpable.  A recent Keith Olbermann’s rant was also “over the line”.

    What CNN misses in its addiction for false equivalence is this.  Olbermann’s word choices were over the top.  Bee’s use of the “c” word in that medium is over the top.  (Ivanka grew up with daddy; she doesn’t need to have been John McCain’s wife to have heard the “c” word routinely while growing up.)  Their analysis was correct.  The substance of their critique of Donald Trump and his policies was correct.

    CNN’s pearl clutching producers should ponder that for a New York minute.  They are faulting critics for their diction, not their analysis.

    Trump is a racist, a misogynist, a serial liar, a cruel man who cares nothing for the cruelty he inflicts on others.  He cares only what happens to him.  The larger indictment is that that description applies to many CEOs, drugs companies in particular.  It applies to many Trump followers in Congress.  Polite word choices ain’t gonna change that.  If it takes impolite word choices to bring attention to that, tough shit.


  12. earlofhuntingdon says:

    If Roseanne Barr keeps hanging on, thinking up new excuses for the crudest of behavior, perhaps CNN could stop covering her. It’s a chicken and egg thing, guys. Just stop.

    Same with Sarah Sanders. If she won’t stop lying at press conferences, stop reporting her lies. Just stop. Same with her boss. Who knows, you might start a trend.

    • Trip says:

      It’s a constant refrain that the left is all about identity politics, but that is Trump’s bread and butter. He says repugnant things about women, different ethnic groups, race, etc., his policies are prejudicial against different religions, sexual orientation, sexual identification, and then when anyone retorts, he claims victimhood for the right. They are always victims. This is Bannon’s brainchild, to keep prattling on in the culture wars; except Trump is actually causing harm, it’s not just words.

      And BTW, I’m convinced CNN is in the bag for Trump. I have been noticing a hard shift.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      The more things change, the more they stay the same.

      Going to redact stuff, so that if you read the article, you can see how little has changed over *a long time*.

      In other words, read and learn something.

      If you are too lazy to read it, well then you want to keep your head in sand with your blinders and rose coloured glasses on.


      The world’s first national data network was constructed in [redacted] during the [redacted].

      The network was reserved for government use but in [redacted] two bankers, [redacted] devised a way to subvert it to their own ends.

      Accordingly, traders who could get the information more quickly could make money by anticipating these movements. … Some tried using messengers and [redacted. But check RFC 1149].

      The [redacted] were put on trial, though they could not be convicted because there was no law against misuse of data networks. But the [redacted] pioneering misuse of the [redacted] network qualifies as the world’s first cyber-attack.

      • bmaz says:

        No SLF, this horse manure is completely impertinent and useless. You yammer like normal people understand your jackass hacker lingo. They do not.

        This is not some pissant Reddit sub category where hacker boy cracks get to blow their wad.

        Do better, or quit blowing shit.


  13. Rugger9 says:

    CNN’s editorial shift has been apparent for some time now, track their hires over the last 5-6 years or so and the shift is obvious. It is as if they wanted to be just like (plausibly successful) Faux News so they went and hired RWNJs for “balance” purposes. In this conceptual dreck, even MSNBC has been wallowing in it along with the rest of the networks, for the same reason.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      “balance” == “Money”

      The Love of Balance is the root of all evil.

      Keep those bank accounts in Balance.

      • bmaz says:

        Your trite ass bunk is getting boring and distracting. The constant sanskrit junk you “think” you post and inform with is crap. Total crap.

        So is your constant bleating of, supposed, “metadata”. Seriously, what in the hell is wrong with you? The comment section, not to mention the hosts, here is not some idiot forum on the hacker idiot web. Speak English, treat people like they can understand your gibberish, and act accordingly. Or get out.

        Frankly SLF, you are full of shit. And not very complimentary to the posts and comments here. So, do better, be more useful, and explain your oh so brilliant little hacker “metadata” crap. Or go away. We do not exist to serve your trite bullshit. And we are not going to.

  14. Rusharuse says:

    Wow! NPR puts up Cohen’s mad cokey rage audio. Worse than than Earls terrible “S” word (above). This Cohen, I mean what a rat-fucker, working for a fuck-rat like Trump. What is the fucking world coming to? I’m telling my mum on all of you!

  15. Trip says:

    If you are looking for a convoluted story (with exceptionally long headlines), this is it:

    ‘Putin’s private foundation,’ spies, and a killer-monk The man who allegedly ordered Arkady Babchenko’s murder says was working for Ukrainian counterintelligence all along
    https://meduza .io /en/feature/2018/06/01/putin-s-private-foundation-spies-and-a-killer-monk
    Journalists find business ties between the primary suspect in the Babchenko attempted murder case and the Russian man who allegedly ordered the hit
    https://meduza .io /en/news/2018/06/01/journalists-find-business-ties-between-the-primary-suspect-in-the-babchenko-attempted-murder-case-and-the-russian-man-who-allegedly-ordered-the-hit

    I had to read both twice after saying to myself, “Wait, what?”.

    [Readers should use extra caution when opening Meduza links. / ~Rayne]

Comments are closed.