Donald Trump

Trump Slams Anonymous Sources, Promotes Story Based on Anonymous Sources

A little consistency would be nice.

|

President Donald Trump slammed the use of anonymous sources today—hours after promoting a story based almost entirely on them.

In a pair of tweets this morning, Trump claimed that anonymous sources are often "fiction":

PAPPIS JEAN PIERRE POLARIS/SIPA/Newscom

Trump was responding to a CNN story published last month. Citing unidentified sources, CNN claimed that Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was prepared to testify before Special Counsel Robert Mueller that the then-candidate had advance knowledge of the infamous June 2016 meeting between a Russian lawyer and several Trump associates. Trump has said he only learned about the meeting roughly a year after the fact.

Over the weekend, Cohen lawyer/spokesperson Lanny Davis told The Washington Post that he was one of CNN's sources. Later, Davis admitted to NBC that he couldn't confirm if Cohen would indeed testify before Mueller.

So the CNN story certainly deserves the criticism it's been getting. But the president may want to refrain from declaring that reports citing anonymous sources are invariably "fiction." Just last night, after all, he tweeted this:

The story in question came from The Daily Caller News Foundation, which based much of its reporting on—you guessed it—two anonymous sources: an intelligence officer and a government staff official.

Trump's criticism looks even more hypocritical when you remember he's been an anonymous source himself many times over the years. He was also notorious for pretending to be his own publicist, using aliases like "John Barron" or "John Miller" to brag about himself to reporters. But that's not necessarily inconsistent, if you assume the brags were fictions.

NEXT: No Matter Who Wins the Midterms, Brace for More Conflict

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A little consistency would be nice.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA! Consistency… pffft, check out this guy over here!

    1. Yeah that’s pretty funny. Politics is full of the I was against it before I was for it.

      1. You mean flip flopping?

        1. Like a fish out of water.

  2. My word, that’s a shiny glass house you’ve constructed there, Joe. Careful with that.

  3. Consistency?

    Donald Trump is a politician. Donald Trump x Politician = You can’t be serious.

  4. See, now this is interesting. Even Buzzfeed framed this story as CNN using questionable practices to further a narrative that is unsubstantiated. But, you managed to basically say that we should not trust the media any more than the president.

    At least that was my takeaway from your reach

    1. Sean Hannity is the media too.

      1. Ok? I’m not sure what you’re getting at, Trust Fund

        1. The president trusts everything the media shits into his ears, provided it flatters him enough.

          1. Ok? I’m still not getting your point here

          2. Funny, I thought barry had to find out about Hillary’s illegal mail server like everyone else: by reading about it in the paper (and certainly not through sending emails directly to it).

            1. You’re embarrassing yourself.

              1. Where are you going with your comments here?

              2. More flying spittle.

              3. He’s Obama?

          3. Everyone does. The media even advertises their slant to help us out.

            This is a big frustration for me. We can’t discuss problems. We’re too busy fighting enemies to solve problems. We’ve got a metric fuckton of escalating problems and no end in sight, but at least we’re all firm about who the bad guys and good guys are.

            Trump is a problem. That he gained power about five minutes ago and these problems are generational tells me he’s A problem, not THE problem. It’s as if the nation has terminal cancer and is also on fire, and we’re fussing about jock itch. Systemic decay did not begin in 2016, and if we aren’t ready to face the systemic decay unless it harms Trump, then we’re not really facing it at all.

            1. Hey I agree with all this. I am not that worried about Trump. The worst of it may be our reputation as a country. We had to clean up after Bush, we’ll clean up after Trump. At least he’s not starting any more wars yet.

              I just wish more people here would find the ball and put their eye on it. The people actively destroying the system, the ones who’ve been doing it for decades, are the ones most people here spend all their time defending.

              1. You are so close with this remark. So God damn close. You’ll get there

              2. “The worst of it may be our reputation as a country”

                Good grief who cares about that? The state department’s issues are not my concern.

                1. How Murica fuck yeah of you.

                  1. As long as leftists are in pain, that’s all that matters.

              3. >>The people actively destroying the system, the ones who’ve been doing it for decades, are the ones most people here spend all their time defending.

                This is how I feel about the media. My empathies, let me show you them.

                They can’t see it. The people doing the destruction, they can’t see it either. They think they’re helping. People should ask a lot more questions, ESPECIALLY of themselves, which is the last thing we want to do and nearly impossible to make people do. Communication has an unexpected voluntary element to it.

                Old country joke: do you know how to put a pig back in the pasture?

                It isn’t enough to be right. Being heartfelt isn’t enough, or being loud, or being part of a group. Being a bigger badass isn’t enough. It seems people only listen if they feel like it. QED, it’s up to us to make them feel like it.

                Oh, for an easy world. Lol.

                1. In libertopia you’re gonna have to contend with a far shittier media environment than we have. I don’t think you guys get to criticize the media. Not only is it fascist in nature, you’re criticizing something you can’t do anything about in a world where freedom exists.

                  1. Never tell me the odds, Tony!

    2. But that’s reputable media. That’s different.

    3. I don’t understand why you’re contrasting this post with Buzzfeed as if Setyon didn’t also criticize CNN.

      1. Because Joe is leaving out the fact that not only did Davis back out of what he said as an anonymous source, but the CNN story also stated that Lanny didn’t return comment on the very story that he served as the soul anonymous source for.

        And I don’t think I criticized Setyon, I think I just mentioned that he has basically conveyed the message that the press should be trusted no more than the president

        1. Okay, then maybe it’s just your “but” that didn’t make sense to me. Leaving out one part of the story in a post that really only summarizes the issue with the Davis anonymous sourcing doesn’t seem like a big enough deal to be “next-level bad journalism.” Or maybe you were saying that below about CNN, not Setyon.

          1. An anonymous source backing out of a story is bad, but when that story, of which that person served as the sole anonymous source, includes language stating that the person who was your undisclosed source has no comment for the story that they just fed you, the message is conveyed that that person did not serve as the sole source of the story.

            That seems like an even more egregious failure. Or at least that’s how Buzzfeed framed it. I’ll need to find the article

            1. http://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/s…..ower-story

              From the article:

              “The original CNN story ? broadcast during Chris Cuomo’s prime-time show and written by Jim Sciutto, Marshall Cohen, and Watergate reporting legend Carl Bernstein ? said that Davis had “declined to comment.” His involvement in the story, on so-called “background,” has not been previously reported.”

            2. of which that person served as the sole anonymous source

              Has any responsible observer reported this, or did CNN confirm this?

              1. From my understanding, CNN won’t comment on the story, but every other outlet has reported the incident as if Davis was the only source, but it’s possible that there are other sources, although CNN will not confirm nor deny that.

                1. And if we are left to discern who is more credible: the president or CNN, I’ll pass.

  5. It’s not really hypocritical to have one of your lies contradict another of your lies when you’re a pathological liar.

    1. And “Trump Says Some Shit” is hardly a newsworthy item.

    2. Are we talking about CNN or Trump?

      1. Yes.

    3. It’s not a lie if you believe it?

  6. Maybe if he took a moment away from mainlining FOX News to go visit that “big operation” in the West Wing, he could figure out which, if any, of his employees aren’t the leakers.

    1. If barry the lightbringer couldn’t with all of his taps and subpoenas, how could someone who isn’t abusing the power of government supposed to?

      1. Stop bringing up subjects irrelevant to the topic. Didn’t you learn this in preschool?

        1. You mean like Fox?

          1. The topic is Trump and journalism. Obama is as relevant to that as my cat.

            1. Yes and no. The public no longer trusts the media primarily because of the way they behaved as cheerleaders for the last administration. The electorate isn’t so dumb when it comes to sniffing out bullshit

              1. “The electorate isn’t so dumb when it comes to sniffing out bullshit”

                Which is also why the public doesn’t trust Trump. But, his bullshit is so obvious that calling him a liar is beating a dead horse.

            2. Journalism literally began woth Trump.

            3. So exactly like Fox then.

            4. Full disclosure – I voted for Tony’s cat.

              1. Hmm, I don’t know about that. He has some questionable associates…

    2. The leaker in the story mentioned was former Clinton lawyer, current Cohen lawyer, Lanny Davis. And Joe fails to mention that not only has Davis backed out of what he said as an anonymous source, but the CNN story also stated that Lanny didn’t return comment on the very story that he served as the soul anonymous source for.

      This is next level bad journalism

      1. “This is next level bad journalism”

        It’s worse than that. It’s politics.

      2. Maybe, but it’s one instance compared to the daily barrage of absolute lies coming from their competitor network. And that’s the one Trump takes as gospel. Why do none of you focus on the real problems?

        1. There are multiple instances of absolutely terrible journalism in the pursuit of fever dreams that never materialize. This is what happens when you stake your credibility on a CIA talking point.

          And I don’t think anyone takes Trump’s words as gospel. Polling shows that even his own voters don’t trust that he’s always telling the truth. But, unlike journalists who insist that they are not just political actors, everyone knows that politicians lie. That probably explains why he is viewed as more truthful than the press.

          1. It would all be so boring if these greatest hits of right-wing fascism weren’t in service of, like, right-wing fascism.

            He managed to attack the press and assert that his political opposition is violently coming after your religion all in one day.

            1. If we lived under fascism, we wouldn’t have a press that produces such shotty stories in order to make the executive look bad. Use your head

            2. Also, I don’t think Trump has to prove anything to the religious, as far as progressives hating them, I think Democrats have demonstrated that pretty well

            3. “He managed to attack the press ”

              And? When did they become above reproach?

              1. Never, but he’s the government. We have certain traditions…

                1. Well the government tongue fucking the press is not and never has been one of them, sorry.

                2. And “not attacking the press” is not one of them. The previous administration routinely attacked Fox News

                  1. FOX News is not the press, it’s Republican party propaganda. It is state media right now. I realize you don’t believe me, but I’m right.

                    1. Soild fact based freedom oriented argument.

                    2. “FOX News is not the press, it’s Republican party propaganda. It is state media right now. I realize you don’t believe me, but I’m right.”

                      This very argument could be credibly be made about the NYT, WaPo, and CNN being propaganda organs for the Democratic Party. We all lived through the last administration. We’re not stupid

                3. “Tony|8.29.18 @ 4:09PM|#

                  Never, but he’s the government. We have certain traditions… ”

                  When cornered, revert to conservative mode.

                  1. I am a conservative. I’d particularly like to conserve freedom of the press.

                    I realize this is a libertarian website, so when the most powerful government figure on earth attacks the press, we have to support his every mouth fart on the subject.

                    1. Except for FOX because you said so.

                    2. One must distinguish the press from state propaganda.

                    3. ” state propaganda”

                      But enough about CNN under Obama…

                      (Tony will see this as an attack on Obama rather than a caution to avoid endowing state with such authority, or it will turn on you)

                    4. We could play I’m Rubber You’re Glue until the heat death of the universe, or you could screw your head on and realize that there is a difference in kind between FOX and CNN, and there’s even a lot of research to back that up.

                      But I almost forgot. Science isn’t real anymore either. Not when it contradicts Republican politicians. Libertarianism!

                    5. “or you could screw your head on and realize that there is a difference in kind between FOX and CNN, and there’s even a lot of research to back that up. ”

                      At some point you will realize crying “research” done by social scientists, and demonstrated as unfalsifiable, is useless. That shark done been jumped. You apperently haven’t gotten the memo.

                      The rest of that is just another pontification with nothing of substance and presented as sensible, but really jist comprising your opinion.

                      You don’t get to defiine whay is the press, and it would be a colossal disaster if you could because you repeatedly show off the reasoning skills of a child.

                    6. I get to define whatever I goddamn well please. And you don’t even have social science to back up your claim that they’re equally partisan (or CNN is more partisan, or whatever). You have feelings.

                    7. “I get to define whatever I goddamn well please. ”

                      “You have feelings”

                      Lol.

                    8. You actually don’t get to define anything. Your opinion is literally meaningless. My rights don’t change one bit because of what you think. And never will.

                      “You have feelings”

                      lololol

                    9. The research data proves the opposite of what you claim. But you’re not the one just going by his feelings. Nope.

                    10. You first.

                    11. ” that there is a difference in kind between FOX and CNN, and there’s even a lot of research to back that up. ”

                      First that’s one study, not “a lot of research” and second, you obviously didn’t read it or you would have seen it doesn’t say what you claim it does.

                      It actually does say exactly the opposote and treats CNN, MSNBC and FOX as examples of the same type of biased news reporting, then compares their ability to influence votes and garner ratings.

                      You literally found a study that said the OPPOSITE of what you claimed about a “difference in kind”!!!

                      Next time try reading things. Better yet, get someone smarter than you to read it and then explain it to you so this doesn’t happen again!!!

                    12. No it doesn’t.

                    13. Anyone can read it and see I’m correct.

                    14. It says take away FOX News and John Kerry would have been president. Take away CNN and nothing happens.

                    15. No actually, it measures the amplitude of effect between three networks it deems the same, and then speculates about effect.

                      Which EXACTLY refutes your claim of a difference in kind. The study treats them exactly the same.

                      That FOX has more effect is irrelevant to your claim. They ALL have an effect of the same kind. It’s in the study.

                      Which is what I said. Which you response of “It says take away FOX News and John Kerry would have been president. Take away CNN and nothing happens.” does NOTHING to refute or even address.

                      And it STILL as single study, and, how many times hasit been replicated?

                      Face it, you fucked up.

                    16. Tony, you don’t even understand how ridiculous it is that your link attempts to accurately predict what it claims to predict, why are you even discussing this?

                    17. “I have voodoo on my side you stupid clown!!!”

                    18. “”One must distinguish the press from state propaganda.”‘

                      People leaving political positions to join the media, then parrot the political positions of their previous employers would be which?

                    19. Trump’s taken that to a new level by not only hiring the FOX talent but also letting the current talent serve as a shadow cabinet.

                    20. “I am a conservative. I’d particularly like to conserve freedom of the press.”

                      So, only one of the amendments, and not even it in its entirety. Any of the other ones? I bet not the second….

                    21. And he’s lying.

                    22. As a conservative I think my high threshold for changing the status quo has been met with respect to the 2nd Amendment, which should be abolished for all the trouble it causes while being obsolete.

                4. Never, but he’s the government. We have certain traditions…

                  Spying on emails.
                  Spying on reporters’ emails.

                  You know, traditions.

        2. LOL

        3. LOL

        4. “Maybe, but it’s one instance”

          It’s only a little bit of shit in your food.

          1. “Now excuse me as I change the channel to SHIT SHIt SHIT MOUNTAIN SHIT SHIT OMG IT’S ALL SHIT… with Tucker Carlson.”

            1. In Tucker Carlson’s defense, at least he attacks the president when he decides to drop some bombs on Syria or increases our troop presence in Afghanistan.

              These are things that the press should actually attack the president for, but they’re too busy applauding him when he kills a bunch of Arabs

            2. You scenario relies on something I never said while mine relies on your admission that you actually do eat shit, but just a little.

              1. So this is a critique of the cable news model?

                1. More your consumption habits of it.

                2. It’s a critique of our entire media enterprise. They love presidents when they kill and bomb, until it is no longer advantageous to be cheerleaders for such nonsense

                  1. That’s certainly a criticism of the American media I can get behind.

                    1. That’s pretty much why the only press that I will defend are Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate at the Nation, and the writers at The American Conservative

                    2. Greenwald is an honest leftie. I imagine tony hates him.

                    3. He got hosed by the Russians and is kind of in the wilderness since Trump actually won. He’d be much less ridiculous with his continued bitching about Hillary if she actually had any power.

                      I don’t begrudge liberals who criticize Democrats legitimately, but GG is spending all his time trying to win an argument he lost about Trump. It’s his personality.

                    4. Greenwald doesn’t buy into the new Russia-phobia that has overtaken the Left. Other than that he’s a doctrinaire progressive.

                      But, all the anti-war voices (Left and Right) have dismissed the Russia-phobia. Greenwald gets trashed because progressives feel betrayed, because he won’t follow the narrative. He’s an anti-war voice first and a progressive second. That’s what people don’t get and that’s why I’ve always read his stuff.

                    5. He doesn’t buy it because he was a major player in it and has egg all over his face.

                      He’s good at being a lawyer for a position so sometimes it’s difficult to see that he’s hammering on particular fixations and instructing readers to ignore bigger problems because they don’t personally fit the narrative he was pushing pre-2016.

                    6. “He doesn’t buy it because he was a major player in it and has egg all over his face.”

                      Actually, not at all. Maybe we should talk about how Jill Stein is in on this nefarious plot too.

                      It’s maddening that you still cling to a conspiracy theory that has yet to be proven true, after nearly two years and all the resources of Congress, the media, and now a special counsels office investigating the matter.

                    7. They weren’t *in on* the plot, they were useful idiots in it. The Russian operation (which was real) was more sophisticated than the checkers game you’re making it out to be. A lot of people got used. Bernie, Jill, Wikileaks. Which of them were actually complicit is a question currently still under investigation as you say.
                      We’ll get to the bottom of it just like Benghazi. Only two years of investigating to go.

                    8. The Russian Operation!! *da da dum!*

                      You’re a lunatic.

                    9. And again, the only evidence of foreign collusion so far is the money that Hillary and the DNC filtered through Perkins Coie to pay (foreign national) Christopher Steele so he could in turn pay more #RUSSIAN foreign nationals to make stuff up about #RUSSIAN hookers peeing on a bed.

                      Le Carre would be ashamed to write fiction like this, so imagine how the universe must think about this being fact.

                    10. Your FOX News bullshit gives me a headache. Boy aren’t you going to be surprised when this is all over.

                    11. “”Greenwald doesn’t buy into the new Russia-phobia that has overtaken the Left.””

                      Neither does Norm Chomsky

        5. CNN just claimed that antifa is viewed as being a black group when nobody views them as anything more than the whitest group you’ve ever seen.

          1. I have a dream that Antifa will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the color of their masks. – CNN Jeffrey Toobin

  7. I would agree with Trump’s first tweet.

  8. I’d wonder why an FBI agent would need to be anonymous to say “We ain’t found shit”.

    “We’re covering up what we found” seems to need anonymity. “Nah, we are GOOD!” shouldn’t.

  9. “A little consistency would be nice.”

    How petty can you get?

    Slam him on free trade or immigration, okay. Get in line behind me.

    I might understand if you were going after him for being a serial philanderer.

    He’s inconsistent in his tweets?

    Fuckin’ A.

    Did you also send you resume to TMZ?

    1. “Slam him on free trade or immigration, okay. Get in line behind me.”

      Citation needed.

      1. Are you serious?

        You’re not one of those people who thinks that because I support open immigration I have to pretend it’s outside the purview of congress’ enumerated powers, are you?

        Do you imagine I’m anti-free trade?

        I’ve opposed Trump on his trade deals since day one.

        No, just because you’re against the Vietnam War, that doesn’t mean you have to climb up on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun and vouch for the good treatment of tortured American POWs.

        You were kidding, right? Tell me you were kidding.

  10. Trump Slams Anonymous Sources, Promotes Story Based on Anonymous Sources

    Trump only uses reliable anonymous sources. Very good sources. The best, really.

  11. If Reason was consistent, they’d dump libertarianism altogether and finally admit that nothing good has, can, or ever will come from the left.

    They’d fire Sikha, for starters. “South Indian Libertarian” what an oxymoron.

    The only real liberty to be found is in nationalism. We aren’t free as individuals, but we sure as hell are free as a culture, unless the left and the useful idiocy that is libertarianism has it’s way.

    1. The master race should know how to use apostrophes.

    2. The only real liberty to be found is in nationalism. We aren’t free as individuals, but we sure as hell are free as a culture

      This is literally one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. I guess the slaves were really free then, huh?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.