Speaking of money laundering

Newsweek will be publishing an issue laying out Trump's mobster links. 








Thank you.  We do need it.  A reminder before the Mueller report is filed and the House investigations get underway.

Newsweek Disgrace

Bringing Dennis Hastert in for commentary???

Are they nuts?

Also not linking.

Awaiting the Tweetsstorm

You think he'll be hanging this in his golf course buildings?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Jesus H Christ

This is what passes for a national news magazine reporter (Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald - we've talked about him before):

Even if it were true, it wouldn't be okay.

If Newsweek doesn't can him, I guess that's the lesson we can take.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

The Coronation That Didn't Happen

And it will bring a small fortune on eBay.

Newsweek and a partner that prints up special commemorative issues has been forced into an embarrassing recall, after it sent out 125,000 copies of its Madam President issue designed to celebrate Hillary Clinton's win.

  UK Telegraph

But ordered by Newsweek, surely.

I'm sure every news outlet had two options ready to go. Why is Newsweek trying to pretend it didn't?  And why are they announcing this on November 7th?

Although Topix Media had also prepared a Donald Trump version it thought it was safe to dispatch only the version detailing “Hillary Clinton's historic journey to the White House”, as the cover put it.

[...]

The edition appeared on shelves on Tuesday but was hastily withdrawn.

Perhaps Newsweek should take control of its product. But then, Newsweek hires Kurt Eichenwald, so it's a slipshod operation in more ways than one.

“All wholesalers and retailers have been asked to return any issues they have as we need to clear room for [150,000 copies of] the President Trump issue,” said [Topix CEO] Mr Romando.

He said only 17 copies were sold.

I bet he's got one. I wonder how many will actually be returned.

Tech Experts

Dear Newsweek, 

Time to dump Kurt Eichenwald.

He's talking about 650,000 emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop.  Does he have any idea how small emails are and how large laptop hard drives can be?  Apparently not.

Who in the world are his tech experts?  His grandparents?

This is the Newsweek reporter who first and foremost pushed the meme that the Russian government passed the Clinton emails to Wikileaks.  Every time I clicked a link on a Google search for Eichenwald's Twitters regarding the laptop emails, I got this:

Except for this one, where people are trying to school Eichenwald and he won't give up.  At least it's still up at this moment.

Oh, and on his Twitter account, I found this recent post:

And this lovely brag:

Because the FBI is supposed to take somebody's word for something they can check out for themselves?

And just before that, he posted this:

So, he can know what's on the laptop before an investigation into it, but Trump supporters can't?

I could tell you who's a disgrace, Kurt, but you wouldn't believe me.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

The "little scandal" involves Eichenwald giving $2,000 to a former child-porn performer.  It's convoluted.  Read it.  Makes me wonder how he got a job at Newsweek until I remember that slick news magazines have gone the way of cable news.  Titillation and infotainment.

What's the Matter with Newsweek?

Donald Trump’s campaign is accusing a Serbian magazine of fabricating an interview in which the GOP nominee apologizes to Serbia for the 1999 NATO bombing in Yugoslavia.

[...]

"Mr. Trump never gave an interview to the Serbian weekly magazine Nedeljnikas [sic] as falsely reported by the discredited Newsweek, nor was such an interview conducted through our Indiana State Director.
  Politico

It is Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald who reported erroneously on the Russian news source Sputnik's admitted mistake of attributing a quote to the wrong person, and falsely claimed the Russian government falsified a Podesta email, among other Russophobic assertions.

Was Newsweek once a reputable news source or did I just imagine that?

Or maybe it wasn't a hoax.  There seems to be some contention over the issue.  Imagine that.  Contention surrounding Trump.

....but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

FURTHER UPDATE:

I believe Adam is talking about the Serbian magazine that thought it had a Trump interview.

UPDATE 10/14:

Will a Hillary Clinton Administration Usher in a New McCarthy Era?

[C]ome January, Democrats will continue to be the dominant political faction in the U.S. — more so than ever — and the tactics they are now embracing will endure past the election, making them worthy of scrutiny. Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow.

[...]

On Friday, WikiLeaks published its first installment of emails obtained from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Despite WikiLeaks’ perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC’s favorite ex-intelligence official, Malcolm Nance, within hours of the archive’s release, posted a tweet claiming — with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive — that it was compromised with fakes.

[...]

[M]ore than 4,000 people have re-tweeted this “Official Warning.” That includes not only random Clinton fans but also high-profile Clinton-supporting journalists, who by spreading it around gave this claim their stamp of approval, intentionally leading huge numbers of people to assume the WikiLeaks archive must be full of fakes, and its contents should therefore simply be ignored.

[...]

MORE INSIDIOUS AND subtle, but even worse, was what Newsweek and its Clinton-adoring writer Kurt Eichenwald did last night. What happened — in reality, in the world of facts — was extremely trivial. One of the emails in the second installment of the WikiLeaks/Podesta archive — posted yesterday — was from Sidney Blumenthal to Podesta. The sole purpose of Blumenthal’s email was to show Podesta one of Eichenwald’s endless series of Clinton-exonerating articles, this one about Benghazi.

[...]

Once WikiLeaks announced that this second email batch was online, many news organizations (including The Intercept, along with the NYT and AP) began combing through them to find relevant information and then published articles about them. One such story was published by Sputnik, the Russian government’s international outlet similar to RT, which highlighted that Blumenthal email. But the Sputnik story inaccurately attributed the text of the Newsweek article to Blumenthal, thus suggesting that one of Clinton’s closest advisers had expressed criticism of her on Benghazi. Sputnik quickly removed the article once Eichenwald pointed out that the words were his, not Blumenthal’s. Then, in his campaign speech last night, Trump made reference to the Sputnik article (hours after it was published and spread on social media), claiming (obviously inaccurately) that even Blumenthal had criticized Clinton on Benghazi.

[...]

Eichenwald, with increasing levels of hysteria, manically posted no fewer than three dozen tweets last night about his story, each time escalating his claims of what it proved. By the time he was done, he had misled large numbers of people into believing that he found proof that: 1) the documents in the WikiLeaks archive were altered; 2) Russia put forgeries into the WikiLeaks archive; 3) Sputnik knew about the WikiLeaks archive ahead of time, before it was posted online; 4) WikiLeaks coordinated the release of the documents with the Russian government; and 5) the Russian government and the Trump campaign coordinated to falsely attribute Eichenwald’s words to Blumenthal.

[...]

Just watch how this warped narrative played out in a very short period of time, with nobody wanting to get in the way of the speeding train for fear of being castigated as a Trump supporter or Putin stooge.

[...]

[W]hile Donald Trump’s candidacy poses grave dangers, so does group-think righteousness, particularly when it engulfs those with the greatest influence. The problem is that none of this is going to vanish after the election. This election-year machine that has been constructed based on elite unity in support of Clinton — casually dismissing inconvenient facts as fraudulent to make them disappear, branding critics and adversaries as tools or agents of an Enemy Power bent on destroying America — is a powerful one. As is seen here, it is capable of implanting any narrative, no matter how false; demonizing any critic, no matter how baseless; and riling up people to believe they’re under attack.

  Glenn Greenwald

Read the full article to understand what happened/is happening.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.