Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse



The various investigations into the Trump administration and its alleged ties to Russia are hard to follow. The allegations are sometimes muddled, the probes are still ongoing, and all sides in the dispute are leaking information that favors their points of view. These stories are also hard to follow because few officials are willing to put their names behind their claims and comments, leading to a stream of stories rife with unnamed sources.

What’s a reader to do? Well, here’s a guide to unnamed sources in government/politics/Washington stories — who they are, how reporters use them, and how to tell if you should trust what they say. Having covered Congress, the White House, several presidential campaigns and briefly the Education and State departments, I have begged (usually unsuccessfully) many sources to allow me to use their names, written a fair number of stories with unnamed sources, and spent a lot of time trying to decode stories with unnamed sources written by other journalists. For this piece, I also consulted other journalists and political types who have served in senior staff roles on campaigns, on Capitol Hill and in presidential administrations.

This is part one of two. I’ll cover some general principles for reading anonymously sourced stories here and break down the different types of such sources in part two. I wrote this piece because of all the Trump-Russia stories, but the rules, terms and designations apply to other Washington stories as well.
 


The various investigations into the Trump administration and its alleged ties to Russia are hard to follow. The allegations are sometimes muddled, the probes are still ongoing, and all sides in the dispute are leaking information that favors their points of view. These stories are also hard to follow because few officials are willing to put their names behind their claims and comments, leading to a stream of stories rife with unnamed sources.

What’s a reader to do? Well, here’s a guide to unnamed sources in government/politics/Washington stories — who they are, how reporters use them, and how to tell if you should trust what they say. Having covered Congress, the White House, several presidential campaigns and briefly the Education and State departments, I have begged (usually unsuccessfully) many sources to allow me to use their names, written a fair number of stories with unnamed sources, and spent a lot of time trying to decode stories with unnamed sources written by other journalists. For this piece, I also consulted other journalists and political types who have served in senior staff roles on campaigns, on Capitol Hill and in presidential administrations.

This is part one of two. I’ll cover some general principles for reading anonymously sourced stories here and break down the different types of such sources in part two. I wrote this piece because of all the Trump-Russia stories, but the rules, terms and designations apply to other Washington stories as well.




In the first part of our guide to unnamed sources, we laid out some general tips for making sense of these kinds of stories. In this part, we want to get more specific, to help you to essentially decode these stories. We also want you to be able to know which stories you should rely on based on the different kinds of sourcing used.

So we’re going to divide anonymous sources into six general types and give the pros and cons of each, in terms of reliability. We ordered the types of unnamed sources, roughly speaking, from most reliable to least reliable (at least in my experience):
 

[OA] Peha, Jon M., The Network Neutrality Battles that Will Follow Reclassification (March 2015). I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: The Network Neutrality Battles that Will Follow Reclassification by Jon Peha :: SSRN

In 2015, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a new set of network neutrality rules for the Internet. In the process, the FCC declared for the first time that broadband Internet access service is a telecommunications service, which means that the FCC has authority to regulate broadband Internet access services under Title II of the Communications Act.

Even if the 2015 Report and Order that reclassifies Internet access withstands the inevitable efforts to overturn it, many of the most important aspects of network neutrality policy have yet to be determined.

This paper describes the important next steps in the network neutrality policy debate that will follow the March 2015 Report and Order.

The first step is likely to occur in the courts after a legal challenge, and this paper explains why reclassification is consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The next step will occur at the FCC, because some of the most important policy issues were left unresolved in the 2015 Report and Order.

We cannot know the real meaning of network neutrality policy until those issues are decided. Finally, network neutrality policy will be debated in Congress. This paper presents various forms that legislation might take.
 


WASHINGTON — At a senior staff meeting early in President Trump’s tenure, Reince Priebus, then the White House chief of staff, posed a simple question to Jared Kushner: What would his newly created Office of American Innovation do?

Mr. Kushner brushed him off, according to people privy to the exchange. Given that he and his top lieutenants were paid little or nothing, Mr. Kushner asked, “What do you care?” He emphasized his point with an expletive.

“O.K.,” Mr. Priebus replied. “You do whatever you want.”

Few in the opening days of the Trump administration dared to challenge Mr. Kushner’s power to design his job or steer the direction of the White House as he saw fit. But 10 months after being given free rein to tackle everything from the federal government’s outdated technology to peace in the Middle East, the do-whatever-you-want stage of Mr. Kushner’s tenure is over.

Mr. Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, who had been in seemingly every meeting and every photograph, has lately disappeared from public view and, according to some colleagues, taken on a more proscribed role behind the scenes. He is still forging ahead on a plan to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, a goal that has eluded presidents and diplomats for generations, and he has been credited with focusing attention on the government’s technological needs. But he is no longer seen as the primary presidential consigliere with the limitless portfolio.

The new White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly, has proved less permissive than his predecessor. A retired four-star general who has imposed more order on a chaotic White House since taking over in July, Mr. Kelly has made clear that Mr. Kushner must fit within a chain of command. “Jared works for me,” he has told associates. According to three advisers to the president, Mr. Kelly has even discussed the possibility of Mr. Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, departing the West Wing by the end of the year.

Mr. Kelly disputed that in an interview on Friday. “There was honestly never a time when I contemplated getting rid of Jared and Ivanka,” Mr. Kelly said.
 


(CNN) Hate crimes in the United States have increased to a point not seen in recent history, according to a new statistical report released Monday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Thousands of hate crimes -- 6,121 -- were reported to the FBI in 2016, the report found. That's up from 5,850 reported hate crime incidents in 2015. The figures are based on over 1,500 incident reports from law enforcement agencies around the country. Other than the increase in 2016, the number of hate crimes found each year by the FBI has decreased since the agency started collecting data in 1992. There were 8,759 hate crimes reported by the FBI in 1996, for instance, although more police departments took part in that survey.

The rise in 2016 reported by the FBI comes after observers have pointed to an increase in hate crimes and conversations about racial animus and hate speech have been central to political conversations nationwide.

The FBI's report puts more statistical weight behind the argument that the 2016 election coincided with an increase in hate crimes, including by those purporting to be supporters of President Donald Trump.

In the days after the November 2016 election, an increase in racist slogans and hateful messages was reported, especially in schools. The Southern Poverty Law Center found 867 cases of hateful harassment or intimidation in the 10 days after the Nov. 8 election.
 


(CNN) Hate crimes in the United States have increased to a point not seen in recent history, according to a new statistical report released Monday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Thousands of hate crimes -- 6,121 -- were reported to the FBI in 2016, the report found. That's up from 5,850 reported hate crime incidents in 2015. The figures are based on over 1,500 incident reports from law enforcement agencies around the country. Other than the increase in 2016, the number of hate crimes found each year by the FBI has decreased since the agency started collecting data in 1992. There were 8,759 hate crimes reported by the FBI in 1996, for instance, although more police departments took part in that survey.

The rise in 2016 reported by the FBI comes after observers have pointed to an increase in hate crimes and conversations about racial animus and hate speech have been central to political conversations nationwide.

The FBI's report puts more statistical weight behind the argument that the 2016 election coincided with an increase in hate crimes, including by those purporting to be supporters of President Donald Trump.

In the days after the November 2016 election, an increase in racist slogans and hateful messages was reported, especially in schools. The Southern Poverty Law Center found 867 cases of hateful harassment or intimidation in the 10 days after the Nov. 8 election.


I wonder why in the article it doesn’t list what races and the percentage of the crimes were against of each. like white Hispanic black Asian ect.. that seems kind of odd they would leave that out
 
Top