Trump Administration Hit With New Leak Of Transcripts Of Trump’s Call To the Mexican and Australian Leaders

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedToday Attorney General Jeff Sessions is expected to discuss a new leak crackdown, but he will have to deal with questions raised by one of the most massive leaks in recent memory. Someone has leaked the entire transcripts of two heated January phone calls  with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.  The conversations are deeply embarrassing for the Administration because they directly contradict statements made by Trump to the public.  These transcripts would also be likely classified, making their release a federal offense.

Presidente_Enrique_Peña_Nieto._Fotografía_oficialIn one conversation detailed by The Washington Post, Trump pressures Nieto to stop saying publicly that Mexico will not pay for the wall.  The President dismisses the issue (upon which he campaigned) as “the least important thing we are talking about, but politically this might be the most important.”  He simply did not want Nieto to state publicly what they both knew: “You cannot say that to the press.”

Trump assured Nieto that it would not be problem if he would just stop telling the public that Mexico would not pay. He insisted that the money issue “will work out in the formula somehow … it will come out in the wash, and that is okay.”   He then said that if the Mexican president told the truth to the public about his position “then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that.”  It was an obviously heated and bizarre conversation.

SD and Australia's PM Malcolm Turnbull pose for a photo togetherThe conversation with Turnbull was even more bizarre.  Trump resisted taking 2000 refugees that we were obligated to accept under prior agreements.  He told Turnbull: “This is going to kill me. I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people.”  He described the agreement as a “horrible” deal and added that “I hate taking these people … I guarantee you they are bad.”  He insisted that the refugees could “become the Boston bomber in five years.”  He then added “I have been making these calls all day and this is the most unpleasant call all day. “(Russian President Vladimir) Putin was a pleasant call. This is ridiculous.”  Trump then complained that the call with our close ally was “the most unpleasant call all day” and the call was then ended.

It was an embarrassing conversation and directly contradicted Trump’s earlier denial that he had a heated conversation with Turnbull.  At the time, he told the public:

“Thank you to Prime Minister of Australia for telling the truth about our very civil conversation that FAKE NEWS media lied about. Very nice!”

The release of the transcript is a major breach of confidentiality for the President and undermines the ability of the President to assure other heads of state that there conversations are confidential and secure.  Thus, there is ample reason for Trump to be outraged. However, like the hacking of the Clinton emails, the leak also exposes glaring contradictions in what Trump said to the public and what actually transpired in these conversations.

202 thoughts on “Trump Administration Hit With New Leak Of Transcripts Of Trump’s Call To the Mexican and Australian Leaders”

  1. Shame I have to go to RT to get news about Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Paki gang that infiltrated Congress! The Lame Stream Media has gone dark on this very important issue!

    “Welcome to the Twilight Zone – it would seem this is the place where Debbie Wasserman Schultz resides, works, and even conspires. She’s at the center of a growing scandal that includes ethics violations, fraud, embezzlement, theft, lies, misrepresentation, Pakistan and gross mishandling of sensitive government documents. And guess what? None of this is being blamed on Russia!”

    CrossTalking with Philip Giraldi, H. A. Goodman, and Alex Newman.

    1. I agree. Why the heck is this not front page, above the fold news???

      Zerohedge has a bit on this, too.

      1. PR – this story has been silenced. Also, George Webb who has spent an entire year uncovering this said in addition to smashed hard drives there were also a bunch of Blackberry phones found as well — which I have not seen reported anywhere –remember HRC when she was SOS was told not to use her Blackberry for security reasons but continued to do so. This is truly sinister.

  2. The establishment can’t wait till 2020, they want him out now!


    I have never heard so much b——- in my life.

    In a released statement, Rosenstein explained his decision:

    “In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter. My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”


    “ENTRAPMENT’S” my name.

    “ENTRAPMENT’S” my game.

    “I have no legal basis for appointing a special prosecutor – no probable cause and no crime (at most there is ideological conjecture regarding international counter-intelligence operations which are addressed by other means and federal regulations – with the possible exception of criminal rioting, screaming, bellyaching of “snowflakes,” perverts, freaks, parasites and various and sundry other renditions of communists – but Queen Hillary lost and she didn’t like it, so Queen Hillary, “Big Donors,” Beltway lobbyists, redistributionist globalists and Bill Clinton made me an offer I couldn’t refuse (similar to Vince Foster’s offer) even as an unappointed, temporary, perfunctory functionary (i.e. hatchet-man) with no formal authority or authority granted by the People.”

    I hope the local police chief doesn’t arbitrarily decide it’s in the “public interest” (whatever the —- that is) to spontaneously open a comprehensive investigation of every component and aspect of Professor Turley’s entire life back to the date of inception.

    Professor, have you ever committed a crime?

    Now don’t perjure yourself or I’ll ENTRAP you with a false, derivative “process” crime.

    What must the American Founders think?

      1. Diane,

        Rosenstein’s is an egregious and criminal political act.

        A back-up quarterback is supposed to simply attempt to “do no harm,” conclude and not lose the game. He is not intended to generate an historic record-setting offense.

        Rosenstein “assumed” a temporary postilion to keep a seat warm and he immediately executed an extreme political act having nothing to do with law enforcement. Read his statement. There is no “there” there. Rosenstien is a political hack taking full advantage of mental lapse by Sessions who should still be defending his position to caterwauling liberal, redistributionist, anti-American-sovereignty globalists in Congress.

        Ask yourself what forces compelled Rosenstein to action. Objectively, there were none. There was no crime. There was no probable cause. How many times a day does the FBI open investigations of particular individuals without evidence of a crime or probable cause? Rosenstein’s act of appointing a Special Prosecutor was a purely political act.

        Rosenstein initiated an investigation of person, a political adversary, not a crime. There was a theory regarding international counter-intelligence which is addressed by a different set of methods and regulations.

        This is not a criminal investigation it is conspiracy and abuse of power as a subset of a coup d’etat in America.

  4. ” “This is going to kill me. I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people.” He described the agreement as a “horrible” deal and added that “I hate taking these people … I guarantee you they are bad.” ”

    I call BS on this so-called transcript. That is not Trump’s voice. I have read old interviews of him, and that is not his manner of speaking. This is doctored.

    Besides, Turnbull rebuts the so-called transcripts.

    ” “It was a courteous, frank conversation as President Trump said,” Turnbull told reporters in the west Australian town of Broome when asked about the transcripts. “We’re both adults. … I stand up for Australia’s interests, he stands up for America’s interests. We have a warm relationship.””

  5. How are transcripts made? Serious question.
    No doubt turnbull speaks english….per acosta….but maybe comparing the taped version to the transcripss might reveal a source. Just an idea since I am not prepared to believe that an american would leak the transcripts.

    1. Let’s be clear about what is going on here: A duly-elected U.S.
      President is being RELENTLESSLY attacked by the DNC. The party that has zero respect for democratic process or the rule
      If law has finally outed itself. As for the content of these supposed “leaks,”i think very few Americans ever believed that the president of Mexico was going to hand over a big check to the U.S. To pay for the wall. But I think Trump
      Had every right to determine whether this el presidente was going to act In good faith in his dealings with the U.S. His public rants about not paying for the wall were an indication that he would not. I’m glad my President is using the substantial leverage of his office to convince
      Other leaders to abandon positions that are disadvantageous to the U.S. With respect to Prif. Turley, the discussion with Australia was frank and in line with Trumps commitment to his campaign
      promises. This president should not be forced to accept refugees because Obama and the DNC said he would.

      1. The clown is not just opposed by the DNC. Take a roll call of our Congress-critters; Many Republicans have come to the realization that they’re Americans first. I dread Pence taking over as he’s just in it to get Roe reversed; but I’m more afraid the current bozo will stumble into blowing up the world. I’ll accept Pence, because he’s at least competent.

    2. “I am not prepared to believe that an american would leak the transcripts.”

      Why not?

  6. Not getting the complete story about what goes on between foreign leaders and the President is par for the course. I wonder, for instance, what the difference would be between what was actually said and what was told to the public on the issue of the Iran agreement. And this can’t be any more embarrassing for Trump than Obama saying, “After the election, I will have more flexibility…” with regards to Russia. So I think the big story here is the leaks, not the President’s version of the conversation.

  7. The publisher, editors and “journalists” of the Washington Post must be prosecuted for felonies for conspiracy to defame using illegally obtained information and for receiving stolen goods.

    This is a no-brainer and similar to incoherent and biased, unconstitutional labor laws that prevent free Americans engaged in free enterprise from hiring replacements for union strikers. It is not dissimilar from laws that restrict convicted felons from profiting from their crimes by writing books in prison.

    The Washington Post is in contempt of court for presenting evidence that was not allowed in and guilty of receiving stolen property.

    Receiving Stolen Property

    The offense of acquiring goods with the knowledge that they have been stolen, extorted, embezzled, or unlawfully taken in any manner.

    The earliest statute that made receiving stolen property a crime was enacted in England in 1692. It provided that the receiver—the person who accepts the property—should be deemed an Accessory after the fact to the theft. The crime became a separate substantive offense in 1827, and it has been similarly treated in a majority of U.S. jurisdictions.

    Professor Turley should have presented the material law and the violations of that law, not the substance of illegally obtained material, which was an insidious and unethical political act on his part.

  8. “These transcripts would also be likely classified….” Really?

    What in the transcripts was secret or involved national security in any way? Sure, it’s embarrassing for Trump personally. Who wants to be revealed as the “Leader of the Free World” reduced to begging other heads of state for scraps to try to limit his own humiliation caused by such a childish approach to statecraft? Nobody would.

    But The Donald’s ego isn’t our national security… I hope.

    1. What in the transcripts was secret or involved national security in any way?

      Brilliant question fiver! Way to think big. How interesting that you approve of an Information Security policy where classification is determined at the Leaker level. Wow!

      1. So you can’t think of a reason either, huh?

        I suppose that these transcripts do confirm that our country is being led by an increasingly pathetic buffoon who is way out of his league (which might “embolden our enemies”), but, seriously, how can anyone argue that this is still somehow a secret?

        1. So you can’t think of a reason either, huh?

          So you double-down on stupid. Well done! It does not matter what the content of their conversation was. They could have been sharing their fondness for vegemite or guacamole; the communications are still considered classified and there is a protocol for declassification and dissemination.

          Do you folks bother to consider the long-term consequences of promoting the undermining of a Presidency?

          1. Olly: have you considered why so many people hate Chump? He is not qualified to be President either by skills, temperament or moral compass, he has accomplished little to nothing other than making work for lawyers, and he has caused rifts and divisions in this country. Don’t forget that most people didn’t vote for him. You say it is “undermining” the Presidency–this is a President who is undermining the values of this country. The leaks prove that he doesn’t deserve to be in the White House.

            1. have you considered why so many people hate Chump?
              Everyday. Much in the same way I consider radical Islamists hate western civilization. Thanks for asking.

              1. Natacha can’t understand how ANY Republican gets elected, She does not personally know anyone who has ever voted for any Republican.

                1. Nick: I still have my aunt’s “IKE” jeweled pin in my jewelry box. It is collectible now, but I love it because I loved her. Most of my family were Republican in the past, but the Republican party of people like Dick Lugar, for instance, is no more. So, you are wrong.

                  1. but the Republican party of people like Dick Lugar, for instance, is no more.

                    Lugar at age 80 (and keep in mind a man that age has a life expectancy of 8 years) decided he just had to have another six-year term in Congress (after 36 years in that body, 44 years as a f/t elected official, and 47 years in elected office). He was defeated in a primary. A component of his defeat was the discovery that he had, for more than three decades, been using for a voting address a house he’d sold in 1977. (A puzzle about that is as follows: did no reporter in Indiana ever try to call him at home, or were the newspapers in Indiana his accomplices?). The lack of a local residency was of a piece with the rap on Lugar among Indiana pols – he was on such a respect high on Capitol Hill that he no longer had relationships with people back home. His primary opponent (an elderly man who had spent the bulk of his life in business) was pretty much the official candidate.

                    We could use fewer public officials with Lugar’s sort of disposition toward public office.

                  2. Yeah, Well the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, JFK and possibly Carter is no more.

            2. Olly: have you considered why so many people hate Chump?

              Not a whole lot. I have noticed that with a couple of exceptions his detractors on these boards tend to be obnoxious and say stupid and vicious things, so I don’t pay them any mind.

              1. It’s not stupid or vicious to point out that Chump lies repeatedly, or that he brags about assaulting women, or that he has a huge ego.

                1. that he brags about assaulting women,

                  He told Billy Bush that women let you get away with a great deal if you bring something to the table that they want. See the excuses made for Bilge Clinton by chatterati like Katha Pollit (which Richard John Neuhaus called ‘the one free grope rule’). They’re not being assaulted because you’re giving them attention they’re seeking (which is why all the accusations contra Trump leveled by women have been coming from people who have no credibility and no corroboration).

                  Ever hear a story of anyone slapping John F. Kennedy across the mouth? The man had a case of satyriasis that was one for the books. You’d think he’d get a certain amount of violent rejection, no? The man’s genius, if that’s what you want to call it, was to spot women who would react that way and not approach them.

                  In acknowledging this, we have to see the distribution of behaviors and dispositions among women the way it actually is, and not trade in the convenient social fantasies of various sorts of soi-disant feminists. In so doing,we see and acknowledge the signature corruption of the distaff side of humanity.

                  This bothers people like you, but people like you don’t have sensibilities worth respecting.

                  1. DSS, Trump’s remark to Billy Bush does count as bragging. And that’s what Natacha actually wrote.

            3. Your candidate lost. You’ll find that that, in life, your candidate will lose about half the time. Stop acting like a spoiled child who expects to get everything all the time. Your posts are always embarrassing.

            4. I don’t hate the clown, I’m just worried that because he’s so far out of his league, our adversaries will become more rash and our allies will seek to hedge their bets. On his domestic policy, if he has one, his breathtaking incompetence is welcomed by me; he can’t seem to get any of his ridiculous ideas enacted, and won’t hire or listen to anyone who could. But foreign relations has been the near-exclusive responsibility of the Executive; our Republic needs someone in the position who is not so utterly incapable of performing the cognitive functions necessary to meeting those challenges.

          2. “It does not matter what the content of their conversation was.”

            Yes it does, Einstein.

            Conversations about guacamole have no basis upon which to be classified as secret. Sure, they could be wrongly classified (maybe to avoid the impression that The Donald likes anything Mexican), but you’re assuming everything said by the President is automatically classified.

            Do have any authority whatsoever for that silly idea? If so, please link.

            Have you even considered that if the information was classified then The Donald was sharing classified information with other countries? Ya know, cause we are talking about conversations with foreign heads of state?

            Ach. The stupid. It burns.

            1. Ach. The stupid. It burns.

              I suspect it does. Try a salve.

              If we follow your logic; if a President has a private conversation with another world leader, anyone that obtains a transcript of that conversation has the legal authority to release that transcript to the public without oversight, because they determined it was suitable for release.

              That’s not merely stupid, that’s insane.

              1. I get it. It’s tough for most reflexive bootlickers to receive information that hasn’t been approved by an authority figure. I’m sure it’s yet another reason they so easily wet the bed. But the free and the brave have no problem living without the taste of boot polish.

                How about this one: the heads of state heard all of this classified information without it being vetted and cleansed for bootlicker consumption. Were they given security clearances by The Donald? Are they prevented from releasing transcripts? Did they?

                Which planet’s laws are you basing your theoretical security policy on? Is it an actual planet or one you heard about on FOX News?

                  1. So, do you have any authority for your strange “it’s all classified unless there’s oversight” position?

                    Or not.

                    Were these two foreign leaders given security clearances to receive this “presumed classified” information?

                    Or not.

                    Were the foreign leaders themselves prohibited from releasing transcripts of their own conversations?

                    Or not.

        2. but are they true? No verifiable source just ‘unknown persons saw something ….ya da ya da ya da. More BS

    2. The amazing, soon to vanish, fiver. Olly, don’t spend too much time responding, fiver is an illegal.

      1. Wow, Nick.

        You actually almost engaged while there was a chance I was still on the board. Now that’s amazing. You usually hide more quickly than a frightened turtle – only peaking your head out once you think I’ve gone away.

        Let me guess: you’ve either had a few too many or you’ve forgotten how often you end up even more humiliated than a Trump reading his transcript.

        I’m an “illegal”? Really? That’s what you’ve got?

        Typical. Next we’ll hear about how you know I’m an illegal from your groundbreaking work with ICE (which may or may not have been after you helped the DEA nab Pablo Escobar). We know; you have a million stories.

        Quit while you’re ahead, Nick. Be the turtle.

    3. “What in the transcripts was secret or involved national security in any way?”

      What is secret in Hillary’s 30,000 e-mails and on her secret server that is being kept far from the American public?

      What is on the laptop of “LITTLE DEBBIE IN BIG TROUBLE” that is being withheld from the American public.

      What is on Seth Rich’s computer – we all have computers, right? Why are the contents of Seth Rich’s computer, I-phone and other devices and hard copy files hidden from public view? Presumably, those are the items immediately confiscated by police.

      If it involves or protects a liberal, redistributionist globalist (i.e. communist) it’s OK to keep it secret, no matter what the subject.

      But if it’s American, conservative and constitutional, it should be exposed and published on every street corner, right?

      1. No need to check on what Pravda Faux News is shilling today; it’s all set forth here.

        This is to “it’s a conspiracy, it’s a conspiracy I tell ya” george

  9. Beware of the Trump administration’s coming crackdown on leaks — and journalism

    Trevor Timm
    Executive Director, Freedom of the Press Foundation


    “What I want to do is I want to f*cking kill all the leakers,” short-lived White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci told the New Yorker last week.

    While Scaramucci was let go on Monday before his official tenure even started, there’s no doubt his tirade against leakers fit perfectly with the Trump administration’s hostile views toward the kind of public-interest journalism that has become a thorn in the side of his administration. Nor is there any doubt that the coming leak crackdown by the Justice Department threaten how journalists will be able to operate in the coming months and years.

    Leakers and whistleblowers within the U.S. government — coupled with aggressive investigative journalism — have given the public a revealing view inside the Trump White House and it’s is one of the only things holding the administration accountable. The publishing of leaks has led to White House dismissals, reversals of dangerous policies, investigations, and a dip in public support for the administration.

    This is partly why hardly a week has gone by without Trump railing against “ILLEGAL LEAKS!” on Twitter, or without a story warning about all the leak investigations that will soon be proliferating. The signs that a crackdown is coming have been clear for months. Former Press Secretary Sean Spicer reportedly inspected White House employees’ phones for encrypted messaging apps back in February. Federal employees, according to Politico, are now terrified that they’ll be the next ones under investigation. Trump even reportedly told ex-FBI director James Comey to start putting reporters in jail to root out the leaks.

    While the Trump administration has publicly announced only one leak prosecution, it’s almost guaranteed that more are on the way. While Trump publicly fumed about Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ role in the Russia investigation, he is also reportedly furious that Sessions hasn’t brought more leak cases. As if on cue, the Justice Department indicated last week that it would announce a string of investigations this Friday.

    It’s true that the Trump Justice Department’s actions so far pale in comparison to the eight leak prosecutions brought by the Obama administration — a period which saw more convictions of journalists’ sources than in all other presidential administrations combined.

    But it’s early days for the Trump administration. Many of the Obama cases occurred during his first term and did not immediately garner a lot of media attention. And unlike during the Obama years, when the Justice Department acted as if it never intended to bring a record number of prosecutions, Trump’s Justice Department is loudly proclaiming that it intends to concentrate resources on ramping up leak cases and even prosecute publishers — a grave threat to press freedom.

    Journalists cannot do their job without sources willing to talk with them — sources that often put their livelihoods at risk in order to get information to the public. And the coming leak crackdown has the potential to upend accountability journalism in the Trump era.

    During the Obama administration’s first term, national security reporters were vocal about the damage that Obama’s Justice Department was doing to the journalism profession by going after so many whistleblowers and leakers. Sources not only quickly dried up due to the chilling effect, but journalists themselves came under electronic surveillance and were subpoenaed, and even faced the specter of prosecution — all terrifying prospects that could only get worse under the current president, who has not hidden his contempt for the media.

    While it’s too early to tell exactly how far the Trump administration will take the Espionage Act, the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker will be there, comprehensively documenting all of its attempts to silence reporters and their sources. -Trevor Timm, Executive Director, Freedom of the Press Foundation

      1. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN & MSNBC have become a national joke, equivalent to Pravda and your complaining about Sessions?
        If only the Justice Department could charge journalists with malpractice!!

      2. the aren’t journalists nor even reporters they are propagandists.

    1. Elaine, Where was your concern your your guy, Obama, was hacking computers, tapping phones, and locking up reporters. Even David Axelrod says these leaks must stop and are a danger to national security.


  10. DEEP STATE is what happens when the average Washington staffer knows more than the President. And that’s basically where we find ourselves. There was a reason why experience was always considered crucial to a President’s potential. Ideally we want a President who knows government inside-out. But somehow the idiotic idea developed that experience in business was more important than public service.

    1. DEEP STATE is what happens when the average Washington staffer knows more than the President. And that’s basically where we find ourselves. T

      I don’t think you’re going to find two many ‘average Washington staffers’ who can run a business with $9.5 bn in revenue and 22,000 employees.

      1. We don’t know what Trump’s businesses gross. He wouldn’t show us his tax returns, remember? Wherever you got those figures is probably a Trump-friendly source. But beyond those figures, there are hundreds of business people out there we wouldn’t want running government.

        1. No, the source is PrivCo, which assesses a wide-array of closely-held corporations. And, of course, Forbes has been evaluating his assets for 35 years.

  11. Most of the leaks confirm that we have a idiotic bully as president. He’s clearly not the exceptional deal maker he pretends to be.

    The most serious leak since Jan is the one the president himself made to the Russians in the Oval Office about Israeli intelligence.

    So lock him up.

    1. If you were home in the USSR you could do that. But as a foreigner you can’t.

  12. Did it ever occur to you that the transcripts could have come from Mexico and Australia? They probably have recording devices on their end of the phone line. I don’t see how the information could be considered classified. No state secrets were discussed. Also, they obviously have no respect for the orange blob, so maybe they disclosed the transcripts. Chump’s behavior is a disgrace to the United States.

    As to the substance, this is information the American public needs to know. Chump plays everyone, and, as usual, it’s all about him and his perceived image as a tough guy and super negotiator. Actually, he’s just a big fat bully. Another day, another self-inflicted scandal. Memo to Sessions: trying to subpoena members of the media won’t work. There’s this little thing called privilege. No Court would coerce a reporter to disclose his or her sources, so don’t waste government resources trying. If the source is here in the U.S., obviously, the “problem” is that there are patriots working for the government. They know how severely unqualified Chump is, and they want the rest of us to know, too.

    1. Natcha says: “Memo to Sessions: trying to subpoena members of the media won’t work. There’s this little thing called privilege. No Court would coerce a reporter to disclose his or her sources, so don’t waste government resources trying.”


      Guess you missed the James Risen case during the Obama admin?

      “More significantly, the Obama administration won a ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in my case that determined that there was no such thing as a “reporter’s privilege” — the right of journalists not to testify about their confidential sources in criminal cases. The Fourth Circuit covers Virginia and Maryland, home to the CIA, the Pentagon and the National Security Agency, and thus has jurisdiction over most leak cases involving classified information.

      That court ruling could result, for example, in a reporter’s being quickly jailed for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the Trump administration’s Justice Department to reveal the CIA sources used for articles on the agency’s investigation into Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election.”

      1. You couldn’t be more right. That doesn’t exactly excuse Trump for availing himself of Obama’s skullduggery, but it is hard to disagree that those who could only applaud what ever it was that scum bag did (just like so many who are doing the exact same thing to his successor) have absolutely no one to thank but themselves.

      2. T rump is doing this because he wants to not because he has to..
        Trump and Sessions are trying to frighten journalists. They are harsh authoritarians by nature.

      3. And this:

        <WASHINGTON, July 6, (2005) – Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, was sent to jail on Wednesday after a federal judge declared that she was "defying the law" by refusing to divulge the name of a confidential source. … The Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from the reporters last week.

      4. NY Times doesn’t employ journalists it employes propagandists.

    2. James Risen then unsuccessfully took his case to the Supreme Court…

      “The Supreme Court has previously held that reporters do not have a special privilege that allows them to hide their sources if compelled by the government to testify. In its 1972 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, Justice Byron White wrote that the high court would not interpret ”the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy.”

      Nevertheless, government officials have since been wary of the public attention – and bad press – that comes with compelling reporters working the public interest to reveal their sources. Some courts have, despite the Branzburg decision, concluded that individuals acting as journalists do have increased First Amendment protections – the Supreme Court’s refusal to take this case means that disagreement will not be definitively settled.

      “The decision is the least-worst alternative for First Amendment advocates,” said Vladeck, “who would have been far worse off with a Supreme Court decision affirming the Fourth Circuit’s holding that the First Amendment categorically does not recognize a reporter’s privilege.”

    3. There’s this little thing called privilege. No Court would coerce a reporter to disclose his or her sources,

      Actually, reporters have been jailed for civil contempt. Courts are indulgent with reporters. That’s a personal preference of judges. The pretensions of the press aside, they don’t have any privileges or immunities in such matters.

    4. Natacha, How would the Mexicans know what Trump said to the Australians? How would the Australians know what Trump said to the Mexicans? Are the Mexicans and the Australians colluding with one another to obtain information damaging to Trump?

  13. All of these leaks are actual crimes but the FBI and DOJ are too busy trying to take down Trump to care.

  14. I don’t think it is the staffers anymore. It has got to be the NSA.
    Trump is hamstrung now. Who will take his calls knowing that Trumps enemies have all lines bugged.

    1. Didn’t Chump tell the Mexican President that he wouldn’t talk to him unless he knuckled under and agreed to stop denying that Mexico would pay for the wall?

      Again, Mexico and Australia could be the sources.

  15. How many people could have had access to the transcripts? It seems there must be some way to narrow it down and identify the leaker(s). Maybe the WH could float fake transcripts or memos to staffers, each individual getting a completely different “classified” document, and then see which one(s) are leaked to the media.

  16. Let’s get this out of the way first: all government leakers should be fired. Period. What the press does with the leak is a separate matter. Posting a full transcript is bad, but it’s better than getting the media’s biased, slanted “summary” of the “significance” of the conversation. That’s the one advantage of tweets; they let the public see the words actually said instead of the media’s slanted and self-servicing version.

    1. Yes, Igpres, and the actual words are deadly to Chump. They prove what an egomaniacal bully he really is.

      1. An increase in the harboring of grudges is a predictable outcome from Trump’s juvenile delinquency. Leakers in the executive branch is another. The grudge-harboring lot that we’ve all become is still a third.

        All bullies are whiny cry-babies. Some whiny cry-babies are not bullies. Surely some of the people elected Trump because he wallows in self-pity to justify his bullying of his rivals. It’s same sort jawboning to be found on most reality TV shows.

Comments are closed.