Type to search

On Sunday News Shows, Trump’s Latest Russia Problem Almost Ignored

Campaign 2016 Featured Post Memo Pad Politics US White House

On Sunday News Shows, Trump’s Latest Russia Problem Almost Ignored

Carter Page

CNN’s Jake Tapper was the only Sunday show host on September 25 to discuss a report that American intelligence officials are probing Russian government ties to a man Trump has identified as a foreign policy adviser, Carter Page. This latest revelation is yet another missed opportunity by the Sunday political talk shows to feature investigative stories about Trump and his campaign over the past month.

On September 23, Yahoo! News’ Michael Isikoff reported that “U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials.” Among the problematic contacts Page has reportedly had with aides to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, is Igor Diveykin, who “is believed by U.S. officials to have responsibility for intelligence collected by Russian agencies about the U.S. election.” The article also quoted a Trump spokesperson calling Page an “‘informal foreign adviser’” to Trump.

In an interview with Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway on CNN’s State of the Union, Tapper cited the Yahoo! News article and questioned Conway if the campaign had talked to Page about his meetings with Russian officials. Conway denied that Page was part of the Trump campaign at this time and said that he was not authorized to talk to Russia on the campaign’s behalf.

The other Sunday hosts — NBC’s Chuck Todd, CBS’ John Dickerson, Fox’s Chris Wallace, and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos — who interviewed Trump adviser Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s running mate Mike Pence, and Conway, respectively — all failed to question their Trump surrogate guests about the report. The only other mentions of the report on the Sunday shows were from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s surrogates, with Clinton running mate Tim Kaine alluding to the “news of this past week [that] shows us a whole series of very serious questions about Donald Trump’s ties to Russia” on CBS’ Face the Nation, and Clinton’s press secretary Brian Fallon mentioning Page on CNN’s Reliable Sources.

The near blackout of this story from the Sunday shows is turning into a familiar pattern regarding investigative reports on Trump. Over the past month, the Sunday political talk shows have repeatedly failed to feature new reporting that reflects poorly on Trump. On September 4, just days after The Washington Post broke the story that Trump’s foundation illegally gave a political donation in 2013 and that Trump paid the IRS a penalty for it, only CBS’ Dickerson brought it up; on other shows, guests were forced to mention it.

The next week, as they were all covering the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, every Sunday show completely ignored theNew York Daily News’ investigation that revealed Trump unethically accepted $150,000 in government aid after the attacks and that Trump bragged that one of his buildings was now the largest in the area just hours after the 9/11 attacks.

And just last week, the Sunday shows again mostly omitted new reporting on Trump, specifically the news that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was investigating Trump’s charitable foundation over concerns of impropriety and Kurt Eichenwald’s Newsweek report that detailed the “serious conflicts of interest and ethical quagmires” that would be present in the foreign policy of a President Trump due to his deep business ties to foreign countries and businesspeople.

The report on Page also follows Trump’s repeatedpraise of Putin, who he has called “highly respected within his own country and beyond,” later adding that if Putin “says great things about me, I’m going to say great things about him.” Journalists have slammed Trump for his remarks, noting the country has targeted and murdered journalists.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters for America.

 IMAGE: Carter Page, a businessman identified by Donald Trump as a foreign policy adviser to his presidential campaign/TASS


  1. Dominick Vila September 26, 2016

    As disturbing as Trump’s praise of Vladimir Putin, the former head of the KGB is, as disturbing as his encouragement to spy on us was, what is most disturbing is the number of former and present members of his campaign, and business enterprise, have with Russia, with Putin, with Russian oligarchs, and with the Russian mafia.
    Whether or not his love for Russia is influenced by the opinions of his first and present wives, both of who were born in countries that were part of the Soviet Union, or because of business priorities, the fact that he admires and depends, financially, on influential Russians to stay afloat financially, and for help to destroy Hillary Clinton, should be enough for every American with an ounce of common sense to step back and reflect on what is happening.
    We are not talking about having dinner with someone who donated money to a charity. We are talking about a close business – and now political – relationship with one of our most formidable foes, including people who not so long ago spied on us and were members of the team determined to destroy us. Alas, who would have thought that they may be able to accomplish their goal without firing a shot, by using a buffoon, elected by a naive electorate, to destroy us from within.

    1. tbs September 26, 2016

      Proof please?

        1. Dominick Vila September 26, 2016

          Thank you for saving me the time to respond. In addition to Manafort, Trump still has Carter Page as a foreign policy advisor. Page use to work for a Russian company, has many contacts in that country, and remains in touch with senior Russian officials.

      1. Buford2k11 September 26, 2016

        Proof is everywhere…It is obvious, and tbs, you are a troll…

        1. Karen September 26, 2016

          Tbs probably never paid attention in class and wants others to do his homework for him.

    2. marriea September 26, 2016

      I heard and read that he has ‘borrowed money from the/a Russian Bank.
      Putin is smart and I’ll bet a damned good chess player.
      A Trump presidency would have Putin putting Trump in a position of vulnerablity if he owes Russia money.
      If nothing else, that connection should be exposed by our stupid news media and the amount owed disclosed.
      Trump says his taxes are being audited. I realize the IRS has a lot of auditing to do, but if it takes 10 persons working on nothing but things related to the Trump Enterprises, to weed out Trump and his various holdings of companies within a company within those companies, then it should be done and pronto.
      When Trump talks about using other people money, HE AIN’T LYING.
      He is telling us who he is. We should collectively believe him.
      Remember that story about the girl who picked up a snake after the snake begged her to do so by promising her he wouldn’t bite her.
      Well he did and when she asked the snake why after he had promised he wouldn’t, the snake replied that she knew he was a snake when she picked it up, so why DID SHE believe him.
      Trump, coiled all into one.

      1. dpaano October 7, 2016

        The IRS has said many times that just because his returns are being audited, he can still provide them to the American public. But, as Clinton says in the debate (obviously, this is written AFTER the debate), he is afraid to show his taxes for many reasons, and this might just be one of them.

        1. marriea October 7, 2016

          No kidding.
          I’ve heard them say that folks can ask questions over the net during the debate.
          I don’t know which web one can ask question, but this is one I would love to ask Trump.
          Mr Trump,
          It has been noted that after you filed bankrupcy, you were able were able to claim $50 million dollars for about 18 – twenty years in tax deductions.
          My question to you is, considering you has indicated that you will be known as the greatest job president ever, how many jobs have you and Trump Enterprises created independent of jobs created by contractors that you have employed to advance your projects from those saved taxes.
          And if you have created these jobs, how many provable jobs and at what pay scale do you use?

    3. dpaano October 7, 2016

      Dominick: That’s my fear also……I’m afraid that if Trump is elected, we’ll just become a puppet nation under Russia with Trump being the actual puppet and strings pulled by Putin! We could end up like Russia or North Korea….starving people, pollution, banned media, etc….another third world country run by a narcissist ruler!

  2. I of John September 26, 2016

    The media is failing us again. Get to work people! If this was Hillary you’d be on it like flies on dung.

  3. bobnstuff September 26, 2016

    Trump blames the media for supporting Clinton so the media lets him slide over and over again. Trump wants the power to sue the media like he does everyone else who says negative things about him. Trump isn’t running for president, he is running for dictator and the media is going along with it.

  4. Karen September 26, 2016

    Turning on CNN this morning will find nothing but advertising of the debates which sound like promotions for the next WWE. A panel of six people advising what the candidates need to do to win, and it’s not based on their positions of issues we all should be caring about.

    1. Jinmichigan September 26, 2016

      My impression of CNN this morning, was the 87 things Clinton needed to do right to win and that Don the Con only needed to keep it in his pants to win. Their bias is overwhelming.

  5. Karen September 26, 2016

    Substance does not seem to be the prime concern this election season. (Mis)perceptions are what it is all about and a gullible electorate is falling for it. I say shame on the media for leading Americans down the garden path.

    1. marriea September 26, 2016

      It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to note that networks seemingly would like a Trump victory. Then for the next four years they would have a plethora of material to report on how American got it wrong.
      They also know that most Americans don’t read and prefer to look at TV ‘news’ that cater to an individual’s personal preference and also videos on U-tube that are about as effective as a poll as a source of learning, never takinig into consideration that a video or newcast is only taking the stance of the author of that piece.
      All things uttered by each and every one of us tends to be subjective on and to our own prejudices about a certain subject and that prejudice is not that it’s a bad thing necessarily, but just our thought pattern.
      Once upon a time, I could say that the news was mostly reported in a straight forward way.
      Today, news is mostly entertainment and more akind to entertainment tonight and very gossipy.
      I guess that one like to hear gossipy stuff so that can it give cover to our own imperfections.

      1. Karen September 26, 2016

        What passes for news reporting today is based mostly on opinion. I’m of the old school like Joe Friday, “just give me the facts” I form my opinions based on fact and it’s become harder and harder to stay on top of what is the truth. It’s a great ploy for the dumbing down of America.

        1. marriea September 30, 2016

          No kidding.
          In talking to people I worked around before I retired, they would tell me about what they ‘heard’ on the news.
          Often, it’s not what people what was actually said, it’s how people percieved what they think they heard.
          I have a saying, it’s not what people say, it what another person hears and what a person hears is based on their personal mindset.
          I’ve often said to them, ‘maybe you should stop tuning in to the ‘news’ so much’.
          Too much of anything can become indoctrinating. It’s so subtle that you don’t know you’ve been seduced until it’s too late.

          1. dpaano October 7, 2016

            It’s like that old kid’s game, “Whisper.” You hear one thing, but when you pass it on, something in the context always gets changed until it’s totally incorrect! That’s the problem here, I think. It’s also like the bible…..one group read it one way and interprets it; another group interprets it much differently! It’s a quandary to say the least!

        2. dpaano October 7, 2016

          Agreed…..our media is worse than ever! It used to be there were reporters (Cronkite, etc.) who were very non-partisan, but nowadays, most of them work for networks that are owned by RW owners whose opinions are not always the opinions of the staff or the people who listen to their shows.

      2. Jmz Nesky September 27, 2016

        Well you have to refer to the mentality of the (TV) watcher when they actually believe that there’s such a thing as ‘Reality TV’.. C.O.P.S. and similar shows are the only ones who operate without a production script. All the rest is scripted emotional fluff passed as reality and that’s how the news media operates now days.

        1. marriea September 30, 2016

          The only ‘reality’ TV I watch is ‘Dancing with the Stars’ and Judge Judy, The People’s Court and Hot Bench. The formal for the entertainment factor. The latter (s) to kind of get a grip on the tactics used by people to get over on others and how the law kind of works
          And yes they are also to a certain degree, scripted.
          The rest of those ‘programs’ bore me.

          1. Jmz Nesky September 30, 2016

            All of them nauseate me but that doesn’t mean I’m willing to chastise anyone who watches them.. I watch for entertainment purposes only, not reality as I’ve got enough of that hanging around me every day.

          2. marriea September 30, 2016

            (smile) touche

          3. dpaano October 7, 2016

            Judge Judy is not a true reality show. Personally, I think she’s rude and condescending towards the people that come before her. She’s much like Trump when it comes to temperament!

          4. marriea October 7, 2016

            Indded she is. I wouldn’t be surprised if the people that come before her have to sign something saying they will take the ‘abuse’ becuase I’ve read somewhere that people get payed for being on the show and any amount that is lost, is taken from the amount of the ‘win’.

      3. dpaano October 7, 2016

        Trump is definitely more entertaining than Hillary, but that doesn’t make him presidential material! The presidency is NOT “Celebrity Apprentice!”

  6. Jinmichigan September 26, 2016

    Tapper mentioned this and dropped it immediately when conway claimed he had nothing to do with trump. I don’t suppose there was much else he could do, but he hardly pushed for any answers.

  7. AF 70-74 September 26, 2016

    Yep. Trump got into all these guys heads. They are more weak than scared! Political news is stacked against Hillary. These guys are costing her!

    1. Jmz Nesky September 27, 2016

      But not to the intelligent, they waive personal opinion for recorded proof that can always be found through politician’s political history. What’s being exploited is the 21st century witch hunters of which is a minority in the same vein as white supremacists and neo-nazis.. they’re loud thus seem larger than they actually are.

      1. Daniel Wright September 28, 2016

        I’m sure that the fact that Hillary set up the deal that sells 20% of our Uranium to Russia is no big deal to you.

        1. Jmz Nesky September 28, 2016

          I don’t know what ‘rag’ you got this information from and if you solely took the word of the blow hard Trump them check this out and stick to your short sited proof. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

          1. Daniel Wright September 28, 2016

            Your link says trumps claim is “mostly false” politifact is famous for making silly claims like that. Using their logic You can say that someone is mostly dead. I prefer sites that actually tell the truth without leftist spin. As for my point. Where were you when Bill was president,in an alternate universe?………………http://www.independentsentinel.com/lest-we-forget-hillarys-china-gate-scandal/…………………………………………………….http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/EpicOfClintonsMess.php#axzz4LXuxBWCO………………https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8mcN1putuc

          2. Daniel Wright September 28, 2016

            This site will only let me post one link. I have three proving my information is true and historically factual. The La times calls it fiction but then again,they are just as in the leftist camp as the NY Times or MSNBC…………….http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/EpicOfClintonsMess.php#axzz4LXuxBWCO

          3. Daniel Wright October 12, 2016

            That “rag” was the NY Times Bozo.

        2. Robert Eckert September 30, 2016

          Eleven agencies had to approve the deal. The State Department’s role was minor and it was not taken up with Clinton herself.

          1. Daniel Wright October 1, 2016

            How many of those 11 agencies were under Obama and Hillary’s control? Tell me,how many agencies approved this……………http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0…………………………….The New York Times[a liberal icon] says the Clinton foundation profited from the deal. I’m sure you are OK with Hillary’s involvement as long as she wins.

          2. Robert Eckert October 1, 2016

            Hillary was Secretary of State. She had nothing to do with the commerce department or nuclear regulatory agencies etc. The Clinton Foundation does not “profit” from anything: they spend their money on things like AIDS medication for African children, digging wells and planting trees to increase agricultural productivity, and so on.

          3. Daniel Wright October 1, 2016

            The liberal icon of the 21st century,the NY Times says Hillary had to sign off on the deal. How many other Obama controlled agencies did the same is irrelevant. It’s plain to see that Obama and Hillary were behind it. The other agencies fell in line just like good little puppets. The times also says that The foundation profited from the sale. I have backing sources. Where are yours? ……….http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

          4. dpaano October 7, 2016

            Unlike the Trump Foundation which has been found to be a personal checkbook for Trump and his family!

          5. Daniel Wright October 12, 2016

            The Clinton foundation is a well known influence peddling operation…………………https://capitalresearch.org/2015/05/the-clinton-foundation-a-cauldron-of-conflicts-and-cronyism/

          6. Daniel Wright October 12, 2016

            She had to approve it in order to seal the deal…….http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html Your gullible attitude towards these career criminals is laughable. You think the Clintons are HONEST????

          7. Robert Eckert October 12, 2016

            A dozen agencies had to approve it. The State Department’s approval was pro forma and not brought up to the level of the Secretary.

          8. Daniel Wright October 12, 2016

            The secretary of state wasn’t part of something that important?? Where did you get that? Sounds to me like your opinion and no more.

          9. Robert Eckert October 12, 2016

            The Department of State is not the principal agency that manages international trade, not even when it comes to exports of material with potential military application. It is more in the wheelhouse of the departments of Commerce and Defense. As you have been told multiple times, there were many agencies involved, and State was far from the lead.

          10. Daniel Wright October 12, 2016

            It doesn’t matter what I have been told by you. What does matter is the truth. The fact remains that the state department DID INDEED have a say. The fact is that Hillary was INDEED the secretary of state at the time. The fact is that all the deciding federal departments were ran by Obama appointees. The fact remains that The Clinton foundation got $2.35 million and Hillary was paid $500,000 for a speech in exchange for her services…http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html. If you don’t like those facts then argue with the NY times,not me.

          11. Robert Eckert October 12, 2016

            “The fact remains that the state department DID INDEED have a say.” One of a dozen agencies which had a say, but not the lead agency. You have given no reason why you would think State would be particularly involved.
            “The fact is that Hillary was INDEED the secretary of state at the time.” So? It’s a large department. Most things don’t go to the top.

          12. Daniel Wright October 13, 2016

            You assume much but prove nothing. I posted evidence. Where is yours? Is it that you have none? The fact remains that the boss makes the big decisions. Hillary wasn’t a secretary behind a desk. A cabinet secretary is THE BOSS of her department…..PERIOD!!! The buck stops at her desk…..PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!

          13. Robert Eckert October 13, 2016

            ” I posted evidence.” Of Hillary’s personal involvement? No you didn’t. The State Department is a large agency, in which few items are kicked to the top level, and its pro-forma endorsement of a trade deal should not be one of them. Commerce would look at the economic implications, Defense and Homeland Security at the military implications. State would only be concerned if some other nation had expressed interest in uranium purchases so that giving Russia the contract might cause diplomatic irritation: if there was nothing like that, there would be no reason to bother the boss and say “This is a bunch of nothing for us, do you agree?”

          14. Daniel Wright October 13, 2016

            Actually I did. The NY times article says she also profited from the Uranium deal. How could she profit from a deal she wasn’t a part of? You make zero logical sense. Actually, I should have expected this kind of response from blind leftist lemming. Never mind. She could murder someone on the NBC evening news and you morons would still support her.

          15. Robert Eckert October 13, 2016

            “The NY times article says she also profited from the Uranium deal. ” No it doesn’t.

          16. Daniel Wright October 13, 2016

            “Cash flowed to Clinton foundation amid Russian Uranium deal” That is the headline of the NY Times article. Are you saying Hillary has no affiliation with her own “charity”foundation? Do you really think she doesn’t pocket money from the kitty? Do you have a brain? If so,I suggest you use it. ……….http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

          17. greenlantern1 October 12, 2016

            Ever hear of FinCen?
            It is part of the Treasury Department.
            It levied, a $10,000,000 fine, against Trump Taj Mahal!
            That fine was paid!
            It was used, by terrorists, to launder money!
            Does Trump even know about the transactions in those buildings?

          18. Daniel Wright October 12, 2016

            Maybe he doesn’t. Hillary certainly knows she helped Russia obtain 20% of our Uranium. “Donations” to the Clinton foundation totaling $2.35 million and a $500.000 fee for one speech is proof that she knew all about it…….http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

          19. Daniel Wright October 12, 2016

            The fine was part of a bankruptcy case,not funding terrorists. If Trump was guilty of raising money to fund terrorism do you think the justice department would just let it slide? Facilities like this have something called “conference rooms”. They can be rented by anyone with the money. If there were any terrorist fundraising there it would have been private. You claim that the fine money was used to fund terrorists. How did the money get to them? Was it forwarded to them by the treasury dept.?

        3. greenlantern1 October 12, 2016

          Rush Limbaugh says so!
          He also CLAIMS to have Benghazi stand down cables!
          Consider the source!!

          1. Daniel Wright October 12, 2016

            I always consider the source in matters that effect me and my country.I’m sure you consider Rush to be unreliable. How about the N.Y.Times?………http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

  8. greenlantern1 October 12, 2016

    The Koch brothers built Vladimir Putin’s oil wells!
    Perfectly clear?

  9. donna.sanford@mail.ru March 15, 2017

    I have made $104k in 2016 by working from my house and I manage that by wor­king part time f­o­r 3+ hrs every day. I used a money making model I came across online and I am thrilled that I was able to earn so much money on the side. It’s so beginner friendly a­­n­­d I’m just so blessed that I found out about this. Here’s what I did… http://gee.su/6sWja


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.