That “fake” would become the go-to word in the regime of a man whose skin holds the tanning bed tone of a ripe Valencia seems pretty appropriate. Now that “fake news” has been defined as any news not favorable to Trump, it’s easier to translate between Trumpese and English. Take for example this interview with oft-forgotten (especially inside the White House) Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.
Priebus, speaking to Fox, described a Wall Street Journal story about some intelligence officials withholding information from the president as “totally fake” and “totally false”; the New York Times story reporting that some Trump campaign associates had repeated contact with Russia before the election, he asserted, is “also fake.”
That might not make sense on the surface, but if you just swap out the phrase “bad for Trump” every time you see “fake” it’s absolutely fine. Embedded in the statements is some other news that’s totally “fake.”
Priebus held the party line on news coverage of President Donald Trump on Friday, dismissing reports about scrutiny into the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia as exaggerated without saying, definitively, that none of the president’s associates contacted the country before the election.
Priebus is refusing to say “nyet” to any conversation between Trump’s team and Russia. He’s just saying that they weren’t as chatty as the press is implying.
Which is a world away from “no contact.”
A scale is developing of Russia’s level of involvement with the Trump campaign. There was the senior Russian diplomat who said.
"Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Rybakov said. “… I cannot say that all of them but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives.”
So that’s “quite a few” members of Trump’s team “staying in touch.”
Then there were the intelligence reports that showed.
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.
That’s a “members … and other Trump associates” and “repeated contacts.”
Priebus says that these reports are “exaggerated.” So what would it mean if Priebus is telling the truth? Was it “some” members of Donald Trump’s campaign team “regularly” checking in with Russian intelligence? Maybe it was only “a few” members who were “occasionally” calling up Moscow. How about a “handful” who were “rarely” on the line to Putin.
Somehow, no matter what qualifiers are added, this all seems like bad news for … I mean fake news. This is definitely fake news.