“I guarantee there’s actual information there that didn’t come from Vance.”
Politico was banned from the White House not for naming Vance but for posting that a senior administration official estimated the chances of reaching a preliminary agreement at between 80 and 85 percent.
The Post quotes Vance:
“I think the second thing is we do expect to be signing this agreement over the next few days. I can’t give you an exact date. And if I were to give you a confidence that we were going to be finding this agreement, I maybe would have said 75 percent this morning. It’s probably more like 80, 85 percent now, but it’s not 100 percent.”
If that tape comes out in court, it torpedoes the rationale for punishing Politico since Politico (a) reported the comments accurately, and (b) didn’t breach the anonymity condition.
No, Politico was banned because of 6 articles that contained secret information.
The Post’ quote is (as I said originally) one line of the ENTIRE ARTICLE that was submitted as evidence. They’re cherry picking that “safe” quote to claim the entire article is “on the record” when, and I guarantee it, they mixed in information from several sources they had for the entire article.
By the way, while you’re here making money as a paid troller, would ye kindly donate some of your earnings to the freepathon? https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=P5K5QZGVTL4PW
That way we can keep the doors open here and you can keep your job.