Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador
1,023 replies, posted
*Checks Fox News*
This, and I am in absolutely no way kidding, is the second line below the headline which is about Clinton.
[QUOTE="Fox News"]"VIDEO: Could a probe of Hillary's email server be reopened?"[/QUOTE]
Literally the "bbbuutt her emaiiiilllss" meme.
[I]Sometimes they rush stories to be the first to break them[/I]
Here come the corrections
You can tell the leak never happened by the way they asked WaPo not to publish the full details for it for national security reasons
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233273][I]Sometimes they rush stories to be the first to break them[/I]
Here come the corrections[/QUOTE]
yes, it turns out that the entire thing was fabricated, trump never actually did anything wrong.
Then you wake up
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233273][I]Sometimes they rush stories to be the first to break them[/I]
Here come the corrections[/QUOTE]
Not seeing anything in need of correcting so far
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233273][I]Sometimes they rush stories to be the first to break them[/I]
Here come the corrections[/QUOTE]
Is this bargaining or denial?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233273][I]Sometimes they rush stories to be the first to break them[/I]
Here come the corrections[/QUOTE]
"it's not true! it's not true!" [...] "well okay there is [I]some[/I] truth to it, but it's not 100% true, there are a few details that are different"
next'll be the "okay it's true but it's not even that bad tbh why are you all so hung up on this, it's just sad really"
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233273][I]Sometimes they rush stories to be the first to break them[/I]
Here come the corrections[/QUOTE]
"I didn't leak confidential information, I just leaked everything one would need to figure it out with minimal effort"
Yeah that's a hell of a difference there. Trump is vindicated once again
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52233193]Have you heard a single word of this administration's stance on leaks? If a source is named, Trump and his lackeys are coming down on him with everything they have. I'm not just talking about losing their job -- they'll try to hit them with felony charges and high crimes. Under the open hostility of this administration towards the press, you're going to be waiting a very long time for a named source.
I understand why you may have initial distrust of an unnamed source on something so monumental, but there is no other way we're going to get insider info. We just have to trust the jorunalistic integrity of the organizations reporting, and while the the Washington Post does have a slight Liberal bias, it also has an excellent record of verified and factual reporting. They would not publish unsubstantiated claims.[/QUOTE]
I think you raise a good point, and I agree with it for the most part. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the source to be named.
But there is a flip side to the coin.
The Washington Post does have a record of publishing verified reporting, and I don't doubt that they did get tips from an anonymous source. However, given the legality of the situation, as well as how they worded their article (especially their headline) it's obvious that this is yet another hit piece on Trump.
The right wing news sources (like Fox news, among others) were notorious for this during the Obama administration. They'd spin articles to make Obama sound awful but the substance of their reporting was somewhat lacking.
While I'm a Trump voter (not so much a supporter, because I'm a constitutional conservative and I don't believe Trump is one) I'll be the first to admit that I do have considerable bias, but I've also been disappointed by Trump's derailment from his campaign promises. Politicians were liars and crooks before Trump took office, and they'll continue to be after Trump leaves.
But to believe the Washington Post and Buzzfeed don't have ulterior motives in their reporting (I believe this goes beyond left/right bias) is an absurd notion. Especially after the Washington Post puts "democracy dies in the darkness" on its website after Trump won the election. (I understand that's more or less a response to Trump literally attacking the media, attempting to discredit them, but we have to remember that most of what he said can be boiled down to rhetoric. It's actions that count.)
I can't even begin to think of the hot water this puts him in. I am both eagerly anticipating his fall, as well as horrified that he would do some thing so careless.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233322]But to believe the Washington Post and Buzzfeed don't have ulterior motives in their reporting (I believe this goes beyond left/right bias) is an absurd notion. Especially after the Washington Post puts "democracy dies in the darkness" on its website after Trump won the election. (I understand that's more or less a response to Trump literally attacking the media, attempting to discredit them, but we have to remember that most of what he said can be boiled down to rhetoric. It's actions that count.)[/QUOTE]
And what about the other sources, like the BBC?
I mean the BBC picking this up means that this story is going somewhere. IF you're wary of American media like I am for the most part (besides things like WaPo), the BBC is a pretty damn good source for international news.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233322]I think you raise a good point, and I agree with it for the most part. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the source to be named.
But there is a flip side to the coin.
The Washington Post does have a record of publishing verified reporting, and I don't doubt that they did get tips from an anonymous source. However, given the legality of the situation, as well as how they worded their article (especially their headline) it's obvious that this is yet another hit piece on Trump.
[/QUOTE]
Fox News, BBC, AP, Reuters, are all liberally biased right?
V Reuters independently verified it tho.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52233328]And what about the other sources, like the BBC?[/QUOTE]
The BBC picked up the reporting and is simply reporting what the other news sources already have, they aren't claiming to have independently verified the information.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233322]I think you raise a good point, and I agree with it for the most part. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the source to be named.
But there is a flip side to the coin.
The Washington Post does have a record of publishing verified reporting, and I don't doubt that they did get tips from an anonymous source. However, given the legality of the situation, as well as how they worded their article (especially their headline) it's obvious that this is yet another hit piece on Trump.
The right wing news sources (like Fox news, among others) were notorious for this during the Obama administration. They'd spin articles to make Obama sound awful but the substance of their reporting was somewhat lacking.
[/QUOTE]
Except Obama never willingly gave away highly secretive intelligence to Russia while allowing Russian media in but banning US media from also being there. Also its verifiable proof that most right wing "news" actually makes you understands what actually happening in the world from someone who doesn't even watch the news. And what did the right wing media report? His tan suit?, his choice of mustard?
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233346]The BBC picked up the reporting and is simply reporting what the other news sources already have, they aren't claiming to have independently verified the information.[/QUOTE]
Not all stories reported by news places are picked up by others. The fact the BBC has means that the BBC things there's something very legitimate and real about this. They wouldn't want to hurt their reputation either.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233322]But to believe the Washington Post and Buzzfeed don't have ulterior motives in their reporting (I believe this goes beyond left/right bias) is an absurd notion. Especially after the Washington Post puts "democracy dies in the darkness" on its website after Trump won the election. (I understand that's more or less a response to Trump literally attacking the media, attempting to discredit them, but we have to remember that most of what he said can be boiled down to rhetoric. It's actions that count.)[/QUOTE]
What possible ulterior motives do the Washington Post and Buzzfeed have? And how can they be any worse than Trump's ulterior motives?
[QUOTE=UziXxX;52233346]The BBC picked up the reporting and is simply reporting what the other news sources already have, they aren't claiming to have independently verified the information.[/QUOTE]
Three down, a few more to go. What about the other sources (Reuters, CBS, etc)?
If you read the reuters, BBC, and NYTimes articles they just parrot what Wapo is saying without adding anything to it. They don't corroborate anything, they don't talk to their own sources. Them reporting on it doesn't validate it and you'd be stupid not to report on the days hottest story(whether its factual or not).
It's strange to think that while all this stuff is happening with Trump, all it took for Clinton to leave office was lying about a blowjob.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233357]If you read the reuters, BBC, and NYTimes articles they just parrot what Wapo is saying without adding anything to it. They don't corroborate anything, they don't talk to their own sources. Them reporting on it doesn't validate it and you'd be stupid not to report on the days hottest story(whether its factual or not).[/QUOTE]
CBS had verification though.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233357]If you read the reuters, BBC, and NYTimes articles they just parrot what Wapo is saying without adding anything to it. They don't corroborate anything, they don't talk to their own sources. Them reporting on it doesn't validate it and you'd be stupid not to report on the days hottest story(whether its factual or not).[/QUOTE]
from the op
[media]https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/864249402571010049[/media]
[QUOTE=Paramud;52233363]It's strange to think that while all this stuff is happening with Trump, all it took for Clinton to leave office was lying about a blowjob.[/QUOTE]
He didn't leave office, he was acquitted.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52233371]He didn't leave office, he was acquitted.[/QUOTE]
I meant in a broad sense, not specifically resignation.
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52233364]CBS had verification though.[/QUOTE]
The only thing CBS added was
A source familiar with the workings of the Senate Intelligence Committee says the committee members -- including its leaders -- have not been briefed on the president's alleged comments to the Russians, according to CBS News' Nancy Cordes.
Ground breaking stuff
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52232675]Wapo and buzzfeed. Man ya'll getting desperate.[/QUOTE]
Washington Post has a slight liberal bias, but otherwise has a fairly spotless record of journalistic integrity. They don't post unsubstantiated claims without a heavy disclaimer the reports are unconfirmed.
no matter what happens or who does what, i will never not feel bad for sean spicer.
that guy is probably having his 20th weekly mental breakdown right now
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52233382]The only thing CBS added was
A source familiar with the workings of the Senate Intelligence Committee says the committee members -- including its leaders -- have not been briefed on the president's alleged comments to the Russians, according to CBS News' Nancy Cordes.
Ground breaking stuff[/QUOTE]
Can you stop shitting on the press for one second
