• Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation
    151 replies, posted
[QUOTE=srobins;52239020]I'm patiently waiting for the Trump impeachment megathread and the fun I'll have watching it all unfold in real-time after I've called in sick from work.[/QUOTE] You're calling in sick to watch a thread?
[QUOTE=kariko;52239052]You're calling in sick to watch a thread?[/QUOTE] No, but it's a lot funnier to say that I am?
[QUOTE=srobins;52239126]No, but it's a lot funnier to say that I am?[/QUOTE] Why say it at all if you aren't?
just read through the whole thread and jesus fucking christ I never expected one of my emoji offerings to be used so much
[QUOTE=DrVivi;52237487]So which diversion story this time? Hillary Emails, Benghazi, or Obama's failure as president, take your pick.[/QUOTE] Well by my calculations​, Julian Assange vs. CIA, season 7, had the Best Ratings. Everyone tuned in.
[QUOTE=DrVivi;52237487]So which diversion story this time? Hillary Emails, Benghazi, or Obama's failure as president, take your pick.[/QUOTE] That the true leaker was a DNC staffer that got killed in a robbery two years ago and he was actually assassinated on Clinton's orders I'm not joking, that's the new story. Some are going so far as to insinuate that the intel scandal is a diversion tactic from [I]​that.[/I]
[QUOTE=Problem;52238915]I'm surprised this many people are toxxing with how much of a shitshow the election toxxing was[/QUOTE] RIP smurfy [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Simplemac3;52239349]That the true leaker was a DNC staffer that got killed in a robbery two years ago and he was actually assassinated on Clinton's orders I'm not joking, that's the new story. Some are going so far as to insinuate that the intel scandal is a diversion tactic from [I]​that.[/I][/QUOTE] Do note that this story has already been debunked. It was wholly fabricated by Fox News.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52239460]RIP smurfy [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] Do note that this story has already been debunked. It was wholly fabricated by Fox News.[/QUOTE] can you show me the proof of the whole thing being fabricated? I don't buy into the original story myself but it'd be really, really nice to have in the next few days
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;52239484]can you show me the proof of the whole thing being fabricated? I don't buy into the story myself but it'd be really, really nice to have in the next few days[/QUOTE] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1564259[/url]
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;52239484]can you show me the proof of the whole thing being fabricated? I don't buy into the original story myself but it'd be really, really nice to have in the next few days[/QUOTE] Theres a whole thread on it: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1564259[/url] [editline]b[/editline] Now look, I've gone and made a post that's redundant. :( [editline]b[/editline] I miss Smurfy.
[QUOTE=Cakebatyr;52239496]Theres a whole thread on it: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1564259[/url] [editline]b[/editline] Now look, I've gone and made a post that's redundant. :([/QUOTE] Pssh, nice try kid. :cool:
Firstly, Mr burying yourself alive, please make sure you make sure you're entirely safe when doing so because I'm pretty sure just a tube to your mouth won't be enough for you to breathe because of pressure and shit. Second, if trump gets impeached can we have Smurfy back?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52239460]RIP smurfy[/QUOTE] When it comes to election toxxing, the one name I'll always think of is Starpluck. What a dumpster fire that whole thing was.
the toxx clause is like the seasonal bushfire of SH/polidicks to keep the ground fertile and fresh, occasionally a toxx-wave flies in and half the forum gets nuked, allowing the young plants to thrive
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52239699]the toxx clause is like the seasonal bushfire of SH/polidicks to keep the ground fertile and fresh, occasionally a toxx-wave flies in and half the forum gets nuked, allowing the young plants to thrive[/QUOTE] Narrated by David Attenborough
[QUOTE=Problem;52238915]I'm surprised this many people are toxxing with how much of a shitshow the election toxxing was[/QUOTE] I like playing with fire and also I feel like the escape clause would be kinda fun to do anyways
Snip
[QUOTE]On Wednesday, Putin denied that Lavrov had shared any intelligence with him or with Russia’s secret service, instead declaring that a “political schizophrenia” had gripped the United States and that it was “eliciting concern” in Russia.[/QUOTE] Hah
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52240036]Hah[/QUOTE] Concern? more like mirth. [url]http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/15/russians-actually-are-laughing-up-their-sleeves-at-the-united-states/[/url] [quote]U.S. democracy may be facing one of its toughest challenges in hundreds of years, but for Russia, this is a time for heaping servings of schadenfreude. After decades of hectoring from Washington on issues such as unfair elections, a clampdown on the press, and widespread corruption, Moscow is happily watching chaos and scandal embroil the Trump administration. The more lawless Washington appears, the more Russians are howling with laughter. When Trump tweeted last week that Russians must be “laughing up their sleeves” at the United States, he wasn’t wrong, exactly — though the target of Russian laughter might not be quite what the U.S. president thinks.[/quote] [quote]In Moscow, requests for Trump lookalikes at parties and private events have been flooding in, according to several impersonator-for-hire agencies contacted by Foreign Policy. “So many people have asked for Trump that it may be time to add him to the list,” said Maksim Chadkov, director of sales at Artist.ru, which has a database of more than 13,000 actors, lookalikes, and musicians, including doubles of Michael Jackson, Marilyn Monroe, and a slew of Russian pop stars. “We’ll show him in a funny light, as a parody. No one wants to take him seriously.” But it isn’t just comedy programs. A remarkable number of jokes at America’s expense are coming from official Russian sources. Last week, in a subplot to the Comey firing, Russia’s state-run TASS news agency was allowed in the Oval Office to photograph the meeting among Trump, Lavrov, and Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak — while the U.S. press was excluded. After the meeting, the Russian Embassy in Washington used the social networking service Storify to create a tongue-in-cheek “caption contest” for one of the TASS photos: a large image of Trump shaking hands with Kislyak. Meanwhile, the White House fumed at the Russians’ public release of the photos, which Washington claimed were for official use only.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52239494][URL]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1564259[/URL][/QUOTE] Can you specify where that article shows that FOX fabricated the story? It seems to, at most, be a misunderstanding of Wheeler's comments, although it does cite another anonymous source, and you guys seem to love those. Do you have proof that the anonymous source is faked?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52240945]Can you specify where that article shows that FOX fabricated the story? It seems to, at most, be a misunderstanding of Wheeler's comments, although it does cite another anonymous source, and you guys seem to love those. Do you have proof that the anonymous source is faked?[/QUOTE] In the case of articles by Reuters/The Washington Post/NYT anonymous sources will have been verified by several levels of management and are a valid way of breaking important stories which otherwise would never be able to be broken. Please can people stop acting like someone just dropped an email saying "hey, this thing, please report, trust me" and they did.
[QUOTE]In the case of articles by Reuters/The Washington Post/NYT anonymous sources will have been verified by several levels of management and are a valid way of breaking important stories which otherwise would never be able to be broken. Please can people stop acting like someone just dropped an email saying "hey, this thing, please report, trust me" and they did.[/QUOTE] You have no way of knowing how verified anonymous sources are. That's the whole point. All you can do is trust the source.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52241076]You have no way of knowing how verified anonymous sources are. That's the whole point. All you can do is trust the source.[/QUOTE] One of my parents worked for Reuters for a long time so I'm aware of their internal process for verifying sources, thanks. Like do you genuinely believe a massive news organisation who make money from being probably the definition of credible journalism are going to just post sources without properly corroborating them? [QUOTE]Reuters uses anonymous sources when we believe they are providing accurate, reliable and newsworthy information that we could not obtain any other way. Unnamed sources must have direct knowledge of the information they are giving us, or must represent an authority with direct knowledge. Stories based on anonymous sources require particularly rigorous cross-checking. We should normally have two or three sources for such information. Stories based on a single, anonymous source should be the exception and require approval by an immediate supervisor, such as a bureau chief or editor in charge. The supervisor must be satisfied that the source is authoritative. (Supervisors may give approval in advance to experienced senior correspondents working with authoritative sources to ensure we remain competitive on timings.) If there are any questions about a single-source story, the supervisor should escalate the matter to Top News or regional editors, or [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alix_M._Freedman]Alix Freedman.[/url][/QUOTE] [url=http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=The_Essentials_of_Reuters_sourcing]The Essentials of Reuters sourcing[/url] Also note that this story almost certainly went through the process mentioned in the final point because of how high profile it was.
[media]https://twitter.com/ReutersPolitics/status/864911655611891712[/media]
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52241203][media]https://twitter.com/ReutersPolitics/status/864911655611891712[/media][/QUOTE] EDIT: when he posted it wasn't showing up and the link was dead.
That he will testify. They deleted it and corrected it
[QUOTE=sgman91;52240945]Can you specify where that article shows that FOX fabricated the story? It seems to, at most, be a misunderstanding of Wheeler's comments, although it does cite another anonymous source, and you guys seem to love those. Do you have proof that the anonymous source is faked?[/QUOTE] In a best case scenario, Fox was [I]incredibly[/I] irresponsible in their handling of this story, having failed to verify or cross check any of the information reported in any capacity before making it their day-long headlining story. More realistically, given Fox's long history of misconduct, dishonesty, and unethical reporting practices, they intentionally misrepresented the facts of the case in order to provide the propaganda needed to distract from and discredit the major breaking news story relating to Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russian government officials in a closed door meeting from which US press were banned. This is evidenced by the primary source of the supposed information stating that the claims being reported on originated from Fox News journalists, and that the quotes used to support the story of the DNC staffer's wikileaks communications were taken out of context or otherwise misunderstood or misrepresented. Fox is guilty in this. One way or another, they fucked up [B]big[/B] time in using intentionally twisted and/or extremely poorly verified news in a blatant attempt to protect their political horse from a major national scandal, and they got caught in the act. You really cannot be defending this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.