That was a great belly laugh! You kill me! Thanks for lightening up my day.Membership in the ethnofacist defense force.
Greenwald: State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer
Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality.
...
Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people...
That was a great belly laugh! You kill me! Thanks for lightening up my day.
Greenwald: State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer
Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality.
...
Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people...
First, Cohen presenting his passport to whom? All I've seen are Cohen's denial and Priebus vouching for him. Even modest critical thinking should make it clear that their denials are not terribly credible. Raise the bar on yourself.So in light of Cohen presenting his passport as evidence do you actually still think that there's a real possibility that he actually met with Russian operatives in Prague?
The point that Trump is missing in his claim of "fake news" is that neither CNN nor Buzzfeed (who broke the story) reported the allegations in the dossier as being true. Their stories were about the dossier's existence and both made clear they were unable to verify its claims. News reporting of the dossier's existence isn't "fake news" since the dossier exists. Given that the dossier has been in the hands of the US intelligence services and politicians for several months and that its contents were included in briefings given to Trump and Obama there is clear public interest in publishing news of its existence and contents (with the appropriate caveats).
I'm not adverse to an investigation if the evidence warrants...however I will say that the evidence looks mighty shaky and this has all the markings of a witch hunt intended to smear and effectively delegitimize our president elect imo.First, Cohen presenting his passport to whom? All I've seen are Cohen's denial and Priebus vouching for him. Even modest critical thinking should make it clear that their denials are not terribly credible. Raise the bar on yourself.
That said, I don't know whether Trump's Cohen went to Prague or not. That seems like one of the things the IC may investigate. Based on CNN reporting (yes, the same CNN Donnie keeps attacking), the Michael Cohen in the intel dossier is NOT the same Michael Cohen who's Trump's lawyer, but is instead a mix-up with another Cohen who's a citizen of another country. Assuming this isn't CNN "fake news," that means it wasn't Trump's Cohen in Prague.
Ha! You even used his language!I'm not adverse to an investigation if the evidence warrants...however I will say that the evidence looks mighty shaky and this has all the markings of a witch hunt intended to smear and effectively delegitimize our president elect imo.
Note that what's happened here works against what you're saying. People aren't reporting about some dossier that the public will never see (birther shit), but actually reporting on something everyone can see.There were supposed documents proving that Obama was born in Kenya which never materialized. Is it not fake news to report "While we don't know if these documents are real, we're going to keep talking about them on the chance that they are"?
Did you even read the OP or the first few pages of this thread? At the time it was even alleged that these documents were the same ones that inspired accusations by Harry Reid and others of there being strong evidence of Trump's involvement with Russia, just weeks before the election. If it turns out that these documents were the same alleged evidence used to make Trump bad in early November, do you not see the implications of a supposedly reputable news organization throwing that around, even if coated with asterisks?
Note that what's happened here works against what you're saying. People aren't reporting about some dossier that the public will never see (birther shit), but actually reporting on something everyone can see.
Note that what's happened here works against what you're saying. People aren't reporting about some dossier that the public will never see (birther shit), but actually reporting on something everyone can see.
And yet, still miles away from documents that only exist in the minds of zealots and fools.CNN reported before BuzzFeed leaked the documents, and as I just said, if these are the same documents (summary or full) that led to allegations just prior to the election, then that means these have been reported on for months now.
I'm not adverse to an investigation if the evidence warrants...however I will say that the evidence looks mighty shaky and this has all the markings of a witch hunt intended to smear and effectively delegitimize our president elect imo.
Calling it fake news is a disservice to yourself.Yes, we know the fake news is trending. Twitter enjoyed it.
And yet, still miles away from documents that only exist in the minds of zealots and fools.
Calling it fake news is a disservice to yourself.
Yes, we know the fake news is trending. Twitter enjoyed it.
You seem to be making the rules about this sort of thing. I'm just pointing out distinctions.What are the metrics and cut-off to determine when unverified, potentially libelous documents are legit to talk about?
Have the docs been discredited as fraudulent/lies? Have not seen that anywhere... last I checked everything is being verified/investigated.Printing "Obama is a dog" and then reporting on the existence of that "document", still makes it fake news.
The underlying basis has no factual reality. The entire premise is a fraud.
You simply stand here to defend the reporting of something that you know is a lie.
And I just demonstrated, those lies are now publicly trending.
Printing "Obama is a dog" and then reporting on the existence of that "document", still makes it fake news.
The underlying basis has no factual reality. The entire premise is a fraud.
You simply stand here to defend the reporting of something that you know is a lie.
And I just demonstrated, those lies are now publicly trending.
You seem to be making the rules about this sort of thing. I'm just pointing out distinctions.
Unless the news story is: here's an unverified report.There's nothing wrong with talking about apples and oranges if the subject matter is fruit. Your distinctions are meaningless in the context of news stories built on shady, unverified reports.
I sure am glad the left is too smart to be misled by fake news. Oh wait a minute, they are the on'es that ran with the bait after swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.