CNN Reports Fake News Once Again - No Biggie?
CNN’s Jim Sciutto is in hot water for an anti-Trump report which the CIA and the White House condemned and deny.
Jim Sciutto is under fire after the Central Intelligence Agency condemned his report that aired yesterday. The report claimed the CIA was forced to extract a CIA spy from Russia due to PresidentTrump's carelessness with handling classified information. CNN reported that the CIA pulled a source from Russia in 2017, in part out of concern that the Trump administration had mishandled classified intelligence, and could put the spy in danger.
The CIA came quickly with a statement, calling the story "misguided" and simply false".
CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement.
"CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false.”
The CIA rebuke came as The New York Times and the Washington Post published a bombshell pieces late in the evening last night, which largely contradicted CNN's reporting as false. According to the Times, CIA officials "made the arduous decision in late 2016 to offer to extract the source in question from Russia" — weeks before Trump even took office. Stating, the report has no truth to it." Yet today CNN downplays the report and has not offered a retraction.
Sciutto report -- https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/politics … index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-jim-sciutto-cia
It appears the story was not vetted properly. Yet this story reached the ears of millions of CNN viewers.
It well appears CNN has gone past just twisting verbiage, and is now just making it up as they go...
Does this type of media reporting qualify as propaganda?Hi Sharlee, I am not quite ready to agree with your premise, yet. But, there does seem to be room for doubt.
I took a look around and all I could find were sources repeating the gist of the CNN, NYT, and Wapo articles. But it is early days yet. We will see what develops.
Since, whether the facts are correct or not, the Fox article used words, (verbiage in your world), and adjectives that displayed an obvious bias, and because they were mentioned as sources discrediting the CNN report, here are a couple more relative links:
New York Times: C.I.A. Informant Extracted From Russia Had Sent Secrets to U.S. for Decades
Washington Post: U.S. got key asset out of Russia following election hacking
It seems the key criticism against CNN's reported conclusion that the extraction was a result of Pres. Trump's behavior is the "fact(?)" that the first extraction effort was made in 2016 - long before Pres. Trump's time.
Another criticism is the very unusual CIA criticism of a news outlet's reporting. But, I think this point is a bit squishy. Maybe it's true or maybe it occurred because the truth hit close to home. *shrug
Either way, it is an interesting topic, and I think CNN's credibility, (yes, some folks view them as a credible source), is on the line. I don't think this will be allowed to just fade away.
CNN has doubled-down in support of the report, so now everyone, (WaPo, NYT, etc.), has skin in the game.
As they say . . . Stay tuned, don't touch that dial.
GAGA, I appreciate your cautious view. I am glad you made mention of the difficulty in finding information on this story. The three mentioned sources were the only ones I could find, and all had very similar content. And yes Fox's coverage of the story leans bias. Although, Fox quote sources, CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell, as well as White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham. CNN lacks sources.
As of late, I have witnessed many media reports that sound an alarm and quickly disappeared. Leaving me to wonder how much truth was in the report or how little? I also agree this story may not go away as quickly as CNN may hope it will. Fox is just sinking their teeth into it and has not shaken it yet.
I find it interesting CNN is still running with it, and I find this odd? I think with the CIA claiming the report untrue it looks bad for CNN at this point. Although in today hysterical political climate media networks are not being held to previous standards of good journalism.
You can bet I will be flipping channels this evening...GA, As I stated, no biggie... CNN has moved on to concentrate on 9/11. Pointing out how President Trump is handling the tragedy of 9/11 poorly. Last night CNN concentrated on Pointing out Trump's comments in regard to his feelings on his lagging polls.
Once again CNN airs a false story, that I might add may have consequences for the person that was removed from his assignment in Russia. Plus, the story in question was viewed by many, and today many believe the story to be true. And CNN drops it like a cold potato. No retraction, no apology. Just moves on to a new petty story about the president. Fox covered the story with good detail, quoting actual sources. This is one reason more viewers turn to Fox.
So, propaganda or not?The Trump I grew up with always lies and then back pedals. He uses people but not until he has all the dirt on them just in case they do not bow down to his every need.
Why do you think Bannon is a nothing burger now? Or why he suddenly changed his tune about Michael Cohen?
Bias is what he feasts on. I want to know who this "Trump BASE" is that everyone is so afraid of. What are their names? Why hide behind false narratives and Trump propaganda?
This is no longer about partisan ideology. It is about the future of our country and our democracy. I defy Sharlee or anyone who claims to be an American to try and defend the obstruction of justice and abuse of power they so freely allow Trump but for 8 solid years, refused to allow Obama an inch of freedom.,
How is that NOT bias?True GA, the left despises corruption and lies, the right doesn't care about such trivial things.
When you allow a foreign leader to interfere in our government, you are breaking the law. What about that do you not get?
I am not fooled by why Trump is so far up Russia's butt. He went nearly broke by the late 90s and defaulted on 6 bank loans. He needed money desperately to pay off the $22 million he owed. He is not well known for paying what he owes. We call that Grifting.
Trump owes Russian oligarchs in his never ending business deals that resemble the kind of deals John Gotti and other mobsters have made and gone to prison for.
So he so obviously is terrified that it will go public as to the billions he owes Russian oligarchs. At least 5 of whom I can name easily and all are part of Putin's top echelon of power.,
How stupid is the left not to realize that by handing over the Ukraine to Putin, it returns to being The Soviet Union Putin so lusts for and it also wipes out Trump's debts to Russian oligarchs,
Don't bother to deny. There are 4400 former Trump employees and dozens of contractors Trump never paid right here in NJ. Is that the kind of man you want in the White House? A criminal mobster who makes offers they can't refuse under threat of using our tax dollars to ransom his winning in 2020?Randy, yes it is apparent the left care about corruption and lies. However, they just don't slow down to see what's true. The right does care about corruption and lies but wants to make sure the corruption happened, and the lies really lie. It comes down to one jumps the gun one just is not willing to unless they see facts. Jut not nice to condemn without proof. It leaves the door open for anyone to be accused of anything.
The media retracts storys almost daily, our congress condemns with hearsay evidence without taking the time to really investigate before leaving the impression crimes have been committed. We the people are doing much the same... Just not acceptable.
No it is not. Are Dems the only ones who represent us who are willing to address abuse of power? Are they the only ones who will address conflict of interest? Are they the only ones who will address obstruction of justice?
It is bias to have representatives who see blatant abuse of the US Constitution?
We have ALL the evidence the 2016 election was hacked to help Trump. It is now well documented. Who squashed it and shoved it under the rug but biased right wing control freaks?
The left are not about to allow Trump to use our tax dollars as ransom to smear his political opponents to ensure a 2020 election win.
In case you missed it, he has NO right to use our tax dollars for HIS re-election campaign. It is ILLEGAL. What is biased about that?
Trump is playing a very dangerous game right now where anyone who dares call him to accountability is "biased?" Even when they swear an oath to tell the truth to judges? How is that bias?
Sorry but if your version of bias allows a man so guilty that his only excuse for existence is to try and make others look as guilty as he is, then you need to rethink what bias really is.
By your estimation of bias, it was bias of Guiliani when he was with the SDNY to dare to try and prosecute Gotti, Salerno and Giganti.
Toilet paper is not biased. It is manufactured by liberals, righties, lefties and you need it and can't make it through life without it. Get a clue.
This is not about politics. It is about preserving our democracy as the Founding Fathers created it.
Get up the noses of the wrong Yankees and you get a Great Depression when we withdraw our tax dollars from federal funding that goes to 37 GOP states. That's not a clawback threat. It is already happening.
We are not a Republican country. Give Trump another 4 years and he will demand the right to a 3rd term if there is anything left of government by then.Don't hold back ewent, how do you really feel about Pres. Trump
GAI think Trump is the greatest President in the history of this great nation, and will bring America to prominence and greatness never seen before, he will forever end the efforts of globalists to undermine the Constitution, and five years from now, when his second term comes to an end, I will happily vote for his daughter Ivanka, who will become the first woman President, and she will continue his glorious work!
I couldn't possibly agree more. I'll go a step further though. These past few years have brought me to a complete decision. I shall never in my life vote for a Democrat. In fact, no matter what, I will vote against that party.
Thing is, I think that party will be gone soon. From its ashes, the bits and pieces of it which were ever worth having, will have to be reassembled into a decent center-left party.Yep. Of course the Biden family are swamp creatures. Total deep state.
No the Biden family is NOT. He served in the military while Commander Bone Spurs got Daddy to pay for deferrals and a doctor who rigged his bone spurs diagnoses.
Live in NJ and support Trump and see how fast those 4400 employees he refused to pay will rip you a new one. Or the dozens of contractors he refused to pay who now want to do a Jimmy Hoffa on him.
He is dirty. Don't post references unless they are unbiased sources. I am an unbiased source because I am now paying off those 6 NJ bankruptcies your hero dumped on my state.
There is no way we Yankees will allow wild west Trump supporters whose states get back $2 and more for every $1 you pay in federal taxes while we get a lousy 72 cents, think again.
Your states are moochers and we are about to drop our federal funding. WE don't get more than 72 cents anyway. Why support lazy bums in trigger happy and moocher states whose pollution costs us big time to keep our states healthy.
There are witnesses who plan to testify that Trump is lying about Biden. Biden was an elected official directed by President Obama to go to the Ukraine.
And as for Biden's son, he did nothing illegal that Iskunka and her two idiot brothers are not doing right from the White House.
Enough with this hypocrisy. We know why you are willing to support a low life scraped out of the Queens NY gutter. He is so guilty as all of you are of violating the rule of law in this country that you think if you smear innocent people, they'll look as low and guilty as you do.
Never ever tell anyone from NY or NJ about Trump. His legacy of dirt goes back to his being thrown out of public school at age 6.The Biden family is the poster family for corruption, he makes Trump look like he's from the minor leagues in comparison.
https://nypost.com/2019/05/11/the-troub … -on-china/
https://pjmedia.com/trending/did-biden- … the-board/
https://canadafreepress.com/article/bid … in-ukraineI'm unaware of any Trump corruption to speak of. Biden? OMG. He was Obama's VP, and Obama was the worst POTUS in our nation's history, next to maybe W. Bush.
I'd avoid replying to feminazis. But it can be fun to watch them explode.I am not unaware of his corruption and neither is anyone else in NY or NJ. Are you unaware he can no longer collect donations for charities because he used the money he, Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric collected for personal reasons?
Did you miss his signature on the bottom of that Account dispersal report where he listed over a dozen charities he claimed but didn't donate those collected funds to? Not corruption? Oh no?
Then, what about the fact that Trump University was shut down for fraud. Read and weep from Wikipedia: "Trump University was also the subject of two class actions in federal court. The lawsuits centered around allegations that Trump University defrauded its students by using misleading marketing practices and engaging in aggressive sales tactics. The company and the lawsuits against it received renewed interest due to Trump's candidacy in the 2016 presidential election. Despite repeatedly insisting that he would not settle, Trump settled all three lawsuits in November 2016 for a total of $25 million after being elected to the presidency."
Now, get this and get it straight. Trump is a master of corruption and has been for decades. It's only those NY City mobster lawyers of his that finds more loopholes to keep him from prison.
We do NOT allow any president to use our tax dollars to force a foreign leader to help him get elected. He got away with it as a candidate in 2016 but he will NOT get away with it a 2nd time.
He swore an oath to protect the US Constitution and has violated that oath as was proven by the Mueller Report and his own admission of using the Ukranian president to get dirt on Biden.
What will you Trump supporters do when witnesses come forward? Claim they are all fakes? Is everything a fake to all of you? Wake up.
He is going to be impeached. There is no president who is allowed to benefit from our tax dollars by using them to get dirt on a political opponent. That is ILLEGAL.Can you show us in the US constitution where it says a president cannot ever be investigated, prosecuted for wrong doing or jailed even for murder?
Show it or stop posting BS.
Obama is respected around the world. NO one but deplorables respect Trump and they do it for the same reason he tries to smear others. They are as guilty of illegalities as Trump.
]You are unaware. No surprise there. Most ignorant people play that card when they can't face the truth about themselves.
Going to call your bluff legally. Name the courts or judges who have found Biden or his son guilty. Name them or stop posting lies.
You do realize that when men who are so guilty look to lob guilt on the innocent, it only proves they can't face themselves.
Joe Biden served in the military. He didn't play golf every weekend while claiming he had bone spurs.
His son Hunter was a private citizen as entitled to carry on business while he father was VP. Iskunka, DonCon Jr. and Tricky Ricky have all had priors when they spent donation money they collected for charities and used it for personal spending.
Do you need to be reminded that Joe Biden's son Hunter registered with the US when he did business in the Ukraine and that Trump sucks up to Putin at every possible opportunity? Even to allowing Manafort to be Trump's campaign adviser when Trump KNEW Manafort did not register his business with Russia with the state dept?
Don't ever try to tell anyone from NJ about Trump. He is pure slime. How is it you people in these other states do not know who and what Trump is?
People in NY and NJ laugh at all of your ignorance of Trump's decades of fraud, refusing to pay what he owes to others, money laundering and you want to throw the Biden under a bus?
Better work a lot harder pallie. You've got a long, long, long way to go before you can EVER make Biden look as dirty as the Dirt Bag in chief.
"Thing is, I think that party will be gone soon."
I'm not sure I can agree with this - the virtually unlimited greed and willingness to take from others for what we want but don't want to pay for will likely continue and grow. We are producing a whole generation (or more) of people that feel they are entitled to whatever they want at someone else's expense, simply because they exist and are alive. That is what the party panders to, and the party continually works on growing the concept rather than insisting we are all responsible for ourselves.I agree, the Democrats may implode, but what comes out of the ashes will not be a "decent center-left party".
That's my feeling. Socialism grows from greed and far too few people understand (or care) about the dangers inherent in the concept.
Well to be fair, socialism/communism only gains hold under certain economic situations.
The biggest of which is economic hardship on the majority of the populace combined with an out of touch elitist ruling class.
We have the out of touch elitist ruling class, which is being transformed from corrupt politicians grabbing up as much money as they can while giving lip service to the people they are selling out, to extremists and socialists being elected and becoming mainstream.
What is needed now is an economic crisis to push the working class into being desperate enough to accept the most unthinkable and evil acts of government to be allowed... which isn't possible at the moment while Trump is invigorating economic growth in America.
I believe their plan right now is to create a massive collapse on Wall St. which will wipe out pension plans, retirement savings, force corporations into bankruptcy, force massive layoffs and closures... this is currently being put into play by the Federal Reserve funneling hundreds of billions to the banks on a nightly basis, as we speak. They in turn are investing these 'free' billions from the FR into the stock market forcing prices ever higher. So that when they pull out these hundreds of billions a few months from now, it will collapse the system, Trump will be voted out, and an extremist/socialist form of government will be able to take hold.Socialism? You mean like 37 Republican moocher states living off federal funding from 13 DEM donor states?
Don't talk about socialism when our Dem states are supporting socialists of the Republican states.
Actually, given the temper of the country right now? You will get the female president you boys so hotly tried to keep in the hands of the frat boys club.
The Republican Party condones: 1. money laundering. 2. allowing Russian and foreign influence in our elections. 3. billionaires to destroy what our Founding Fathers fought to stop: a dicktator like Trump. 4. using our tax dollars to help an incumbent in the White House to elect himself BY himself.
5. smearing political opponents with lies and distortions of facts.
And what will you do when witnesses come forward proving Trump is lying Biden? You right wing tripper happy supporters of that Maggot spent 12 years and $22 MILLION on Whitewater and came up empty handed and NOW in 2019, the chief Whitewater prosecutor, Ken Starr admitted on FOX, CNN and MSNBC, that Whitewater was a "sham."
Sorry but get up the noses of us Yankees keeping those wilderness moocher states in our tax dollars and we just claw all federal funding back so you have to work as hard as we do and have to use your STATE taxes instead of mooching off our hard earned federal tax revenues.
Now I understand your fury and why you blasted Credence out of the blue with names such as fanatical, lunacy and hysterics.
You may be voting via an Attica Prison warden. That is where we in NJ and NY want him and that is where we will see to it he goes. It figures the wild west lawless Dodge City types think law is for others.
What kind of half-hearted support is this Ken? What's all this defeatist talk about Trump's presidency ending five years from now? Trump will be supreme leader forever, sir! You are right about one thing though. After him, his children will continue his glorious reign. Then his grandchildren. Supreme Leader Trump's dynasty will be everlasting. I'm a little disappointed you show such lack of belief Ken.
America may be ready for a dynasty. Clinton tried it and Bush did it.
The handwriting is on the wall. We're going to have to remodel the White House into an aquarium for Spongebob and his kinfolk from the ocean.Not on MY tax dollars will there EVER be a dynasty. Aren't you forgetting that taxpayers have a voice in the government?
Might I suggest that you rural remote unregulated trigger happy militia boys get REAL jobs that will pay enough state taxes so your states don't have to live off our tax dollars?
Oh come on now, open your mind...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AkbfmMNVP8I wonder how much Putin pays these days for right wing propaganda that is so ignorant and dumb no one falls for it.
I'm with you Ken, but I don't think you're fully committed to the cause. You suggested Supreme Leader Trump (blessings be upon him) will reign for only 5 years. Are you some kind of weird Lefty?! Supreme Leader Trump's reign will continue until he transcends this mortal realm and goes up to heaven to be with the angels and the baby Jesus. Then his children and grandchildren will continue his legacy, and his glorious dynasty will have no end. Anyone who's not on board with that is an enemy of the people and of God. Are you on board Ken? I hope you are. I'd hate for your name to be put on the list.
Dream on teenage king. Not going to happen. We have LAWS in this country. If you don't obey the laws, you go to jail. That IS where Trump is going.
When he threatens a whistleblower by saying, "It's too bad we don't do what we used to do to spies,..." The Whistleblower is NOT a spy.
That Maggot has the gall to use a private coded server intended ONLY for national security purposes to hide his phone calls? And you don't think that's treason?
He doesn't have the authority to silence anyone in this country. As for Iskunka, Don Jr and Tricky Ricky, they go down with him, Barr, Pence, Pompeo and Ratface Guiliani.
Guiliani is Trump's personal lawyer. Not an appointed US diplomat. He had NO business talking to the Ukranian president.
Time for you wild west cowboys to face the fact that WE in the 13 donor states WILL demand our elected officials cut off ALL of that 37 moocher state funding you live on. Who cares if your traitor states go belly up?
I have to agree. President Trump is a kind of phenomenon that has left some just not believing what he has been able to do, all while dodging bullets. Many just are not willing to accept his job performance. I have a hard time comprehending why the hell those that preceded him did so little?
Sorry, off-topic I know, but let me get this straight:
We had a credible source inside the Kremlin who told us Putin "orchestrated" the operation to sabotage the Presidential election, and that Putin "affirmatively favored Donald J. Trump’s election and personally ordered the hacking of the Democratic National Committee".
And Trump was briefed on the Russian interference "including material from the prized informant" two weeks before his inauguration.
So Trump new intelligence that Russia interfered with the election came from within the Kremlin itself, yet he still chose to repeatedly cast doubt on that fact, including a statement in Helsinki in which he effectively said he believed Putin more than his own intelligence agencies, before later backtracking.
I don't mean to interrupt the CNN-bashing, but surely that's the key takeaway here, is it not?No, relative to the thread topic, that is not the key take-away. It may be a valid "take-away" in Russian interference discussions, but it doesn't have much to do with this thread.
However, it would be a refreshing take-away to resurrect the issue for some of those doubters in the Russian interference threads.
Sort of an Aha! Told you so!
GA"No, relative to the thread topic, that is not the key take-away"
I agree, relative to the thread topic, which is why I said "Sorry, off-topic I know . . ."
I do find the question being asked in this thread a bit ridiculous though.
Let's assume, for sake of argument, CNN is wrong on the specific detail in question. The thread author wants to know if we think that means CNN is engaging in propaganda, apparently by deliberately mis-reporting things other news sources have already reported on in a way that is contradictory (evidently CNN is not very good at propaganda).
Ok that's one possibility. Another is that the (currently assumed) error in reporting is, on balance, likely the result of conflicting information from sources, human error, plain old sloppy journalism, a failure of editorial process, or some other mundane issue that affects all new organizations. Most likely though it's a combination of a few of those things.
So why has the thread author seemingly not considered that as a sensible, reasonable explanation?
At this point, am I expected to ignore the fact that the author of this thread is a self-confessed Trump supporter, and that Trump has described CNN as "the enemy of the people"?
Am I expected to ignore the fact that some people show a fanatical desire to further Trump's agenda, and this thread is very likely (wittingly or not) an example of that?
Am I supposed to ignore all that GA, and treat this as a genuine question asked in good faith by someone who wants a meaningful discussion, even though 30 seconds of serious thought would allow a reasonable person to conclude what the most likely explanation is?"Ok that's one possibility. Another is that the (currently assumed) error in reporting is, on balance, likely the result of conflicting information from sources, human error, plain old sloppy journalism, a failure of editorial process, or some other mundane issue that affects all new organizations. Most likely though it's a combination of a few of those things."
That is the thought I would go with. But, whether correctly understood or not, I took the OP to be an effort to show bias. That is a point I agree with, whether it is this story or another.
It is still an "if," but if your noted reasons are correct, then the first question would be why? Why were the vetting and sourcing not up to par? If the reason is bias-driven, that might validate the point of the OP.
Was it fake news? Propaganda? Those are personal determinations, but even the author noted the same point you did:
"It appears the story was not vetted properly. Yet this story reached the ears of millions of CNN viewers."
I think she has a point.
I also think she made another good point, why haven't we heard more about this from CNN? If the report is true, it is not a small matter.
Are they comfortable with their reporting and don't see a need to further prove it, or would they rather it just be forgotten?
GAThere is currently no objective evidence that confirms CNN's reporting of this story is inaccurate; only conflicting reports from different news outlets. To be clear I'm not saying it is or is not, I'm saying the most we can reasonably say is that we currently don't know.
Propaganda, as I understand it, means deliberately misleading people to further an agenda. If there was some objective evidence that CNN's reporting was incorrect (or if CNN admitted it was) that would not be sufficient evidence to reasonably claim it was an attempt to deliberately mislead people. I think the causes I outlined are the most likely, and they represent an occupational hazard for all news organizations, not just CNN.
How many corrections/ retractions does CNN issue relative to other news organizations? What is the rate of corrections/ retractions per hours of content broadcast/ or words published for CNN compared to other news organizations?
Even with this information, we could only conclude that CNN has a higher, similar, or lower rate of corrections etc. than other organizations. The reasons for those outcomes would remain speculation, absent additional evidence.
So on the face of it, the question in the opening comment is loaded (it presupposes CNN's reporting is wrong - see thread title) but my familiarity with the author's comments in other threads, also leads me to believe the question itself is driven by pro-Trump bias rather than any objective evidence of fault on CNN's part, so I am even less inclined to take it seriously."There is currently no objective evidence that confirms CNN's reporting of this story is inaccurate; only conflicting reports from different news outlets. To be clear I'm not saying it is or is not, I'm saying the most we can reasonably say is that we currently don't know."
Fact --- Jim Sciutto is under fire after the Central Intelligence Agency condemned his report that aired yesterday. The report claimed the CIA was forced to extract a CIA spy from Russia due to PresidentTrump's carelessness with handling classified information.
Fact ---not conjecture... You claim "There is currently no objective evidence," CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement. CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply FALSE... I am I to believe you do not accept Bramell's statement? The CIA very rarely offers media any form of statement. NN as of yet has not retracted the story, and they won't. This piece of fake news will be gobbled up by many. People that prefer to believe anything negative about the president. This false story will be regurgitated by many as factual time and time again.
In regards to CNN's record on retractions. They very rarely offer a retraction. As I stated CNN report information with little vetting, millions hear the report and run with it. They have served their purpose, which could be seen as spreading propaganda.
"So on the face of it, the question in the opening comment is loaded (it presupposes CNN's reporting is wrong - see thread title) but my familiarity with the author's comments in other threads, also leads me to believe the question itself is driven by pro-Trump bias rather than any objective evidence of fault on CNN's part, so I am even less inclined to take it seriously."
I am pro-truth, and if I see a subject being skewed I do jump in a conversation and make an attempt to give an alternate opinion. I am straight forward, and try to respect others opinions when possible. I don't dance around a subject, and ever ignore facts. In the
I think my opening blurb provided the truth. I provided names of sources and quoted those sources. I am unsure of why you dismiss the CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell response to the CNN report. I am not sure why you find the title in some way loaded? CNN reported a false unvetted story, and you have thoroughly proved my title relevant. You choose to ignore facts and blaming me for presenting a pro-Trump bias. I provided facts. And you dismissed thee facts as "NO BIGGIE"
CNN Reports Fake News Once Again - No Biggie?"The report claimed the CIA was forced to extract a CIA spy from Russia due to PresidentTrump's carelessness with handling classified information".
*sigh*
No it did not. It reported that someone directly involved in the discussion said that was the case:
"A person directly involved in the discussions said that the removal of the Russian was driven, in part, by concerns that President Donald Trump and his administration repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy".
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/09/poli … index.html
Do you have objective evidence demonstrating that CNN's source was not directly involved with the discussion, or that CNN misreported what its source said?
"CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement . . ."
The quote from the CIA does not help you. The CIA director of public affairs simply mis-characterizes the allegation as "CNN's narrative" in the same way you have in this thread:
"Asked for comment, Brittany Bramell, the CIA director of public affairs, told CNN: 'CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false...'"
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/09/poli … index.html
That's not "CNN's narrative". CNN is reporting an allegation made by one of its sources, not making the allegation. And that's not even the main story. The main story is the fact that the US extracted a top spy from inside Russia in 2017, as indicated by the headline of the story:
"US extracted a top spy from inside Russia in 2017".
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/09/poli … index.html
As part of that story it also reported the fact that a source "...directly involved in the discussions..." made an allegation about what contributed to the decision to extract an intelligence asset. You have no objective evidence that CNN's source did not make that allegation.
Also, the fact CNN asked the CIA for comment on the allegation, then directly quoted the CIA's emphatic denial of that allegation (which includes implicit criticism of CNN) is not the action of an organization deliberately trying to mislead, which makes the loaded question about CNN "propaganda" even more ridiculous.
If it turns out there was no source, or the source was misrepresented, or not directly involved in the relevant discussions as claimed, then calling CNN's reporting inaccurate would be fair criticism (though it still would not be evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead).
However, criticizing CNN because Fox News (which you linked to in the opening comment) and the administration, have falsely characterized the story as "CNN's narrative", is not fair criticism. It's just nonsense.
"In regards to CNN's record on retractions. They very rarely offer a retraction."
If you don't know the proportion of CNN news stories proven to be false, relative to other news organizations (and clearly you don't) then how do you know if CNN has a better or worse rate? Sure we can all speculate, but you don't know for sure do you. What exactly is your belief that CNN is worse based on, apart from the fact Trump said CNN is the "enemy of the people".
"I am pro-truth"
I'm sure you think you are. Nevertheless, the question you asked in the opening comment is loaded. It presuppose CNN's reporting is incorrect, which for reasons explained above has not been established.
Likewise, there is a pattern of behavior where Trump tries to discredit any
report critical of him or the administration. By presupposing CNN has falsely reported something against Trump, you are (wittingly or not) furthering that agenda. That is not "pro-truth".We certainly have difference in opinion in regards to this story. I believe the CIA representative, and am not afraid to say CNN provides propaganda frequently.
I think you should check out the New York Times story as well as the Washington post before you continue on your crusade.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/p … ussia.html
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinion … ons-leaks/
"The extraordinary CIA rebuke came as The New York Times published a bombshell piece late in the evening, which largely contradicted CNN's reporting. According to the Times, CIA officials "made the arduous decision in late 2016 to offer to extract the source from Russia" — weeks before Trump even took office."
CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement. "CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false,"
Misguided speculation that the President's handling of our nation's most sensitive intelligence — which he has access to each and every day — drove an alleged exfiltration operation is inaccurate."
he could not have been more clear...
I am not willing to waste any further energy on debating this subject. It's very clear we disagree. I follow facts, you follow maybes...CNN is reporting an allegation made by one of its sources, not making the allegation. Try to understand the difference.
Likewise the NYT does not conclude CNN is wrong, it simply reports what it's own sources said: "But former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. Trump directly endangered the source . . ."
(note the qualifier of "public" evidence).
Still, all we have are conflicting accounts from various sources, and no objective evidence confirming which is accurate. Simply put, you have no idea which account of events is true.
The Washington Post article is an opinion piece (by a Trump apologist no less) not a news article. It has no more weight in terms of accuracy than anything written on this forum.
"I am not willing to waste any further energy on debating this subject."
Then why did you ask for people's opinion on a public forum?
This is why I struggle to take these types of threads seriously. The main contentions are often laughably easy to thoroughly debunk, and when someone does, suddenly the thread author doesn't want to "waste" their time discussing it, even though they initiated the discussion.
And no, certain things are not just a "difference of opinion". It is a matter of fact that CNN reported a claim, but did not make the claim. It is a matter of fact that the NYT reported what its own sources said, but did not conclude CNN's reporting was wrong. It can't without objective evidence .
If you can't understand any of that, then I suggest you have wasted your own time by publishing a thread and asking for comments on it.Yes, I did finally say I am no longer to debate this subject. Please let me explain why I finally throw in the towel. The very first comment you addressed to me was not on the subject. You admittedly claimed to be changing the subject. I have gone around the block with you on a few occasions. You have a habit of deflecting, and conversation can become frustrating.
In my first comment, I made an attempt to set you straight in regards to my feelings about addressing your diversion.
"Perhaps you should move on, this thread comes to close to disappointing you in regards to the truth about CNN and the way they distort the news. You might note the usual liberals that post here at HP have not commented you should adopt the same attitude. Ignore when a subject comes to close to busting your bubble. Deflecting is just a way of saying --- " I just won't address the subject, because it rubs me the wrong way..."
You then came back at me with ---" No need to debate whether Putin interfered with the election. It's established that he did. My comment was about the fact that we now know Trump was aware a source inside the Kremlin told us Putin interfered with the election, but Trump still went out of his way to cast doubt on that fact. I'm interested to know how people will justify that.
I addressed you deflection in a way I felt would fully close the subject you were trying to pull me into.---
I stated ---- "I also added to try to address your deflect --- "I am not willing to debate the fact that Russia interfered in the 2016 election as well as many previous elections for many years. The Mueller report gave good proof of Russia's intentions. Not sure we need to revisit the subject? I certainly do not in any respect dispute the fact Russia made an all-out attempt to interfere in the 2019 election. Mueller also stipulated no American was involved in any form of a plot with Russia to interfere in the election. I suggest you save your energy on any form of retort in regards to anything other than the subject of the thread. I have no intention of discussing any subject but the subject of the thread."
You went on to immediately insult me ---" I believe it's because you're a Trump supporter and take your cue about what to think from Fox News and Trump's own comments, and you are therefore biased against any person or organization you perceive (or are told) is anti-Trump."
You just don't seem to be able to read someone's view and respect they have the right to a different one than you?
Need I go on? Just read the progress of our conversation. I repeatedly expressed my views.
"Fact --- Jim Sciutto is under fire after the Central Intelligence Agency condemned his report that aired yesterday. The report claimed the CIA was forced to extract a CIA spy from Russia due to PresidentTrump's carelessness with handling classified information.
Fact ---not conjecture... You claim "There is currently no objective evidence," CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement. CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply FALSE... I am I to believe you do not accept Bramell's statement? The CIA very rarely offers media any form of statement. NN as of yet has not retracted the story, and they won't. This piece of fake news will be gobbled up by many. People that prefer to believe anything negative about the president. This false story will be regurgitated by many as factual time and time again. "
I have discussed this subject at nauseam.
That's all she wrote... Hopefully, you can just write me off as a lost cause, it would be so much more simple.I have merely pointed out that the question you asked in the opening comment is loaded (which it is) and that you don't understand the difference between making an allegation and reporting on one (which you evidently still don't).
But seeing as we're being frank, I did say I struggle to take these types of threads seriously. You know, the ones intended to push Fox News/Trump talking points.
And I can't help that you feel insulted by being told you take your cue from Trump and Fox News. You have literally linked your first (and you most recent) comment to Fox News, so I think my comment is justified.
And what you are doing here follows your MO: make an absurd claim which itself is tantamount to propaganda, then when someone explains why your claim is absurd in no uncertain terms, you clutch your pearls and fly into a fit of faux outrage that someone would have the audacity to tell you the truth. I've seen it all before and I'm not impressed or moved by it in the slightest.CNN as well as the NYT story was meant to slander Supreme Court justice. It backfired, and actually has done nothing but show CNN and the NYT for what they are... Peddlars of propaganda. Not sure why Dem's don't realize this kind of journalism is working in Trump's favor.
The woman the fake news quoted had no recollection of the incident. Steir actually wrote of the incident in his book! THIS WOMAN WILL NOT COMMENT OTHER THAN SAYNG SHE DOES NOT RECALL THE INCIDENT. CNN as well as the NYT LIED.
And I am very aware you of the fact you could not digest my post. You immediately made an attempt to deflect off the subject. Thre is no way of deterring you graciously. I would have thought my last comment would have done the job? In my opinion, you are close-minded, and nothing anyone could say would deter you from your opinion. Even when you are given facts you choose not to consider them?
You feel my post has no relevance. You called it "loaded". Please read it once more... I am not sure why you feel my opening statement loaded. I supplied facts, as well as resource links to support my facts. In closing, I did express an opinion. I was careful to stipulate by using the words "it appears" to leave one with the opinion that the report was still open to explanation do to possible further developments and possible responses from all involved. So, yes I take offense to your comment in regards to my posting the thread.
Please read my statement and question.
"CNN’s Jim Sciutto is in hot water for an anti-Trump report which the CIA and the White House condemned and deny.
Jim Sciutto is under fire after the Central Intelligence Agency condemned his report that aired yesterday. The report claimed the CIA was forced to extract a CIA spy from Russia due to PresidentTrump's carelessness with handling classified information. CNN reported that the CIA pulled a source from Russia in 2017, in part out of concern that the Trump administration had mishandled classified intelligence, and could put the spy in danger.
The CIA came quickly with a statement, calling the story "misguided" and simply false".
CIA Director for Public Affairs Brittany Bramell said in the agency's statement.
"CNN's narrative that the Central Intelligence Agency makes life-or-death decisions based on anything other than objective analysis and sound collection is simply false.”
The CIA rebuke came as The New York Times and the Washington Post published a bombshell pieces late in the evening last night, which largely contradicted CNN's reporting as false. According to the Times, CIA officials "made the arduous decision in late 2016 to offer to extract the source in question from Russia" — weeks before Trump even took office. Stating, the report has no truth to it." Yet today CNN downplays the report and has not offered a retraction.
Sciutto report -- https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/politics … index.html
https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-jim-sciutto-cia
It appears the story was not vetted properly. Yet this story reached the ears of millions of CNN viewers.
It well appears CNN has gone past just twisting verbiage, and is now just making it up as they go...I was careful not to give a personal opinion.
Does this type of media reporting qualify as propaganda?"
It appears you feel your opinion is all truth, and this is odd to me? I feel I have done all I can to back up my opinion. It is becoming redundant. So, I am very satisfied to give you your last word. I have no will to continue the conversation. We have very different opinions and have no chance of agreeing on much of anything. You seem very closed-minded.You haven't even gotten the facts right about the original story you linked to, and there are lots of issues you fail to mention.
1. CNN did not report that the CIA was forced to extract a CIA spy from Russia due to Trump's carelessness. It reported that one of it's sources claimed that was the case. There is a difference between reporting a claim and making a claim. CNN did not make the claim, it simply reported that someone did.
2. The CIA did not make a statement in reaction to the story after it was published as you suggested earlier. The CIA was asked for a statement by CNN, because CNN wanted the agency's response to the claim made by its source. The CIA's comment and the fact that CNN asked for it are both included in the original story.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/09/poli … index.html
3. There are lots of good reasons to believe the CIA would never officially confirm the claim made by CNN's source, even if it were true. So the official statement from the CIA cannot just be accepted as gospel. CNN's source could very well be CIA. We have no idea.
4. Like CNN, the Times and WaPo drew no conclusions about the veracity of the claim made by the anonymous source. They merely reported what their sources said. So there are different accounts of the same events from different sources, and no objective way of knowing which account is true. If you are claiming you do know then either you have evidence not in the public domain, or you are mistaken, or you are lying.
5. Quoting anonymous sources is standard news industry practice, and is followed by the news outlet you keep linking to: Fox News. Here are examples of Fox citing anonymous sources:
"During the meeting the Russians broached the idea of using a secure line between the Trump administration and Russia, not Kushner, a source familiar with the matter told Fox News."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jared- … ource-says
Here is another.
Likewise White House "gaggles" and "background briefings" are traditionally conducted on the condition that reporters do not identify the sources.
So please explain why this type of media reporting is "propaganda" when CNN does it, but perfectly fine when Fox News and the White House do it?
So the question you have asked in this thread is not only loaded. It's also hypocytical.
I believe you do believe to interrupt this conversation, and as a rule, this is exactly what you do. However, you might note there has been only one other than yourself comment. You have a history of deflecting on any given subject you can't except or defend.
I was not bashing CNN, I was simply giving an example of their poor unethical methods of promoting false information. Perhaps you should move on, this thread comes to close to disappointing you in regards to the truth about CNN and the way they distort the news. You might note the usual liberals that post here at HP have not commented you should adopt the same attitude. Ignore when a subject comes to close to busting your bubble. Deflecting is just a way of saying --- " I just won't address the subject, because it rubs me the wrong way...
Their ratings speak volumes... They have dropped to 10.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/july-20 … ay/409984/I am not surprised you deflect. I have become very accustomed to this form of conversation here on HP.
I am not willing to debate the fact that Russia interfered in the 2016 election as well as many previous elections for many years. The Mueller report gave good proof of Russia's intentions. Not sure we need to revisit the subject? I certainly do not in any respect dispute the fact Russia made an all-out attempt to interfere in the 2019 election. Mueller also stipulated no American was involved in any form of a plot with Russia to interfere in the election. I suggest you save your energy on any form of retort in regards to anything other than the subject of the thread. I have no intention of discussing any subject but the subject of the thread.
I posted his thread to point out a serious problem with the way CNN has been dishonest in their reporting in regards to the president.
In my opinion, this kind of journalism needs to be pointed out. Although It well appears the general public has taken notice due to the decrease in CNN's ratings. CNN is now # 10 in media News Networks.
https://nypost.com/2019/07/04/cnn-conti … time-slot/No need to debate whether Putin interfered with the election. It's established that he did. My comment was about the fact that we now know Trump was aware a source inside the Kremlin told us Putin interfered with the election, but Trump still went out of his why to cast doubt on that fact. I'm interested to know how people will justify that.
Moving back on topic though, I'm also interested to know why, for you, CNN is the key takeaway from this whole situation and not Trump's efforts to cast doubt on something he knew there was solid evidence for.
I believe it's because you're a Trump supporter and take your cue about what to think from Fox News and Trump's own comments, and you are therefore biased against any person or organization you perceive (or are told) is anti-Trump.
And I believe you think CNN is deliberately misleading people to further an agenda, even though you have no objective evidence of that. Instead, I think your belief is based on Trump's admonishment of CNN as the "enemy of the people" and nothing more.
To be clear, I'm suggesting that the question you have asked in this thread is a loaded question and that you are (wittingly or unwittingly) contributing to Trump's attacks on the free press which ultimately only serves to silence Trump's critics.
Yep, no biggie. Only a Fox News overreaction to a minor event.
If a credible source told CNN that the CIA is worried about Trump's big mouth, then of course the CIA will deny it.
But then, we already know the CIA is worrried about Trump's big mouth.
"A former CIA operative told Insider the evidence is "overwhelming" that Trump is a Russian asset, but another CIA and NSA veteran said it was more likely Trump was currying favor with Putin for future business deals."
From Business Insider, a website launched by a former Reagan cabinet member.
https://www.businessinsider.com/spies-r … set-2019-8Your resource article lacks names, only vague insults in regards to the president's deminer at the G7. Not sure why you feel I would give this kind of rhetoric any thought? I prefer names and faces behind a quote. Just don't buy into that form of journalism anymore. Too much dishonesty afoot... As I am sure you noted I gave two sources both had names.
I miner event, that had the CIA coming out to dispute the story? As I pointed out the CIA very rarely makes any form of a press release. But, I do thank you for your opinion. As my title states, and you have helped to solidify --- No Biggie
The human thought process is a mystery, and always will be.I especially agree with your last sentence. I am mystified by the thought process of Trump and his supporters.
Just teasing Sharlee...I think we have a good understanding of each other, and I am grateful for a bit of levity. We certainly do have opposing opinions, but I would say we have something in common. We just don't give up on something we truely believe.
And Trump's lie to the public that he didn't have a conversation with the Ukrainian president and no he is doing the So What? and admitted he did?
Wake up. I am fed up with Trump malignants refusing to force him to be accountable for what he does.
He threatens the Ukrainian president with withholding our tax dollars for the Ukranian military unless he lies and claims Biden and his son did something illegal?
Does the Maggot in Chief plan to go after Neil Bush who owns a bank that did business with foreign investors while GWB was president or his other brother Jeb who with Neil also owned a bank as Governor of FL while GWB was president?
Read the First Amendment. CNN does an excellent job of reporting. Only Trump malignants can't stand the truth."And Trump's lie to the public that he didn't have a conversation with the Ukrainian president and no he is doing the So What? and admitted he did?"
I have not been able to locate any proof of this statement? Do you have a resource you quoted?
"Wake up. I am fed up with Trump malignants refusing to force him to be accountable for what he does."
Not sure you read my latest comment on the subject? In my opinion, Trump needs to release the transcript of the call or calls in question to clarify the facts.
"He threatens the Ukrainian president with withholding our tax dollars for the Ukranian military unless he lies and claims Biden and his son did something illegal?"
This is exactly what I mean about media reports that go unverified and left to start unnecessary fires... There is no evidence that Trump ever made such a claim in regards to cutting off funds to Ukraine. If you have a source I will be glad to review it.
In fact, there are claims from Trump aides have promoted news stories saying that, in 2016, then-Vice President Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid if Ukraine's government did not dismiss its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. This is once again a statement that as of yet has not been proven.
"KIEV (Reuters) - Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko on Saturday denied suggestions U.S. President Donald Trump had put pressure on Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskiy during a phone call in July."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN1W60HU
"Read the First Amendment. CNN does an excellent job of reporting. Only Trump malignants can't stand the truth." CNN ratings continue to plummet year after year.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyell … 432a736124
https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/31/cnn- … fake-news/
Not willing to get in the dirt with you making remarks about any group is repugnant to me... You know as groupthink.
I will though look forward to your offering a link or two to support your comments.Wrong. Trump told the White House press he was considering withholding $250 million from the Ukrainian military.
Now, down and dirty. Why is Trump even making such a threat given his love of Putin?
You don't get to ignore what Trump said to the White House press on Sunday, 9/22, he admitted he discussed Biden with the Ukranian President.
I find your ignorance of using our tax dollars to make threats to a foreign leader REPULSIVE and ILLEGAL.
If you want to live in a world of denial, there's the door out of the US. You don't get to condone world class liar who has more indictments to his name than Biden has EVER had.
All your response proves is your inability to admit the truth. Pathetic. Disgusting and SHAMEFUL. Just not on MY tax dollars.
I live in NJ. Don't ever tell anyone who lives in NY or NJ who and what that maggot in the White House is.
Iskunka has made more business deals while her DADDY is in the Oval Office. Sorry but you don't get to bash Biden and his son without admitting that Iskunka, Don Jr and Eric ALL have been doing business while their DADDY is in the White House.The truth about withholding military aid to Ukraine. No, it is not illegal for the president to cut funds to any given country... Just a fact
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKCN1VJ1T8
Sept 12. 2019 -- Note To Putin: Trump Unleashes $400M For Ukrainian Military/I would think this would put your mind a rest in regards to Trump being Putin's puppet? I realize facts are sometimes very hard to swallow.
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/09/not … -military/
Your statement --- "He threatens the Ukrainian president with withholding our tax dollars for the Ukranian military unless he lies and claims Biden and his son did something illegal?"
This is an out and out fabrication. As I said you need to add a resource to such a claim.
"I live in NJ. Don't ever tell anyone who lives in NY or NJ who and what that maggot in the White House is."
Well, I am from Michigan, and if your memory serves you correctly it is one reason Trump won in 2016, and will again in 2020... Can't remember when a Republican won the electoral in NY or NJ? Been a very long time...LOL
As I said not willing to get in the mud with you. You are doing a great job at getting dirty though.Come on Randy don't be so mean. Yes, you do know I can get really nasty. But, I am making an attempt to be kinder... Not saying it's easy, but I have found out the energy one expends arguing can be put to better use. No, I am not spotless, but trying to clean up my act.
I have also learned this forum is pretty much a gathering place for liberal minds. Perhaps it's just better not jump into a conversation due to not being of the liberal persuasion.I do think you're rethinking your pro-Trump stance, Shar. If so, then good for you.
Trump FALSE lies and distortions are REAL propaganda. Wake up and smell the coffee. We do not allow foreign leaders to influence our elections.
How do you call yourself an American when you are willing to allow Trump to work for Putin? You know full well he withheld funding to the Ukraine FOR Putin. Who but Putin who has military troops fighting Ukrainian military to access the Ukraine to Russia has a vested interest in using Trump for another 4 years?
Biden did nothing wrong. And if his son doing business in the Ukraine was wrong, why not go after GWB's 2 brothers who owned banks and did business with foreign investors while he was president?
And in the end all this partisan sheep bleating will make fools of all of you. Do you really think there are no witnesses who will testify on Biden's behalf in our allied countries? Do you really think that the only complaint is from a whistleblower?
Your boy has lied so much that no one trusts him anymore. He claims he will disclose the phone call transcript of his call to Zelensky. Why should we believe he won't haul out his magic marker?
He claims he will disclose the whistleblower's complaint. Again, ONLY AFTER his boys in the WH have "reviewed it." That is why he is being impeached. The law clearly states that he has NO right to refuse to allow Congress to see that complaint. But now, the whistleblower asked to speak to Congress. So no matter what that liar in chief puts out there, it will be heard straight from the person most involved.
I see there are still no justifications for Ivanka Trump having an office in the White House where while her Daddy was in the Oval Office has signed off on dozens of foreign business deals.
I see there are still no complaints that Republicans are knowingly allowing Trump to abuse his power when they barely allowed Obama to breathe.
Why bother trying to defend what you know is reprehensible, repulsive and a potential to eliminate future elections and voting by ignoring that Trump used his power of his position to threaten, bribe and extort Zelensky using our tax dollars?
If Republicans think our Dem states will continue to feed them more and more our tax dollars, they better be prepared for what's coming. Our states are tired of Republican states living off federal tax dollars they don't pay in equal amounts to Dem states.
So now Dem states are clawing back what we hand to the Fed. Let these Red states hemmoragh for all we care. It is about time you learned you do not control us.
Does anyone take anything CNN says on any political subject (or any major news source) with a grain of salt anymore? The major networks are all biased, all pushing an agenda.
It's not news anymore.Unfortunately, in my opinion, many do continue to trust what they hear in soundbites, and siliceous "Breaking News" reports. And with our healthy social media, these news reports are like the old "fish stories" grow... I think this is obvious, just consider how news reports are debated in great detail even here at HP. And yes, it well appears the all major news networks show bias.
I guess your comment makes me a bit sad. To think we are willing to accept this form of journalism. Are we headed toward media that find it acceptable to push propaganda? To push narratives that consist of little truth, only a political agenda? I appreciate your view, it is honest and very telling.
Thanks for jumping in where not many have not dared to tread. LOLThis.
Cable News is nothing more than echo-chamber noise and gossip. At best.
If unverified claims are considered news that explains pretty much everything."If unverified claims are considered news that explains pretty much everything."
In certain circumstances they are, and that has been the case for many years. "He said, she said" journalism is not new. Some people say it's lazy journalism, some think it reasonable when a claim can't be verified, but the claim itself is newsworthy or in the public interest. Either way, it's not something CNN invented.
I think if a source, who is deemed to be reliable, and had direct involvement in discussions surrounding these events, claimed that one of the contributing factors was concern about the president's lax approach towards national security, then that claim is certainly newsworthy, even if the nature of the allegation (discussions about a clandestine intelligence operation) means objective evidence will be hard to obtain.
If the source described by CNN exists, is reliable, and made the claim CNN reported, then I think it would have been remiss of CNN not to publish that claim. The fact it sought comment from the agency in question, and published it's absolute denial, satisfies me that CNN's reporting is not at fault here (assuming there are no other factors I'm not aware of).With CNNs track record I get why they did it.
If news is just make an outrageous claim and then say credible sources say it is outrageous it isn't news. It's bs.
Part of verifying and fact checking is to throw out the trash before final copy."If news is just make an outrageous claim and then say credible sources say it is outrageous it isn't news. It's bs."
Again, CNN reported the claim. It did not make the claim. Neither did it describe the claim as "outrageous". It reported it, along with the response from the relevant agency. And regardless of what you think of quoting anonymous sources, that practice is not unique to CNN. It is standard practice across the industry.Call it what you want. The point is, it's not unique to CNN, which is the organization this thread is about. It's common industry practice.
Much of Woodward and Bernstein's early reporting on Watergate was attributed to anonymous sources. By your standard those articles should not have been published, on the grounds that they were "gossip". Thankfully news industry standards are not based your opinion.Woodward and Bernstein functioned in a different time, with purer beliefs of finding the real truth, without the taint of ingrained bias by the upper echelons of the organization with a goal of creating a unified narrative to sway the public toward a specific political agenda. They didn't run to press with the first statement by an anonymous source. They actually had to pass a bar of credibility. Today, like that story we are referencing, you find a statement that suits your narrative and you run with it; without corroboration or evidence. That was journalism. Not the 'we are pundits masquerading as journalists'
scenario we are faced with today.
I will say though, I have fallen into the same trap as many. Assuming the American public is too stupid to see through the ignorance. That isn't fair to the average citizen. You may fall for it, but that is a choice you've made. You dislike the president so need an echo chamber for that prejudice. CNN is just a part of your echo chamber.Quoting an anonymous source is either reasonable or it isn't. Either way, it means the same now as it did in 1972 unless the definitions of "quote", "anonymous" and "source" have changed, which they have not.
And this is about the decision to quote anonymous sources when corroboration is not possible. If corroboration is possible, then that's something different.
As recently as last year Woodward defended quoting anonymous sources, saying, "You won't get the straight story from someone if you do it on the record...You will get a press release version of events." He also said that without anonymous sources "...we wouldn't have got the most important stories about what Watergate was about."
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-bob … S&IR=T
Thank goodness of "gossip".
And do you know who CNN's source is? If not, on what grounds do you imply they lack credibility?
And again, none of this changes the fact that quoting anonymous sources is an industry wide practice. It's not unique to CNN.The only thing that seems unique is the fact that Trump acolytes don't like CNN, apparently because it refuses to swallow White House lies, AKA propaganda.
Woodward and Bernstein put their faith into a source that had concrete information, and they knew they could trust this information due to the fact it came from the Deputy Director of the FBI. No, their source did not come out until 30 years later.
"Throughout the 1972 campaign season, Woodward and Bernstein were fed leaks by an anonymous source they referred to as “Deep Throat,” who, only some 30 years later, was revealed to be FBI deputy director W. Mark Felt, Sr." They also were able to vet information as it was given.
CNN could have request a statement from the CIA before they released the story, not after they broke it. They don't vet stories well.This CNN journalist too has put his faith into a source he believes has concrete information. He too believes he can trust the information due to the fact it came from a (presumably) reliable source.
So far there has been no objective evidence that demonstrates that information to be untrue (an official statement from the CIA is not objective evidence). So will we have are different statements from different people.
You have no idea who CNN's source is. No idea how reliable the source is. No idea which statement is true.
You are just assuming the allegation is untrue, and I think that's because you are a Trump supporter.
What makes you believe the CIA was not asked for comment before the story was released? The report clearly quotes a statement from the CIA. Do you have reason to think that was inserted after the fact? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here."This CNN journalist too has put his faith into a source he believes has concrete information."
Did he? Or was he in too much of a rush to publish before anyone else to check it? Your "([b]presumably[b] reliable source)" in the next sentence says it all.
"So far there has been no objective evidence that demonstrates that information to be untrue (an official statement from the CIA is not objective evidence)."
Using that logic we can claim that every CIA operative is a child molester (or pick your crime) and assume it is true until every operative has been through a Mueller type investigation. Any denial is, after all, not objective evidence.Oh gawd, now the entire Trump cult is showing up to defend the honor of Dear Leader.
I will repeat what I have already said for your benefit. CNN did not make an allegation, it reported an allegation made by an anonymous source, then published the response from the relevant agency.
The reason I said "presumably" reliable, is because I don't know who the source is so I can't say for certain if the source is reliable or not. Neither can you. We only know that CNN described the source as "[a] person directly involved in the discussions".
Please point out where I have said the information provided by CNN's source is true. I have no idea if it is or not. Again neither do you. That is the point. On balance though, if there are any issues with the source or the information provided, it's more likely that the causes are those I listed back on page 1, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. Apparently that's too sensible for conspiracy theorists who believe anything critical of the Dear Leader is tantamount to blasphemy.
And again, quoting anonymous sources has been standard practice in the news industry for decades. It is not unique to CNN. What's unique is that the fact that the oaf in the White House has called the press the "enemy of the people" and all the lemmings that follow him have decided it must therefore be true.Not only did CNN as well as the New York Times report lies, we know have Democratic presidential candidates using this lie a talking point bashing a supreme court justice. This kind of politicking is disgusting and typical of Dem's. I mean with this latest bias BS and Corn Pop... Trump is a shoo-in.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyt-ka … mpeachment
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new … ccusation/
And it goes on and on... Bia's media is dangerous and unacceptable.
Do the Dem really think this kind of journalism is acceptable and going unnoticed? This latest story is once again false, and pure scandal. Hopefully, Judge Kavanaugh will bring a scandal lawsuit against the NYT, as well as Max Stier.
However, this accusation against Kavanaugh remains in Stier's book and multiple articles on the internet. Not to mention we have Democratic politicians asking that Kavanaugh step down or be impeached.
What I find more disgusting, it is apparent that CNN, as well as MSNBC, is willing to blow smoke on this story when there is no fire... I have to give it to them, they certainly have become experts at destroying reputations by just blowing smoke.I was referring to your comment on Woodward and Bernstein ---
"As recently as last year Woodward defended quoting anonymous sources, saying, "You won't get the straight story from someone if you do it on the record...You will get a press release version of events." He also said that without anonymous sources "...we wouldn't have got the most important stories about what Watergate was about.
Woodward and Bernstein put their faith into a source that had concrete information, and they knew they could trust this information due to the fact it came from the Deputy Director of the FBI. No, their source did not come out until 30 years later.
"Throughout the 1972 campaign season, Woodward and Bernstein were fed leaks by an anonymous source they referred to as “Deep Throat,” who, only some 30 years later, was revealed to be FBI deputy director W. Mark Felt, Sr." They also were able to vet information as it was given.
CNN could have requested a statement from the CIA before they released the story, not after they broke it. They don't vet stories well.Already addressed by points 2 and 5 below. I've now added point 6.
And you didn't answer the question, why is the use of an anonymous source "propaganda" when CNN does it, but perfectly fine when Fox News and the White House do it? (see point 5)
1. CNN did not report that the CIA was forced to extract a CIA spy from Russia due to Trump's carelessness. It reported that one of it's sources claimed that was the case. There is a difference between reporting a claim and making a claim. CNN did not make the claim, it simply reported that someone did.
2. CNN obviously did ask the CIA for comment before releasing the story. That's how they were able to include it with the article. Nothing in the CIA's statement demonstrated the source's claim to be false though. In fact there is more reason to doubt the CIA's official comment than there is to doubt the comments of reliable anonymous sources with knowledge of the events (see point 3). CNN clearly believe their source to be reliable.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/09/poli … index.html
3. There are lots of good reasons to believe the CIA would never officially confirm the claim made by CNN's source, even if it were true. So the official statement from the CIA cannot just be accepted as gospel. CNN's source could very well be CIA. We have no idea.
4. Like CNN, the Times and WaPo drew no conclusions about the veracity of the claim made by the anonymous source. They merely reported what their sources said. So there are different accounts of the same events from different sources, and no objective way of knowing which account is true. If you are claiming you do know then either you have evidence not in the public domain, or you are mistaken, or you are lying.
5. Quoting anonymous sources is standard news industry practice, and is followed by the news outlet you keep linking to: Fox News. Here are examples of Fox citing anonymous sources:
"During the meeting the Russians broached the idea of using a secure line between the Trump administration and Russia, not Kushner, a source familiar with the matter told Fox News."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jared- … ource-says
Here is another.
Likewise White House "gaggles" and "background briefings" are traditionally conducted on the condition that reporters do not identify the sources.
So please explain why this type of media reporting is "propaganda" when CNN does it, but perfectly fine when Fox News and the White House do it?
So the question you have asked in this thread is not only loaded. It's also hypocytical.
6. Apparently you think it was ok for Woodward and Bernstein to use anonymous sources because they knew the source was the deputy director of the FBI. You do understand that the source is not anonymous to CNN right? They know who it is. So how do you know CNN has not put faith in their source because of who it is. In fact, how do you know CNN's source is not the current Director of the FBI? You don't. You are just assuming the source is unreliable because it suits you.I pointed out Woodward and Bernstein used a resource that they could well trust and respect due to his position. The sources were referred to as multiple Trump administration officials. As I aid CNN just do not vet their stories well. Let me repeat I must agree to disagree. I am not sure why you continue, but this is my last words with you on this subject.
You make a valid point. Yep, I'm saying that to you.
There is a massive difference between how newspapers check sources and how cable news checks them.
That being said, I suggest you can't condemn CNN any more than Fox.Once again, how do you know CNN does not consider its source to be well trust and respected due to their position? You have no idea who that source is. It could be the current Director of the FBI for all you know.
And again, you didn't answer the question, why is the use of an anonymous source "propaganda" when CNN does it, but perfectly fine when Fox News and the White House do it? (see point 5 below)"And again, you didn't answer the question, why is the use of an anonymous source "propaganda" when CNN does it, but perfectly fine when Fox News and the White House do it?"
The keyword you have not addressed in the case of this news report is vetting. You re throughing lots of fluff around this report. The facts are very clear... This particular story was poorly vetted. This stories main character so to say is the CIA. It would have been prudent for CNN to vet the story with them. If they had vetted the rumor, the CIA would have canned the story with facts.
In my opinion, CNN wanted to break this story without vetting to cause a stir... Which it did. I consider this kind of journalism propaganda. You have a right to your own opinion, which you have stated over and over. It appears you continue to make an attempt to what seems like talking yourself into being OK with this kind of media reporting? I well understand your view, I just don't agree with it.You're being ridiculous and it's tiresome. CIA vetting? What are you talking about? The CIA could only officially deny such a claim. If it were true, someone could only confirm it unofficially, i.e. anonymously. So an official statement from the CIA, in this case, is an unreliable source of information.
In terms of what's been said unofficially. Again (feels like the 10th time I've said it) you don't know who CNN's source is. They could be CIA for all you know. People become an anonymous source for precisely that reason: to say things they can't say officially.
1. CNN reported the source is a person "directly involved in the discussions" surrounding the relevant events.
2. CNN reported that the source claimed the extraction of an asset was due "in part" to concerns about the way Trump manages classified information.
3. The Times reported that "former intelligence officials", said there is no "[u]public[/i]" evidence that Mr. Trump "[u]public[/i]" endangered the source.
Firstly, those are not caveats you want to see when it comes to a president and national security assets. Secondly, based on what we actually know, there is not enough information to reasonably concluded CNN's reporting was inaccurate. lacking objective evidence? Yes. Inaccurate? No.
To be clear I'm not defending cable news. There are lots of valid reasons for criticism. In this canse, with this particular story, the criticism is unfair and hypocritical.
Again, please explain why this type of media reporting is "propaganda" when CNN does it. Just saying the word "vetting" means nothing. Why is it okay for Fox News to quote what anonymous sources say, but not CNN?Perhaps you misunderstood my comment. let me repeat it once again. CNN SHOULD HAVE VETTED THE REPORT WITH THE CIA. The CIA after the story broke came out with a statement. Which out and out called the information inaccurate, and used the word FALSE... CNN has been caught time after time putting out unsubstantiated reports. As I stated early on this thread this may be one of the reasons for their plumitting ratings.
"You're being ridiculous and it's tiresome. CIA vetting? What are you talking about? The CIA could only officially deny such a claim. If it were true, someone could only confirm it unofficially, i.e. anonymously. So an official statement from the CIA, in this case, is an unreliable source of information."
prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
The story in question fully fits the definition of propaganda.
I might add you take the cake on ridiculous and tiresome. I have no intent on conversing with you on any subject."The CIA after the story broke came out with a statement."
Now you've just blatantly lying. CNN asked the CIA for comment before the article was published. That's why the article says: "Asked for comment, Brittany Bramell, the CIA director of public affairs, told CNN . . ." It then published that comment with the article.
If you can't even get simple facts like this right, how can anyone trust anything you say about this article?
And you can have as many tantrums as you want (this is your second in this thread alone) but it doesn't change the fact that what you're saying is plainly untrue. Clearly the author of the article made a reasonable effort to confirm the information he received:
"I've been working on it for a number of weeks, and I spoke to multiple sources from the Trump Administration, but also from the intelligence agencies and on Capitol Hill. And I wouldn't have done this story without that kind of work, that number of people, and that expanse of people, who serve both this president and in the agencies. But also, the level of the people that I spoke to for this—these were folks with direct knowledge, not folks who heard about it over a beer."
Sounds suspiciously like confirming a story to me. And what about the wider question of concerns about Trump's handling of intelligence?
"For this story, I spoke to five sources who worked for the Trump Administration, people who work for the intelligence agencies, and people who worked on Capitol Hill handling classified intelligence. They said, very clearly and without hesitation, that the intelligence agencies have deep concerns about the president's handling of intelligence, and that those concerns are not based on one single incident".
Read that article, you might learn something.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a … ald-trump/
And I will continue to ask the question, why is using information from anonymous sources propaganda when done by CNN, but perfectly fine when done by Fox News (see previous examples of Fox quoting from anonymous sources)?
As I said there are lots of legitimate things to criticize the news media for, but in relation to this particular article your criticism is inaccurate, hypocritical (and tiresome).
"I have no intent on conversing with you on any subject."
I'm very disappointed to hear that because obviously your opinions mean a lot to me
Thankfully though that doesn't stop me from correcting your untruths and ridiculous assertions. It just means I can do that without fear of getting a response. Oh happy day!!Once again CNN never vetted the story with the CIA. Not sure why you continue to say otherwise. Please add a source to prove your belief... I am well aware CNN claims to have vetted the story with unidentified White House source. Most of their reports are from unidentified sources. Which is very normal in journalism. My problem is they did not contact the CIA to check if there was any truth to the story. This fake news could have been shot down by the CIA. As I stated the CIA did step up with a statement after the story was unleashed. And CNN did do what they set out to do. Smear the president. Food for those that eat it up true or not, good food.
With such a siliceous story, it should have been vetted vis the CIA... After all the story was all about the CIA and a CIA informant that had to be retracted from Russia due to Trump's actions. Your link is redundant. I was pointing out that CNN did not vet the story, and is becoming well known for their lack of doing so.
"The extraordinary CIA rebuke came as The New York Times published a bombshell piece late in the evening, which largely contradicted CNN's reporting. According to The Times, CIA officials "made the arduous decision in late 2016 to offer to extract the source from Russia" -- weeks before Trump even took office. Concerns about media reporting on Russian election interference drove the decision, according to the Times."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cia-s … ar-AAH3oSdDo you have any issues with reading and comprehension? That's a genuine question. I don't want to criticize someone who genuinely struggles to read or understand things. To be honest this is the only reasonable explanation I can think of for your comments. So I will assume that is the case and do my best to accommodate it. I hope it helps in some way.
"Once again CNN never vetted the story with the CIA."
The people at CNN asked the people at the CIA if the information was true, and the people at the CIA said no it's not true. But the people at CNN thought the information was very important, and lots of people would still probably like to know about it. They were also not really sure if the CIA was telling the truth because they knew the people at the CIA could get into big trouble if they admitted the information was true.
So when the people at CNN wrote their story, they included the information they were given, and said something like: "we asked the CIA about all this, and here is what they said". Then they wrote what the people at the CIA said, and published the story.
So saying that the people at CNN did not check with the people at the CIA is not very honest, because they did. We should always try to be honest when we write or say things.
"Most of their reports are from unidentified sources. . . My problem is they did not contact the CIA to check if there was any truth to the story."
We know the people at CNN definitely spoke to at least one person at the CIA who said the information is not true, but they could also have spoken to other people at the CIA in secret.
Sometimes people don't want to get into trouble for sharing things they're not supposed to. So even though one person at the CIA said the information is not true, others might have secretly told the people at CNN that it is.
So it's dishonest to say you know the people from CNN didn't talk to anyone from the CIA. They spoke to one person, and they could have spoken to more. You don't know for sure because CNN have kept their promise not to say who told them.
"Your link is redundant."
The link goes to a page where the man who wrote the story talks about how he made sure the information was real and not fake. He tells us how many people he spoke to, how they were involved with everything that was going on and why he believed them.
So saying the link is redundant isn't really true either. It shows that for this story, the people at CNN did take the time to check the information.
It also says that lots of people in the intelligence community (that means the CIA, the FBI and lots of others) are worried because they think Trump can't keep secrets very well.
So here is the link again. If there is anything in it that you find hard to read or understand, let me know and I will do my best to explain it in simpler terms.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a … ald-trump/
"According to The Times, CIA officials . . ."
The information in The Times comes from unnamed people. The information from CNN came from unnamed people too. Why is it ok to print information from unnamed people when it seems to support the president, but not ok when the information criticizes the president?
The big word for this is hyp·o·crit·i·cal (hypocritical). It means doing or saying something that goes against what you say you believe or think. This is an example of being hypocritical.
(p.s. your link to msn.com goes to a reprint of the Fox News article you posted before, which makes the link redundant. Also, we know Fox News prints stories based on unnamed people - see here for examples - so that is also an example of hypocrisy).I think there is such a thing as willful lack of reading comprehension, Don. An incurable pro-Trump syndrome, apparently...
"The people at CNN asked the people at the CIA if the information was true, and the people at the CIA said no it's not true. But the people at CNN thought the information was very important, and lots of people would still probably like to know about it. They were also not really sure if the CIA was telling the truth because they knew the people at the CIA could get into big trouble if they admitted the information was true."
My God, do you see how ridiculous your statement is? You have offered nothing to indicate your view true, but your own opinion. If your statement above holds water, do you not think it irresponsible that CNN would report a story the CIA told them was not true. You are beginning to sound bazar?
You seem to make it up as you go. Your link gives no indication that CNN etted the story with the CIA beforehand... None.
Once again, your link has no reference to the CIA... CNN did not confirm their report with the CIA. They are vague about how their sources were. They make mention of intelligence agencies. Which one. Funny the CIA was the first to senie the report. What is redundant and odd is that you continue a dead issue... You re clearly wrong et choose to believe an untruth. CNN did not vet the story. I have doubt they vetted with anyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St … _Community
I have no further intentions on communicating with you on any subject. It is clear we have very opposing views, and I don't find it wise to waste energy. I have learned to stay away from some here that have unbending views."If your statement above holds water, do you not think it irresponsible that CNN would report a story the CIA told them was not true."
The people who work at the CIA would get into lots of trouble if they admitted the claim was true, and lots of bad things could happen because of it. The people at CNN knew this, so there was no way for them to know if the people at the CIA were being honest, or if they were just trying to stay out of trouble. At the same time they knew lots of people would be very interested in this information. So the people at CNN decided to be responsible and share the information, but also tell everyone the people at the CIA said it's not true. That's seems very fair and responsible.
"Your link gives no indication that CNN etted the story with the CIA beforehand... None."
If the people at CNN can't get a comment before a story is published they usually say they asked but did not get a comment in time for publication. So the phrase "Asked for comment, Brittany Bramell, the CIA director of public affairs, told CNN . . ." certainly sounds like the people at CNN did ask the people at the CIA for comment, and did get the comment back before publication.
Even if they didn't, the people at CNN could have spoken to other people at the CIA in secret before publication, who said the information was true. You don't know because the people at CNN promised to keep it a secret. So it's dishonest to say you know CNN did not talk to people from the CIA. As I said, we should always try to be honest when we write or say things.
"Once again, your link has no reference to the CIA... CNN did not confirm their report with the CIA. They are vague about how their sources were. They make mention of intelligence agencies."
There's some useful information about how the story was written so it's still quite useful:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a … ald-trump/
The people at The Times said "CIA officials" but the information still came from unnamed people. They also used the phrase "former intelligence officials" which doesn't say which agency the source is from. So that still makes me wonder why you think it's ok to print information from unnamed people when it seems to support the president, but not ok when it makes the president look bad?
And just because the people at CNN didn't said "intelligence agencies" instead of CIA or FBI etc. that doesn't mean they didn't talk to any people at the CIA. "Intelligence agencies" includes the CIA, so they could have. That's why it's dishonest to say you know they didn't. You don't know that for sure. You're just saying it because you don't like CNN because the president said they're bad. I don't think it's right for you to just make things up because you don't like someone, or because the president said they're bad.
"I have no further intentions on communicating with you on any subject."
I think this is the second or even third time you've said that. I wish you would keep your promises. That way I could correct the things you say that are not true, without then having to go through your response. Win-win!!I must admit Don, you have more patience than I.
It's probably more of a masochistic streak than patience Randy. I have noticed people suffering from Trumpophilia often continue making the same false points over and over, regardless of any information or reasoning put before them. So I know discussion is futile, but it's fascinating to see how long some people can maintain an absurd argument.
Don, It probably isn't a masochism issue. I think you might suffer from a malady that frequently affects my forum participation.
You look for conversations to join and, Bam!
GAThat makes my head hurt, Don. I do logic problems as a pastime, so that should tell you something...
True, I've noticed this too. The same bunch of people, but not just on things Trump-related. It's just how they are wired, I guess.
Trumpophilia--as Don refers to it--means never having to admit you're wrong or apologize for anything you've ever said or done, Brando. The "Right" is always right...and don't you forget it!
Aha, thanks for the definition, going to be using this on Reddit. I just use Trump as a synonym for retard as of now. This is so much cooler.
I have a copyright on it.....but heck...go ahead and use it.
Just think how good he would be and how much he could get done if there were not so many fools in Congress.repeating their sad story. The most transparent President in History and obama got the NPP, really!
I agree. However, Trump is pushing ahead and will get lots more accomplished.
I know ginosblog! Just imagine if we could do away with all the other fools in Congress and just let Trump lead, like he was born to. Is there some way we can get the Constitution changed to allow Trump to be President as long as he wants? I'd vote for it, wouldn't you?
Related Discussions
- 21
Report found DOJ, FBI failed to uphold law in Trump-Russia probe.
by Readmikenow 2 weeks ago
This just validates what most of us on the right knew all along."Durham's report found that the Department of Justice and FBI "failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law" when it launched the Trump-Russia investigation.Durham’s report was released Monday afternoon...
- 143
How do we decide who to believe?
by Ken Burgess 6 years ago
The revelation to some, that Congress & D.C. has been in general hijacked by Corporate, Foreign, and Special Interests run amuck... is too much to swallow for many.CNN & MSNBC has long been the propaganda media for these Corporate, Globalist, etc. establishment forces, and so they, along...
- 38
Fake News --- Has This Type Of Reporting Become The New Norm...
by Sharlee 2 years ago
"Outrage has greeted media reports that American officials believe a Russian intelligence unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing foreign soldiers in Afghanistan, including targeting Americans.The story first appeared in the New York Times, citing its sources as unnamed...
- 36
Russia DID NOT Hack The DNC says John McAfee
by Susie Lehto 6 years ago
“The whole Russian hacking narrative is either propaganda intended to incite the American people, to anger toward Russia for some reason, or our intelligence community is so ignorant and naive that they should all be replaced.” ~ John McAfee, founder of McAfee virus protection* ...
- 21
Who do you think reports the most honest news CNN, MSNBC, FOX
by American View 6 years ago
Who do you think reports the most honest news CNN, MSNBC, FOX
- 23
Bombshell Durham Report. Hillary paid to spy on Trump Campaign
by Readmikenow 6 months ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...