It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump refuses CNN reporters question and calls them fake news Priceless

page: 32
160
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greggers

But, as I've said once previously, I loved the way Trump handled these CNN guys. They were in fact guilty of spreading the worst kind of rumor, innuendo, and poorly vetted nonsense


What about their reporting on this was not accurate?

From Trump all the way through his minions and right wing outlets...the RESPONSE to their reporting involved outright fake claims and now thoroughly debunked crap..like the claim they published or linked to the Dossier when in fact they took great pains to not publish or even publicize it. THAT was Buzzfeed.

It was also wildly dishonest for Trump to attack CNN as fake news, inferring they published the Dossier (when they didn't) and actually say "it's now been reported that my lawyer was never in Prague" in support of his argument that CNN was fake News...When...for effs sake..it was CNN who reported Cohen was not in Prague AND they never published the Dossier.

I do see lies and propaganda in this scenario...but it is all emanating from the right.

Buzzfeed is still 1000X times better than the most legitimate of the right wing echo-chamber.
If Fox had a similar doc on Hillary they would not have shouted "Unverified" and "unsubstantiated" in their reporting..


The leaked document had apparently been in the public domain for months. No one in media would touch it (apparently except Mother Jones), and it wasn't because they didn't want to. They did. Several different outlets had tried desperately to vet the material in that document because it would have been a huge, ratings driving revelation.

If there is any positive to draw from this, it's that clearly most media outlets have a lot more integrity than many on the right would admit, as no media outlet could verify anything in the report so decided to sit on it.

So you can bet CNN knew how suspect the document was.

The only piece of new data available was, supposedly, that CNN had learned that the dossier had been included in the list of things that the CIA had briefed Trump on. As initially reported, it was part of the two page addendum Trump received from the CIA.

However, that turned out to be false. The report was not mentioned in the two page addendum and wasn't even mentioned verbally during the initial briefing. It was apparently described to him at some point OUTSIDE of that meeting, but it is unclear at what level of detail, or what sort of analysis accompanied it, and we'll never know because no written record exists of this exchange. For all we know, Trump might have been told, "Hey, the CIA has this document and we've determined it's fake, just so you know."

On these shaky grounds, CNN decides to run with an unproven, radioactive document, piggy-backing off the fact that Buzzfeed had published the thing in its entirety. Clearly they were hoping to generate big news so they had something ratings worthy to cover at Donald's big press conference.

I'm sorry, but that is not news. It's tabloid journalism.
edit on 12-1-2017 by Greggers because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

As you are the chief peddler of Fake News on ATS, I am not surprised you are hanging on to it.


Predictable projection.

And noted that personal attacks were all you had left in response to me debunking your BS.

Tell me again about the virtues of Tyranny and how Trump will round up his opposition...how States Rights is nonsense and Federal law reigns supreme..all from your basement in the UK...


You've become such a joke with all the fake news you peddle that laughing at you seems the most appropriate response.
How is the electric grid? - do you still have power over there in the US...?


Ahh...UK..I still remember you being the first post on the thread about Obama passing an executive order banning the pledge of allegiance. Rambling on about how it was his first step in Sharia law and such.
That OP didn't even warrant the hoax bin...it was just deleted by the Mods...



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

As you are the chief peddler of Fake News on ATS, I am not surprised you are hanging on to it.


Predictable projection.

And noted that personal attacks were all you had left in response to me debunking your BS.

Tell me again about the virtues of Tyranny and how Trump will round up his opposition...how States Rights is nonsense and Federal law reigns supreme..all from your basement in the UK...


You've become such a joke with all the fake news you peddle that laughing at you seems the most appropriate response.
How is the electric grid? - do you still have power over there in the US...?


Ahh...UK..I still remember you being the first post on the thread about Obama passing an executive order banning the pledge of allegiance. Rambling on about how it was his first step in Sharia law and such.
That OP didn't even warrant the hoax bin...it was just deleted by the Mods...


More fake news? You should go for Fake Tappers job

No, you wear your Mr FAKE NEWS badge with pride... you more than earned it!

edit on 12/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greggers

But, as I've said once previously, I loved the way Trump handled these CNN guys. They were in fact guilty of spreading the worst kind of rumor, innuendo, and poorly vetted nonsense


What about their reporting on this was not accurate?

From Trump all the way through his minions and right wing outlets...the RESPONSE to their reporting involved outright fake claims and now thoroughly debunked crap..like the claim they published or linked to the Dossier when in fact they took great pains to not publish or even publicize it. THAT was Buzzfeed.

It was also wildly dishonest for Trump to attack CNN as fake news, inferring they published the Dossier (when they didn't) and actually say "it's now been reported that my lawyer was never in Prague" in support of his argument that CNN was fake News...When...for effs sake..it was CNN who reported Cohen was not in Prague AND they never published the Dossier.

I do see lies and propaganda in this scenario...but it is all emanating from the right.

Buzzfeed is still 1000X times better than the most legitimate of the right wing echo-chamber.
If Fox had a similar doc on Hillary they would not have shouted "Unverified" and "unsubstantiated" in their reporting..


The leaked document had apparently been in the public domain for months. No one in media would touch it (apparently except Mother Jones), and it wasn't because they didn't want to. They did. Several different outlets had tried desperately to vet the material in that document because it would have been a huge, ratings driving revelation.

But no media outlet could verify anything in the report.

So you can bet CNN knew how suspect the document was.

The only piece of new data available was, supposedly, that CNN had learned that the dossier had been included in the list of things that the CIA had briefed Trump on. As initially reported, it was part of the two page addendum Trump received from the CIA.

However, that turned out to be false. The report was not mentioned in the two page addendum and wasn't even mentioned verbally during the initial briefing. It was apparently described to him at some point OUTSIDE of that meeting, but it is unclear at what level of detail, or what sort of analysis accompanied it, and we'll never know because no written record exists of this exchange.


Please let me know a link or source..

What you are saying is that Trump didn't get the two page synopsis?
Or that the Synopsis didn't mention a Dossier that was circulating?

Either way...I'd like to see a solid source on that if you are citing it, as it would mean CNNs initial report was wrong.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greggers

But, as I've said once previously, I loved the way Trump handled these CNN guys. They were in fact guilty of spreading the worst kind of rumor, innuendo, and poorly vetted nonsense


What about their reporting on this was not accurate?

From Trump all the way through his minions and right wing outlets...the RESPONSE to their reporting involved outright fake claims and now thoroughly debunked crap..like the claim they published or linked to the Dossier when in fact they took great pains to not publish or even publicize it. THAT was Buzzfeed.

It was also wildly dishonest for Trump to attack CNN as fake news, inferring they published the Dossier (when they didn't) and actually say "it's now been reported that my lawyer was never in Prague" in support of his argument that CNN was fake News...When...for effs sake..it was CNN who reported Cohen was not in Prague AND they never published the Dossier.

I do see lies and propaganda in this scenario...but it is all emanating from the right.

Buzzfeed is still 1000X times better than the most legitimate of the right wing echo-chamber.
If Fox had a similar doc on Hillary they would not have shouted "Unverified" and "unsubstantiated" in their reporting..


The leaked document had apparently been in the public domain for months. No one in media would touch it (apparently except Mother Jones), and it wasn't because they didn't want to. They did. Several different outlets had tried desperately to vet the material in that document because it would have been a huge, ratings driving revelation.

But no media outlet could verify anything in the report.

So you can bet CNN knew how suspect the document was.

The only piece of new data available was, supposedly, that CNN had learned that the dossier had been included in the list of things that the CIA had briefed Trump on. As initially reported, it was part of the two page addendum Trump received from the CIA.

However, that turned out to be false. The report was not mentioned in the two page addendum and wasn't even mentioned verbally during the initial briefing. It was apparently described to him at some point OUTSIDE of that meeting, but it is unclear at what level of detail, or what sort of analysis accompanied it, and we'll never know because no written record exists of this exchange.


Please let me know a link or source..

What you are saying is that Trump didn't get the two page synopsis?
Or that the Synopsis didn't mention a Dossier that was circulating?

Either way...I'd like to see a solid source on that if you are citing it, as it would mean CNNs initial report was wrong.


It was reported last night that there was indeed two pages included, so that the intelligence officials could compare real intelligence with a working example of the kind of fake news BS that you peddle in. Apparently it was not even needed.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greggers

But, as I've said once previously, I loved the way Trump handled these CNN guys. They were in fact guilty of spreading the worst kind of rumor, innuendo, and poorly vetted nonsense


What about their reporting on this was not accurate?

From Trump all the way through his minions and right wing outlets...the RESPONSE to their reporting involved outright fake claims and now thoroughly debunked crap..like the claim they published or linked to the Dossier when in fact they took great pains to not publish or even publicize it. THAT was Buzzfeed.

It was also wildly dishonest for Trump to attack CNN as fake news, inferring they published the Dossier (when they didn't) and actually say "it's now been reported that my lawyer was never in Prague" in support of his argument that CNN was fake News...When...for effs sake..it was CNN who reported Cohen was not in Prague AND they never published the Dossier.

I do see lies and propaganda in this scenario...but it is all emanating from the right.

Buzzfeed is still 1000X times better than the most legitimate of the right wing echo-chamber.
If Fox had a similar doc on Hillary they would not have shouted "Unverified" and "unsubstantiated" in their reporting..


The leaked document had apparently been in the public domain for months. No one in media would touch it (apparently except Mother Jones), and it wasn't because they didn't want to. They did. Several different outlets had tried desperately to vet the material in that document because it would have been a huge, ratings driving revelation.

But no media outlet could verify anything in the report.

So you can bet CNN knew how suspect the document was.

The only piece of new data available was, supposedly, that CNN had learned that the dossier had been included in the list of things that the CIA had briefed Trump on. As initially reported, it was part of the two page addendum Trump received from the CIA.

However, that turned out to be false. The report was not mentioned in the two page addendum and wasn't even mentioned verbally during the initial briefing. It was apparently described to him at some point OUTSIDE of that meeting, but it is unclear at what level of detail, or what sort of analysis accompanied it, and we'll never know because no written record exists of this exchange.


Please let me know a link or source..

What you are saying is that Trump didn't get the two page synopsis?
Or that the Synopsis didn't mention a Dossier that was circulating?

Either way...I'd like to see a solid source on that if you are citing it, as it would mean CNNs initial report was wrong.


I posted it a few pages ago. Trump DID receive a two page synopsis. But the synopsis did not mention this document, and it was not mentioned at all during that meeting. It was apparently mentioned at some later point, but details are very sketchy.

We know Trump has since read the whole thing. Probably on his own after the big media flare up, but we do not know the details of that either. Merely speculation.

Here is the link:

From www.nbcnews.com...



President-elect Donald Trump was not told about unverified reports that Russia has compromising information on him during last week's intelligence briefing, according to a senior intelligence official with knowledge of preparations for the briefing.

A summary of the unverified reports was prepared as background material for the briefing, but not discussed during the meeting, the official said. During Trump's press conference Wednesday morning, the president-elect said he was made aware of the information "outside that meeting."



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
There are reports today that the Folders next to Trump were filled with blank paper. Trump said it was all the documents involved with signing over the corporation to his sons.

The Trump team did not allow the press to examine the folders.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
There are reports today that the Folders next to Trump were filled with blank paper. Trump said it was all the documents involved with signing over the corporation to his sons.

The Trump team did not allow the press to examine the folders.


Just curious...How does the press report the papers were blank, if they weren't able to examine them?



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

More speculation by the press. They have pics of the stack of paper and the edges and margins are all blank so naturally they concluded that the pages are blank.




edit on 12-1-2017 by EchoesInTime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
a reply to: IAMTAT

More speculation by the press. They have pics of the stack of paper and the edges and margins are all blank so naturally they concluded that the pages are blank.





Is the MSM reporting on this? Or is it some fringe Website?

Because if that's all they've got, it's not newsworthy. And it's irresponsible journalism.
edit on 12-1-2017 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Its all over the news. They were discussing immediately after the presser. I think i was watching it on NBC, iirc.

Essentially, they are saying the leaked document was prepared in case they needed to make Trump understand what they were referring to with "fake news", so he'd know the kind of stuff circulating out there.

Then, after doing this enormously honorable thing for him (which they never showed him), they leaked it to hte press.

CNN stuck a fork in themselves. They are done as a news organization. TBH, if i were Trump, i'd pull their credentials at the WH.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Look, that dossier was compiled by a former British intelligence officer with a solid reputation in the community (and now he's in hiding), and senior intel folks in the U.S. deemed it worthy enough to include in their reporting. A big part of their job is to be the crap filter for this sort of thing. Idly dismissing all of this as fake news seems a bit hasty to me.

Is it so inconceivable that any of the details in that report could be true? If not, why not? Because Trump and Russia said so?
What are all the Trump moonies going to do if ANY of those things turns out to be true?
Let me guess--it will still be fake news.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77
Look, that dossier was compiled by a former British intelligence officer with a solid reputation in the community (and now he's in hiding), and senior intel folks in the U.S. deemed it worthy enough to include in their reporting. A big part of their job is to be the crap filter for this sort of thing. Idly dismissing all of this as fake news seems a bit hasty to me.

Is it so inconceivable that any of the details in that report could be true? If not, why not? Because Trump and Russia said so?
What are all the Trump moonies going to do if ANY of those things turns out to be true?
Let me guess--it will still be fake news.


I am certainly no Trump apologist, and others can attest that I have a track record of defending the MSM (just to set the stage for what I'm about to say), but I still have doubts that the British Intelligence officer wrote that document. Perhaps he handled it. Perhaps he took it from another source.

I still find it highly believable that the entire document could have originated as a 4Chan hoax. Apparently the dates don't quite match up (as Tom Brokaw reports seeing it in the wild back in August), but the contents of the document includes reference to chicken fingers (a well circulated joke originating with a Bernie Sanders reference, of all places) and hookers peeing on beds. And it reads like something the delinquents over there would write. Maybe only parts of it came from 4chan. I don't know. I'm having a hard time keeping up.


edit on 12-1-2017 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77
Look, that dossier was compiled by a former British intelligence officer with a solid reputation in the community (and now he's in hiding), and senior intel folks in the U.S. deemed it worthy enough to include in their reporting. A big part of their job is to be the crap filter for this sort of thing. Idly dismissing all of this as fake news seems a bit hasty to me.

Is it so inconceivable that any of the details in that report could be true? If not, why not? Because Trump and Russia said so?
What are all the Trump moonies going to do if ANY of those things turns out to be true?
Let me guess--it will still be fake news.


But we know parts of it to be false. Also, it was written in a very unprofessional manner, with many errors that would never exists is legitimate intelligence documents.

If some of the allegations later turn out to be true, it changes nothing. The fact is that when CNN, Buzzfeed and others discussed this and derided Trump for the implications of it, they knew that it was unverifiable and a very shoddy document.

So is your claim that we must accept any allegations written about anyone, and even when parts of those allegations are found out to be false, we still have to accept the rest of the allegations?

If someone writes about Obama that Obama met with Hamas on Sept 2 2015 in the middle east to discuss destroying Isreal, and he also is going lock up all christians, and Palestine has blackmail on him, etc.,

and we can prove that on that date Obama was on camera in the Unites states and therefore couldn't possibly have been in the middle east,

you would say "Well we have to take the rest of the allegations seriously! Only moonies would ignore these allegations!"

Somehow, I think you would be singing a different tune.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

The material was originally commissioned by a Republican presidential candidate, from Orbis Business Investigations as campaign smear material.
The resulting material was refused by the Republican after the Primaries and Orbis sold it to a Democrat Presidential candidate.

The partner of Orbis (Chris Steele), responsible for the false material, is said to be 'in hiding'...and, while Orbis says it's because he fears Russian reprisal, it is more likely he is hiding from his Democrat Presidential client.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Double posting is the result of a dodgy internet connection. If you thought I did that for added effect, you probably are a petulant child. Secondly I am not going to fall for your little narcissistic games. Understand my mindset better? Stop it. You wanted to hear disparaging remarks about Hilary, to ease your ego.

It's what all trump supporters do. As soon as someone is critical of Trump, (especially when that criticism has a DAMAGING point about him or his supporters) they automatically bring up Hilary. For some reason they think they alleviates all the ridiculous stuff Trump has done before getting into office but what they fail to realize is that, pretty soon, they won't have Hilary or Obama to fall back on.

Soon, they will have to take responsibility for their vote. And Donald will have to take responsibility for his actions. Yes, I could rattle on about the many cons of Hilary, and her terrible history, and flip-flopping as well. Again, what point does it serve, other than to prove to YOU, some random nobody, that I am aware of her faults?

But again, this isn't to prove impartiality when it comes to the Trump supporter. It's actually there to sooth their ego. I won't give into it, and I would rather much waste my characters telling you how much I won't give into it. Ah, lo, this will definitely make look like I can't backup my statement. My ATS reputation is forever stained.

Bwhaha though @ the 'disappointing' remark.Try those psychological games on someone less experienced in the world. You aren't looking at a easily manipulated Trump supporters. You are talking to a real American.


AND STILL, No Trump supporter has listed the alternative news sites that offer credible real news. They will continuously bash the American news networks as all being fake news, but fail to provide any other news sites. Or do you get your news directly from the cult personality's mouth?

You see a pattern here? Smh
edit on 12-1-2017 by FelisOrion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

From everything I've seen, he (the British intel officer) spent his career operating in Russia. When commissioned to look into Trump's business dealings with Russia (by a wealthy GOP donor nonetheless--which is another interesting note in all of this), he couldn't go back to Russia in person for obvious reasons. He had to rely on all of the contacts and sources he acquired in his career (apparently even some in the FSB itself). The nature of that business is such that he would have to be very judicious with the information he received; careers and reputations are made or broken based on the ability to sniff out reliable intel. If he's in hiding, and his associate/partner refuses to comment at all, then what's the deal? Why go to that much trouble if he didn't have anything to do with those memos? Wouldn't it be bad for business?



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: Greggers

From everything I've seen, he (the British intel officer) spent his career operating in Russia. When commissioned to look into Trump's business dealings with Russia (by a wealthy GOP donor nonetheless--which is another interesting note in all of this), he couldn't go back to Russia in person for obvious reasons. He had to rely on all of the contacts and sources he acquired in his career (apparently even some in the FSB itself). The nature of that business is such that he would have to be very judicious with the information he received; careers and reputations are made or broken based on the ability to sniff out reliable intel. If he's in hiding, and his associate/partner refuses to comment at all, then what's the deal? Why go to that much trouble if he didn't have anything to do with those memos? Wouldn't it be bad for business?


Yours is a fair question. And I still have an open mind about where the document came from. "Be skeptical of 4Chan" is standard operating procedure.

The whole document just seems so strange.

Just so I can review it, could you post a link to the media outlet that verified that the document was truly authored by the Mi6 agent? And how they verified this?
edit on 12-1-2017 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Indigo5

Its all over the news. They were discussing immediately after the presser. I think i was watching it on NBC, iirc.

Essentially, they are saying the leaked document was prepared in case they needed to make Trump understand what they were referring to with "fake news", so he'd know the kind of stuff circulating out there.

Then, after doing this enormously honorable thing for him (which they never showed him), they leaked it to hte press.

CNN stuck a fork in themselves. They are done as a news organization. TBH, if i were Trump, i'd pull their credentials at the WH.


I suspect CNN will be excluded from real news reporting at the WH from now on unless they apologise and relearn their trade.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Just an opinion from a pre-Internet journalist.
We learned (in high school journalism class): Who What Where When. That is what you reported on once you had facts from credible witnesses. How was allowed if you had direct info. Why was not for you to speculate.

All we went out with were pens and notebooks. Amazing we managed to get news stories without creating them.

I blame greed. The hunger for profits by news channels means they need eyeballs and the 24/7 news cycle. And of course the people pretending to be journalists are eager for coverage.

I remember when reporters did NOT want to be seen or known. Their anonymity allowed them access to sources.



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join