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: 33
160
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
THIS JUST IN:


Seth Meyers: It’s Time To Retire The Term ‘Fake News’
“It used to be one thing, but now everyone is using it for everything.”

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Thank you for being sooooo predictable, Lefties!!!




posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
THIS JUST IN:


Seth Meyers: It’s Time To Retire The Term ‘Fake News’
“It used to be one thing, but now everyone is using it for everything.”

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Thank you for being sooooo predictable, Lefties!!!


That's hilarious...

I am sure they won't mind if we continue to use it to describe CNN.
edit on 12/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I love how there was a big applause for calling out CNN for what they were with the term that they originally helped proliferate. Super duper awesome!



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

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.


The earliest Archive I can find on the CNN article includes this:


CNN has confirmed that the synopsis was included in the documents that were presented to Mr. Trump but cannot confirm if it was discussed in his meeting with the intelligence chiefs


Wayback machine link doesn't work here, but you can look it up if interested.


The NBC article you linked has a timestamp of 11PM last night?

How again did CNN miss-report? Not being snarky, but as far as I can tell CNN is the one that said (before NBC) that they couldn't confirm it was discussed, only that it was in the presentation document. And CNN was the one that broke the news that it was a "Different" Michael Cohen in Prague.

I am not a CNN fan...most of their reporting is fluff, but if we are to recognize Fake News we need to not dismiss real and accurate reporting when it happens.
edit on 12-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Trump is right...CNN is all propaganda.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
I love how there was a big applause for calling out CNN for what they were with the term that they originally helped proliferate. Super duper awesome!


that was the over-sized Briebart staff that Trump invited.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I would argue that if any of the allegations in that dossier turns out to be true (other than the whole golden shower thing--which, while lurid and somewhat humorous, is NONE of my business), it changes a lot. As in, the President-elect would look like a traitor.

I'm certainly not claiming that we must accept anything written about anyone--although it was interesting to see how many people on this site went banannas over anything written in the news about Hillary (NO, I didn't vote for her).
I'm suggesting that we shouldn't just dismiss it out of hand and paint the whole thing with the "fake news" brush. It really just sounds like trendy code for "I don't want to believe that, therefore it can't possibly be true."

Again, is it so hard to believe that anything in that dossier could be true? It does makes sense, for example, that Trump's people could have been passing on information on the Russian oligarchs and their families' activities in the U.S. in exchange for info/favors that could help him in the election.
Putin would be very interested in that kind of info because controlling the oligarchs is key to maintaining his control over Russia.

As to your hypothetical situation regarding Obama, I don't think you have any idea what tune I'd be singing.
Logically speaking, if Obama had to be present in the ME to discuss all of those things, and there was verifiable, undeniable evidence that he was NOT there, then it stands to reason that that meeting probably didn't take place.

There doesn't appear to be such a keystone in this case, however. That is, if some of the allegations are proven to be untrue, or some of the details are off, it does NOT logically follow that all of the other allegations must therefore be false.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:42 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.


Your post is full of inaccuracies. I don't know you to BS often, so I assume you just have it wrong.

The Dossier was sent to FBI et al in October.
It was also sent to Multiple media outlets shortly there after.
Media outlets did not run it because they could not verify it.
The MI6 agent and his intelligence firm are now known...and yes they have done credible work for the intelligence community in the past.

So no...It wasn't provided as an example of "Fake News"..

No...the intelligence community did not leak the Dossier to the press.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
This is exactly why the next four years are going to be a disaster. The guy is the biggest baby to ever win the Presidency.

I'll add that it was apparently okay that Faux News spent the last eight years throwing out any Obama news story they could dream up, but suddenly it's not okay.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

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.


Your post is full of inaccuracies. I don't know you to BS often, so I assume you just have it wrong.

The Dossier was sent to FBI et al in October.
It was also sent to Multiple media outlets shortly there after.
Media outlets did not run it because they could not verify it.
The MI6 agent and his intelligence firm are now known...and yes they have done credible work for the intelligence community in the past.

So no...It wasn't provided as an example of "Fake News"..

No...the intelligence community did not leak the Dossier to the press.



It was reported yesterday that the intelligence services included it as an example of fake news BS.
You seem to want to discard that piece of information from your jigsaw puzzle as it doesn't quite fit with the picture you already painted. Typical behaviour of fake news peddlers.
You've been busted.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Trump is just a step back in project globalism I think. The project was going a little too fast.
The real leaders of this world made too much an underdog of him. People didn't take that and voted for him.
But I think the real leaders have always a plan.
I like Trumps' unbelievable direct style but at the end he will have little chance to get things done I believe. We will have to wait and see.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Greggers,
Here's a link to one of the latest articles focusing on the former MI6 officer. (From the NY Times.) www.nytimes.com... stopher-steele-trump-russia-dossier.html

EDIT: Apologies, something's wonky w/this link. Here's the whole URL: www.nytimes.com...

This article indicates the Wall Street Journal was the first rag to identify the author by name. It doesn't get into exactly how they verified it, but most of the articles I'm finding seem to be in agreement that he was indeed the author. At least, I haven't seen anything to the contrary yet. Can't remember where, offhand, but I did read somewhere that even when his company was no longer under contract he continued to look into this because enough information was surfacing that he didn't feel like it could be overlooked. Ultimately, he felt compelled to hand it off to his contacts in the U.S.
edit on 12-1-2017 by Gandalf77 because: Adding whole URL; something's wonky w/the initial link.

edit on 12-1-2017 by Gandalf77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5


How again did CNN miss-report? Not being snarky, but as far as I can tell CNN is the one that said (before NBC) that they couldn't confirm it was discussed, only that it was in the presentation document. And CNN was the one that broke the news that it was a "Different" Michael Cohen in Prague.

I am not a CNN fan...most of their reporting is fluff, but if we are to recognize Fake News we need to not dismiss real and accurate reporting when it happens.


The details are still very unclear, but I think you bring up an interesting point.

If its true that CNN reported only that it was in the document, and the intell claims they never discussed or gave the document to Trumps people, how did CNN know what was in the synopsis?

The only people with that synopsis were the intel people, so only the only explanation is that an intelligence person leaked the info to CNN



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Indigo5


How again did CNN miss-report? Not being snarky, but as far as I can tell CNN is the one that said (before NBC) that they couldn't confirm it was discussed, only that it was in the presentation document. And CNN was the one that broke the news that it was a "Different" Michael Cohen in Prague.

I am not a CNN fan...most of their reporting is fluff, but if we are to recognize Fake News we need to not dismiss real and accurate reporting when it happens.


The details are still very unclear, but I think you bring up an interesting point.

If its true that CNN reported only that it was in the document, and the intell claims they never discussed or gave the document to Trumps people, how did CNN know what was in the synopsis?

The only people with that synopsis were the intel people, so only the only explanation is that an intelligence person leaked the info to CNN


This is what Rand Paul said today and he also said that those involved in passing the information need to go to jail. It does sound as though there is a divide in the intelligence community, which would make sense given the divide everywhere else.
edit on 12/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: Grambler



There doesn't appear to be such a keystone in this case, however. That is, if some of the allegations are proven to be untrue, or some of the details are off, it does NOT logically follow that all of the other allegations must therefore be false.


Yes there is. It has been proven Trumps lawyer Micheal Cohen was never in Prague.

Your right that this doesn't prove thee other allegations to be false. But what is the proof of the other allegations? Its all hearsay. And if it is proven that aa portion of the hearsay is false, why should I entertain the rest of the document unless other evidence arises?



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
The only people with that synopsis were the intel people, so only the only explanation is that an intelligence person leaked the info to CNN

Hopefully, it can be traced back to McCain and he can loose his clearance and committee appointments. Bonus if ousted from Senate.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greggers

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.


The earliest Archive I can find on the CNN article includes this:


CNN has confirmed that the synopsis was included in the documents that were presented to Mr. Trump but cannot confirm if it was discussed in his meeting with the intelligence chiefs


But it was not included in the documents that were presented to Mr. Trump. It was not part of the two page synopsis, which is what Trump was given. It *was* part of the background material prepared for the meeting, but that's not what was given to Trump, and it was not discussed at that meeting.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConstitutionalPatriot
It has been a really long time since I've seen a president with a backbone. I am praying that he continues to fulfill what he promised. Only time will tell, but so far it has been really interesting. Love it!


That's not backbone.
He's just so full of crap he can't bend.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: FelisOrion
a reply to: markymint

Alright, we get it. Fox, MSNBC, and CNN are fake news.

Now, can the Trump supporter list all the credible news sources, since all of American news is fake news?

List them so I can make sure I check them before I check these three obviously fake news.

Or, are they only fake news because they are critical of Donal Trump?


Apparently that's a big secret.
I've asked several times and have never gotten an answer.
I'm imagining some secret think tank with the world's best minds and a secret password and handshake.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Can you point me to a source where it's been proven for certain that Cohen was never in Prague? Last I read, he said he was never in Prague and posted a picture of his passport (unopened)--which doesn't prove anything. I had to wonder at this part of the dossier because it does seem like one of those threads that could be traced by someone with the right tools.

I'll be the first to admit that a whole lot of evidence needs to come to light to prove any of this. You're absolutely correct: It is just hearsay. However, it isn't exactly coming from the Weekly World News, either. If a former MI6 officer--respected in the U.S. intel community--who specializes in Russian affairs was able to zero in on this stuff using a network of contacts, then I'm suggesting it could very well be more than just hearsay. Time will tell.

If some of the details are off, or some of the allegations are indeed proven to be false, a little skepticism certainly isn't a bad thing.



new topics

top topics



 
160
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join