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.

 

CNN admits their reports on Fox News anchor were false

page: 2
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gryphon66,

With all due respect, sir, 2+2=4.

Your similarly pedantic friend,

Tarzanbeta




posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Never a good idea to slander a Judge.


He's not a judge ... he's a "Judge" ... in the same line as "Judy" and "Wapner."



He actually was a judge.

He served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995




posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gryphon66,

With all due respect, sir, 2+2=4.

Your similarly pedantic friend,

Tarzanbeta


Indeed.

2+2=4 (What CNN reported)

but

2 + kumquat ≠ peanut butter bicycle (which is the equivalent of what this "article" is claiming).

If that's too subtle, one is true, the other one is utterly ridiculous.
edit on 14-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
You don't think he was a real judge? Google could be your friend a reply to: Gryphon66



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot
You don't think he was a real judge? Google could be your friend a reply to: Gryphon66



When was the last time he was "on the bench"?

Trump used to be a reality TV show host ... is that what he is now???

... hmm ... that's not the best example.

Napolitano hasn't been a judge in decades. There's a reason for that.
edit on 14-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Never a good idea to slander a Judge.


He's not a judge ... he's a "Judge" ... in the same line as "Judy" and "Wapner."



He actually was a judge.

He served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995





Was 1995 22 years ago?

He's not a judge. He's been a TV personality more than TWICE as long as he was on the bench.
edit on 14-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gryphon66,

With all due respect, sir, 2+2=4.

Your similarly pedantic friend,

Tarzanbeta


Indeed.

2+2=4 (What CNN reported)

but

2 + kumquat ≠ peanut butter bicycle (which is the equivalent of what this "article" is claiming).

If that's too subtle, one is true, the other one is utterly ridiculous.


No. What Napolitano said is 2 and then what CNN said is 2.

Now do the math.

Now ask yourself what the result represents.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Never a good idea to slander a Judge.


He's not a judge ... he's a "Judge" ... in the same line as "Judy" and "Wapner."



He actually was a judge.

He served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995





Was 1995 22 years ago?

He's not a judge. He's been a TV personality more than TWICE as long as he was on the bench.


LOL Triggered

for your sniffles ...



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Ah yes, I believe I said it in another thread:


originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Southern Guardian

This will all be funny in a week or so when Napolitano is proven right.

Hannity will act as the designated apologist for the network and invite him back on to restore his credibility.


Looks like I'm right again.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gryphon66,

With all due respect, sir, 2+2=4.

Your similarly pedantic friend,

Tarzanbeta


Indeed.

2+2=4 (What CNN reported)

but

2 + kumquat ≠ peanut butter bicycle (which is the equivalent of what this "article" is claiming).

If that's too subtle, one is true, the other one is utterly ridiculous.


No. What Napolitano said is 2 and then what CNN said is 2.

Now do the math.

Now ask yourself what the result represents.


Not even close.

Here's what Napolitano said:



"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command," he said. "He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI, and he didn't use the Department of Justice."


Fox

This describes President Obama as the party taking the action of 'having" the Brits spy on Trump.

That is a lie.

Here's what CNN reported:



British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted communications between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials and other Russian individuals during the campaign and passed on those communications to their US counterparts, US congressional and law enforcement and US and European intelligence sources tell CNN.


CNN

The difference between the two is plain.

OP's article is an entirely different brand of ridiculous trash. I'll leave those calculations to you.
edit on 14-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Like I said ... a waste of time.

You guys enjoy the mutual circle-jerk.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do not want you to depart.

Let me rephrase for the pedantic, with whom I relate:

2+3=5

Where 2 represents Napolitano's statements and 3 represents CNN's statements.

Is this better?



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do not want you to depart.

Let me rephrase for the pedantic, with whom I relate:

2+3=5

Where 2 represents Napolitano's statements and 3 represents CNN's statements.

Is this better?


Let me rephrase for you, since you seem intent on misstating obvious fact.

CNN reported that the European intelligence agencies (more than GCHQ) reported transmissions between Russian agents and Trump operatives to their counterparts (the NSA/CIA) law enforcement (the FBI) and the US Congress.

Napolitano claimed that Obama USED GCHQ to spy on Trump Tower.

If you can't see the utter difference between the two statements, and the absolute absurdity of claiming that they are the same thing, there is nothing I can say that will help, because, as I do appreciate your intellect, the only explanation would be willful misunderstanding.

I don't expect much from most of the mooks, but I do expect logic and reason from the folks of your quality.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Gryphon66

I do not want you to depart.

Let me rephrase for the pedantic, with whom I relate:

2+3=5

Where 2 represents Napolitano's statements and 3 represents CNN's statements.

Is this better?


Let me rephrase for you, since you seem intent on misstating obvious fact.

CNN reported that the European intelligence agencies (more than GCHQ) reported transmissions between Russian agents and Trump operatives to their counterparts (the NSA/CIA) law enforcement (the FBI) and the US Congress.

Napolitano claimed that Obama USED GCHQ to spy on Trump Tower.

If you can't see the utter difference between the two statements, and the absolute absurdity of claiming that they are the same thing, there is nothing I can say that will help, because, as I do appreciate your intellect, the only explanation would be willful misunderstanding.

I don't expect much from most of the mooks, but I do expect logic and reason from the folks of your quality.


What you're failing to understand is that Obama could not have USED information that was not provided to him; and he could not have made a move without USING information!

Unless you assume he is a prophet, of course.

I understand the minutiae. You do not understand the importance of the same... Or you wilfully neglect the connection. The former is handshake-worthy, but the latter is distasteful.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

CNN is an Anti-American terrorist organization. The program directors should be brought up on charges of treason.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: whywhynot
You don't think he was a real judge? Google could be your friend a reply to: Gryphon66



When was the last time he was "on the bench"?

Trump used to be a reality TV show host ... is that what he is now???

... hmm ... that's not the best example.

Napolitano hasn't been a judge in decades. There's a reason for that.


When you are similarly published and recognized as the book Honor and Respect then your opinion might be important on the matter.

Q. " I have a question regarding a former judge who by his own choice returned to private practice. When he was a judge he was the Honorable. Is he still addressed "The Honorable (Full Name)," and as "Judge (Name)", or would that be inappropriate now that he is a lawyer in private practice?"

A. Hi Mark,
Two part answer:
1) The general rule is "once The Honorable, always The Honorable." So addressing a social envelope to a retired judge would be as follows:
The Honorable (full name)
Address
Retired judges are socially addressed in conversation as Judge (surname). In a social salutation you would address a retired judge as Dear Judge (surname).
2) However if a retired or former official who has assumed another form of employment (for pay) is not necessarily accorded the courtesies of a current or fully-retired official when acting in a subsequent professional context. A judge who has assumed another position -- e.g., returned to private practice and is acting as counsel in litigation – he/she is addressed & identified on a business envelope in the style of an attorney.
He or she would traditionally be addressed in a purely social context as Judge (Name) – by friends at parties, by neighbors on the street, or when issuing a wedding invitation for his daughter, but he would not be addressed as Judge (surname) when acting as legal counsel in another judge's courtroom.


edit on 14-4-2017 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: whywhynot
You don't think he was a real judge? Google could be your friend a reply to: Gryphon66



When was the last time he was "on the bench"?

Trump used to be a reality TV show host ... is that what he is now???

... hmm ... that's not the best example.

Napolitano hasn't been a judge in decades. There's a reason for that.


When you are similarly published and recognized as the book Honor and Respect then your opinion might be important on the matter.

" I have a question regarding a former judge who by his own choice returned to private practice. When he was a judge he was the Honorable. Is he still addressed "The Honorable (Full Name)," and as "Judge (Name)", or would that be inappropriate now that he is a lawyer in private practice?"



LOL ... so that means your opinion is equally unimportant?

That makes sense.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Obama didn't use (didn't call upon, didn't request, didn't use back channels) GCHQ to spy on Trump Tower.

That's just an obvious fact.

What Napolitano claimed was false.

What CNN reported was not an admission that "Napolitano was right."

The claims of the OP and the OP's source are false.

Our conversation is complete. Best.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

He used the information.

Best to you friend.



posted on Apr, 14 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I invite you to reread the post. I wasn't offering my opinion but rather I posted the opinion from a recognized expert on the subject?


a reply to: Gryphon66




top topics



 
40
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join