Trump Made Multiple Requests Real News or Fake News

who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president

a former senior intelligence official said of

a reply to: JoshuaCox

And what you are posting is exactly what the outrageous news medias wants you to think and talk about.

In my case it doesn't make me think about it, no even a bit.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Making people question what they think or believe is how the tabloids news that are feeding on leaked news from unnamed sources keep the people hook and their ratings high.

Like I say if the news are just miss interpretations of facts to create outrageous news at the end if they are truly fake nobody will care.

That is my point and the fake news media feeders will sail free.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: dfnj2015

Making people question what they think or believe is how the tabloids news that are feeding on leaked news from unnamed sources keep the people hook and their ratings high.

Like I say if the news are just miss interpretations of facts to create outrageous news at the end if they are truly fake nobody will care.

That is my point and the fake news media feeders will sail free.

I am trying to understand what you are saying. If they have two or more sources saying Trump asked Coats and Rogers to "deny the existence of any evidence", is this a fact or an interpretation?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Muh evidence!

originally posted by: xuenchen

who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president

a former senior intelligence official said of

I know there is a strong desire by people to concentrate on that part of the article. I was not. Please read the thread. It's not about the content of the communications. I'm trying to focus on the Post article's assertion Trump told Coats and Rogers to lie and if this is real or fake news based on their claimed "sources".

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: jjkenobi
From the article:

"who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president."

Depends if you believe the anonymous sources. My opinion is this will end up the same place all the other anonymous zero proof anti Trump stories have went for the last 5 months - nowhere.

I'm sure at some point the same was said about the infamous "Deep Throat" anonymous source...

We will see where this leads, and hopefully see where the trail ends.

I doubt it. The populace used to know how journalism works.

a reply to: dfnj2015

LOL

Based on false prophets.

Or is it profits.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I think it's going to take some time before we have confirmation one way or the other that evidence exists. It's so early into the investigations. I hope we keep talking about them as they develop, no matter how much people around here scream.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Here's the thing about sources...many "whistleblowers" or "sources" wish to remain anonymous. Just like people dumping documents to Wikileaks like to remain anonymous, and Assange won't give their names up.

If the journalist knows who they are, and they trust the information being given to them, they share the story. If the source later proves to be false, then the journalist's own reputation is on the line as well!

"Sources" are being ridiculed now by those who don't like the story, is what I mostly am seeing here. "Oh, it's unnamed sources. Fake news...yawn..." is a very easy way out from information people don't want to hear.

So believe it or don't believe it. The journalist who is putting out the article is betting their reputation on the accuracy of their information, or they are lying.

It is understandable that if you don't like the news, you might think "oh they are just making it up" but remember, the journalist's credibility and the sources's credibility are on the line. If they risk that enough times for false information, they will no longer be journalists, kind of like KellyAnne Conway is no longer considered credible by most news organizations, because she was no longer trustworthy.

I tend to think this is the truth and it will be borne out, but until we are deeper into the investigation, it cannot be 100% confirmed at this time.

- AB

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: dfnj2015

I think it's going to take some time before we have confirmation one way or the other that evidence exists. It's so early into the investigations. I hope we keep talking about them as they develop, no matter how much people around here scream.

It is VERY early into this investigation. Major Federal crime investigations of a complex nature can take a couple years and we are not even up to one year on this one (that would be marked in July).

Even the Trump WH uses anonymous sources and fake news. Imagine that.


www.rawstory.com...

originally posted by: olaru12
Even the Trump WH uses anonymous sources and fake news. Imagine that.


www.rawstory.com...

LOL

The RawStory cites other sources to confirm sources.

Tangents galore too !!

Getting real good now.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Just the fact that you need to ask that question -- that we all need to ask that question -- is the worst part of this whole debacle.

The most fundamental question that needs to be asked and answered is why the hell haven't we seen this evidence of collusion if it exists???

But speaking directly to these new anonymous claims, if there is no evidence of collusion and the "investigation" really is just a witch hunt or worse just a phony investigation to give the illusion of misdeeds, then Trump was totally justified in trying to have the appropriate parties tell the public exactly that. Which is exactly what many Democrats have already said publicly and on the record.

If there is evidence, then the public needs to know what that evidence is, and has every right to know.

Everyone involved needs to put up or shut up and let the chips fall where they may.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: dfnj2015

Here's the thing about sources...many "whistleblowers" or "sources" wish to remain anonymous. Just like people dumping documents to Wikileaks like to remain anonymous, and Assange won't give their names up.

If the journalist knows who they are, and they trust the information being given to them, they share the story. If the source later proves to be false, then the journalist's own reputation is on the line as well!

"Sources" are being ridiculed now by those who don't like the story, is what I mostly am seeing here. "Oh, it's unnamed sources. Fake news...yawn..." is a very easy way out from information people don't want to hear.

So believe it or don't believe it. The journalist who is putting out the article is betting their reputation on the accuracy of their information, or they are lying.

It is understandable that if you don't like the news, you might think "oh they are just making it up" but remember, the journalist's credibility and the sources's credibility are on the line. If they risk that enough times for false information, they will no longer be journalists, kind of like KellyAnne Conway is no longer considered credible by most news organizations, because she was no longer trustworthy.

I tend to think this is the truth and it will be borne out, but until we are deeper into the investigation, it cannot be 100% confirmed at this time.

- AB

That's very well said.

The other issue is that President Trump himself has 0 credibility. Why wouldn't the populace be swayed toward believing something negative towards President Trump prior to investigations concluding? The man isn't taken seriously by the majority, and that's on him. He would be given the benefit of the doubt in court (and should), but in the court of public opinion he's positioned himself to be guilty before proven innocent on almost any charge levied his way.

The other issue is that President Trump himself has 0 credibility. Why wouldn't the populace be swayed toward believing something negative towards President Trump prior to investigations concluding? The man isn't taken seriously by the majority, and that's on him. He would be given the benefit of the doubt in court (and should), but in the court of public opinion he's positioned himself to be guilty before proven innocent on almost any charge levied his way.

That's a stinking lie.

We hang on every tweet like it's a revelation from the book of Danial. Believe me!!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: dfnj2015

Just the fact that you need to ask that question -- that we all need to ask that question -- is the worst part of this whole debacle.

The most fundamental question that needs to be asked and answered is why the hell haven't we seen this evidence of collusion if it exists???

But speaking directly to these new anonymous claims, if there is no evidence of collusion and the "investigation" really is just a witch hunt or worse just a phony investigation to give the illusion of misdeeds, then Trump was totally justified in trying to have the appropriate parties tell the public exactly that. Which is exactly what many Democrats have already said publicly and on the record.

If there is evidence, then the public needs to know what that evidence is, and has every right to know.

Everyone involved needs to put up or shut up and let the chips fall where they may.

Much information is still classified and being discussed behind closed doors. We, the public, may want to know it for our own peace of mind, and eventually we will know a LOT more than we do now.

We are used to instant information gratification, and in an investigation like this -- highly complex and moving on multiple fronts with multiple people and both criminal and counterintelligence -- is going to take time.

Republicans have plenty of time to work on their agenda, and nothing will happen for a while. I'm guessing we will see real action about a year from now, if that tells you anything about how slow this could be...in the meantime we get little bits dripped out here and there.

It's going to be a long slog. Demanding "the TRUTH!!" now is premature as law enforcement does the painstaking work of dotting "i's" and crossing "t's." It sucks. But we will get there...

- AB

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DAVID64

So you think it's fake news?

Elsewhere on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, would not comment on a Washington Post story claiming Trump had asked him to abandon the investigation into Russian contacts with members of his campaign.

www.theguardian.com...

Coates would not comment...how would you take that, as classified, non-committal?

As for Trump actually saying that, It's pretty easy for him to have a go at it, make the attempt at least, why pay to play would be his ethos.

a reply to: dfnj2015

And that is the question, it is true or just innuendos an fake news. The thing is that I have spend my fair share of time speculating and wondering on the ifs and not.

Now I thing that after some many conflicting leaks and so much fuss and ado's is time to wait for the truth to come out, the sensationalism is getting into everybody's mind, people are forgetting that is more important things going that unnamed sources and their pushed tabloid news.

Is too much anger, too much bickering, time to step back and wait.

originally posted by: DAVID64
Well first, it's WaPo, so........

"who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president."

Don't they all

a former senior intelligence official

Who? Why is every god**mn story from an "unnamed source"? A "former" this or "high ranking" that ? If he's a "former official, how does he know? Or is this a case of " I heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend ....."

If they actually had something, the Democrats would be shouting it from the rooftops.

I don't believe they have anything on him.

Having said that...I have to disagree with your last statement. If they had anything, it would be about the stupidest thing they could do, shouting it from the rooftops, giving him an advantage by allowing him the opportunity to cover it up.

This isn't the campaign trail anymore...like it or not, he is the sitting President, and his party dominates the government. If you believe that there really are people loyal to the opposing political party positioned to undermine the sitting POTUS, right now, with powerful global ties, and those people are in fact controlling media outlets such as the Washington Post, then you have to acknowledge that they didn't get there by being stupid...nor was it an easy endeavor.

If you happen to believe that these powerful people have actually killed whistleblowers as well, then it's not too much of a leap to imagine that they've been successful at instilling the fear that the opposition is perfectly capable of doing the same thing. I wouldn't want to risk being named in connection with any of this either...no matter which way my political boat happened to float. Would you?

Trump got rid of a lot of people already. And recently. Lots of people can claim the designation "former" in this context, and still be very much in the loop. Hell, I know people who are long-retired that still know everything that goes on, because they've got close friends who still work for the government who tell them things. Some of my elderly veteran neighbors know more dirt than any news outlet could possibly ever know.

Like I said, I don't believe they've actually got anything on him. But the fact that they're still trying so hard to incriminate him tells me that they're desperate...and desperate people are the most dangerous creatures walking the planet. They've got nothing to lose.