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.

 

NYT CORRECTS 17-intelligence Agency Russian hacking narrative to FOUR!

page: 3
50
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The number 17 is used over and over again as a sign of proof that everyone agrees with their assessment.




posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

So by your logic, because Fox News retracted that Seth Rich story and apologized to his family, Sean Hannity is indeed exploiting the horrible death of an innocent young man, cut down in the prime of his life, who has grieving friends and family, by promoting a false story to score political points for his pal Trump?

I know that's what I believe. Now it seems that by your own assertion, if a story being retracted is conclusive and irrefutable proof of it's illegitimacy, then you must also believe as I do when it comes to Sean Hannity? Or do you have a different set of standards for "narratives" that you support and those who promote them?


two high-level CNN employees willingly and explicitly stated the issue is based on complete thin air.


That's inaccurate for a number of reasons. First off, while you might make an argument for Van Jones, John Bonifield is hardly a "high-level CNN employee" he's a producer at CNN Health. He has nothing to do with the political reporting. You get that right?

Van Jones was taken completely out of context and nothing about that statement could be construed as "explicit." On the other hand, I have provided you with a link to a very public statment from a week ago that does give Van Jones's opinion and is explicit in doing so.

Yet you'll ignore that and keep going back to the chopped up, delibately misleading, garbage from a serial hoaxer, known repeat manipulator and sometimes Trump-funded propagandist.

That's grasping.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ares2493
a reply to: theantediluvian

The number 17 is used over and over again as a sign of proof that everyone agrees with their assessment.


I don't disagree that the number 17 shouldn't have been used. That doesn't conversely mean that they disagree either does it? I'm sure they they have no opinion whatsoever since the matter isn't within their purview.

Or are you saying that Coast Guard Intelligence and the DEA are of the opinion that there was no Russian interference? I assume that the answer to that is no. So what you're really doing is playing the same semantics game that you know that others were playing, but in reverse.

Doesn't really change the reality though does it? The agencies who would be expected to have an opinion, all were of the same opinion, albeit to varying degrees of certainty. You're not denying that are you?

The whole thing is rendered even more moot because you're arguing about something from almost 7 months ago. But hey, go for it. Enjoy the high fives from your peers.




posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

...seth rich? stay focused - stick to the point.



That's inaccurate for a number of reasons. First off, while you might make an argument for Van Jones, John Bonifield is hardly a "high-level CNN employee" he's a producer at CNN Health. He has nothing to do with the political reporting. You get that right?


i really do say this with all due respect - you have no intimate knowledge of Bonifield's responsibilities. you cannot accurately discuss the stature and depth of just how important he is to CNN's operation. my statement of him being a "high-level CNN employee" is strictly based on his credentials - based on the vast number of different departments he has a say over. this man is not a lowly employee.

and Van Jones you won't touch, eh? i "might make an argument" for him? god, even you know you're wrong on this. that statement in and of itself is extremely telling.



Van Jones was taken completely out of context and nothing about that statement could be construed as "explicit." On the other hand, I have provided you with a link to a very public statment from a week ago that does give Van Jones's opinion and is explicit in doing so.

Yet you'll ignore that and keep going back to the chopped up, delibately misleading, garbage from a serial hoaxer, known repeat manipulator and sometimes Trump-funded propagandist.


there's nothing chopped up about it. he called the whole russian story a nothing burger. furthermore, i completely acknowledge and keep in mind the statement you're referring to.

did he state as much in his "very public statement?" did he state as much on every single CNN panel he's been on that was explicitly discussing the trump-russian collusion/russian hacking segments?

no. he didn't. you know he didn't.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
This is typical of the intent of the fake news the liberal media push... the retraction comes (if it ever does) way way after willing fools have helped push the fake news.

We've had many on here and all over social media repeating the lie word for word after they heard it.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
..and Podesta is repeating this lie just recently in this interview with Fox Business.

Quite an interesting interview all round - Podesta and the Democrats finally being questioned on their deep ties to Russia

Podesta's answers leave a lot to be desired - claiming he was never given any shares in Joule, a company with ties to the Kremlin.


edit on 29/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   
The deception spewing from the dragon's mouth, MSM, is not wiped out by a small disclaimer. They tried to influence the public against the Republican candidate using untrue information. They should be liable for that, they should lose their license to do business.

Spewing lies is not the job of the press.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Ares2493

2016 has taught me that everything printed in newspapers and posted online is BS, until proven otherwise.

That way, when crap like this occurs, I remain satisfied that I've got it right.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye


...seth rich? stay focused - stick to the point.


You mean don't point out the weaknesses in your argument? Nah, I'll pass.


i really do say this with all due respect - you have no intimate knowledge of Bonifield's responsibilities. you cannot accurately discuss the stature and depth of just how important he is to CNN's operation. my statement of him being a "high-level CNN employee" is strictly based on his credentials - based on the vast number of different departments he has a say over. this man is not a lowly employee.


I have exactly as much knowledge of his responsibilities as you do though don't I? I know that he is producer and he's a producer for CNN Health. No matter what people he oversees (and most producers don't actually oversee many if any unless they're Executive Producers or "show runners."), they're not responsible for the political reporting.


and Van Jones you won't touch, eh? i "might make an argument" for him? god, even you know you're wrong on this. that statement in and of itself is extremely telling.


I was agreeing with you that Van Jones is arguably a "high level employee" at CNN. Van Jones's position at CNN is obvious isn't it? What are you trying to imply here again?


there's nothing chopped up about it. he called the whole russian story a nothing burger. furthermore, i completely acknowledge and keep in mind the statement you're referring to.


There's a chop right after the, "We met in Palm Beach." "Oh, hi!" exchange. Then he asked a question and as he's in the middle of answering it, somebody else runs up to him and then *CHOP*.

Somehow you are able to extrapolate more from that one line and a half finished second line than a video of Van Jones explaining why he thinks the Russian investigation is a "nothing burger" for Democrats.

Furthermore, we have no idea what conversation was had before or after that extremely brief exchange in the O'Keefe video do we? And that's how O'Keefe likes it and why he'll make a 4 minute video around 5 seconds of actual speech. It's clear when considering his other statements that he was saying that nothing was going to come out of the investigation that would change circumstances.

And to answer your question, he said *way* more in the video he posted on Twitter.

I believe that you're allowing yourself to misconstrue that excerpt with the help of O'Keefe solely because it feeds your confirmation bias and that if it didn't, you'd look at it objectively and arrive at a different conclusion given that the available evidence — such as his statement in the video on Twitter from last week — fits perfectly with the interpretation of his statement that I'm arguing is clearly correct.
edit on 2017-6-29 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

this whole NYT correction is insane to me. did they leave absolutely any context as to what new information came to light that prompted them to correct this?

all i see is that a correction was made (and a massive one at that), with absolutely no explanation as to what this correction is based on.

this is clear and unmistakable proof that he's unapologetically lying on camera.

what boggles my mind is why skippy would even dare stick his neck out like that, knowing full well he won't be asked sanitized questions.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

you talking about seth rich when i'm talking to you about CNN isn't you pointing out weaknesses in my argument. you're drawing comparisons that literally cannot be compared.



I have exactly as much knowledge of his responsibilities as you do though don't I? I know that he is producer for... CNN Health. What vast number of departments does he have say over? Please share your intimate knowledge.


here's where your confirmation bias starts to set in. Bonifield's work history:






And to answer your question, he said *way* more in the video he posted on Twitter.


who cares how many words he said? didn't your teachers ever tell you that it's not about the length, but the quality of the content? he never called it a nothing burger among all those words, now did he?



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

and..



I was agreeing with you that Van Jones is arguably a "high level employee" at CNN. Van Jones's position at CNN is obvious isn't it? What are you trying to imply here again?


implying? i didn't imply anything. i'm outright telling you that you're being disingenuous by saying i "might make an argument" for the VJ portion of PV's footage. if an argument "could be made," then it should be made. by the same token, "what can go wrong, will go wrong."

in other words - if you see that there's truly an argument that can be made about him being a "high level CNN employee who believes the entire russia story is a 'nothing burger," then there's no reason for you to assassinate PV's character on this. those are his words. he should be held accountable for them.



There's a chop right after the, "We met in Palm Beach." "Oh, hi!" exchange. Then he asked a question and as he's in the middle of answering it, somebody else runs up to him and then *CHOP*.

Somehow you are able to extrapolate more from that one line and a half finished second line than a video of Van Jones explaining why he thinks the Russian investigation is a "nothing burger" for Democrats.

Furthermore, we have no idea what conversation was had before or after that extremely brief exchange in the O'Keefe video do we?


somehow, you are able to extrapolate from this interaction that VJ was taken completely out of context. this begs the question: in your mind, how could this be taken out of context? how in the world can "this russia thing is a huge nothing burger" mean anything other than exactly that? what exactly do you think happened during those oh so problematic editing decisions you're talking about?



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Ares2493



Did anyone watch the Putin interviews with Oliver Stone? That is what Putin kept saying was that it was not 17 agencies it was only 4, pretty sad when the the President of Russia is more accurate and trustworthy than our own media.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
It only took them what 9 months to correct juked stats (to put it lightly) that we all knew about what a week after She got up at the debate claiming that malarkey.

Where's all the MSM bootlickers to go 'oh phffft the MSM always corrects their 'mistakes' and their lies they're just the best thing since since garlic bread'.

NINE months is BS.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
FOUR is still greater than zero...



So is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001, which seems to be the credibility of the media these days.
edit on 29-6-2017 by 3daysgone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Ares2493

Meanwhile WSJ drops story linking a GOP operative who was actively seeking Clintons deleted emails from Russian hackers to Mike Flynn.
The first hint we have of possible collusion now being investigated by the FBI and Robert Muellers special counsel.
www.wsj.com...
Or here if you don't subscribe to WSJ

www.foxnews.com...


Before the 2016 presidential election, a longtime Republican opposition researcher mounted an independent campaign to obtain emails he believed were stolen from Hillary Clinton’s private server, likely by Russian hackers.

In conversations with members of his circle and with others he tried to recruit to help him, the GOP operative, Peter W. Smith, implied he was working with retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, at the time a senior adviser to then-candidate Donald Trump



edit on 6292017 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

lol. That is a good outlook to have in this day and age.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Ares2493

Correcting a blatant lie 6+ months later is a bs way to divert attention from the original fact that the NYT lied. It also means Hillary Clinton lied since she is the one who started the 17 agency bs.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

But you can?
His position has been clearly outlined as a producer of medical segments.



posted on Jun, 29 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

when you respond to someone, especially here on ATS, it really helps if you read everything someone said before you reply to them.

what you just said, i've already addressed. there's already a sufficient rebuttal to exactly what you just said... on this very same page.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join