Mueller Seeks White House Documents on Flynn

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The problem is the number of articles those 2 outlets had to retract or clarify because the stories were wrong.

Of the hundreds of articles posted since Trump took office, how many fit this definition? The few that do have been retracted. You see, that's what news organizations do when they make a mistake... Unlike Trump, who never retracts a damned thing.

Sorry dude, but much of their reporting has been proven correct.

Clearly Sessions thinks the leakers are real and are divulging real government secrets.

Erm, most of there stories have been about Russian collusion - and none of them have been proven correct.

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: xuenchen

Robert S. Mueller III is a full fledged anti-American tyrant.
When the people fear the government (F.B.I. Fat Bureaucratic Idiots), there is tyranny.

His ego is huge too. No way he's walking about without recommending an indictment on someone. Not after millions of man-hours and taxpayer dollars.

Has any special counsel in high-profile proceedings cleared everyone, and closed a case before?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The problem is the number of articles those 2 outlets had to retract or clarify because the stories were wrong.

Of the hundreds of articles posted since Trump took office, how many fit this definition? The few that do have been retracted. You see, that's what news organizations do when they make a mistake... Unlike Trump, who never retracts a damned thing.

Sorry dude, but much of their reporting has been proven correct.

Clearly Sessions thinks the leakers are real and are divulging real government secrets.

Erm, most of there stories have been about Russian collusion - and none of them have been proven correct.

None of them, huh? So to prove you wrong, I only have to fine ONE?

Jesus, the Comey leaks in and of themselves already have you eating crow.

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The problem is the number of articles those 2 outlets had to retract or clarify because the stories were wrong.

Of the hundreds of articles posted since Trump took office, how many fit this definition? The few that do have been retracted. You see, that's what news organizations do when they make a mistake... Unlike Trump, who never retracts a damned thing.

Sorry dude, but much of their reporting has been proven correct.

Clearly Sessions thinks the leakers are real and are divulging real government secrets.

Erm, most of there stories have been about Russian collusion - and none of them have been proven correct.

None of them, huh? So to prove you wrong, I only have to fine ONE?

Jesus, the Comey leaks in and of themselves already have you eating crow.

No, you would have to provide evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to rig the election.
If you have such evidence then I suggest you pass it Mueller first and then post here if you are allowed.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The problem is the number of articles those 2 outlets had to retract or clarify because the stories were wrong.

Of the hundreds of articles posted since Trump took office, how many fit this definition? The few that do have been retracted. You see, that's what news organizations do when they make a mistake... Unlike Trump, who never retracts a damned thing.

Sorry dude, but much of their reporting has been proven correct.

Clearly Sessions thinks the leakers are real and are divulging real government secrets.

Erm, most of there stories have been about Russian collusion - and none of them have been proven correct.

None of them, huh? So to prove you wrong, I only have to fine ONE?

Jesus, the Comey leaks in and of themselves already have you eating crow.

No, you would have to provide evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to rig the election.
If you have such evidence then I suggest you pass it Mueller first and then post here if you are allowed.

I would have to provide no such thing. I would only have to provide proof of ONE accurate WAPO article.

Why you goofy?

Personally, I've never seen an NYT article or a WAPO article that made a definitive claim that Trump colluded with Russia. They report what they are given. And I assure you I can find one article that has been proven true, even though you're already moving the goalposts like tool moe dee.

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The problem is the number of articles those 2 outlets had to retract or clarify because the stories were wrong.

Of the hundreds of articles posted since Trump took office, how many fit this definition? The few that do have been retracted. You see, that's what news organizations do when they make a mistake... Unlike Trump, who never retracts a damned thing.

Sorry dude, but much of their reporting has been proven correct.

Clearly Sessions thinks the leakers are real and are divulging real government secrets.

Erm, most of there stories have been about Russian collusion - and none of them have been proven correct.

None of them, huh? So to prove you wrong, I only have to fine ONE?

Jesus, the Comey leaks in and of themselves already have you eating crow.

No, you would have to provide evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to rig the election.
If you have such evidence then I suggest you pass it Mueller first and then post here if you are allowed.

I would have to provide no such thing. I would only have to provide proof of ONE accurate WAPO article.

Why you goofy?

Er, no. I just told you what you would have to provide to meet my challenge.
You can accept it or not.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The problem is the number of articles those 2 outlets had to retract or clarify because the stories were wrong.

Of the hundreds of articles posted since Trump took office, how many fit this definition? The few that do have been retracted. You see, that's what news organizations do when they make a mistake... Unlike Trump, who never retracts a damned thing.

Sorry dude, but much of their reporting has been proven correct.

Clearly Sessions thinks the leakers are real and are divulging real government secrets.

Erm, most of there stories have been about Russian collusion - and none of them have been proven correct.

None of them, huh? So to prove you wrong, I only have to fine ONE?

Jesus, the Comey leaks in and of themselves already have you eating crow.

No, you would have to provide evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to rig the election.
If you have such evidence then I suggest you pass it Mueller first and then post here if you are allowed.

I would have to provide no such thing. I would only have to provide proof of ONE accurate WAPO article.

Why you goofy?

Er, no. I just told you what you would have to provide to meet my challenge.
You can accept it or not.

Why you dope it?

You originally said this: "Erm, most of there stories have been about Russian collusion - and none of them have been proven correct."

You are saying:
1) Most of their stories have been about Russian collusion
and
2) None of their stories have been proven correct

First, I haven't seen one single story from WAPO or the NYT make a definitive claim of collusion. Maybe one is out there in the form of an opinion piece, but like I said, I haven't seen it.


Why should I have to prove something they've never even claimed?

The truth is that a story can be "about collusion" (to use your phrase) without making CLAIMS of collusion. In that sense, I can show you multiple stories "about collusion" that have been proven true.

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The problem is the number of articles those 2 outlets had to retract or clarify because the stories were wrong.

Of the hundreds of articles posted since Trump took office, how many fit this definition? The few that do have been retracted. You see, that's what news organizations do when they make a mistake... Unlike Trump, who never retracts a damned thing.

Sorry dude, but much of their reporting has been proven correct.

Clearly Sessions thinks the leakers are real and are divulging real government secrets.

Erm, most of there stories have been about Russian collusion - and none of them have been proven correct.

None of them, huh? So to prove you wrong, I only have to fine ONE?

Jesus, the Comey leaks in and of themselves already have you eating crow.

No, you would have to provide evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to rig the election.
If you have such evidence then I suggest you pass it Mueller first and then post here if you are allowed.

I would have to provide no such thing. I would only have to provide proof of ONE accurate WAPO article.

Why you goofy?

Er, no. I just told you what you would have to provide to meet my challenge.
You can accept it or not.

Why you dope it?

You originally said this: "Erm, most of there stories have been about Russian collusion - and none of them have been proven correct."

You are saying:
1) Most of their stories have been about Russian collusion
and
2) None of their stories have been proven correct

First, I haven't seen one single story from WAPO or the NYT make a definitive claim of collusion. Maybe one is out there in the form of an opinion piece, but like I said, I haven't seen it.


Why should I have to prove something they've never even claimed?

The truth is that a story can be "about collusion" (to use your phrase) without making CLAIMS of collusion. In that sense, I can show you multiple stories "about collusion" that have been proven true.

That's hilarious.

So, you can spend a year talking about a crime and impeachment, but not be trying to push a narrative or accusation.


How about if the media spent a year discussing whether you had committed a crime and provided no evidence to support it... would they be just chatting and all their stories true?

Brilliant.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The problem is the number of articles those 2 outlets had to retract or clarify because the stories were wrong.

Of the hundreds of articles posted since Trump took office, how many fit this definition? The few that do have been retracted. You see, that's what news organizations do when they make a mistake... Unlike Trump, who never retracts a damned thing.

Sorry dude, but much of their reporting has been proven correct.

Clearly Sessions thinks the leakers are real and are divulging real government secrets.

Erm, most of there stories have been about Russian collusion - and none of them have been proven correct.

None of them, huh? So to prove you wrong, I only have to fine ONE?

Jesus, the Comey leaks in and of themselves already have you eating crow.

No, you would have to provide evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to rig the election.
If you have such evidence then I suggest you pass it Mueller first and then post here if you are allowed.

I would have to provide no such thing. I would only have to provide proof of ONE accurate WAPO article.

Why you goofy?

Er, no. I just told you what you would have to provide to meet my challenge.
You can accept it or not.

Why you dope it?

You originally said this: "Erm, most of there stories have been about Russian collusion - and none of them have been proven correct."

You are saying:
1) Most of their stories have been about Russian collusion
and
2) None of their stories have been proven correct

First, I haven't seen one single story from WAPO or the NYT make a definitive claim of collusion. Maybe one is out there in the form of an opinion piece, but like I said, I haven't seen it.


Why should I have to prove something they've never even claimed?

The truth is that a story can be "about collusion" (to use your phrase) without making CLAIMS of collusion. In that sense, I can show you multiple stories "about collusion" that have been proven true.

That's hilarious.

So, you can spend a year talking about a crime and impeachment, but not be trying to push a narrative or accusation.

How about if the media spent a year discussing whether you had committed a crime and provided no evidence to support it... would they be just chatting and all their stories true?

Brilliant.

What's brilliant is your level of confusion.

You seem to be confused about whether WAPO or the NYT has ever made a claim of collusion in a hard news story. They certainly haven't, or we'd all know it. And you can bet they won't UNLESS or UNTIL hard evidence exists to back it up, at which point I'd be glad to link to the article for you.

They have reported numerous news stories that are RELEVANT to speculation regarding whether collusion took place. And several of those stories have indeed been proven true.

The truth is that WAPO is reporting on what they are given. Sometimes people leak information. If they feel like they've vetted the source sufficiently and the story is news worthy, they report. They also report on lots of things that weren't the result of leaked information -- stories with "on the record" sources.

Seems a little goofy that you'd ask me to prove something that the WAPO has never claimed as EVIDENCE that their articles are accurate. I mean, what sort of fairy tale land do you live in?

a reply to: Dudemo5

You are almost there...

They have reported numerous news stories that are RELEVANT to speculation regarding whether collusion took place.

Yes.. propaganda to try and convince people a crime was committed.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Dudemo5

You are almost there...

They have reported numerous news stories that are RELEVANT to speculation regarding whether collusion took place.

Yes.. propaganda to try and convince people a crime was committed.

On a site like ATS (land of the conspiracy theorist), I'd expect no less.

It's still goofy for you to expect me to provide proof of something WAPO has never explicitly claimed, or to think such a thing is relevant to the accuracy of an article where no such claim is made.

a reply to: Dudemo5

On the russia narrative, which is what we are talking about - I provided you a list. The media has been wrong / distorting / adding their own facts since this started. I am sorry you cant see that.

I thought he was supposed to be doing a special investigation into Trump colluding with the Russians. What, does Mueller have carte blanc to investigate anything and everything? Someone needs to reign that bulls#it in.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Because there is and never has been any collusion between trump and Russia. This special counsel is designed to bring trump down by any means necessary, either by impeachment or by obtaining info under the guise of this investigation to be used against him in the next election. The special counsel is already outside his mandate by trying to look into stuff that happened back in like 2008.

Too bad the FBI / DOJ wasn't like this in regards to Clinton.