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.
A 2016 email sent to President Trump and top aides pointed the campaign to hacked documents from the Democratic National Committee that had already been made public by the group WikiLeaks a day earlier.
Washington (CNN)Correction: This story has been corrected to say the date of the email was September 14, 2016, not September 4, 2016. The story also changed the headline and removed a tweet from Donald Trump Jr., who posted a message about WikiLeaks on September 4, 2016.
CNN originally reported the email was released September 4 -- 10 days earlier -- based on accounts from two sources who had seen the email. The new details appear to show that the sender was relying on publicly available information. The new information indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported.
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: face23785
Thank you for that information. I was wondering why this CNN reporter sounded so let down, when she said that the email was the 14th instead of the 4th.
But still, The Washington Post has a lot of nerve attacking CNN as fake news. Its credibility isn't much better.
originally posted by: face23785
Washington Post ran an article that appears to correct some erroneous reporting from CNN
A 2016 email sent to President Trump and top aides pointed the campaign to hacked documents from the Democratic National Committee that had already been made public by the group WikiLeaks a day earlier.
CNN originally published an article claiming the email was dated 4 September 2016, when it was actually 14 September, in their rush to provide some evidence of collusion, since there isn't any yet.
CNN article with correction
Washington (CNN)Correction: This story has been corrected to say the date of the email was September 14, 2016, not September 4, 2016. The story also changed the headline and removed a tweet from Donald Trump Jr., who posted a message about WikiLeaks on September 4, 2016.
Those 10 days make a big difference because by 14 September 2016 pretty much everyone knew about the WikiLeaks release already. On 4 September, it could be interpreted as showing some degree of coordination between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks. With the correct information, it's essentially meaningless. They should have made a complete retraction, since there's really no story there at all with the changes.
CNN originally reported the email was released September 4 -- 10 days earlier -- based on accounts from two sources who had seen the email. The new details appear to show that the sender was relying on publicly available information. The new information indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported.
How many times are they gonna get burned by these "sources" before they wise up? I'm not completely against anonymous sources, but journalists used to have high standards before using them. They would try to corroborate what they were being told through a more reliable source. Sometimes only an anonymous source would be used if the journalist had a long history with them and they'd never led them astray. Now the standard appears to be if it's bad for Trump, no verification required, print it. Same thing happened last week with the Flynn news.
ETA: Update: Apparently MSNBC's Ken Dilanian also claimed to have "confirmed the information" in CNN's original story. What a week. ABC, CNN, and NBC all embarrassed themselves.
In the video, the female anchor claims he confirmed the information (obviously being told this in her ear as they're throwing it to Dilanian), to which he replies "Yes that's right."
Brian Stelter
@brianstelter
A CNN spokeswoman says there will not be disciplinary action in this case because, unlike with Brian Ross/ABC, @MKRaju followed the editorial standards process. Multiple sources provided him with incorrect info.