What's new

Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Bahahahahahahahahahaha

Lmao

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html


This **** is hilarious.

But not really. This is exactly what the liberal news is about. Just report bull ****. Then retract. Wash rinse repeat. But but but. So much credibility. Smh
Buzzfeed is a questionable source.

What does all this show?

#1 Mueller's team makes very few statements. But in this instance they wanted to correct falsehoods. They wanted to direct back towards the facts.

#2 CNN wanted to interview representatives from Buzzfeed to get info from the source (of the source) but in light of the Muller team's statement they instead reported that the story had been contradicted by the Mueller team.

So all of the reporting of the Buzzfeed story I have seen made clear that none of the information provided by Buzzfeed had been independently verified. It is not uncommon when a news outlet breaks a story that other news outlets report on the "breaking story." They almost always report it as a story by (whoever) that they have not independently verified. That's what happened here. Buzzfeed has sources. They believe their sources. They reported the story based on their confidence in those sources.

If this report was flat out wrong, Buzzfeed will either have to explain how thy were duped or they will become an illegitimate news source. That's how journalism works.

CNN didn't issue a retraction. No one but Buzzfeed needs to issue a retraction. They haven't done that yet, They have said they are looking into this further. The entire news media doesn't have to issue a retraction here.

Some of you don't know how journalism works. I mean, I was on my middle school and high school newspaper, so it's like I'm a ****ing expert here. Which is pretty damn funny.
 
Buzzfeed is a questionable source.

What does all this show?

#1 Mueller's team makes very few statements. But in this instance they wanted to correct falsehoods. They wanted to direct back towards the facts.

#2 CNN wanted to interview representatives from Buzzfeed to get info from the source (of the source) but in light of the Muller team's statement they instead reported that the story had been contradicted by the Mueller team.

So all of the reporting of the Buzzfeed story I have seen made clear that none of the information provided by Buzzfeed had been independently verified. It is not uncommon when a news outlet breaks a story that other news outlets report on the "breaking story." They almost always report it as a story by (whoever) that they have not independently verified. That's what happened here. Buzzfeed has sources. They believe their sources. They reported the story based on their confidence in those sources.

If this report was flat out wrong, Buzzfeed will either have to explain how thy were duped or they will become an illegitimate news source. That's how journalism works.

CNN didn't issue a retraction. No one but Buzzfeed needs to issue a retraction. They haven't done that yet, They have said they are looking into this further. The entire news media doesn't have to issue a retraction here.

Some of you don't know how journalism works. I mean, I was on my middle school and high school newspaper, so it's like I'm a ****ing expert here. Which is pretty damn funny.
FWIW buzzfeed is far from questionable. They've broken numerous stories in Trump Russia. They were first to break the Steele Dossier and Trump Tower Moscow.
 
FWIW buzzfeed is far from questionable. They've broken numerous stories in Trump Russia. They were first to break the Steele Dossier and Trump Tower Moscow.
Well then let's see where this goes. Either they are going to contradict a very rare public statement by the Mueller team or they are going to explain how they got duped. If they go down the road of contradicting the Mueller team statement they damn well better have the goods.
 
Nice hit piece tho.
Well, CNN and everyone else who reported on the Buzzfeed piece needs to clarify where this story came from. It's not really a "hit piece' if it's accurate, is it?

It's up to buzzfeed to either clear this **** up or issue a retraction. Right?
 
Well then let's see where this goes. Either they are going to contradict a very rare public statement by the Mueller team or they are going to explain how they got duped. If they go down the road of contradicting the Mueller team statement they damn well better have the goods.

Mueller's statement is incredibly vague and I imagine carefully worded for a reason. It definitely doesn't necessarily mean that buzzfeed was 'duped'.
 
Mueller’s team didn’t claim that Buzzfeed’s story was bogus. I think we should carefully read Team Mueller’s statement. Also interesting, Cohen hasn’t denied the Buzzfeed story. Hmmm

It’s pretty hilarious to watch the radical right jump all over this. As if Hannity and team trump haven’t lied through their teeth on nearly a daily basis. Remember how the trump tower meeting never happened? And then how only adoptions were discussed until they weren’t? And how Donald had no idea that the meeting happened until he personally dictated a statement for his son to read?

Keep rubbing this thing repubs. Whatever to keep you distracted from the government shutdown and trump’s failing presidency.
 
Mueller's statement is incredibly vague and I imagine carefully worded for a reason. It definitely doesn't necessarily mean that buzzfeed was 'duped'.
It doesn't mean that. But they felt it was necessary to make a public statement that claims made in that story were not 100% correct.

Obviously there has been a firestorm since the story came out. If true it meant that Trump had committed an absolute crime and that he should be impeached. The Mueller team felt they needed to make clear that the report was not 100% consistent with the information they have.

So when I say buzzfeed needs to explain how they were "duped" maybe that's too strong. Maybe they need to clarify a possible different interpretation of the facts. I mean, if the report comes back and it matches greater than 90% with the buzzfeed story on significant facts then I'm sure they will proclaim victory.

But what if there are no documents to back up this story? It's just Cohen's word? That's a different story than what was reported. If that's the case then the story wasn't really correct. I mean we're not Donald Trump's spin crew, we have to deal in facts 'round these parts.
 
It doesn't mean that. But they felt it was necessary to make a public statement that claims made in that story were not 100% correct.

Obviously there has been a firestorm since the story came out. If true it meant that Trump had committed an absolute crime and that he should be impeached. The Mueller team felt they needed to make clear that the report was not 100% consistent with the information they have.

So when I say buzzfeed needs to explain how they were "duped" maybe that's too strong. Maybe they need to clarify a possible different interpretation of the facts. I mean, if the report comes back and it matches greater than 90% with the buzzfeed story on significant facts then I'm sure they will proclaim victory.

But what if there are no documents to back up this story? It's just Cohen's word? That's a different story than what was reported. If that's the case then the story wasn't really correct. I mean we're not Donald Trump's spin crew, we have to deal in facts 'round these parts.
Well, I would say Mueller's team is the one who should clarify what exactly they are disputing. Take a close look at that sentencing memo, it essentially makes the same claim the Buzzfeed piece does, namely that Cohen lied to congress at the direction of 'Client 1.' It wouldn't have made its way into that agreement on Cohen's word alone.
 
Back
Top