Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

26000 Elephants

2 Scoops wrote: »

The biggest problem for CNN's latest "bombshell" is not that their anonymous source ( Davis ) lied,

Who said Davis lied?

What he has said is that he no longer has "full confidence" that it was true. Glenn can get as hysterical as he likes, but until Cohen or Mueller make a statement that it wasn't true, its still up for speculation.

I'll wait for his deposition.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

The biggest problem for CNN's latest "bombshell" is not that their anonymous source ( Davis ) lied, it's that those who wrote the story said they reached out to Davis to comment on the story but he refused knowing he was the anonymous source. That is hugely misleading and in my eyes a straight up a lie. On top of that the Washington post and others retracted their stories but CNN still refuse to do so. Davis was on Anderson Coopers show and repeated the false claim only to completely U turn a week later.

By my count it's the 5th major Russian bombshell CNN has gotten wrong in a relatively short period of time, Scaramucci and Russian bank, Don JR had early access to Wikileaks emails, Comey would refute Trump's claim of not being under investigation at hearing and that Russians had hacked election systems in 21 states. The stories have to be actually factual first before complaining about wrongful fake news claims. They are making it incredibly easy for Trump.

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28/cnn-credibly-accused-of-lying-to-its-audience-about-a-key-claim-in-its-blockbuster-cohen-story-refuses-to-comment/

As mentioned above, Lanny Davis made the error, not CNN.

Plus, we are 18 or so months into the presidency. 4 wrong and subsequently corrected in a 24 hour a day 7 day a week news cycle for that 18 months is not a bad record.

If one were to check fox, you'd get more than 4 erroneous stories an hour

2 Scoops

everlast75 wrote: »

As mentioned above, Lanny Davis made the error, not CNN.

CNN wrote in the article that they contacted Cohen lawyer Lanny Davis for comment but he refused, you don't see a problem with that?

26000 Elephants

2 Scoops wrote: »

CNN wrote in the article that they contacted Cohen lawyer Lanny Davis for comment but he refused, you don't see a problem with that?

Thats standard practice to protect sources.

2 Scoops

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Who said Davis lied?

Was he telling the truth? Twist it whatever way you want.

He went on the record to several media outlets stating those claims as fact before saying;

"It's a major mistake for which I am 100 percent sorry. Period. I never should have done it unless I was certain and could prove it."

Here's what he said to Anderson Cooper live on CNN;

“So Michael Cohen does not have information that President Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians beforehand or even after?” CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Davis.

“No, he does not,” Davis said.

Strange how it coincided with Cohen's go fund me campaign.

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

Was he telling the truth? Twist it whatever way you want.

He went on the record to several media outlets stating those claims as fact before saying;

"It's a major mistake for which I am 100 percent sorry. Period. I never should have done it unless I was certain and could prove it."

Strange how it coincided with Cohen's go fund me campaign.

True, but how is that CNN's fault? You accept that he said it, so CNN reported it. That is not fake news.

The fact that he has retracted it, doesn't change the fact that he said it.

Also, it runs contrary to Cohen under oath statement in the court that he was told by Trump to do the deals. It is not much a leap to think he was also involved in other things.

I think you have answered your own question. The lawyer spoke out of turn, he wasn't supposed to let that be known but he did it as they attempted to get funding. As Seth Abramson said, it was probably an no-no from Mueller and he was forced to retract. Another option is that he just lied about it.

mcmoustache

2 Scoops wrote: »

The biggest problem for CNN's latest "bombshell" is not that their anonymous source ( Davis ) lied, it's that those who wrote the story said they reached out to Davis to comment on the story but he refused knowing he was the anonymous source. That is hugely misleading and in my eyes a straight up a lie. On top of that the Washington post and others retracted their stories but CNN still refuse to do so. Davis was on Anderson Coopers show and repeated the false claim only to completely U turn a week later.

They reported what multiple anonymous sources told them, one of whom was Davis. That's how most new operates - they use multiple sources under the condition of anonymity. CNN, as it happens, demanded the resignations of 3 of its staff and retracted a story for not meeting their vetting standards in the story about Scaramucci meeting Dmitriev. The meeting happened of course but there are standards to be upheld, especially when dealing with anonymous sources.

CNN standing by this story means that they are either being extremely reckless or that they have more evidence for the story than Davis's word.

Not that it matters. Trump has no issue with anonymous sources as he is often an anonymous source himself. Most of those who are giving out about it are doing so not out of concern for the standards of journalism but moreso because of their own ignorance about how journalism works and that their dear leader claims to be concerned by it when there's a story that he doesn't like.

2 Scoops wrote: »

By my count it's the 5th major Russian bombshell CNN has gotten wrong in a relatively short period of time, Scaramucci and Russian bank, Don JR had early access to Wikileaks emails, Comey would refute Trump's claim of not being under investigation at hearing and that Russians had hacked election systems in 21 states. The stories have to be actually factual first before complaining about wrongful fake news claims. They are making it incredibly easy for Trump.

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/28/cnn-credibly-accused-of-lying-to-its-audience-about-a-key-claim-in-its-blockbuster-cohen-story-refuses-to-comment/

That's a pretty good record given the amount of stories that they've published over the last few years. That's like a 99.9% accuracy rate even if we ignore the fact that they retract their stories.

Again, this will be meaningless to you. Trump hates FAKE NEWS CNN and by golly, so will you.

2 Scoops

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Thats standard practice to protect sources.

Eh, no it's not. They could have left that sentence out of their report but they didn't. There's nothing standard about it at all in journalistic ethics. It's purposely misleading, end of.

2 Scoops

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's a pretty good record given the amount of stories that they've published over the last few years. That's like a 99.9% accuracy rate even if we ignore the fact that they retract their stories.

It's a horrendous record when talking about the Russian investigation, so horrendous people have been fired over it and CNN's higher up had to implement a higher scrutiny procedure when reporting on Russia because it was badly hurting their overall credibility.

2 Scoops

Leroy42 wrote: »

Also, it runs contrary to Cohen under oath statement in the court that he was told by Trump to do the deals.

That's not what the report was about, it was about whether or not Trump had knowledge prior or otherwise of the Trump tower meeting. Cohen under oath stated he didn't when he was interviewed. His lawyer then went to several media outlets on the record and told them he did. Then a week later he backtracked and said Cohen doesn't have any knowledge of it.

CNN in their report stated that they reached out to Davis for comment but he refused to do. Buzzfeed published an article where Davis admitted to being their anonymous source.

mcmoustache

2 Scoops wrote: »

It's a horrendous record when talking about the Russian investigation, so horrendous people have been fired over it and CNN's higher up had to implement a higher scrutiny procedure when reporting on Russia because it was badly hurting their overall credibility.

They weren't fired because CNN's reporting had a bad record. They were fired because they didn't adhere to CNN's vetting standards. That's what an organisation who trades on credibility does when their credibility could be threatened. This shouldn't be news to you.

2 Scoops

mcmoustache wrote: »

They weren't fired because CNN's reporting had a bad record. They were fired because they didn't adhere to CNN's vetting standards. That's what an organisation who trades on credibility does when their credibility could be threatened. This shouldn't be news to you.

After 5 major "bombshells" all in the same direction I don't think CNN and credibility go together, unless of course you're gunning against Trump, then it doesn't matter.

26000 Elephants

2 Scoops wrote: »

Eh, no it's not. They could have left that sentence out of their report but they didn't. There's nothing standard about it at all in journalistic ethics. It's purposely misleading, end of.

I disagree, but you are welcome to your opinion. It would have been very odd, in the circumstances, not to have mentioned that they reached out to Cohens lawyer .

Now, maybe you could turn some of your obvious zeal for the truth on to that pathological liar who happens to be the 45th President of the United States?

mcmoustache

2 Scoops wrote: »

After 5 major "bombshells" all in the same direction I don't think CNN and credibility go together, unless of course you're gunning against Trump, then it doesn't matter.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

We don't have proof either way yet but the idea that Kushner, Jr and Trump Campaign Manager Manafort would attend a meeting that was planned in advance offering dirt on Clinton without Trump's knowledge stretches credulity.

Trump could be telling the truth here but if I've learned anything over these past few years, it's that betting on Trump being truthful is a fools errand.

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

mcmoustache wrote: »

They weren't fired because CNN's reporting had a bad record. They were fired because they didn't adhere to CNN's vetting standards. That's what an organisation who trades on credibility does when their credibility could be threatened. This shouldn't be news to you.

After 5 major "bombshells" all in the same direction I don't think CNN and credibility go together, unless of course you're gunning against Trump, then it doesn't matter.

Thoughts on the bombshell that China hacked the Dems?

2 Scoops

mcmoustache wrote: »

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

We don't have proof either way yet but the idea that Kushner, Jr and Trump Campaign Manager Manafort would attend a meeting that was planned in advance offering dirt on Clinton without Trump's knowledge stretches credulity.

Trump could be telling the truth here but if I've learned anything over these past few years, it's that betting on Trump being truthful is a fools errand.

I think he knew about it, that's not the point I was making, mainly CNN being deceitful in that they reached out to Cohen's lawyer for comment and that they put him on air multiple times to refute the claims. There is footage of a mini rally where he stated that information about Clinton was going to come out around the same time that Trump tower meeting was reported to have taken place.

What I don't believe happened is the golden egg, where there was a conspiracy between his campaign and Russian officials that directed hacking efforts or whatever collusion amounts to. Like you said, time will tell.

2 Scoops

Christy42 wrote: »

Thoughts on the bombshell that China hacked the Dems?

That's the report, make of it what you want. I would take much of Gohmert says with a huge grain of salt. Broadly speaking, I think the possibility she was hacked by China or other entities on a unsecured server is high.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/27/china-hacked-clinton-server/

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

That's the report, make of it what you want. I would take much of Gohmert says with a huge grain of salt.



https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/27/china-hacked-clinton-server/

Well the FBI have already come out and said that it is nonsense.

Incredible that Trump can accuse China without a shread of evidence, yet defend Russia in the face of mountains of evidence....

mcmoustache

The FBI has already poured cold water on it. One of these days, when we're all dead and buried, we'll be able to move past Hillary Clinton's emails.

Dohnjoe

So apparently Giuliani is working on behalf of the Romanian government

https://www.politico.eu/article/rudy-giuliani-trump-lawyer-paid-to-criticize-romanian-anti-corruption-drive-klaus-iohannis/

BabyCheeses

2 Scoops wrote: »

It's a horrendous record when talking about the Russian investigation, so horrendous people have been fired over it and CNN's higher up had to implement a higher scrutiny procedure when reporting on Russia because it was badly hurting their overall credibility.

Horrendous records when talking about the Russia investigation are your favourite. If they can ramp it up you'll be calling for CNN 2020.

Dohnjoe

mcmoustache wrote: »

The FBI has already poured cold water on it. One of these days, when we're all dead and buried, we'll be able to move past Hillary Clinton's emails.

Hillary's private emails and Benghazi.

Can you imagine if they actually had something concrete, like the sitting president neck-deep in corruption and possible collusion.

Leroy42

2Scoops, I really struggle to understand your position.

You seem to be suggesting that CNN have got a number of news items wrong. It seems most of them are based on things they were told, in some cases they failed to adequately verify the story. But we are talking in the 10's over a 24/7 news cycle.

Now I happen to agree that you should be sceptical of all news sources, but if that is your level to dismiss an entire news organisation I cannot understand on what basis you take any story or where you get information outside of your immediate knowledge.

Second, if a number of (and for the sake of argument lets go with your view that they were false rather than mistaken) but Trump is positively known to have told 4000+ lies since he took office. His press secretary has stated that the story is more important than truth, KAC has claimed that alternative facts exists.

So on one hand you have a news organisation with a number of fake stories which you take as totally discredited. Yet you don't take the same level to Trump. Based on your own regard of CNN (which may or may be accurate) surely that makes Trump completely and totally discredited, so much that anything he says must be treated with the highest level of sceptcism. But you give him the benefit of the doubt and take a wait ans see approach.

You have even accepted that Trump knew of the Trump Tower meeting despite him claiming on numerous occasions that this was fake news.

I don't understand how you can have two so opposed values

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is incredibly irresponsible for Trump to tweet out that about China.

Two possibilities;
1) he has been given the intel by the FBI etc,
2) he made it up or took it from some unverified source.

if 1) then he has given the Chinese the heads up on what the US has uncovered. This immediately puts their assets at risk as the Chinese will want to track down how it was discovered and/or give them time to reorganise the operation to avoid future detection.
if 2) it is promoting fake news, the one thing he seems to be very much against.

Has he brought this up with his great friend President Xi? What sanctions is he now going to implement to order to deter China from attempting this in the future? What steps are the US taking to stop the Chinese from doing it again?

Have they figured out what he Chinese did with the e-mails? Have the Chinese been able to use any intel to get benefits in the trade talks? Did the e-mails contain any top secret info, are particular people at risk, nuclear secrets, trade secrets, military intel?

If people actually took POTUS seriously and at his word, a tweet like this could be the spark that ignites a war. It is a really serious charge to lay against the Chinese. Luckily, for the world, most nations ignore what the POTUS says and treat him like a child on prosac. Unlike the 40%+ of the US. Which based on Trumps tweet should be calling for immediate action against the Chinese.

How did the Chinese have time to hack the DNC. I thought they would have been too busy orchestrating the global climate change conspiracy

everlast75

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Hillary's private emails and Benghazi.

Can you imagine if they actually had something concrete, like the sitting president neck-deep in corruption and possible collusion.

Sure Nunes flew over to the UK to try dig up some dirt on Steele and the british intelligence agency fobbed him off, believing that he was up to no good.

Obviously he has plenty to be doing too

Itssoeasy

I can't remember which poster it was who asked about political podcasts. They aren't political as such but the CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, and World news tonight(ABC) are podcastable and combined give you a good overview of the US politically and not. The three update at 1am our time so are there the following morning and in total all three come to about 50 minutes.

listermint

I find the daily by new York times to be pretty good. Objective and good on facts.

The daily

Akrasia

Its hard to find unbiased podcasts, but one I usually listen to is 'Pod Save America' which is presented by members of Obama's whitehouse staff (speech writers mostly) so they have an insight into how the political process is supposed to work (but they are obviously not friendly towards the Trump administration)

amandstu

Ideas ,anyone?

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/28/politics/lindsey-graham-jeff-sessions-trump/index.html

"The South Carolina Republican appeared to suggest that there's another reason Trump has been criticizing Sessions other than not ending Mueller's investigation.
"It's much deeper than that," Graham told NBC News.
"We won't say on this show, but it's a pretty deep breach," he said, without elaborating"

Zubeneschamali

amandstu wrote: »

Ideas ,anyone?

Trump shouts "Dance, monkey dance!" and Sessions just stands there.

Trump hates that, whether it's about Mueller or anything else. everyone should do as Trump says, or they are fired.