J
josie_L
Guest
But that’s not what the NYT article is referring to when they stated " previously unreported" nor what I was commenting on.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
josie_L
Guest
Yes, it was CNN instead of NYT, but she explained why she couldn’t put a link. She didn’t know how. Neither do I (not via phone).You also 7. You gave us inaccurate news. It wasn’t NYT it was CNN. And then you couldn’t even give us a reference.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Then please refrain from spreading inaccurate information. It is tantamount to gossip.Yes, it was CNN instead of NYT, but she explained why she couldn’t put a link. She didn’t know how. Neither do I (not via phone).
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I was aware of the CNN story. While it came to mind when I read your post I wasn’t sure whether you were referring to some other story or if this were an inaccuracy of your recollection. A little effort in providing a reference to the story would have been helpful in correcting this mistake sooner. Not doing so while repeating the same inaccurate information could contribute to lower trust on future statements recalling an event or story. We are all capable of making mistake we probably all have a post somewhere here on the forums that demonstrates when we were wrong, myself included. But I encourage considering making effort when reasonably possible to reverify verify a story, especially a “big story,” when one’s own recollection doesn’t align with anyone elses.
When the resignation occurred CNN self reported on it (ref).
When the resignation occurred CNN self reported on it (ref).
J
josie_L
Guest
Tell that to the media.Then please refrain from spreading inaccurate information. It is tantamount to gossip.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I would like to but the are not on this forum.Tell that to the media.
But their credibility suffers just as much.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Let’s take care of that.Yes, it was CNN instead of NYT, but she explained why she couldn’t put a link. She didn’t know how. Neither do I (not via phone).
On iOS, Android, and other operating mobile operating systems posting a link is just a matter of copying and pasting text. For completeness of the instructions I write these for someone that doesn’t know how to use the copy and paste features.
- Open a new tab in your browser
- find the story of interest
- tap and hold in the address bar
- tap “select all”
- Tap “copy.”
- Navigate to CAF
- start a new post/respond to a post
- begin typing your
- tap and hold the text box when you are ready to insert the link
- select “paste.”
J
josie_L
Guest
They don’t seem humble about though, i.e., people are losing confidence in the MSM and they still continue the false narrative of a Russia/Trump collusion.I would like to but the are not on this forum.
But their credibility suffers just as much.
J
josie_L
Guest
You are a good man, thank you.Let’s take care of that.
On iOS, Android, and other operating mobile operating systems posting a link is just a matter of copying and pasting text. For completeness of the instructions I write these for someone that doesn’t know how to use the copy and paste features.
This works the same way on all the touch screen interfaces I’ve tried (Android, iOS, Windows, Tizen, and some others you may not be familiar with). Additionally if you’ve got access to a desktop and now how to copy and paste from it then it may sometimes be worth using it to send a link to an article.
- Open a new tab in your browser
- find the story of interest
- tap and hold in the address bar
- tap “select all”
- Tap “copy.”
- Navigate to CAF
- start a new post/respond to a post
- begin typing your
- tap and hold the text box when you are ready to insert the link
- select “paste.”
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
You do not know it is false.They don’t seem humble about though, i.e., people are losing confidence in the MSM and they still continue the false narrative of a Russia/Trump collusion.
J
josie_L
Guest
It’s been several months now and nothing to show for it except a failed meeting with a Russian citizen.You do not know it is false.
Trump did not collude with Russia to win the election.
And to continue this narrative without any real and substantive EVIDENCE is gossip and slander.
S
Sojourner003
Guest
A word to the wise:It’s been several months now and nothing to show for it except a failed meeting with a Russian citizen.
Trump did not collude with Russia to win the election.
And to continue this narrative is gossip and slander.
“I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, ‘Fool me once, shame on … shame on you. Fool me… You can’t get fooled again!’”
J
josie_L
Guest
It’s not foolish to say that there has been NOTHING substantive to keep driving the false narrative of Trump/Russia collusion.A word to the wise:
“I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, ‘Fool me once, shame on … shame on you. Fool me… You can’t get fooled again!’”
Until, the time that there is, and that time may or may not arrive.
J
josie_L
Guest
And although this is dated May 17th, even Senator Feinstein believed that everything up to that date was rumor-based:
realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/19/feinstein_no_evidence_of_russian_collusion_with_trump_campaign_but_there_are_rumors.html
Feinstein: No Evidence Of Russian Collusion With Trump Campaign, But There Are Rumors
WOLF BLITZER, CNN: The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me – and I am quoting you now – you said, ‘not at this time.’ Has anything changed since we spoke last?
SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, no – no, it hasn’t…
BLITZER: But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the – you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?
You can watch the whole interview here:SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, evidence that would establish that there’s collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that’s not necessarily evidence.
realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/19/feinstein_no_evidence_of_russian_collusion_with_trump_campaign_but_there_are_rumors.html
D
dvdjs
Guest
Perhaps.But that’s not what the NYT article is referring to when they stated " previously unreported" nor what I was commenting on.
Maybe the use of the word unreported meant that this news has not been reported previously by the time or other outlets.
Later in the article the they use the word disclose, in discussing the communications between this group of Trump associates and the federal government.
This bit from the opinion piece in the Hill that you linkedl:
As the Times stories aimed at Donald Trump Jr. emerged, Trump Jr. and those involved opted for transparency every step of the way.
conflates “reporting” and “disclosure”, and omits the seemingly relevant discussion of how many times they did not disclose before they did.In the Times’ first story published Saturday, reporting a meeting among Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and a Russian lawyer, the meeting is curiously described as “previously unreported,” despite the fact that both Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort disclosed the meeting before the Times’ reporting.
BTW, the author’s opinion on transparency is now clearly a credibiity-tainting joke.
D
dvdjs
Guest
But there is no reason not to have googled the very phrase that 7 advised others to google. The faulty recollection would have been discovered and the misstatement of fact could have been avoided.Yes, it was CNN instead of NYT, but she explained why she couldn’t put a link. She didn’t know how. Neither do I (not via phone).
D
dvdjs
Guest
You are right, it is dated.And although this is dated May 17th, even Senator Feinstein believed that everything up to that date was rumor-based:
You can watch the whole interview here:
realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/19/feinstein_no_evidence_of_russian_collusion_with_trump_campaign_but_there_are_rumors.html
J
josie_L
Guest
It doesn’t matter, my point is that much of the media were making claims with no evidence, i.e., the media is supposed to be a fact-based institution, not a tabloid.You are right, it is dated.
So, if you’re going to promulgate the narrative that Trump and Russia colluded then have the friggin evidence to prove it first.
J
josie_L
Guest
**Greenwald: Donald Trump Jr.'s Emails Are Not A “Smoking Gun” Of Anything; Democrats Keep “Moving Goal Posts” For Allegations
**
DEMOCRACY NOW!: The White House is in crisis mode following revelations that Donald Trump’s own son embraced an apparent effort by the Russian government to peddle information incriminating Hillary Clinton in an attempt to help Trump win the presidency. In a new interview with Reuters, President Trump defended his son and said that he himself did not know about the meeting. We speak with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, co-founder of The Intercept, who notes that Democrats have had similar entanglements with foreign governments.
“I don’t think that this revelation, interesting though it may be, is as significant or a smoking gun when it comes to the impeachment or the prosecution case,” Greenwald said about the Donald Trump Jr. emails.
He explained: “To me, it seems as though the people who are moving the goalposts are the Democrats. The claim all along, the reason why there’s talk of impeachment, the reason why there is a special prosecutor, the reason why people want to see Trump and his associates criminally prosecuted, is because of the claim that they committed crimes by colluding with the Russians with regard to the hacking. That’s what Harry Reid has always said. That’s what John Podesta has always said. That has always been the Democratic claim.”
“This newest evidence doesn’t in any way suggest that,” he concluded.
J
josie_L
Guest
Continued:
GLENN GREENWALD: So here’s what I don’t understand about this. Certainly, it’s an interesting email. I’m glad that it surfaced. It does lend some credence to the possibility that the Trump administration colluded with the Russians criminally, meaning with their hacking of the DNC and Podesta emails, if in fact the Russians did that as the intelligence agencies claim, although they’ve produced no evidence for it. It is possible that the Trump administration or Trump officials colluded with the Russians to commit that crime. It’s possible they didn’t. We still haven’t seen any evidence that they have. Remember, this is not evidence suggesting that Trump officials actually colluded with the Russians to commit a crime—the hacking.
Now, what the Democrats are saying is that the Trump administration and their defenders in the media at Fox News and the like are, quote-unquote, “moving the goalposts” by saying, “Well, this only shows that Trump Jr. was willing to get information from the Russian government about Clinton, but it doesn’t show there was actual criminal collusion.” To me, it seems as though the people who are moving the goalposts are the Democrats. The claim all along, the reason why there’s talk of impeachment, the reason why there is a special prosecutor, the reason why people want to see Trump and his associates criminally prosecuted, is because of the claim that they committed crimes by colluding with the Russians with regard to the hacking. That’s what Harry Reid has always said. That’s what John Podesta has always said. That has always been the Democratic claim. This newest evidence doesn’t in any way suggest that. What it suggests instead is that Donald Trump Jr. was told that the Russian government had incriminating evidence about Hillary Clinton and wanted to give it to him. And he said, “Well, I’d love to get it. I’d love to have it.” Now, I guess there’s some sense that it’s wrong for a political campaign to take dirt on your adversary from a foreign government. I don’t think it’s illegal at all to do that, but there’s a claim that it’s somehow sort of immoral.
And here’s what I don’t understand. The Steele dossier that everybody got excited about, that claimed that the Russians had incriminating videos of Trump in a Moscow hotel and other dirt on Trump, that came from somebody who was getting first paid by Republicans and then by Democrats, going to Moscow and getting dirt about Donald Trump from Kremlin-affiliated agents in Moscow. In other words, he went to Russia, talked to people affiliated with the Russian government and said, “Give me dirt about Donald Trump,” and then, presumably, got it and put it in the memo.** Similarly, there’s an amazing Politico article from January of this year that describes how allies of the Clinton campaign, including somebody being paid by the DNC, met with officials of the Ukrainian government, which was desperate to help Hillary Clinton win and Donald Trump lose, and get information incriminating about Trump from Ukrainian officials. In other words, Ukraine was meddling in our election by giving Democrats incriminating information about Trump.**
Now, I, personally, although it’s dirty, think all of these events are sort of the way politics works. Of course if you’re in an important campaign and someone offers you incriminating information about your opponent, you’re going to want it no matter where it comes from, whether it’s Ukrainian officials, whether it’s anti-Trump people in Moscow or whether it’s pro-Trump people in Moscow. **So, I want to hear the standard that we’re supposed to use to assess Trump Jr.'s actions. Is it that it’s wrong in all cases to get incriminating information about your opponent from a foreign government? In which case, why is it OK for the Democrats to do it with Ukrainian officials or for their investigator to go to Moscow and get dirt on Trump? Or is it some other standard that distinguishes what Trump Jr. did in this case versus what Democrats did with the Steele dossier and with Ukraine? And I just don’t see this distinction. **
- Status
- Not open for further replies.