New York Times - Very fake news.

[Norman]

Trump was correct:



They are not fake news, but very fake news!

 

[DCJ]

Fake news critiquing fake news...

 

[Norman]

Fake news critiquing fake news...

Yes, that was one part of the video...

 

[Lakhota]

CORRECTION
Actually, both Trump and Comey were wrong - as proven by Rachel Maddow earlier tonight. Not only was The New York Times correct, but so were all the other media who followed with similar stories such as CNN, The Washington Post, and various foreign media outlets. Bottom line: The New York Times stands firmly behind their story.

 

[Norman]

CORRECTION
Actually, both Trump and Comey were wrong - as proven by Rachel Maddow earlier tonight. Not only was The New York Times correct, but so were all the others who followed with similar stories such as CNN, The Washington Post, and various foreign media outlets. Bottom line: The New York Times stands firmly behind their story.

So they stand behind a fake story?

That's indeed why we call them very fake news. But it's nice to see you backtracking. I didn't know it could happen to such a partisan. The butthurt must be unbearable right at this moment.

 

[candycorn]

The reliance on calling every negative story fake news has taken root I see.

Very little of what has happened to Mr. Trump and the multiple scandals that engulf his fledgling administration can be blamed on the press. I say "very little" because there are some cheerleaders what do just want to set him on fire and watch him burn. In the end, all of this is his fault. He knows it. And counting on the public to not believe the very honest and responsible journalists that are covering his circus is one of very few cards he has left to play. The "bully" card didn't work with the FBI as we saw yesterday....

 

[Lakhota]

CORRECTION
Actually, both Trump and Comey were wrong - as proven by Rachel Maddow earlier tonight. Not only was The New York Times correct, but so were all the others who followed with similar stories such as CNN, The Washington Post, and various foreign media outlets. Bottom line: The New York Times stands firmly behind their story.

So they stand behind a fake story?

That's indeed why we call them very fake news. But it's nice to see you backtracking. I didn't know it could happen to such a partisan. The butthurt must be unbearable right at this moment.

It's not a fake story. It has been thoroughly verified, both here and abroad.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

CORRECTION
Actually, both Trump and Comey were wrong - as proven by Rachel Maddow earlier tonight. Not only was The New York Times correct, but so were all the other media who followed with similar stories such as CNN, The Washington Post, and various foreign media outlets. Bottom line: The New York Times stands firmly behind their story.

So using a Leftist Shill to back up a Leftist Rag, Yup sounds legit to me.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Democrats seem persnickety about eating crow this season. It seems like only 6 months ago they had quite a feast.

Their fake news lied to them back then and they still own their neurotic rage now..

btw. Comey was owned by Obama/Democrats, he admitted to being a law breaking leaker and without Trump being convicted of a crime.. Democrats have zilch accomplishments to offer.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The reliance on calling every negative story fake news has taken root I see.

Very little of what has happened to Mr. Trump and the multiple scandals that engulf his fledgling administration can be blamed on the press. I say "very little" because there are some cheerleaders what do just want to set him on fire and watch him burn. In the end, all of this is his fault. He knows it. And counting on the public to not believe the very honest and responsible journalists that are covering his circus is one of very few cards he has left to play. The "bully" card didn't work with the FBI as we saw yesterday....

When certain words are used, such as "Un named Sources" you know the Story is false. If you can not get three people to agree on the facts it is a lie.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

CORRECTION
Actually, both Trump and Comey were wrong - as proven by Rachel Maddow earlier tonight. Not only was The New York Times correct, but so were all the other media who followed with similar stories such as CNN, The Washington Post, and various foreign media outlets. Bottom line: The New York Times stands firmly behind their story.

Thats the trick they use, they quote each other and claim its the truth.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump was truthful about one thing. Whooptee doo!

Don't mistake me. I'm glad he did tell the truth about being told by Comey that he was not, at the time, the subject of an FBI investigation. Let's just hope he makes a habit of telling the truth and making statements that can be corroborated by independent parties, thereby breaking the his practice of the past twenty or more years.

 

[candycorn]

The reliance on calling every negative story fake news has taken root I see.

Very little of what has happened to Mr. Trump and the multiple scandals that engulf his fledgling administration can be blamed on the press. I say "very little" because there are some cheerleaders what do just want to set him on fire and watch him burn. In the end, all of this is his fault. He knows it. And counting on the public to not believe the very honest and responsible journalists that are covering his circus is one of very few cards he has left to play. The "bully" card didn't work with the FBI as we saw yesterday....

When certain words are used, such as "Un named Sources" you know the Story is false. If you can not get three people to agree on the facts it is a lie.

Pfft...seldom done a two sentence response reveal such idiocy. Congratulations on being very efficient in showing yours. Now for the truth. An "unnamed source" is very much a two way street. The source may wish to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job or to simply shift the credit to another person. Or, in many (if not most) cases, the journalist or news outlet will have the blessing of the source to be revealed but will refuse to do it because, if the principal knows that Jane Doe is the source, the principal will no longer confide in her. By keeping the source anonymous, the prospect of the information pipeline staying open is greater.

 

[Lumpy 1]

The reliance on calling every negative story fake news has taken root I see.

Very little of what has happened to Mr. Trump and the multiple scandals that engulf his fledgling administration can be blamed on the press. I say "very little" because there are some cheerleaders what do just want to set him on fire and watch him burn. In the end, all of this is his fault. He knows it. And counting on the public to not believe the very honest and responsible journalists that are covering his circus is one of very few cards he has left to play. The "bully" card didn't work with the FBI as we saw yesterday....

When certain words are used, such as "Un named Sources" you know the Story is false. If you can not get three people to agree on the facts it is a lie.

Pfft...seldom done a two sentence response reveal such idiocy. Congratulations on being very efficient in showing yours. Now for the truth. An "unnamed source" is very much a two way street. The source may wish to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job or to simply shift the credit to another person. Or, in many (if not most) cases, the journalist or news outlet will have the blessing of the source to be revealed but will refuse to do it because, if the principal knows that Jane Doe is the source, the principal will no longer confide in her. By keeping the source anonymous, the prospect of the information pipeline staying open is greater.

Sounds like a liberal playground for corruption, leaks and propaganda to me.. Journalism needs far higher standards to deserve their special rights and be called a journalist, presently, left wing news sources are petulant raging liars..

96% negative lying news on Trump....

 

[candycorn]

The reliance on calling every negative story fake news has taken root I see.

Very little of what has happened to Mr. Trump and the multiple scandals that engulf his fledgling administration can be blamed on the press. I say "very little" because there are some cheerleaders what do just want to set him on fire and watch him burn. In the end, all of this is his fault. He knows it. And counting on the public to not believe the very honest and responsible journalists that are covering his circus is one of very few cards he has left to play. The "bully" card didn't work with the FBI as we saw yesterday....

When certain words are used, such as "Un named Sources" you know the Story is false. If you can not get three people to agree on the facts it is a lie.

Pfft...seldom done a two sentence response reveal such idiocy. Congratulations on being very efficient in showing yours. Now for the truth. An "unnamed source" is very much a two way street. The source may wish to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job or to simply shift the credit to another person. Or, in many (if not most) cases, the journalist or news outlet will have the blessing of the source to be revealed but will refuse to do it because, if the principal knows that Jane Doe is the source, the principal will no longer confide in her. By keeping the source anonymous, the prospect of the information pipeline staying open is greater.

Sounds like a liberal playground for corruption, leaks and propaganda to me.. Journalism needs far higher standards to deserve their special rights and be called a journalist, presently, left wing news sources are petulant raging liars..

96% negative lying news on Trump....

Some of the greatest pieces of journalism relied on anonymous sources; Watergate for just one story.

 

[Slinker1]

This whole mess is Fake News. If I'm correct the FBI never got to look at the DNC's computers or servers at all. How can they say the Russians did the hacking? I simply want to know how they can possibly know for sure.

 

[iceberg]

CORRECTION
Actually, both Trump and Comey were wrong - as proven by Rachel Maddow earlier tonight. Not only was The New York Times correct, but so were all the other media who followed with similar stories such as CNN, The Washington Post, and various foreign media outlets. Bottom line: The New York Times stands firmly behind their story.

oh my lord - you run to maddow to be objective? please. she's got one mode and that's attack. she's worse than tucker for fox in the hype and bullshit.

 

[Lumpy 1]

The reliance on calling every negative story fake news has taken root I see.

Very little of what has happened to Mr. Trump and the multiple scandals that engulf his fledgling administration can be blamed on the press. I say "very little" because there are some cheerleaders what do just want to set him on fire and watch him burn. In the end, all of this is his fault. He knows it. And counting on the public to not believe the very honest and responsible journalists that are covering his circus is one of very few cards he has left to play. The "bully" card didn't work with the FBI as we saw yesterday....

When certain words are used, such as "Un named Sources" you know the Story is false. If you can not get three people to agree on the facts it is a lie.

Pfft...seldom done a two sentence response reveal such idiocy. Congratulations on being very efficient in showing yours. Now for the truth. An "unnamed source" is very much a two way street. The source may wish to remain anonymous for fear of losing her job or to simply shift the credit to another person. Or, in many (if not most) cases, the journalist or news outlet will have the blessing of the source to be revealed but will refuse to do it because, if the principal knows that Jane Doe is the source, the principal will no longer confide in her. By keeping the source anonymous, the prospect of the information pipeline staying open is greater.

Sounds like a liberal playground for corruption, leaks and propaganda to me.. Journalism needs far higher standards to deserve their special rights and be called a journalist, presently, left wing news sources are petulant raging liars..

96% negative lying news on Trump....

Some of the greatest pieces of journalism relied on anonymous sources; Watergate for just one story.

The Democrat glory days and still Carl Bernstein's a raving loon.

 

[iceberg]

Trump was truthful about one thing. Whooptee doo!

Don't mistake me. I'm glad he did tell the truth about being told by Comey that he was not, at the time, the subject of an FBI investigation. Let's just hope he makes a habit of telling the truth and making statements that can be corroborated by independent parties, thereby breaking the his practice of the past twenty or more years.

well my guess would be you thought he was lying there too, am i right? if not - apologies for putting that on you. if so, then if you were wrong on one thing, is it *possible* to be wrong on another about trump?

not saying you have to like him. to be honest, i don't. i like some of what he does and i hate other things he does. but i like the fact he's outting the crap that went on before him in obama's spying, lynch cover ups and his own admitting HE HELPED COVER SHIT UP.

for example, if FISA came out and said trumps team vastly abused the NSA and spying on americans.

would you rage into fury and demand he is impeached or just look away?

 

[candycorn]

This whole mess is Fake News. If I'm correct the FBI never got to look at the DNC's computers or servers at all. How can they say the Russians did the hacking? I simply want to know how they can possibly know for sure.

You can do that remotely now. It's this new thing called networking.