Issa slams White House for shift in messaging on whether Biden knew of Hunter's business dealings

[Valletta]

"What we can take from the change is that it is no longer considered to be true that he did not have communications with his son," Issa said, pointing to recent reporting of emails, messages, and alleged conversations that have involved the president himself in discussions related to Hunter Biden’s business ventures.

Issa slams White House for shift in messaging on whether Biden knew of Hunter's business dealings

EXCLUSIVE: Republican Rep. Darrell Issa said President Biden “lied" about his involvement in his son Hunter Biden’s business dealings, and slammed the White House Counsel's office for providing a “shield" to protect against answers to questions on the matter.

www.yahoo.com

Indeed, it's all but a formal admission that Joe was lying.

 

[DaisyDay]

I dunno, it seems pretty consistent:

The president, when asked directly on Monday whether he lied about not having communication with his son regarding his business dealings, said: "No."

The story is from Fox News and features Darrell Issa. Why is the word "lied" in scare quotes in the first sentence?

 

[disciple Clint]

I dunno, it seems pretty consistent:


The story is from Fox News and features Darrell Issa. Why is the word "lied" in scare quotes in the first sentence?

We need to look at the evidence because obviously someone is lying.

 

[KCfromNC]

I dunno, it seems pretty consistent:


The story is from Fox News and features Darrell Issa. Why is the word "lied" in scare quotes in the first sentence?

Probably because that far right entertainment source just paid hundreds of millions of dollars for lying about someone else. Likely trying set up plausible deniability for the next set of lies.

 

[DaisyDay]

We need to look at the evidence because obviously someone is lying.

Issa? That would explain the scare quotes which are generally used to indicate skepticism of the word within.

 

[Larniavc]

"What we can take from the change is that it is no longer considered to be true that he did not have communications with his son," Issa said, pointing to recent reporting of emails, messages, and alleged conversations that have involved the president himself in discussions related to Hunter Biden’s business ventures.

Issa slams White House for shift in messaging on whether Biden knew of Hunter's business dealings

EXCLUSIVE: Republican Rep. Darrell Issa said President Biden “lied" about his involvement in his son Hunter Biden’s business dealings, and slammed the White House Counsel's office for providing a “shield" to protect against answers to questions on the matter.

www.yahoo.com

Indeed, it's all but a formal admission that Joe was lying.

I just assume now that Fox is always lying. Their journalistic reputation is irrevocably tarnished.

 

[A2SG]

I just assume now that Fox is always lying. Their journalistic reputation is irrevocably tarnished.

I think it'd be more accurate to say their journalistic reputation was confirmed.

-- A2SG, there's a reason many people have called them FauxNews over the years.....

 

[disciple Clint]

Probably because that far right entertainment source just paid hundreds of millions of dollars for lying about someone else. Likely trying set up plausible deniability for the next set of lies.

how is that different from this? Did CNN Settle the Covington High Lawsuit for $275 Million?

 

[disciple Clint]

I just assume now that Fox is always lying. Their journalistic reputation is irrevocably tarnished.

ok do you also assume that everything that CNN or MSNBC or NYT reports is absolute truth?

 

[Larniavc]

ok do you also assume that everything that CNN or MSNBC or NYT reports is absolute truth?

No. I trust Fox News, the lying far right political entertainment channel much the news sources which I consume, namely the BBC and Channel 4 news. Are they perfect? Obviously not (especially the BBC) but compared to the US outlets?

Crikey, it’s not even a race.

 

[disciple Clint]

No. I trust Fox News, the lying far right political entertainment channel much the news sources which I consume, namely the BBC and Channel 4 news. Are they perfect? Obviously not (especially the BBC) but compared to the US outlets?

Crikey, it’s not even a race.

I do not watch your local channel 4 But BBC got the Russia Hoax all wrong as we have learned now that all the facts are in.

 

[Larniavc]

I do not watch your local channel 4 But BBC got the Russia Hoax all wrong as we have learned now that all the facts are in.

Which part did the BBC report that was incorrect?

 

[KCfromNC]

how is that different from this? Did CNN Settle the Covington High Lawsuit for $275 Million?

Is the argument that Fox News is "only" 3 times less truthful than CNN?

 

[DaisyDay]

how is that different from this? Did CNN Settle the Covington High Lawsuit for $275 Million?

The article says that CNN settled the suit but that the terms of the settlement are unknown.

Getting a story wrong is bad enough but the leaked emails from Fox show that they knowingly lied.

 

[disciple Clint]

Which part did the BBC report that was incorrect?

Well since it was all without basis any part that they reported would be incorrect now wouldn't it

 

[disciple Clint]

Is the argument that Fox News is "only" 3 times less truthful than CNN?

The argument would be that there is an obvious double standard.

 

[disciple Clint]

The article says that CNN settled the suit but that the terms of the settlement are unknown.

Getting a story wrong is bad enough but the leaked emails from Fox show that they knowingly lied.

CNN made up the story is that not lying, they were feeding a narrative and it cost them

 

[A2SG]

Well since it was all without basis any part that they reported would be incorrect now wouldn't it

Um, hardly without basis. The links between the Trump campaign and Russia and Russian officials and intelligence officers is known, and has been detailed in the Mueller report and elsewhere. Mueller also said "a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” (from Time magazine)

The report did not specifically claim collusion because there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove the charge in court. This is not in any way the same as saying there was no collusion, no matter how often Trump and his acolytes claim it is.

So there is a basis for the belief that collusion occurred, even if it's not enough to prove in court. Reporting on these facts would not be incorrect.

So, what specific reported facts were incorrect, then?

-- A2SG, not a fan of vague accusations...prefer facts and specifics.....

 

[disciple Clint]

Um, hardly without basis. The links between the Trump campaign and Russia and Russian officials and intelligence officers is known, and has been detailed in the Mueller report and elsewhere. Mueller also said "a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” (from Time magazine)

The report did not specifically claim collusion because there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove the charge in court. This is not in any way the same as saying there was no collusion, no matter how often Trump and his acolytes claim it is.

So there is a basis for the belief that collusion occurred, even if it's not enough to prove in court. Reporting on these facts would not be incorrect.

So, what specific reported facts were incorrect, then?

-- A2SG, not a fan of vague accusations...prefer facts and specifics.....

and all that was put to rest in the Durram report, please read it.

 

[A2SG]

and all that was put to rest in the Durram report, please read it.

First, the man's name is John Durham.

Second, while I admit I haven't read all 300 pages, nothing I've seen specifically says anything about what evidence Rep. Schiff may or may not have, so it does not specifically prove his statements false. You still need to provide evidence for that if you want to prove Schiff's statement is false.

But, if I've missed something in that report, feel free to quote any specific, relevant parts.

-- A2SG, still your claim, backing it up is still your responsibility.....