Donald Trump's lawyers overheard discussing Russia investigation in Washington steakhouse

[iluvatar5150]

This is like catsup on the nothing burger.

How does anyone know they were speaking loudly? You mean to tell me a reporter frequents a restaurant that expensive? Oh right they probably do.

Want fries with that?

What kind of asinine response is this? The reporter took a picture of them at the next table with the restaurant logo visible in the background.

And it's expensive, but not obscenely expensive. This is their lunch menu, which is about what I'd expect to pay for a nice dinner:
https://bltrestaurants.com/index.php?aam_media=3590

 

[MoonlessNight]

Something to consider: if reporters en masse decided to simply start making up and publishing gossip, how would you be able to tell?

They are now literally posting stories along the lines of "this is something that I kind of overheard in a conversation." How can such a story possibly be verified, even in theory? Similarly, if someone says "this is something that one of my anonymous sources said might be true, and incidentally I'm never going to reveal the source," how can you possibly verify that, even in theory?

The only reason to believe such stories is because we trust reporters. Ideally we should trust reporters because they have demonstrated that they are accurate in stories where we can verify what they are saying. But as stories spreading gossip overheard in a restaurant or from an anonymous source become more and more the norm, what stories can you point to to justify your trust?

Now I want to be clear that I'm not claiming that any specific story was made up, because I don't have the information to make that claim. I just think that you should consider this: supposing for the sake of argument they were made up, would you be able to tell?

 

[Rion]

Something to consider: if reporters en masse decided to simply start making up and publishing gossip, how would you be able to tell?

They'd all get jobs at Buzzfeed and/or CNN?

 

[Saucy]

This was in DC, but apparently so.

Unless you're claiming that the NYT reporter just made it up out of thin air (something the White House isn't even claiming)

Wouldn't put it past them.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The New York Times has concluded, after an extensive internal investigation, that one of its former reporters committed "frequent acts of journalistic fraud."

CNN.com - New York Times: Reporter routinely faked articles - May. 11, 2003

Six months ago, I canceled my subscription to the New York Times because I felt the paper had become ethically challenged in its coverage of the presidential election.

And, it turns out, I was right.

Soon after the election — one in which the Times’ favorite candidate, Hillary Clinton, lost — the paper admitted its mistakes.

After the shocking defeat of the Democrats’ candidate, Times Publisher Arthur (Pinch) Sulzberger begged for his readers’ forgiveness, although he did seem to choke a little on the apology.

“We aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor …,” Sulzberger said in a letter to the paper’s readers.

http://nypost.com/2017/03/27/the-new-york-times-ongoing-dishonesty-only-helps-trump/

Again, why people believe the heavily biased liberal media on anything regarding Trump is beyond me.

 

[Saucy]

Something to consider: if reporters en masse decided to simply start making up and publishing gossip, how would you be able to tell?

They are now literally posting stories along the lines of "this is something that I kind of overheard in a conversation." How can such a story possibly be verified, even in theory? Similarly, if someone says "this is something that one of my anonymous sources said might be true, and incidentally I'm never going to reveal the source," how can you possibly verify that, even in theory?

The only reason to believe such stories is because we trust reporters. Ideally we should trust reporters because they have demonstrated that they are accurate in stories where we can verify what they are saying. But as stories spreading gossip overheard in a restaurant or from an anonymous source become more and more the norm, what stories can you point to to justify your trust?

Now I want to be clear that I'm not claiming that any specific story was made up, because I don't have the information to make that claim. I just think that you should consider this: supposing for the sake of argument they were made up, would you be able to tell?

Exactly. When a reporter claims 'anonymous sources', doesn't that raise your red flag just a little bit? Why are people so eager to gobble up these fake stories, when again, EVEN COMEY SAID THEY WERE WRONG! The very people involved in these cases, who know and see the ACTUAL evidence, say the media gets it wrong.

There are plenty of democrats involved in these investigations. If they ever found the smoking gun, they'd be on TV tomorrow. But every day that they keep looking and searching only proves they don't have enough to go on, if they have anything at all. Even democrats have come out and said, "we haven't found anything yet."

So, again, as I've been saying, it's 100% wishful thinking and 0% substance.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Wouldn't put it past them.



CNN.com - New York Times: Reporter routinely faked articles - May. 11, 2003



http://nypost.com/2017/03/27/the-new-york-times-ongoing-dishonesty-only-helps-trump/

Again, why people believe the heavily biased liberal media on anything regarding Trump is beyond me.

This is part of what mystifies me about how many people view the media. They accept stories like this one which can only be justified by having a general trust in reporters. Sometimes they will point to codes of journalistic integrity and the pride that journalists take in their work to say that journalists are highly trustworthy, and for that reason we shouldn't doubt them.

But we know that many reporters have been caught faking stories, sometimes in small ways, sometimes in big ways. Thus at least some reporters are unworthy of trust, and so it doesn't make sense to trust the word of a reporter simply because he is a reporter.

If the argument went "this particular reporter has done a lot of good work and hasn't been wrong, so we should trust him" (in the same way that people say to trust Julian Assange since his leaks have always proven accurate) I could understand that. But that would be a different argument from reporter to reporter, and as far as I've seen that never happens.

 

[Saucy]

This is part of what mystifies me about how many people view the media. They accept stories like this one which can only be justified by having a general trust in reporters. Sometimes they will point to codes of journalistic integrity and the pride that journalists take in their work to say that journalists are highly trustworthy, and for that reason we shouldn't doubt them.

But we know that many reporters have been caught faking stories, sometimes in small ways, sometimes in big ways. Thus at least some reporters are unworthy of trust, and so it doesn't make sense to trust the word of a reporter simply because he is a reporter.

If the argument went "this particular reporter has done a lot of good work and hasn't been wrong, so we should trust him" (in the same way that people say to trust Julian Assange since his leaks have always proven accurate) I could understand that. But that would be a different argument from reporter to reporter, and as far as I've seen that never happens.

Because the media is being blatantly dishonest and biased. Why don't liberals trust Fox News as a source? Mainly because they feel Fox News is biased towards the right. I try my best to find non-biased news, but rather than reporting the actual facts, these days they report their own opinions.

That's why I currently watch Fox News (which may make you rolls your eyes), but their coverage is even. To me, that's fair coverage. Because guess what? Whether or not you're willing to be fair and accept it, Trump has done some good. He has made some headway and accomplished things. Maybe they aren't things you care about, but they are things I care about and I appreciate hearing the good with the bad.

If 91% is negative, biased, ugly, reporters keep getting fired for the way they cover Trump unfairly, those in positions of power who have the actual evidence (not anonymous sources), say that the media is wrong, and on and on, please tell me why I should believe them.

That doesn't mean there isn't a good reporter sitting in New York Times building right now writing a fair story. But as a whole? Their organization reeks of dishonesty and bias.

 

[Saucy]

And, I used to have a trust for the media. I went to college for journalism. I'm a published author and journalist. I'm in this field. One of the first things they taught us was journalistic integrity. But that all goes away when Trump is president, right? Or when Obama is in office and they treat him with kid gloves. Nothing he could do was bad in their eyes. It's just sickening to me. Once you get bit, you don't trust as much. When you get bit again and again and again, it's time to put the dog down.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Wouldn't put it past them.

Ok, fine. But you're the only person claiming that this is fake. The White House isn't claiming it's fake. The lawyers aren't claiming it's fake. You're the only person claiming it's fake. Are you suggesting that we distrust the word of the reporter and the tacit admission by the WH/lawyers and instead trust you and your magical crystal ball that feeds you insight over the internet?

 

[Saucy]

Ok, fine. But you're the only person claiming that this is fake. The White House isn't claiming it's fake. The lawyers aren't claiming it's fake. You're the only person claiming it's fake. Are you suggesting that we distrust the word of the reporter and the tacit admission by the WH/lawyers and instead trust you and your magical crystal ball that feeds you insight over the internet?

1) I didn't say this story was fake. I said it was hearsay, and it is. It could very well turn out to be true.

2) Have the lawyers made a statement? Have they responded to the news story? Has the White House responded to it? The article talks about private meetings where someone was supposedly yelled at, like, how did they know that? Their own crystal ball?

3) Tacit admission? Is that your way of saying they haven't responded to it, so it means it's true? Seriously?

4) Any reporter can say, "I want to advance my career, so I'll write a story they can't prove or deny. I'll just say I overheard a conversation and make up the rest with 'anonymous sources'!" That's quite easy to do, as it can't be verified.

5) I have a hard time believing a bunch of lawyers are going to talk very loudly in a restaurant about confidential information regarding the president over dinner.

6) Even if it was true, it's still just the ketchup on the big 'ole nothing burger. Most likely this is just another attempt to keep the fake Russia collusion story in the headlines a bit longer. I noticed Trump's approval rating has gone up a few degrees, so maybe they're desperate.

 

[hislegacy]

How expensive is it?
How do you know a reporter can't go there or afford it?

The knee jerk reaction is rather funny.

It's a steak house I heard them talking about it. The name was familiar. It is a 150 a plate dinner.

I'll look when I get home if that appeases you.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's a steak house I heard them talking about it. The name was familiar. It is a 150 a plate dinner.

I'll look when I get home if that appeases you.

I already posted their lunch menu:
https://bltrestaurants.com/index.php?aam_media=3590

 

[Saucy]

I already posted their lunch menu:
https://bltrestaurants.com/index.php?aam_media=3590

I think that's a Gordon Ramsey restaurant if I'm not mistaken. At least he talks about it a lot.

 

[Allandavid]

No hearsay and 'anonymous sources'. Seriously, how many CNN anchors have to be fired before you stop watching the news? How many stories do they have to retract and offer apologies do you need to see before you realize you're being lied to in the mainstream media?

How many times does it have to be repeated that the people who know what's really going on AREN'T talking!!! How many times do reporters even have to get busted on camera saying "Yeah, there's nothing to this Trump-Russia story. We just push it for ratings!" and laughing about 'journalist integrity'?

The media is liberal biased. They hate Trump. They've gotten caught time and time and time and time and time again LYING about him and the investigation. I know you so badly want it all to be true so we can impeach the guy, but so far, ZERO real evidence has come forward. After 3 investigations, so far everything else has 'leaked' except any proof that collusion happened.

So, when will I believe the media? When the coverage isn't 91% negative garbage with no truth to it, why should I? When the media keeps having to come out and apologize for their bias and hatred, why should I? When they've been DEAD wrong for 2 years with their so-called polling and data, why should I?

Listen, I don't even watch Infowars or anything heavily right slanted either. I try to be fair, even though I admit, as a republican, I am biased too. But I lean more towards the middle. If he's guilty of treason, PROVE IT! I will drop my support of President Donald Trump TODAY if you can PROVE he colluded with Russia, but you can't. Yet, you guys keep running with this story like it's absolute fact that it happened.

Heck, it was even written about that Hillary & Company INVENTED the collusion story the day after she lost as an excuse. So, please tell me why I should believe it outside of your wishful thinking?

Oh, this is going to end so badly for people like you...

I feel sorry in advance....kinda...

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think that's a Gordon Ramsey restaurant if I'm not mistaken. At least he talks about it a lot.

Doesn't look like it:
The Team - ESquared Hospitality - We feature a team of critically acclaimed chefs throughout our 20+ restaurants around the world

The only guy I recognize is Clifford from Top Chef.

You might be thinking of Gordon Ramsay Steak, which has a couple locations, including one that just opened in the casino here in Baltimore. Speaking of which... I should check that out. I've only ever been to his Plane Food restaurant in Heathrow, which was great.

 

[Saucy]

Oh, this is going to end so badly for people like you...

I feel sorry in advance....kinda...

Yeah, because you surely have evidence to the contrary, right?

 

[Allandavid]

Yeah, because you surely have evidence to the contrary, right?

And so do you...you just refuse to acknowledge it. You obstinately duck your head back down under the sand whenever something critical of Trump emerges...

You will find that, increasingly, it will be impossible to 'whack' all those 'moles' away....

 

[Saucy]

And so do you...you just refuse to acknowledge it. You obstinately duck your head back down under the sand whenever something critical of Trump emerges...

You will find that, increasingly, it will be impossible to 'whack' all those 'moles' away....

Yeah, because debating it in here against mostly democrats is ducking my head in the sand. I've tried to be much more fair than you guys are. I've admitted things about Trump I don't like. I've agreed with you on certain things. I've even changed my opinion.

No, I face things head on because I love to learn and challenge myself. If I'm wrong, I admit it. But still, you have nothing. No proof. No evidence. Nothing. Just like the media has nothing. Just like the democrats have nothing. And the more they play these dumb identity politics games and keep shoving the fake news down our throats, the worse it will be for them.

Maybe the left should actually try to put together a message for a change.

 

[Allandavid]

Yeah, because debating it in here against mostly democrats is ducking my head in the sand. I've tried to be much more fair than you guys are. I've admitted things about Trump I don't like. I've agreed with you on certain things. I've even changed my opinion.

No, I face things head on because I love to learn and challenge myself. If I'm wrong, I admit it. But still, you have nothing. No proof. No evidence. Nothing. Just like the media has nothing. Just like the democrats have nothing. And the more they play these dumb identity politics games and keep shoving the fake news down our throats, the worse it will be for them.

Maybe the left should actually try to put together a message for a change.

Get ready to do some 'admitting' then...

It requires an inordinate amount of obstinacy to continually dismiss all the lying, the changing of stories, the firings, the issuing of warrants, the raids, the admissions of contact with the Russians, the increasing evidence of Russian penetration into the election...and now the promise of indictments...as 'nothing'......

For heavens sake Saucy....if it walks ducklike, if it's making quacklike noises, if it is covered in feathers and is laying eggs....how long will it be before you take the risk and declare that you're looking at a duck...!?

 

[Saucy]

Get ready to do some 'admitting' then...

It requires an inordinate amount of obstinacy to continually dismiss all the lying, the changing of stories, the firings, the issuing of warrants, the raids, the admissions of contact with the Russians, the increasing evidence of Russian penetration into the election...and now the promise of indictments...as 'nothing'......

For heavens sake Saucy....if it walks ducklike, if it's making quacklike noises, if it is covered in feathers and is laying eggs....how long will it be before you take the risk and declare that you're looking at a duck...!?

I can say the same for the democrats, media, and investigators. The stories seem to just appear and disappear at will, don't they? As I've been saying, how many fake stories, journalist firings, investigations, nothingburgers, undercover videos of reporters admitting it's all hype, and proof Hillary invented the collusion story is it going to take for you to realize you're being conned by the democratic party? They have the freakin' media in their pocket!

You say if it quacks like a duck, lays eggs, like a duck, then it must be a duck. But all I see are people telling me there's ducks there and saying I'm an idiot for not believing them when there's nothing but a person behind a tree with a duck call.