Fake News?

[disciple Clint]

It doesn’t appear to parallel that circumstance well, Mueller’s strongly worded protest against Barr’s unwarranted redaction/misrepresentation of his report hasn’t reached any conclusion yet. Presumably a person in the situation you describe would not be subject to political manoeuvring to prevent the prosecution having access to relevant evidence and witness testimony. There’s something rotten in Denmark when a presumably innocent person manoeuvres those around him to block and misrepresent evidence and witness testimony, and obfuscates the whole issue with a stream of slander and other attempts to demean anyone who speaks up about it.

Lots of assumptions, unsupported opinions, conjecture and maybe could be. Please provide some evidence

 

[Tom 1]

Lots of assumptions, unsupported opinions, conjecture and maybe could be. Please provide some evidence

Plenty of that on both sides - although you might like to think so, none of it is close to being cut and dried. There are plenty of reasons to think that Barr is working for Trump rather than applying what might be expected to be a more objective standard. You can read more here - Barr reignites charge he is conducting Mueller cleanup for Trump . The idea that Trump has been above board in all or any of this is a long way from being anything but murky.

 

[disciple Clint]

Plenty of that on both sides - although you might like to think so, none of it is close to being cut and dried. There are plenty of reasons to think that Barr is working for Trump rather than applying what might be expected to be a more objective standard. You can read more here - Barr reignites charge he is conducting Mueller cleanup for Trump . The idea that Trump has been above board in all or any of this is a long way from being anything but murky.

Another article that uses anonymous sources to say just exact what the writer wants them to say but of course no one can verify that information because we do not have any quotes except of course for the previous administrations people who strangely enough do not have anything nice to say about the current administration. This kind of reporting would not be accepted in even a high school journalism class.

 

[Tom 1]

Another article that uses anonymous sources to say just exact what the writer wants them to say but of course no one can verify that information because we do not have any quotes except of course for the previous administrations people who strangely enough do not have anything nice to say about the current administration. This kind of reporting would not be accepted in even a high school journalism class.

Did you read it? What exactly do you think is not credible, specifically?

 

[disciple Clint]

Did you read it? What exactly do you think is not credible, specifically?

how about the lack of a verifiable source

 

[Tom 1]

how about the lack of a verifiable source

What part of the article are you referring to?

 

[disciple Clint]

What part of the article are you referring to?

the statements

 

[Tom 1]

the statements

Which ones? The majority of quotes and statements are named, some aren't. I'm sure you don't need to tell me that anonymous sources make up part of the basic day to day business of reporting, whether investigative or opinion pieces of this kind, or of any other sort. Do you think there is something new or unusual about that - how do you think watergate and any other case you can think of were broken? I find it hard to believe you aren't aware news agencies of all kinds often protect their sources through anonymity. Where does the idea come from that that is suspect in some way? Do you think whistleblowers or just anyone who has an opinion should be left open to any flak they might face for reporting their concerns? What do you actually think about that? The only states where people are not permitted to state their opinions without fear of persecution are either those at the extreme ends of the political spectrum, do you think it would be a good thing to have that kind of regime installed?

 

[Yarddog]

Show me some facts to support that, where is the evidence?

PolitiFact | Sean Hannity

Inside the Fox News lie machine: I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare

10 Examples Of Sean Hannity Saying Things That Aren't True

 

[disciple Clint]

PolitiFact | Sean Hannity

Inside the Fox News lie machine: I fact-checked Sean Hannity on Obamacare

10 Examples Of Sean Hannity Saying Things That Aren't True

Hannity is not a news program.
Political Fact-Checking Under Fire
Salon - Media Bias/Fact Check
Media Matters Media Bias Rating

 

[Yarddog]

Hannity is not a news program.
Political Fact-Checking Under Fire
Salon - Media Bias/Fact Check
Media Matters Media Bias Rating

I never said he was a news journalist but if you read my post, I said political pundits.

 

[disciple Clint]

I never said he was a news journalist but if you read my post, I said political pundits.

if it is opinion and not news then it is not "fake news"

 

[The Barbarian]

Those pale in comparison to the fake news coming out of Trump.

Yep. We've all lost count of the lies Trump peddles daily. His own lawyers are doing everything they can to make sure he never testifies or does a deposition, calling it a "perjury trap", knowing he can't talk more than a minute without lying.

 

[Yarddog]

if it is opinion and not news then it is not "fake news"

If a news dominated tv station puts those shows out there as if they are news and they make up their own facts, then it's fake news.

Fox News has some good "news" shows. They may be right leaning but still pretty accurate in what they report, just as CNN and MSNBC do on the left.

 

[disciple Clint]

If a news dominated tv station puts those shows out there as if they are news and they make up their own facts, then it's fake news.

Fox News has some good "news" shows. They may be right leaning but still pretty accurate in what they report, just as CNN and MSNBC do on the left.

I would agree except the show in question is not and never was promoted to be news it is clearly opinion and commentary.

 

[jgarden]

Well not quite, they decided that legal decisions set a precedent that preclude prosecution. Regarding substance: if someone is charged with an crime by the police and subsequently the district attorney elects that the crime could not be successfully prosecuted, that person is exonerated of that crime. We operate in this nation under the innocent until proven guilty concept. We take that very seriously. If there was any and I stress any way that the dems could have found a way or invented a way to get Trump they would have gone to any extent to do it. That they could not is exoneration in and of itself.

One of the reasons why Michael Cohen, the President's lawyer, was charged and convicted was that he was involved in paying "hush-money" to Stormy Daniels 2 weeks prior to the 2016 Election - something the courts interpreted as an unreported campaign contribution!

Suspect 1 referred to in the investigation is widely interpreted as Donald J Trump who cannot be prosecuted until he becomes a private citizen - for which he is willing to go to any lengths to forestall that eventuality for another 4 years!

The position of the President under the law is unlike any other American citizen given that under current DOJ guidelines, a sitting President cannot be subjected to prosecution until he leaves office - only then can he/she be exonerated! `

 

[Gr8Grace]

We operate in this nation under the innocent until proven guilty concept. We take that very seriously. If there was any and I stress any way that the dems could have found a way or invented a way to get Trump they would have gone to any extent to do it. That they could not is exoneration in and of itself.

That is so true. President Trump 2020 has everybody under the sun turning every stone to "get him." And they have used any means to do it...........He's cleaner than we think.