If this story is corroborated, it is the end

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

42 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Not when it is the same side.

Look, the Steele Dossier got poo-pooed by every legitimate news source in the nation. It went downhill until they finally found BuzzFeed to publish it. No one else would touch it even though they had it for months. 

https://www.courthousenews.com/buzzfeed-court-filing-reveals-rationale-behind-use-of-russia-dossier/

Read it for yourselves. Buzzfeed published not because they had verified anything, they never verified anything, and in truth sued the DNC over info on the hacking. 

After CNN reported the Federal Bureau of Investigation shared the dossier with then-President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump, BuzzFeed decided to publish the document in its entirety.

“When they made that decision, none of the BuzzFeed journalists involved knew or had any degree of awareness – let alone a ‘high degree’ of awareness – that the allegations about plaintiffs on the dossier’s last page were false, or harbored ‘serious doubts’ about that,” the filing states. Because they never even tried to fact check anything.

Considering Russian cyber-attacks on the Democratic Party was already public knowledge, BuzzFeed claims they “simply filled in a few details about the hacking operation.”

BuzzFeed argues the article falls under the “fair reporting privilege,” which shields journalists from liability for repeating potentially defamatory allegations if they stem from public records or a prominent, responsible organization.

So because you don't have a background in news, let's educate you on newsworthiness and the public interest.  Obama and Trump, as CNN reported, were both briefed on this dossier.  That's newsworthy in and of itself.  The public knew that this existed, and given the circumstances, had a reasonable right to know.  At that point, it can be in the public interest as a news organization to print what government officials had seen, as long as the release of said documents doesn't put any lives in imminent danger.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

20 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

So because you don't have a background in news, let's educate you on newsworthiness and the public interest.  Obama and Trump, as CNN reported, were both briefed on this dossier.  That's newsworthy in and of itself.  The public knew that this existed, and given the circumstances, had a reasonable right to know.  At that point, it can be in the public interest as a news organization to print what government officials had seen, as long as the release of said documents doesn't put any lives in imminent danger.

But here's the thing Brad, while I respect your background in news, it's one thing to report on something to let people know about it or be aware of it but the media didn't just report the story, they sensationalized it and used words like 'BOMBSHELL' referring to the Buzzfeed story and were speculating on the end of Trump's presidency breathlessly with wall to wall coverage.

One of the authors(Anthony Cormier) of the article even acknowledged in an interview on CNN that he himself hadn't actually seen the documents or other evidence to corroborate the article but was relying on anonymous law enforcement sources who they claimed had fully read the documents and seen the evidence involved in the special counsel's investigation. 

If a 'journalist' hasn't seen documents or any actual evidence but is relying solely on third hand accounts then that shouldn't lend the article enough credibility or give it the amount of attention the media gave it. But they don't care. The media weren't even actually backing the story because they couldn't confirm it but they were still running like hell with it in hopes of it being true. If FOX did that, you and several others on here would be scorching the crap of them for pushing a story like that. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

So because you don't have a background in news, let's educate you on newsworthiness and the public interest.  Obama and Trump, as CNN reported, were both briefed on this dossier.  That's newsworthy in and of itself.  The public knew that this existed, and given the circumstances, had a reasonable right to know.  At that point, it can be in the public interest as a news organization to print what government officials had seen, as long as the release of said documents doesn't put any lives in imminent danger.

You are making my point. You dont know what you are talking about.They had to fall back to that. They could not report that there was any factual base for reporting the Dossier because there was no factual base for it. That's how Buzzfeed got it, NO FACTS. Get the point? They HAD to go back to basically saying: "Well everyone in DC knows about this, so we must tell the public." You are completely missing, like 30,000 feet over your head, that no one would touch this story because none of it could be verified. They had to do it that way, no reputable news org would touch it.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

You are making my point. You dont know what you are talking about.They had to fall back to that. They could not report that there was any factual base for reporting the Dossier because there was no factual base for it. That's how Buzzfeed got it, NO FACTS. Get the point? They HAD to go back to basically saying: "Well everyone in DC knows about this, so we must tell the public." You are completely missing, like 30,000 feet over your head, that no one would touch this story because none of it could be verified. They had to do it that way, no reputable news org would touch it.

When you actually spend time in a newsroom, I'll let you tell me what I'm missing.  Only one of us in this conversation has done that.  It ain't you.  If this debate was about how to be a hippy during the Summer of Love, well then I'd be happy to defer to you.

Editorial choice for each news organization is not always standard.  Ever actually research into the Pentagon Papers?  WaPo, after getting the info from the NYT, initially sat on the story.  There was hard discussion about publishing (largely due to government backlash), this despite these being actual government documents.  It's not always cut and dried.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

But here's the thing Brad, while I respect your background in news, it's one thing to report on something to let people know about it or be aware of it but the media didn't just report the story, they sensationalized it and used words like 'BOMBSHELL' referring to the Buzzfeed story and were speculating on the end of Trump's presidency breathlessly with wall to wall coverage.

One of the authors(Anthony Cormier) of the article even acknowledged in an interview on CNN that he himself hadn't actually seen the documents or other evidence to corroborate the article but was relying on anonymous law enforcement sources who they claimed had fully read the documents and seen the evidence involved in the special counsel's investigation. 

If a 'journalist' hasn't seen documents or any actual evidence but is relying solely on third hand accounts then that shouldn't lend the article enough credibility or give it the amount of attention the media gave it. But they don't care. The media weren't even actually backing the story because they couldn't confirm it but they were still running like hell with it in hopes of it being true. If FOX did that, you and several others on here would be scorching the crap of them for pushing a story like that. 

It's not on Buzzfeed to tell others how to use headlines.  I saw the CNN Bombshell line too.  If accurate, it is a bombshell report.  It's the exact thing that got Nixon ousted (directing witnesses to lie).

It should be noted too that Buzzfeed's editor has now challenged Mueller to point out where the story's flaws lie.  From my experience, you don't put yourself out there like that unless you know you have the goods.  

We can debate all night whether the journalist should or should not have seen the document.  I tend to agree with you there and lean on the side of caution, but again, this goes to editorial choice.  If the same story is corroborated by multiple folks independent of one another, then there is something legitimate to run with.  And as has been noted, this very likely did not come from Mueller's office, but rather the SDNY.  So Mueller could deny certain things, be accurate, and still have the article be accurate as well.

[DKW 86 7,419]

6 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

It's not on Buzzfeed to tell others how to use headlines.  I saw the CNN Bombshell line too.  If accurate, it is a bombshell report.  It's the exact thing that got Nixon ousted (directing witnesses to lie).

It should be noted too that Buzzfeed's editor has now challenged Mueller to point out where the story's flaws lie.  From my experience, you don't put yourself out there like that unless you know you have the goods.  

We can debate all night whether the journalist should or should not have seen the document.  I tend to agree with you there and lean on the side of caution, but again, this goes to editorial choice.  If the same story is corroborated by multiple folks independent of one another, then there is something legitimate to run with.  And as has been noted, this very likely did not come from Mueller's office, but rather the SDNY.  So Mueller could deny certain things, be accurate, and still have the article be accurate as well.

If he hasnt seen the Documents, they probably dont exist. Ask Manu Raju about not having seen the real documents...

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/08/media/cnn-correction-email-story/index.html

Quote

 

CNN on Friday afternoon corrected an exclusive report that said candidate Donald Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. had received an email providing a web address and decryption key allowing them to access hacked documents from WikiLeaks before such documents were publicly available..When first published Friday morning, the story, written by senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju and politics reporter Jeremy Herb, said the email was sent to the Trumps on September 4, 2016. It was corrected to say that the email was actually sent on September 14, one day after WikiLeaks made the documents public.

"CNN's initial reporting of the date on an email sent to members of the Trump campaign about Wikileaks documents, which was confirmed by two sources to CNN, was incorrect," CNN said in a statement. "We have updated our story to include the correct date, and present the proper context for the timing of email."

In its updated story, CNN acknowledged, "The new information indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported." (as in, wasnt significant at all.)

A CNN spokesperson said there will not be disciplinary action in this case because the reporters followed CNN's editorial standards process, which requires review and approval of the use of anonymous sources. CNN says it does not believe that the sources intended to deceive the reporters.

 

Before the correction, the story -- which relied on multiple sources who described the email to CNN -- had been heavily promoted by the network. CNN devoted multiple segments to discussing it on air. It was also the lead story on its homepage for much of Friday morning and into the afternoon. During that time, CBS News also reported that it had matched CNN's initial reporting.

But at 1 p.m. ET, the story unraveled. The Washington Post obtained a copy of the email in question, which CNN did not have, and reported it was sent on the afternoon of September 14 -- 10 days after CNN had reported it was sent. The Wall Street Journal quickly matched The Post's reporting and The Daily Caller posted a copy of the email.

CNN corrected its story at 3:45 p.m. ET. A network spokesperson said that as soon as the network had reviewed its reporting and independently confirmed that the story was wrong, it moved to correct it. CBS News also corrected its story. (CNN knew this story was crap at 1300 along with every other news outlet. The scrolls and promotion went on as before.)

Both Raju and Herb declined to comment through a spokesperson.

 

1

1) Raju never had the emails in hand and NEVER should have presented the story. 2) Also notice that CNN knew at 1300 that the story was BS and yet 3) waited until 1545 to address the BS Factor.

CNN in this article lies about there being more than two sources. Raju stated on air that there were only two sources. Raju stated that there was an encryption key provided. None of his sources ever claimed that. The actual email did not have any references to anything with encryption nor provided a key. Half of reputable American News media knew the story was crap, yet CNN and others kept passing on this "bombshell" report the rest of the afternoon.) My own personal outrage with the complete lack of ethics in media today is just that. This was on the scrolling chyron on just about every cable news outlet and internet site accessed by Americans. They couldnt get the damn date right? Really? American Media is totally bereft of integrity that they refuse to even check the dates on a timeline story?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/12/08/cnn-lands-huge-scoop-on-donald-trump-jr-moments-later-it-collapses/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d5147c32341a

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/business/media/cnn-correction-donald-trump-jr.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/08/cnn-just-armed-trump-with-new-ammunition-to-launch-anotLooking for the video her-fake-news-attack/?utm_term=.4f1e35cdd560

Looking for the video where Raju finally admits to Alison Camerotta that the story is completely untrue \, I find that it is not so surprisingly taken down from youtube. <smdh>

[AUDub 11,147]

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

Last weekend, most of the buzz was covering a let down when the report finally comes out.

[AUDub 11,147]

13 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Last weekend, most of the buzz was covering a let down when the report finally comes out.

Yeah that was sourced to Jonathan Karl.

Truth is, nobody really know what will be in the report, and a lot of people want to be Nostradamus. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

Yeah that was sourced to Jonathan Karl.

Truth is, nobody really know what will be in the report, and a lot of people want to be Nostradamus. 

Being Nostradamus is a cool thing, but it rarely happens.

[AUDub 11,147]

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Being Nostradamus is a cool thing, but it rarely happens.

Mueller runs a remarkably tight ship. They leak pretty much nothing. That’s why I think the statement last night may very well be significant, and the SDNY angle, a district which is famously leaky, has some merit.

[DKW 86 7,419]

7 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Mueller runs a remarkably tight ship. They leak pretty much nothing. That’s why I think the statement last night may very well be significant, and the SDNY angle, a district which is famously leaky, has some merit.

Agreed, SDNY has that reputation. 

Question: What do you make of the 2008 Financial Crisis and Goldman-Sachs et al largely not getting prosecuted? I ask this because SDNY has prosecuted many financial crimes recently. But the DOJ opted to defer and refused to pursue these same crimes. Holder sited tactics of the defense teams as too tough to win.

[AUDub 11,147]

11 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Agreed, SDNY has that reputation. 

Question: What do you make of the 2008 Financial Crisis and Goldman-Sachs et al largely not getting prosecuted? I ask this because SDNY has prosecuted many financial crimes recently. But the DOJ opted to defer and refused to pursue these same crimes. Holder sited tactics of the defense teams as too tough to win.

Two things:

1. I think what Holder said has some merit. The real screwup of the housing crisis was under-securitization of subprime loans. A general consensus, dating back to Slick Willy, when they became the hot new deal, formed that these were actually a good investment. And, hey, they had been! Money was being made hand over fist! 

The general reasons for the under-securitization is explained by:

1. They had never done subprime loans before.

2. They underestimated how bad the housing collapse would be.

3. They underestimated how bad the recession would be.

4. Banks make more profits when they use weaker securitization.

As bad as that screw-up is, it’s actually quite hard to prosecute. No doubt a lot of bankers estimated that the amount of securitization was too low, and kept their mouths shut about it, but that is extremely hard to prove in court.

2. Then you have cases like Goldman-Sachs, who were obviously gaming the system. There is documentation of large investment banks were selling large amounts of mortgage backed securities to their customers, telling them they were good investments, and then buying massive insurance policies against those investments failing. They were essentially betting on their own investments to fail, because they knew they were going to fail.

I can only explain this with Holder and Obama knowing better than to bite the hand that feeds them. Lack of political will by elected leaders to admit that portion of our economic system was based on fraud. This is why I find people like Warren and AOC appealing, and the next gen of voters does too. 

[Farmer Brown 2,391]

Keep dreaming, Dub. Already debunked.

[AUDub 11,147]

1 hour ago, Farmer Brown said:

Keep dreaming, Dub. Already debunked.

Ladies and gentlemen, the right. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

I've advocated many, many times on this forum that withholding judgement while allowing facts to emerge is generally the best policy. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could pause, do some research/analysis and see the red flags on this story. Preet Bharara nailed the point home last night on AC.  The entire segment is worth a watch.

 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

I mostly agree with Erik. Particularly his point on cable news.  

[AUFAN78 3,894]

This is getting embarrassing for BuzzFeed at present. A source central to the story repeatedly disputed Trump directly issued orders of that kind. And BF ran it anyway? Just wow!

David, I understand if you take a victory lap. 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Mimi was on The Last Word last night. She basically put to bed the SDNY connection. 

 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 hours ago, Farmer Brown said:

Keep dreaming, Dub. Already debunked.

LMAO. Trump haters panties are in such a wad they may never get them untied. They are now at the end of the rope and desperate. Loving it.

[Farmer Brown 2,391]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

Ladies and gentlemen, the right. 

Ladies and gentlemen, if that is not too offensive, I give you the left. They believe anything that fits their hatred for Trump.

[AuCivilEng1 11,000]

12 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

Ladies and gentlemen, if that is not too offensive, I give you the left. They believe anything that fits their hatred for Trump.

Wait, weren't y'all the ones that swore Obama was a radical Muslim who was going to also take away your guns? 🤔

[Farmer Brown 2,391]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

Notice that just about everything I have posted here is carefully qualified, then eat s***. 

Your hatred is coming through. You qualify what you post from liberal sources. I could go to RedState Watcher, or The Liberty Daily, and get the exact opposite or a refutation of just about everything you cut and paste from liberal articles.

[AUDub 11,147]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Mimi was on The Last Word last night. She basically put to bed the SDNY connection. 

 

If the SDNY doesn’t have a reputation for being leaky, then I’m Pope Francis. Who the hell is Mimi Rocah? A former AUSA there? No shock she’s tries to cast her former district in a favorable light in spite of the obvious.