Random Political comments...

Oh please, Der Spiegel mailed it in, they did zero fact-checking on the story, so don't act like they're this "impeccable news outlet" that would never just repeat a salacious story from the New York Times. I mean, it's right there in their opening paragraph, lol...

"...According to the New York Times, the US president ordered the special investigator's dismissal in the Russian affair in June...."

***************

AB, if l read a story, l now check to see if a "quoted source" is named, if not, it gets my side-eye. Sorry, don't trust the agenda-driven Liberal media anymore, they've been caught waaaay too many times outright lying. You can be manipulated, but not me.


As for your "firing" comment..you basically proved my point -
He fired Comey (because he did and continued to do, a shit job as FBI Director.)

Was Mueller fired? Nope.

So the fact that Mueller is STILL employed rightfully smacks in the face of the lie that Trump "wanted to fire" him".
Because you know, since when does Trump not fire people he wants to fire?? Lol.


Henceforth, why don't we deal with actual facts and reality (which is Mueller was never fired), rather than believe some sudden "psst, l heard he wanted to fire Mueller, mmm-hmm", gossip that magically appears 8 mnths later by "annonymous sources" told" to the NYT..
OMG, 'Breaking News"...STOP CNN's, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS's presses. Lolol.

 

Oh my goodness Loki, you're a lawyer...
Seriously, does this from the link you posted EVEN pass muster/the light of day?

********************
"Indeed, Fox’s report indicated that two former White House officials, then-chief of staff Reince Priebus and chief political strategist Steve Bannon, thought Trump would fire Mueller and both were “very worried” about the possible ramifications. "They said, 'This is going to blow up,'" an unnamed source told Fox.

“Source tells me Priebus & Bannon believed President was going to fire #Mueller and worried about fallout but obviously in end he did not do it,”

Henry tweeted Thursday night during Hannity’s broadcast.

Smh.

 

Do you have your own personal White House spy?

 

Bliss, Trump was advised NOT to fire Mueller right after he just fired Comey, both of whom were investigating the Russia/Trump conspiracy, because it would be perceived by Congress as a Constitutional crisis and a clear case of obstruction of justice.
It would be like Trump was asking to be impeached on principle.

You can't keep firing investigators because you don't like what they might find.
As for you needing to read WHO the sources are, that's not how political reporting works in D.C. Most leads come from unnamed sources.
This isn't Breitbart or WND. MSN didn't build their reputation by spreading propaganda and made up stories.

IMO you've been reading so much right wing conspiracy news feeds, you can't filter it from real news.
You probably don't believe either Trump's personal attorney paid porn star $150,000 in hush money before the primaries.smh

LOL. It's still funny to me you're questioning the journalistic integrity of Der Spiegel or the NYT.

 

No, l don't. Which is why l don't buy gossip dished out by the MSM unless they put a name to their accusations.

However, as we now see, the "NYT's apparent source" was in fact relaying a hypothetical... mere opinions and 'feelings" attributed to Reince and Bannon.

So now opinions of others, their "feeling" ...becomes Breaking News all over the world that "Trump wanted to Fire Mueller!!"
You can't make this shit up.
Oh wait, yes you can! Lol.

 

So if you don't have your own spy and you are dishing us all these long essays every day where do you get the content of your essays from?

 

IKR! Remember how Trump would say something like... An extremely credible source called my office to say that BHO's birth certificate was a fake.

 

". LOL. It's still funny to me you're questioning the journalistic integrity of Der Spiegel or the NYT" - AB

I don't deal with hypotheticals in journalism. It's integrity is too important to me.

Honestly, posting their questionable integrity list is so long, you don't even have to read them, just know they exist, ok...

***********************

1.) In 2003, the Times admitted that Jayson Blair, one of its reporters, had committed repeated journalistic fraud over a span of several years. The general professionalism of the paper was questioned, though Blair immediately resigned following the incident. The paper's top two editors – Howell Raines, the executive editor, and Gerald M. Boyd, managing editor – resigned their posts following the incident.


2.) Second Iraq War
Judith Miller wrote a series of exclusive and prominently displayed articles "strongly suggest[ing] Saddam Hussein already had or was acquiring an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction"[8] using Ahmad Chalabi as her source prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This aided the Bush administration in making the case for war.

3.) Valerie Plame affair
In October 2005, Times reporter Judith Miller was released from prison after 85 days, when she agreed to testify to special prosecutorPatrick Fitzgerald’s grand jury after receiving a personal waiver, both on the phone and in writing, of her earlier confidential source agreement with Lewis "Scooter" Libby. No other reporter whose testimony had been sought in the case had received such a direct and particularized release. Her incarceration has helped fuel an effort in Congress to enact a federal shield law, comparable to the state shield laws which protect reporters in 31 of the 50 states. After her second appearance before the grand jury, Miller was released from her contempt of court finding. Miller resigned from the paper on November 9, 2005.


4.) On Monday, September 10, 2007, the Timesran a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.orgvquestioning the integrity of General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, entitled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” The Times only charged MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, $65,000 for the advertisement that, according to public relations director Abbe Serphos, normally costs around $181,692, or roughly a 64% discount. Serphos declined to explain the discount. Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis denied the rate charged indicated a political bias.

MoveOn later paid the Times the full rate once the newspaper publicly acknowledged that "an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

5.) In their book Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky analyze a variety of major U.S. media outlets, with an emphasis on the Times...from the book:

"...by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society."


"...history is what appears in The New York Times archives; the place where people will go to find out what happened is The New York Times. Therefore it's extremely important if history is going to be shaped in an appropriate way, that certain things appear, certain things not appear, certain questions be asked, other questions be ignored, and that issues be framed in a particular fashion.
.cont....

 

Cont...

6.) Duke University lacrosse case reporting

In their 2007 book Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustice of the Duke Lacrosse Case...

The New York Times...editorial judgment and its effect on the case investigation.

It claims that the original reports by Joe Drape tended to exonerate the accused players, which contradicted Times' editorial stance. This led to Drape's quick dismissal and replacement by Duff Wilson who took a pro prosecution stance.

Also covering the case, sports writer Selena Roberts, made assertions, that "Something happened March 13.

.... The Times never ran a correction.
Later Roberts in an interview in the Big Lead said, "I wrote that a crime didn’t have to occur for us to inspect the irrefutable evidence of misogyny and race baiting that went on that night."

Daniel Okrent, former Times ombudsman admitted to the bias in the Times coverage of the case. He said, "It was too delicious a story. It conformed too well to too many preconceived notions of too many in the press: white over black, rich over poor, athletes over non-athletes, men over women, educated over non-educated. Wow. That's a package of sins that really fit the preconceptions of a lot of us."


7.) Alessandra Stanley errors
Alessandra Stanley is a television critic. Complaints have been raised regarding the accuracy of her reporting. Her tribute to Walter Cronkite on July 18, 2009 had eight factual errors. Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The New York Times described Stanley as "much admired by editors for the intellectual heft of her coverage of television" but "with a history of errors". The New York Times printed a correction:

An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. “The CBS Evening News” overtook “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of “The CBS Evening News” in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International.

An earlier contentious wording was on September 5, 2005 in an article on Hurricane Katrina where she wrote "Fox's Geraldo Rivera did his rivals one better: yesterday, he nudged an Air Force rescue worker out of the way so his camera crew could tape him as he helped lift an older woman in a wheelchair to safety." The Times later acknowledged that no nudge was visible on the broadcast tape.

8.) China
Quotation symbols were put around "terrorist" by the New York Times when describing the 2014 Kunming attack.

Outdated figures about the carbon output of China were used by the New York Times in a new article.

***********************

 

Bliss if your point is that hearsay is not as credible as someone willing to go on the record and state their name, we actually are in agreement, any reasonable person would agree. That being said, in this case since Trump did not follow through on the alleged threat to remove Mueller, so all we have are the reports of Trumps advisors strongly advising him not to do that. That does not mean there is no credibility to the reports, especially since he already fired Comey after asking for loyalty and not liking his answer of "I will seek the truth".

 

From the people's mouths directly..

For example, if l was to tell you that CNN's Van Johnson was said to have said the "Russia story is a nothingburger", l want to hear it for myself or see if he denies it..
fair, right?



In public, Van lies to CNN viewers...


Also..another producer revealing his contempt"

(4 minute mark)

...

Or how about another one of CNN's producers?

American Pravda: 'Project Veritas' Catches CNN Producer Admitting Russia Story Is "Mostly Bullshit," "About Ratings"

In a video released overnight by 'Project Veritas' founder James O'Keefe, CNN producer John Bonifield is caught on film admitting that the network's constant coverage of the Trump-Russia narrative is "mostly bullshit" and "the president is probably right to say [CNN] is witch-hunting [him]."

He also noted the story is "good for business."

Quote:
He also said: "It’s a business, people are like the media has an ethical phssssss…All the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school you’re just like, that’s adorable. That’s adorable. This is a business."

About CNN CEO, Jeff Zucker, the producer said: "Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we’re done with that, let’s get back to Russia."

"CNN Producer says "Russia narrative is bullshit"

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

?????

This is the NYT article. It was published yesterday. No mention of Preibus or Bannon. There were FOUR sources for this story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html
As I said, Sean Hannity confirmed the story with his own sources.

 

Got that "Priebus and Bannon" from Loki's link. Read it, perhaps??

 

That was back in June.
The far Left and the right wing have always wanted the Russia conspiracy to be a phony story, because it would imply the election was essentially stolen from HRC.

You should update your info because I doubt anyone at CNN believes that today.
You think the Russia story shouldn't be covered, because your personal opinion contradicts the evidence so far in the case??
That's not how the news works.

 

You're absolutely right at the bolded..since CNN probably believe it even less now.

I mean, why wouldn't they, as much 24/7 support coverage that CNN devoted to Wolff and his "Fire & Fury" who specifically reiterated that Trump did not want to be President, it stands to reason they don't believe any Russian collusion even more.

Because why would someone who doesn't want to be President ...conspire with the Russians to become President?
It's Hilarious.

 

Not so fast there Bliss, you often discount or dismiss Politifact because you believe it unfairly targets conservatives while not focusing as much on liberals, I would disagree with that assessment, but for the sake of discussion lets say that you are right. Why do you not hold Project Veritas to the same standard then? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/ "Project Veritas primarily targets liberals and liberal organizations. O’Keefe’s videos are edited in a way that makes them difficult to fact check. Often his information is debunked, but it is too late as the information has already been watched by thousands or more"

"O’Keefe portrays himself as a rigorous journalist who is dedicated to furthering “a more ethical and transparent society.” He refuses, however, to be transparent about who is funding him. According to tax records obtained by PRWatch.org, an investigative watchdog group run by the Center for Media and Democracy, in recent years hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to Project Veritas have come through a fund in Alexandria, Virginia, called Donors Trust, which specializes in hiding the money trails of conservative philanthropists. In its promotional materials, Donors Trust says that it will “keep your charitable giving private, especially gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues.” The records obtained by PRWatch.org also show that one donor, a conservative political activist in Wisconsin, contributed fifty thousand dollars just before Project Veritas undertook a sting of one of his political enemies—a state senator." https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-accidentally-stings-himself

 

LOL..
You know what's even funnier?
My Iggles are in the Superbowl and your Falcons ain't.




PS: How bout them Bulldogs. Woof!

 

I'm fully aware of Project Veritas and the Left's attempt to discredit them.


However, if you watch the videos yourself you will see that the conversation is uninterrupted. You will also see those are the words that come out of each individual's mouth.

Furthermore, these producers were fired over it (not sure why Van wasn't).

BTW, Anderson Cooper has even called some of Veritas's videos as "damning".

The bottom line is, regardless of any funding sources, no one can make you say what you say, unless you say it. And that is the crux here.

 

Sure, it's very fair to hear from the source. So when they interviewed Putin and asked him: " Did you/your country meddle in the American election he said "No, of course not, you are giving us too much credit." Putin said it, you heard it from the horses mouth. That means you believe him and it must be true, right? When they asked him Mr Putin, was Russian military involved with separatists in Eastern Ukraine that let to the annexation of that part of the country by Russia he said " No, of course not, we were never there, it was only the Ukrainians who decided to join us because Russia is such a great country." Well he said it, so you believe him, right?