Traders misinterpret a Comey video that they think clears Trump

Agreed, many right wingers fell for the fake news. They are easy victims because of their tribal nature.
You cannot prove the vast majority of the news that you have posted lately because it is from anonymous sources. You nor any libtards can provide any evidence only hearsay from an anonymous sources.

You are acting as though hearsay is fact. An anonymous source can makeup whatever they want.

Furthermore, according to CNN the anonymous sources are former government/intelligence officials. So even if they are former government/intelligence officials, they are getting second hand knowledge.
 
You cannot prove the vast majority of the news that you have posted lately because it is from anonymous sources. You nor any libtards can provide any evidence only hearsay from an anonymous source.

You are acting as though hearsay is fact. An anonymous source can makeup whatever they want.

First, the reasons sources remain anonymous is because otherwise they would get fired from their jobs.

Second, reputation of the news sources as well as their honesty when it comes to retraction is just as important. Anonymous sources bought down Nixon, they also broke the Clinton email story.

Third, Trump confirms the news on his twitter or his sycophants try to put on the story instead of denying it. That's good enough for confirmation

Fourth, you guys had no problems promoting Seth Rich story which was based on anonymous sources when even the named sources admitted he was lying.

Fifth, thanks for inserting 'libtards' to make your point, I am sure if I use 'inbred hicks' or 'dumb Cons' in response, it would round up our conversation.
 
First, the reasons sources remain anonymous is because otherwise they would get fired from their jobs.

Second, reputation of the news sources as well as their honesty when it comes to retraction is just as important. Anonymous sources bought down Nixon, they also broke the Clinton email story.

Third, Trump confirms the news on his twitter or his sycophants try to put on the story instead of denying it. That's good enough for confirmation

Fourth, you guys had no problems promoting Seth Rich story which was based on anonymous sources when even the named sources admitted he was lying.

Fifth, thanks for inserting 'libtards' to make your point, I am sure if I use 'inbred hicks' or 'dumb Cons' in response, it would round up our conversation.
Nixon and Clinton examples do not add any legitimacy to these former government officials that are supposedly the sources. Those situations have absolutely nothing to do with anything that we are talking about. Former means they were not present at the meeting because they no longer work for the government. So they are conveying at best second hand knowledge of another leaker.

That is your opinion of the news sources. Many people have a very different opinion of those news sources. Do you want me to start listing all of the fake stories that CNN has published?

I did not act like the Seth Rich story was absolute fact. You are inferring that every negative story that comes out about Trump is absolute fact without any real evidence.
 
Nixon and Clinton examples do not add any legitimacy to these former government officials that are supposedly the sources. Those situations have absolutely nothing to do with anything that we are talking about. Former means they were not present at the meeting because they no longer work for the government. So they are conveying at best second hand knowledge of another leaker.

Both Nixon and Clinton examples are relevant because they were initially reported with anonymous sources - only later were they confirmed.

And who says Trump's stories are from former officials? The classified info leak story was from a current IC official who saw the transcripts. The Comey memo was from a current FBI official - even Fox News has confirmed it's existence.

That is your opinion of the news sources. Many people have a very different opinion of those news sources. Do you want me to start listing all of the fake stories that CNN has published?

Yes, post the fake news stories from CNN, I want to see which of their stories that were reported using anonymous sources turned out to be untrue

I did not act like the Seth Rich story was absolute fact. You are inferring that every negative story that comes out about Trump is absolute fact without any real evidence.

It's the corroboration that's the key here AND the reputation of the organization releasing it - anonymous sources is the only way to get information from inside the government otherwise they will be fired.
 
Just because with Nixon and Clinton the anonymous sources were later confirmed absolutely in no way legitimizes the anonymous source with respect to Trump.

CNN stated "former" officials.

Dennis Kucinich stated that Trump is under attack by politicized agencies in an attempt to take down the President. He further stated that it is a clear a present danger and a threat to our way of life. Also, he thinks the political process is under attack by the intelligence agencies.

 
Just because with Nixon and Clinton the anonymous sources were later confirmed absolutely in no way legitimizes the anonymous source with respect to Trump.

But the anonymous sources in the Trump stories were confirmed too - Comey memos exist as reported and classified info was leaked.

As for 'Deep State' vs Trump, was Deep State against Hillary for leaking all the email shit all through the election cycle?
 
But the anonymous sources in the Trump stories were confirmed too - Comey memos exist as reported and classified info was leaked.

As for 'Deep State' vs Trump, was Deep State against Hillary for leaking all the email shit all through the election cycle?
How do you know the Comey memos exist as reported? All I have seen was that a anonymous source that is reported to be an associate of Comey's read part of a memo to NYT. Has any media outlet seen the memo?
 
Back
Top