• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump calls release of BuzzFeed report 'a sad day for journalism'; Giuliani urges DOJ pursuit of lea

haymarket said:
Your post makes no sense on any level as one news story does not impact the Mueller probe nor any investigation into Trump criminality.
Click to expand...


Typical gibberish trying to deflect.


You are the one trying to marginalize the rebuke Mueller's team gave and when it's pointed out, you go to crazytown making sh** up in an attempt to get off the subject.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
You can cling to that small sliver of hope if it sooths you.
Click to expand...

This isn't about hope or soothing, it's about reading comprehension.

"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the special counsel's office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate."

Tht statement does not debunk the article. It simply states that, as regards particular aspects, there are inaccuracies.

To quote a favorite movie line, "What we have here is failure to communicate."
 
Idiometer said:
This isn't about hope or soothing, it's about reading comprehension.

"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the special counsel's office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate."

Tht statement does not debunk the article. It simply states that, as regards particular aspects, there are inaccuracies.

To quote a favorite movie line, "What we have here is failure to communicate."
Click to expand...

Are you tripping your own idiometer?
 
dobieg said:
Typical gibberish trying to deflect.


You are the one trying to marginalize the rebuke Mueller's team gave and when it's pointed out, you go to crazytown making sh** up in an attempt to get off the subject.
Click to expand...

The Mueller team said the Buzzfeed report was NOT ACCURATE. That is all we know.

We do not know if it was mostly accurate but inaccurate in part.

We do not know if it was mostly inaccurate but had a bit of accuracy in it.

We do not know if it was 100% inaccurate.

We do not know if it was 90% accurate.

Or pick any numbers in between.

That is not DELFECTION. It is simply reality.
 
Airyaman said:
Although there are already many threads about the Buzzfeed article, this seems to be a good place to discuss the idea that it is "bunk".

I don't think so. To say it is "bunk", to me, is to say it is wholly incorrect.

I was one of the first "NeverTrumpers" (a membership I proudly claim) on DP to urge caution over the Buzzfeed article.

That said, it is too quick to call it "bunk" based on the statement from Mueller's team. It seems they did take issue with a statement about them, and the only thing you can find for that is indeed in the main claim: that Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress.

Now, that is big if that is untrue. It is the whole premise of the new calls to start impeachment proceedings.

However, if he were told to lie by someone in Trump's orbit, that is still a big deal. Not a big deal for Trump, but someone else. So big if true.

Buzzfeed did screw up here. Until proven otherwise, I'm trusting them now just a little more than The Conservative Treehouse or Gateway Pundit or anything by streiff over at Red State. When you start implicating the president in a crime, you better have the goods.

No goods here. Fail, but still not necessarily "bunk".
Click to expand...

Bunk...

"Mueller’s denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none of those statements in the story are accurate."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html
 
haymarket said:
The statement from the Mueller investigation simply said the article was "NOT ACCURATE".

What part of the story - a small part, a large part, or all of it, was not specified so there is no way of saying anything specific beyond what the Mueller statement told us.
Click to expand...

"Mueller’s denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none of those statements in the story are accurate."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html
 
Idiometer said:
This isn't about hope or soothing, it's about reading comprehension.

"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the special counsel's office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate."

Tht statement does not debunk the article. It simply states that, as regards particular aspects, there are inaccuracies.

To quote a favorite movie line, "What we have here is failure to communicate."
Click to expand...


"Mueller’s denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none of those statements in the story are accurate."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...c40d34-1b85-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html
 
haymarket said:
The Mueller team said the Buzzfeed report was NOT ACCURATE. That is all we know.

We do not know if it was mostly accurate but inaccurate in part.

We do not know if it was mostly inaccurate but had a bit of accuracy in it.

We do not know if it was 100% inaccurate.

We do not know if it was 90% accurate.

Or pick any numbers in between.

That is not DELFECTION. It is simply reality.
Click to expand...


Mueller's team came out and said the story was full of sh**.


You and every other liberal apparently need your hand held while it's explained what that means.
 
Idiometer said:
This isn't about hope or soothing, it's about reading comprehension.

"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the special counsel's office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate."

Tht statement does not debunk the article. It simply states that, as regards particular aspects, there are inaccuracies.

To quote a favorite movie line, "What we have here is failure to communicate."
Click to expand...

Like I said to haymarket... cling to that little sliver of hope if it soothes you.

The reality is that Muellers office issued the statement they did because the story is bull ****.
 
Rexedgar said:
“Anonymous Sources?”
Click to expand...

WA Post's sources verses Buzzfeed sources?

Who you gonna' believe?
If you want to call WA Post's national security's investigative reporters account fake news... go ahead, and make my day. :lol:
 
Airyaman said:
So Mueller isn't carrying out a witch hunt?
Click to expand...

Too much false pride to admit that you were wrong above? Purposely moving the goal posts doesn't cut it.

:lol:
 
trixare4kids said:
WA Post's sources verses Buzzfeed sources?

Who you gonna' believe?
If you want to call WA Post's national security's investigative reporters account fake news... go ahead, and make my day. :lol:
Click to expand...




Washington Post is now good? Anonymous sources are bad until they report what you want to hear........you seem to be getting extraordinary mileage from your WAPO link, multiple in thread posts and cross thread posts, it’s all good!
 
Rexedgar said:
Washington Post is now good? Anonymous sources are bad until they report what you want to hear........you seem to be getting extraordinary mileage from your WAPO link, multiple in thread posts and cross thread posts, it’s all good!
Click to expand...

The idea that you would compare buzzfeed to the Post is almost comical.
 
Rexedgar said:
Washington Post is now good? Anonymous sources are bad until they report what you want to hear........you seem to be getting extraordinary mileage from your WAPO link, multiple in thread posts and cross thread posts, it’s all good!
Click to expand...

The point is that WAPO or a lot of other media sources have reported anything and everything they can find, extrapolate, speculate, or manufacture out of whole cloth that make the President look bad. And they have reported pretty much every 'leaked' innuendo from anonymous sources and/or announced action by the Mueller team claiming it ALL is very bad for the President.

But when WAPO or any other radical leftwing media and/or Mueller himself says that a story accusing the President is inaccurate, they fall all over themselves to quickly move the goalposts or otherwise dismiss it as important. And they accuse of conservatives of being hypocritical if they appreciate WAPO or any other media source or Mueller himself disputing bad news re the President.

They don't see that they are making it apparent that they don't believe, or at least don't appreciate ANYTHING that exonerates the President in anything. And the fact that this story seems to expose the fake media reports and embarrasses the media must be squelched immediately. They don't see that anybody who absolutely loathes to the point of hating the President but admits they were wrong about some media accusation are most likely very credible sources on that point. This story must have been so blatantly false that they felt it necessary to repair their own image.
 
Rexedgar said:
Where did I compare anything? Is that projection?
Click to expand...

I don't think projection means what you think it does.
You did attempt to minimize the WA Post's National Security investigative reporters' credibility on a level similar to Buzzfeed's, and yes, that's almost comical.

Are we done here?

Have a fun day! :2wave:
 
AlbqOwl said:
The point is that WAPO or a lot of other media sources have reported anything and everything they can find, extrapolate, speculate, or manufacture out of whole cloth that make the President look bad. And they have reported pretty much every 'leaked' innuendo from anonymous sources and/or announced action by the Mueller team claiming it ALL is very bad for the President.

But when WAPO or any other radical leftwing media and/or Mueller himself says that a story accusing the President is inaccurate, they fall all over themselves to quickly move the goalposts or otherwise dismiss it as important. And they accuse of conservatives of being hypocritical if they appreciate WAPO or any other media source or Mueller himself disputing bad news re the President.

They don't see that they are making it apparent that they don't believe, or at least don't appreciate ANYTHING that exonerates the President in anything. And the fact that this story seems to expose the fake media reports and embarrasses the media must be squelched immediately. They don't see that anybody who absolutely loathes to the point of hating the President but admits they were wrong about some media accusation are most likely very credible sources on that point. This story must have been so blatantly false that they felt it necessary to repair their own image.
Click to expand...

You make a lot of good and honest observations about news outlets like the WA Post's true motivations.
 
This cluster perfectly describes today's media.

The mass media should be ignored entirely. Not an ounce of integrity or credibility left.
 
Idiometer said:
This isn't about hope or soothing, it's about reading comprehension.

"BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the special counsel's office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate."

Tht statement does not debunk the article. It simply states that, as regards particular aspects, there are inaccuracies.

To quote a favorite movie line, "What we have here is failure to communicate."
Click to expand...
Well to be fair they did spell President Trump's name correctly. :lol:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom