Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has been reported this was a phony story passed around on the inside to see who would leak it to the press, so they can weed them out.
That makes no sense. The Washington Post said they had access to the email and noticed the date was September 14, 2016, not September 4, 2016. The simplest explanation is that some dumbass didn't pay attention to a very important detail.
That makes no sense. The Washington Post said they had access to the email and noticed the date was September 14, 2016, not September 4, 2016. The simplest explanation is that some dumbass didn't pay attention to a very important detail.
True, If you believe the MSM hasnt been trying to take Trump down for a year now and continue to try, which many of us that are reasonable and have common sense dont. The best explanation is they knew they were publishing something false in an attempt to damage Trump as that has been their MO for as while already, get enough other MSM to report/repeat it enough and people will accept the lie as truth even though its a lie.
A bad day for the press on both sides: CNN botched this story and issued a correction; Fox News blew it calling the Roy Moore yearbook a "forgery" and issued a correction. News media is in such a hurry to be first they are getting sloppy.
True, If you believe the MSM hasnt been trying to take Trump down for a year now and continue to try, which many of us that are reasonable and have common sense dont. The best explanation is they knew they were publishing something false in an attempt to damage Trump as that has been their MO for as while already, get enough other MSM to report/repeat it enough and people will accept the lie as truth even though its a lie.
If Trump didn't Tweet, didn't insult people, refrained from constant attacks on the media, and provided some, any type of explanation for his campaign's numerous contacts with Russia, do you think he'd receive a lot less news coverage, positive or negative?
I guess this is a big deal to the anti Trump conspiracy people but in reality isn't this just opponent research and shortly after didn't Wikileaks release the same info to everyone ?
Has anyone else noticed that Trump has been uncharacteristically quiet in his tweeting lately ? Perhaps all of this information coming out has him, and his handlers, a l i t t l e worried !
There is no question that Wikileaks is controlled by Putin, and no question that Assange was trying to get information to Trump to make Hillary look bad.
What someone was "trying to do" is of no significance. What we know was DONE, was that Hillary's campaign and the DNC paid to try to dig up dirt on TRUMP. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
This is fake news...by Changing the date, the whole world already read the documents...and this wasn't exclusive info to the Trump campaign...will someone get suspended for a month again ...come on MSM this is getting crazy
A bad day for the press on both sides: CNN botched this story and issued a correction; Fox News blew it calling the Roy Moore yearbook a "forgery" and issued a correction. News media is in such a hurry to be first they are getting sloppy.
Who are "both sides"? This assumes that CNN is an outgrowth of the DNC.
I think the easiest way to put this to rest is to ask why the major networks didn't refuse to cover Comey's letter to Congress 11 days before the election regarding Clinton's emails. If the press was in the bag for Democrats, it would have simply ignored the story altogether, and instead covered cheeseburgers like FOX did when news of the Flynn indictment came out. That's not what the press did though. What they did was spend more time on Clinton's emails than all other topics combined.
Quote:
Even more striking, the various Clinton-related email scandals—her use of a private email server while secretary of state, as well as the DNC and John Podesta hacks—accounted for more sentences than all of Trump’s scandals combined (65,000 vs. 40,000) and more than twice as many as were devoted to all of her policy positions.
To reiterate, these 65,000 sentences were written not by Russian hackers, but overwhelmingly by professional journalists employed at mainstream news organizations, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. To the extent that voters mistrusted Hillary Clinton, or considered her conduct as secretary of state to have been negligent or even potentially criminal, or were generally unaware of what her policies contained or how they may have differed from Donald Trump’s, these numbers suggest their views were influenced more by mainstream news sources than by fake news.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
