CNN: More Fake News

[Meh Gerbil]

Once again the reality is exactly the opposite of what was reported on CNN:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-got-one-wrong

Again, don't be angry with Trump or the conservatives in the room.
Be angry that your news sources lie on a regular basis.

[Jedidiah]

Stunning silence from JimL and Starlight.

[JimL]

Once again the reality is exactly the opposite of what was reported on CNN:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-got-one-wrong

Again, don't be angry with Trump or the conservatives in the room.
Be angry that your news sources lie on a regular basis.

Not exactly fake news Meh. The article clearly said reportedly, that Comey would reportedly testify that.......... not that he did. Big difference. Thats simply being in error, not really a big deal since he would be testifying a few days later. Surely you can do better than that.

[Jedidiah]

Not exactly fake news Meh. The article clearly said reportedly, that Comey would reportedly testify that.......... not that he did. Big difference. Thats simply being in error, not really a big deal since he would be testifying a few days later. Surely you can do better than that.

But all the lies you folks were reporting were indeed fake news.

[JimL]

But all the lies you folks were reporting were indeed fake news.

Well, lets see what you got? Reference one.

[Starlight]

Again, don't be angry with Trump or the conservatives in the room.
Be angry that your news sources lie on a regular basis.

How many stories does CNN publish daily? You've now found one where their sources were sort of unreliable-ish... and this instances is debatable as to some of the details. So that's like 1/2 a story wrong out of 2000? 5000? So you're saying CNN has a 99.98% or higher accuracy rate?

I'm 'angry', as you put it, at you for misrepresenting an incredibly high accuracy rate as "lie on a regular basis". You're apparently so desperate for the facts to fit your presupposed narrative that CNN lies that you'll cherry pick their occasional mistake as 'proof' and ignore the hundreds of stories they put out every day and week that are accurate. The only person you are kidding is yourself... and probable Jed because it doesn't take much to fool Jed.

[Mountain Man]

Not exactly fake news Meh. The article clearly said reportedly, that Comey would reportedly testify that.......... not that he did. Big difference. Thats simply being in error, not really a big deal since he would be testifying a few days later. Surely you can do better than that.

Are you a moron? CNN assured its readers that Comey was going to "defy" Trump, that he would testify that he never told the President he wasn't under investigation, that such an assurance would be "improper", and that Comey, being the upstanding guy he is, would never do such a thing. This was according to "sources" which CNN implied were trustworthy.

Except what happened was precisely the opposite: Comey corroborated the President's statements and exonerated him by stating on the record that Trump wasn't being investigated.

Haven't you noticed the pattern by now? Every time somebody goes on the record, it's to clear Trump's name.

But more to the point, CNN got this story 100% wrong. Is that really so hard for you to plainly admit?

[Tassman]

Once again the reality is exactly the opposite of what was reported on CNN:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-got-one-wrong

Again, don't be angry with Trump or the conservatives in the room.
Be angry that your news sources lie on a regular basis.

Look to your source. "Zero Hedge is a• Edited by a Moderator •insane Austrian school finance blog run by two pseudonymous founders who post articles under the name "Tyler Durden," after the character from Fight Club. It's essentially apocalypse porn".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

And you're worried about fake news.

[Tassman]

Are you a moron? CNN assured its readers that Comey was going to "defy" Trump, that he would testify that he never told the President he wasn't under investigation, that such an assurance would be "improper", and that Comey, being the upstanding guy he is, would never do such a thing. This was according to "sources" which CNN implied were trustworthy.

Except what happened was precisely the opposite: Comey corroborated the President's statements and exonerated him by stating on the record that Trump wasn't being investigated.

Haven't you noticed the pattern by now? Every time somebody goes on the record, it's to clear Trump's name.

But more to the point, CNN got this story 100% wrong. Is that really so hard for you to plainly admit?

[Meh Gerbil]

How many stories does CNN publish daily? You've now found one where their sources were sort of unreliable-ish... and this instances is debatable as to some of the details. So that's like 1/2 a story wrong out of 2000? 5000? So you're saying CNN has a 99.98% or higher accuracy rate?

They didn't get the address wrong for a business that was robbed or accidently mispronounce the name of a foreign leader.
They got the former director of the FBI exposing the President to obstruction of justice wrong based on anonymous sources.

It isn't that it was flat out wrong but that such a serious charge would be even offered based on anonymous sources.

I think a really good test of would be for you to counter with cases where CNN used anonymous sources to sabotage Obama's presidency.
Given that they've done thousands of stories on Obama it would only be natural that they'd accuse him of a crime at some point and be wrong.
As you say, mistakes do happen - but if in eight years they never managed to get it wrong with Obama then the lie is exposed.

[Tassman]

T
They got the former director of the FBI exposing the President to obstruction of justice wrong based on anonymous sources.

We don't know that the former director of the FBI exposing the President to obstruction of justice was wrong. That's what the enquiry is about and it's not yet concluded.

[Mountain Man]

You conspiracy nuts don't know when you've lost, do you?

[Sparko]

Look to your source. "Zero Hedge is a• Edited by a Moderator •insane Austrian school finance blog run by two pseudonymous founders who post articles under the name "Tyler Durden," after the character from Fight Club. It's essentially apocalypse porn".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

And you're worried about fake news.

even if they are unreliable, in this case they show exactly what CNN said and it was indeed fake news.

1. Either these anonymous sources lied to CNN and CNN was gullible to believe it and printed a story that they did not fact-check, or
2. CNN just made up the story whole-cloth, and invented these anonymous sources to give credence to they entirely fake story.

In either case, CNN is an untrustworthy rag as seen by more and more examples of these made up stories. We have been telling you for nearly a year how you can't trust stories with anonymous sources being quoted. Yet each time it happened, you and JimL clung to those stories with a ferver, determined to believe the hokum.

I hope you have learned your lesson, though I doubt that is the case.

[Sparko]

we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him."

There was NO counter-intelligence case on him. NONE. Zip. Nada. Goose egg.

[JimL]

we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him."

There was NO counter-intelligence case on him. NONE. Zip. Nada. Goose egg.

First of all, it was improper for the President to even ask the question. Trump is Comey's boss and can fire him, so even asking the question puts Comey in a difficult position. Also the ZeroHedge article claims that CNN had previously been reporting that Trump was himself, personally, under investigation for collusion. Fake news! Trump also lied about the fact that he asked Comey to let Gen. Flynn off the hook. That CNN got that tidbit about what "Comey would say" wrong, pales in comparison to the truth of the overall story which you balloonheads tend to ignore. Obstruction of Justice!