CNN at it AGAIN

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

So far today only a walk back on the fake news about Sessions.


"CNN has quietly walked back more of their “bombshell” reporting on the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, and this time it’s a story relating to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ security clearance forms."

Why are they only "Quietly walking them back"?? Are they too scared to come out in public and say "YUP, we fucked up"

[grean]

Originally Posted by garhkal

[/I]Why are they only "Quietly walking them back"?? Are they too scared to come out in public and say "YUP, we fucked up"

Can you link article where CNN walked back what they reported on Sessions, please?

[nevergaveitathought]

why are all these "errors" they excuse themselves for by "correcting" them on page b-46 always in one direction?

this constant us against trump, no matter what he or his family has done or hasn't done, good, bad or indifferent, ain't working

[grean]

I saw the daily caller article. That's like me saying that LL said something to walk back something by tell everyone what he was trying to say.


LL, after many choice adjectives directed at me, would say that is not at all what he meant by what he said.


CNN may or may not have reported something inaccurately. Some other source can challenge their accuracy but not walk it back for them.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

I saw the daily caller article. That's like me saying that LL said something to walk back something by tell everyone what he was trying to say.


LL, after many choice adjectives directed at me, would say that is not at all what he meant by what he said.


CNN may or may not have reported something inaccurately. Some other source can challenge their accuracy but not walk it back for them.

The same pattern by the MSM over and over, report false claims as if they are fact. The MSM is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the democrat party. A blind man can clearly see that as shown in the Wikileaks e-mails.

"Washington (CNN)Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not disclose meetings he had last year with Russian officials when he applied for his security clearance, the Justice Department told CNN Wednesday. Here it is again. http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politi...ngs/index.html




FBI email: Sessions wasn't required to disclose foreign contacts for security clearance


The FBI email from March bolsters the explanation by the Justice Department for why Sessions didn't disclose contacts with the Russian ambassador in his application for a US security clearance. http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/10/politi...cts/index.html

[gfejunkie]

Love this woman...



Go fuck yourself, Acosta!

#FAKENEWSCNN

[Yssup Rider]

What happened to her head? I think Twitler’s been beating her about the head and shoulders.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

The same pattern by the MSM over and over, report false claims as if they are fact. The MSM is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the democrat party. A blind man can clearly see that as shown in the Wikileaks e-mails.

"Washington (CNN)Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not disclose meetings he had last year with Russian officials when he applied for his security clearance, the Justice Department told CNN Wednesday. Here it is again. http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politi...ngs/index.html




FBI email: Sessions wasn't required to disclose foreign contacts for security clearance


The FBI email from March bolsters the explanation by the Justice Department for why Sessions didn't disclose contacts with the Russian ambassador in his application for a US security clearance. http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/10/politi...cts/index.html

Talking point parrot.

[grean]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

The same pattern by the MSM over and over, report false claims as if they are fact. The MSM is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the democrat party. A blind man can clearly see that as shown in the Wikileaks e-mails.

"Washington (CNN)Attorney General Jeff Sessions did not disclose meetings he had last year with Russian officials when he applied for his security clearance, the Justice Department told CNN Wednesday. Here it is again. http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/politi...ngs/index.html




FBI email: Sessions wasn't required to disclose foreign contacts for security clearance


The FBI email from March bolsters the explanation by the Justice Department for why Sessions didn't disclose contacts with the Russian ambassador in his application for a US security clearance. http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/10/politi...cts/index.html

Those two reports say the same thing. No errors there.

Yes, it's kind of foolish to report the sun came up when it's clear to everyone the sun did come up, but it's not inaccurate reporting.


Here is an example of a story correction.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/08/media/cnn-correction-email-story/index.html


CNN needs to fact check their sources better.

Here is one from Fox.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/01/fox-news-named-in-lawsuit-by-contributor-over-retracted-seth-rich-story.html

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by grean

Those two reports say the same thing. No errors there.

LMAO, yea if you consider the first article claimed that he was required by law to incude that information on his application and the second article admits that it was not required. Required and not required are kind of the same thing.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bambino

The MSM was only caught in 3 major lies this week. They’re simply not trying hard enough.

They admitted their mistakes.

when will this White House admit their flat out lies?

[Yssup Rider]

Politifact just named its Lie of the Year.

Guess who.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Politifact just named its Lie of the Year.

Guess who.

Odumbo again?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-plan-keep-it/

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Politifact just named its Lie of the Year.

Guess who.

Is it Lexusliar and his Sportsbook lies or LexusLover and his University of Texas parking lies?











.

[grean]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

LMAO, yea if you consider the first article claimed that he was required by law to incude that information on his application and the second article admits that it was not required. Required and not required are kind of the same thing.

The first article that was last updated in May, does say he was directed NOT to include certain meetings or contacts.

The second article does not correct the first in anyway that the first article did not do itself way back in may.