Associated Press Corrects Big Falsehood In Four Trump-Russia Reports

a reply to: dawnstar

When you have people in the administration claiming 17 intel agencies said something they didnt we are beyond it being a mistake. When we have media outlets reporting it as fact with no fact checking to confirm we are beyond a mistake.

How could Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton not know the number of agencies reviewing intel? They both have the highest security clearance.

I guess they could have missed something between hiding her private server and Rice unmasking political entities.

And the Daily Caller is quite right winged in its views and lopsided in its presentation . After reading the entire article they can't even tell you this changes any outcome .
It's fluff designed to assuage the right but it changes nothing.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
From the article...

None of the other agencies overseen by the DNI publicly disagreed with the finding Russia tried to interfere,

Link to your source please... This is not a hard concept to grasp.

a reply to: Sillyolme

But did any of the other agencies publicly agree with it?

Any statement can be spun.

a reply to: Sillyolme

its fluff designed by a right wing unknown internet news source...these posters fell for it and got "fluffed up"

originally posted by: Sillyolme
And the Daily Caller is quite right winged in its views and lopsided in its presentation . After reading the entire article they can't even tell you this changes any outcome .
It's fluff designed to assuage the right but it changes nothing.

Yet the article is linked to the AP and its retraction.

Link your source please.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's the OP.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It is in the OP.
Guess you didn't even read it ...
And yet you argue with me...
Unbelievable.

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Sillyolme

its fluff designed by a right wing unknown internet news source...these posters fell for it and got "fluffed up"

Try again -
AP - Jun 30, 5:32 PM EDT Clarification: Trump-Russia stories

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies - the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency - and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies. Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment.

Vice retracts 2 stories, ap corrects 4, the nyt one, CNN fires three people

All just in the past week or so.

We all knew the media hated trump and views it's job as bringing him down.

Now we know they dont mind flat out making up stories to do it.

Yet the anti trumpers still defend this.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
From the article...

None of the other agencies overseen by the DNI publicly disagreed with the finding Russia tried to interfere,

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

It is in the OP.
Guess you didn't even read it ...
And yet you argue with me...
Unbelievable.

Way to selectively edit the source by leaving out improtant info..

None of the other agencies overseen by the DNI publicly disagreed with the finding Russia tried to interfere, but that is to be expected, since none of them conducted a review.

Framing the consensus as the result of 17 separate analyses was just as obviously wrong in October as now in June. It’s always been clear that intel agencies run by the Coast Guard or the Department of Energy would not be expected to investigate and weigh in on an election hacking attempt.

The former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said as much in a May Senate hearing. The Daily Caller News Foundation also addressed the claim in a fact check of a Hillary Clinton interview after she again reiterated it in May.

Nice try...

I guess we are now back to this -

I strongly urge people to verify claims made by this poster for accuracy and truth

you are the one who is unbelievable.

a reply to: Ahabstar

They didn't disagree.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that is agreement.
I'm sure if they had facts to dispute the findings they would say so.
They wouldn't let this just hang there when so much is on the line. Honestly do you think they would with the significance of this situation?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Keep going....
I got that line from the article linked in the OP.
GO READ IT IF YOU DOUBT ME.
Jesus H....

a reply to: Xcathdra

congratulations, you found a piece of fluff that more than likely is REAL NEWS that does not affect the Russia investigations at all!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Are you?

When did you ask?

And why do you need that?

And what's the difference they still hacked us.
You're not saying Russia didn't hack us are you?

Russia hacks everyone, so I am sure they did hack us.
I block IP addresses from Russia daily.
I am not convinced that they are the source of the email leaks.
And I think it has been stated by everyone in government that their hacks did not influence the election.

a reply to: Sillyolme

at least six of those intelligence agencies are military, I would think that they would be more concerned with other things like which little city should we bomb next... besides considering who their commander in chief is, I imagine they would prefer to stay out of it.
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency sounds like they are a bunch of map makers, highly advanced map makers probably, but still what would a bunch of map makers know about about what russia is doing??
to say that none of them didn't disagree with the findings says nothing if they didn't take time to look at the evidence to begin with.. and, why would you want the Office of Naval Intelligence, the Twenty-Fifth Air Force devoting time and resources to this... you wouldn't..

a reply to: Xcathdra

Way to deny that I was RIGHT.
I'm out of here. It smells bad and it's full of fools.

This doesn't change a god damned thing cookie.

So sorry ...

Did all three actually really agree or did they agree not to dis-agree. That's why they chose to go with the high probability statement...not its a fact.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

Keep going....
I got that line from the article linked in the OP.
GO READ IT IF YOU DOUBT ME.
Jesus H....

READ - www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Grambler

i just think its hilarious that all news is FAKE NEWS ...all of it, just like trump exclaims over and over, and then just 1 little piece of fluff found in the news that fits your agenda and news is all of a sudden REAL NEWS.

so funny, and you call me a hippocrite, lofl