NYT offers correction On DJT JR Russia meeting!

Looks like the NYT are trying to take CNN's crown for the most fake news organisation on the planet.
They have now said it was an 'honest mistake' on yet another error when they claimed Sarah Palin incited violence.
All these mistakes, like the one in this thread - you'd think they'd be embarrassed about all their corrections, retractions and mistakes by now.

a reply to: UKTruth

No my boy it matters not.
If you break into a house and don't find anything of value you've still broken into that house.
They obviously thought they were getting something.

Isn't it hilarious that you guys were so pissed when Hillary got off because there was no intent?
Remember that. And now intent is going to play such a big part in this investigation because certainly their intent was to obtain information about Clinton. And the expectation that Russia would want something in return is a given.

originally posted by: Ares2493

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Ares2493

He did not say it was a campaign issue.

Thanks for clearing that up for us. Adoption was not a campaign issue. So, what was the purpose of the meeting again? Oh yeah, they thought the Russian lawyer lady was bringing them damning information about Clinton. I guess they never figured that the Russian lawyer lady would want something in return?

The purpose was adoption.

You are kidding of course, they were expecting something on Clinton and did not get it, well apparently not.
If on the other hand, they did get information on Clinton, and if any of it constituted a US government hack or leak, it should have been given to the US authorities, if not it would be the usual low level muck racking, that just about everybody seems to indulge in these days in the tribal, 'We are better than they' tradition. All it shows is the low life that is in power politics these days.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

No my boy it matters not.
If you break into a house and don't find anything of value you've still broken into that house.
They obviously thought they were getting something.

Isn't it hilarious that you guys were so pissed when Hillary got off because there was no intent?
Remember that. And now intent is going to play such a big part in this investigation because certainly their intent was to obtain information about Clinton. And the expectation that Russia would want something in return is a given.

Yes they thought they were going to speak to someone with information useful to the campaign. As for Clinton, there is no mention that the meeting was set up on the basis it would be about Clinton - or that there would be some reciprocal arrangement. That is all your delusion at play.
Not sure how you relate that to breaking into a home

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Ares2493

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Ares2493

He did not say it was a campaign issue.

Thanks for clearing that up for us. Adoption was not a campaign issue. So, what was the purpose of the meeting again? Oh yeah, they thought the Russian lawyer lady was bringing them damning information about Clinton. I guess they never figured that the Russian lawyer lady would want something in return?

The purpose was adoption.

You are kidding of course, they were expecting something on Clinton and did not get it, well apparently not.
If on the other hand, they did get information on Clinton, and if any of it constituted a US government hack or leak, it should have been given to the US authorities, if not it would be the usual low level muck racking, that just about everybody seems to indulge in these days in the tribal, 'We are better than they' tradition. All it shows is the low life that is in power politics these days.

What we know is that they say they were expecting information useful to the campaign.
That's it in terms of taking the meeting.

When you have to embellish to drive a narrative, then you've already failed to add real meat the nothing burger.

a reply to: UKTruth

Funny no one is bringing up charges isn't it? Trey Gowdy would be all over that.
The republican national committee would be all over that.

a reply to: UKTruth

Yes there is something wrong with it.
It's a campaign contribution with an expectation of reciprocity from a foreign national.
It's a big #ing deal.

a reply to: Ares2493

NYT should just dedicate a whole section of their paper to retractions and misquote corrections.

Looks like the battle cry of fake news is wearing thin with the American people.
LOL


This story came from the Whitehouse.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Ares2493

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Ares2493

He did not say it was a campaign issue.

Thanks for clearing that up for us. Adoption was not a campaign issue. So, what was the purpose of the meeting again? Oh yeah, they thought the Russian lawyer lady was bringing them damning information about Clinton. I guess they never figured that the Russian lawyer lady would want something in return?

The purpose was adoption.

You are kidding of course, they were expecting something on Clinton and did not get it, well apparently not.
If on the other hand, they did get information on Clinton, and if any of it constituted a US government hack or leak, it should have been given to the US authorities, if not it would be the usual low level muck racking, that just about everybody seems to indulge in these days in the tribal, 'We are better than they' tradition. All it shows is the low life that is in power politics these days.

What we know is that they say they were expecting information useful to the campaign.
That's it in terms of taking the meeting.

When you have to embellish to drive a narrative, then you've already failed to add real meat the nothing burger.

Like hookers pissing on a bed was supposed to have a negative impact on Trumps campaign? A foreign spy agency fed that lie to Obama who gave the info to Hillary either before, during or after his taxpayer funded campaign for Hillary back in 2016.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Looks like the battle cry of fake news is wearing thin with the American people.
LOL


This story came from the Whitehouse.

They had a meeting.

No amount of your hilarious hyperbole changes that.

Desperation is an ugly thing. Take a deep breath.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Ares2493

He did not say it was a campaign issue.

Thanks for clearing that up for us. Adoption was not a campaign issue. So, what was the purpose of the meeting again? Oh yeah, they thought the Russian lawyer lady was bringing them damning information about Clinton. I guess they never figured that the Russian lawyer lady would want something in return?

I think youre missing the point of the correction.

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Ares2493

He did not say it was a campaign issue.

Thanks for clearing that up for us. Adoption was not a campaign issue. So, what was the purpose of the meeting again? Oh yeah, they thought the Russian lawyer lady was bringing them damning information about Clinton. I guess they never figured that the Russian lawyer lady would want something in return?

I think youre missing the point of the correction.

What would that be?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Nothing burgers with all the trimmings. And a sesame seed bun.

... still have nothing in them.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust

Nothing burgers with all the trimmings. And a sesame seed bun.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes there is something wrong with it.
It's a campaign contribution with an expectation of reciprocity from a foreign national.
It's a big #ing deal.

Did anything come of it? What if it was a setup by the dnc. Who contacted who? Didn't the dnc actually do that by having a British citizen come up with a fake dossier? So did the U.K. Hack the elections lol

originally posted by: Ares2493

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes there is something wrong with it.
It's a campaign contribution with an expectation of reciprocity from a foreign national.
It's a big #ing deal.

Did anything come of it? What if it was a setup by the dnc. Who contacted who? Didn't the dnc actually do that by having a British citizen come up with a fake dossier? So did the U.K. Hack the elections lol

It doesnt really matter what came of it. Thats the point. Intent is the crime.

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: Ares2493

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes there is something wrong with it.
It's a campaign contribution with an expectation of reciprocity from a foreign national.
It's a big #ing deal.

Did anything come of it? What if it was a setup by the dnc. Who contacted who? Didn't the dnc actually do that by having a British citizen come up with a fake dossier? So did the U.K. Hack the elections lol

It doesnt really matter what came of it. Thats the point. Intent is the crime.

Still havent answered my question...did the UK hack the elections? The only foreign government that gave any info was the UK lol

a reply to: Ares2493

It is illegal for Americans to adopt children from Russia.

www.nytimes.com...

This tweet below is NOT Sean Spicer of the Trump admin - it's an account by someone else....