@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:Holy ****, I have to actually do this?
Sure you do. It's on the one making the claim to provide evidence. Pretty basic concept.
McGentrix wrote:
Oh my lordy lordy! The sky is going to come falling down for Trump Now!!! What was so extraordinary about it? It's been known for a while that the FBI was doing that.
And yet, for the past months since these investigations have first been reported, there was no public confirmation of that.
As Comey himself said, "our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations, especially those investigations that involve classified matters, but in
unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest, it may be appropriate to do so as Justice Department policies recognize. This is one of those circumstances."
Paraphrasing the word "unusual" by using the word "extraordinary" hardly constitutes a lie.
McGentrix wrote:Quote:Mr. Comey’s remarks before the House Intelligence Committee created a treacherous political moment for Mr. Trump, who has insisted that “Russia is fake news” that was cooked up by his political opponents to undermine his presidency. Mr. Comey placed a criminal investigation at the doorstep of the White House and said agents would pursue it “no matter how long that takes.”
Complete lie and exaggeration. "a treacherous political moment for Mr. Trump"? Seriously? This is what passes for news at the Times now? I wouldn't wipe my ass with that news because I would be afraid of the lies leaking from it.
Trump tweeted
this morning that "The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story" and that it was "FAKE NEWS." Comey and Rogers confirmed only hours later that they were actually investigating the "Russian story."
Maybe it's your opinion that all of this is completely normal, and that it's completely proper for the President of the United States of America to make false statements of fact, push conspiracy theories and smear political opponents with accusations that lack any kind of factual basis. I understand that in that case, you may very well disagree with the point that official statements at a congressional hearing directly contradicting the President would create a "treacherous political moment."
However, just because you dislike something doesn't make it a lie.
McGentrix wrote:Quote:Mr. Comey also dismissed Mr. Trump’s claim that he was wiretapped by his predecessor during the campaign, a sensational but unfounded accusation that has served as a distraction in the public debate over Russian election interference.
No he didn't. He said there was no evidence. Sensational and unfounded... it's that added editorialization that makes it fake.
Comey said "With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets."
Asked if President Obama could unilaterally order a wiretap of anyone, Comey's answer was that "No president could."
This was specifically about Trump's tweet saying "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process."
It's entirely fair to say that Comey's statement dismissed Trump's claim. Nothing here is factually wrong.
McGentrix wrote:Quote:The New York Times and other news organizations have reported the existence of the investigation into the Trump campaign and its relationship with Russia, but the White House dismissed those reports as politically motivated and rallied political allies to rebut them. Mr. Comey’s testimony on Monday was the first public acknowledgment of the case. The F.B.I. typically discloses its investigations only in the rare circumstances when officials believe it is in the public interest.
It's been reported since last November. Who are they kidding?
Are you trying to argue that there it this is not the first time an investigation into these issues has been publicly confirmed? Go ahead, provide a link. Or admit that you're just making **** up.
Nothing here is factually wrong.
McGentrix wrote:Quote:“This is one of those circumstances,” Mr. Comey said.
[...]
One of those circumstances is being called before a congressional committee... Making it sound alrming and ominous is fake news.
It's a
direct quote from Comey, right after him saying that it is not the practice of the FBI to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations, especially of investigations that involve classified matters. Comey himself pointed out that the FBI only confirmed the existence of an investigation in unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest.
Nothing here is factually wrong.
McGentrix wrote:Quote:American intelligence agencies concluded in January that the President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia personally ordered a covert effort to hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances and aid Mr. Trump. That included the hacking of political targets including the Democratic National Committee and releasing embarrassing emails through the website WikiLeaks.
Not something said during today's grilling. This is why it's fake news.
And the New York Times didn't make that claim. Again, you're using the term "fake news" for reporting that you don't like.
Nothing here is factually wrong.
McGentrix wrote:Quote:Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. was “investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”
[...]
The only bit of actual news in this entire article. An investigation does not infer guilt or innocence.
An investigation does not infer guilt or innocence.
However, the confirmed existence of such an investigation directly contradicts Trump's claims that the entire Russia issue is made up, is fake news, is an invention by the main stream media, or was cooked up by his political opponents.
McGentrix wrote:Trump is correct. It is fake news.
See, you're just not able to point to anything in the article that is factually incorrect.
As suspected, you're using the term "fake news" for news that are factually correct, but that you simply don't like. Much like Trump does. It's no surprise that you would agree with him.
