• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories

joG said:
The first thing to notice is that the implicatiins would require publication of the facts known to the FBI.

The second point to remark on is that it is CNN. Their bias is too strong to want to rely on the significance of the news. They have been putting heavy spin on their reporting and the capital lettered caveat is very obvious.

So let's see, what happens.
Click to expand...

That's what I have been saying.

But I guess we are not living in reality as some would say.
 
Praxas said:
Trump could be found colluding with the Russians to give them one of our states and trump supporters wouldn't care so no big suprise from you there.
Click to expand...

Russia can go ahead and just take California.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Think what ever you like, that is your prerogative.

Until I see the facts on what ever dealings he had, I'm not going to jump to conclusions. (hence reality)
Click to expand...

isn't the point here to release the facts on whatever dealings he had?
 
joG said:
The first thing to notice is that the implicatiins would require publication of the facts known to the FBI.

The second point to remark on is that it is CNN. Their bias is too strong to want to rely on the significance of the news. They have been putting heavy spin on their reporting and the capital lettered caveat is very obvious.

So let's see, what happens.
Click to expand...

So which news outlet do you want to read this on?

Just curious...are you guys going to scream "FAKE NEWS" for the rest of time? For instance, when CNN reports anything not complimentary about Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, will you deem it fake news? And if they say anything complimentary about Trump, anyone in his administration, any Republican, etc., will you decide it's fake news and just ignore it?
 
tres borrachos said:
So which news outlet do you want to read this on?

Just curious...are you guys going to scream "FAKE NEWS" for the rest of time? For instance, when CNN reports anything not complimentary about Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, will you deem it fake news? And if they say anything complimentary about Trump, anyone in his administration, any Republican, etc., will you decide it's fake news and just ignore it?
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand how bad the damage is, when a source of news has willfully prostituted itself. Reputation is all such sources have outside of entertainment and feeding the fools, what they like to hear.
 
joG said:
You don't seem to understand how bad the damage is, when a source of news has willfully prostituted itself. Reputation is all such sources have outside of entertainment and feeding the fools, what they like to hear.
Click to expand...

So is that a yes?
 
If Trumps money trail is followed, Pence will be the next president.
 
Moot said:
This is YUGE!!!



Washington (CNN)The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN.

White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14....


The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations.


The same White House official said that Priebus later reached out again to McCabe and to FBI Director James Comey asking for the FBI to at least talk to reporters on background to dispute the stories. A law enforcement official says McCabe didn't discuss aspects of the case but wouldn't say exactly what McCabe told Priebus.


Late Thursday night, White House press secretary Sean Spicer objected to CNN's characterization of the White House request to the FBI.

"We didn't try to knock the story down. We asked them to tell the truth," Spicer said. The FBI declined to comment for this story...."



FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories - CNNPolitics.com​


Oh...so, Priebus didn't want the FBI to spill the beans about Trump's ties to Russian intelligence, eh? Hmm, I wonder why.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Talk about spinning a story.

They were just talking about this on MOJO.

To summarize what really happened:
McCabe (FBI) called Preibus (WH) aside after a meeting and said the story told to the NYT by an FBI insider about Russia and Trump was pretty much a load of crap.
So Preibus asked McCabe if the FBI could set the record straight.
McCabe said he couldn't do that because the FBI doesn't do things like report on stories in the media.
Preibus called Comey and asked the same thing.
Comey said NO but that Preibus could make public what he was told.
Preibus did that.

SO ... the upshot of this whole thing is really that it reinforces the conclusion most thinking people have already drawn on their own by now ... there are partisan moles in the intelligence services feeding stories to partisan elements in the media eager to get them. The breathless reporting like this from CNN mischaracterized what happened in order to suck in certain elements of society it depends on for its' survival.

So, yes, it is YUGE!!! but not in the way you think.
 
Moot said:
This is YUGE!!!



Washington (CNN)The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN.

White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14....


The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations.


The same White House official said that Priebus later reached out again to McCabe and to FBI Director James Comey asking for the FBI to at least talk to reporters on background to dispute the stories. A law enforcement official says McCabe didn't discuss aspects of the case but wouldn't say exactly what McCabe told Priebus.


Late Thursday night, White House press secretary Sean Spicer objected to CNN's characterization of the White House request to the FBI.

"We didn't try to knock the story down. We asked them to tell the truth," Spicer said. The FBI declined to comment for this story...."



FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories - CNNPolitics.com​


Oh...so, Priebus didn't want the FBI to spill the beans about Trump's ties to Russian intelligence, eh? Hmm, I wonder why.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It is getting Nixonian.
 
It's funny watching how real some posters treat their own speculation in this thread.
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSN said:
Sooner or later the narrative has to be true.....................right?
Click to expand...

True! I mean, you'd have to be crazy to pursue a falsehood so doggedly, and they aren't crazy................ right?
 
Moot said:
This is YUGE!!!



Washington (CNN)The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN.

White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14....


The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations.


The same White House official said that Priebus later reached out again to McCabe and to FBI Director James Comey asking for the FBI to at least talk to reporters on background to dispute the stories. A law enforcement official says McCabe didn't discuss aspects of the case but wouldn't say exactly what McCabe told Priebus.


Late Thursday night, White House press secretary Sean Spicer objected to CNN's characterization of the White House request to the FBI.

"We didn't try to knock the story down. We asked them to tell the truth," Spicer said. The FBI declined to comment for this story...."



FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories - CNNPolitics.com​


Oh...so, Priebus didn't want the FBI to spill the beans about Trump's ties to Russian intelligence, eh? Hmm, I wonder why.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

That is bull****. Not for one New York minute do I believe anyone from the White House asked the FBI to lie. Ridiculous. The press looks stupider and stupider with each passing day. The idea that freedom of the press allows this kind of biased reporting by heretofore reliable outlets is a crime.
 
poweRob said:
To all the "CNN IS FAKE NEWS" crowd...

Find another trump talking point to deflect with.
Click to expand...

They all get it from the same place. Although it would be interesting to see who ran it first.

There is NO WAY the White House asked the FBI to lie. Oh, for slander laws against these media darlings. Maybe someday. Anonymous sources is just another way to lie.
 
MaggieD said:
They all get it from the same place. Although it would be interesting to see who ran it first.

There is NO WAY the White House asked the FBI to lie. Oh, for slander laws against these media darlings. Maybe someday. Anonymous sources is just another way to lie.
Click to expand...

CNN and the Associated Press ran it first. I'm also not a fan of anonymous sources but I know that it's needed sometimes to get sources to speak. It beats the old Fox News strategy to run stories whose sources were:

"Some people say..."

 
truthatallcost said:
That all those people who said the FBI was conspiring against Hillary Clinton during the election, ought to wonder why the FBI seems to have it in for Trump. Bipartisanship is too much to ask for though in 2017, I know.
Click to expand...

Well if you want to stand a bit closer to the truth, it is the DIRECTOR of the FBI who seemed to have it 'in' for Hillary and giving Trump a pass. He broke long standing tradition and commented on an on-going investigation in which Hillary was mentioned (nothing came of it) and then during Trump's troubles has been quite reluctant to speak up on any on going investigation, to include in front of Congress...

HyperTrumppartisanship is what we except in 2017, I know... :peace
 
Moot said:
This is YUGE!!!



Washington (CNN)The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN.

White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14....


The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations.


The same White House official said that Priebus later reached out again to McCabe and to FBI Director James Comey asking for the FBI to at least talk to reporters on background to dispute the stories. A law enforcement official says McCabe didn't discuss aspects of the case but wouldn't say exactly what McCabe told Priebus.


Late Thursday night, White House press secretary Sean Spicer objected to CNN's characterization of the White House request to the FBI.

"We didn't try to knock the story down. We asked them to tell the truth," Spicer said. The FBI declined to comment for this story...."



FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories - CNNPolitics.com​


Oh...so, Priebus didn't want the FBI to spill the beans about Trump's ties to Russian intelligence, eh? Hmm, I wonder why.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...




when cnn says "multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN." without naming anyone, you should be betting on it not being very truthful.

How many times are they going to be able to sell you a line of **** before you start thinking, "hey, maybe CNN is not a trustworthy source for news".
 
While I agree information that comes from an anonymous source shouldn't be considered as "proof", when did this absolute rejection of all anonymous sources begin? It was always a time honored practice. Entire court cases have been fought over the right to protect one's sources. We are basically telling sources that if they are not willing to lose their job or get sued or go to jail then we aren't even going to listen to what they have to say.
 
BrewerBob said:
While I agree information that comes from an anonymous source shouldn't be considered as "proof", when did this absolute rejection of all anonymous sources begin? It was always a time honored practice. Entire court cases have been fought over the right to protect one's sources. We are basically telling sources that if they are not willing to lose their job or get sued or go to jail then we aren't even going to listen to what they have to say.
Click to expand...

I prefer known sources but I understand in reporting you can't always get that. Especially when reporting sensative information that puts people lives and/or jobs at risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom