• 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!

5 Questions Nunes Memo Must Answer

It's Patrick Ward - Chris Wallace's producer. He tweeted: “Two Senior FBI officials have now reviewed the Republican staff memo,” the Devin Nunes memo “a source familiar with the matter tells Fox News, adding that the officials ‘could not point to any factual inaccuracies,'”

I trust Wallace and his team. This is part of the WH review of the document in the five day window. I'm sure we'll hear more. Given that much of what is included has it's origination at the FBI and DOJ, this shouldn't be surprise. Now, I'll grant there's an un-named source(s) here, but entire constructions and many threads here have been devoted to less.

So in other words, no link. You just repeat fake news. Got it. Thanks!

Why is it fake news?

Because as it turns out, it was fake news. No names. The FBI Director said something completely different.

The textbook definition of fake news. But I think you probably already knew that.

No, I didn't. I saw the link someone else provided on another thread that was valid.

Here, I found it

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...accuracies-in-controversial-gop-memo-n2441862

Not sure what that link has to do with this. It doesn't name any names at the FBI. Where's the validity?


*sigh*
You're original question to humbolt was where was the link. I provided the link to which he was referring. The link was valid. That was it. Nothing nefarious in what I was posting.

However, if you want to twist what my purpose was and make the assertion that because the 'names' of the sources weren't provided, therefore making it fake news, I'd say you would have to be fair and apply that to ALL reports with sources that are not named and question the validity.
 
*sigh*
You're original question to humbolt was where was the link. I provided the link to which he was referring. That was it. Nothing nefarious in what I was posting.

However, if you want to twist what my purpose was and make the assertion that because the 'names' of the sources weren't provided, therefore making it fake news, I'd say you would have to be fair and apply that to ALL reports with sources that are not named and question the validity.

And my point is still the same. The link is fake news because there are no names named. Humbolt had already provided the link. Not sure how you missed what I was posting about.
 
And my point is still the same. The link is fake news because there are no names named. Humbolt had already provided the link. Not sure how you missed what I was posting about.

You're talking in circles. Quote where he already provided the link before I commented. Not sure how YOU missed what I was posting about. And again, you're definition of fake news is biased towards your personal needs.

Stop picking a fight please.
 
You're talking in circles. Quote where he already provided the link before I commented. Not sure how YOU missed what I was posting about. And again, you're definition of fake news is biased towards your personal needs.

Stop picking a fight please.

It's "your", not "you're", which you keep posting. It seems I've triggered you.

I'm not picking a fight. My point was clear to him. Two unnamed FBI sources aren't valid. Not sure why you jumped in and tried to argue that. They are unnamed. And, as it turns out, they don't seem to have existed.
 
It's "your", not "you're", which you keep posting. It seems I've triggered you.

I'm not picking a fight. My point was clear to him. Two unnamed FBI sources aren't valid. Not sure why you jumped in and tried to argue that. They are unnamed. And, as it turns out, they don't seem to have existed.

:2brickwal
Whatever. Have a nice day.
 
Back
Top Bottom