• 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!

Trump Responds After Report Reveals His Birthday Letter to Jeffrey Epstein

upsideguy said:
No sir, you apparently do not have a clue how journalism actually works.

Most sources are not revealed by name for very good reason (to protect them, and be able to get at stories of controversy). Good institutions of journalism, such as the WSJ have a process for authenticating the story. There is usually is a corroborating source The reporter and his boss know who the primary and corroborating source is. They are responsible for being reasonably certain that the source and the corroborator is in a position to know. The reporters boss, his accountable to his/her editor (their boss). Depending on the magnitude of the story, there may be several people up the chain of command that ensure the line reporters and their bosses have done their job.

Sorry, but the WSJ is one of the foremost newspapers in the world. They well vet the contents of the newspaper. You can count on this story being substantially true. You will have to have find another rationalization to hide behind. This ain't it.
Click to expand...
They want a name or names so they can begin the defamation of whoever wrote it.
 
trumptman said:
The article doesn't have a single named source.

Anonymous sources are basically yellow journalism. It's National Enquirer level stuff.

If you want to believe anonymous sources that's up to you but if they won't put their name tot it, then it's gossip.
Click to expand...

Given they're going up against the President of the United States, you can bet the contributors will be careful with their identities. We've all seen what Trump is capable of.
 
Chomsky said:
Given they're going up against the President of the United States, you can bet the contributors will be careful with their identities. We've all seen what Trump is capable of.
Click to expand...
Getting cowards to cave?
 
upsideguy said:
No sir, you apparently do not have a clue how journalism actually works.

Even the best of journalism, most sources are not revealed by name for very good reason (to protect them, and be able to get at stories of controversy). Good institutions of journalism, such as the WSJ have a process for authenticating the story. There is usually is a corroborating source The reporter and his boss know who the primary and corroborating source is. They are responsible for being reasonably certain that the source and the corroborator is in a position to know. The reporters boss, his accountable to his/her editor (their boss). Depending on the magnitude of the story, there may be several people up the chain of command that ensure the line reporters and their bosses have done their job.

Sorry, but the WSJ is one of the foremost newspapers in the world. They well vet the contents of their newspaper. You can count on this story being substantially true. If you can't accept the story as written, I am afraid you will have to find a better rationalization than the source was not named, as this one is very weak.

That all said, I am not certain what you are trying to accomplish here. The reality is that Trump isn't a choir boy and has a history of sexual abuse. This story is consistent with what we already know about his character.
Click to expand...

So the reasoning here is the WSJ can't be wrong because it is the WSJ.

That's circular reasoning.

Don't worry. Trump's record in court against "news" organizations has been quite decent lately. So many of them have given up on journalism and are so desperate to take him down that they throw everything out the window.

Then they pay.

They have before. They will again.

Watch.
 
trumptman said:
So the reasoning here is the WSJ can't be wrong because it is the WSJ.

That's circular reasoning.

Don't worry. Trump's record in court against "news" organizations has been quite decent lately. So many of them have given up on journalism and are so desperate to take him down that they throw everything out the window.

Then they pay.

They have before. They will again.

Watch.
Click to expand...
No, they are not very likely wrong because they run a first rate journalistic process, and they have no real history of being off-mark. They have an excellent journalistic reputation because they work to preserve that reputation.... their stories are well vetted. They are not perfect, but they are pretty damn good. There is no reason, other than wishful thinking on your part, to think they got this wrong.

According to MediaBiasFactCheck, the WSJ has never failed a fact check.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Wall Street Journal - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slight to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words
mediabiasfactcheck.com mediabiasfactcheck.com

Given this is a Murdoch owned publication, I really doubt the WSJ was sloppy on this one. The WSJ editors would have their jobs on the line if they missed the mark here.

Again, Trump is a man of dubious character (and I am being nice with that statement). If he was running buddies with Epstein, this should be no surprise to you.... In fact, at the end of the day, even if Trump is accused of participating in Epstein's services, do you really care?

That said, we probably can all agree that Trump is bumbling and fumbling on the handling of this one .... His history of threatening to sue usually comes when the story hits too close to his home. That is his ultimate denial, having already blamed Obama, Clinton, Biden and democrats and they didn't work ......
 
Last edited:
trumptman said:
So the reasoning here is the WSJ can't be wrong because it is the WSJ.

That's circular reasoning.

Don't worry. Trump's record in court against "news" organizations has been quite decent lately. So many of them have given up on journalism and are so desperate to take him down that they throw everything out the window.

Then they pay.

They have before. They will again.

Watch.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s dumb. Unnamed sources got Watergate rolling. They have a strong role in the press.
 
The Brad Dad said:
But that was a kangaroo court. And the jan 6 committee was a kangaroo committee. And and and. A decade of adults hand waving away any inconvenient truth, and a media ready to assist.
Click to expand...

There's another story circulating that Trump and Epstein brought an underage girl down to a Trump's Casino Floor at 1:30 in the morning, and were stopped by the Floor Boss, But I need to vet it, before I use it.
 
variety.com

Trump Threatened Legal Action to Block Publication of Embarrassing WSJ Jeffrey Epstein Story

The White House attempted to block the publication of a WSJ article about Donald Trump's suggestive letter to Jeffrey Epstein by threatening legal action.
variety.com variety.com

Sources tell Variety that the White House attempted to block the publication of a Wall Street Journal article about President Donald Trump allegedly writing a letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 that contains suggestive language. The White House threatened legal action against the paper if it went to print with the story, which published on the paper’s website Thursday afternoon....

The story hit at a time when Trump’s MAGA base is divided over the White House’s handling of documents related to an investigation into Epstein, the late financier who was arrested for sex trafficking of minors in 2019 and died under mysterious circumstances while in custody weeks later. His death was ruled a suicide but has long been the subject of conspiracy theories given his ties to powerful government officials, including Trump and former President Bill Clinton....
 
Pyrite said:
variety.com

Trump Threatened Legal Action to Block Publication of Embarrassing WSJ Jeffrey Epstein Story

The White House attempted to block the publication of a WSJ article about Donald Trump's suggestive letter to Jeffrey Epstein by threatening legal action.
variety.com variety.com

Sources tell Variety that the White House attempted to block the publication of a Wall Street Journal article about President Donald Trump allegedly writing a letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 that contains suggestive language. The White House threatened legal action against the paper if it went to print with the story, which published on the paper’s website Thursday afternoon....

The story hit at a time when Trump’s MAGA base is divided over the White House’s handling of documents related to an investigation into Epstein, the late financier who was arrested for sex trafficking of minors in 2019 and died under mysterious circumstances while in custody weeks later. His death was ruled a suicide but has long been the subject of conspiracy theories given his ties to powerful government officials, including Trump and former President Bill Clinton....
Click to expand...
He. Raped. Children.
 
trumptman said:
The article doesn't have a single named source.

Anonymous sources are basically yellow journalism. It's National Enquirer level stuff.

If you want to believe anonymous sources that's up to you but if they won't put their name tot it, then it's gossip.
Click to expand...
Yes because this is so uncharcteristic of the orange shit gibbon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom