RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT

[Macallik86]

I’ll take it. It’s whatever. The White House fed them a story they had planned, but needed to burn it today. The NYTimes fell for it because

1) Trump was in New York and hardly fires anyone face to face
2) RR was going to be at the WH anyways in place of Sessions
3) It’s a scoop only they would get. Notice they always get scoops that paint Trump in a favorable light as well as offered a green light to a favorable outcome in what happens next.

Alright sounds good. Don't know you and never seen you post, but props for standing behind your beliefs unlike Nap.

Just some counter-arguments

1) Trump has never fired anyone personally Everyone fired has publicly told their story of being fired personally or through the media. None of them were summoned to be fired by Trump personally or over the phone. At the most they talked to Kelly or Priebus (Bharara/Yates/Omarosa)
2) Let's continue this narrative. RR goes to the WH for a meeting and gets ambushed with a story about wanting to resign. Why would RR stay silent in your opinion? Why would RR agree to meet with Trump in good faith on Thursday if he thought that Trump's admin purposefully set him up on today? Curious how you can make RR the defender of our civil liberties on the one hand but suddenly he doesn't have a word to say publicly about being hit with the okey-doke
3) No. They have Maggie who paints occasionally paints mildly positive pictures of some portions of the admin so she doesn't burn her sources. She has written more articles that are critical that are overlooked. The alternative reality that you believe is that NYT are in cahoots with Trump. Think about the stories they have broken, the reporting they have done. I read primarily NYT articles personally and I feel I am well informed and not a secret Trump supporter so this idea of excessive bias doesn't gel with my personal experience. There are people who are further left than me that don't view it as news unless it has a liberal bias and they seem to be the loudest people who are anti-NYT at times.

 

[Jhoon]

the president clearly wrote the 1st story.

This doesn't seem that far fetched



Smdh

 

[Macallik86]

Schmidt said he worked on this story for "months, if not a year." McCabe was fired in March and it was the AP who first reported that he kept memos. Which one is it?:DrakeDucktales:

Neither. It was discussions in the 8 day period after COMEY was fired. McCabe was still part of the administration and was in the room for the conversation. Whether or not the people told the NYT that there were memos, they could've still told the NYT what was discussed in the meetings.

Additionally, Schmidt refers to people not responding when asked about the wiretapping conversation which gave him a clue that there was legitimacy behind the idea... imo I think that Schmidt was referring to questions he asked Rosenstein directly.

 

[Pressure]

@Macallik86 must work for the times.

 

[Macallik86]

@Macallik86 must work for the times.

Nah, I think my recent posts-per-hour rate clearly show that I'm an undercover Nap alias

 

[Pressure]

Nah, I think my recent posts-per-hour rate clearly show that I'm an undercover Nap alias

:DaSmitty:

 

[Dorian Breh]

Trump like, we call home base, home base. Freebies, you can't triple stamp a double stamp! Time out! Lol

 

[GzUp]

This Kavenaugh and this white privilege man... This dude raping chicks in high school, college, and now there's probably evidence about it and people STILL giving him the benefit of the doubt... must be nice to be white cause if he was black in a court of public opinion he'd already be guilty...

Breh I didn’t even think about that

 

[MerCrimmuh]

Why is the NYT, not only standing by its reporting, but updating it with additional context throughout the day? I wish some of you would focus on the developing details of the story instead of the media outlets that are deriding the NYT as sellouts:


Rod Rosenstein’s Job Is Safe, for Now: Inside His Dramatic Day


For fukks sake yall. This is supposedly the smartest thread on the damn site. Yall can't turn into Trump supporters and bury your head in the sand every time some news comes out that you don't like. There are levels and layers to this shyt. Rosenstein is a 'survivor' until he isn't. We don't know this man from a can of paint, yet everyone is SURE that he wouldn't have offered his resignation in this thread. If RR wanted to clear his name, he can go on twitter. He can call a reporter at ANY news outlet. He can release shyt through a friend a la James Comey. Don't give me this shyt that he is letting the media decide his fate and going quietly into the night.

The idea that multiple sources have corroborated each others lies on how RR acted throughout the day, and that RR went to the white house to get fired by Kelly (who doesn't have the power to fire RR) or by Trump (who isn't even in DC and has never fired ANYONE personally face-to-face or over any medium outside of twitter in the administration) is silly.

This place has the most stubborn mufukkas on earth that won't admit wrongness.

Friday the New York Times published that bullshyt without any context about sarcasm or checking with others in the room, in a rush to press. Other media outlets throughout the day had to do that. But the fukking headline most of the day nationally, and then in the shyttier parts of america all weekend, was "RR suggested wearing a wire"

Stop playing dumb.

Now today, they irresponsibly took Axios' reporting and copy pasted it that RR was resigning.

In a 90 minutes span this morning wear I watched live of RR being picked up at his home to then go to the White House. it changed from he resigned, to he resigned in protest, to he will be asked to resign, and he will say fire me, to the real story.

None of that is disputed, the live footage is available.

These hoe ass news people at the New York Times and everywhere else are chasing OJ in white vans and misreporting left and right to fill up content, and fill content up first hopefully.

At least other organizations will admit when they are wrong, and at least other organizations measure the fallout and timing of people feeding them stories.

 

[MerCrimmuh]

 

[Ciggavelli]

I think some people are failing to understand what the RR story was about. It served two purposes:

1) Distract from the Kavanaugh shyt
2) Paint the NYT as not being reliable. If you can erode trust in the NYT, when they make unfriendly statements about the administration, they can just say, remember the RR story? Well, that was fake news, so X is also fake news.

I don’t like it, but you gotta admit, shyt is brilliant. The administration played the Times so easily.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Arithmetic]

 

[Jhoon]

I think some people are failing to understand what the RR story was about. It served two purposes:

1) Distract from the Kavanaugh shyt
2) Paint the NYT as not being reliable. If you can erode trust in the NYT, when they make unfriendly statements about the administration, they can just say, remember the RR story? Well, that was fake news, so X is also fake news.

I don’t like it, but you gotta admit, shyt is brilliant. The administration played the Times so easily.

They were played the first time with the loadstar story. After reading that story I immediately thought of James Comey and his goofy response to emails.