What's your news source?

I already posted this once but here goes again.........

This was covered yesterday on another thread but this link provides a detailed look at how Hannity first sought to misinform his audience, acknowledged the truth, then tried to trivialize it, followed by repeated attempts to walk back the truth by various anchors in an effort to leave the audience believing a lie.

https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...r-denial-confirmation-do-you-even-care/219182

Which gives me the opportunity to point out that it isn't necessary to tell a lie to leave your audience believing one.

 

Sorry, didn't notice your reply.

 

Wrong. The NYT piece had been published. Why would Faux be ignoring a report that hadn't come out yet?

On Thursday evening, the New York Times broke news that last June, President Trump ordered a White House lawyer to fire special counsel Robert Mueller. The story looks bad for Trump, as it indicates that over a short period of time, he twice tried to fire officials overseeing an investigation of his campaign.

At first, Trump’s favorite TV network — Fox News — pretended the story didn’t exist. While the other cable networks covered it, Fox News was talking about a 2005 photo of President Obama with Louis Farrakhan.

https://thinkprogress.org/report-th...-sends-fox-news-into-a-tailspin-b5a5f0e44786/

 

Wrong. They had reported Ruddy said Drumpf was considering firing Mueller. The original report did not confirm he made a directive to fire Mueller, that McGahn stopped him, of that Mueller's team had confirmed Don tried to fire Mueller.

 

Wrong. They said they had confirmed that the NYT report was accurate.

 

Having the power to fire him and having the legal right to do so in the event it rises to the level of obstruction of justice are separate questions.

 

Based on the incorrect assertion Don didn't order Mueller to be fired, which he did.

 

Given that your link looks at 13 different discussions in a 12 hour period the day it came out, how exactly does that constitute "ignoring" it ?

 

Perhaps so, but that doesn't invalidate what FOX said on the subject in any way. Your blog implied that Fox saying that he has a constitutional prerogative to fire him is somehow incorrect. The notion they put forth is entirely legitimate. Your response about obstruction of justice has nothing to do with what is being discussed. This is a subject of legitimate scholarly debate. That debate supercedes Trump and FOX by hundreds of years.

 

This is not true. At no time did Trump " order" him fired. Nobody is still making that claim......except you and the left wing blogosphere of course. Did you bother to read the CBS link I provided that came out 2 days after the NYT article and directly refuted this claim?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-counsel-don-mcgahn-threatened-to-resign-in-june/
"Garrett reports that while Mr. Trump talked about firing Mueller, he never issued a direct order to do so in any written form, though he did say he favored this action in the presence of senior staff."

BTW....if you're going to make several replies to my one post, please put them in one reply.

 

He did NOT make a directive to fire Mueller. Did you not read the link I gave you from CBS news. Please check your sources before continuing to make erroneous disproven claims.

 

The NYT article is NOT accurate. Trump never "Ordered" that Mueller be fired, nor did Mcgahn threaten to quit over this issue. Did you not read the link I gave you from CBS news?Please check your sources before continuing to make erroneous, disproven claims.

 

The NYT article is NOT accurate. Trump never "Ordered" that Mueller be fired, nor did Mcgahn threaten to quit over this issue. Did you not read the link I gave you from CBS news that came out 2 days AFTER the NYT article and directly refuted this claim? Please check your sources before continuing to make erroneous, disproven claims.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-counsel-don-mcgahn-threatened-to-resign-in-june/
"Garrett reports that while Mr. Trump talked about firing Mueller, he never issued a direct order to do so in any written form, though he did say he favored this action in the presence of senior staff."

"Sources tell Garrett that McGahn threatened to resign over the accumulation of stress and frustrations with the president, rather than for issues related to Mueller's potential firing. "

You need to step out of your echo chamber from time to time.

 

I agree completely.Your above responses and the situation with the NYT article are a PERFECT example of this.

 

Faux did not report on the NYT article, the biggest story of the day, until well after coverage began on other news networks.

 

Nope. The power to fire Mueller is not in dispute by anyone.

 

Your problem being that your responses are in defense of Faux's misleading and factually inaccurate coverage and as such are also misleading and factually inaccurate.

 

I listen to National Public Radio, hear what they are saying, and then think the opposite of what they are trying to push. This has worked out quite well for 20 years or more.

 

The 13 times as reported in your blog within a 12 hour period the day it came out doesn't sound like ignoring to me.

 

Alan Dershowitz disagrees with you. This has been a subject in law classes for literally hundreds of years. It is one of those issues that is yet to be litigated by the Supreme Court, and has been a subject of scholarly debate as to how that case would result. Should I ignore that and simply take your word for it instead?

 

Your problem is that you refuse to look at the follow up done on this story by CBS news and how it directly contradicts the claims that Trump ordered him fired, or that McGahn threatened to resign over this issue. Your problem is that I refuted your link and you are floundering in your attempt at discrediting that refutation. Is it your belief that if you don't read or respond to it, therefore it doesn't exist?

I gave you the link. I even gave you the quotes within that link. You are a SHINING example of "how difficult it is to change a person's belief in something once that belief has become adopted". I can lead a horse to water, but indeed CANNOT make him drink.

 

WSJ, NYT, NPR, 538.com

I have a feeling theres a lot of fox news watchers/readers on this forum.

 

Why are you pursuing this point since it's a loser for you? They initially failed to report on the story well after it broke. Got it?

 

I said the power to fire Mueller is not in dispute meaning no one disputes Don has the power to do so.