Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Not “impossible” – Anti-Trump media spends Memorial Day weekend beclowning itself again

Not “impossible” – Anti-Trump media spends Memorial Day weekend beclowning itself again

NY Times claims Trump spokesman said June 12 North Korea meeting “impossible,” Trump says there was no real source for that statement, and the audio backs up Trump.

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1000418699273175044

It’s Memorial Day weekend. A time for remembrance. But for the anti-Trump media, it’s just another opportunity to beclown itself by pushing a false gotcha narrative.

It all started, as often is the case, with a Trump tweet:

The Failing @nytimes quotes “a senior White House official,” who doesn’t exist, as saying “even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.” WRONG AGAIN! Use real people, not phony sources.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1000396430371106817

The language quoted in the tweet came from a NY Times article regarding a background briefing at the White House:

“On Thursday, for example, a senior White House official told reporters that even if the meeting were reinstated, holding it on June 12 would be impossible, given the lack of time and the amount of planning needed.”

The briefing was on background: “This afternoon, a senior White House official will hold an off-camera, not for broadcast, background briefing on North Korea.”

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1000401282853687296

Since the briefing was on background, the source’s name could not be used under standard journalistic guidelines. For example, here is the Associated Press’s guidelines:

On the record. The information can be used with no caveats, quoting the source by name.

Off the record. The information cannot be used for publication.

Background. The information can be published but only under conditions negotiated with the source. Generally, the sources do not want their names published but will agree to a description of their position. AP reporters should object vigorously when a source wants to brief a group of reporters on background and try to persuade the source to put the briefing on the record. These background briefings have become routine in many venues, especially with government officials.

Deep background. The information can be used but without attribution. The source does not want to be identified in any way, even on condition of anonymity.

In general, information obtained under any of these circumstances can be pursued with other sources to be placed on the record.

In reaction to Trump’s tweet, the media almost unanimously jumped to the defense of the NY Times.

One or more of the reporters at the briefing leaked to other reporters who were not at the briefing the name of the source. This allowed the non-attending reporters to claim they were not violating their ethical duties because they never agreed to the conditions.

Leading the charge was Yashar Ali, of New York Magazine and HuffPo, who has an enormous Twitter following, who named the source:

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1000404335568785408

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1000414561261047810

But that wasn’t all, audio of the comments also was leaked supposedly backing up the NY Times story (click on image to listen):

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1000418699273175044

This supposed gotcha on Trump even made it to Twitter Moments:

https://twitter.com/TwitterMoments/status/1000498932269572096

The problem for the gotcha was that the audio did not back up the Times’ reporting. At no point did the source say the meeting on June 12 was impossible, or even words to that effect. Here’s what he said:

“the main point, I suppose, is that the ball is in North Korea’s court right now. And there’s really not a lot of time.”

Clearly the Times did not quote the source directly, as Trump claimed in the tweet. So for using the term “quotes” in his tweet, Trump was wrong in that the impossible language was not in quotation marks in the Times story. But substantively Trump was right, since the characterization of the meeting being “impossible” is not a reasonable interpretation of the comments.

Nonetheless, the Times declared victory over Trump, Trump Falsely Says Times Made Up Source in Report on Korea Summit Meeting:

It is not clear whether the president was simply unaware of the actions of his own senior staff or if he knowingly ignored the truth. The source of that sentence was a White House official who held a briefing on Thursday afternoon in the White House briefing room that was attended by about 50 reporters, with about 200 or so more on a conference call.

Reporters often request such briefings to be on the record, which would allow the official to be named. But, in this case, the rules of the briefing imposed by the White House required that the official be referred to only as a “senior White House official.” The Times is continuing to abide by that agreement.

In the course of the briefing, the official was asked about the possibility that the summit meeting could be held on June 12, despite the president’s decision to cancel it a day earlier. The discussion was prompted by earlier statements from the president suggesting that the meeting might still happen.

The official noted that “there’s really not a lot of time — we’ve lost quite a bit of time that we would need” to prepare for the summit meeting.

“June 12 is in 10 minutes,” the official said.

On Friday, White House officials took pains to demonstrate that it was still possible to hold the meeting. Mr. Trump himself said Friday morning that he was hopeful again that there might still be a meeting on June 12 with the North Koreans.

“They very much want to do it,” the president told reporters. “We’d like to do it. We’ll see what happens.”

A recording of the key part of the Thursday briefing, discussing the timing issues of the summit meeting, appeared on Twitter after Mr. Trump’s tweet on Saturday. At the end of the briefing, reporters asked the official to put comments on the record, but the official said that both Mr. Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had spoken publicly, and that their comments could stand by themselves.

Molly Hemingway led the counter-offensive against this false narrative:

So the bottom line is that the NY Times did not have a real source for the “impossible” characterization. At most, the Times had a source for some other characterization. Yet the Times and supportive media seized on the existence of a source, even though not a source which said what the Times said he said, to prove Trump wrong.

In so doing, one or more journalists at the briefing arguably violated their ethical duties by leaking the source name and audio, despite the briefing being on background, and other journalists not bound by the background preconditions used that information.

A simple “we’re sorry” from the Times for the false “impossible” claim would have been more effective. But at least all those in Journalist Twitter are convinced of their moral superiority.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

William A. Jacobson: So the bottom line is that the NY Times did not have a real source for the “impossible” characterization.

Gee whiz. Trump didn’t say the source was mischaracterized. He said the source didn’t exist, “Use real people, not phony sources.”

    MarkS in reply to Zachriel. | May 27, 2018 at 10:18 am

    Which means Trump is correct, there was no source for the “impossible” comment

      MarkS: Which means Trump is correct, there was no source for the “impossible” comment

      Gee whiz. Possibly mischaracterizing what the source says is not the same thing as saying the source doesn’t exist.

        The media did not mischaracterize. They lied outright. And they knew it.

        Exiliado in reply to Zachriel. | May 27, 2018 at 11:42 am

        It’s not the same only if you’re a leftard apologist.

        The fact of the matter is that they unethically spread lies, that they know they are lies, and that they are not willing to retract their lies.
        That’s why we call them Fake News.

        Tom Servo in reply to Zachriel. | May 27, 2018 at 12:46 pm

        “Characterization”???

        So if I were to write “Zachriel has written that all Jews today should be rounded up and sent to modern day gas chambers”, I would NOT be making up a false quote, I would just be slightly mischaracterizing my actual source?

        That’s the case that you are making.

        It is factually correct, whereas the NYT is factually not correct. Does that matter?

        Max17 in reply to Zachriel. | May 27, 2018 at 1:55 pm

        I wish mustache guy would quit supporting pedophilia.

        Rusty Bill: The media did not mischaracterize. They lied outright.

        The source said “we’ve lost quite a bit of time that we would need“, which indicates that there was not enough time to prepare for such an early date.

        Tom Servo: That’s the case that you are making.

        No. If they don’t have the time they would need, then it is reasonable that the statement is saying there is not enough time to prepare for such an early date. However, our case is that Trump falsely said there was no source, when everyone knows there was a source.

        oldschooltwentysix: It is factually correct, whereas the NYT is factually not correct.

        The report was a reasonable paraphrase, but Trump’s statement was simply false. Even if you think the report was not a reasonable paraphrase, it is wrong to argue there was no source, but that the source was mischaracterized.

          Colonel Travis in reply to Zachriel. | May 27, 2018 at 4:37 pm

          The source said “we’ve lost quite a bit of time that we would need“, which indicates that there was not enough time to prepare for such an early date.

          Utter BS. Sorry, can you please explain how you know this, when in the NYT story above even says: “On Friday, White House officials took pains to demonstrate that it was still possible to hold the meeting. Mr. Trump himself said Friday morning that he was hopeful again that there might still be a meeting on June 12 with the North Koreans.”?

          The fact that you state this, when you have been bleating about how wrong Trump was (when he wasn’t wrong, which I’ll address in a second) is the height of irony.

          I used to be a reporter and editor, written for outlets you and everyone else here has heard of. This isn’t lazy reporting – it is irresponsible and purposefully misleading.

          The report was a reasonable paraphrase

          Ah, no. It was a reasonable Pulled-It-Out-Of-My-Ass.

          Even if you think the report was not a reasonable paraphrase, it is wrong to argue there was no source, but that the source was mischaracterized.

          Who said June 12 was impossible? No one said that, correct? Hello, is this thing on? Aren’t you supposed to be a nuanced thinker? If no one, in fact, said June 12 is impossible, then it is a fact that such a person does not exist. There is a person who exists who said something else. Why you or the NYT cannot just go with that, instead of LOOK EVERYONE TRUMP’S A LIAR WHO DOESN’T KNOW WHAT HIS OWN STAFF SAYS!, is beyond me. But I don’t suffer from a psychosis thanks to this or any other politician.

          I’ve never seen so much effort to bend over backwards to try to make someone else look like an idiot, when anyone with half a brain sees that the ones bending are the ones who look like idiots because intellectual honesty is not valued.

          Colonel Travis: can you please explain how you know this

          Because multiple people there confirm the reporting.

          Colonel Travis: Who said June 12 was impossible?

          Multiple people there reported that the source said “we’ve lost quite a bit of time that we would need“. If you don’t have what you need, then it won’t happen. The source could be wrong, or misspoke, but the reporting was reasonable. What is not reasonable is for Trump to claim that the Times made up a source, which is clearly false.

          Oh good grief, Zachriels. The same NYT article goes on to say that the WH is sending an advance team down to Singapore to prep for the meeting, should it happen. If the meeting cannot be prepped, is indeed impossible and “won’t happen,” why would they bother?

          How is it reasonable reporting to say something is impossible in one paragraph and then say that steps are being taken to make it happen a few paragraphs later? Had they said, as one source actually said, that needed time had been lost, that’s one thing. The NYT didn’t say that, they said it would be impossible. The source, however, did not say that, or anything close to that. Clearly, if it were indeed impossible, the WH would not send down an advance team to prep.

          Give it up. The NYT looks like the hack rag it is, and you sound incredibly silly.

          Colonel Travis in reply to Zachriel. | May 27, 2018 at 5:52 pm

          Because multiple people there confirm the reporting.

          Confirm what reporting? The reporting that reported a lie?

          If you don’t have what you need, then it won’t happen.

          Really? I’ve got most the lumber for an end table I’m making soon, and I have a deadline, but I’m not sure what I’m going to use for the top or if I need to buy some more wood. Does that mean the end table will never happen?

          From the very same NYT story you keep clinging to:

          1.) Trump himself said a June 12 meeting is possible.
          2.) “White House officials took pains to demonstrate that it was still possible to hold the meeting.” I thought you were so into multiple sources?
          3.) As Fuzzy Slippers pointed out, the WH has sent people to Singapore.

          What’s happening in real life defies what’s happening in the heads of people at the NYT and you.

          You are so desperate for Trump to look bad, you have no idea how bad you look. As much as I couldn’t stand Obama, I never let him turn me into an idiot.

          Fuzzy Slipper: Oh good grief, Zachriels. The same NYT article goes on to say that the WH is sending an advance team down to Singapore to prep for the meeting, should it happen. If the meeting cannot be prepped, is indeed impossible and “won’t happen,” why would they bother?

          Obviously because not everyone was on the same page.

          Colonel Travis: I’ve got most the lumber for an end table I’m making soon, and I have a deadline, but I’m not sure what I’m going to use for the top or if I need to buy some more wood.

          You can’t buy time that’s lost.

          Zachs, you wrote:

          Fuzzy Slipper [sic]: Oh good grief, Zachriels. The same NYT article goes on to say that the WH is sending an advance team down to Singapore to prep for the meeting, should it happen. If the meeting cannot be prepped, is indeed impossible and “won’t happen,” why would they bother?

          Obviously because not everyone was on the same page.

          And there’s the rub. The source indicated that valuable time had been lost; he did not say that the summit was impossible. That was the NYT.

          The NYT purposefully misrepresented the source as saying something he didn’t say. It was not “impossible,” as the NYT reported and as they acknowledge in noting (correctly) that the WH has sent a team to prep the meeting.

          The only ones not “on the same page” was the NYT when they tried to make Trump look like an idiot and ended up looking like the #hackrag purveyors of #FakeNews we have come to expect from the formerly great, formerly respected Gray Lady.

          Fuzzy Slippers: The source indicated that valuable time had been lost

          Already answered. The source said “we’ve lost quite a bit of time that we would need.” Need means required. Other reporters had the same impression that the source was saying it wasn’t possible.

          Fuzzy Slippers: The NYT purposefully misrepresented the source as saying something he didn’t say.

          That is not supported by the facts, nor is that what Trump claimed.

          Zachs, where’s the smart Zach? The one who doesn’t get bogged down in craziness? That’s the one I want to talk to about this.

          No WH official said that the Singapore summit was impossible. No one. This was the NYT trying to make Trump look bad. Period. It’s rooted in their intense and deeply partisan hatred of the president.

          I need three weeks to prepare my garden for spring planting. It rains for a whole week, so I’ve lost needed time to plant my garden. I complete my gardening task in the remaining two weeks.

          I need 24 hours to turn around student papers; my internet goes out, and I have only 10 hours. Can I do it? Hint: the answer is “yes.”

          Stop with your specious lunacy. “Need” is relative, and you’re not earning credibility by arguing the meaning of “is.” Instead, you just sound ridiculous. What did the source actually say? What was the WH doing in the meantime? Oh, right, that time was lost but that the WH was sending a team to prep the meeting.

          The NYT lied about what was actually said to try to make the president look bad. They knew it was a lie, and we know this because they go on to state that a team was being sent to prep the meeting. No editor worth a damn would let that inconsistency fly.

          Fuzzy Slippers: It rains for a whole week, so I’ve lost needed time to plant my garden. I complete my gardening task in the remaining two weeks.

          You could have used the extra time, but you didn’t “need” the time.

          In any case, other reporters had the same impression that the source was saying it wasn’t possible. Perhaps they gathered the wrong impression. But it would would still contradict your claim that they Times was lying, while Trump’s statement was clearly false.

        Fen in reply to Zachriel. | May 27, 2018 at 4:12 pm

        Zach: “I pull over for 12 year old girls and ask if they want to play with the puppies in the back of my van”.

        Oh golly, did I misrepresent what you said?

        Why do we use quotation marks, Zach?

          Fen: Why do we use quotation marks

          The original Times article provided a paraphrase, not a quote.

          Fen in reply to Fen. | May 27, 2018 at 6:22 pm

          Fair enough. I was looking at a secondary article and wrongly assumed NYTs had put “impossible” in quotes. My bad.

          But wouldn’t a more accurate paraphrase have been “difficult” or “very difficult” ? Impossible is a very strong word, and as someone with an English Lit degree, I find it UNLIKELY and bordering on IMPOSSIBLE that a journalist would make such an error in good faith.

          Can we at least agree the NYTs was being deliberately deceitful? Especially considering they simply asserted the audio backed them up, relying on reader laziness to take them at their word instead of slogging through the audio.

          Fen: But wouldn’t a more accurate paraphrase have been “difficult” or “very difficult” ?

          Possibly, but multiple reporters understood that the speaker was saying the meeting could not meet the proposed deadline.

          Fen: Can we at least agree the NYTs was being deliberately deceitful?

          Can we at least agree Trump was stating a falsehood when he said the source was “phony”?

        MarkS in reply to Zachriel. | May 27, 2018 at 7:10 pm

        Wow, a brand new synonym: a lie is now just a “mischaracterization” just as a spy is now a “confidential informant”.

    tom_swift in reply to Zachriel. | May 27, 2018 at 11:04 am

    The person who told the press that the meeting was impossible doesn’t exist. The recording shows no such person making any such statement. Ipso facto, the non-existent person who made this false statement is a phony source.

    A person who told the press that the schedule was tight does exist. The President didn’t claim otherwise.

    I’m sorry, if someone says, “Mr. Smith ran over a stop sign,” and a newspaper article writes, “Sources say that Mr. Smith ran over a 79 year old grandmother at 3 AM last night”, is the same person the source for both stories? That’s ridiculous. You’re a source for a particular claim. You’re not a source for all the other millions and billions of claims you didn’t make.

    casualobserver in reply to Zachriel. | May 27, 2018 at 12:33 pm

    Even people like me who are not really Trump fans get a big kick out of how he outsmarts the media routinely. His own version of rope a dope.

    Now we see the left’s most vital news outlet exposing itself as a noise outlet. They went against widely accepted “journalism” protocol and provided enough of a çlue to expose an off the record source who expected to remain anonymous. And the STILL didn’t support their original false reporting. They only proved they spoke to someone but also exposed their extrapolation. Or fabrication if you like.

    Fen in reply to Zachriel. | May 27, 2018 at 4:16 pm

    You’re killing your credibility here, Zach. Are you sure this is what you want to sacrifice on? A NYTs reporter who makes up quotes?

      Barry in reply to Fen. | May 27, 2018 at 10:26 pm

      “You’re killing your credibility here, Zach.”

      LOL Fen. Zach, credibility? Ever, anytime?

      It’s paid to come here and post utter bullshit.

    david7134 in reply to Zachriel. | May 28, 2018 at 12:29 am

    For those that don’t know zachreil, he is the latest in a number of high school kids that run a club. Z changes every year and gets on adult sites saying stupid things. As with all high school kids now, he is not very smart,but thinks he is and has a problem with the truth. Best not to engage and he will go away.

      murkyv in reply to david7134. | May 28, 2018 at 1:57 pm

      Yeah, but the Zachs have Wikipedia and the latest OFA and Media sMatters talking points to guide their comments

    JoAnne in reply to Zachriel. | May 28, 2018 at 5:13 pm

    OK, is this Yellowsnake’s alter ego? If not, just as dumb!

Pillow FIGHT…!!!

So many feathers in the air!

Meanwhile, on this Memorial Day weekend, we have some of our uniformed services ineffectively deployed away from home somewhere NEAR the southern border, and LOTS of really important things to be considering.

Jeeebus…

    casualobserver in reply to Ragspierre. | May 27, 2018 at 12:44 pm

    Sometimes you make valid points here. But more often you make me laugh out loud. Those posts, like this one, are just aimless never-Trump non sequiturs. Caricature.

      Tom Servo in reply to casualobserver. | May 27, 2018 at 12:56 pm

      I’ll defend his point here. The summit either will happen, or it won’t happen – nothing anyone says in the American MSM about it will have any impact on that at all. And when it happens, it will be widely judged on its success or failure, and nothing else.

      So all of this stuff is just “neener neener neener” high school cafeteria nonsense, and it will all be forgotten within 48 hours. Just filler for a slow Memorial Day Sunday.

        casualobserver in reply to Tom Servo. | May 27, 2018 at 1:01 pm

        It’s not clear. Whose point are you defending? Ragspierre is making what I call a “yeahbut” post. Yeah, something may be a valid point, BUT what about this unrelated thing over here??

          Ragspierre in reply to casualobserver. | May 27, 2018 at 10:17 pm

          You ALMOST have a sound argument.

          Except that I was never challenging the validity of the point the Prof. raised.

          I was merely noting that some valid points are not worth the time it takes to make them.

          The Prof. has a good, very serviceable high-wattage searchlight. This little tea-pot tempest was a waste of his talent, IMNHO. There are things aplenty I’d love to see him write about. A screw-up of this magnitude by the NYT is not one. I’m betting you’d agree.

          Note: The nevertrumper prog ragspee would prefer you to gloss over the NYSlimes lies.

          Ragspierre in reply to casualobserver. | May 27, 2018 at 10:56 pm

          Note, the literally insane nutter who posts absurd lies is a total T-rump cultist. He made his choices. It’s who he is.

        tom_swift in reply to Tom Servo. | May 27, 2018 at 1:31 pm

        it will be widely judged on its success or failure, and nothing else.

        Unfortunately, no. Certain parties—specifically, the press, the D’rats, Liberals, Europeans, etc—will declare it a failure no matter what its outcome—and will make up something, anything—as the Times has done here, but writ large—to “justify” the claim.

        Once one has descended into fantasyland, there’s no stopping; one never hits bottom.

          Fen in reply to tom_swift. | May 27, 2018 at 4:45 pm

          White House: The President has made first contact with Alpha Centauri and brokered a trade agreement that will usher in the Age of Star Trek. We now possess warp travel, transporter tech, a cure for all cancers, and a new source of cheap infinite energy.

          Press: But does the President have a plan to fight to resulting inflation?

      Ragspierre in reply to casualobserver. | May 27, 2018 at 10:06 pm

      Except you’d have to be delusional to find anything “never-Trump” in anything I said. I think my comment should stand on what it says, not on what you imagine.

    Milwaukee in reply to Ragspierre. | May 27, 2018 at 1:31 pm

    Must be Pavlovian. Some see “Ragspierre” and they instantly down click. While this kurffle is one more log on the “media, and others, want to burn Trump” fire, it really isn’t a big deal. There are other problems which deserve more of our attention.

      “Some see “Ragspierre” and they instantly down click….”

      Why not? (Do you talk to lunatics on street corners? They too, every once in a while, say something lucid. But in the aggregate…)

      Valerie in reply to Milwaukee. | May 27, 2018 at 4:03 pm

      Nah. I only immediately downvote Rags when he starts off with an insult. There are times when he has something worthwhile to say.

      Yellowfool gets the immediate downvote, and its numbers, along with the general refusal to take the bait, show it.

This is Trump’s superpower. The media freaks out over something irrelevant that Trump said. After hours or days of beating the dead horse, the media declares that they have triumphed. Any normal people who are paying attention conclude that the media are insane.

Within 24 hours Trump will release another rhetorical squirrel for the media to chase. And they will chase it, every damn time.

NO one said it was impossible – period. Trump didn’t say that no one said it would be difficult. The press spun the comment because it was supposedly from a “senior WH official” and they figured no one would challenge it.

All this overreaction by the MSM to a questionable comment by a White House flunky.

I wonder how they would react if some White House official said that participants in the Affordable Care Act could keep their doctor, if they liked their doctor?

I know that this blog doesn’t cover the English legal system but I would love to see an article covering free speech in England, especially pertaining to Tommy Robinson.

    The UK doesn’t have the same protections for speech that we do, but as I understand it “Robinson”, or whatever else he’s calling himself these days, was harassing the defendants as they entered and left the court, after the judge specifically ordered him to leave them and the jurors alone so they can have a fair trial. I doubt any US court would put up with that either.

      Fen in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2018 at 4:23 pm

      There is video. He’s doing exactly what a BBC reporter would do if they weren’t so busy covering the story with a pillow.

        Milhouse in reply to Fen. | May 27, 2018 at 6:05 pm

        Wrong. No reporter would be doing that. The case is sub judice. It’s illegal to report on it.

Getting rid of A bombs that N Korea has and out of the hands of a guy who just might use them on us is a very important issue for our country and the world. In the tradition of great journalism the most prominent newspaper in our nation argues with our prez over what words were used. Bickering like little school girls while the world waits for news of what is taking place. Thanks a lot.

    RobM in reply to Hawk. | May 27, 2018 at 1:24 pm

    Not just bickering… the NYT’s story is picked up world-wide. No doubt NYT article is tainted to constrict or corner negotiations. Kim and Moon surely know what is in the US media and have to deal with their own teams trying to understand the situation. Xi too.

    So the NYT used language NOT UTTERED by the spokesman and put weight on the date ” impossible” that is not reality. It’s really pathetic for the media to do stuff like this. They seem to want to hinder if not derail the talks/deal. Go figure. ( and the media ends up with egg on it’s face and reputation as lying provocateurs with agendas reinforced )

      Liz in reply to RobM. | May 27, 2018 at 2:23 pm

      Don’t forget that someone is tracking all of Trump’s “lies”, so the press is trying very hard to get as many as they can. Why else would they be parsing any comment by Trump?

      The ny times is a commie propaganda rag dressed-up as a newspaper.

      It’s day of being taken seriously by anyone actually informed is over.

Henry Hawkins | May 27, 2018 at 4:15 pm

WHAT? The NYT lied?

Layers and layers of fact checkers.

But it’s a good cure for Murry-Gellman Amnesia – we now know that if it’s quoted in the NYTs it MAY or MAY NOT be what the quoted source actually said.

This is why I stopped reading the NYTs and WaPo. It might as well be fiction, and I prefer stompy robots and steamy sex in my fiction.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk and ?Stan Lee??? also are expressing their own dissatisfaction with the media.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/8mi0ks/stan_lee_calling_out_the_msm_for_there_fake_news/

nyt lying is to be expected. But the TDS on display after they’re caught proves it’s a real condition. willie brown is right, the left needs a 12 step program for TDS.

Sorry, Zachbo. Yashir Ali falsely claims that there was a recording that proves Trump is a liar. The Professor writes:

“The problem for the gotcha was that the audio did not back up the Times’ reporting. At no point did the source say the meeting on June 12 was impossible, or even words to that effect. Here’s what he said:

“the main point, I suppose, is that the ball is in North Korea’s court right now. And there’s really not a lot of time.”

Your defense of the NYT is weak tea. You are focusing on Trump’s statement that “no person exists (who said a meeting was impossible)” rather than the claims of the existence of an audio tape that proves Trump a liar.

It’s really simple. Trump says that nobody, including Pottinger, said that a meeting was “impossible.” The NYT lies about an audio recording that proves somebody said a meeting was impossible. Parse as you are inclined, but the misrepresentation here is solely at the feet of a dishonest NYT.

They have the names of every reporter that attended the meeting and can leave them on the outside for a few months each and everyone . Maybe then they will treat the rules with more respect.

DINORightMarie | May 27, 2018 at 9:28 pm

I must say……I come here every day, often several times a day, and read all the posts, including the comment threads.

It’s trolls like @Zachriel that make not want to comment much anymore. So obviously trolling, and the conversation threads that ensue are so……predictable. He continues to cherry-pick quotes – tidbits of comments – then make illogical arguments as pathetic “rebuttals.” Why engage with him?

As usual, I agree with the Professor. The only thing that is inaccurate in the entire non-issue that the NYT ginned up is that Trump tweeted the word “quote” when instead it was a NYT leap of propaganda-faith, as per usual.

Keep on keepin’ on Professor! As someone who didn’t want Trump, I find that I am more in support of him than I ever believed I could be. He has such a GIFT to troll the media…. Case in point: that letter to North Korea, that a leftie teacher took the time to edit and correct……priceless!! Trump Derangement Syndrome is alive and well…….he lives in their heads 24/7/365 and they have NO IDEA that the more they pull this nonsense, the more he is admired, the more popular he becomes.

Thanks, Professor, for the post and for being you. Every day you make a little brighter with your intellectual posts, and your persistence against this great tide of leftism.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to DINORightMarie. | May 28, 2018 at 12:53 pm

    You might try what I do. Once identified as such, I don’t respond to trolls. Period. What could possibly be the point of responding? Also, I have a mental list of regular commenters whose posts I’ve found to be either untruthful, fallacy-laden, predictable, or, well, dumb, making it intellectually unprofitable to bother reading them. When I see the name, I skip the post, knowing I’m not missing a thing.

    Milhouse in reply to DINORightMarie. | May 28, 2018 at 3:44 pm

    As someone who didn’t want Trump, I find that I am more in support of him than I ever believed I could be.

    I know exactly what you mean.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend