Who alerted CNN to be there Trump questions FBI raid of Roger Stone

[MindWars]

President Trump on Friday spoke out against the FBI’s phony Russian collusion witch hunt, and questioned how CNN knew to be at the home of his former campaign adviser Roger Stone as he was ambushed in a pre-dawn raid of his Florida home.
‘Who alerted CNN to be there?’: Trump Questions FBI Raid of Roger Stone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we know the left are savages, idiots know better than to find truth they prefer bs CNN lies lol..

 

[Pogo]

President Trump on Friday spoke out against the FBI’s phony Russian collusion witch hunt, and questioned how CNN knew to be at the home of his former campaign adviser Roger Stone as he was ambushed in a pre-dawn raid of his Florida home.
‘Who alerted CNN to be there?’: Trump Questions FBI Raid of Roger Stone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we know the left are savages, idiots know better than to find truth they prefer bs CNN lies lol..

WHO GIVES A SHIT??

I see a pattern.

• Heckler comes in to harass Sean Spicer accusing racism in college --- Spicer's Sycophants cry "sue the Associated Press for reporting it!"

• Smirk-Boi gets his picture taken staring down a Native American drummer --- Knuckledraggers be like, "sue the media (get that? 'sue the media' -- not the AP not the NYT etc .... the entire "media") for reporting that a video was going viral!!

• Roger Stone gets arrested in FBI raid ---- Rumpbots just want to know how CNN found out.

ANYTHING to avoid addressing the issue.

The fact is that heckler DID harass Sean Spicer (that's on video too), Smirk-Boi DID stare down Nathan Philips (ditto), Roger Stone DID get busted in an FBI raid. But let's pile on the messengers, because that's what you do when you don't like what the news is.

It would seem the Rumpbot/Knuckledragger agenda when something goes not-their-way is to start whining about the fact that somebody told us all about it, rather than addressing what actually happened.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

President Trump on Friday spoke out against the FBI’s phony Russian collusion witch hunt, and questioned how CNN knew to be at the home of his former campaign adviser Roger Stone as he was ambushed in a pre-dawn raid of his Florida home.
‘Who alerted CNN to be there?’: Trump Questions FBI Raid of Roger Stone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we know the left are savages, idiots know better than to find truth they prefer bs CNN lies lol..

whats the REAL story on this? have you heard by chance? this is obviously a frame job.would not be the first in history with these much bigger smear frame jobs. these names sound familiar? Lee Harvey Oswald,Sirhan Sirhan,James Early Ray?

 

[MindWars]

CNN Producer Admits He Was “Waiting” Outside Roger Stone’s House an Hour Before Arrest

 

[ThisIsMe]

President Trump on Friday spoke out against the FBI’s phony Russian collusion witch hunt, and questioned how CNN knew to be at the home of his former campaign adviser Roger Stone as he was ambushed in a pre-dawn raid of his Florida home.
‘Who alerted CNN to be there?’: Trump Questions FBI Raid of Roger Stone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we know the left are savages, idiots know better than to find truth they prefer bs CNN lies lol..

WHO GIVES A SHIT??

I see a pattern.

• Heckler comes in to harass Sean Spicer accusing racism in college --- Spicer's Sycophants cry "sue the Associated Press for reporting it!"

• Smirk-Boi gets his picture taken staring down a Native American drummer --- Knuckledraggers be like, "sue the media (get that? 'sue the media' -- not the AP not the NYT etc .... the entire "media") for reporting that a video was going viral!!

• Roger Stone gets arrested in FBI raid ---- Rumpbots just want to know how CNN found out.

ANYTHING to avoid addressing the issue.

The fact is that heckler DID harass Sean Spicer (that's on video too), Smirk-Boi DID stare down Nathan Philips (ditto), Roger Stone DID get busted in an FBI raid. But let's pile on the messengers, because that's what you do when you don't like what the news is.

It would seem the Rumpbot/Knuckledragger agenda when something goes not-their-way is to start whining about the fact that somebody told us all about it, rather than addressing what actually happened.

Dont know anything about the Spicer incident, but in the covington incident, it was justified to sue the media outlets who covered this story because the started defaming this kid before they knew the whole story. Then, when the evidence showed the kid didn't do anything wrong, they continued to push the false story and continued to tell lies about this kid.

As a result, this kid, his family, and friends have received death threats, the school has received a bomb threat.

So, the media needs to be held accountable, as well as all of those celebrities who did the same thing.


And the reason for the rail against CNN is, people want to know just how they knew to be outside where he was going to be arrested on that exact day and time.

 

[Manonthestreet]

its called collusion

 

[Correll]

its called collusion

Real collusion here, revealing a criminally close working relationship between the political lefty partisans in the FBI, and the Press.

 

[Care4all]

Silly silly silly conspiracy loving people...

A few weeks back, right before Christmas, it was reported that Mueller's team requested from the House intelligence committee, the testimony of Roger Stone...

Mueller seeking Roger Stone's testimony to House Intel panel: report

it was speculated at the time that Roger Stone lied to Congress in his testimony, and Mueller would only be asking for the actual records of it, if he was going to charge Roger Stone with lying to them.

Cnn and other news stations were watching Roger Stone and his house, waiting for an arrest.

 

[Oddball]

Cnn and other news stations were watching Roger Stone and his house, waiting for an arrest.

 

[candycorn]

Thoughts and prayers.

 

[Pogo]

President Trump on Friday spoke out against the FBI’s phony Russian collusion witch hunt, and questioned how CNN knew to be at the home of his former campaign adviser Roger Stone as he was ambushed in a pre-dawn raid of his Florida home.
‘Who alerted CNN to be there?’: Trump Questions FBI Raid of Roger Stone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we know the left are savages, idiots know better than to find truth they prefer bs CNN lies lol..

WHO GIVES A SHIT??

I see a pattern.

• Heckler comes in to harass Sean Spicer accusing racism in college --- Spicer's Sycophants cry "sue the Associated Press for reporting it!"

• Smirk-Boi gets his picture taken staring down a Native American drummer --- Knuckledraggers be like, "sue the media (get that? 'sue the media' -- not the AP not the NYT etc .... the entire "media") for reporting that a video was going viral!!

• Roger Stone gets arrested in FBI raid ---- Rumpbots just want to know how CNN found out.

ANYTHING to avoid addressing the issue.

The fact is that heckler DID harass Sean Spicer (that's on video too), Smirk-Boi DID stare down Nathan Philips (ditto), Roger Stone DID get busted in an FBI raid. But let's pile on the messengers, because that's what you do when you don't like what the news is.

It would seem the Rumpbot/Knuckledragger agenda when something goes not-their-way is to start whining about the fact that somebody told us all about it, rather than addressing what actually happened.

Dont know anything about the Spicer incident, but in the covington incident, it was justified to sue the media outlets who covered this story because the started defaming this kid before they knew the whole story.

I'm going to presume "the started defaming this kid..." is supposed to read, "they started defaming this kid...". If that's true, the question is (still) simple ---- show us any evidence of this "defaming". Post it here.

That challenge has been out there for a week and has had zero responses.

Now I ask you, how much can someone have been "defamed" if an open challenge to cite any evidence of it goes unanswered, by anyone, for a week? Apparently whoever set out to do this defaming did a piss-poor job of it since nobody can remember it happening.

Here's what actually is happening: a political partisan-hack mythology is being passed around like a joint, fueled by prima donna attorneys and partisan-hack blogs, imagining "libel". As with so many partisan-hack mythologies, repeating the same canard enough times draws the uncurious unsentient to conclude "well it must be true" without ever stopping to examine why it would be. That's exactly why I posed the question --- a week ago. And got literally zero answers.

The Sean Spicer story is this: Spicer was doing a book signing somewhere when some guy walked in and called out loudly, (paraphrasing) "hey remember me? You tried to fight me in college. You called me a ******". This was all captured on video and a local news site posted the video, after which the Associated Press picked up their story and passed it on. And Spicer's attorney's reaction was not to take issue with the heckler's charge; rather it was to puff his chest and declare he was going to "sue" the AP for reporting the story.

That's the reference. In both cases the game is trying to suppress the story getting out, rather than addressing the issue head-on. The energy is directed not to refuting the story but to intimidate the media so as to make sure the public doesn't find out about it.

Then, when the evidence showed the kid didn't do anything wrong, they continued to push the false story and continued to tell lies about this kid.

Again ---- *WHAT* *IS* this "false story"?

It's a video. Unless they're doctored, a video cannot be "false". A video is a visual record of events that happened in the world of reality. That's why it's used for security cameras. And sports replays/reviews. And police stops. A video cannot tell a "false story". The "evidence" --- the video --- *DOES* show the kid standing directly in front of Philips' nose, smirking, for several minutes. There can be no debate about that. It's recorded.

Kennedy Assassination theorists can agree and disagree on why JFK's head goes back and to the left --- but nobody can disagree that it DOES go back and to the left. It's on film.

As a result, this kid, his family, and friends have received death threats, the school has received a bomb threat.

That would be a result of those making death/bomb threats. What, are they not responsible? Are they some kind of android robots, helplessly controlled by whatever "the media" says, even if there's no evidence it said it?

And the reason for the rail against CNN is, people want to know just how they knew to be outside where he was going to be arrested on that exact day and time.

Who knows? Who cares? Reporters have all kinds of ways to find out things; do we question every story on the basis of "yabbut how did you know to cover this?"?

HOW does it affect the story itself? Does it somehow get Stone off the hook?

See what I mean? CNN or anybody else covering a story doesn't in any way change anything ABOUT the story. It's yet another iteration of Pogo's Law, i.e. changing an inconvenient subject to an irrelevant one.

 

[Correll]

President Trump on Friday spoke out against the FBI’s phony Russian collusion witch hunt, and questioned how CNN knew to be at the home of his former campaign adviser Roger Stone as he was ambushed in a pre-dawn raid of his Florida home.
‘Who alerted CNN to be there?’: Trump Questions FBI Raid of Roger Stone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we know the left are savages, idiots know better than to find truth they prefer bs CNN lies lol..

WHO GIVES A SHIT??

I see a pattern.

• Heckler comes in to harass Sean Spicer accusing racism in college --- Spicer's Sycophants cry "sue the Associated Press for reporting it!"

• Smirk-Boi gets his picture taken staring down a Native American drummer --- Knuckledraggers be like, "sue the media (get that? 'sue the media' -- not the AP not the NYT etc .... the entire "media") for reporting that a video was going viral!!

• Roger Stone gets arrested in FBI raid ---- Rumpbots just want to know how CNN found out.

ANYTHING to avoid addressing the issue.

The fact is that heckler DID harass Sean Spicer (that's on video too), Smirk-Boi DID stare down Nathan Philips (ditto), Roger Stone DID get busted in an FBI raid. But let's pile on the messengers, because that's what you do when you don't like what the news is.

It would seem the Rumpbot/Knuckledragger agenda when something goes not-their-way is to start whining about the fact that somebody told us all about it, rather than addressing what actually happened.

Dont know anything about the Spicer incident, but in the covington incident, it was justified to sue the media outlets who covered this story because the started defaming this kid before they knew the whole story.

I'm going to presume "the started defaming this kid..." is supposed to read, "they started defaming this kid...". If that's true, the question is (still) simple ---- show us any evidence of this "defaming". Post it here.

That challenge has been out there for a week and has had zero responses.

Now I ask you, how much can someone have been "defamed" if an open challenge to cite any evidence of it goes unanswered, by anyone, for a week? Apparently whoever set out to do this defaming did a piss-poor job of it since nobody can remember it happening.

Here's what actually is happening: a political partisan-hack mythology is being passed around like a joint, fueled by prima donna attorneys and partisan-hack blogs, imagining "libel". As with so many partisan-hack mythologies, repeating the same canard enough times draws the uncurious unsentient to conclude "well it must be true" without ever stopping to examine why it would be. That's exactly why I posed the question --- a week ago. And got literally zero answers.

The Sean Spicer story is this: Spicer was doing a book signing somewhere when some guy walked in and called out loudly, (paraphrasing) "hey remember me? You tried to fight me in college. You called me a ******". This was all captured on video and a local news site posted the video, after which the Associated Press picked up their story and passed it on. And Spicer's attorney's reaction was not to take issue with the heckler's charge; rather it was to puff his chest and declare he was going to "sue" the AP for reporting the story.

That's the reference. In both cases the game is trying to suppress the story getting out, rather than addressing the issue head-on. The energy is directed not to refuting the story but to intimidate the media so as to make sure the public doesn't find out about it.

Then, when the evidence showed the kid didn't do anything wrong, they continued to push the false story and continued to tell lies about this kid.

Again ---- *WHAT* *IS* this "false story"?

It's a video. Unless they're doctored, a video cannot be "false". A video is a visual record of events that happened in the world of reality. That's why it's used for security cameras. And sports replays/reviews. And police stops. A video cannot tell a "false story". The "evidence" --- the video --- *DOES* show the kid standing directly in front of Philips' nose, smirking, for several minutes. There can be no debate about that. It's recorded.

Kennedy Assassination theorists can agree and disagree on why JFK's head goes back and to the left --- but nobody can disagree that it DOES go back and to the left. It's on film.

As a result, this kid, his family, and friends have received death threats, the school has received a bomb threat.

That would be a result of those making death/bomb threats. What, are they not responsible? Are they some kind of android robots, helplessly controlled by whatever "the media" says, even if there's no evidence it said it?

And the reason for the rail against CNN is, people want to know just how they knew to be outside where he was going to be arrested on that exact day and time.

Who knows? Who cares? Reporters have all kinds of ways to find out things; do we question every story on the basis of "yabbut how did you know to cover this?"?

HOW does it affect the story itself? Does it somehow get Stone off the hook?

See what I mean? CNN or anybody else covering a story doesn't in any way change anything ABOUT the story. It's yet another iteration of Pogo's Law, i.e. changing an inconvenient subject to an irrelevant one.

Here is CNN sort of admitting they blew it, with a more detailed and less one sided story.


Nathan Phillips, Nick Sandmann encounter: a viral video shows a different side - CNN

 

[Pogo]

President Trump on Friday spoke out against the FBI’s phony Russian collusion witch hunt, and questioned how CNN knew to be at the home of his former campaign adviser Roger Stone as he was ambushed in a pre-dawn raid of his Florida home.
‘Who alerted CNN to be there?’: Trump Questions FBI Raid of Roger Stone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we know the left are savages, idiots know better than to find truth they prefer bs CNN lies lol..

WHO GIVES A SHIT??

I see a pattern.

• Heckler comes in to harass Sean Spicer accusing racism in college --- Spicer's Sycophants cry "sue the Associated Press for reporting it!"

• Smirk-Boi gets his picture taken staring down a Native American drummer --- Knuckledraggers be like, "sue the media (get that? 'sue the media' -- not the AP not the NYT etc .... the entire "media") for reporting that a video was going viral!!

• Roger Stone gets arrested in FBI raid ---- Rumpbots just want to know how CNN found out.

ANYTHING to avoid addressing the issue.

The fact is that heckler DID harass Sean Spicer (that's on video too), Smirk-Boi DID stare down Nathan Philips (ditto), Roger Stone DID get busted in an FBI raid. But let's pile on the messengers, because that's what you do when you don't like what the news is.

It would seem the Rumpbot/Knuckledragger agenda when something goes not-their-way is to start whining about the fact that somebody told us all about it, rather than addressing what actually happened.

Dont know anything about the Spicer incident, but in the covington incident, it was justified to sue the media outlets who covered this story because the started defaming this kid before they knew the whole story.

I'm going to presume "the started defaming this kid..." is supposed to read, "they started defaming this kid...". If that's true, the question is (still) simple ---- show us any evidence of this "defaming". Post it here.

That challenge has been out there for a week and has had zero responses.

Now I ask you, how much can someone have been "defamed" if an open challenge to cite any evidence of it goes unanswered, by anyone, for a week? Apparently whoever set out to do this defaming did a piss-poor job of it since nobody can remember it happening.

Here's what actually is happening: a political partisan-hack mythology is being passed around like a joint, fueled by prima donna attorneys and partisan-hack blogs, imagining "libel". As with so many partisan-hack mythologies, repeating the same canard enough times draws the uncurious unsentient to conclude "well it must be true" without ever stopping to examine why it would be. That's exactly why I posed the question --- a week ago. And got literally zero answers.

The Sean Spicer story is this: Spicer was doing a book signing somewhere when some guy walked in and called out loudly, (paraphrasing) "hey remember me? You tried to fight me in college. You called me a ******". This was all captured on video and a local news site posted the video, after which the Associated Press picked up their story and passed it on. And Spicer's attorney's reaction was not to take issue with the heckler's charge; rather it was to puff his chest and declare he was going to "sue" the AP for reporting the story.

That's the reference. In both cases the game is trying to suppress the story getting out, rather than addressing the issue head-on. The energy is directed not to refuting the story but to intimidate the media so as to make sure the public doesn't find out about it.

Then, when the evidence showed the kid didn't do anything wrong, they continued to push the false story and continued to tell lies about this kid.

Again ---- *WHAT* *IS* this "false story"?

It's a video. Unless they're doctored, a video cannot be "false". A video is a visual record of events that happened in the world of reality. That's why it's used for security cameras. And sports replays/reviews. And police stops. A video cannot tell a "false story". The "evidence" --- the video --- *DOES* show the kid standing directly in front of Philips' nose, smirking, for several minutes. There can be no debate about that. It's recorded.

Kennedy Assassination theorists can agree and disagree on why JFK's head goes back and to the left --- but nobody can disagree that it DOES go back and to the left. It's on film.

As a result, this kid, his family, and friends have received death threats, the school has received a bomb threat.

That would be a result of those making death/bomb threats. What, are they not responsible? Are they some kind of android robots, helplessly controlled by whatever "the media" says, even if there's no evidence it said it?

And the reason for the rail against CNN is, people want to know just how they knew to be outside where he was going to be arrested on that exact day and time.

Who knows? Who cares? Reporters have all kinds of ways to find out things; do we question every story on the basis of "yabbut how did you know to cover this?"?

HOW does it affect the story itself? Does it somehow get Stone off the hook?

See what I mean? CNN or anybody else covering a story doesn't in any way change anything ABOUT the story. It's yet another iteration of Pogo's Law, i.e. changing an inconvenient subject to an irrelevant one.

Here is CNN sort of admitting they blew it, with a more detailed and less one sided story.


Nathan Phillips, Nick Sandmann encounter: a viral video shows a different side - CNN

Your link doesn't say anything about "blowing it", literally or figuratively. It fills in more background/context. The original story, the video, is unchanged and unaffected by the context. And I don't see anywhere CNN characterized anybody in a value judgment.

So again, still nothing. Week two.

 

[Faun]

View attachment 242081

CNN Producer Admits He Was “Waiting” Outside Roger Stone’s House an Hour Before Arrest

InfoWars????

 

[ThisIsMe]

President Trump on Friday spoke out against the FBI’s phony Russian collusion witch hunt, and questioned how CNN knew to be at the home of his former campaign adviser Roger Stone as he was ambushed in a pre-dawn raid of his Florida home.
‘Who alerted CNN to be there?’: Trump Questions FBI Raid of Roger Stone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we know the left are savages, idiots know better than to find truth they prefer bs CNN lies lol..

WHO GIVES A SHIT??

I see a pattern.

• Heckler comes in to harass Sean Spicer accusing racism in college --- Spicer's Sycophants cry "sue the Associated Press for reporting it!"

• Smirk-Boi gets his picture taken staring down a Native American drummer --- Knuckledraggers be like, "sue the media (get that? 'sue the media' -- not the AP not the NYT etc .... the entire "media") for reporting that a video was going viral!!

• Roger Stone gets arrested in FBI raid ---- Rumpbots just want to know how CNN found out.

ANYTHING to avoid addressing the issue.

The fact is that heckler DID harass Sean Spicer (that's on video too), Smirk-Boi DID stare down Nathan Philips (ditto), Roger Stone DID get busted in an FBI raid. But let's pile on the messengers, because that's what you do when you don't like what the news is.

It would seem the Rumpbot/Knuckledragger agenda when something goes not-their-way is to start whining about the fact that somebody told us all about it, rather than addressing what actually happened.

Dont know anything about the Spicer incident, but in the covington incident, it was justified to sue the media outlets who covered this story because the started defaming this kid before they knew the whole story.

I'm going to presume "the started defaming this kid..." is supposed to read, "they started defaming this kid...". If that's true, the question is (still) simple ---- show us any evidence of this "defaming". Post it here.

That challenge has been out there for a week and has had zero responses.

Now I ask you, how much can someone have been "defamed" if an open challenge to cite any evidence of it goes unanswered, by anyone, for a week? Apparently whoever set out to do this defaming did a piss-poor job of it since nobody can remember it happening.

Here's what actually is happening: a political partisan-hack mythology is being passed around like a joint, fueled by prima donna attorneys and partisan-hack blogs, imagining "libel". As with so many partisan-hack mythologies, repeating the same canard enough times draws the uncurious unsentient to conclude "well it must be true" without ever stopping to examine why it would be. That's exactly why I posed the question --- a week ago. And got literally zero answers.

The Sean Spicer story is this: Spicer was doing a book signing somewhere when some guy walked in and called out loudly, (paraphrasing) "hey remember me? You tried to fight me in college. You called me a ******". This was all captured on video and a local news site posted the video, after which the Associated Press picked up their story and passed it on. And Spicer's attorney's reaction was not to take issue with the heckler's charge; rather it was to puff his chest and declare he was going to "sue" the AP for reporting the story.

That's the reference. In both cases the game is trying to suppress the story getting out, rather than addressing the issue head-on. The energy is directed not to refuting the story but to intimidate the media so as to make sure the public doesn't find out about it.

Then, when the evidence showed the kid didn't do anything wrong, they continued to push the false story and continued to tell lies about this kid.

Again ---- *WHAT* *IS* this "false story"?

It's a video. Unless they're doctored, a video cannot be "false". A video is a visual record of events that happened in the world of reality. That's why it's used for security cameras. And sports replays/reviews. And police stops. A video cannot tell a "false story". The "evidence" --- the video --- *DOES* show the kid standing directly in front of Philips' nose, smirking, for several minutes. There can be no debate about that. It's recorded.

Kennedy Assassination theorists can agree and disagree on why JFK's head goes back and to the left --- but nobody can disagree that it DOES go back and to the left. It's on film.

As a result, this kid, his family, and friends have received death threats, the school has received a bomb threat.

That would be a result of those making death/bomb threats. What, are they not responsible? Are they some kind of android robots, helplessly controlled by whatever "the media" says, even if there's no evidence it said it?

And the reason for the rail against CNN is, people want to know just how they knew to be outside where he was going to be arrested on that exact day and time.

Who knows? Who cares? Reporters have all kinds of ways to find out things; do we question every story on the basis of "yabbut how did you know to cover this?"?

HOW does it affect the story itself? Does it somehow get Stone off the hook?

See what I mean? CNN or anybody else covering a story doesn't in any way change anything ABOUT the story. It's yet another iteration of Pogo's Law, i.e. changing an inconvenient subject to an irrelevant one.

Here is CNN sort of admitting they blew it, with a more detailed and less one sided story.


Nathan Phillips, Nick Sandmann encounter: a viral video shows a different side - CNN

Your link doesn't say anything about "blowing it", literally or figuratively. It fills in more background/context. The original story, the video, is unchanged and unaffected by the context. And I don't see anywhere CNN characterized anybody in a value judgment.

So again, still nothing. Week two.

The defaming was, they looked at a 30 second clip that didnt show the whole context, and the MSM ran with it, even there is a full 2 hour video out there that shows exactly what happened, and in light of THAT video, the left still kept on running with their original story.

They chose to ignore the facts, and push their version of the story. This has been damaging to the kids and the school.

 

[Pogo]

WHO GIVES A SHIT??

I see a pattern.

• Heckler comes in to harass Sean Spicer accusing racism in college --- Spicer's Sycophants cry "sue the Associated Press for reporting it!"

• Smirk-Boi gets his picture taken staring down a Native American drummer --- Knuckledraggers be like, "sue the media (get that? 'sue the media' -- not the AP not the NYT etc .... the entire "media") for reporting that a video was going viral!!

• Roger Stone gets arrested in FBI raid ---- Rumpbots just want to know how CNN found out.

ANYTHING to avoid addressing the issue.

The fact is that heckler DID harass Sean Spicer (that's on video too), Smirk-Boi DID stare down Nathan Philips (ditto), Roger Stone DID get busted in an FBI raid. But let's pile on the messengers, because that's what you do when you don't like what the news is.

It would seem the Rumpbot/Knuckledragger agenda when something goes not-their-way is to start whining about the fact that somebody told us all about it, rather than addressing what actually happened.

Dont know anything about the Spicer incident, but in the covington incident, it was justified to sue the media outlets who covered this story because the started defaming this kid before they knew the whole story.

I'm going to presume "the started defaming this kid..." is supposed to read, "they started defaming this kid...". If that's true, the question is (still) simple ---- show us any evidence of this "defaming". Post it here.

That challenge has been out there for a week and has had zero responses.

Now I ask you, how much can someone have been "defamed" if an open challenge to cite any evidence of it goes unanswered, by anyone, for a week? Apparently whoever set out to do this defaming did a piss-poor job of it since nobody can remember it happening.

Here's what actually is happening: a political partisan-hack mythology is being passed around like a joint, fueled by prima donna attorneys and partisan-hack blogs, imagining "libel". As with so many partisan-hack mythologies, repeating the same canard enough times draws the uncurious unsentient to conclude "well it must be true" without ever stopping to examine why it would be. That's exactly why I posed the question --- a week ago. And got literally zero answers.

The Sean Spicer story is this: Spicer was doing a book signing somewhere when some guy walked in and called out loudly, (paraphrasing) "hey remember me? You tried to fight me in college. You called me a ******". This was all captured on video and a local news site posted the video, after which the Associated Press picked up their story and passed it on. And Spicer's attorney's reaction was not to take issue with the heckler's charge; rather it was to puff his chest and declare he was going to "sue" the AP for reporting the story.

That's the reference. In both cases the game is trying to suppress the story getting out, rather than addressing the issue head-on. The energy is directed not to refuting the story but to intimidate the media so as to make sure the public doesn't find out about it.

Then, when the evidence showed the kid didn't do anything wrong, they continued to push the false story and continued to tell lies about this kid.

Again ---- *WHAT* *IS* this "false story"?

It's a video. Unless they're doctored, a video cannot be "false". A video is a visual record of events that happened in the world of reality. That's why it's used for security cameras. And sports replays/reviews. And police stops. A video cannot tell a "false story". The "evidence" --- the video --- *DOES* show the kid standing directly in front of Philips' nose, smirking, for several minutes. There can be no debate about that. It's recorded.

Kennedy Assassination theorists can agree and disagree on why JFK's head goes back and to the left --- but nobody can disagree that it DOES go back and to the left. It's on film.

As a result, this kid, his family, and friends have received death threats, the school has received a bomb threat.

That would be a result of those making death/bomb threats. What, are they not responsible? Are they some kind of android robots, helplessly controlled by whatever "the media" says, even if there's no evidence it said it?

And the reason for the rail against CNN is, people want to know just how they knew to be outside where he was going to be arrested on that exact day and time.

Who knows? Who cares? Reporters have all kinds of ways to find out things; do we question every story on the basis of "yabbut how did you know to cover this?"?

HOW does it affect the story itself? Does it somehow get Stone off the hook?

See what I mean? CNN or anybody else covering a story doesn't in any way change anything ABOUT the story. It's yet another iteration of Pogo's Law, i.e. changing an inconvenient subject to an irrelevant one.

Here is CNN sort of admitting they blew it, with a more detailed and less one sided story.


Nathan Phillips, Nick Sandmann encounter: a viral video shows a different side - CNN

Your link doesn't say anything about "blowing it", literally or figuratively. It fills in more background/context. The original story, the video, is unchanged and unaffected by the context. And I don't see anywhere CNN characterized anybody in a value judgment.

So again, still nothing. Week two.

The defaming was, they looked at a 30 second clip that didnt show the whole context, and the MSM ran with it, even there is a full 2 hour video out there that shows exactly what happened, and in light of THAT video, the left still kept on running with their original story.

They chose to ignore the facts, and push their version of the story. This has been damaging to the kids and the school.

Once AGAIN, for the 46th time and the eighth day now ------ what exactly *IS* this "version of the story" that is a simple video?

Are there "versions" of videos now?

Those "full 2 hour" videos are not the story. They never were. Whether one views two hours or the two crucial minutes, changes nothing.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Just one more example of the link between Herr Mueller and the left wing media circus.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Dont know anything about the Spicer incident, but in the covington incident, it was justified to sue the media outlets who covered this story because the started defaming this kid before they knew the whole story.

I'm going to presume "the started defaming this kid..." is supposed to read, "they started defaming this kid...". If that's true, the question is (still) simple ---- show us any evidence of this "defaming". Post it here.

That challenge has been out there for a week and has had zero responses.

Now I ask you, how much can someone have been "defamed" if an open challenge to cite any evidence of it goes unanswered, by anyone, for a week? Apparently whoever set out to do this defaming did a piss-poor job of it since nobody can remember it happening.

Here's what actually is happening: a political partisan-hack mythology is being passed around like a joint, fueled by prima donna attorneys and partisan-hack blogs, imagining "libel". As with so many partisan-hack mythologies, repeating the same canard enough times draws the uncurious unsentient to conclude "well it must be true" without ever stopping to examine why it would be. That's exactly why I posed the question --- a week ago. And got literally zero answers.

The Sean Spicer story is this: Spicer was doing a book signing somewhere when some guy walked in and called out loudly, (paraphrasing) "hey remember me? You tried to fight me in college. You called me a ******". This was all captured on video and a local news site posted the video, after which the Associated Press picked up their story and passed it on. And Spicer's attorney's reaction was not to take issue with the heckler's charge; rather it was to puff his chest and declare he was going to "sue" the AP for reporting the story.

That's the reference. In both cases the game is trying to suppress the story getting out, rather than addressing the issue head-on. The energy is directed not to refuting the story but to intimidate the media so as to make sure the public doesn't find out about it.

Then, when the evidence showed the kid didn't do anything wrong, they continued to push the false story and continued to tell lies about this kid.

Again ---- *WHAT* *IS* this "false story"?

It's a video. Unless they're doctored, a video cannot be "false". A video is a visual record of events that happened in the world of reality. That's why it's used for security cameras. And sports replays/reviews. And police stops. A video cannot tell a "false story". The "evidence" --- the video --- *DOES* show the kid standing directly in front of Philips' nose, smirking, for several minutes. There can be no debate about that. It's recorded.

Kennedy Assassination theorists can agree and disagree on why JFK's head goes back and to the left --- but nobody can disagree that it DOES go back and to the left. It's on film.

As a result, this kid, his family, and friends have received death threats, the school has received a bomb threat.

That would be a result of those making death/bomb threats. What, are they not responsible? Are they some kind of android robots, helplessly controlled by whatever "the media" says, even if there's no evidence it said it?

And the reason for the rail against CNN is, people want to know just how they knew to be outside where he was going to be arrested on that exact day and time.

Who knows? Who cares? Reporters have all kinds of ways to find out things; do we question every story on the basis of "yabbut how did you know to cover this?"?

HOW does it affect the story itself? Does it somehow get Stone off the hook?

See what I mean? CNN or anybody else covering a story doesn't in any way change anything ABOUT the story. It's yet another iteration of Pogo's Law, i.e. changing an inconvenient subject to an irrelevant one.

Here is CNN sort of admitting they blew it, with a more detailed and less one sided story.


Nathan Phillips, Nick Sandmann encounter: a viral video shows a different side - CNN

Your link doesn't say anything about "blowing it", literally or figuratively. It fills in more background/context. The original story, the video, is unchanged and unaffected by the context. And I don't see anywhere CNN characterized anybody in a value judgment.

So again, still nothing. Week two.

The defaming was, they looked at a 30 second clip that didnt show the whole context, and the MSM ran with it, even there is a full 2 hour video out there that shows exactly what happened, and in light of THAT video, the left still kept on running with their original story.

They chose to ignore the facts, and push their version of the story. This has been damaging to the kids and the school.

Once AGAIN, for the 46th time and the eighth day now ------ what exactly *IS* this "version of the story" that is a simple video?

Are there "versions" of videos now?

Those "full 2 hour" videos are not the story. They never were. Whether one views two hours or the two crucial minutes, changes nothing.

It changes everything. The full video shows the context of what happened. The MSM came out and said that the kids were harassingPhillip's, and they showed the smirking face of the kid and the left said, "look at this maga hat racist messing with this native American Vietnam war veteran"

Well, after viewing the whole video, we learned that the kids were actually the ones under attack by the black Israelites while waiting for a bus. They decided to gather to drown out the shouts from those hurling racist comments toward them, and it was Phillip's who approached THEM.

That is the truth, but it doesnt matter to the left, they ignore the truth and still run with the original narrative.

 

[Pogo]

I'm going to presume "the started defaming this kid..." is supposed to read, "they started defaming this kid...". If that's true, the question is (still) simple ---- show us any evidence of this "defaming". Post it here.

That challenge has been out there for a week and has had zero responses.

Now I ask you, how much can someone have been "defamed" if an open challenge to cite any evidence of it goes unanswered, by anyone, for a week? Apparently whoever set out to do this defaming did a piss-poor job of it since nobody can remember it happening.

Here's what actually is happening: a political partisan-hack mythology is being passed around like a joint, fueled by prima donna attorneys and partisan-hack blogs, imagining "libel". As with so many partisan-hack mythologies, repeating the same canard enough times draws the uncurious unsentient to conclude "well it must be true" without ever stopping to examine why it would be. That's exactly why I posed the question --- a week ago. And got literally zero answers.

The Sean Spicer story is this: Spicer was doing a book signing somewhere when some guy walked in and called out loudly, (paraphrasing) "hey remember me? You tried to fight me in college. You called me a ******". This was all captured on video and a local news site posted the video, after which the Associated Press picked up their story and passed it on. And Spicer's attorney's reaction was not to take issue with the heckler's charge; rather it was to puff his chest and declare he was going to "sue" the AP for reporting the story.

That's the reference. In both cases the game is trying to suppress the story getting out, rather than addressing the issue head-on. The energy is directed not to refuting the story but to intimidate the media so as to make sure the public doesn't find out about it.



Again ---- *WHAT* *IS* this "false story"?

It's a video. Unless they're doctored, a video cannot be "false". A video is a visual record of events that happened in the world of reality. That's why it's used for security cameras. And sports replays/reviews. And police stops. A video cannot tell a "false story". The "evidence" --- the video --- *DOES* show the kid standing directly in front of Philips' nose, smirking, for several minutes. There can be no debate about that. It's recorded.

Kennedy Assassination theorists can agree and disagree on why JFK's head goes back and to the left --- but nobody can disagree that it DOES go back and to the left. It's on film.


That would be a result of those making death/bomb threats. What, are they not responsible? Are they some kind of android robots, helplessly controlled by whatever "the media" says, even if there's no evidence it said it?



Who knows? Who cares? Reporters have all kinds of ways to find out things; do we question every story on the basis of "yabbut how did you know to cover this?"?

HOW does it affect the story itself? Does it somehow get Stone off the hook?

See what I mean? CNN or anybody else covering a story doesn't in any way change anything ABOUT the story. It's yet another iteration of Pogo's Law, i.e. changing an inconvenient subject to an irrelevant one.

Here is CNN sort of admitting they blew it, with a more detailed and less one sided story.


Nathan Phillips, Nick Sandmann encounter: a viral video shows a different side - CNN

Your link doesn't say anything about "blowing it", literally or figuratively. It fills in more background/context. The original story, the video, is unchanged and unaffected by the context. And I don't see anywhere CNN characterized anybody in a value judgment.

So again, still nothing. Week two.

The defaming was, they looked at a 30 second clip that didnt show the whole context, and the MSM ran with it, even there is a full 2 hour video out there that shows exactly what happened, and in light of THAT video, the left still kept on running with their original story.

They chose to ignore the facts, and push their version of the story. This has been damaging to the kids and the school.

Once AGAIN, for the 46th time and the eighth day now ------ what exactly *IS* this "version of the story" that is a simple video?

Are there "versions" of videos now?

Those "full 2 hour" videos are not the story. They never were. Whether one views two hours or the two crucial minutes, changes nothing.

It changes everything. The full video shows the context of what happened. The MSM came out and said that the kids were harassingPhillip's [sic],

Oh did it now. And where did it say this?

Link?
Quote?
Screenshot?

Same question. Nine days. No answers.

What part of "show me" is flying over your head here?

and they showed the smirking face of the kid and the left said, "look at this maga hat racist messing with this native American Vietnam war veteran"

Uh.................... "the left said"? Thought we were talking about "duh media". Where did "the left" come from?

Where is this "the left"? Where did they "say" that?
Again ---------- Link? Quote? Anything?

And where was this in "duh media"?

Well, after viewing the whole video, we learned that the kids were actually the ones under attack by the black Israelites while waiting for a bus. They decided to gather to drown out the shouts from those hurling racist comments toward them, and it was Phillip's [sic] who approached THEM.

That is the truth, but it doesnt matter to the left, they ignore the truth and still run with the original narrative.

It's also completely irrelevant.

Again, how did "the left" get into what was supposed to be you explaining how there's a libel case against "duh media"?
Are you unable to follow the point?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Here is CNN sort of admitting they blew it, with a more detailed and less one sided story.


Nathan Phillips, Nick Sandmann encounter: a viral video shows a different side - CNN

Your link doesn't say anything about "blowing it", literally or figuratively. It fills in more background/context. The original story, the video, is unchanged and unaffected by the context. And I don't see anywhere CNN characterized anybody in a value judgment.

So again, still nothing. Week two.

The defaming was, they looked at a 30 second clip that didnt show the whole context, and the MSM ran with it, even there is a full 2 hour video out there that shows exactly what happened, and in light of THAT video, the left still kept on running with their original story.

They chose to ignore the facts, and push their version of the story. This has been damaging to the kids and the school.

Once AGAIN, for the 46th time and the eighth day now ------ what exactly *IS* this "version of the story" that is a simple video?

Are there "versions" of videos now?

Those "full 2 hour" videos are not the story. They never were. Whether one views two hours or the two crucial minutes, changes nothing.

It changes everything. The full video shows the context of what happened. The MSM came out and said that the kids were harassingPhillip's [sic],

Oh did it now. And where did it say this?

Link?
Quote?
Screenshot?

Same question. Nine days. No answers.

What part of "show me" is flying over your head here?

and they showed the smirking face of the kid and the left said, "look at this maga hat racist messing with this native American Vietnam war veteran"

Uh.................... "the left said"? Thought we were talking about "duh media". Where did "the left" come from?

Where is this "the left"? Where did they "say" that?
Again ---------- Link? Quote? Anything?

And where was this in "duh media"?

Well, after viewing the whole video, we learned that the kids were actually the ones under attack by the black Israelites while waiting for a bus. They decided to gather to drown out the shouts from those hurling racist comments toward them, and it was Phillip's [sic] who approached THEM.

That is the truth, but it doesnt matter to the left, they ignore the truth and still run with the original narrative.

It's also completely irrelevant.

Again, how did "the left" get into what was supposed to be you explaining how there's a libel case against "duh media"?
Are you unable to follow the point?

So, I'm sure you've been keeping up with this issue the last few weeks. You should know by now what I'm talking about. The news reports are all over the place.

When I say the kids were the ones who were being unfairly treated, I mean by both the left wing media and most of the people here on usmb that are left wing as well.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/19/us...der-trnd/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

How the Media Exposed Its Own Bias in Covington Kids Fiasco

Media Shamelessly Frame Covington Kids for Scorn and Abuse

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ative-american-elder-indigenous-peoples-march

My point is, various media outlets ran with the story before they knew all of the facts, and many of the left wing talk shows on radio kept running with that narrative, even when the facts came out