I especially love this part:
Camerota asked Cormier of the “dubious past” of his co-author Jason Leopold who came under scrutiny for faulting reporting for Salon 2002 that led to an article getting removed. In 2006 he incorrectly reported that Karl Rove had been indicted.
Link: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/buzzfeednews-bombshell-reporter-no-we-have-not-seen-the-evidence-supporting-our-report/
(no message)
(no message)
That supports Trump
Nothings changed here.
SOmeone on the periphery of Mueller’s team is leaking.
I hope like hell its not true. All Americans should.
....and you were wrong for believing this without sources.
Remember, with the MSM these days, it's not likely to be true, regardless of how badly you want it to be true, when they use anonymous sources.
You always confidently assert the truth...as if you know.
You might note the large number of "ifs" sprinkled throughout my posts today.
And your one to talk about "always confidently asserting truth".
on CNN of all networks. Allison Camerota destroyed them with a few simple questions, yet you and others on this Board talked about impeaching Trump over it (not an exaggeration).
Just like the Cohen was in Prague story, this one was also debunked in the space of a day.
Wise up, or maybe you don't want to.
(no message)
BuzzFeed broke the suborning perjury story. And now Buzzfeed just went on CNN and said they've seen no evidence of their own story, and that one of the authors of it reported that Karl Rove had been indicted.
Holy cow, Frank. Really dense post on your part.
So why do you use them as a source that the guy hasn’t seen the evidence but has two sources backing it up?
Sounds kinda dumb......but then again it’s you.
(no message)
You are one weird bird.
Host Alisyn Camerota opened the interview by asking Cormier if he had seen the evidence to which Cormier replied: “No, I’ve not seen it personally.” He then clarified that “the folks we have talked to — two officials we have spoken to are fully, 100 percent read into that aspect of the Special Counsel’s investigation”
What is your interpretation of "read into"?
You just can’t help yourself from stepping in shit. The supposed debunking doesn’t debunk it. Neither does it prove it true. Why don’t we wait until someone a leetle bit more legit than buzz feed either confirms or refutes it?