John Kelly Refutes That Trump Called Soldiers Losers

[Kemp]

18 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

A reporter uses an anonymous source to confirm a story from anonymous sources, and you're just stupid enough to accept that because it tells you what you want to hear?

 

Really?

 

No one will ever accuse you of being an original thinker, this much we know to be true.

 

 

They only like Bolton when he tells them what they want to hear.

 

When he completely blows up this story, suddenly he's not reliable to the left.

 

Stupid should hurt.

 

Looking forward to Trump suing Fox reporter. He always sues. However, if he sues, he is screwed. So, he won't. 

 

Pretty ironic for Trump supporters to have issues with anonymous sources, when many of them believe in Q.

Edited September 6, 2020 by Kemp

[Kemp]

4 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

Looking forward to Trump suing Fox reporter. He always sues. However, if he sues, he is screwed. So, he won't. 

 

Upping the ante.

 

https://deadline.com/2020/09/president-trump-calls-for-firing-fox-news-correspondent-jennifer-griffin-for-confirming-atlantic-story-1234571464/

Edited September 6, 2020 by Kemp

[DFT]

2 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Upping the ante.

 

https://deadline.com/2020/09/president-trump-calls-for-firing-fox-news-correspondent-jennifer-griffin-for-confirming-atlantic-story-1234571464/

Her article:  “Griffin cited two anonymous former “senior” U.S. officials in her reporting, saying they confirmed “key parts” of The Atlantic‘s story. However, she added that the sources could not confirm “the most salacious” part.“
 

the President’s concern:  “Jennifer Griffin of Fox News Did Not Confirm ‘Most Salacious‘ Part of Atlantic Story https://breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/04/jennifer-griffin-of-fox-news-did-not-confirm-most-salacious-part-of-atlantic-story/… via @BreitbartNews All refuted by many witnesses. Jennifer Griffin should be fired for this kind of reporting. Never even called us for comment. @FoxNews is gone!”

 

so my question is, why if your sources are unimpeachable, would you not ask the group the story is about?  Why would you not present the facts to the person to hear their side?  Why would anyone have an issue with a sitting president speaking about the dangers of unsubstantiated claims?  You have posts on this very forum where posters have accused you of such that you refer to them as baseless, yet you yourself are firing off at the president for doing what you’ve demonstrably done yourself; Accuse liars who can’t produce evidence, of lying.  
 

help me understand, Kemp.

[Kemp]

4 minutes ago, DFT said:

Her article:  “Griffin cited two anonymous former “senior” U.S. officials in her reporting, saying they confirmed “key parts” of The Atlantic‘s story. However, she added that the sources could not confirm “the most salacious” part.“
 

the President’s concern:  “Jennifer Griffin of Fox News Did Not Confirm ‘Most Salacious‘ Part of Atlantic Story https://breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/04/jennifer-griffin-of-fox-news-did-not-confirm-most-salacious-part-of-atlantic-story/… via @BreitbartNews All refuted by many witnesses. Jennifer Griffin should be fired for this kind of reporting. Never even called us for comment. @FoxNews is gone!”

 

so my question is, why if your sources are unimpeachable, would you not ask the group the story is about?  Why would you not present the facts to the person to hear their side?  Why would anyone have an issue with a sitting president speaking about the dangers of unsubstantiated claims?  You have posts on this very forum where posters have accused you of such that you refer to them as baseless, yet you yourself are firing off at the president for doing what you’ve demonstrably done yourself; Accuse liars who can’t produce evidence, of lying.  
 

help me understand, Kemp.

 

Sure. The President is a pathological liar. How many lies does he have to be caught in before you can figure that out?

Edited September 6, 2020 by Kemp

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

 

Sure. The President is a pathological liar. How many lies does he have to be caught in before you can figure that out?

But the media, they’re honest brokers. Especially the ones who pushed RUSSIA for three years without pause....   

[BillStime]

 

[Q-baby!]

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

 

Trump needs to be fired! 

[ALF]

Jennifer Griffin Defends Reporting & “Unimpeachable” Sources After President Ordered Fox News Fire Her

 

“I can tell you that my sources are unimpeachable,” Griffen told Cavuto. “I feel very confident in what we have reported at Fox.”

 

Griffin also stood by the credibility of her sources, noting that they are not anonymous to her and that she doubts “they are anonymous to the president,” as well. She went on to explain that people have been reluctant to step forward and speak about the President, after seeing how he “destroyed” people who have crossed him and how he has “weaponized” Twitter.

 

https://deadline.com/2020/09/president-trump-calls-for-firing-fox-news-correspondent-jennifer-griffin-for-confirming-atlantic-story-1234571464/

[B-Man]

Trump came to Dover after my wife was killed fighting ISIS. He absolutely respects our service.

NBC News, by Joe Kent , Gold Star Husband & Retired Army Officer

 

Original Article

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

16 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Trump came to Dover after my wife was killed fighting ISIS. He absolutely respects our service.

NBC News, by Joe Kent , Gold Star Husband & Retired Army Officer

 

Original Article

 

 

 

 

...ABSOLUTELY....how many Reaganesque billions has he spent rebuilding the military?......the same military that the Clintonite's "woefully failed cardboard cut out prop job" ignored for EIGHT years?....Trump is NYC groomed brash, irascible, coarse, insulting, gruff et al, who certainly needs to STFU and be Twitterless at times.....battle cries for "need a Washington outsider" were answered, sending BOTH SIDES of the good 'ol boyz network reeling.....needed the upheaval for YEARS.....look at the attempts of fraudulent candidates who avowed to be THE "outsider in demand" only to be entrenched political insiders on both sides?...yup MAGA is a ruse......The Trumpster could care less about the USA, wanted the Presidency for free digs at 1600 Pennsylvania, whopping $400 grand a year, multiple book deals and his very own Library......um...er....well...oh...uh...ok....got it.....SMH.....

Edited September 6, 2020 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[GG]

Realistically, Trump said something about losers and suckers and military in France.  But it's doubtful that he used them in the context that Atlantic reported.   

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, ALF said:

Jennifer Griffin Defends Reporting & “Unimpeachable” Sources After President Ordered Fox News Fire Her

 

“I can tell you that my sources are unimpeachable,” Griffen told Cavuto. “I feel very confident in what we have reported at Fox.”

 

Griffin also stood by the credibility of her sources, noting that they are not anonymous to her and that she doubts “they are anonymous to the president,” as well. She went on to explain that people have been reluctant to step forward and speak about the President, after seeing how he “destroyed” people who have crossed him and how he has “weaponized” Twitter.

 

https://deadline.com/2020/09/president-trump-calls-for-firing-fox-news-correspondent-jennifer-griffin-for-confirming-atlantic-story-1234571464/

C'mon Alf, all you are doing is repeating unsubstantiated horseshit. 

 

Trump did not order Fox News to fire Griffin.

 

Griffin can stand by the credibility of her sources all she wants. If they choose to remain anonymous then their statements are worthless. 

 

All Griffin claimed was something Trump allegedly said about military personnel in the Vietnam War. She did not even attempt to back up the ridiculous charges that every news outlet (including Fox) have had on a ***** loop for the last few days. 

 

Your post above is as worthy as a typical BillSlime post. You're better than that, I think.

 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, GG said:

Realistically, Trump said something about losers and suckers and military in France.  But it's doubtful that he used them in the context that Atlantic reported.   

 

That is the most likely scenario.

[BillStime]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

One POTUS cares enough about the troops not to start new wars and to bring them home. The other voted repeatedly to send troops into endless war just to make himself more wealthy -- then when he's confronted about his decisions, he tries to hide behind the body of his dead son and compares his death (of cancer) to the death of soldiers on the battlefield he created. 

 

 

 

No Chance Joe is who everyone thinks he is: a bad guy.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[B-Man]

SHADES OF DAN RATHER IN JEFFREY GOLDBERG’S ANTI-TRUMP HIT PIECE

By Paul Mirengoff

 

Should we believe the story, reported by the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, that President Trump made disparaging comments about American soldiers who died in Normandy? I don’t. Trump has a very nasty side, but I doubt he made the nasty comments Goldberg’s attributes to him.

 

For one thing, it’s not Trump’s practice to disparage people who haven’t disparaged him. Sure, he expressed a lack of respect for John McCain’s war heroism. But that was because McCain was a political enemy. Trump has no beef with soldiers who died in Normandy many decades ago.

 

Moreover, John Bolton, who was present when Trump supposedly made his disparaging comments, says it didn’t happen. Bolton is not friend of the president. In fact, his memoir of his time at the White House paints a disparaging picture of Trump, and includes reports of statements that cast the president in a very negative light. The fact that Bolton has gone on the record defending Trump in this instance is telling.

 

It’s also telling that none of Goldberg’s sources has gone on the record. As Glenn Greenwald says:

Goldberg claims that “four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day” — whom the magazine refuses to name because they fear “angry tweets” — told him that Trump made these comments. Trump, as well as former aides who were present that day (including Sarah Huckabee Sanders and John Bolton), deny that the report is accurate.

So we have anonymous sources making claims on one side, and Trump and former aides (including Bolton, now a harsh Trump critic) insisting that the story is inaccurate.

Goldberg notes that media sources other than the Atlantic say they have “confirmed” Goldberg’s report. However, he adds that the “confirmation” appears to consist of some of Goldberg’s unnamed sources repeating the same story. This confirms that the sources said what Goldberg reports, but not that they are telling the truth about what Trump said (and that Bolton is not).

 

{snip}

 

Greenwald sees parallels between the “confirmation” of Goldberg’s report and that of CNN’s fake news story from December 2017 that during the 2016 campaign, claiming that Donald Trump Jr. received a September 4 email with a secret encryption key that gave him advanced access to WikiLeaks’ servers containing the DNC emails which were released to the public ten days later. CNN’s claim was false. It misreported the date of the “smoking gun” email Trump, Jr. received. That email wasn’t sent to him ten days prior to WikiLeaks’ public release. It was sent after the public release of the DNC emails.

 

Oops.

Like Goldberg’s hit piece, CNN’s bogus report was “confirmed” — in that case by MSNBC and CBS News. In both instances, anonymous sources whispered something to a media outlet hostile to Trump and the same anonymous sources, or their friends, whispered it to other outlets.

 

One of our readers, a distinguished conservative journalist, finds another, even more apt, parallel to Goldberg’s hit piece — Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” claim that President George W. Bush shirked his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War.

 

Rather’s story appeared at almost the exact same point in the campaign cycle as Goldberg’s — shortly after the Republican incumbent had an unexpectedly successful convention that produced a bounce. Both stories involve allege disparagement by the Republican incumbent of military service — Bush’s by deed, Trump’s by word.

 

There is one difference between the two hit pieces. Rather’s contained “evidence” — e.g. a typewritten memo — that enabled critics like Scott and John to debunk it. Goldberg’s is devoid of evidence other than the say-so of anonymous sources.

 

Can we say with certainty that Goldberg’s report is false? No. We can only say that, as in the case of Rather’s, there is no sound reason to believe it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GG]

2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

That is the most likely scenario.

I also don't buy the excuse that the anonymous sources are arrays to go *****.   If this was as true as reported, the source would be the country's biggest hero. 

 

Also, why didn't this story come out during the Ukraine saga?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, GG said:

I also don't buy the excuse that the anonymous sources are arrays to go *****.   If this was as true as reported, the source would be the country's biggest hero. 

 

Also, why didn't this story come out during the Ukraine saga?

 

It's Kavanaugh 2.0. They'll roll this out along with more over the next three weeks into October. 

[BillStime]