Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   WaPo fact checker gives three "Pinocchios" to the doctored Benghazi emails claim. Proving once and for all that we cannot trust a single soul within a 50 mile radius of D.C   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, District of Columbia, Benghazi, fact checking, Capitol Hill Republicans, Benghazi emails, emails, Washington Post, ABC White House  
•       •       •

10929 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2013 at 10:22 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



423 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-22 05:57:26 PM  

mithras_angel: vygramul: skozlaw: vygramul: And that's why the Post endorsed Obama.

Although increasingly rare in America, it's still possible to be right-leaning and intelligent.

You had to be either pretty damn stupid or obscenely rich to endorse anyone but Obama in the last election.

The Post hadn't ever endorsed a presidential candidate before. They could have followed tradition.

They also consistently overwhelmingly endorse democrats for local office.

They are liberal. Not even close.


I really rather hope that someone else has replied to this, with actual data, but...

Endorsements:
In 2000, the Post endorsed the Republican governor of Maryland, Robert Ehrlich.  In 2006, the Post endorsed ~every~ Republican encumbant in northern Virginia.  They also endorsed Obama in both elections, but given his opposition, that's not surprising.  (The Post has had issues with McCain in the past, so not supporting him was no real surprise.)

Editorially:
The Post supported W's invasion of Iraq, was supportive of his attempts to privatize Social Security, and opposed withdrawl timetables for Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Post also supports various free trade efforts commonly supported by Republicans.

WaPo correspondents have been, in the past, internally ordered to stop criticism of Republicans.


Even current and former members of the editorial boards of the WaPo have admitted that the paper has moved a lot further to the right then it was 40 years ago.  They put that shift down to the right leaning nature of the Washington Times.


-----

Personally, I view many of their editorials as centrist to right leaning.  And I also find their fact checking to be pretty crap, at best, but then I also find Politifact to be pretty crap, as well.  Both are more concerned with splitting hairs than actually coming out and saying something was a lie or the truth.


You should read the thread. Because cherry-picking a few conservative moves only highlights how the Post didn't do that in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012, where most, if not all, endorsements were of Democrats.

That the paper moved right isn't the question. The question is whether it is right-of-center. So far, there have been three editorial positions pointed out that were right-wing. I posted more that were left-wing, and not trivially so.
 
2013-05-22 06:17:51 PM  
Halli,

Are you serious?  A reporter misquotes a summary of emails (and by his and other's admission they were summaries) and somehow Republicans "doctored the emails?"  That is some weapons grade bull shiat right there.  Like I said, I fully agree the reporter should have disclosed his reporting was based on summaries of emails, not "quotes," but I hardly see how that is anyone's fault or problem than the reporter himself.

Doctoring?  No, not hardly.  Misrepresenting a source, yup, guilty of at least that much.
 
2013-05-22 06:23:32 PM  

skozlaw: This is a prime example of why being a waffling, spineless twit is never a good policy. His refusal to just call the republicans out for their hypocrisy and their insistence on standing on dead bodies to try and get a boost in the next election has allowed them to just run rampant and control the narrative and, as usual, they've completely poisoned the whole story with lies.

Diplomats die in dangerous regions. This is not a special occurrence under Obama anymore than it was under W. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter or most, if not all, other past presidents. Should have just said that in the first place and scolded them publicly for trying to clamor over the bodies for political gain.

But nooooooo. Mr. High Road has to continue to pretend that the republicans have been acting or will continue to act like anything other than ridiculous children.

Enjoy your own Whitewater witch hunt, Obama. This isn't ever going to end now.


Do you honestly think that if Obama grew a pair and shamed the Republicans on this it would go away?
 
2013-05-22 06:45:40 PM  

coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Actually the funding thing is a complete BS lie made up by Democrats to score political points against Republicans.  Top state department officials are on record saying funding wasn't an issue.  If you wanna make Republicans look bad, just wait they generally do a good enough job on their own, there isn't any need to stoop to their level and just make up random crap.

So you're arguing that more embassy funding wouldn't help or that the embassy funding was cut by the GOP?  I am arguing the former whereas you think I am arguing the latter.... BUT I NEVER F*CKING SAID ANYTHING SPECIFIC REGARDING IT... SO STOP MAKING UP RANDOM CRAP.

Right there in bold in your own words.  That statement is completely false.  The morons in charge of the embassy security agency were not properly allocating resources and were too busy getting in bureaucratic slap fights w/ the CIA  as per the Pickering report and testimony from top level state department officials.

I guess I'll just ...


No you just lie again


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/are-budget-cuts-to-b l ame-for-benghazi-attack-as-biden-suggested.html

"In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, "Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?"Lamb responded, "No, sir."Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats."

So either the budget had no impact or there is verifiable proof that Hillary Clinton hires complete morons and shouldn't be trusted to run even a Dairy Queen.
 
2013-05-22 07:06:16 PM  

ShadowKamui: coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Actually the funding thing is a complete BS lie made up by Democrats to score political points against Republicans.  Top state department officials are on record saying funding wasn't an issue.  If you wanna make Republicans look bad, just wait they generally do a good enough job on their own, there isn't any need to stoop to their level and just make up random crap.

So you're arguing that more embassy funding wouldn't help or that the embassy funding was cut by the GOP?  I am arguing the former whereas you think I am arguing the latter.... BUT I NEVER F*CKING SAID ANYTHING SPECIFIC REGARDING IT... SO STOP MAKING UP RANDOM CRAP.

Right there in bold in your own words.  That statement is completely false.  The morons in charge of the embassy security agency were not properly allocating resources and were too busy getting in bureaucratic slap fights w/ the CIA  as per the Pickering report and testimony from top level state department officials.

I guess I'll just ...

No you just lie again


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/are-budget-cuts-to-b l ame-for-benghazi-attack-as-biden-suggested.html

"In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, "Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?"Lamb responded, "No, sir."Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats."

So either the budget had no impact or there is verifiable proof that Hillary Clinton hires complete morons and shouldn't be trusted to run even a Dairy Queen.


Way to choose an article that is older than mine. Way to f*ck up you incompetent clown.
 
2013-05-22 07:19:07 PM  
coeyagi:
You really need to let go of the idea Americans died because Republicans cut funding for embassy security. The truth of that has been out for some time. It's all smoke and mirrors and partisan bullshiat.

It sounds just as bad as the people who say Obama is responsible for those deaths. It's derpy to the max.

Just some friendly advice.

Embassy security fact check
 
2013-05-22 07:21:41 PM  

Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.

Remember, everyone, "acts of terror" is NOTHING AT ALL like "terrorist attack", and because he said the former and not the latter Obama is hiding his personal involvement in killing those 4 people with his Muslim Brotherhood.

And according to Phinn, not knowing every single thing Obama was doing during the incident means that he personally told everyone to stand down and gleefully watched from a cloaked drone as the attack played out, jerking his dick and making walrus sounds of bliss at how much he's destroying America.

I don't know why it is necessary to take that down such an extreme path. Obama hiding his personal involvement in killing people, Muslim brotherhood and such. I have never claimed anything of the sort. Is that how you do this, make stuff up, claim I said it and therefore you are right?

Hmm.

If you want to talk about the difference between what Obama said about acts of terror vs. calling it a terrorist attack it's not comfortable ground for you. He said the U.S. would stand up to acts of terror. That same day, ask specifically if it was a terrorist attack, he declined to say so. His administration then went full-pedal with the spontaneous demonstration, youtube video stuff, so obviously a terrorist attack was not his story.


Hey, if you two are going to insist on saying stupid crap, then I will too to highlight your stupidity. Especially when you have been explained, pointed out, and educated for the last 8 months and continue to say the exact same things and ask the exact same questions in every single thread. Either you have worse memory problems than Dory or you're deliberately being obtuse for the sake of trolling.

I also like how you think that we should be told absolutely everything about an ongoing investigation no matter how confidential it is or whether or not it would jeopardize the investigation, and if we're not when we're being horribly lied to and everyone in the government needs to be impeached.
 
2013-05-22 07:26:37 PM  

andersoncouncil42: skozlaw: This is a prime example of why being a waffling, spineless twit is never a good policy. His refusal to just call the republicans out for their hypocrisy and their insistence on standing on dead bodies to try and get a boost in the next election has allowed them to just run rampant and control the narrative and, as usual, they've completely poisoned the whole story with lies.

Diplomats die in dangerous regions. This is not a special occurrence under Obama anymore than it was under W. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter or most, if not all, other past presidents. Should have just said that in the first place and scolded them publicly for trying to clamor over the bodies for political gain.

But nooooooo. Mr. High Road has to continue to pretend that the republicans have been acting or will continue to act like anything other than ridiculous children.

Enjoy your own Whitewater witch hunt, Obama. This isn't ever going to end now.

Do you honestly think that if Obama grew a pair and shamed the Republicans on this it would go away?


If he "grew a pair" and fought back they'd get even louder and more determined. "Look at Obama, he's actively denying it, that means he's ultra-guilty!".

They attack him for putting mustard on his hamburgers and doing the exact same things other presidents have done many times throughout America's existence. Telling them to shut up isn't going to make them suddenly stop and crawl away.
 
2013-05-22 07:33:32 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.

Remember, everyone, "acts of terror" is NOTHING AT ALL like "terrorist attack", and because he said the former and not the latter Obama is hiding his personal involvement in killing those 4 people with his Muslim Brotherhood.

And according to Phinn, not knowing every single thing Obama was doing during the incident means that he personally told everyone to stand down and gleefully watched from a cloaked drone as the attack played out, jerking his dick and making walrus sounds of bliss at how much he's destroying America.

I don't know why it is necessary to take that down such an extreme path. Obama hiding his personal involvement in killing people, Muslim brotherhood and such. I have never claimed anything of the sort. Is that how you do this, make stuff up, claim I said it and therefore you are right?

Hmm.

If you want to talk about the difference between what Obama said about acts of terror vs. calling it a terrorist attack it's not comfortable ground for you. He said the U.S. would stand up to acts of terror. That same day, ask specifically if it was a terrorist attack, he declined to say so. His administration then went full-pedal with the spontaneous demonstration, youtube video stuff, so obviously a terrorist attack was not his story.

Hey, if you two are going to insist on saying stupid crap, then I will too to highlight your stupidity. Especially when you have been explained, pointed out, and educated for the last 8 months and continue to say the exact same things and ask the exact same questions in every single thread. Either you have worse memory problems than Dory or you're deliberately being obtuse for the sake of trolling.

I also like how you think that we should be told absolutely everything about an ongoing investigation no matter how confidential it is or whether or not it would jeopardize the investigation, and if we're not when we're being horribly lied to and everyone in the government needs to be impeached.


I've been "explained, pointed out and educated" on the lengths some people will go to make things fit the way they want them to be.

Facts have a liberal bias. Ha. Some liberals have their own facts. Like claiming I said somebody needs to be impeached. Never said that. Never.

You see what you did? You went right down that hole the act of terror vs. terrorist attack dug.

Here's how your case falls apart.

1. Obama called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12.
2. Rice said it was a spontaneous demonstration gone bad Sept. 16.
3. People said WTF?
4. You say Rice couldn't say it was a terrorist attack because it would jeopardize an ongoing investigation.
5. Return to point 1.
6. Obama jeopardized an ongoing investigation.

That's your logic, not mine. That's you accusing Obama of doing something wrong, not me.
 
2013-05-22 07:39:39 PM  

Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: Keizer_Ghidorah: Cletus C.: You know, the fact you reached that conclusion helps me to understand how you might believe the president called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden.

Remember, everyone, "acts of terror" is NOTHING AT ALL like "terrorist attack", and because he said the former and not the latter Obama is hiding his personal involvement in killing those 4 people with his Muslim Brotherhood.

And according to Phinn, not knowing every single thing Obama was doing during the incident means that he personally told everyone to stand down and gleefully watched from a cloaked drone as the attack played out, jerking his dick and making walrus sounds of bliss at how much he's destroying America.

I don't know why it is necessary to take that down such an extreme path. Obama hiding his personal involvement in killing people, Muslim brotherhood and such. I have never claimed anything of the sort. Is that how you do this, make stuff up, claim I said it and therefore you are right?

Hmm.

If you want to talk about the difference between what Obama said about acts of terror vs. calling it a terrorist attack it's not comfortable ground for you. He said the U.S. would stand up to acts of terror. That same day, ask specifically if it was a terrorist attack, he declined to say so. His administration then went full-pedal with the spontaneous demonstration, youtube video stuff, so obviously a terrorist attack was not his story.

Hey, if you two are going to insist on saying stupid crap, then I will too to highlight your stupidity. Especially when you have been explained, pointed out, and educated for the last 8 months and continue to say the exact same things and ask the exact same questions in every single thread. Either you have worse memory problems than Dory or you're deliberately being obtuse for the sake of trolling.

I also like how you think that we should be told absolutely everything about an ongoing investigation no matter ...

You have been in many Benghazi threads telling us how Obama is guilty and he could of sent in the military and that he didn't do anything and the talking points were wrong.
 
2013-05-22 07:44:57 PM  

coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: Cletus C.: cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C is a guy who's mad that the investigators on a murder case didn't immediately rule out their primary suspect when CNN reported something else.

I don't know why you felt the need to post that. coeyagi: Cletus C. is determined to win the game Musical Benghazi Chicken against all the other tinfoilers.  The game is like Musical Chairs, but you have to put your penis in the chicken when you win.

Sorry, but I'm good. I raise questions, point out weirdness, diversions, lies and assorted other b.s. when it comes to Benghazi. I do so in a civil way. Some of you are so deeply partisan you feel the need to attack me personally. It's OK. I can take it.

You don't point out anything that is relevant to the real f*cking scandal, you liar: that there was a shortfall in embassy funding.  WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THE TALKING POINTS?

Morons, degenerates, retards, imbeciles, hicks, GOPers, Red Staters, cousin-f*ckers, you, but I repeat myself.

Actually the funding thing is a complete BS lie made up by Democrats to score political points against Republicans.  Top state department officials are on record saying funding wasn't an issue.  If you wanna make Republicans look bad, just wait they generally do a good enough job on their own, there isn't any need to stoop to their level and just make up random crap.

So you're arguing that more embassy funding wouldn't help or that the embassy funding was cut by the GOP?  I am arguing the former whereas you think I am arguing the latter.... BUT I NEVER F*CKING SAID ANYTHING SPECIFIC REGARDING IT... SO STOP MAKING UP RANDOM CRAP.

Right there in bold in your own words.  That statement is completely false.  The morons in charge of the embassy security agency were not properly allocating resources and were too busy getting in bureaucratic slap fights w/ the CIA  as per the Pickering report and testimony from top level state department officia ...


The article I linked to had sworn testimony from State Department officials, stating that funding didn't play a role.  Even the article you linked said they screwed up and mis-allocated the budget they had (they just want more money hence the sensational headline).  Perhaps if you we're such a partisan douche bag you might RTFA that you linked to rather than just the headline.
 
2013-05-22 07:45:44 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: You have been in many Benghazi threads telling us 1. how Obama is guilty and he 2. could of sent in the military and that 3. he didn't do anything and the 4. talking points were wrong.


1. Wrong
2. Wrong
3. Wrong
4. Correct

One out of four.
 
2013-05-22 08:00:02 PM  

jpo2269: Halli,

Are you serious?  A reporter misquotes a summary of emails (and by his and other's admission they were summaries) and somehow Republicans "doctored the emails?"  That is some weapons grade bull shiat right there.  Like I said, I fully agree the reporter should have disclosed his reporting was based on summaries of emails, not "quotes," but I hardly see how that is anyone's fault or problem than the reporter himself.

Doctoring?  No, not hardly.  Misrepresenting a source, yup, guilty of at least that much.


He presented them as quotes and said that he had obtained the emails. Someone fed him the bs version so it sure looks like doctoring. Especially when said doctoring changes the meaning of emails and inserts thing into them that were never there.
 
2013-05-22 09:07:19 PM  
Halli,

"Karl over the weekend tweeted, "I sincerely regret the error I made describing an email from Ben Rhodes. I should have stated, as I did elsewhere, the reporting was based on a summary provided by a source. I apologize for my mistake." He declined to comment further."

It appears you are wrong in your assertion.
 
2013-05-22 09:12:38 PM  

jpo2269: Halli,

"Karl over the weekend tweeted, "I sincerely regret the error I made describing an email from Ben Rhodes. I should have stated, as I did elsewhere, the reporting was based on a summary provided by a source. I apologize for my mistake." He declined to comment further."

It appears you are wrong in your assertion.


So the guy who made erronous report makes a lame excuse and we should just buy it? Especially when it completely contradicts his previous reporting?
 
2013-05-22 09:29:02 PM  

jpo2269: Halli,

Are you serious?  A reporter misquotes a summary of emails (and by his and other's admission they were summaries) and somehow Republicans "doctored the emails?"  That is some weapons grade bull shiat right there.  Like I said, I fully agree the reporter should have disclosed his reporting was based on summaries of emails, not "quotes," but I hardly see how that is anyone's fault or problem than the reporter himself.

Doctoring?  No, not hardly.  Misrepresenting a source, yup, guilty of at least that much.


Summaries which things were added.  That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
 
2013-05-22 09:44:30 PM  

Cletus C.: I've been "explained, pointed out and educated" on the lengths some people will go to make things fit the way they want them to be.

Facts have a liberal bias. Ha. Some liberals have their own facts. Like claiming I said somebody needs to be impeached. Never said that. Never.

You see what you did? You went right down that hole the act of terror vs. terrorist attack dug.

Here's how your case falls apart.

1. Obama called it a terrorist attack Sept. 12.


Yes.

2. Rice said it was a spontaneous demonstration gone bad Sept. 16.

It was still early in the investigation where both possibilities were likely. She also stated what the CIA wanted her to. Considering that it was eventually discovered that the video did play a part in the attack both Rice and Obama were correct.

3. People said WTF?

Some people can't seem to understand that continually-incoming information can change the direction of an investigation and that it's entirely possible and feasible to change one's mind based on the evidence.

4. You say Rice couldn't say it was a terrorist attack because it would jeopardize an ongoing investigation.

I didn't say that. Read what I said above. They didn't want to discuss every single little detail about the incident and investigation with the press because it's a really stupid thing to do, especially when you're still trying to find those responsible.

5. Return to point 1.

You can call something a terrorist attack and not specifically say who was responsible and that you're on their trail, not if you want to actually catch them.

6. Obama jeopardized an ongoing investigation.

No he didn't.

That's your logic, not mine. That's you accusing Obama of doing something wrong, not me.

I never accused him of doing anything wrong regarding Benghazi. You're the one who took different things and strung them together to say I said something.
 
2013-05-22 10:41:30 PM  
Halli,

Seems Glen Kessler is satisfied with Jon Karl's explanation, seems to have done some investigation as well.  I think I'll side with him as opposed to some anonymous internet poster who has not shown one shred of proof to support his "doctored" claim.
 
2013-05-23 04:05:56 AM  

jpo2269: Halli,

Seems Glen Kessler is satisfied with Jon Karl's explanation, seems to have done some investigation as well.  I think I'll side with him as opposed to some anonymous internet poster who has not shown one shred of proof to support his "doctored" claim.


I see you couldn't answer any of the point I put foward in my last posts so it's apeal to authority time. How does a summary add so much partisan bs? Also something that Kessler glossed over.
 
2013-05-23 09:22:08 AM  
As explained in TFA it was a summary of an email conversation, not a transcription of a single email. Kessler does point out that the summary does accurately reflect the nature of the discussion being had at the time.

Look you can try to play games all you want, but the White House charge that "republicans doctored an email" is simply false.
 
2013-05-23 10:57:44 AM  

jpo2269: As explained in TFA it was a summary of an email conversation, not a transcription of a single email. Kessler does point out that the summary does accurately reflect the nature of the discussion being had at the time.


As explained Jon Karl did not say it was a summary and said summary inserted things that weren't actually said.

jpo2269: Look you can try to play games all you want, but the White House charge that "republicans doctored an email" is simply false.


I'm not the one playing games here.
 
2013-05-23 05:29:18 PM  
Halli,

I have already accepted your assertion that Jon Karl should have identified his source as a "summary" and he very well should have, even Jon Karl accepts that he should have-thus the tweeted "apology."  As for your assertion that there were things in the summary that "were not said," that too has been looked at and debunked in fairly plain English.  The summary was of the email conversation, not of one single email, hence using the term "summary," as opposed to "transcription," which no one has claimed is what was shown to Jon Karl.

If you care to point out exactly what was incorrect in the summary that was not part of the email conversation it was referring to, please by all means share with us, or if you have visuals of the "doctored" email, I am sure there are more than a few people that would love to see that as well.
 
2013-05-23 05:54:41 PM  

jpo2269: I have already accepted your assertion that Jon Karl should have identified his source as a "summary" and he very well should have, even Jon Karl accepts that he should have-thus the tweeted "apology." As for your assertion that there were things in the summary that "were not said," that too has been looked at and debunked in fairly plain English. The summary was of the email conversation, not of one single email, hence using the term "summary," as opposed to "transcription," which no one has claimed is what was shown to Jon Karl.


That's odd because that conversation played out different than the summary did with the added quotes.

jpo2269: If you care to point out exactly what was incorrect in the summary that was not part of the email conversation it was referring to, please by all means share with us, or if you have visuals of the "doctored" email, I am sure there are more than a few people that would love to see that as well.


Oh good impossible burden of proof. Especially since Karl won't share his sources. Although CBS did tell it was from Republicans. So no wonder you are so ardently defending this.
 
Displayed 23 of 423 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report