05-22-2022, 03:53 PM
(05-21-2022, 08:33 PM)Dill Wrote: I probably won't get to your posts until tomorrow.
But a couple of questions here, at least:
1. Who determined there was "Russian disinformation" in the Steele Dossier, and how?
It's common knowledge to anyone who doesn't rely solely on CNN, MSNBC, and Rachel Maddow for their news. It's been slowly debunked over the past several years with the most recent shoe to drop being the arrest of Igor Danchenko in November. If you're sourcing the previous news agencies for your news, you probably don't know about him.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/12/1055030223/the-fbi-arrests-a-key-contributor-to-efforts-trying-to-link-trump-with-russia
Quote:2. Given the dossier's existence and circulation, should any news organization have reported on it?
Responsibly? Yes.
Responsible is hardly how it was reported on
|
|
|
\|/
Quote:3. When you speak of "obsessed and deranged media who lapped it up and regurgitate it because they hated Trump," I am not sure exactly what you mean and whom you are referring to. These are Hannity-style adjectives and attributions of motivation, not Maddow-style.
Are you saying or implying that reporters believed the dossier and reported it as factual finding, as opposed to reporting its existence and provenance, with precautions? "Media" here includes whom or what?
"Precautions"
Unless you include the 5 second disclaimer @ 6:40, there were absolutely zero "precautions" in this entire off-the-rails and looney conspiracy theory 12 minute and 27 second video of misinformation.
Maddow heavily implies that the Russians are blackmailing Trump, even going as far as to strongly suggest Obamas last second build up of troops to Europe is due directly Trump being compromised.
Maddow was obsessed with Trump and it's painfully obvious to anyone except her most ardent fans.
