| TheWPCTraveler said: 9/10 good concept, subpar execution |
I get that, but realistically the fact he was willing to take question later showed even more the arrogance of CNN.
LBJ is supposed to have used the same tactic of outright fabricated BS smear against his opponent:
"Christ, Lyndon, we can't call the guy a pigfucker. It isn't true."
To which LBJ supposedly replied "Of course it ain't true, but I want to make the son-of-a-bitch deny it."
When you're facing that level of BS attack, even DENYing the story is giving credence and legitimacy to the BS.
Although when everybody already knew/thought Trump was a sleaze-ball, what is the point of pee hooker stories?
How could that possibly work as "Russian blackmail" when it doesn't actually clash with his public persona at all?
Of course, that is why dossier wasn't originally published, because indirect reference to it is more convincing than reality.
| bunchanumbers said: The funny thing is that the dossier has been around for a long time. It was just that CNN were the first to finally bring it up. They ended up eating the sandwich. |
It was actually Buzzfeed which outed the dossier, CNN just suddenly decided to go along with the story...
Despite the dossier having long been known, including by CNN, but not reported on because it was clearly BS.
(I mean, there's loads of basic facts wrong, claims of people in places they never were, 4chan pee hoaxes, etc)
In all honesty, the actual release of the dossier at this point was not IMHO a planned act vs Trump.
It was Buzzfeed going gonzo for clicks. When it was released it was almost instantly debunked left and right.
When it was not released, it was being used as the basis for "government intelligence sources say..." stories.
The stories tended to use weasel words to not actually lie, because they don't need to, implication works fine.
Which ironically, people gave more credence to than the actual report which can be factually assessed.
Naieve people read "intelligence sources say..." and give it credence,
ignoring that "intelligence agencies" being in possession of dossier doesn't imply any reliability at all,
not in the case of election opposition-financed smear reports, not in the case of Iraqi Yellow Cake stories.
Because intelligence agencies being in possession of BS doesn't make the BS any truer.
We now know the dossier was NOT a state secret, it was widely circulated in media,
yet the "intelligence sources say..." stories played along by keeping it secret while basing stories off it.
CNN now grand-stands that it is valid story to report on, yet did NOT report on dossier earlier because
that would have introduced objectively verifiable means of assessing "intelligence sources say..." stories.
The CIA etc sources for the stories could have publicly clarified the non-secret basis of the stories, but didn't.
Likewise, no MSM story ever detailed claims of actual "Russian hacking of election" i.e subversion of vote...
But because phrases like that were thrown around like candy by MSM in editorial context,
we have polls showing 1/2 of Hillary voters believe that Russia literally hacked the election results.
The whole Russia thing is a joke, there is no Manchurian Candidate scenario
when Trump publicly stated his policy re: productive relationship to Russia during the campaign.
People knew that was what was on offer, and that is what they voted for, that is policy that won election.
Hillary Clinton remains the only one with proven corrupt ties to foreign governments which she tried to cover up.
Hillary was backed by most of Republican establishment, i.e. the "establishment consensus" lost. Deal with it.
