A serious discussion thread on the the comments made last night between our host and the president

Ok. So if a reporter has no idea what’s going on but suspects there may be more to the story, would it be responsible of the reporter to promote wild conspiracy theories?

Trump is Cool…

That’s up to the reporter. I haven’t said a word about this in months and months but a post was inaccurately made here describing the situation and I simply pointed out that this mystery has not yet been solved.

There is as much evidence of Trump being the grassy knoll shooter as there is supporting your crazy conspiracy theory.

If I kept dwelling on this, you may have a point but at this juncture, all I’ve stated is that case has not been solved. Now…if you know who the murderer is, speak up…if not…I’m correct?

And according to the logic you’ve used in this thread and elsewhere it would be irresponsible for the media to place blame without evidence

yes…anyone with any journalistic integrity would not place blame without evidence. So to get back to the OP it would not be prudent for any journalist to state on the record that a person said something, when there is no proof that said person did or did not.

Also why was he talking in private with Cohen so often. I thought he wasn’t his lawyer and that they only ever had occasional, brief conversations.

Let me set the record straight, here’s the truth: Michael Cohen never represented me in any legal matter," Hannity said at the close of his show. "I never retained his services. I never received an invoice. I never paid Michael Cohen for legal fees. I did have occasional, brief conversations with Michael Cohen, this great attorney, about legal questions I had.

And are we to believe then while Answering these legal questions that Mr. Cohen told Mr. Hannity that he took care of the president’s situation, and paid her off, and never told the President anything? Because that is the only explanation I can see. A question was asked. The answer included that I paid Ms. Daniels, and I never let the president know what I did. If so…What was the question.

These are the questions that I think the Committee will be asking our host. And for his sake, I hope he has good answers. I do not wish to see him get into this on that deep a level.

This is completely out of character from all the other posts you’ve given regarding ethics in reporting in this thread. You are trying to walk a tightrope here, and you are failing miserably.

1 Like

One of these things is not like the others. One of these things is not the same

I think you mean Ted Cruz’s father.

1 Like

The post you responded to accurately described the Seth Rich issue as a controversy. People were caught fabricating wild stories to sell to the sheeple, I mean conservative alternative media consumers.

Now consider a time-line. How long was the story of the Covington kids going before a conclusion was made? Answer…less than 24 hours. Have the questions regarding this been answered…yep. How long was Smollet’s story going before conclusions were drawn? Answer…less than 24 hours. Have the questions rearding this story been answered? Yep. The story of Seth Rich has been going on for coming up on 3 years… Have there been any conclusions made? Just those of the DC police force who have concluded it’s a botched robbery. Have all the questions been answered? No…and so other possibilities have been explored. Mr. Rich’s parent’s have objected and as far as I can tell, the media has honored that request.

If you still think the Clintons, or the DNC or proxies, might have had anything to do with the murder, you’re saying you just can’t cough up the right-wing bull ■■■■ you swallowed.

1 Like

Other possibilities have been fabricated.

The media (which is mostly a collection of right wing rabble rousers) honored their wishes after the lawsuits were threatened or filed.

Now consider the stories themselves. The Seth Rich conspiracy was based was entirely on fiction. Something you claim to be against yet strangely keep defending

Making stuff up is not exploring other possibilities. The DC police investigated the matter, Corsi did not.

Corsi conceded that “his allegations were not based upon any independent factual knowledge.”

Here’s why it matters.

If you believe “he may have a point”…

…you have stated on this thread that you trust Sean Hannity…

…yet Sean Hannity did spend several weeks publicly stating a hypothesis about Seth Rich that had zero evidence to support it, but most likely resonated with Mr. Hannity’s biases…

…yet I have not heard you holding Mr. Hannity to the same standards you hold journalists in media outlets whose bias you perceive to lean differently than Mr. Hannity’s.

Why haven’t you done so?

Why did you not state that Mr. Hannity should have avoided publicly saying these things until he had investigated it and found such factual support?

6 Likes

Fair enough. Would a responsible reporter attempt to link Clinton to the murder of Seth Rich?