DColeKC wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 5:14 pm
I’m sure CNN covered this during prime time viewing right? Surely this article that very few read wasn’t the only correction? The damage was done but good on them for offering more details on how and why they were spoofed.
I don't watch cable news, so I have no idea whether or how CNN covered it on air. I think if you take a step back for a moment, you will realize how silly it is to expect television news to take a break from reporting current events to provide an irrelevant update on something from six years ago. And given how you have completely misrepresented how the "mainstream media" covered the dossier in print, I suspect that CNN's on-air coverage at the time when it was relevant was also probably a little bit more nuanced than you suggest, so probably some grand mea culpa was never necessary in the first place.
As for what the Clinton campaign did. From the very article you shared.
“While Steele was passing his tips onto the FBI in fall 2016, a Clinton campaign lawyer separately met with a senior FBI official and gave him information about strange cyberactivity between servers at the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, the largest private bank in Russia.
The lawyer, Michael Sussmann, has since been charged with lying to the FBI during that meeting, for allegedly saying he wasn’t providing the dirt on behalf of any client, even though he ultimately billed that time to the Clinton campaign, and also billed them for other work he did on the server issue. Durham says Sussmann repeated this lie during a meeting with CIA officials in February 2017, where he told them about the server theory. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty.”
One of many examples.
You're having trouble keeping your eye on the ball here. We are talking about the Steele dossier. From the same article: "there’s no indication Sussmann knew about the dossier." I am not here to defend every little thing that the Clinton campaign or anybody connected to it did, but if you are going to whine that the campaign and the DNC went to "alarming" lengths to pass the dossier off "as truth," then I am curious what specific lengths those were. A lawyer from the campaign's law firm, apparently unaware of the dossier, independently passing on tips to the FBI doesn't really fit. If he lied to the FBI about his relationship with the Clinton campaign, does that look shady? Yes! But is it what we are talking about right now? No! And anyway, the allegation was that he lied about his client, not that he lied about the underlying information. If he believed in good faith (and maybe he didn't, but I would think Durham would have charged him for that if he could have) that a crime was being committed, do you think he should actually withhold that information from law enforcement? And for what reason, out of consideration for his client's political opponent?
And if your irony comments are specifically aimed at me. Acting “fast and loose” in a little forum as a private citizen isn’t comparable to how the media acted with the steel dossier. I’m not a journalist, lobbyist or anyone remotely important in the world of politics. I come here to get my kicks and annoy a few people while I’m at it. I’m not going to back up every opinion with references and sources. I owe no one that responsibility. I fully understand I’m talking to a bunch of people that will never agree with me publicly not because some of what I say isn’t right, but because you all have no humility and admitting your wrong about something literally isn’t in your capabilities. These conversations are fun for me. Except the ones with Link2, those are like talking to a 90 year old man with hard bearing.
The few people on here who do agree with me are smart enough to not get involved. I don’t blame them.
I am not comparing you to a media organization, I am alluding to the fraught relationship that the entire right-wing media ecosystem has with facts. To have a Republican on here who just a few pages ago was defending election deniers now complaining about the media spreading "bad information" is a little rich ("rich" as in a generic adjective, not Seth Rich, whom Fox News would have you believe was murdered by Hillary Clinton).