9 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

Bolton was there for the discussion. 
 

 

"I didn't hear that," Bolton told The New York Times. "I'm not saying he didn't say them later in the day or another time, but I was there for that discussion."
 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/515132-john-bolton-says-he-didnt-hear-trump-insult-fallen-soldiers-in-france

A bit late to the party, aren't we.

There used to be a time in the not too distant past when journalistic ethics would require evidence/proof/substantiation for such claims and/or the people to go on record as making such claims. 
 

I see that’s gone out the window now. 
 

4 people can get together and claim someone said something without providing a shred of evidence, a speck of substantiation, and do it anonymously... that’s not journalism - that’s gossip. 
 

Obvious this was a coordinated hit piece.  

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A bit late to the party, aren't we.

Sorry, I don’t live on here 24/7 like you guys. 
 

Did anyone find any substantiation to the claims yet? Or nah. 
 

 

2 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

There used to be a time in the not too distant past when journalistic ethics would require evidence/proof/substantiation for such claims and/or the people to go on record as making such claims. 
 

I see that’s gone out the window now. 
 

4 people can get together and claim someone said something without providing a shred of evidence, a speck of substantiation, and do it anonymously... that’s not journalism - that’s gossip. 
 

Obvious this was a coordinated hit piece.  

Not true.   Credible news sources do fact check the information.  They do not have to reveal their sources, but the sources have to be credible and they do check with anyone that can support the claim.   In this case, it was 4 people who were there.   

If you remember, during Watergate, the source was Deep Throat.   He was deemed credible, but his identity was never disclosed.

 

5 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

Sorry, I don’t live on here 24/7 like you guys. 
 

Did anyone find any substantiation to the claims yet? Or nah. 
 

 

I just click on 'go to first new post', so see when links are given already to avoid posting the same twice.

 

The claims on hand are very credible.

2 minutes ago, Credo said:

Not true.   Credible news sources do fact check the information.  They do not have to reveal their sources, but the sources have to be credible and they do check with anyone that can support the claim.   In this case, it was 4 people who were there.   

If you remember, during Watergate, the source was Deep Throat.   He was deemed credible, but his identity was never disclosed.

You can’t “fact check” an unsubstantiated claim. Which is why in my very first post in this thread I called out that it was “the Atlantic” (a leftwing rag) that published it, not anyone else. 

10 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

Sorry, I don’t live on here 24/7 like you guys. 
 

Did anyone find any substantiation to the claims yet? Or nah.

Nah , still gossip from Democratic hens with no credible sources.  Funny how this appears 2 years after it supposedly occurred.  Were they building up their courage?  Any Americans with a brain know what is going on with liberal media.  For the gossip hens, all that is missing is a row of hair dryers.  LOL

Saw a tweet from Ted Roosevelt V mentioning his great grandfather, Theodore Roosevelt Jr, and his (Jr.'s) brother Quentin, both buried at Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial.

 

Quentin was 20 years old, died in 1918.

 

Theodore Jr. was 56 years old, died in 1944.

 

 

Bob Woodward's book is due in a week or so. Suspect that one will tip trump over the edge.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I just click on 'go to first new post', so see when links are given already to avoid posting the same twice.

 

The claims on hand are very credible.

How can they be credible when nobody has provided any supporting evidence and no one has the nuts to put their face to the claims. 
 

Nevermind all the people who were present who have come out and that it was never said. People who did put their faces to their claims. 
 

People can invoke McCain if they like, Trump and McCain had a long history that predates his presidency by many years and is in no way proof that trump called troops “suckers” and “losers” 

2 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

You can’t “fact check” an unsubstantiated claim. Which is why in my very first post in this thread I called out that it was “the Atlantic” (a leftwing rag) that published it, not anyone else. 

They check the credibility of those making the claim.   For example, were they there?  Did anyone else either hear or see what happened?   The author also has the names of the sources as does his editor.   They will check as much information surrounding the event as possible.   

In this case, you have 4 well-placed individuals who heard it.   

 

Given how trump pro-actively attacked John Kelly today, one has to assume the trump-Kelly graveside comments were accurate and truthful, and that Kelly is one of the four+ sources for this article.

 

Disgruntled, or gruntled, former employee?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The two men were set to visit Section 60, the 14-acre area of the cemetery that is the burial ground for those killed in America’s most recent wars. Kelly’s son Robert is buried in Section 60. A first lieutenant in the Marine Corps, Robert Kelly was killed in 2010 in Afghanistan. He was 29. Trump was meant, on this visit, to join John Kelly in paying respects at his son’s grave, and to comfort the families of other fallen service members.

 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a33925085/donald-trump-atlantic-goldberg-john-kelly-arlington/

 

 

2 minutes ago, Credo said:

They check the credibility of those making the claim.   For example, were they there?  Did anyone else either hear or see what happened?   The author also has the names of the sources as does his editor.   They will check as much information surrounding the event as possible.   

In this case, you have 4 well-placed individuals who heard it.   

*Claim* to have heard it. That’s the point. No too long ago this kind of trash wouldn’t even be a thing because it can’t pass journalistic muster yet here we are. 
 

4 anonymous haters claim he said it, yet by last count 10 or 11 real people who were there said he didn’t. 
 

Clearly the anonymous people with zero evidence should be the ones to be believed ????

5 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

*Claim* to have heard it. That’s the point. No too long ago this kind of trash wouldn’t even be a thing because it can’t pass journalistic muster yet here we are. 
 

4 anonymous haters claim he said it, yet by last count 10 or 11 real people who were there said he didn’t. 
 

Clearly the anonymous people with zero evidence should be the ones to be believed ????

beating a dead horse

5 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Given how trump pro-actively attacked John Kelly today, one has to assume the trump-Kelly graveside comments were accurate and truthful, and that Kelly is one of the four+ sources for this article.

well, trump knows john kelly!  didn't do a good job, had no temperament.

petered out, totally exhausted, unable to function.  doesn't know it was

him, but he was unable to handle the pressure...

 

in other words.......a loser.

12 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

*Claim* to have heard it. That’s the point. No too long ago this kind of trash wouldn’t even be a thing because it can’t pass journalistic muster yet here we are. 
 

4 anonymous haters claim he said it, yet by last count 10 or 11 real people who were there said he didn’t. 
 

Clearly the anonymous people with zero evidence should be the ones to be believed ????

'Not too long ago this wouldn't be a thing.' Very true, until a president with more than 5000 proven lies a year came along. Anonymous people are now much more believable than your president.

2 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

well, trump knows john kelly!  didn't do a good job, had no temperament.

petered out, totally exhausted, unable to function.  doesn't know it was

him, but he was unable to handle the pressure...

 

in other words.......a loser.

Hmmm......

Just now, Mama Noodle said:

There used to be a time in the not too distant past when journalistic ethics would require evidence/proof/substantiation for such claims and/or the people to go on record as making such claims. 
 

I see that’s gone out the window now. 

 

Latest  - It has been confirmed by multiple news agencies, doing their own research after the story broke .... wait for it ....  Including FOX NEWS!. You can count on FOX news to bury this as best they can, or ignore it, or explain it away with the best deflectors they have in their arsenal Frankly there is nothing surprising about this at all, and that is so freaking sad. 

 

However I recommend Cubs & Cardinals, Friday Night baseball, Good way to start your Saturday, here in Thailand.

 

Aloha

9 minutes ago, LomSak27 said:

 

Latest  - It has been confirmed by multiple news agencies, doing their own research after the story broke .... wait for it ....  Including FOX NEWS!. You can count on FOX news to bury this as best they can, or ignore it, or explain it away with the best deflectors they have in their arsenal Frankly there is nothing surprising about this at all, and that is so freaking sad. 

 

However I recommend Cubs & Cardinals, Friday Night baseball, Good way to start your Saturday, here in Thailand.

 

Aloha

 

well, that's those liberals at fox!

and you know what trump thinks of fox news...

 

Trump Says, ‘Fox Is Terrible!’ After Poll Shows Biden Surge

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/19/trump-says-fox-is-terrible-after-poll-shows-biden-surge/#7b0e179f5dcd

13 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

I don’t think any rational person believes he said any of that, and people who were there with trump have all denied he said it. 
 

There’s something to be said about “the Atlantic” being the one to publish this as well. It can easily be implied that CNN NYT MSNBC etc all got the same info but didn’t publish because it doesn’t meet editorial standards. 
 

And lastly, anonymous sources, as per usual. 
 

But par for the course. The election is 2 months away and they need to get the media off of Biden being constantly retarded. 

Anonymous sources can be quite compelling evidence.  If several anonymous sources make the same allegation separately over a period of time without any significant relationship with each other or evidence of them working closely together, then it can lead to the conclusion that they are speaking the truth.  

I can quote instances when police officers who used specific methods and tactics during questioning became the subject of a complaint that was investigated but unsubstantiated.  If other suspects, who do not know or have connections with each other, at later times then make similar complaints then it tends to prove the substance of the original complaint.

One particular case was the suspect handcuffed to a chair and left in an office; Spiderman then burst from a cupboard and beat him up.  Of course this was the subject of a complaint that was not looked at with any great credulity.  The problem is when the police repeat the same tactic; how come the suspects, who do not know each other, all claim to have been beaten up by Spiderman?

7 hours ago, Meat Pie 47 said:

You want me to ad more?

Re The number of Trump's lies;

No need.  Trump will do it for you.

*Deleted post edited out*

 

You do realize that trump "publishes" unverified and unproven dog poo" hourly in his Twitter feed, and in person using his own voice?

 

Your boast is a bold strategy sir. Deflection 101, professor gvies you a C-.

 

"A lot of people are saying..."

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Tug said:

end the humiliation and vote him out come November when they can frog march that abomination out of the White House 

And straight into jail. "Lock him up!" "Lock him up!

1 hour ago, Mama Noodle said:

There used to be a time in the not too distant past when journalistic ethics would require evidence/proof/substantiation for such claims and/or the people to go on record as making such claims. 
 

I see that’s gone out the window now. 
 

4 people can get together and claim someone said something without providing a shred of evidence, a speck of substantiation, and do it anonymously... that’s not journalism - that’s gossip. 
 

Obvious this was a coordinated hit piece.  

I can see you're concerned about these latest revelations and you should be.  This is Trump's "Swift Boat"....to use a GOP jargon.  It doesn't matter who the source is because it's entirely believable.  These allegations will cost Trump a big chunk of his military coalition, no doubt.  My condolences. 

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

I can see you're concerned about these latest revelations and you should be.  This is Trump's "Swift Boat"....to use a GOP jargon.  It doesn't matter who the source is because it's entirely believable.  These allegations will cost Trump a big chunk of his military coalition, no doubt.  My condolences. 

Out of all the hit pieces and hoaxes and lies over the past almost 4 years and you think this is gonna damage the guy? 
 

My issue is with journalism. The country is extremely divided, and in my view it has a lot to do with the press doing things like this. 

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

It doesn't matter who the source is because it's entirely believable. 

It doesn't matter if it's true or not because it's a brilliant excuse to smear and bash President Trump. A few haters assuming and presuming Trump did something is good enough to do nothing for 3 years but play out a divisive impeachment proceeding. Facts have no importance when defaming and attacking the President, seems like double standards, but what do I know.

Well I believe the chosen one, how could he possibly lie? ????

15 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

Out of all the hit pieces and hoaxes and lies over the past almost 4 years and you think this is gonna damage the guy? 

 

This isn't about "damaging the guy", and the fact you feel that way says much about you.

 

This is about reporting the news, and letting the public know about the character of the president.

 

Don't get all defensive and make this to be something less, or more, than it is.

 

 

 

For the record, the White House talks to the press anonymously. All the time. Every day.

 

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

"A lot of people are saying..."

Everybody says....

 

9 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

It doesn't matter if it's true or not

 

The last defense.

 

No where to go from here. 

 

OK, maybe....

 

FAKE NEWS!!!

 

 

11 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Facts have no importance when defaming and attacking the President, seems like double standards, but what do I know.

 

How soon they forget.

 

A double-standard would be attacking President Obama, then feeling offended when someone attacks president trump.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

This isn't about "damaging the guy", and the fact you feel that way says much about you.

Oh but it is exactly that. Within hours of it being published Joe Biden had high production value political ads running on social media and was in front of crowds, maskless, talking about it and major leftwing politicians doing the same. 
 

It was a coordinated hit piece. Nothing more.