Go on their website right now and tell me which stories were “just made up.”
This Trumpist “Fake news” thing is pathetic. No, ABC is not fake news. Neither is CNN, or NBC. It’s real news (so is Fox, actually, though even more slanted in editorial outlook than they are) and it’s just too bad if the real news is unpleasant for your political views.
Trump is a terrible President and he’s embarrassing his country; the evidence is there. Deal with it, snowflake.
While I agree with you, I think you are pissing in the wind here. Rush Limbaugh et al have been indoctrinating the faithful for decades to believe that the traditional mainstream news sources are all lies. This has become a DNA-level part of their world-view. The only sources they believe are Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge and the like.
Uh, guys? You’ve fallen for the hand-waving to distract from the real issues, again.
I was not talking about stories on their web site right now. I was talking about the lie they published that Comey told his associates that in his testimony he is going to contradict Trump about the “three times” that he told Trump that he was not under investigation.
That story was completely, utterly false. The question is, did the “anonymous sources” lie to ABC or did ABC make it up? I lean toward ABC making it up.
Maybe Comey did say that. How the fuck would you know? Comey is very tricky.
Right, it wasn’t “completely, utterly false.” ABC said that sources told them that Comey was going to deny it, meaning they were reporting on A) a prediction about the future, based on B) something somebody told them. You’ve conveniently left out a 3rd option, that Comey changed his mind based on some nuance of that conversations that we’re not privy to, and that both ABC’s sources and ABC themselves were being 100% truthful and fact based in their reporting; that is, ABC was indeed told that Comey was going to dispute Trump’s claims by reputable sources. It’s simply not possibly to report on future events with 100% certainty.
…
That’s true. We should question those who told ABC that Comey was going to deny it and ask them how they got it wrong. Who were they again? 
Trump and Fox are indeed very good at the Wookie Defense, aren’t they?
and he did, in fact, dispute Trump’s statements (that he was not under any investigation) by being very specific as to the context of the 3 statements he made to Trump .
a) not under investigation related to the dossier (at that time)
b) that if Trump ordered an investigation into X, that he wouldn’t be able to say he was ‘not under investigation of X’
c) (cant recall the third one) -
Trump keeps calling it a blanket statement - Comey was very specific - therefore Comey DID dispute Trump’s version of the statements.
What incredible bullshit. From Comey’s testimony:
First time (has nothing to do with dossier).
“In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.”
Second time:
I replied that he should give that careful thought because it might create a narrative that we were investigating him personally, which we weren’t, and because it was very difficult to prove a negative.
Third time:
I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating **and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. **I reminded him I had previously told him that.
If Comey’s honest, then Trump is a liar – Trump said he didn’t ask him for loyalty, and didn’t ask him to end the Flynn investigations, and Comey said he did.
If Comey’s a liar, then Comey’s testimony doesn’t vindicate Trump at all, since it’s the testimony from a liar.
When it comes to events that could benefit Trump he has incredible flexibility as to what’s true or not. He’s getting his followers on board the flexible ethics train as they see him getting away w/ it so often.
3 different contexts - very narrow answers - Trump takes as global answers - IF you read Comey’s full letter, you would understand this.
THis does not mean that they were investigating trump in any fashion or not - just that Comey was being very specific in his answers while Trump was taking it as a global answer. THere is a difference - one you clearly don’t get.
Do clarify - how can the statement “we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump” be interpreted as “not a global answer”?
Do you see any difference at all between the statements
“I am not under investigation.”
“I am not personally being investigated?”
If you can parse the difference, then you have answered your own question.
If you cannot, well, then there is simply nothing that will convince you otherwise, and you will continue to carry buckets of urine for trump.
No. I do not. Do explain how the two are different. How can one be investigated, but not “personally”? What is an “impersonal” investigation exactly?
Try to understand this one, then: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”
Perhaps you need to read the rest of the statement
[QUOTE='I need loyalty, I expect loyalty' — read James Comey’s explosive statement about Donald Trump]
I explained that we had briefed the leadership of Congress on exactly which individuals we were investigating and that we had told those Congressional leaders that we were not personally investigating President Trump. I reminded him I had previously told him that. He repeatedly told me, “We need to get that fact out.” (I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change.)
[/QUOTE]
<bolding mine>
the bolding says that if, in the future, there WILL be an investigation of Trump, then Comey would have to tell the Congress. If that is so, he should have told Trump that, Trump would have told him “that’s fine, I don’t care, make it public now that there is no investigation” and that would have been that. There was nothing that prevented Comey from following Trump’s instruction. He didn’t. So he got fired.
How does that help your contention that Comey did not say that Trump was not under investigation?