Fahrentold: Donald gave 1 Million $ to charity, run by FOX NEWS FBI source

[ApatheticAustrian]

The $1M gift that @realDonaldTrump gave to veterans in May, under media pressure, went to USMC charity run by Kallstrom.
https://twitter.com/Fahrenthold/status/794250714600112130?lang=de
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/11/02/kallstrom-people-should-be-mad-at-democrats.html


This gets toooo easy.

[elcorazon]

hmmm. the most Pay to Play I've heard about this year.

[Nym90]

Basically every single thing that Trump accuses Clinton of, he's done himself. It's the most obvious case of psychological projection I've ever seen.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

What a flaming hypocrite. FBI please indict.

[SirMuxALot]

Uh, Kallstrom last worked at the FBI in 1997.

There's zero chance he could be one of Baier's sources "within the FBI".

[ApatheticAustrian]

Uh, Kallstrom last worked at the FBI in 1997.

There's zero chance he could be one of Baier's sources "within the FBI".

don't know if you have read all of the articles but it is reasonable that contacts have contacts.

anyway, the connection is interesting for someone who literally never spends without reason.

[SirMuxALot]

don't know if you have read all of the articles but it is reasonable that contacts have contacts.

If you're reading articles, then you're getting second hand information instead of going directly to the source.  The person who is making the report is on television, Bret Baier.  He rarely writes articles.

His exact words on television, seen directly with my eyes and heard directly with my ears, were "sources within the FBI".

[ApatheticAustrian]

The person who is making the report is on television, Bret Baier. 

since THIS specific story ("likely indictment cause of c-foundation soon") is now debunked anyway, we can focus again on emails and the FBI civil war.

[SirMuxALot]

is now debunked anyway

I wave my magic wand and make an unsupported assertion of my own: I declare your debunking debunked.

Your turn.  What fun this is, huh?

[rafta_rafta]

is now debunked anyway

I wave my magic wand and make an unsupported assertion of my own: I declare your debunking debunked.

Your turn.  What fun this is, huh?

Brett Baier himself walked it back today on his show. FBI doesn't issue indictments, it does investigations. In this case there was inquiry based on the Breitbart editor's book but that never reallly transformed into an investigation. But apparently someone who knows the field agents leaked it to any reporter who cared to listen.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Your turn.  What fun this is, huh?

multiple sources have come forward and told reporters that the case has been too weak and the prosecutors turned it down.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-claims-evidence-fbis-clinton-foundation-probe-impressive/story?id=43282736

you can ofc believe whatever you want, since this WHOLE thing is just a collection of leaks but then selecting what to believe and what not becomes strictly partisan.

[SirMuxALot]

Brett Baier himself walked it back today on his show.

Well, you made me look.  Went back and watched the entire show again.

Of course,  there was no such walking back at all.  Nothing that could be remotely characterized as that.  And no claims (again) that the FBI investigators have the power to indict.  In fact, two new reporters (James Rosen, Catherine Herridge) today had additional sources and info backing up the original reporting.

But I won't claim I "debunked" anything, because it's tendentious and misleading.  I prefer more intellectually honest wording, like: There is certainly conflicting reporting on this issue at this point.  I give the Fox reporters some credit for at least doing the sort of digging old-school reporters used to do on politicians of both parties.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Well, you made me look.  Went back and watched the entire show again.

for good measure....additional...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/794350330620194816

[rafta_rafta]

Brett Baier himself walked it back today on his show.

Of course,  there was no such walking back at all.

In that case you need to watch it again. Two days Baier claimed that according to his sources an indictment was imminent in the foundation investigation. Trump supporters ran with it on twitter and multiple media outlets reported it.

In today's show, he walked back those words that an indictment was just around the corner. He complained that his story had been picked up by many outlets.

More sources have since confirmed that there was no active investigation of the Foundation. There was an initial inquiry which the field agents wanted to go with but the superiors at both FBI and DOJ thought it was weak sauce and stopped it at that. Apparently they recorded some informant but it turned out that the informant was not even from the Foundation and the it was not considered credible.

And there are now even more reports that made up documents were also examined and passed off as evidence on the inquiry

[SirMuxALot]

for good measure....additional...

Bret Baier is the one in the red dress?

I see, so Megyn Kelly has a guest on who speaks to a fine distinction between "investigation" and "inquiry" and that means Bret Baier walked it back?

[ApatheticAustrian]

for good measure....additional...

Bret Baier is the one in the red dress?

I see, so Megyn Kelly has a guest on who speaks to a fine distinction between "investigation" and "inquiry" and that means Bret Baier walked it back?

BB walked it back, but other fox sources also poured cold water on their misleading information.

but i won't blame fox...they may run with weaker anti-hillary stuff than other networks but they have had a source.

they just got used as part of the internal FBI conflict.

[SirMuxALot]

In that case you need to watch it again. Two days Baier claimed that according to his sources an indictment was imminent in the foundation investigation. Trump supporters ran with it on twitter and multiple media outlets reported it.

In today's show, he walked back those words that an indictment was just around the corner. He complained that his story had been picked up by many outlets.

More sources have since confirmed that there was no active investigation of the Foundation. There was an initial inquiry which the field agents wanted to go with but the superiors at both FBI and DOJ thought it was weak sauce and stopped it at that. Apparently they recorded some informant but it turned out that the informant was not even from the Foundation and the it was not considered credible.

And there are now even more reports that made up documents were also examined and passed off as evidence on the inquiry

So much misinformation within a single post.

You really need to actually go watch his show with your own eyes and ears instead of running to Media Matters and repeating their misinformation.

1. Baier never said used the word imminent.
2. Baier never used the phrase "around the corner".
3. Baier never stated that the investigators had to power to issue or seek an indictment.
4. Baier never walked back any of his reporting.

The only confusion over this is on the part of people who thought Baier was stating the investigators would issue the indictment.  He clarified that he knew that is not the case and that no one should infer that.  That is an absolutely correct statement, and not remotely contradictory to his reporting on this issue.  He is extending his remarks, not revising them.

[SirMuxALot]

BB walked it back

What exact facts and/or claims has he walked back?

Be precise and factual.

[ApatheticAustrian]

What exact facts and/or claims has he walked back?

if you are "happy" then, he didn't "walk it back" - instead he stated his wording was unlucky/wrong and caused many other sources to misinterpret what he meant. giving him the benefit of the doubt, but clearly including, that the "common" interpretation is not accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SirMuxALot]

if you are "happy" then, he didn't "walk it back" - instead he stated his wording was unlucky/wrong and caused many other sources to misinterpret what he meant.

But you continue to be imprecise here.

The clarification he gave is entirely, exclusively, and solely on what the formal indictment process is.

Nothing in the basic facts of his reporting has been modified, revised, "walked back", or to borrow your word "debunked".

The source's assertion that an "indictment would be likely" is of course, a matter of opinion on the part of whatever FBI employee is making that assertion.  But this source is by definition a professional criminal investigator, and therefore has some semblance of authority from which he/she can offer such an opinion, in spite of having no executive/judicial authority to to affect the indictment.

It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with that opinion.  But it's not an opinion that is "debunked" by virtue of a rather obvious clarifying fact being added to the original reporting.