Posts: 22,262
Threads: 2,504
Joined: May 2025
Did you follow that? Me neither.
Baier told Fox News’ Jon Scott in the Friday broadcast of “Happening Now.”
"Which brings me to this: I explained a couple of times yesterday the phrasing of one of my answers to [Fox News host] Brit Hume on Wednesday night, saying it was inartful the way I answered [a] question about whether the investigations would continue after the election. And I answered that, yes, our sources said it would, they would continue to likely an indictment. Well that wasn't just inartful. It was a mistake. And for that, I’m sorry.”
Baier apologized for the use of the word “indictment,” but said he and the network stand by their reporting.
Got that? The FBI indictment story was a mistake (read: total BS), and he apologizes, but he stands by the story. As does Fox News....but no legitimate networks:
Baier’s reporting, in which he said that an indictment is ‘likely,’ was refuted by ABC News, NBC News, CNN and other news outlets, although the reporting was picked up and repeated in conservative media. The Clinton campaign called the Fox News reports “baseless.”
I dunna think he knows what "stands by the story" means.
Posts: 22,262
Threads: 2,504
Joined: May 2025
BTW, does anyone believe that if a reporter from a legitimate news organization had f'ed up this blatantly, they'd still be employed by said organization?
But IOKIYAR! (or is it IOKIYFN?)
Posts: 54,617
Threads: 1,938
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
2
Bret wants a Peabody, Emmy or Murrow award. Faux News is in full-on lying mode. I can't wait to see what they spew in the next few days. They couldn't bring it home for Mitt in 2012 and they are desperate to rectify that mistake this election.
Posts: 22,262
Threads: 2,504
Joined: May 2025
"Standing by his story"?
Eh, not so much this afternoon:
Fox News apologizes for falsely reporting that Clinton faces indictment
Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized on Friday for reporting that federal investigators had determined that Hillary Clinton’s private email server had been hacked and that an investigation would lead to an indictment of Clinton after the election.
In fact, Baier said, after checking with his sources, there is no evidence at this time for either statement.
Baier said he relied on a single anonymous source within the FBI...
A single source? I thought it was two? And now we know that this BS (and it's clear now to any sentient being, it was straight-up BS, trying to influence a federal election) came from inside the FBI. (That is, if you can take Baier's word for anything, which is a dicey proposition)
Comey's organization is out of control. Heads need to roll.
Posts: 54,617
Threads: 1,938
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
2
I hope a few heads roll at Faux News, too.
Posts: 24,926
Threads: 4,391
Joined: Nov 2024
Reputation:
0
Posts: 22,262
Threads: 2,504
Joined: May 2025
Heh:
As an addendum, [Baier] added, “We stand by the sourcing on the ongoing, active Clinton Foundation investigation and are working to get sources with knowledge of the details on the record and on camera, hopefully today.”
Yeah - get your FBI "sources" on camera, today.
Well, if that doesn't work out, they can always get Hannity - I hear he has lots of information that none of the rest of the world has.
Posts: 22,262
Threads: 2,504
Joined: May 2025
BTW, I went over to townhall.com, where they were maintaining that Baier's story had not been debunked, and posted an informative link to the WaPo piece about Faux News' recent retracto-matic.
I see now that my post/comment has been deleted.
These folks live in their own little fantasy world, and don't appreciate it when someone ties to inject reality.
Posts: 11,076
Threads: 820
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation:
0
pdq wrote:
BTW, I went over to townhall.com, where they were maintaining that Baier's story had not been debunked, and posted an informative link to the WaPo piece about Faux News' recent retracto-matic.
I see now that my post/comment has been deleted.
These folks live in their own little fantasy world, and don't appreciate it when someone ties to inject reality.
You seem to be the one that lives in your own little fantasy world:
a) the factual part of the story is still correct "the investigations would continue after the election. And I answered that, yes, our sources said it would, they would continue"
b) the incorrect part is his conclusion, "they would continue to likely an indictment.", a speculation of a certainty that an indictment is forthcoming.
He stands by his story, ie part a, which is apparently quite factual.
And he admitted that part b was a mistake on his part.
In fact a more correct speculation, in view of the past behaviour of Obama DOJ, we can predict with high probability that Clinton will get a pass, under one excuse or another....
Posts: 46,542
Threads: 2,629
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
pdq wrote: Well, if that doesn't work out, they can always get Hannity - I hear he has lots of information that none of the rest of the world has.
"Call Sean Hannity! Call Sean! Nobody calls Sean Hannity!"
|
