Quote:ABC News won't allow reporter Brian Ross to cover stories related to President Trump, a decision that comes after he delivered an inaccurate report on former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea.

ABC News's president tore into his staff on Monday and informed them of the decision about Ross, CNN reported.

Ross initially reported on Friday that Flynn would testify that Trump directed him during the campaign to make contact with Russian officials. Stocks plunged shortly after the report was put out.

The network soon issued a "clarification," saying that Trump had asked Flynn during the transition "to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other hot spots."

Conservatives and members of the media criticized the network for not calling it a "correction."

ABC announced Saturday it was suspending Ross for four weeks without pay because of the error.

President Trump on Sunday tore into ABC News, and suggested those who lost money in the stock market after the Flynn report should consider suing the network.

ABC's president, James Goldston, said Monday that Ross went on air without anyone else reviewing his information, according to CNN. The network is reviewing the error and its aftermath.

"I don't even know how many times we've talked about this, how many times we have talked about the need to get it right," Goldston reportedly said. "That how we have to be right and not first."

(12-05-2017 08:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, these fake news organizations sure seem to care about not pushing fake news.

(12-05-2017 08:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, these fake news organizations sure seem to care about not pushing fake news.

(12-05-2017 01:31 AM)EagleX Wrote:  been asking this question forever. what does anyone think trump (or Flynn, for that matter) could have been "colluding" with the russians about?

(12-05-2017 08:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, these fake news organizations sure seem to care about not pushing fake news.

(12-05-2017 09:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:31 AM)EagleX Wrote:  been asking this question forever. what does anyone think trump (or Flynn, for that matter) could have been "colluding" with the russians about?

And it's been answered forever as well. Do you just not like the answer?

Okay...not saying this happened. Again, not saying this happened. However, this is what the collusion COULD have been. And it could have happened both before and after the election.

Collusion before the election: Someone on team trump contacted the Russians who then stole DNC e-mails and then coordinated with Wikileaks to release them. Those e-mails were then released to weaken Hillary. Team trump would have been doing this to help win the election, while Russia would have been doing this to weaken Hillary should she win the election as most were expecting her to. And even in the event that trump did win, Russia would then have someone way more favorable to them than Hillary would have been...regarding sanctions on them which is hurting their economy. So a win-win for them. And no matter what the result, they also win because they were able to meddle in our election and expose the whole process to make us look weak as a country.

Collusion after the election: And this is where Flynn comes in. He had meetings with Kislyak where they discussed the Russia sanctions. And while just talking to Kislyak is not an issue, but discussing the sanctions and/or making deals while Obama was still president could run afoul of the seldom used Logan Act.

Now let's address the elephant in the room. Flynn, an experienced former General should be well aware of the severity of lying to the FBI. So why would he? If his meetings with Kislyak were normal and harmless, why lie about them?

(12-05-2017 10:18 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:31 AM)EagleX Wrote:  been asking this question forever. what does anyone think trump (or Flynn, for that matter) could have been "colluding" with the russians about?

And it's been answered forever as well. Do you just not like the answer?

Okay...not saying this happened. Again, not saying this happened. However, this is what the collusion COULD have been. And it could have happened both before and after the election.

Collusion before the election: Someone on team trump contacted the Russians who then stole DNC e-mails and then coordinated with Wikileaks to release them. Those e-mails were then released to weaken Hillary. Team trump would have been doing this to help win the election, while Russia would have been doing this to weaken Hillary should she win the election as most were expecting her to. And even in the event that trump did win, Russia would then have someone way more favorable to them than Hillary would have been...regarding sanctions on them which is hurting their economy. So a win-win for them. And no matter what the result, they also win because they were able to meddle in our election and expose the whole process to make us look weak as a country.

Collusion after the election: And this is where Flynn comes in. He had meetings with Kislyak where they discussed the Russia sanctions. And while just talking to Kislyak is not an issue, but discussing the sanctions and/or making deals while Obama was still president could run afoul of the seldom used Logan Act.

Now let's address the elephant in the room. Flynn, an experienced former General should be well aware of the severity of lying to the FBI. So why would he? If his meetings with Kislyak were normal and harmless, why lie about them?

Lol


Seldom used...

As in enacted in 1799 and perhaps used once.

The very idea that Trump is a softer touch on foreign policy(s) than an incompetent failure like “reset button” and James Taylor in succession is beyond laughable.

This is a fishing expedition and getting uglier by the minute. Probably just time to take the hit and either fire Bueller, or crank up a Sessions appointed IC to investigate the “investigator”.

Enough dog and pony already.

(12-05-2017 10:19 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:18 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:31 AM)EagleX Wrote:  been asking this question forever. what does anyone think trump (or Flynn, for that matter) could have been "colluding" with the russians about?

And it's been answered forever as well. Do you just not like the answer?

Okay...not saying this happened. Again, not saying this happened. However, this is what the collusion COULD have been. And it could have happened both before and after the election.

Collusion before the election: Someone on team trump contacted the Russians who then stole DNC e-mails and then coordinated with Wikileaks to release them. Those e-mails were then released to weaken Hillary. Team trump would have been doing this to help win the election, while Russia would have been doing this to weaken Hillary should she win the election as most were expecting her to. And even in the event that trump did win, Russia would then have someone way more favorable to them than Hillary would have been...regarding sanctions on them which is hurting their economy. So a win-win for them. And no matter what the result, they also win because they were able to meddle in our election and expose the whole process to make us look weak as a country.

Collusion after the election: And this is where Flynn comes in. He had meetings with Kislyak where they discussed the Russia sanctions. And while just talking to Kislyak is not an issue, but discussing the sanctions and/or making deals while Obama was still president could run afoul of the seldom used Logan Act.

Now let's address the elephant in the room. Flynn, an experienced former General should be well aware of the severity of lying to the FBI. So why would he? If his meetings with Kislyak were normal and harmless, why lie about them?

Lol


Seldom used...

As in enacted in 1799 and perhaps used once.

The very idea that Trump is a softer touch on foreign policy(s) than an incompetent failure like “reset button” and James Taylor in succession is beyond laughable.

This is a fishing expedition and getting uglier by the minute. Probably just time to take the hit and either fire Bueller, or crank up a Sessions appointed IC to investigate the “investigator”.

Enough dog and pony already.

The FBI has already said the meetings were normal and harmless

(12-05-2017 11:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Then. Why. Lie. About. Them?

(12-05-2017 11:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:19 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:18 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:31 AM)EagleX Wrote:  been asking this question forever. what does anyone think trump (or Flynn, for that matter) could have been "colluding" with the russians about?

And it's been answered forever as well. Do you just not like the answer?

Okay...not saying this happened. Again, not saying this happened. However, this is what the collusion COULD have been. And it could have happened both before and after the election.

Collusion before the election: Someone on team trump contacted the Russians who then stole DNC e-mails and then coordinated with Wikileaks to release them. Those e-mails were then released to weaken Hillary. Team trump would have been doing this to help win the election, while Russia would have been doing this to weaken Hillary should she win the election as most were expecting her to. And even in the event that trump did win, Russia would then have someone way more favorable to them than Hillary would have been...regarding sanctions on them which is hurting their economy. So a win-win for them. And no matter what the result, they also win because they were able to meddle in our election and expose the whole process to make us look weak as a country.

Collusion after the election: And this is where Flynn comes in. He had meetings with Kislyak where they discussed the Russia sanctions. And while just talking to Kislyak is not an issue, but discussing the sanctions and/or making deals while Obama was still president could run afoul of the seldom used Logan Act.

Now let's address the elephant in the room. Flynn, an experienced former General should be well aware of the severity of lying to the FBI. So why would he? If his meetings with Kislyak were normal and harmless, why lie about them?

Lol


Seldom used...

As in enacted in 1799 and perhaps used once.

The very idea that Trump is a softer touch on foreign policy(s) than an incompetent failure like “reset button” and James Taylor in succession is beyond laughable.

This is a fishing expedition and getting uglier by the minute. Probably just time to take the hit and either fire Bueller, or crank up a Sessions appointed IC to investigate the “investigator”.

Enough dog and pony already.

The FBI has already said the meetings were normal and harmless

Then. Why. Lie. About. Them?

And where exactly did the FBI say what you're claiming?

(12-05-2017 11:41 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 11:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:19 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:18 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And it's been answered forever as well. Do you just not like the answer?

Okay...not saying this happened. Again, not saying this happened. However, this is what the collusion COULD have been. And it could have happened both before and after the election.

Collusion before the election: Someone on team trump contacted the Russians who then stole DNC e-mails and then coordinated with Wikileaks to release them. Those e-mails were then released to weaken Hillary. Team trump would have been doing this to help win the election, while Russia would have been doing this to weaken Hillary should she win the election as most were expecting her to. And even in the event that trump did win, Russia would then have someone way more favorable to them than Hillary would have been...regarding sanctions on them which is hurting their economy. So a win-win for them. And no matter what the result, they also win because they were able to meddle in our election and expose the whole process to make us look weak as a country.

Collusion after the election: And this is where Flynn comes in. He had meetings with Kislyak where they discussed the Russia sanctions. And while just talking to Kislyak is not an issue, but discussing the sanctions and/or making deals while Obama was still president could run afoul of the seldom used Logan Act.

Now let's address the elephant in the room. Flynn, an experienced former General should be well aware of the severity of lying to the FBI. So why would he? If his meetings with Kislyak were normal and harmless, why lie about them?

Lol


Seldom used...

As in enacted in 1799 and perhaps used once.

The very idea that Trump is a softer touch on foreign policy(s) than an incompetent failure like “reset button” and James Taylor in succession is beyond laughable.

This is a fishing expedition and getting uglier by the minute. Probably just time to take the hit and either fire Bueller, or crank up a Sessions appointed IC to investigate the “investigator”.

Enough dog and pony already.

The FBI [] has already said the meetings were normal and harmless

Then. Why. Lie. About. Them?

And where exactly did the FBI say what you're claiming?

Harmless

(12-05-2017 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 11:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Then. Why. Lie. About. Them?

Ask Flynn.

(12-05-2017 09:26 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 08:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, these fake news organizations sure seem to care about not pushing fake news.

lol, only when they are busted and have no choice.

(12-05-2017 10:07 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 08:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, these fake news organizations sure seem to care about not pushing fake news.

So you weren’t paying attention when the Dow tanked by 350 pts on the fake news, eh?

Same stupid “reporter” for same stupid network that outted the shooter in one of these tragedies as a Tea party member.

Only he wasn’t, never was, and made this guy’s life hell for a period.

This fake news peddling clown needs to be pumping gas and checking washer fluid somewhere. Idiot.

(12-05-2017 12:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 11:41 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 11:04 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:19 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:18 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Lol


Seldom used...

As in enacted in 1799 and perhaps used once.

The very idea that Trump is a softer touch on foreign policy(s) than an incompetent failure like “reset button” and James Taylor in succession is beyond laughable.

This is a fishing expedition and getting uglier by the minute. Probably just time to take the hit and either fire Bueller, or crank up a Sessions appointed IC to investigate the “investigator”.

Enough dog and pony already.

The FBI [] has already said the meetings were normal and harmless

Then. Why. Lie. About. Them?

And where exactly did the FBI say what you're claiming?

Harmless

A few things.

Your article is from last February.
It says "the official noted that doesn't rule out the possibility of illegal actions."
It quotes an anonymous "intelligence official". It doesn't name him, and this is NOT any official position of the FBI which you claimed.