BREAKING: Lawrence O'Donnell pulls back on Deutsche Bank-Russia story

[brooklynite]

Link to tweet

Worth noting that no news outlet, including NBC, ran with this story.

[Johnny2X2X]

1. You cannot make mistakes like this!!!

Now more than ever you cannot do this. Trump will use this to attack the media.

Why Lawrence? Why?

[still_one]

29. Yup

[bearsfootball516]

2. Yikes, Lawrence.

This sort of stuff gives Trump ammunition when he claims things are "fake news".

If you go after Trump, you better have your facts straight.

[OnDoutside]

3. Damn. That's hugely disappointing for a journalist of Lawrence's stature. Andy Lack might use the

opportunity to go after him again.

[Va Lefty]

4. Jesus! More ammo for Traitor don to cry "fake news"

[smirkymonkey]

64. It doesn't matter. Even if it was throughly verified and vetted and they

had glaring physical evidence, Trump would still be screaming "Fake News". Why do we care what they say and think? Why do we hold ourselves to ridiculously high standards, while they have no standards at all. They literally make shit up and it gets by without any censure.

I am so sick of this double standard! Yes, I think our side should verify before we expose important information like this, but I am sick of how many people are even more critical of people on our side then they are on the blatant liars and propagandists from other networks.

[gratuitous]

5. Great job, Lawrence

Now Trump is totally and thoroughly immunized against any stories about his financial hanky-panky with Russian mobsters and bagmen.

Either have the goods or don't report it until you do:

[TheRealNorth]

24. No shit

I was thinking that in order for him to go out on that limb that he had a trusted source that would be in a position to know.

Reporting on rumors doesn't help, even if they end up being true, Trump now has ammunition to obfuscate later stories with O'Donnell's reporting.

[PRETZEL]

6. Will wait and see tonite

just how much more he steps back.

The tweet reads more like MSNBC telling him to walk it back some, not that Lawrence doesn't have confidence in his source.

[elleng]

10. That's how I read it, MSNBC telling him to walk it back.

[regnaD kciN]

19. Even if he only walks it back a small amount...

...both he and the story are done. No reputable news network can afford to retain a reporter who airs an explosive story that turns out to be unverified. It destroys the whole network’s credibility if someone makes such a mistake and is allowed to continue working for them.

[elleng]

18. See this:Trump's lawyers demand MSNBC retract claim his Deutsche Bank loans were co-signed

by Russian oligarc.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142361066

[ooky]

21. Agree. I was thinking last night he had that confidence, otherwise putting himself way

out on the limb, needlessly. I need to see further how this develops.

[PRETZEL]

26. yes, Lawrence must have a ton of confidence in his source

because I would hope and think that he's been around long enough to know the dangers of single source reporting.

Total speculation of maybe somenone sitting in prison right now?????

[Mersky]

33. This is how I'm gonna take it

To be sure, it's a disappointing turn, but need to hear more on the matter.

I'm also wondering how much of it is the network's legal department stepping-in automatically? Which legal entity is making the call? MSNBC? NBC? Or their business daddy, Comcast?

[qazplm135]

7. oof not good

just killed his credibility on this.

[OrlandoDem2]

8. There's a reason I stopped watching him.

[USALiberal]

22. Lol, ok! Nt

[FBaggins]

9. What sort of "journalist" runs with "we don't have a second source yet"??

I'm not even sure it's fair to say that he had a FIRST source

The information came from a single source who has not seen the bank records. NBC has not seen those records and has not yet been able to verify the reporting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/459164-trump-lawyer-demands-msnbc-retract-report-alleging-banking-ties-to-russian

How does that level of speculation make the evening news?

Now he has to run a retraction right after Trump's attorneys demand one?

[marble falls]

11. Jebus crisp. No excuse for this. He needs to stop trying to out do Rachel.

[Totally Tunsie]

12. Oh, Lawrence...

We could see you were being cautious last night, but this was a very dangerous tease.

How much humble pie will you be eating tonight? Better save some room because Chump will be looking to have you eat crow.

[Mme. Defarge]

13. Maybe this explains why I was unable to stream

that segment of his show this morning via the NBC app.

[maxsolomon]

14. Presumably he knows that Liberals have to be perfect.

2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always. 2 Sources. Always.

[regnaD kciN]

15. Sadly, I could see that coming a mile away...

Now, anything concerning Trump’s taxes will always be brushed off as “fake news.” It was just like when Dan Rather fell for “unverified” information about Dubya’s draft-dodging; from then on, the matter vanished from the public consciousness. As, of course, did Rather himself, and I can’t see how Lawrence avoids the same fate.

[RhodeIslandOne]

38. Then Trump's lawyer should threaten to sue then too, right?

Why not those other times?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. My guess is that this is a similar situation to ABC's Brian Ross reporting on Michael Flynn.

Ross reported that Flynn had contacts with Russians as a member of the campaign before Trump's election in November 2016 as well as after the election.

At the time, sources could only confirm that Flynn met with the Russians after the election. It was a big hubbub, ABC issued a retraction, Ross ended up leaving ABC, and Trump got to spew his "fake news" bullshit all over Twitter.

Months later, it was later confirmed that Ross was correct--Flynn did have contacts with the Russians before the election while he was a member of the campaign. Of course, by then, the story had long been forgotten.

I'm thinking someone in Deutche Bank leaked to O'Donnell but did not feel comfortable coming forward due to potential legal implications, so thus O'Donnell had no choice but to pull back. It doesn't change the truth, which is in those papers and hopefully will vindicate O'Donnell in the end, like Ross was vindicated in the end.

Of course, they'll drag O'Donnell through the dirt for this. But they did the same for a journalism icon like Dan Rather, so at least he's in good company.

In the meantime, be prepared for more "Fake News/Enemy of the People" obnoxiousness on the Madman's part.

[regnaD kciN]

28. Maybe "someone at Deutsche Bank" set him up...

Remember, they’re still involved with Donnie. Maybe a sympathetic associate there leaked just enough juicy “info” in the hopes that Trump’s opponents in the media would grasp at a straw and run with it without doing the proper verification (which couldn’t be done, because said info was made up out of whole cloth), thus discrediting them and giving both Trump and the bank a free pass from now on?

Even if it was a setup, it doesn’t make it any better for Lawrence and MSNBC. Never run with a story without verifying it. Never.

[NewJeffCT]

46. O'Donnell

doesn't seem like the type that would make a careless error like that?

[awesomerwb1]

17. Lame and irresponsible

I stopped watching MSNBC months ago. No news for me anymore.

[Gothmog]

20. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

[dem4decades]

23. Dan Rather lost his job for not having all the edges nailed down.

Lawrence didn't do any one any favors.

[regnaD kciN]

30. I doubt Lawrence will be around by next month...

As everyone should have learned from Rather’s fate, that’s a firing offense no matter how big you are – and Lawrence O’Donnell is nowhere near as big as Dan Rather was.

[RhodeIslandOne]

39. George W Bush was a deserter

It ended up being about fonts and Dan Rather got punished.

We know how it goes in this country.

[katmondoo]

61. Me and many others love Lawrence, he isn't going anywhere

He made a mistake and said on air he couldn't verify it.

[4139]

25. O'Donnell didn't have any source who had seen the records

“The information came from a single source who has not seen the bank records. ”
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/459164-trump-lawyer-demands-msnbc-retract-report-alleging-banking-ties-to-russian

[TheCowsCameHome]

27. Wonderful, just wonderful - Another victory lap for the enemy.

We don't need this kind of crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[demmiblue]

31. Ugh.

[True Dough]

32. MSNBC has to be taking a firm line with its news hosts

This is an embarrassment to O'Donnell and the network.

It ticks me off even more than when Rachel Maddow kept hyping that she had Trump's tax returns leaked to her. And when he show finally came on there were a couple of pages from Donny's 2005 returns that told us very little. It was almost Geraldo/Capone's vault level humiliation.

[Beringia]

34. Isn't this like the Dan Rather/Bush 2 fiasco

[uponit7771]

35. Come on LD !! We can't afford to make mistakes like this !!

[triron]

42. He didn't make a mistake. MSNBC corporate got to him. That's all.

[FBaggins]

47. That's nonsense. Of course he made a mistake

He ran a story with a single source who had not even seen the claimed documents him/herself.

That is a mistake whether the underlying claim turns out to be true or not.

[underpants]

36. Smelled from the beginning. He knows better.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12417017

[eleny]

37. But the toothpaste is already out of the tube

[cwydro]

40. I didn't see him, but Rachel reported that Deutsche Bank had the resident's tax forms.

Is this what he’s referencing?

[lunatica]

41. He told Rachel it was only a one source story

and that he was taking a chance with it.

It’s probably true though, so if he can confirm it Lawrence will be airing it again.

[dem4decades]

45. Don't take chances with the reputation of the press when it is being attacked by the authoritarian

in the White House.

Thanks for nothing Lawrence.

[FBaggins]

48. The retraction demand letter makes that less likely.

They aren't just saying that it's false, they're saying that the reporting could be easily proven as malicious because publicly available information would have shown it to be inaccurate and they didn't even check.

[Elwood P Dowd]

43. Major screwup by Lawrence. He should know when to........

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when…

[Hoyt]

44. Lots of people jumped on this, making Dems look _______. trump is a crook, but false charges

don't get us anywhere and give him cover using the "witch hunt" junk.

[FBaggins]

49. Don't give DUers too much credit

Did any elected Dems jump on it? As much as I love DU... a short feeding frenzy over something that turns out to not be true has happened before.

[budkin]

50. So frustrating

Can't make stupid mistakes like this because it insulates Trump from the truth.

[ElementaryPenguin]

51. Hold off on hammering Lawrence. He qualified it last night. "One source" "IF it is true"

Multiple times, he explained that.

Wait and see. I'll bet it turns out to be true.

And Dan Rather was correct. W did go AWOL.

[pbmus]

53. Exactly...

Of course NBC should standby Lawrence O’Donnell and his reporting...enough of the hypocrisy of cable news... grow a set, and let the Americans clamoring for truth know that you stand for accountability in our government.

[ancianita]

52. Don't apologize!! Just "discuss." You'll be great, Lawrence!

[Doodley]

54. The story may still be true. There are reasons Trump is fighting to keep his taxes hidden and sucks

up to Putin.

[kentuck]

55. A couple of times Lawrence pre-scripted his story with "If true?"

I thought he was trying to convey that it was a story but it only had one source. However, "if true", this is what it could mean?

Personally, I thought, "if true", it is a big story.

Rather than a distraction, perhaps we should ask to see Mr Trump's tax returns??

[pbmus]

57. Bingo, bongo

[corbettkroehler]

56. Over His Skis And Overenthusiastic

I have relied on Lawrence to separate editorial comment from journalism and enjoyed his results thus far. ANYBODY interested in abiding rigorous standards of journalism knows that nothing can be reported as fact without, bare minimum, two separately verifiable sources and, in this case, a bare minimum of THREE sources for political bombshells, especially tЯump.

I have no doubt that the story is true but that's not the point. This kind of mistake arms Faux News with WEEKS of counter programming propaganda.

[pbmus]

58. Fuck Fox...

[corbettkroehler]

59. You're Not Wrong But...

The last thing we need to do is stoke Fox's fire through clumsiness. Ailes' team employs enough lies and dissembling to last a lifetime without our help.

[NewJeffCT]

60. The original tweet is still up on his Twitter feed

if he was fully retracting the story, wouldn't that include deleting the tweet?

[demmiblue]

62. ...

[MFM008]

63. Can we all just

Wait and see what he says tonight????!!!!
We throw our people under the bus so fast its head spinning. Fox makes shit up left and right.