What if it's found that Trump did help the Russians

[Baker Boy 1,485]

How does their ownership affect the bias as you are basically claiming?

Your family must be so proud of you!

[Sho Nuff 719]

Your family must be so proud of you!

They are...maybe you can show how those owners have made it biased.

You know...the guy who complained about my use of facts and brought two opinion pieces from right wing sites as proof.

 

Then realize there is a reason I posed the question dumbass.

[SenatorRock 708]

Also...the whine here is that the Trump campaign was being investigated...not that they were suspects of criminal activity...but the complaint is about them being investigated. And they dont even dispute with facts why it was suspected in the first place and why those suspicions have shown to have merit.

 

Grasping at straws like your hero Trump.

Typical TDS sufferer.

 

NYT spells out in black and white how Obama's admin used counterintelligence to try and find/create a crime. They were never investigating a crime. Nobody in the Trump campaign has been charged with any crimes related to the 2016 campaign, as of today.

 

Here is a good analysis of the NYT piece: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/crossfire-hurricane-new-york-times-report-buries-lede/

 

The quick take on the 4,100-word opus is that the Gray Lady “buried the lede.” Fair enough: You have to dig pretty deep to find that the FBI ran “at least one government informant” against the Trump campaign — and to note that the Times learned this because “current and former officials” leaked to reporters the same classified information about which, just days ago, the Justice Department shrieked “Extortion!” when Congress asked about it.

But that’s not even the most important of the buried ledes. What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That’s not an accident. The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative. Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election. Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump’s benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton’s candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.

 

 

The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Typical TDS sufferer.

 

NYT spells out in black and white how Obama's admin used counterintelligence to try and find/create a crime. They were never investigating a crime. Nobody in the Trump campaign has been charged with any crimes related to the 2016 campaign, as of today.

 

Here is a good analysis of the NYT piece: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/crossfire-hurricane-new-york-times-report-buries-lede/

 

 

A. Baker already tried that National Review analysis

Holy crap was that awful.

B. The NYT didnt show how they tried to find or create a crime. It clearly showed suspicion of such a thing and an investigation into that. Which is how things work.

C. As of today is a good measure as if its all over. And now we find Manaforts son in law is now cooperating. You arent going to be happy with what all comes out of this investigation.

 

Still waiting for those links supporting that list of claims you made earlier. I wont hold my breath.

[SenatorRock 708]

They have a small lean to the left.

They backed up theor article with quotes from the people involved rather than just opinining on it (like your two links showed).

Their bias is far less than what you just posted and likely have to go through higher journalistic standards before ever publishing their article. Its why I laugh when yiuball decry them but post from sites that dont have the same standards.

That you dont wven deny the bias...or that you just tried to pass off two opinion pieces as fact is pretty telling old man.

Im just pleasantly surprised you learned to paste links rather than just plagiarizing as you used to do.

 

They are literally Fake News.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/trump-undocumented-immigrants-animals.html

 

Trump Calls Some Unauthorized Immigrants ‘Animals’ in Rant

 

President Trump lashed out at undocumented immigrants during a White House meeting on Wednesday, warning in front of news cameras that dangerous people were clamoring to breach the country’s borders and branding such people “animals.”

Mr. Trump’s comments came during a round-table discussion with state and local leaders on California’s so-called sanctuary laws, which strictly limit communication between local law enforcement and federal immigration officers, and which the Trump administration is suing to invalidate. It was hardly the first time the president has spoken in racially fraught terms about immigrants, but it underscored his anger about unchecked immigration — the animating issue of his campaign and his tenure so far — and his frustration that he has not been able to do more to seal the nation’s borders.

Not a single mention of the context of the discussion Trump was having when he made the comment.

 

NBC video showing the same Fake News:

 

Here is the actual context, a lady asks him a question about MS-13, Trump responds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr_yux6kq-Q

 

 

Focking idiots on the left and MSM have been screaming at the sky all day, professing their love for and defending MS-13. Literal gangsters. Cartel. Mafia.

 

[SenatorRock 708]

A. Baker already tried that National Review analysis

Holy crap was that awful.

B. The NYT didnt show how they tried to find or create a crime. It clearly showed suspicion of such a thing and an investigation into that. Which is how things work.

C. As of today is a good measure as if its all over. And now we find Manaforts son in law is now cooperating. You arent going to be happy with what all comes out of this investigation.

 

Still waiting for those links supporting that list of claims you made earlier. I wont hold my breath.

 

1. They were running a counterintelligence operation in search of a crime.

 

2. Nobody from Trump's campaign has been charged with a crime related to the 2016 campaign.

 

Not sure how you can't understand those 2 very simple points.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

They are literally Fake News.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/trump-undocumented-immigrants-animals.html

 

Trump Calls Some Unauthorized Immigrants Animals in Rant

 

 

Not a single mention of the context of the discussion Trump was having when he made the comment.

 

NBC video showing the same Fake News:

 

 

Here is the actual context, a lady asks him a question about MS-13, Trump responds:

 

 

 

Focking idiots on the left and MSM have been screaming at the sky all day, professing their love for and defending MS-13. Literal gangsters. Cartel. Mafia.

 

Thats not fake news...Ive read the transcripts and seen the video...he didnt preface it as just about MS13 and their headline was accurate.

His entire quote shows he was talking about immigration and not just MS13. A US based and US started gang.

Youre struggling with showing anything besides slight lean to the left...I get it.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

1. They were running a counterintelligence operation in search of a crime.

 

2. Nobody from Trump's campaign has been charged with a crime related to the 2016 campaign.

 

Not sure how you can't understand those 2 very simple points.

1. It was based on suspicion of a crime. Again...the NYT article makes it clear. They didnt just say...hey, lets find something in Trump. FFS...you love being lied to by Trump...open your eyes.

2. At this point...you realize its not over right? That there are people cooperating...right?

 

I understand you dont understand point one...and point two is about a point in time. I have not claimed anyone has been charged at this point.

[Mr. Hand 482]

1. It was based on suspicion of a crime. Again...the NYT article makes it clear. They didnt just say...hey, lets find something in Trump. FFS...you love being lied to by Trump...open your eyes.

2. At this point...you realize its not over right? That there are people cooperating...right?

I understand you dont understand point one...and point two is about a point in time. I have not claimed anyone has been charged at this point.

You are such a hack.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,642]

Thats not fake news...Ive read the transcripts and seen the video...he didnt preface it as just about MS13 and their headline was accurate.

His entire quote shows he was talking about immigration and not just MS13. A US based and US started gang.

Youre struggling with showing anything besides slight lean to the left...I get it.

The AP also reported that Trump called immigrants animals. Then they retreated

It, because it wasn't true. Shonuff is the perfect tool of the left. Just smart enough to pull a lever in the voting booth, not smart enough to think for himself.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,515]

The AP also reported that Trump called immigrants animals. Then they retreated

It, because it wasn't true. Shonuff is the perfect tool of the left. Just smart enough to pull a lever in the voting booth, not smart enough to think for himself.

Yep.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

Christopher Steele, Trump dossier author and ex-spy, under fire

 

In a London courtroom this week, lawyers for Christopher Steele, the former British spy and author of the Trump dossier, fought to protect his sources, which claimed the Kremlin had salacious and compromising information on Donald Trump.

 

In March, Steele was ordered by the English High Court to appear for an upcoming videotaped deposition in London to be used as trial testimony in ongoing civil litigation against Buzzfeed for publishing the unverified dossier.

 

Buzzfeed, the online publication, is being sued by Russian businessman Aleksej Gubarev in the UK and in Florida for publishing the dossier prepared by Steele and his company, Orbis Business Intelligence, that named companies owned by Gubarev, a technology executive.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/17/christopher-steele-trump-dossier-author-and-ex-spy-under-fire.html

[drobeski 3,061]

So the IG has found reasonable grounds that the FBI and DOJ broke federal laws in the clinton email investigation errrrrr I mean "matter".

 

This is the same FBI and DOJ who created the fake collusion MATTER.

 

 

So even though they may have lied cheated,weasiled and obstructed justice in the Clinton matter, they are to be totally trusted that this collusion matter is legit and on the up and up.

 

This is what the sniffles and wiffles of the world believe.

 

They must have been giving away those extra chromosomes when these 2 clowns were hatched.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Christopher Steele, Trump dossier author and ex-spy, under fire

 

In a London courtroom this week, lawyers for Christopher Steele, the former British spy and author of the Trump dossier, fought to protect his sources, which claimed the Kremlin had salacious and compromising information on Donald Trump.

 

In March, Steele was ordered by the English High Court to appear for an upcoming videotaped deposition in London to be used as trial testimony in ongoing civil litigation against Buzzfeed for publishing the unverified dossier.

 

Buzzfeed, the online publication, is being sued by Russian businessman Aleksej Gubarev in the UK and in Florida for publishing the dossier prepared by Steele and his company, Orbis Business Intelligence, that named companies owned by Gubarev, a technology executive.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/17/christopher-steele-trump-dossier-author-and-ex-spy-under-fire.html

So we think disclosing sources is a good thing now?

[Sho Nuff 719]

So the IG has found reasonable grounds that the FBI and DOJ broke federal laws in the clinton email investigation errrrrr I mean "matter".

 

This is the same FBI and DOJ who created the fake collusion MATTER.

 

 

So even though they may have lied cheated,weasiled and obstructed justice in the Clinton matter, they are to be totally trusted that this collusion matter is legit and on the up and up.

 

This is what the sniffles and wiffles of the world believe.

 

They must have been giving away those extra chromosomes when these 2 clowns were hatched.

Link?

Because all that has been done is the report was sent to the FBI and congress but not released yet.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,642]

So the IG has found reasonable grounds that the FBI and DOJ broke federal laws in the clinton email investigation errrrrr I mean "matter".

 

This is the same FBI and DOJ who created the fake collusion MATTER.

 

 

So even though they may have lied cheated,weasiled and obstructed justice in the Clinton matter, they are to be totally trusted that this collusion matter is legit and on the up and up.

 

This is what the sniffles and wiffles of the world believe.

 

They must have been giving away those extra chromosomes when these 2 clowns were hatched.

Bullseye

[12th Man 884]

They are...maybe you can show how those owners have made it biased.

You know...the guy who complained about my use of facts and brought two opinion pieces from right wing sites as proof.

 

Then realize there is a reason I posed the question dumbass.

Proud of what? That you sit around all day in your PJs downing handfuls of Xanax watching the View and posting on a message bored?

[edjr 5,564]

TDS is at an all time high. Holy hell.

 

Someone should open up a special psychiatric ward in a hospital, or a special TDS farm somewhere.,

[Baker Boy 1,485]

After one year the only collusion was in the Clinton campaign.

[Sho Nuff 719]

TDS is at an all time high. Holy hell.

 

Someone should open up a special psychiatric ward in a hospital, or a special TDS farm somewhere.,

True...posters who used to just be kind of weird are now full on in a cult for Donald Trump.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

So we think disclosing sources is a good thing now?

He's not a reporter. Nor was he an intelligence agent working on behalf of a government. If he wants to spread lies and rumors, there are laws against that.

[Sho Nuff 719]

He's not a reporter. Nor was he an intelligence agent working on behalf of a government. If he wants to spread lies and rumors, there are laws against that.

What lies?

and I am of the opinion that keeping sources for such information is important to keeping them safe and active sources.

but at least you did admit he was not working on behalf of a government...thats a start.

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

They were fake. Ill openly admit it I skewed a lot of the data and have sold a sh!t load of holsters because of it. You shouldve seen my bonus. But guess what? I dont care thats my job as a marketer to sell products just as it is these journalists jobs to sell click bait articles to morons like yourself.

 

And this is an example of what's wrong with our country. People spin/lie away everything rather than admit they were wrong, not to mention justify it, that so what if his data was wrong, the ends justify the means. And to top it off, throw terrible insult at the guy who was exactly the opposite of the insult..."click-bait moron", I was one of the first people to point out those stats were BS, you on the other hand defended them for a long time with the reasoning they were no a 'website'.

 

If you have any more lies you want to tell to spin this again, save em, because it's not worth any more of my time to argue with you.

[Sho Nuff 719]

So the IG has found reasonable grounds that the FBI and DOJ broke federal laws in the clinton email investigation errrrrr I mean "matter".

 

This is the same FBI and DOJ who created the fake collusion MATTER.

 

 

So even though they may have lied cheated,weasiled and obstructed justice in the Clinton matter, they are to be totally trusted that this collusion matter is legit and on the up and up.

 

This is what the sniffles and wiffles of the world believe.

 

They must have been giving away those extra chromosomes when these 2 clowns were hatched.

 

Still waiting drobeski...find that unreleased report yet?

[12th Man 884]

 

Still waiting drobeski...find that unreleased report yet?

Get out of your PJs, turn off the View, put the computer away, and go outside.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/18/politics/rudy-giuliani-mueller-interview-cnntv/index.html

 

Mueller agreeing to limit scope of interview (per Giuliani anyway). Not going to ask about Cohen but big whoop since thats the subject of a whole nother case now. Sounds like maybe wont ask about Comey though which is surprising

[Sho Nuff 719]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/18/politics/rudy-giuliani-mueller-interview-cnntv/index.html

 

Mueller agreeing to limit scope of interview (per Giuliani anyway). Not going to ask about Cohen but big whoop since thats the subject of a whole nother case now. Sounds like maybe wont ask about Comey though which is surprising

 

Exactly...per Giuliani. Cohen is intermingled in all of it...but they probably have enough on him anyway.

I still don't see Trump doing any interview...he would be up for perjury very quickly.

I also don't see Mueller limiting his scope to what Trump wants...he can subpoena him to compel testimony on his terms.

Its possible...just don't think its likely.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Still waiting drobeski...find that unreleased report yet?

when the report comes out and I'm correct, do you still stand by your men and this Russian MATTER?

[Sho Nuff 719]

when the report comes out and I'm correct, do you still stand by your men and this Russian MATTER?

The Russian matter and this matter are separate.

You e made a claim about what the report says...I am asking you to back that up.

Or just admit the obvious that you just flat out made up.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

What lies?

and I am of the opinion that keeping sources for such information is important to keeping them safe and active sources.

but at least you did admit he was not working on behalf of a government...thats a start.

Has anyone accused him of working on behalf of a government? The fact that he tried to sell his unverified accusations (better?) to the FBI, and the fact that they based much of their investigation on those unverified accusations, doesn't mean he was working for them all along. When you level unverified accusation at someone, you had better be prepared to name a source. Or do jail time.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Has anyone accused him of working on behalf of a government? The fact that he tried to sell his unverified accusations (better?) to the FBI, and the fact that they based much of their investigation on those unverified accusations, doesn't mean he was working for them all along. When you level unverified accusation at someone, you had better be prepared to name a source. Or do jail time.

You can search if you want...but I believe people here have at least inferred our government was uszing him to spy. Not just that Hillary/Fusion paid him. Have some claiming Obama did.

Based much of their investigation in unverified information? Have something to back that up?

But now youve backed off from lies to unverified.

If someone is claiming defamation (which this appears to be) is it not up to them to show the reports were untrue? Id say in the US they would...unsure about UK.

There is a reason Cohen dropped his suit...he knew the report was true on him.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

If someone is claiming defamation (which this appears to be) is it not up to them to show the reports were untrue? Id say in the US they would...unsure about UK.

Defaming someone, then claiming "I am only repeating what I heard, and I won't name who i heard it from" isn't going to cut it in any court of law.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/18/politics/rudy-giuliani-mueller-interview-cnntv/index.html

 

Mueller agreeing to limit scope of interview (per Giuliani anyway). Not going to ask about Cohen but big whoop since thats the subject of a whole nother case now. Sounds like maybe wont ask about Comey though which is surprising

Why ask about Comey anyway? The President can fire anyone in Executive branch for any reason. There can be no obstruction in the firing of Comey.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Defaming someone, then claiming "I am only repeating what I heard, and I won't name who i heard it from" isn't going to cut it in any court of law.

Claiming someone defamed you but showing how the information was false wont cut it either.

[Sho Nuff 719]

https://twitter.com/NewDay/status/997435303358074880

 

Rudy is just gold.

[Sho Nuff 719]

when the report comes out and I'm correct, do you still stand by your men and this Russian MATTER?

 

So...still nothing on that report that you claimed was showing something already?

 

How about admitting you made it up based on rumors of what might be in it...its ok, that is already obvious.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Why ask about Comey anyway? The President can fire anyone in Executive branch for any reason. There can be no obstruction in the firing of Comey.

I am not sure about that and Im 100% positive your position would be otherwise if it were Obama or god forbid Hillary instead of Trump.

 

That said, its a thorny issue so Mueller may be steering clear of it if he doesnt need it anyway.

[Sho Nuff 719]

That he can fire him would not keep it from being obstruction...that is an idiotic excuse.

It wouldnt be the only part of obstruction either.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I am not sure about that and Im 100% positive your position would be otherwise if it were Obama or god forbid Hillary instead of Trump.

 

That said, its a thorny issue so Mueller may be steering clear of it if he doesnt need it anyway.

I wouldn't have a problem with Obama if he did something within his rights. Would you have an issue with him if he did something illegal (as the evidence now shows)?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

That he can fire him would not keep it from being obstruction...that is an idiotic excuse.

It wouldnt be the only part of obstruction either.

Please tell us how firing Comey could be obstruction especially given all that we now know.