• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lot of republicans saying things are biased and that is a problem. It would be real nice for them to define what bias is and why it is a problem.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Lot of republicans saying things are biased and that is a problem. It would be real nice for them to define what bias is and why it is a problem.
Click to expand...

Would a definition really matter? However they define the term, what they mean to imply is that people in the FBI are so upset that Hillary lost that they are fabricating a bogus case against innocent people in order to remove Trump from office.
 
Trump: “It’s a shame what happened to the FBI. But we’re going to rebuild the FBI, it’ll be bigger and better than ever,” Trump told reporters.

He really is going to try to kill Mueller's investigation and do a political purge of the FBI. This will end very badly -- it's going to be much worse than Watergate.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Behind a paywall, but at least partly freed here:
Click to expand...

It really is staggering what some people accept as journalism.

Just two examples:

We are to believe that the FBI did not doctor evidence when it made the claims that it was “confident” Russia hacked the US election?
Click to expand...

This is an accusation of a very serious crime, presented as an argument from incredulity and completely sans evidence.

I am certain that somewhere in those 10,000 Peter Strzok messages are one or two texts exposing how the “insurance policy” against Trump was tied to Russia and the fake “dossier” it had obtained from a corrupt British spy, who was paid by PR smear firm (Fusion GPS), who was paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
Click to expand...

Are you certain? The texts were released to journalists. So, if you're that certain, why not read them and post the evidence? That is, after all, your job. But it's easier just to declare that you think the evidence must exist.

I'm honestly gobsmacked that people pay attention to weak **** like this.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Trump: “It’s a shame what happened to the FBI. But we’re going to rebuild the FBI, it’ll be bigger and better than ever,” Trump told reporters.

He really is going to try to kill Mueller's investigation and do a political purge of the FBI. This will end very badly -- it's going to be much worse than Watergate.
Click to expand...

This is some scary ****. Surely some Republicans in Congress are going to stop supporting this mob.

Trump is echoing what Hannity and Gingrich talked about yesterday. Combine that with Trump's staff afraid to provide proper intelligence briefs because it sets Trump off, it's not hard to see what is going on here.

The closer the investigation gets to providing a formal report, the more Trump looks like he's losing it.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It really is staggering what some people accept as journalism.

Just two examples:

This is an accusation of a very serious crime, presented as an argument from incredulity and completely sans evidence.

Are you certain? The texts were released to journalists. So, if you're that certain, why not read them and post the evidence? That is, after all, your job. But it's easier just to declare that you think the evidence must exist.

I'm honestly gobsmacked that people pay attention to weak **** like this.
Click to expand...

There are some real jewels in the comments following that piece.
Shut down the FBI. The organisation is led by traitors who betray America. The FBI had foreknowledge of 9/11 and did nothing.
Click to expand...
Interesting the commenter doesn't use American spelling.

There are only 12 comments suggesting not that many people read that source.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It really is staggering what some people accept as journalism.
Click to expand...


The purpose of that link was perfectly clear. It's telling that you chose to pick on that and ignore the introduced WSJ article which is pretty much in line with the other outlets from logger's conservativetreehouse to Iran Contra-Parry who is anything but right-wing and spots a scandal if it crosses his way. If it helps. For the time.
 
Childlike Empress said:
The purpose of that link was perfectly clear. It's telling that you chose to pick on that and ignore the introduced WSJ article which is pretty much in line with the other outlets from logger's conservativetreehouse to Iran Contra-Parry who is anything but right-wing and spots a scandal if it crosses his way. If it helps. For the time.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you quote the relevant/worthwhile parts of the article?
 
Childlike Empress said:
The purpose of that link was perfectly clear. It's telling that you chose to pick on that and ignore the introduced WSJ article which is pretty much in line with the other outlets from logger's conservativetreehouse to Iran Contra-Parry who is anything but right-wing and spots a scandal if it crosses his way. If it helps. For the time.
Click to expand...

Republicans complained about bias in the Mueller investigation. The IG did an internal investigation which turned up the Strzok texts. He gave them to Mueller, who promptly fired Strzok. A bunch of jackasses are now accusing the FBI of fabricating evidence when they don't even know what evidence Mueller has. And this is all before Flynn and Papadopolous start singing in public.

The only "scandal" I see is that we have some Republicans in congress who are dumb enough to think they can elevate their self-absorbed fascist godling above the law and keep catering to their wealthy donors. The majority of the American people will not stand for that, and we know what to do about it in 2018.

Smart Republicans may have noticed that in the 68 recent special and off-year elections, Democrats outperformed 2016 by an average of 10 points. Rachel Maddow had a chart the other night that showed how much of the House, at least, that puts "in play" if the trend holds. Smart Republicans should be very, very worried, even if Trump doesn't fire Mueller; the future of their party is literally on the line. The only question is how many "smart" Republicans there are. If Trump kills the investigation, the answer to that question will determine if Trump is impeached in 2018 or 2019.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Perhaps if you quote the relevant/worthwhile parts of the article?
Click to expand...


99074d54b459448e8.gif
 
WilliamSeger said:
Trump: “It’s a shame what happened to the FBI. But we’re going to rebuild the FBI, it’ll be bigger and better than ever,” Trump told reporters.

He really is going to try to kill Mueller's investigation and do a political purge of the FBI. This will end very badly -- it's going to be much worse than Watergate.
Click to expand...

Thanks much! That is about what I was thinking as well.

I am very sure that Trump would love to be provided with some sort of carte` blanch to tear down the FBI and re-build it. After all, such an opportunity would provide him with a great chance to learn about all the dirt that the FBI has on Trump, stop all of the FBI investigation(s) on Trump, and prevent the FBI from ever launching any more investigations on Trump.

It would be a real 'Win!-Win!-Win!' for Trump.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Uh-oh, now the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board jumps ship: The FBI’s Trump ‘Insurance’

Behind a paywall, but at least partly freed here:
Click to expand...

Just in case you are actually interested in this issue, then here is a real piece of journalism for you to peruse ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...9728984779c_story.html?utm_term=.ba44b4770ee0

Senate Republicans try to shield Mueller from criticism of his Russia probe

Senate Republicans are scrambling to shield special counsel Robert S. Mueller III from mounting GOP fury about new evidence that members of his team were biased against President Trump, as factions of the party charge that his entire investigation is tainted.

...
Click to expand...

Essentially, the article states that while there are a few Republicans who are very angry about the Texts issue, however there are quite a few Republicans who still have a great deal faith in the Muller investigation.
 
That, Childlike Empress, is about the ****iest reply you could have made. How 'bout you man-up and reply in a forthright manner.
 
Crossbow said:
Essentially, the article states that while there are a few Republicans who are very angry about the Texts issue, however there are quite a few Republicans who still have a great deal faith in the Muller investigation.
Click to expand...


Essentially I couldn't care less. Again, this isn't about the Mueller investigation's "bias" (that's what the Washington Pest pre$$titutes want you to believe - real journalism LOL), it is about how it came into being in the first place.

And I must ask that you folks stop bothering me with this strawman nonsense. I know you aren't that dumb. Talk to the mirror, that's where the denial is addressed at in the first place. Good luck overcoming your pride.
 
I'll quote the last paragraph from the article on Pat Lang's blog (read the "about" page, these are very serious people) I've linked to yesterday:

Publius Tacitus said:
Trump may be a boor and, at times, an insufferable *******. But that conduct by him neither excuses nor justifies the FBI, the Department of Justice, the CIA and the NSA from deciding to engage in a deliberate campaign of disinformation. Yes, there was collusion to affect the result of last year's Presidential campaign. But that was done by American citizens who supported Hillary Clinton and collaborated with British intelligence operatives. This was not a diabolical plot hatched by Vladimir Putin. Nope. This was American government officials taking it upon themselves to intervene in the U.S. election in a so far failed attempt to undo the decision voters made on 8 November 2016. Seems to me that pitch forks and torches would be appropriate at this point.
Click to expand...


Let's assume the premises are correct. I don't think anybody of the regular Russia CT posters here agrees with that paragraph. You all think the ends justify the means, in this case, and wish they had been successful. Hence the refusal to even acknowledge the topic. N'est-ce pas?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Essentially I couldn't care less. Again, this isn't about the Mueller investigation's "bias" (that's what the Washington Pest pre$$titutes want you to believe - real journalism LOL), it is about how it came into being in the first place.
Click to expand...

You mean the one about how Obama wanted to wiretap Trump to undermine his campaign, so he had his Hillary-loving flunkies in the FBI use Steele's collection of fake and/or planted disinformation to get warrants? Cool story, bro -- real journalism at its finest. :eek:
 
It's worth remembering that Trump originally claimed he fired Comey because he felt Comey was unfair to Hillary in how he investigated the email scandal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom