May 19, 2017

"DEMOCRATS: Trump’s leaks are outrageous and treasonous. Hey, look how good Chelsea Manning looks in her new publicity photo!"

Quips Instapundit.

31 comments:

Rene Saunce said...

Media leaks get undercover spies killed.

Who cares, right?! Must hunt Trump!!!

David Begley said...

Can Manning now please go away?

Larry J said...

Every day, the Left and the Media (but I repeat myself) spray shit into the air hoping some of it will stick to Trump. It doesn't matter when their previous shit gets disproved, they just keep spraying. Every day, a new OUTRAGE!!! Seriously, turning off the news was a good move.

Etienne said...

Q: What do you get when you cross a shemale with a pig?
A: Nothing, there's some things a pig won't do.

Roy Jacobsen said...

It's always different when a lefty does it. Always.

Tommy Duncan said...

I guess it keeps Seth Rich out of the news...

Jeff Gee said...

"Look How Good Chelsea Manning Looks" is one look too many. It should be "Check Out How Good..." or something. This is why you want to read your stuff out loud before you hit 'post.'

Freder Frederson said...

It doesn't matter when their previous shit gets disproved, they just keep spraying.

So exactly what shit about Trump has been disproved. There are a lot of accusations of impropriety out there that have yet to be proved but what exactly has been disproven? The most serious charges (e.g., collusion with the Russians) are still out there.

Todd said...

Coming to Lifetime TV, the "Jenner & Manning Show!"

We dare you to pick two better women to help advise women on women's issues than two of the newest, best women EVER! It will be a lively daily, hour long show covering all the important women's topics of the day from the perspective of an older new woman and a younger new women, with just a hint of whimsy and some care free fun!

Don't you DARE miss it!

Bay Area Guy said...

Why is he wearing lipstick? That seems kinda sexist. Only women can wear lipstick? Why can't men wear lipstick?

You don't need to self-identify as a woman to wear lipstick.

I could go on and on.........

Drago said...

Freder: "There are a lot of accusations of impropriety out there that have yet to be proved but what exactly has been disproven?"

Why don't you get specific about those accusations for a moment.

Like, very specific.

Who met with whom, when, where, discussed what, what actions followed and how was collusion thus demonstrated?

No Freder. There are no actual "real" accusations. There are generalized bleatings from the left/dems/MSM/"lifelong republicans" about "collusion" with absolutely nothing behind those bleatings.

Drago said...

Basically, Freder and the dems are doing their best Beria impression: "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."

You used to need some sort of evidence or probable cause to launch investigations. In this newest lefty (as opposed to all the older lefty) iteration of Beria's/Stalins thought process, all that is needed now is for democrats to lose an election to get everyone investigated, permanently, without probable cause, in the hopes that something, anything, turns up.

Larry J said...

Freder Frederson said...
It doesn't matter when their previous shit gets disproved, they just keep spraying.

So exactly what shit about Trump has been disproved. There are a lot of accusations of impropriety out there that have yet to be proved but what exactly has been disproven? The most serious charges (e.g., collusion with the Russians) are still out there.


How about the shitstorm from a few days ago about Trump sharing classified information with the Russians. As president, he can declassify anything he wants for any reason. For example, in 1980 Jimmy Carter revealed information about stealth technology (then the most highly classified program in the government) in response to criticism from candidate Ronald Reagan about him being soft on defense.

Still, the burden of proof is on the people making the accusations. It's that whole "presumption of innocence" thing. I know it's inconvenient, but when the Left throws up accusations, they're the ones that have to prove they're true, not Trump having to prove they're false.

Achilles said...

Freder Frederson said...

So exactly what shit about Trump has been disproved. There are a lot of accusations of impropriety out there that have yet to be proved but what exactly has been disproven? The most serious charges (e.g., collusion with the Russians) are still out there.

What crime was committed? What probable cause has been cited? Has someone actually submitted any evidence? What is it?

Here is my accusation: You are a piece of ______. Disprove it by actually acting in good faith.

Mike said...

I'm against sexual appropriation. How dare [he] presume to know what it's like to be a she.

cubanbob said...

In the Freder's of the world mind, Trump is guilty of benefitting from the exposure of the Democrat's criminal acts.

Mike said...

Well, Freder, we have to give it to the DNC-Media-GOPe collusion, that they have had to work so hard to deny Trump even one tiny victory. From the size of the inauguration ("largest crowd ever in-person and around the world") to the constant felonious leaking, all stories are approached from the premise that Trump is wrong and here's why. So I'm not surprised you hold the opinion that nothing has been proven wrong, because it is rather difficult to find the coda to these Fake News stories.

1. More people live-streamed the inauguration this year than any previous ceremony, yet the Fake News Industry seized on photos to prove that fewer were standing in front of Trump, a non-sequitur of an angle to pursue, but one they relished. And then they built jokes upon their false reporting because "Trump is so dumb" he believed more people saw the ceremony. Chuck even cites this one now and again.

2. Trump along predicted he would win the nomination and then the election. How many others were wrong, Freder? All of them except Scott Adams and that one stats professor lost to history now.

The other 99 aren't worth my time, but you'll find them if you look hard enough.

Mike said...

Ack! "Trump alone..." I meant in #2.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Good thought experiment for Freder, substitute Obama for Trump and then decide if it would be incumbent on Obama to disprove the accusations.

And isn't it interesting that we can have "charges" of collusion without anyone actually being "charged". And who exactly is making these "charges"? Legal entities with evidence or political hacks with axes to grind?

jr565 said...

Frieder wrote:
So exactly what shit about Trump has been disproved. There are a lot of accusations of impropriety out there that have yet to be proved but what exactly has been disproven? The most serious charges (e.g., collusion with the Russians) are still out there.

what charges? The fact thst Hillary and the Dems are butt hurt about a loss and keep saint Russia Russia Russia as if that in itself can generate an indictment?

OGWiseman said...

Manning spent years in prison. If there's a comparison to be made between these two people and their actions, let's not forget that part.

tcrosse said...

So exactly what shit about Trump has been disproved.

Trump is guilty until proven innocent ? Is that the standard now ?

Gospace said...

Freder Frederson said...
It doesn't matter when their previous shit gets disproved, they just keep spraying.

So exactly what shit about Trump has been disproved. There are a lot of accusations of impropriety out there that have yet to be proved but what exactly has been disproven? The most serious charges (e.g., collusion with t


Doesn't matter what about Trump has been disproved. This is America, not a socialist hellhole where accusations are enough to convict and condemn to death.

What about Trump has been proved? Answer- Zero, zip, nada.

There's not only not any fire in the accusations against Trump, the smoke is imaginary.

Todd said...

tcrosse said...

...

Trump is guilty until proven innocent ? Is that the standard now ?

5/19/17, 11:02 AM


Actually, I believe the new standard is YOU are guilty until Trump is proven innocent.

YOU is anyone not a full blown SJW and sometimes them too...

tcrosse said...

There's not only not any fire in the accusations against Trump, the smoke is imaginary.

The alternative is to accept that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate, and she lost the election through her own hubris and stupidity. Some of the more thoughtful liberals, like David Axelrod and Bill Maher, have come to this acceptance.

Pianoman said...

Thought Experiment:

So exactly what shit about Hillary has been disproved. There are a lot of accusations of impropriety out there that have yet to be proved but what exactly has been disproven?

tcrosse said...

There was plenty of evidence of Hillary's gross negligence, but it was decided for political reasons not to prosecute.

n.n said...

America is Pro-Choice in some ways, too many ways, but, it is still largely a civilized society, where there is a presumption of innocence. We don't, on principle, entertain innuendo, hypothetical arguments, spontaneous beliefs, and baby hunts.

That said, it's still he said/he said (with or without he said's memos), and ties go to the constitutionally empowered executive authority, not his subordinate, and not the press.

First, they need to demonstrate probable cause in order to initiate an investigation. Trial by press or public opinion is contrary to the black letter and spirit of our constitutional republic.

Second, they need to prove that executive authority was not exercised merely to share information, classified or otherwise, but that it was a source of material harm to America, the People, and our Posterity. That it was a breach of constitutional authority granted by the parties to the constitution.

Trump's predecessor shared sensitive, even critical information (e.g. distribution of nuclear weapons), with Russia and other foreign parties and interests without an accompanying baby hunt by the press and establishment.

This nation is not Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, and unprincipled, not wholly, and we should be careful to avoid that progressive slope.

Unknown said...

It was perfectly fine for the husband of the sec of state to take $500,000 speaking fee in Russia because shut-up!

Unknown said...

The whole thing about collusion is hilarious. It is known that the Russians could not have actually influenced the voting booths. The Russians have been trying to influence US politics since forever. They even have a weird cable channel called RT (Russia Today) which we allow to be aired. The have had communist front groups that lefties actually are members of since the 1930s. The US (ie Obama) tried to influence the Brexit vote and the recent French election. Hilary was taking money via her foundation and husbands speaking fees from Russia and all over the world.
So where exactly is there a crime that Trump is alleged to have committed? What is the crime? Talking to Russians at a cocktail party? When did this become illegal?

RLB_IV said...

What’s the fuss about? The 21 century is the century of make-believe. You are what you say you are and everyone must accept it.