You've got to learn what not to click. We've learned not to click on those "You won't believe what happened next" links, and we need to see the fake news of mainstream media before we reward it with a click.
Resist!
ADDED: The WaPo front-page teaser is "Special counsel starts investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say." Compare The New York Times:
That's the top story at the NYT website right now: "is said." So twee, I prefer it, but still, why are rumors tracking so high as news?
पोस्ट्स
९६ टिप्पण्या:
Click and mock works better, if a click is even tempting.
Kafka's hero didn't have tweets.
Joshua/WOPR: Greetings, Professor Falken.
Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.
Joshua/WOPR: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
These are dangerous times for click monkeys in search of the next cheap thrill.
Oh Ann! The media exists to create controversy and humans cannot resist that. Human nature is innately curious.
Stephen Falken: General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
I am sure this is as true as the fact Comey would never tell Trump he wasn't under investigation, that Rosenstein had threatened to quit, and that the entire Secretary of State office quit.
I am speechless. What does this post even mean?
Trump is said to be going down.
If it weren't for fake news, how'd anyone sell newspapers? Yeah, those other headlines about Trump being a target were fake, but this time, its for reals! Trust us, we wouldn't bullshit you again so soon after being caught, now would we?
It's the lady pages in a breaking news format.
"why are rumors tracking so high as news?"
Because the Dems and MSM either want to remove Trump or make him so weak as to be ineffective. In the interim, the controversy creates web traffic, ratings, views and viewership.
Because the news doesn't fit with the narrative they are pushing. The rumors do.
am speechless. What does this post even mean?
I am betting that this is an honest declaration.
Framing is a powerful psychological tool. Especially when your scripture reading each day including Sunday are these papers. So sad to see a 60s child having her bubble burst - "looking for love in all the wrong places"
Now Trump has really done it now. Obstruction of justice!
What obstruction...? well, the media and their corrupt party will figure that out later.
Obfuscation of justice.
Is it not self evident that Meuller may have to investigate after Trump's alleged words and actions re Comey and others in order to be thorough and complete? It shouldn't even be controversial. He has to look at it if only to say that he has examined those facts and found nothing criminal. And literally anybody could have leaked this, anti or pro Trump, to protect the investigation and keep Trump from doing something self damaging like firing Meuller.
"Why are rumors tracking so high as news?"
Answer: They are chumming the chumps.
I think that Althouse's enlightenment began with her rough treatment at the hand of anti-Walker protesters, but it is pretty complete now. That's probable not entirely true, but I think there is a kernel there. I think now that her distrust has become automatic, like it is with us conservatives. Judith Curry, another tenured college professor, went from one more voice in the manufactured "consensus" on Global Warming[TM] to a pretty hard-core skeptic by engaging with honest voices in the conservative blogosphere and recognizing that they had many of the better arguments. BTW rharden drops insightful comments there from time to time too, but without a math background, I think they might wiz right over people's heads, meaning most global warming believers miss them entirely.
I think the MSM is "doubling down", "going for broke", whatever cliche you care to plug-in.
They must realize that they no longer have any credibility, except among those who will stay with them no matter how many times they get everything totally wrong. So, why stop now?
Major turning point said to have been reached.
So now we're left with the idea he obstructed an investigation he wasn't even involved in.
Is it not self evident...
If everything was as self evident to me as to some people, I wouldn't even bother to read the news. It is possible that the point of the post was the way it was played in the WaPo as a bombshell, which Drudge went with, because that is his highly successful shtick.
Leaks, leaks, and yet more leaks to the WP and NYT, and yet STILL no leak of an email, or video, or audio, or transcribed phone call, or even a photo showing Trump colluded with Russia. Somehow, this babbling fool (who is the second coming of Hitler!) has outsmarted the whole of the left, while at the same time flushing the reputations of the two biggest newspapers of record right down the crapper.
Don't give up, lefties! Some day Wile E. Coyote (Super Genius! Sez so right on his business card!) will catch the pussy-grabbing Road Runner.
Major turning point said to have been reached
Read that between sips of coffee, thanks goodness.
Wookin' Pa Nub
Snark is right.
Comey set the stage for this and went public via leaks after Trump sacked him. Mueller was always going to have to investigate this, and now he is.
The amazing thing is that Comey conducted such an obviously deficient investigation (immunity grants, witness participation as legal counsel, tearing up the "no impact on timing" rule Althouse discussed yesterday) of Clinton. Comey is a snake.
There have been reports of major turning points having been reached recently, by those familiar with the Althouse commenting community
"Probes obstruction" sounds so proctological.
Oh goody! Another NY Times/WaPost based solely on an anonymous source!
Does this mean Robert Mueller's Office of Special Counsel is already leaking? For shame, for shame......
The Dem playbook is pathetic.
1. Lose a winnable election.
2. Get real mad.
3. Blame Russians
4. Leak private phone conversations to link Trump to Russians
5. Get NY Times/WaPost to write a zillion salacious stories based on anonymous sources fueling the issue
6. Trap/trick AG into recusing himself
7. Get non-partisan Deputy AG to appoint Special Counsel
8. Have Special Cousel investigate President
9. Have Special Counsel leak about investigating Prez
10. Hopefully WIN next election
The Democrat party rigged their primary against Bernie Sanders to promote Hillary Clinton. Now, they are trying to rig the game against Trump using Lawfare. We must not let them prevail.
Insiders say turning points, many of them major, are now probably being reached.
The commentariat is abuzz with talk of points reported as those which demonstrate turning and having been reached.
MAJOR TURNING POINTS: REACHED?
I briefly put on MSNBC last night....wondering how they are covering the attempted assassination of Republican legislators in light of how the shooter was a big fan of Rachel Maddow. Nothing. They ol'Rachael was going on her usual rant about how evil Trump is.
I wonder if this is as definitive as the golden dossier we were told had proof positive of Russian collusion.
Oh, and CBS (the shooter was a Dan Rather fan). Their radio news yesterday spent 7 seconds mentioning the politics of the shooter. It is an inconvenient fact.
Althouse applied her "fake news" tag to this. What is "fake"?
Trump's lawyers put out a statement in response to the story. They didn't say the story was fake. They complained about the impropriety of the disclosure. They could have disputed details that were inaccurate. Trump has done that before. But they didn't do it with this story.
I don't like presuming things, but there seems to be every good reason to presume that this is true.
Now, it is only an investigation. Hillary Clinton and her staff (and her server) were all under investigation, too. But since Trump made that story out as so important, and since Trump went to such lengths to claim that he was previously NOT under investigation, this all seems to be valid news. Not "fake news."
As noted ad nauseum lately in last few days, there have been numerous NYT, WaPo and CNN pieces based on unknown fed sources (including re Comey) that have turned out to be fake news. Similarly on the right we had the Seth Rich story (which Fox had to recant - worse recant in its history) and now the Lynch "Steely Silence" story, based on confidential fed sources (don't know yet whether that one is fake news).
But even though networks on both sides have gotten burned, they don't seem to care. As long as they have an unnamed source and the story has propaganda value let's go with it, which just adds fuel to the fabricating leaks. It's disgusting to watch.
"I don't like presuming things, but there seems to be every good reason to presume that this is true."
-- Based on... what? A ridiculous amount of the leaks about the investigation of Trump have turned out to be lies, either engineered by the investigators (Comey letting his friend tell people he never told Trump he wasn't under investigation) or just flat out made out wholecloth by the unknown anonymous sources (Rosenstein threatened to quit!)
There is no reason to believe an anonymous leak about the Trump investigation at this point, since we've been burned for six plus months with fake leak after fake leak.
Maybe we should just formalize all this and have every president subject to an open ended investigation on day 1.
Because the Dems and MSM either want to remove Trump or make him so weak as to be ineffective.
This is the strategy. Watergate him. You don't need a crime to have occurred - Show me the man...
MSM this mornong is already progressing the narrative to the mechanics. This morning the strategy is to get his approval ratings so low the GOP Congress pressures him out.
How do we square an obstruction of justice charge when Comey and McCabe testified the White House has never obstructed anything, Comey testified that Trump wanted the Russia investigation completed, no matter who in his satellite it caught?
Is the leak saying that those two perjured themselves?
Shades of Joseph C. Wison IV's "Yellowcake/Valerie Plame" caper.
When people are speechless but maintain the ability to type inanity...
It's too early to write this, because nobody will notice it, but:
The people who write the news are entertainers. Rush Limbaugh says this all the time. It's a paying gig. They do it for money, not for truth or justice. Laying down a consistent position, as Rush does, helps the show, because it builds the audience.
I don't think most people will ever get this point.
"The man who shot Liberty Valance."
Anything to justify pushing the fact a leftist was hunting/shooting Republicans right outside DC. Compare to the months of front page coverage when an unknown felon was justifiably killed by a police officer in Ferguson.
Rumors are tracking as news because it reflects the wishful thinking of the East Coasters.
Shooter. Unhelpful. Must. Change. Narrative. Back. To. Trump.
Althouse applied her "fake news" tag to this. What is "fake"?
Trump's lawyers put out a statement in response to the story. They didn't say the story was fake. They complained about the impropriety of the disclosure. They could have disputed details that were inaccurate. Trump has done that before. But they didn't do it with this story.
I don't like presuming things, but there seems to be every good reason to presume that this is true.
Now, it is only an investigation. Hillary Clinton and her staff (and her server) were all under investigation, too. But since Trump made that story out as so important, and since Trump went to such lengths to claim that he was previously NOT under investigation, this all seems to be valid news. Not "fake news."
And C***k swears up and down he never, never, parrots Dem talking points to further their partisan advantage.
"why are rumors tracking so high as news?" You are on a roll, you've pretty much got the prog swamp figured out by now, so no need to go back to faux questions.
Chris N said...
The commentariat is abuzz with talk of points reported as those which demonstrate turning and having been reached.
Thanks for clearing that in the direction which is up.
The reason I think this is true is that it fits with decades of special prosecutors. They never find anything to support or bring cases based on the original charges, but they manufacture convictions out of "process." Get anything wrong or mismatched in your hours of interviews, and you have lied to the FBI. Martha Stewart. Stewart Libby. Convicted on matters wholly unrelated to the special prosecutor's ambit.
You are nuts to talk to federal law enforcement, and I say this as a "conservative" and a former federal LE.
Since the Germans took Yellow Journalism into Radio and Newsreels to prove Big Lie works every time, it became the only game in town.
And then the internet arose. And today the #1 crime is defiling Big Lie Narratives with truth antedotes using Conspiracy Youtube broadcasts.
Fair and Balanced Fox is gone with the wind too. That has had to be rewritten and Memory Holed to end Trump's Nationalist counter revolution.
Big Media is Watching You. And thou shalt not defile the Narrative.
why are rumors tracking so high as news?
For one thing, rumors are so easy! No pesky on-the-scene interviews, no fact-checking, none of the effort that a real news story might require. Journalism has become an armchair occupation.
It didn't take long for the Special Counsel's office to start leaking to the press. In addition to Mueller's apparent conflict of interest (he's very good friends with Comey, and Comey's credibility is central to the investigation), the fact his office is leaking damaging information to the press should suffice for the DOJ to shut down his office. It won't happen, but it should.
When there are no damning facts, then rumor and innuendo are all they have.
"And C***k swears up and down he never, never, parrots Dem talking points to further their partisan advantage."
Haha I know that means "Chuck." Wait, it could also mean "Cuck." But they are one in the same. So got ya!
"Show me the man and I will show you the crime."
-- Lavrenti Beria
and
-- Robert Mueller and his Democrat hirelings as well
"Let our enemies know that anyone who attempts to raise a hand against the will of our people, against the will of the party of Obama and Clinton, will be mercilessly crushed and destroyed."
-- Beria, Mueller, et.al.
Yeah, I know, Beria said it about "the party of Lenin and Stalin," but these days, same-o, same-o.
Bob Ellison observes: The people who write the news are entertainers.
Of course and this has become more evident when virtually all major news media are owned by entertainment conglomerates.
...
Trump's lawyers put out a statement in response to the story. They didn't say the story was fake. They complained about the impropriety of the disclosure. They could have disputed details that were inaccurate. Trump has done that before. But they didn't do it with this story. ...
How could Trump's lawyers have disputed the the story? The jest of the story is that the Special Counsel is investigating the President for obstruction of justice. Trump and his lawyers do not know what the Special Counsel is investigating! So, how can they dispute such a story? They've already claimed that there was collusion with the Russians and that Trump didn't obstruct justice by firing Comey. But whether Mueller is looking into those questions is something the President should not know.
This is why these leaks are so damaging. Good hearted people read these stories and assume that there must be some truth to it, because Trump didn't deny any of the specifics in the story. Whether true or not, the story damages the President's reputation and he has no effective way of defending himself.
Trump can expect the same sort of justice from Mueller that the average zek received from Beria.
Stalinism.
Fuck these people.
Robert Mueller already has granted legal immunity to his BFF "Crazy Comey the Leaker", according to True Pundit.
[quote]
A high-ranking Justice Department official believes Special Counsel Robert Mueller has granted a complete get-out-of-jail-free-card deal for disgraced FBI Director James Comey: A coveted immunity deal in exchange for cooperating as a key witness.
“The immunity is a done deal,” a Justice Department source said. “Mueller can do whatever he wants. We (Justice) have no say but after many years working criminal cases I know Comey has been given immunity. You can tell by the way he is acting now and the fact that Mueller has kept us in the dark about his investigation.” ...
As Special Counsel, by law Mueller is permitted to strike immunity agreements without having to get approval for the Attorney General of anyone at Justice. Also he is not obligated as Special Counsel to inform Justice about who is under immunity.
It’s no secret Comey and Mueller are close friends, having worked together at Justice for years alongside Eric Holder. Comey has described Mueller, who also served as FBI director, as his one-time mentor. If someone in Congress cared enough to do something about it, there are no shortages of conflicts of interests at play here in what is supposed to be an impartial investigation. In fact, it’s somewhat staggering.
A complete review of this case illustrates that by striking an immunity deal Comey has essentially used the Washington D.C. system and his connections to insulate himself from any felony criminal charges, including whether he participated in the illegal unmasking of Trump or any other Americans during the election based on FISA court-ordered wiretaps or whether he played a role covering up crimes committed by Hillary Clinton.
[end quote]
http://truepundit.com/exclusive-doj-brass-says-comey-struck-insider-immunity-deal-with-mueller-to-avoid-criminal-charges/
Robert Mueller has three top goals:
1) Whitewash the FBI
2) Whitewash "Crazy Comey the Leaker"
3) Imprison a scapegoat in order to satisfy the public that the FBI's bogus and never-ending Russiagate "investigation" has been valid and worthwhile
Comey should not be given immunity.
I think the fix is in. They plan to try and remove Trump by any means necessary. I believe that, regardless of the lack of any proof of any wrong soing, Mueller will come back with an Obstruction charge, and the NeverTrumpers in congress, along with the Dems, will be "forced" to impeach. Mark my words... its gonna happen soon...
See if I got this last rumor right - Comey violates the law and FBI protocol by leaking memos detailing contents of meeting with the President in order to get a special counsel appointed. As a result, a good friend of his gets appointed special counsel, and promptly gives Comey immunity for, among other things, the leaks that got him appointed. And then goes after the President for immagined offenses that Comey told Congress hadn't been committed. Don't know about everyone else here, but, if true, that stinks to hell. Deep State operatives blatantly and almost openly using the system to take down, or at least hinder, a Constitutionally elected President that threatens it.
Bruce Hayden,
Welcome to the party, pal.
Chuck said... But since Trump made that story out as so important, and since Trump went to such lengths to claim that he was previously NOT under investigation, this all seems to be valid news. Not "fake news
But according to this leak, Chuck, Trump is only now under investigation, right? So all those stories saying Trump was under investigation--all the stories saying Trump's assertion that he was assured by Comey that Trump wasn't under investigation, etc--those WERE fake news, right?
It's a really nutso standard the Media's using here--we were wrong and were pushing a fake story for weeks, but NOW the facts have changed and the part of the story we wanted to be true (that Trump's under investigation) IS true, so that's a big story.
Seems like they--and you--should at least mention the fact that what had been pushed was "fake news," don't you think?
Note: I'm giving the Media way more of the benefit of doubt than they deserve in my last comment. I'm assuming they just got the story wrong unintentionally. It's more likely, given the leaks, that they knew or should have known they were wrong.
Go back to Rubio's initial question to Comey--there have been all these leaks intended to damage Trump joyfully pushed by the Media (and happily swallowed by lifelong Republicans, etc) but somehow the plain fact that Trump was not under investigation didn't leak? That's a bit hard to believe given the fact that the existence of such an investigation is precisely what the Media has been dying to confirm, no?
A lie requires knowingly telling an untruth. I don't think it's far fetched to assume that the same people in the Media who knew details about the situation based on politically-motivated insider leaks also knew that Trump wasn't under investigation. The Media pushed hard to make the narrative that Trump WAS under investigation (and that he was crazy/had to be lying when he claimed Comey told him he wasn't)...and they almost certainly did so with knowledge that they were wrong.
They're working hard to gloss over that fact--the line seems to be "well, he's under investigation NOW so that's all that matters." I don't think we should let them get away it.
Just like his BFF "Crazy Comey the Leaker", Robert Mueller has a history of leaking the FBI's secret information in order to bully uncooperative people.
When Mueller himself was FBI Director, his FBI leaked information in order to pressure Steven Hatfill, an innocent person, to confess being the culprit in a series of anthrax attacks.
Carl Cannon reports in Real Clear Politics:
[quote]
... Comey and Mueller badly bungled the biggest case they ever handled. They botched the investigation of the 2001 anthrax letter attacks ....
The FBI ignored a 2002 tip from a scientific colleague of the actual anthrax killer, who turned out to be a Fort Detrick scientist named Bruce Edwards Ivins; the reason is that they had quickly obsessed on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill ...
In truth, Hatfill was an implausible suspect from the outset. He was a virologist who never handled anthrax, which is a bacterium. (Ivins, by contrast, shared ownership of anthrax patents, was diagnosed as having paranoid personality disorder, and had a habit of stalking and threatening people with anonymous letters ...
So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none ...
Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case .... personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, ... replied that he was “absolutely certain” they weren’t making a mistake.
In 2008 ... the Justice Department had formally exonerated Hatfill – and paid him $5.82 million in a legal settlement – Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. “I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation” ...
[end quote]
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/05/21/when_comey_and_mueller_bungled_the_anthrax_case_133953.html
One reason why Hatfill received $5.82 million was that Mueller's FBI had leaked a lot of its bogus "evidence" to journalists in an effort to pressure Hatfill into confessing.
Seems like a potential good thing, if done honestly. If no investigation, left will forever insinuate Trump obstructed but was never investigated.
Cursory investigation, clear Trump. hopefully move on.
I'm gonna try and help you out hear, Chuck. Any anonymously sources news that cannot be confirmed on the record should be regarded as fake news until facts are presented. You don't have any more factual basis for your opinion than the NYT and WaPo. Like global warming the news has become an unverifiable enterprise. If a human being won't be quoted by name I don't believe the diaphanous assertions.
I'm gonna try and help you out hear, Chuck. Any anonymously sources news that cannot be confirmed on the record should be regarded as fake news until facts are presented. You don't have any more factual basis for your opinion than the NYT and WaPo. Like global warming the news has become an unverifiable enterprise. If a human being won't be quoted by name I don't believe the diaphanous assertions.
Trump, who has never been shy about calling out things when he thinks they are untrue, hasn't denied that he is now under investigation by the Special Counsel. His attorneys, in a prepared statement filled with contempt for all of the President's detractors, did not deny it.
And that was precisely the basis on which we all -- myself included -- presumed that all of the hacked and leaked DNC emails were true. They could have denied their authenticity, if they were fakes. And they didn't.
"I LOVE WIKILEAKS!"
HoodlumDoodlum said...
Chuck said... But since Trump made that story out as so important, and since Trump went to such lengths to claim that he was previously NOT under investigation, this all seems to be valid news. Not "fake news
But according to this leak, Chuck, Trump is only now under investigation, right? So all those stories saying Trump was under investigation--all the stories saying Trump's assertion that he was assured by Comey that Trump wasn't under investigation, etc--those WERE fake news, right?
It's a really nutso standard the Media's using here--we were wrong and were pushing a fake story for weeks, but NOW the facts have changed and the part of the story we wanted to be true (that Trump's under investigation) IS true, so that's a big story.
Seems like they--and you--should at least mention the fact that what had been pushed was "fake news," don't you think?
This just isn't a problem for me. I never presumed anything about any prior Trump investigation. I believe that Jim Comey was true and accurate when he repeatedly confirmed that Trump, at earlier times, was not under personal investigation.
Then Trump fired him. And then the White House put out about four different stories about how and why Comey was fired. The Trump handled the whole thing in a way that even Trump supporters found defective.
And now, Trump is under investigation. I say that as an affirmative fact because there's been every good chance for Trump to deny it. And he hasn't.
I want more facts. I want more clarity. I want a lot more directness and transparency from Trump. I want Trump in front of more reporters, answering hard questions directly.
I'm gonna try and help you out here, Chuck
Good luck!
I want Trump in front of more reporters, answering hard questions directly.
Because that's how America works! Look at the eight years of merciless grilling Obama stood up to! Unilateral disarmament has always been the Republican strategy.
"I hold myself to the same standard as Trump, even though I routinely excoriate Trump as having terrible standards, ethics, care for truthfulness, etc."
I mean, it's one way to go, I guess.
"If someone doesn't specifically deny something someone else asserted then we should presume the assertion is correct."
Again, that's one way to think...but on that basis Hillary Clinton should be assumed to be guilty of murdering Vince Foster, right? Kinda silly, if you ask me.
Now let's think logically for a moment, just to mix things up. Why would Trump's attorneys not deny an allegation that Trump is under investigation? Well, how do you know that Trump IS? You think you know based on a Media report, sourced to an anonymous leak. Why anonymous? Well, because the existence or non-existence of an investigation is secret. As in, the government officials who might be carrying the investigation out have not released that info. Certainly not to the public, and presumably not to Donald Trump nor his lawyers...although I suppose we can't know that for sure, either.
Is it possible Trump's lawyers don't know with certainty whether Trump's under investigation or not? It seems likely to me that they wouldn't. If that's true then they COULD NOT deny the allegation, Chuck, so their non-denial would give you no evidence for the truth of the allegation, at all. You seem to be assuming they know one way or the other and have chosen to not deny, which seems like motivated reasoning (at best), to me.
I still think it's funny that everyone's just moving past the fact that they all said Trump was under investigation when he wasn't to now saying how great it is that he's under investigation now (based, again, on the same kind of anonymous leaks they presumably relied on before).
Joshua Barker predicts: I think the fix is in. They plan to try and remove Trump by any means necessary. I believe that, regardless of the lack of any proof of any wrong soing, Mueller will come back with an Obstruction charge, and the NeverTrumpers in congress, along with the Dems, will be "forced" to impeach. Mark my words... its gonna happen soon...
If it does happen, what can/should we do? I for one won't sit idly and let the GOPe take over. Yon Ryan has a lean and hungry look...
Chuck said...And now, Trump is under investigation. I say that as an affirmative fact because there's been every good chance for Trump to deny it. And he hasn't.
Man, we're working pretzel logic so hard today I might have to break out the Steely Dan!
You believe something to be true because Trump didn't deny it. You also mock Trump/Trump's team for giving multiple explanations for their taking some action--explanations which included denials (implicitly at the very least). You don't credit those denials as proving anything, but you DO take the lack of a denial in this case as proof of the truth of some other assertion. You've been pretty clear that you think Trump is a liar, but his failure to make a statement (one you'd certainly say is likely a lie) in this case convinces you of the truth of some other assertion. The fact that Trump may not have the information necessary to make the denial itself means nothing to you--he hasn't denied it (whether he can actually deny it or not) so it must be true.
The Media reported that Trump was under investigation. That wasn't true, but it was asserted. Until Trump denied it (in his letter firing Comey) I guess you believed it to be true. Did you stop believing it to be true once you read Trump's letter? The Media basically called Trump a liar for what he wrote in the letter. Did you believe the Media then?
Anyway, Steely Dan it is:
Rikki Don't Lose That Number
Man, we're working pretzel logic so hard today I might have to break out the Steely Dan!
Well I gave it a shot! Some people are so TDS impaired they will swallow any old story the DNCMSM spin at them. Sure the sources have been wrong all year long, but they're RIGHT this time cuz Trump woulda denied it otherwise!!!! But that's all a shitscreen for the truth is you wouldn't believe Trump or his lawyer if they issued denials anyway.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he wants to hear former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s side of the story before calling for an investigation into whether she tried to downplay the seriousness of Hillary Clinton’s email practices.
So, Schumer wants to hear the evidence before he will agree to call for an "investigation"?
Isn't that sort of backwards from what the teacher told us in civics class?
Publishing the news must be a game, because it's an unprofitable business in which a few billionaires dabble.
Mock Turtle asked:
"If it does happen, what can/should we do? I for one won't sit idly and let the GOPe take over. Yon Ryan has a lean and hungry look..."
It might cause immediate violence, but I doubt it. What would happen in 2018, however, is dead certain- the Democrats would win 60+ net seats in the House and win back the Senate, and then win the presidency in 2020 with Hillary Clinton in an epic landslide taking Arizona, Montana, all the swing states Trump won in 2016, and Georgia. With that election, the Democrats would end up with 65 Senate seats and over 260 in the House.
I would like to believe the GOP-e know this, but as I have written many times, it is difficult to impossible sometimes to lose while betting on the stupidity of the Republican Party.
You people constantly quote talk show hosts...sad and fucking weird.
53% of the public believes leaks are acts of treason, 30% disagree and 18% are undecided.
53% of the country supports democracy and liberty.
30% of the country are Stalinists.
18% are cowards/vichy traitors.
According to Rasmussen. You all know which category you fall in.
And now, Trump is under investigation. I say that as an affirmative fact because there's been every good chance for Trump to deny it. And he hasn't.
I want more facts. I want more clarity. I want a lot more directness and transparency from Trump. I want Trump in front of more reporters, answering hard questions directly.
Trump is under investigation now for obstructing an investigation of nothing.
Look above this post Chuck. Pick a category. Own it.
Yancey Ward posits: I would like to believe the GOP-e know this, but as I have written many times, it is difficult to impossible sometimes to lose while betting on the stupidity of the Republican Party.
I recently received a GOP donation solicitation disguised as a 'survey'. I made it very clear in my comments that I would never support the GOP again if they continue to try to undermine President Trump and his agenda. Somehow, though, I think they don't get it. They think they won in spite of Trump. While it is true that Trump was 'Not Hillary', it should have been very clear in the primaries that the Jeb Bush style of Republican will no longer win. Barring a third party, I just won't vote in 2018 if Trump is impeached.
Mock Turtle:
If it does happen, what can/should we do? I for one won't sit idly and let the GOPe take over. Yon Ryan has a lean and hungry look...
If that happens... If they actually try to remove a lawfully elected President based on no evidence of any wrong doing, then what recourse do we have? It will prove once and for all that our republic is dead and that our "democracy" is a lie. The deep state truly rules, and we will be forced to comply to all of its wishes.
Make no mistake, this is our last chance to stop the beast. Trump is our standard bearer, and if they take him down, then we have no other options, besides maybe an Article V convention, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen...
We have to let our "rulers" know that if they do this, there will be consequences. And I don't just mean calling up your congressman's office and giving him an earful. If they move to impeach Trump, the only thing I can think of is a peaceful, but armed 10 Million man march on Washington DC. If every god-fearing, country loving, law-abiding patriot citizen gun owner marched on Washington, I think that would send a message loud and clear of the consequences should they choose to proceed.
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
This is inflection point people and it's not a game anymore. Time to see who stands in defense of liberty vs kneeling in subjugation.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Thank you, Joshua. And consider that our founders didn't have the modern MSM to contend with. And what about the military? All Deep State now. Sad.
I don't understand a lot of the posts criticizing me above.
The issue for me is this: Right now, I'd like the question to be put to Trump, or Sean Spicer, or Sarah Huckabee Sanders, or one of Trump's attorneys. Has Donald Trump been informed by the Special Counsel, the Department of Justice or the FBI that he is now a subject of a criminal investigation?
Why would that be a bad question? What is wrong with that question?
Chuck said...Why would that be a bad question? What is wrong with that question?
Trump claimed he wasn't the subject of an investigation for weeks, Chuck. He claimed Comey told him 3 times that he wasn't. The Media repeatedly reported that Trump was the subject of an investigation and that Trump's claim re: Comey telling him 3 times was an obvious falsehood and/or lie.
Did you believe Trump then, or did you believe the Media?
If you didn't believe Trump then--and you've pointed out you don't believe much of what Trump says now, since he's such a liar--why the hell would you believe him now, in response to your question? If you won't believe him now, what the hell good does asking the question do? If the people you'd like to question truthfully answered "we're not aware of any such investigation" you'd surely say "well that's a non-answer, clearly they haven't asked the FBI and/or the SC wouldn't tell them either way, so that answer tells us nothing and the leaks are probably true this time."
See? We understand what you're doing, Chuck; it's very transparent. "Hey, just asking questions here" doesn't fool anyone.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा