FMF do you actually believe the notion behind that cartoon??? How many hearings, how much evidence to the contrary do you need? What exactly were the allegations against Clinton in the first place?
Memo shows Trump tried to end investigation in Feb.
by Coded Logic 134 Replies latest social current
-
-
Coded Logic
“I knew that no one cared about losing a deputy attorney general. But no president could weather losing an FBI director.”
- James Comey 2007I don't think anyone could ever have guessed how prophetic Comey's words would turn out to be. And the extraordinary thing is the FBI director Comey was referencing back then, Robert Muller, is the same guy who's been assigned as the Special Counselor to investigate Trump now.
They say knowledge is like a spiral staircase. Sometimes it goes full circle. But when it does - you're on a whole different level.
-
Coded Logic
Reuters just uncovered 18 more undisclosed contacts with Russia by the Trump Campaign from April to November.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106
Trump will bash the Chinese, the North Koreans, even our own allies. But wont say anything except total praise for Putin. It's all starting to make sense now.
-
hothabanero
lol FMF, that cartoon is too funny and sooo true. Liberals are knocking themselves out chasing one Russia story after another. I swear there must be 4 different Russia connections for each member of Trumps team being thrown around.
I didn't think Trump could get elected but liberals (yes!) made sure he did, then I didn't think he could get reelected but liberals are doing their best to prove me wrong.
-
Simon
Reuters just uncovered 18 more undisclosed contacts with Russia.
No, they didn't.
"current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters"
Basically they have been given a story by political people about someone who was presumably not their chosen candidate. Many in the main-stream media are becoming the publishing and propaganda wing of the left, regurgitating what they are given and slapping their "reputation" on it, which is why their reputations are taking a beating and people trust them less and less.
Yes, Fox News is similar for the right. If Fox News is bad journalism then the left doing it is bad too.
Journalists should do journalism. One of the insidious scandals that's been largely untouched after the last campaign is how political operatives flitted between being media panel representatives or "journalists" employed by the likes of CNN and political campaign workers.
That is not journalism.
-
redvip2000
Basically they have been given a story by political people about someone who was presumably not their chosen candidate.
Well how do you know it's political people that told them this?
Folks, how do we expect news outlets to report stories? Are they only valid if the story reads.... "Hey one of our journalists broke in to the FBI office and stole documents of the investigation"?
Now granted, the story has a lot of more weight once news outlets start naming names of the people supplying this information, but Reuters is not The Onion. If Reuters says that an official (presumably connected with the investigation) has informed them of this, there is reason to say this has some legitimacy.
-
Spoletta
Yes, Fox News is similar for the right. If Fox News is bad journalism then the left doing it is bad too.
The debates here seem dictated by which media the liberals, moderates and conservatives seem to be relying on to confirm their biases.
Part of it boils down to the definition of what constitutes "fake" news. Is it publishing outright lies, or unconfirmed stories, unnamed sources, or just putting a biased spin on the news?
Simon, I recall you listing a number of news sources that you seem to consider fairly bi-partisan. I also wonder if FMF and other moderate or conservative commenters here have sources they rely on that could be considered bi-partisan.
I will make a pledge to use only those sources to comment on this whole subject of any wrongdoing by Trump and his administration.I will also refuse to engage in any debate that relies on information from any other source. Anything other than those sources will be considered "fake" news.
If you can't agree on any bi-partisan sources, then I posit that you are admitting that there are are none, in which case I have every right to consider any sources you quote as being "fake" or dishonest.
This seems reasonable to me, any thoughts on it?
-
Simon
If Reuters says that an official (presumably connected with the investigation) has informed them of this, there is reason to say this has some legitimacy.
Yes, but it's a way from having uncovered some evidence. Unless someone is putting their name to it, then it's just an unsubstantiated rumour.
Anything other than those sources will be considered "fake" news.
One thing that seems to happen, more by the left, is that only news they like is covered and anything that doesn't fit their opinion is suppressed even if it is absolutely news using the old school definition (they label everything "breaking news" on CNN, even planned programming).
Then, they point to the coverage from the other side and say "see FAKE NEWS!" because it's only coming from one source. Saying "oh, it's alt-right" has become the new excuse to discount and discredit anything that someone disagrees with but without actually discrediting it.
Attacking the messenger might seem like a good idea and convenient but what it actually does at the same time is discredit the other sources who didn't cover it.
It's no different than being trapped in the WTS and relying on what they say. At some point you WILL learn that they didn't tell you the truth or the whole truth and their lies and omissions make your trust in them plummet.
This is what is happening with the MSM. Their reputations are being sacrificed for short-term political agendas and convenience by people who really don't give a rats-ass about truth.
-
Bad_Wolf
Why aren't the libs asking for Clinton investigations and the clinton foundation?
-
Spoletta
This is what is happening with the MSM. Their reputations are being sacrificed for short-term political agendas and convenience by people who really don't give a rats-ass about truth.
I could say the same about many conservative news media, but that's neither here nor there. I'm only asking if you believe there is any source that can be trusted to present only the facts, with little or no spin. Why should I accept conservative sources, when those I put forward are treated with scorn and insults.
If those moderates and conservatives are unwilling to debate based on unbiased reporting, I can only assume that they feel this would put them at a disadvantage, which (to my my way of thinking) would be very telling.
So, how about it, you seekers of truth, justice, and the American way?