When it rains, it pours

[orangelvis]

Wonder what we find out here?

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...n-brothers-congressional-democrat-it-scandal/

How many of you remember this? Specifically, how Debbie Wassup Schultz reacted in all of this.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Checking your source here provides... Wait for it....

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record.

 

[Rychek4]

Checking your source here provides... Wait for it....

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record.

My favorite part is how they reference themselves as a source 4 times in that story.

 

[orangelvis]

LMAO!!!

So, I guess there is not really a court hearing? Are you guys denying that there will be a court hearing? Are you guys denying that Judicial Watch doesn't file and receive FOIA records, go to court to compel FOIA records, etc?
Please, tell me. @hopefultiger13 @Rychek4
Also, who is checking the source? Is it the same source checker that has told you for 2.5 years that Trump is a Russian agent, colluded with Russia, That Carter Page was a Russian Agent, That Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to meet Russians, that Trump had an association with a Russian bank, that the Dossier wasn't bought and paid for by Hillary, that the Dossier wasn't what was relied on for the FISA, that Joseph Mifsud is a Russian agent, etc?

It always tickles me when you use a LEFT_WING fact checker that, in your mind, automatically makes something false! LMAO!

You guys are becoming the black knight in the MontyPython movie.

 

[hopefultiger13]

LMAO!!!

So, I guess there is not really a court hearing? Are you guys denying that there will be a court hearing? Are you guys denying that Judicial Watch doesn't file and receive FOIA records, go to court to compel FOIA records, etc?
Please, tell me. @hopefultiger13 @Rychek4
Also, who is checking the source? Is it the same source checker that has told you for 2.5 years that Trump is a Russian agent, colluded with Russia, That Carter Page was a Russian Agent, That Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to meet Russians, that Trump had an association with a Russian bank, that the Dossier wasn't bought and paid for by Hillary, that the Dossier wasn't what was relied on for the FISA, that Joseph Mifsud is a Russian agent, etc?

It always tickles me when you use a LEFT_WING fact checker that, in your mind, automatically makes something false! LMAO!

You guys are becoming the black knight in the MontyPython movie.

View embedded media

I don't think you understand what questionable source means. Just as liars can tell the truth (see your Lord and Savior), questionable sources can get it right as well. I'm merely pointing out that your "go to" sites get it wrong a lot and slant their reporting to the right. It works both ways... here's the fact check on CNN and MSNBC: Which is why you never see me sourcing either of these. You of course buy into all the right based sources, including your Messiah, Hannity, and dismiss the the left. I dismiss pundits on both sides.

Home » CNN

CNN
Share:
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmailTumblrRedditLinkedInFlipboardGoogle BookmarksShare799

LEFT BIAS


These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High due to misleading information presented by guests as well as a few failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks.

Home » MSNBC

MSNBC
Share:
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmailTumblrRedditLinkedInFlipboardGoogle BookmarksShare216

LEFT BIAS


These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate MSNBC Left Biased based on story selection that consistently leans left editorially. Although pundits and hosts have failed a few fact checks, straight news reporting is usually factual and sourced, therefore we rate them Mostly Factual for news reporting.

 

[orangelvis]

I don't think you understand what questionable source means. Just as liars can tell the truth (see your Lord and Savior), questionable sources can get it right as well. I'm merely pointing out that your "go to" sites get it wrong a lot and slant their reporting to the right. It works both ways... here's the fact check on CNN and MSNBC: Which is why you never see me sourcing either of these. You of course buy into all the right based sources, including your Messiah, Hannity, and dismiss the the left. I dismiss pundits on both sides.

Home » CNN

CNN
Share:
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmailTumblrRedditLinkedInFlipboardGoogle BookmarksShare799

LEFT BIAS


These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High due to misleading information presented by guests as well as a few failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks.

Home » MSNBC

MSNBC
Share:
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmailTumblrRedditLinkedInFlipboardGoogle BookmarksShare216

LEFT BIAS


These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• 
  
  
  • Overall, we rate MSNBC Left Biased based on story selection that consistently leans left editorially. Although pundits and hosts have failed a few fact checks, straight news reporting is usually factual and sourced, therefore we rate them Mostly Factual for news reporting.

No, I do understand. But, this is not even a "story", just a press release stating that a court hearing will be taking place. FTR, my Lord and Savior gave himself on a cross 2K years ago and never told a lie.

 

[Rychek4]

LMAO!!!
So, I guess there is not really a court hearing? Are you guys denying that there will be a court hearing? Are you guys denying that Judicial Watch doesn't file and receive FOIA records, go to court to compel FOIA records, etc?

They give opinions in that article. No one is saying there is not a court hearing.

 

[orangelvis]

They give opinions in that article. No one is saying there is not a court hearing.

I really would like to know: what you consider opinion in that piece, and what issues you have with the opinion.

 

[Rychek4]

I really would like to know: what you consider opinion in that piece, and what issues you have with the opinion.

This is an opinion:

“The Awan Brothers IT scandal implicates national security and involves a coverup by House Democrat leadership and, now, the Deep State DOJ,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

It is my opinion that the "Deep State" is fictional and was created to give an "enemy" to the Republicans while we held the Presidency, SCOTUS, and all of Congress at once.

 

[orangelvis]

This is an opinion:

“The Awan Brothers IT scandal implicates national security and involves a coverup by House Democrat leadership and, now, the Deep State DOJ,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

It is my opinion that the "Deep State" is fictional and was created to give an "enemy" to the Republicans while we held the Presidency, SCOTUS, and all of Congress at once.

Ok. So what do you believe about the Anwan brothers and their relationship to dem house members, the DNC and Debbie W. SChultz; especially while she was the Chair of the DNC and immediately after she resigned as Chair.

 

[Rychek4]

Ok. So what do you believe about the Anwan brothers and their relationship to dem house members, the DNC and Debbie W. SChultz; especially while she was the Chair of the DNC and immediately after she resigned as Chair.

These all seem to be true:

• DOJ struck a plea deal on July 3 with former congressional IT staffer Imran Awan, who pleaded guilty to a false statement on an application for a home equity line of credit. U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu, who was nominated by Trump, wrote the plea document, which debunked the theories about Awan.

• News broke in February 2017 that U.S. Capitol Police were investigating allegations that Awan had stolen equipment and violated House IT policies. Awan worked partly for the offices of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2011 to the summer of 2016.

• The DOJ investigated and dismissed such allegations of stolen materials — “interviewing approximately 40 witnesses” and examining various electronic devices.

 

[orangelvis]

These all seem to be true:

• DOJ struck a plea deal on July 3 with former congressional IT staffer Imran Awan, who pleaded guilty to a false statement on an application for a home equity line of credit. U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu, who was nominated by Trump, wrote the plea document, which debunked the theories about Awan.

• News broke in February 2017 that U.S. Capitol Police were investigating allegations that Awan had stolen equipment and violated House IT policies. Awan worked partly for the offices of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2011 to the summer of 2016.

• The DOJ investigated and dismissed such allegations of stolen materials — “interviewing approximately 40 witnesses” and examining various electronic devices.

Just curious. Why do you only consider those bullets to be true and not others. Is it because you trust Politico ?
Just by drilling down the links from your bullets, I found this:

 

[Rychek4]

Just curious. Why do you only consider those bullets to be true and not others. Is it because you trust Politico ?
Just by drilling down the links from your bullets, I found this:

What is the point you are making? I see lots of yellow but it means nothing without context.

 

[appalachiatiger]

well one democrat has even switched parties now.

https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com...cle_8796cf87-1f2c-59dc-8a61-66c138847d33.html

 

[appalachiatiger]

Wonder what we find out here?

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...n-brothers-congressional-democrat-it-scandal/

How many of you remember this? Specifically, how Debbie Wassup Schultz reacted in all of this.

you know

this is a national security issue

each witness the democrats brought forth were not really "old" americans.

they were first or second generation immigrants.

i wonder if that something we should take a look at?

how many humans working for the american taxpayers in the government have been around since the american revolution.

like their blood has been here and been spilled here for generations fighting for the american flag?

be interesting to know what percent.

 

[orangelvis]

What is the point you are making? I see lots of yellow but it means nothing without context.

I didn't do the highlighting. The point is that you and others were disparaging the source. My point is that one cannot get to the truth without judging all sources personally; without relying on these so called sites that rate sources. Some people will not even read conservative sites because of the rating.
The court proceeding happened Friday as noted. The DOJ did not turn over the FOIA info as the judge required. Why? Because there is an impending secret case that has been filed under seal. Would anyone ever know this if they relied solely on the msm? Not even close. The msm, in addition to printing/speaking falsities, also suppresses real news that doesn't meet their narrative; ie, the truth about the dossier, etc.
You claimed that Judicial Watch was spouting opinion, when in reality there was much more revealed within the sugar coated, benign bullet points that you claimed seemed to be true, but fell short of full disclosure. The House IG produced the bullet points that I posted and contained potentially damning info that went into much more depth than the innocuous bullet points that you posted; even though the info was derived from the IG bullet points. Is that not a way of sheltering/protecting a narrative?

 

[Rychek4]

I didn't do the highlighting. The point is that you and others were disparaging the source. My point is that one cannot get to the truth without judging all sources personally

These all seem to be true:

• DOJ struck a plea deal on July 3 with former congressional IT staffer Imran Awan, who pleaded guilty to a false statement on an application for a home equity line of credit. U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu, who was nominated by Trump, wrote the plea document, which debunked the theories about Awan.

• News broke in February 2017 that U.S. Capitol Police were investigating allegations that Awan had stolen equipment and violated House IT policies. Awan worked partly for the offices of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2011 to the summer of 2016.

• The DOJ investigated and dismissed such allegations of stolen materials — “interviewing approximately 40 witnesses” and examining various electronic devices.

Make an argument or don't.

 

[appalachiatiger]

These all seem to be true:

• DOJ struck a plea deal on July 3 with former congressional IT staffer Imran Awan, who pleaded guilty to a false statement on an application for a home equity line of credit. U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu, who was nominated by Trump, wrote the plea document, which debunked the theories about Awan.

• News broke in February 2017 that U.S. Capitol Police were investigating allegations that Awan had stolen equipment and violated House IT policies. Awan worked partly for the offices of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2011 to the summer of 2016.

• The DOJ investigated and dismissed such allegations of stolen materials — “interviewing approximately 40 witnesses” and examining various electronic devices.

Make an argument or don't.

think he was a pakistani spy?

our justice dept seems to let big things go, then totally screw some people.

seems very political. barr knows it.

but what do you do?

comey, clapper, brennan are snakes.

 

[Rychek4]

think he was a pakistani spy?

our justice dept seems to let big things go, then totally screw some people.

seems very political. barr knows it.

but what do you do?

comey, clapper, brennan are snakes.

I'm going to take these line by line.

1. no, supply evidence
2. yes agreed
3. sure okay, what's your point?
4. program stuff for banks
5. okay?

Can you post something that makes sense? Why do you just ramble on? Is your goal to actually change my mind? I swear sometimes when you post it's like you are doing whippits.

 

[appalachiatiger]

yea no evidence of spying. just speculation on my part fro reading into it.

that little group was up to something no good.

i think when you have 2 term presidents, the state dept and the justice dept seem to get too political.

why wouldnt they look into why trump ask to look into the bidens. why just auto say debunk.

i would find the bottom regardless of party.

snakes are people that just outright lie. guy like schiff is more methodical. he hides lies behind the truth.

 

[appalachiatiger]

maria is hot..

 

[orangelvis]

These all seem to be true:

• DOJ struck a plea deal on July 3 with former congressional IT staffer Imran Awan, who pleaded guilty to a false statement on an application for a home equity line of credit. U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu, who was nominated by Trump, wrote the plea document, which debunked the theories about Awan.

• News broke in February 2017 that U.S. Capitol Police were investigating allegations that Awan had stolen equipment and violated House IT policies. Awan worked partly for the offices of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2011 to the summer of 2016.

• The DOJ investigated and dismissed such allegations of stolen materials — “interviewing approximately 40 witnesses” and examining various electronic devices.

Make an argument or don't.

The argument is that my original post suggests that this situation runs much deeper than your original slam of the Judicial Watch press brief and your subsequent suggestion that only a few benign bullet points seem to be true. My argument was proven out; subsequently at the actual hearing; when the DOJ admitted that the reason they could not produce the FOIA information regarding Awan, is because of a secret criminal investigation filed under seal. All of this could easily have been ascertained from digging into the links within your benign bullet point article.
I probably spend too much time on here, but I really do want to wake people on what is being proven out more and more every day now. The last 3 years has never been about Trump's corruption, but rather a highly organized effort to keep you,(the general public) from finding out about their (the deep state) corruption.

 

[Rychek4]

this situation runs much deeper than your original slam of the Judicial Watch press brief

Good this is something solid we can talk about. Now you have made an assertion. Now back it up with quotes or links or something.

 

[FLOtiger93]

The argument is that my original post suggests that this situation runs much deeper than your original slam of the Judicial Watch press brief and your subsequent suggestion that only a few benign bullet points seem to be true. My argument was proven out; subsequently at the actual hearing; when the DOJ admitted that the reason they could not produce the FOIA information regarding Awan, is because of a secret criminal investigation filed under seal. All of this could easily have been ascertained from digging into the links within your benign bullet point article.
I probably spend too much time on here, but I really do want to wake people on what is being proven out more and more every day now. The last 3 years has never been about Trump's corruption, but rather a highly organized effort to keep you,(the general public) from finding out about their (the deep state) corruption.

“The last 3 years has never been about Trump’s corruption, but rather a highly organized effort to keep you,(the general public) from finding out about their (the deep state) corruption.”

- how tf do you claim to deal in facts when you say stuff like this.

I think for most Trump loyalists, we are loyal to him because he is loyal to: America, The Constitution and his campaign promises.
About the only thing right now that could change my mind, would if he were caught having sex with Pelosi.

Maybe the problem is this admitted unfaltering loyalty to a politician that’s the problem. Don’t tell me someone is “draining the swamp” when they have an entire political party supporting them and an entire party against them.

 

[orangelvis]

“The last 3 years has never been about Trump’s corruption, but rather a highly organized effort to keep you,(the general public) from finding out about their (the deep state) corruption.”

- how tf do you claim to deal in facts when you say stuff like this.



Maybe the problem is this admitted unfaltering loyalty to a politician that’s the problem. Don’t tell me someone is “draining the swamp” when they have an entire political party supporting them and an entire party against them.

Sorry buddy. Your ignorance of what has been happening can only be explained by msm mind control, their ability to control the narrative.

What part of "because he is loyal to: America, The Constitution and his campaign promises" don't you understand.

There were many swamp repubs that didn't support him. An unprecedented ,record number of House repubs decided to not seek reelection in 2018, (44 or so); including the speaker. The dems decided to fight, (impeach). If you understand that the dems have planning impeachment since the Inauguration, then you are really ignorant. Any idea how many in the DOJ have quit or been fired for misconduct? Of course you don't. Four Pentagon officials have resigned in the last week. Who has been asking questions at Pentagon recently. Durham. Why? Because it was discovered that Stephan Halper was paid a lot of money from a Pentagon account and the expense wasn't recorded. Do you even know who Halper is and his role in the Russia collusion hoax?
I could go on, but I don't have time. Sooner or later, some of you people or going to wake up to the fact that the msm,(90%) of the media are nothing more the propaganda arm of the dem/rino, deep state.
Justice is coming man. It has to. Do you think defrauding a FISA court can go unpunished? We will lose the Republic otherwise. Did you see the public statement of the Chief FISA judge? I've said multiple times, that this has NOTHING to do with party. John McCain, if he were alive, would have some testimony to give about his role in assimilating the fake dossier.

 

[Rychek4]

Sorry buddy. Your ignorance of what has been happening can only be explained by msm mind control, their ability to control the narrative.

What part of "because he is loyal to: America, The Constitution and his campaign promises" don't you understand.

There were many swamp repubs that didn't support him. An unprecedented ,record number of House repubs decided to not seek reelection in 2018, (44 or so); including the speaker. The dems decided to fight, (impeach). If you understand that the dems have planning impeachment since the Inauguration, then you are really ignorant. Any idea how many in the DOJ have quit or been fired for misconduct? Of course you don't. Four Pentagon officials have resigned in the last week. Who has been asking questions at Pentagon recently. Durham. Why? Because it was discovered that Stephan Halper was paid a lot of money from a Pentagon account and the expense wasn't recorded. Do you even know who Halper is and his role in the Russia collusion hoax?
I could go on, but I don't have time. Sooner or later, some of you people or going to wake up to the fact that the msm,(90%) of the media are nothing more the propaganda arm of the dem/rino, deep state.
Justice is coming man. It has to. Do you think defrauding a FISA court can go unpunished? We will lose the Republic otherwise. Did you see the public statement of the Chief FISA judge? I've said multiple times, that this has NOTHING to do with party. John McCain, if he were alive, would have some testimony to give about his role in assimilating the fake dossier.

Paragraphs my man. What are they?

Edit: Not just trying to be a jerk here. We agree on some stuff like FISA.

 

[FLOtiger93]

Sorry buddy. Your ignorance of what has been happening can only be explained by msm mind control, their ability to control the narrative.

What part of "because he is loyal to: America, The Constitution and his campaign promises" don't you understand.

There were many swamp repubs that didn't support him. An unprecedented ,record number of House repubs decided to not seek reelection in 2018, (44 or so); including the speaker. The dems decided to fight, (impeach). If you understand that the dems have planning impeachment since the Inauguration, then you are really ignorant. Any idea how many in the DOJ have quit or been fired for misconduct? Of course you don't. Four Pentagon officials have resigned in the last week. Who has been asking questions at Pentagon recently. Durham. Why? Because it was discovered that Stephan Halper was paid a lot of money from a Pentagon account and the expense wasn't recorded. Do you even know who Halper is and his role in the Russia collusion hoax?
I could go on, but I don't have time. Sooner or later, some of you people or going to wake up to the fact that the msm,(90%) of the media are nothing more the propaganda arm of the dem/rino, deep state.
Justice is coming man. It has to. Do you think defrauding a FISA court can go unpunished? We will lose the Republic otherwise. Did you see the public statement of the Chief FISA judge? I've said multiple times, that this has NOTHING to do with party. John McCain, if he were alive, would have some testimony to give about his role in assimilating the fake dossier.

1) In case you haven’t caught on, I work for our government. I work for a private company but our final customer is often the government. I’m not ignorant about what’s going on. Don’t ask me in a condescending manner if I know what’s going on at the pentagon/in the gov’t unless you know for a fact you know more than I do. You claim all these factless conspiracy theories and can’t support them. I just stand by our intel community and government. I find it reprehensible that someone who likely knows very little about our government thinks it’s okay to cast shadows on real US heroes. One republican today referred to the FBI as a “once respected organization” and that’s ridiculous. A POLITICIAN said that about the FBI.

2) You don’t like that I won’t go down your rabbit holes. “If you don’t understand dems have planned impeachment since inauguration...”

- Do YOU know that SOME dems have tried to impeach in 2017, 2018, and a few months ago? The majority of dems voted in favor of Trump all 3 times before this. Maybe the American people used their votes in last years mid-terms to unseat the repubs, not that they were “swamp repubs.” Now, with the majority in the house (that was voted for by the American people 2 years after Trump was president), the dem majority has voted against impeachment once and now finally impeached. That representative majority was elected by the American people and we, as representatives, have voted to impeach the president. Don’t like it? Consult the constitution.

 

[orangelvis]

1) In case you haven’t caught on, I work for our government. I work for a private company but our final customer is often the government. I’m not ignorant about what’s going on. Don’t ask me in a condescending manner if I know what’s going on at the pentagon/in the gov’t unless you know for a fact you know more than I do. You claim all these factless conspiracy theories and can’t support them. I just stand by our intel community and government. I find it reprehensible that someone who likely knows very little about our government thinks it’s okay to cast shadows on real US heroes. One republican today referred to the FBI as a “once respected organization” and that’s ridiculous. A POLITICIAN said that about the FBI.

2) You don’t like that I won’t go down your rabbit holes. “If you don’t understand dems have planned impeachment since inauguration...”

- Do YOU know that SOME dems have tried to impeach in 2017, 2018, and a few months ago? The majority of dems voted in favor of Trump all 3 times before this. Maybe the American people used their votes in last years mid-terms to unseat the repubs, not that they were “swamp repubs.” Now, with the majority in the house (that was voted for by the American people 2 years after Trump was president), the dem majority has voted against impeachment once and now finally impeached. That representative majority was elected by the American people and we, as representatives, have voted to impeach the president. Don’t like it? Consult the constitution.

First, you my friend started the condescension in the way you portray Trump supporters. I'm happy you get to work in The Beltway. Yippeee!
Yes, I am well aware of history. In fact dems have tried impeach every repub president, except one, for the last 100 years. While we're on the subject, what makes this vote different than the previous ones? Desperation. Now I'm seeing your stripes. Yes the dems in Congress were elected by the American people in the districts in which they serve. Donald J. Trump was elected by the people of a majority of ALL 50 states. Congratulations! Like Trump, I've wanted the dems to do this. The only way he can drain the swamp is to first, expose it.

"I find it reprehensible that someone who likely knows very little about our government thinks it’s okay to cast shadows on real US heroes. One republican today referred to the FBI as a “once respected organization” and that’s ridiculous. A POLITICIAN said that about the FBI."
Just so I understand. You are proud that the highest ranking people at the FBI knowingly participated in FRAUD to deceive a FISA COURT, so they could SPY on a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE and his campaign and continued to SPY during his PRESIDENCY in an ILLEGAL attempt to remove him from office. Got it. I feel free to also say, if you do not understand by now what happened within the FBI hierarchy, then you are, just as I've said, IGNORANT, and probably because of your blind PARTISANSHIP.

 

[orangelvis]

Paragraphs my man. What are they?

Edit: Not just trying to be a jerk here. We agree on some stuff like FISA.

Sloppy for sure. In a hurry and not a good typist.
So, if we agree on FISA, what do you think of what transpired as a result of FISA? We know what FISA led to chronologically. If the underlying premise is proven false, was there a prescribed conclusion from the beginning? Why else would people with that much power and responsibility to detail, knowingly do what they obviously did? Can their actions credibly be called errors, omissions, etc? I'm not slamming Horowitz. He has to report in that manner and he can't be the accuser. It is easy to see, however, how the msm can use the IG wording to easily sway people into a conclusion of no wrong. Unless folks have watched the subsequent Senate hearings, read the FISA judge's statement, etc, they really have been duped by the msm. I don't blame them, I just want them to wake up!

 

[tigerGUY]

I don't think you understand what questionable source means. Just as liars can tell the truth (see your Lord and Savior), questionable sources can get it right as well. I'm merely pointing out that your "go to" sites get it wrong a lot and slant their reporting to the right. It works both ways... here's the fact check on CNN and MSNBC: Which is why you never see me sourcing either of these. You of course buy into all the right based sources, including your Messiah, Hannity, and dismiss the the left. I dismiss pundits on both sides.

Home » CNN

CNN
Share:
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmailTumblrRedditLinkedInFlipboardGoogle BookmarksShare799

LEFT BIAS


These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High due to misleading information presented by guests as well as a few failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks.

Home » MSNBC

MSNBC
Share:
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmailTumblrRedditLinkedInFlipboardGoogle BookmarksShare216

LEFT BIAS


These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• 
  
  
  • Overall, we rate MSNBC Left Biased based on story selection that consistently leans left editorially. Although pundits and hosts have failed a few fact checks, straight news reporting is usually factual and sourced, therefore we rate them Mostly Factual for news reporting.

It's going to suck for you when you pass. Prayers sent.

 

[hopefultiger13]

It's going to suck for you when you pass. Prayers sent.

Thanks for the prayers, I'll take them and send some right back your way. Nothing is certain in this life, but I'm pretty confident in my commitment to Jesus as my savior, so while I'm in no hurry, my passing on is not going to suck.

Trump has NOTHING, NOTHING to do with my faith. Quite the contrary. While no one can know what's truly in another man's soul, Trump's actions seem consistently anti Christian and much more pro Trump to me. I do pray for him every day as well.

 

[hopefultiger13]

1) In case you haven’t caught on, I work for our government. I work for a private company but our final customer is often the government. I’m not ignorant about what’s going on. Don’t ask me in a condescending manner if I know what’s going on at the pentagon/in the gov’t unless you know for a fact you know more than I do. You claim all these factless conspiracy theories and can’t support them. I just stand by our intel community and government. I find it reprehensible that someone who likely knows very little about our government thinks it’s okay to cast shadows on real US heroes. One republican today referred to the FBI as a “once respected organization” and that’s ridiculous. A POLITICIAN said that about the FBI.

2) You don’t like that I won’t go down your rabbit holes. “If you don’t understand dems have planned impeachment since inauguration...”

- Do YOU know that SOME dems have tried to impeach in 2017, 2018, and a few months ago? The majority of dems voted in favor of Trump all 3 times before this. Maybe the American people used their votes in last years mid-terms to unseat the repubs, not that they were “swamp repubs.” Now, with the majority in the house (that was voted for by the American people 2 years after Trump was president), the dem majority has voted against impeachment once and now finally impeached. That representative majority was elected by the American people and we, as representatives, have voted to impeach the president. Don’t like it? Consult the constitution.

I LOVE this post. While technically, I suppose I work for the government (at a public University), I certainly don't have any special insights into the inner workings as you do. I simply don't believe that thousands of people who have served faithfully and well have all of a sudden turned into a huge movement to oust Trump. I think it's far more likely that one sleazy businessman who has spent his entire life self promoting himself and his business is continuing his sleazy, lying ways. Trump is a genius (at conning people) and by all polls, he has conned 1/3 of the country into believing his lies.

 

[FLOtiger93]

First, you my friend started the condescension in the way you portray Trump supporters. I'm happy you get to work in The Beltway. Yippeee!
Yes, I am well aware of history. In fact dems have tried impeach every repub president, except one, for the last 100 years. While we're on the subject, what makes this vote different than the previous ones? Desperation. Now I'm seeing your stripes. Yes the dems in Congress were elected by the American people in the districts in which they serve. Donald J. Trump was elected by the people of a majority of ALL 50 states. Congratulations! Like Trump, I've wanted the dems to do this. The only way he can drain the swamp is to first, expose it.

"I find it reprehensible that someone who likely knows very little about our government thinks it’s okay to cast shadows on real US heroes. One republican today referred to the FBI as a “once respected organization” and that’s ridiculous. A POLITICIAN said that about the FBI."
Just so I understand. You are proud that the highest ranking people at the FBI knowingly participated in FRAUD to deceive a FISA COURT, so they could SPY on a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE and his campaign and continued to SPY during his PRESIDENCY in an ILLEGAL attempt to remove him from office. Got it. I feel free to also say, if you do not understand by now what happened within the FBI hierarchy, then you are, just as I've said, IGNORANT, and probably because of your blind PARTISANSHIP.

Please explain to me how your statement starting with “while we’re on the subject” is anything but speculation and opinion. You wanted Trump to be impeached? He wanted himself impeached? Yeah, okay. You honestly think you know the most secret interworkings of our intel community and government. I think I could argue the existence of aliens at Area 51 more effectively than your argument on this.

Your and the presidents narrative of “the dems have been out to get Trump since before he was elected” is proven false. The majority of dems voted against impeachment 3 times before this..explain that.

Your next point “just so I understand...” Did I say any of the stuff you posted? Why do you always jump to these wild conclusions? Are you trying to drag me down a rabbit hole?

Btw it’s funny that you’re feeding the most polarizing, partisan president ever and you’re calling me partisan. You said “about the only thing he could do to change my mind (about caring for Americans/the constitution/etc) would be Trump having sex with Pelosi. I say I won’t support anyone who disrespects the things I hold dear and makes a mockery of our great country. Who’s partisan here?

 

[FLOtiger93]

I LOVE this post. While technically, I suppose I work for the government (at a public University), I certainly don't have any special insights into the inner workings as you do. I simply don't believe that thousands of people who have served faithfully and well have all of a sudden turned into a huge movement to oust Trump. I think it's far more likely that one sleazy businessman who has spent his entire life self promoting himself and his business is continuing his sleazy, lying ways. Trump is a genius (at conning people) and by all polls, he has conned 1/3 of the country into believing his lies.

That last part is it in a nutshell. Is it more likely that Donald freaking Trump is continuing to push the limits he always has than our FBI, CIA, NSA, etc, etc all being in on a conspiracy to overthrow the president. How can someone believe Donald Trump is increasing faith and integrity in our government?

Trump’s (Cohn’s) method of handling conflict is working perfectly. He immediately declares victory when he’s accused, points the finger at the other person, and creates an influx of misinformation. The republicans arguments are not cohesive and you can’t follow them. They throw random phrases out and sporadically reference a timeline of events to convolute and confuse the truth. I really wish they would address the dems questions and provide witnesses (even if they’re unfair and biased) and just get this over with. You can’t just default back to blaming everything on the dems and the deep state..there are actual questions that can and should be answered. They may exonerate Trump but it’s crazy to not want to answers. The dems are wrong to claim guilt before concrete evidence is provided but how can you argue to never see the evidence that could lead to a sure answer? The fact that Trump has convinced millions of Americans to turn a blind eye to anything he does is scary. He may be innocent but shouldn’t we find out? You know, trust but verify?

 

[hopefultiger13]

That last part is it in a nutshell. Is it more likely that Donald freaking Trump is continuing to push the limits he always has than our FBI, CIA, NSA, etc, etc all being in on a conspiracy to overthrow the president. How can someone believe Donald Trump is increasing faith and integrity in our government?

Trump’s (Cohn’s) method of handling conflict is working perfectly. He immediately declares victory when he’s accused, points the finger at the other person, and creates an influx of misinformation. The republicans arguments are not cohesive and you can’t follow them. They throw random phrases out and sporadically reference a timeline of events to convolute and confuse the truth. I really wish they would address the dems questions and provide witnesses (even if they’re unfair and biased) and just get this over with. You can’t just default back to blaming everything on the dems and the deep state..there are actual questions that can and should be answered. They may exonerate Trump but it’s crazy to not want to answers. The dems are wrong to claim guilt before concrete evidence is provided but how can you argue to never see the evidence that could lead to a sure answer? The fact that Trump has convinced millions of Americans to turn a blind eye to anything he does is scary. He may be innocent but shouldn’t we find out? You know, trust but verify?

I hear you. Too bad the Trumpians on here won't. While I don't know one way or the other what Trump has done or not done, I don't trust him. Never will. The reason for that is that he's a liar. Hell, even Tucker Carlson... a die hard Trumpian... says he's a bullshit artist that lies all the time. Trump even lies about the stupid stuff that he doesn't need to lie about. When the President of the United States tells you something, you need to be able to believe it. If Donald Trump told me it was raining outside, I'd look out the window before I grabbed an umbrella.

 

[Rychek4]

Sloppy for sure. In a hurry and not a good typist.
So, if we agree on FISA, what do you think of what transpired as a result of FISA? We know what FISA led to chronologically. If the underlying premise is proven false, was there a prescribed conclusion from the beginning? Why else would people with that much power and responsibility to detail, knowingly do what they obviously did? Can their actions credibly be called errors, omissions, etc? I'm not slamming Horowitz. He has to report in that manner and he can't be the accuser. It is easy to see, however, how the msm can use the IG wording to easily sway people into a conclusion of no wrong. Unless folks have watched the subsequent Senate hearings, read the FISA judge's statement, etc, they really have been duped by the msm. I don't blame them, I just want them to wake up!

without getting into the details, FISA shouldn't exist and Obama was wrong to allow the court to form.

 

[orangelvis]

without getting into the details, FISA shouldn't exist and Obama was wrong to allow the court to form.

Without getting into details, is anyone above the law?

 

[appalachiatiger]

Without getting into details, is anyone above the law?

what law?

dont wear a seatbelt. ass raped by a court.

stealing billions of taxpayers money, who cares, their from elite families, they deserve special treatment

 

[Rychek4]

Without getting into details, is anyone above the law?

I don't think they should be.

 

[purenonsense]

They give opinions in that article. No one is saying there is not a court hearing.

we have an entire generation today , or more , who have never seen real news like we older guys grew up with. they cant tell the difference tween editorial and reporting, opinion and fact , sean calamity and walter Cronkite.