I read the indictment and see how he cooperated. You don't source what your stating as fact btw. Looks like the usual politically motivated spin to be honest.
A former prosecutor debunked CNN’s and MSNBC’s coverage of Roger Stone’s indictment during a Monday afternoon appearance on MSNBC.
Sol Wisenberg was on “Meet the Press” with Katy Tur and discussed the ramifications of President Donald Trump’s long-time confidant being indicted. Stone was charged with seven counts, including five for making false statements to Congress, one for witness tampering and one for obstruction of a government proceeding.
The indictments did not, however, prove any sort of collusion with Russia. The charges center on Stone’s discussions with associates and Trump campaign officials about WikiLeaks and that organization’s role in releasing Democrats’ emails during the 2016 presidential campaign.
“So he’s been charged with lying, with obstruction and with tampering with a witness. He was not charged with conspiracy. When we look back at what we have seen coming out of Mueller’s office, there have been filings about how the Russians were able to influence social media and the election,” Tur began.
She added,
There have been filings about the hacking into DNC e-mails and Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. There have been a number of filings detailing all of the people that have lied in the Russia investigation. What there hasn’t been so far is any evidence or any charges of conspiracy on the American side in terms of, like, collusion. Do you think that is because the Mueller team doesn’t have it? Are they building up a public case of sorts? What is your interpretation?”
“I don’t think they have it, I don’t think it is there, and all of this stuff I see where people are ‘ooh-ing and ah-ing’ over this indictment in terms of getting us closer to a conspiracy allegation, I think are quite incorrect,” Wisenberg stated.
“In fact, if anything, the indictment shows, tends to show, that the Trump campaign was not involved in a conspiracy because they had to ask Roger Stone, ‘Hey, go ask WikiLeaks what kind of damaging stuff they have on Hillary and when they’re going to release it next.'”
He continued, “That doesn’t sound like somebody leading a conspiracy or in on what’s going to happen. They’re having to ask Roger Stone, so I reject the primary narrative that I’m seeing a lot on your network and on CNN. It’s just another case of lying.”
So when the Mueller investigators don't have anything, they do a big show arrest with more guns than they used to take out Osama Bin Ladin, to make it look like Roger Stone is guilty of something, even calling CNN in advance to film the overkill arrest, just so the Mueller team can save face.
There's so much FBI, DOJ and Mueller have done that is unethical and in violation of standard procedure, that it strains credibility the charges against Roger Stone at this point are legitimate. Like a Soviet investigation, the result is predetermined.
As was the exoneration of Comrade Commissar Hillary Clinton, despite the mountain of evidence against her that remains uninvestigated. James Comey's press conference speech exonerating her was written 2 months before the first scrap of evidence was looked at.
Even two years into the preceding Hillary e-mail server investigation, and the ongoing Trump/Russia/FBI/DOJ/FISA investigation, and following it almost daily, I still get lost sometimes in all the moving parts.
There was mention in one report I saw of the FBI-codenamed "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation that made me look up this National Review article critiquing (and linking) the original New York Times exposure of the FBI's secret, the central point of which is the FBI planted an "asset" (or FBI informant) inside the Trump campaign in 2016.
Which was essentially Democrat opposition research to try and find something incriminating inside the Trump campaign, to either criminally prosecute Trump, or to at least make public and ruin Trump's candidacy, to allow Hillary (the candidate the entire top floor of the FBI wanted to win) to become president (after already previously sabotaging the case against Hillary Clinton, before manufacturing a case against Trump.)
And that's all in addition to manufacturing four FISA warrants to investigate Trump officials, based on fraudulent "Russia Dossier" evidence that Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein and Sally Yates all knew to be "salacious" and "unreliable", in their own words.
And beyond that, hiring foreign nationals as further "assets" to bait low-level Trump officials such as Carter Page, Pappadapoulos, Roger Stone and Michael Caputo into incriminating themselves with offers of Russian-provided "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. In the cases of Stone and Caputo, they reported these offers to the FBI, and the FBI did nothing, because the intent was for them to take the bait!
And then in addition to that Trump Jr.'s meeting with Russian attorney Vesselnitskaya who also offered confidential dirt on Hillary, who met for about 20-30 minutes with Trump Jr before he saw it was bogus and ended the meeting with no transaction. Vesselnitskaya should never have been in the U.S. and was only here because then-attorney general Loretty Lynch personally signed the paperwork to allow her to be here. In addition Vesselnitskaya worked directly with Fusion GPS, and met with them both before and after her meeting with Trump Jr. And thus was so obviously a set-up to try and smear and incriminate the trump campaign.
That's not even all the moving parts. But enough to demonstrate there was, and remains, a massive conspiracy by Democrat/Hillary/Obama loyalists in the FBI, DOJ, Clapper(DNI), Brennan(CIA) and others to rig the 2016 election and/or falsely incriminate/smear the Trump campaign. And post-Nov 2016, to create enough illusion/appearance of scandal, and Trump investigation on multiple fronts to cripple his presidency. And in spite of all that aligned against him, Trump is still the most accomplished president of at least the last 50 years, in only his first 2 years.
As both Manafort's lawyer and the prosecuting judge made clear, none of the charges were related to "Russia collusion", to Trump, or to the Trump campaaign.
Again, Manafort was Trump's campaign manager for about 40 days, and was only part of the Trump campaign for about 100 days. Again, Manafort was aggressively prosecuted for a case initally closed by the FBI 13 years prior, and closed because they deemed it unprosecutable for a lack of evidence. THE ONLY reason this case was re-opened was for vindictive prosecution of a Trump official, to shake down Manafort and bankrupt him (a wealthy man up till then) with legal fees, so that at some point he could no longer fight and was forced to seek a deal. That is the pattern with EVERY Trump official in this Stalinist proceeding. It is to intimidate anyone who would consider serving under Trump going forward, and punishment for helping Trump win the election. Disguised as a legal investigation. That is its true purpose.
As contrasted with the Hillary Clinton investigation, where (in sharp contrast to how overzealously they prosecuted Trump officials) the same FBI,DOJ and Mueller investigators bent over backward to destroy evidence, allow evidence to be destroyed, avoid interviews that would create similar perjury traps for Hillary officials, and handed out immunity for no logical reason so they could not be leveraged as witnesses later.
The weaponization of law by Hillary's praetorian guard against their political opposition, disguised as a legal proceeding.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
And I think it is safe to say that if Manafort had not served, however briefly, in the Trump administration, he would never have been convicted of a single one of these charges.
His only real crime he was so aggressiveely prosecuted for was having an allegience to Trump.
In any case, the Mueller investigation is winding down, reports are that many of the lawyers on the Mueller investigation have left or are in the process of setting up their subsequent employment, and that the final report is being prepared for attorney general Barr within the next few weeks. It's over. There is no "collusion". It's over. For all the vindictive prosecution, the manufactured "Russia Dossier" allegations and illegal FISA warrants, for all the lies and false narratives of Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell, it's over.
House Democrats are desperately trying to open multiple new committee investigations to keep the "Russia collusion" myth alive, and spread it to investigating every aspect of Trump's life and that of his family, but they lack the resources that the Mueller investigation had, so that narrative is smoke and mirrors and will go nowhere. It's over.
Y'know, the scandal Democrats all want to compare this to is Watergate. And if you look at the sentences of those convicted in that far more serious conspiracy...
...most of them were imprisoned for only 4 to 6 months. The ones who were sentenced to 2 1/2 to 8 years ended up serving about 18 months. Even E. Howard Hunt who supervised the break-in only got about 6 months. Attorney General Colson served 19 months. And the one who got the harshest sentence, who supervised the break-in, Gordon Liddy, was sentenced to 8 to 20 years, and ultimately because his sentence was so disproportionate to the others, President Carter commuted it, so he served a little over 4 years.
So... It frankly pisses me off that Democrats want Manafort to be sentenced to 20 years (that's what Robet Mueller and Andrew Weissman gave as a sentence recommendation), which is really vindictive and disproportionate. Even if Manafort is sentenced to even more time next week at his second sentencing hearing for other charges, it would be highly disproportionate for him to actually serve even 4 actual years in jail.
Meanwhile, for actual crimes Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and other aides who actually betrayed the nation and compromised national security with: 1) Hillary's illegal private e-mail server, that knowingly compromised access to her top secret e-mails to the Russians and Chinese EVERY DAY she was secretary of state. Obama also communicated with her on this e-mail, under a false name (consciousness of guilt). 2) selling foreign access to State Department cooperation in exchange for about $150 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation, 3) the Uranium One deal selling a vast percentage of U.S. Uranium to Russia, 4) negligence, perjury and cover-up of Hillary/Obama's Benghazi negligence, and 5) Team Hillary's destruction of subpoenaed files, computers, e-mails and cel-phones.
>>>>>ALL<<<<< scream for investigation, and yet have never been seriously investigated.
Compare: The gun-heavy midnight Seal-Team 6-style raids of Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone, to allegedly prevent them from destroying evidence. As compared to Hillary Clinton officials whom the FBI gave free reign for weeks to destroy evidence. Who actually did destroy evidence! FBI Perjury traps set for Trump officials. Hillary officials never even forced to testify under oath, and then given immunity for providing no evidence or convictions.
For all of the loose (frequently hysterical) talk in Congress, the foreign policy community, and the news media about President Donald Trump’s alleged eagerness to appease Vladimir Putin, U.S. policy remains as confrontational as ever toward Russia.
Among other actions, the Trump administration has involved U.S. forces in NATO military exercises (war games) in Poland and other East European countries on Russia’s border, as well as in naval maneuvers in the Black Sea near Russia’s sensitive naval base at Sevastopol. Washington has even sent U.S. troops as participants in joint military exercises with Ukrainian forces—an act that Moscow considers especially provocative, given its tense relations with Kiev.
On no issue is the administration’s risky course more evident than its military policy toward Ukraine. Recent measures are certain to provoke Moscow further, and entangle the United States to an unwise extent with an extremely murky, ideologically troubling Ukrainian regime.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis acknowledges that U.S. instructors are training Ukrainian military units at a base in western Ukraine. Washington also has approved two important arms sales to Kiev’s ground forces in just the past nine months. The first transaction in December 2017 was limited to small arms that at least could be portrayed as purely defensive weapons. That agreement included the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories, a sale valued at $41.5 million.
A transaction in April 2018 was more serious. Not only was it larger ($47 million), it included far more lethal weaponry, particularly 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles—the kind of weapons that Barack Obama’s administration had declined to give Kiev. Needless to say, the Kremlin was not pleased about either sale. Moreover, Congress soon passed legislation in May that authorized $250 million in military assistance, including lethal weaponry, to Ukraine in 2019. Congress had twice voted for military support on a similar scale during the last years of Obama’s administration, but the White House blocked implementation. The Trump administration cleared that obstacle out of the way in December 2017 at the same time that it approved the initial small-weapons sale. The passage of the May 2018 legislation means that the path is now open for a dramatic escalation of U.S. military backing for Kiev.
On September 1, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker disclosed during an interview with The Guardian that Washington’s future military aid to Kiev would likely involve weapons sales to Ukraine’s air force and navy as well as the army. “The Javelins are mainly symbolic and it’s not clear if they would ever be used,” Aric Toler, a research scholar at the Atlantic Council, asserted. One could well dispute his sanguine conclusion, but even Toler conceded: “Support for the Ukrainian navy and air defence would be a big deal. That would be far more significant.”
Volker’s cavalier attitude about U.S. arms sales to a government locked in a crisis with Russia epitomizes the arrogance and tone-deaf nature of the views that too many U.S. foreign policy officials exhibit regarding the sensitive Ukraine issue. “We can have a conversation with Ukraine like we would with any other country about what do they need. I think that there’s going to be some discussion about naval capability because as you know their navy was basically taken by Russia [when the Soviet Union dissolved]. And so they need to rebuild a navy and they have very limited air capability as well. I think we’ll have to look at air defence.”
One suspects that Americans would be incensed at comparable actions by Moscow if the geo-strategic situations were reversed. Imagine if Russia (even a democratic Russia) had emerged from the wreckage of the Cold War as the undisputed global superpower, and a weakened United States had to watch as the Kremlin expanded a powerful, Russian-led military alliance to America’s borders, conducted alliance war games within sight of U.S. territory, interfered in Canada’s internal political affairs to oust a democratically elected pro-American government, and then pursued growing military ties with the new, anti-U.S. government in Ottawa. Yet that would be disturbingly similar to what Washington has done regarding NATO policy and U.S. relations with Ukraine.
Moreover, although Kiev’s cheerleaders in the Western (especially U.S.) media like to portray Ukraine as a beleaguered democracy that plays the role of David to Russia’s evil Goliath, the reality is far murkier. Putin’s government overstates matters when it alleges that Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan revolution was a U.S.-orchestrated coup that brought outright fascists to power in Kiev. Nevertheless, that version contains more than a little truth. Prominent, powerful U.S. figures, most notably the late Senator John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, openly sided with demonstrators seeking to unseat Ukraine’s elected government. Indeed, Nuland was caught on tape with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt scheming about the desired composition of a new government in Kiev.
It is unfair to portray Ukraine’s current administration led by President Petro Poroshenko as a neo-fascist regime. Post-revolution elections appear to have been reasonably free and fair, and there are major factions that are committed to genuine democratic values. But Ukraine also is hardly a model of Western-style democracy. Not only is it afflicted with extensive graft and corruption, but some extreme nationalist and even neo-Nazi groups play a significant role in the “new” Ukraine. The notoriously fascist Azov Battalion, for example, continues to occupy a prominent position in Kiev’s efforts to defeat separatists in Ukraine’s eastern Donbass region. Alexander Zakharchenko, prime minister of the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic in the pro-Russia rebel-occupied city of Donetsk, was assassinated on September 1 and officials there and in Russia are blaming Kiev. The Ukrainian government has denied involvement.
Other ultranationalist factions act as domestic militias that attempt to intimidate more moderate Ukrainians. Even the Poroshenko government itself has adopted troubling censorship measures and other autocratic policies. Officials in both the Obama and Trump administration have taken a much too casual attitude toward U.S. cooperation with extremist elements and a deeply flawed Ukrainian government.
Both the danger of stoking tensions with Moscow and becoming too close to a regime in Kiev that exhibits disturbing features should caution the Trump administration against boosting military aid to Ukraine. It is an unwise policy on strategic as well as moral grounds. Trump administration officials should refuse to be intimidated or stampeded into forging a risky and unsavory alliance with Kiev out of fear of being portrayed as excessively “soft” toward Russia. Instead, the president and his advisers need to spurn efforts to increase U.S. support for Ukraine. A good place to start would be to restore the Obama administration’s refusal to approve arms sales to Kiev. Washington must not pour gasoline on a geo-strategic fire that could lead to a full-blown crisis between the United States and Russia. ____________________________________
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at TAC, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles on international affairs.
Despite all the false-narrative blather from the Democrat/Left about Trump being a "Russian asset" and collusion B.S.
Mueller's report should have been the end of that.
So... to pivot away from the fact that the Mueller investigation (made up of 19 lawyers who despise Trump and most of whom made large campaaign donations to Obama or Hillary) found absolutely no evidence for: 1)Trump collusion with Russia, or 2) Trump obstruction of justice regarding the Russia investigation. If there was ANY WAY they could maanufacture even a half-baked innuendo, this team of partisan Trump haters would have found it. But no, they had to admit there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING!
To pivot away from that documented fact, you are creating a false narrative about a few snarky tweets by Trump that prove nothing?
Smooth move, Ex Lax!
I fail to see that however opinionated or spiking the ball, Trump said anything that was factually wrong. It was a witch hunt and a waste of time from the start. It was conducted based on false allegations, malicious prosecution, Democrat partisanship and illegal FISA warrants (and I hope the evil S O B's in DOJ and FBI who did this clandestine operation will be going to jail for these crimes). However undiplomatic in his posts, Trump is demonstrably right on all those points.
Politico = former Washington Post reporters = Trump-hating centerpiece of the 93% anti-Trump Liberal media
Politico posted an article not approving of something Trump is doing. Wow, I'm shocked.
There was only a y'know, 93% chance that would happen.
Or to be fair, the 93% mark was reached only by CNN (i.e., DNCNN) and NBC. The average for all the media was 80% negative Trump coverage, and only 5% positive.
The media's hatred for Trump knows no recent historical parallel. Though comparable data don't exist, our guess is today's Trump hatred outstrips the deep media loathing of Richard Nixon during his first-term "honeymoon" in 1969. Even the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, often credited with helping to take down Nixon, advised today's reporters to "stick to the reporting" and accused them of "binge-drinking the anti-Trump Kool-Aid."
This is why much of the reporting — even from the leading lights of print journalism — has been so shabby and unfair. Both the Post and the Times, for instance, have used unnamed sources and even the supposed content of documents that they've never viewed as the basis for major revelations about Trump in recent days. They've let their raw hatred get the better of them.
Such a media environment is dangerous for American democracy. We don't expect the big media to show Trump love, but is simple fairness too much to ask?
Apparently so. Instead of fairness, they've colluded with progressive Democrats on the "impeach Trump" movement. Expecting basic professionalism from the media, sadly, seems to be too much.
They reported the fat corrupt piece of shit own words. He tends to do some very hysterical tweets no?
I guess that's your TOTALLY neutral and unbiased opinion.
Trump's twitter posts are not what I would post, but then again, I won't ever knock out 16 other Republicans in a primary election, and then pound Hillary into the dirt in a general election, Despite that Hillary had a 2 billion campaign war chest, and I only had maybe half of that. AND hold the entire 93% negative liberal media at bay with Tritter posts. What Trump posts on Twitter is how he circumnavigates the overwhelming media bias. And he is much better at it than I will ever be. Or you.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Yup I call somebody that is a piece of shit a piece of shit. That's different than your broad and nasty attacks on the press, democrats, science and any entity that doesn't suck Trump's dick. And if those types of tweets came from a democrat you wouldn't be attacking the press for reporting them. Principles and ethics are not a partisan value. Your fellow Americans are not your enemy WB.
Yup I call somebody that is a piece of shit a piece of shit. That's different than your broad and nasty attacks on the press, democrats, science and any entity that doesn't suck Trump's dick. And if those types of tweets came from a democrat you wouldn't be attacking the press for reporting them. Principles and ethics are not a partisan value. Your fellow Americans are not your enemy WB.
Your inability to logically discuss Trump, and to instead unleash the most bitter and personal insults on Trump, doesn't speak well for your objectivity. I'm hard pressed to think of an occasion I didn't cite sourced facts to back up what I said about the lawless Cultural Marxist Bolsheviks who run the Democrat party. And I've cited example after example of their vicious lawless tactics for seizing power. And specific examples of how they DESPISE this country, and only love what they can radically transform it into.
Even Bob Woodward, as I cited above, shares my opinion of the shabby and vindictively personal coverage of Trump by the media. And as vindictively as they pursue Trump is how much of a free pass they gave to their beloved Cultural Marxist Obama. And in betraying their responsibility, have endangered the nation, as they've become cheerleaders for violence on Republicans, and flown cover for the Bolshevik maniac Democrats trying to seize power, using every deception possible.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
You're actually the one who sounds like the radical who see's much of our country as the enemy. I don't like Trump because I've read about him, he is truly an awful man. Many republicans acknowledge that too but because of his and the GOP's hold on power he gets away with it. You on the other hand fall into the loyal soldier, you post about the media being hysterical on Trump, I post one of Trump's batshit crazy and hysterical tweets and you respond with the media is all democrats meme using a fake stat of 93 percent. It might be true that only 7 percent of journalist in a poll identify as republican but it's only a slightly larger percentage that identify as democrat. That of course doesn't matter because his tweets are usually batshit crazy and wrong but instead of that being a problem with you, attacking the press is what you choose.
In this list of Democrat leftists, look up Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Frank Marshall Davis (Obama's Mentor), Bill Ayers (Obama's mentor), Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Obama's Mentor), or even Michelle Obama. Lunatic marxist radicals, every single one. Likewise Joseph Biden (the most moderate, but still corrupt), Cory Booker, Elizabet Warren, Kamala Harris and the other Left-lurching 2020 Democrats.
Also pick up the book The Shadow Party by David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Yours is not just a party that wants to enact liberal policy, yours is a party of radicals who barely hide their goal to destroy our national sovereignty and overthrow our Constitutional republic, to hand what's left of the nation over to globalist domination, or otherwise to rogue nations who are our enemies.
Bernie Sanders is a guy who had a Soviet flag on the wall in his Burlington, VT mayor's office for a decade. This is a guy who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union, who endlessly praised the Soviets, the Castro government in Cuba, the Sandanista regime in Nicaragua, the communist Chinese government. Overlooking their genocide and brutality to heap praise on their "system". The only government Bernie Sanders unrelentingly railed on as inherently evil was... the United States.
Likewise Obama and Hillary have been openly insurrectionist marxists their entire lives, with a contempt for the capitalist free-market system, for police and our military, and for the rule of law.
How ideologically blinded are you, M E M ? The facts are right in front of you, if you would only read them.
Trump is an "awful man" according to the liberal/leftist Newspeak you feed on,, despite that they are proven wrong almost weekly (and I've cited examples many times). Again, even Bob Woodward has said what I have about the liberal media's venomous Kool-Aid fed lack of objectivity.
Likewise said by Alan Dershowitz, a Hillary-voting Democrat. Likewise legal scholar Jonathan Turley. Likewise Doug Schoen, a Democrat who served in the Carter administration. Plus a number of other Democrats who respectfully express concern that your party has gone off the deep end and is destroying itself.
I'm a "loyal soldier" ? Who is consistently critical of the campaign-finance-bought RINO "Republican establishment". The problem is that many in the Republican party are bought off by the same corporate globalists who have even more so bought off the Democrats.
If you watched Lou Dobbs for a week, you would see that there is widespread contempt within the GOP for these Republican sellouts who have more in common with the Democrats than with Trump and the conservative voters who elected them (RINOs such as Boehner, Paul Ryan, McCain (while alive), Mitch McConnell, Jeff Flake, Mitt Romney and others who enrich themselves off those corporate globalists and their lobby money, destroying our sovereignty in exchange for those lobbyist dollars. It is a pure and simple fact that across multiple elections, their Republican voters have elected them to do one thing, and then they betrayed their voters and pursued another agenda. Such as border security. Such as repealing Obamacare. Only when Trump has put faith in these Republicans has he failed.
Trump's "Batshit crazy and hysterical tweets" is not an objective look at them. Amid some snark, Trump's Twitter posts cite many facts that the overwhelmingly Anti-Trump media refuses to report, that his tweets force the media to answer and acknowledge. "Batshit crazy" is just the meme your spoonfed Media Matters propaganda tries to contain it with.
And you really are delusional if you believe the media is balanced. As I've said many times, (starting with the book BIAS by Bernard Goldberg, a 30-year veteran journalist for CBS News and self-identified liberal. Who used to be an anchor for 60 Minutes until he was ostracised for saying in a Wall Street Journal opinion editorial (reprinted in the book) that any bias is bad, whether conservative bias and liberal bias, and that we liberals have to be on guard for bias in our own ranks as well. For simply stating that truth, he was taken off the air by CBS and marginalized from that point until he retired from CBS.
Likewise Sharyl Atkisson. She was widely praised as a journalist and won awards at CBS for her investigative reporting on the W. Bush administration. When she attempted to do the same investigative reporting on the Obama administration, her news stories were blunted and heaavily edited, and delayed from airing, until she finally politely broke her contract and resigned from CBS. She also had her computer hacked into and files deleted by intelligence agencies under the Obama administration.
My facts are not "fake", they are sourced and linked. And as Goldberg cited back in 2001, the media in poll after poll dating back 50 years when asked if they are "very liberal", "liberal", "middle of the road", "conservative" or "very Conservative" in every poll for 50 years consistently identify at a rati of 80% as "liberal" or "very Liberal", and as I said, only 7% identify as "conservative" of "very conservative". And I doubt many would dispute to even reveal you're conservative in most news rooms would be a career ender. Just as it would deny you tenure as a university professor.
A trick liberal journalists are increasingly using to hide their liberal bias is to register as "independent" or "Republican" (yeah, like how Comey and Rosenstein are "Republican"). But looking at their campaign donations reveals how they truly align and vote, 96% for Hillary Clinton. You will again note that is not a right-wing poll or news report.
Quote:
In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.
Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.
And as I've often cited from multiple polls of journalists, over decades:
But yeah, just keep drinking the Media Matters Kool-Aid and lying to yourself, M E M. I attack the mainstream media because they have consistently been wrong like never before over the last 3 years. It is obvious they are lying, and you keep on believing the lies because you just don't want to know the truth.
Hannity in his opening editorial did a chronology from the very beginning of the Hillary investigation in 2015 and up through the present of how wrong the media have been at every turn, and how they have just lyingly reported the talking points of the Obama, Hillary and the Democrats, with a complete disinterest in the truth as they fron that lying narrative.
Even when they are proven 100% wrong, they don't acknowledge the error, and just move to a different angle of lying attack on Trump, and even on Barr, Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Dershowitz, who are heroes to the Democrats until they suddenly expose inconvenient facts, at which point they are portrayed as "hacks" and "right wing stooges". But facts are facts, and they expose Democrats and their prropagandists in the liberal media as the true hacks they are.
Trump is an awful man by his lifetime of acts and deeds. You may hate the media because they do their job but that doesn't alter what he's done. And you deciding reporters are trying to trick people by registering as independent or republican falls into opinion not fact. An opinion by somebody who displays his bias and hatred for the other side practically everyday here. And yes that bias and hatred makes you look radical imho.
Just today I see he was looking into trying to ship people trying to cross the border into cities controlled by political opponents. He truly is an awful man.
Trump is an awful man by his lifetime of acts and deeds.
Wishful thinking, facts not in evidence. Vicious things alleged by the Left and his enemies. But nothing proven.
Originally Posted By: M E M
You may hate the media because they do their job but that doesn't alter what he's done.
Dear God!!! You can't be serious! The liberal partisan Newspeak media have been caught lying over and over in the last 2 years, almost weekly, sometimes several times in one week. They have fired reporters, or more often, just quietly deleted stories from their websites and tried to pretend they weren't caught lying.
In the case of the Wikileaks exposure right before the July 2016 Democrat National convention, e-mails exposed that reporters were e-mailing stories to the Clinton campaign and getting approval of stories before they ran them to make sure they wouldn't damage the Clinton campaign, and giving the Clinton officials the ability to delete anything that would have hurt them. Far from "opinion", Wikileaks proved this WITH THE DNC AND HILLARY CAMPAIGN'S OWN INTERNAL E-MAILS!
Likewise the Journo-list exposure in 2008. The whole point is that journalists in the liberal media are >>>>NOT<<<<< "doing their job", and are blatant propagandists on Team Democrat, all the way!
You are lying to yourself, M E M, but you are certainly not fooling me.
Originally Posted By: M E M
And you deciding reporters are trying to trick people by registering as independent or republican falls into opinion not fact.
I posted a link to those who investigated it. And from liberal media, not conservative. That is not an "opinion", that is a documented fact.
Originally Posted By: M E M
An opinion by somebody who displays his bias and hatred for the other side practically everyday here. And yes that bias and hatred makes you look radical imho.
It only looks radical to you because your idea of a news source is the liars at Media Matters whose stated mission is to shut down Fox News and any conservative media, by whatever deceitful means. A drop of conservative opinion in an ocean of liberal media is not a threat to anyone, it is equal time. ESPECIALLY since Fox News gets the story right, in contrast to liberal media, who have been exposed getting story after story wrong in their overzealous fanaticism to bring Trump down, rather than omake any attempt to objectively report the facts.
And that's not even counting the many other times the liberal media uses anonymous sources, alleging things about Trump they never actually prove. "Anonymous sources" means they don't have sources, so they just made it up.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Just today I see he was looking into trying to ship people trying to cross the border into cities controlled by political opponents. He truly is an awful man.
I was out to dinner earlier talking to friends about this, and I said that this is like so many other times, where Trump says something like this with no actual intent of doing it, but says it just to make the Left go insane in response to it.
Congratulations, you Leftist wack jobs fell right into Trump's baited trap for you. AGAIN!
You posted a link that showed 96 percent of donations went to Clinton but this included journalists that reported on fashion. It also didn't include Trump shills like Hannity if I understand correctly. "Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally." So basically those actually covering and trying to shape opinion are not included.
Here's actual polling on this that I referred to previously... 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican That shows drops in party identification by reporters over the decades. It's 28 percent for democrats but most reporters identify as something else.
Just today I see he was looking into trying to ship people trying to cross the border into cities controlled by political opponents. He truly is an awful man.
I was out to dinner earlier talking to friends about this, and I said that this is like so many other times, where Trump says something like this with no actual intent of doing it, but says it just to make the Left go insane in response to it.
Congratulations, you Leftist wack jobs fell right into Trump's baited trap for you. AGAIN!
According to reports this was something the WH asked DHS about. So you are in error trying to paint this as just something he said to get the left going. Honestly though even it was a case of him playing dishonest games with immigration politics, you should remember this involves actual human beings while you're yucking it up.
As opposed to the dishonest "news" stories and fake journalism and Democrat slanders unleashed on Trump every day?
When Trump actually does it, get back to me. But by doing the head-fake, Trump has exposed the hypocrisy of the Democrats. Who bemoan that illegal immigrants are a benefit to the nation, but don't want them shipped to their cities. Who are eager to secretly have illegals released and transported to cities and towns all over America, but don't want them shipped to THEIR towns! It is a pure and simple fact that these illegals are responsible for thousands of murders, rapes, drunk driving incidents, burglaries, drug trafficking, gang activity, child molestations, shoplifting and other crimes, and as IO cited before, at last estimate cost U.S. taxpayers $136 billion in the last year. And with the huge increase in illegals, no doubt more this year.
If it were up to me, I would tear-gas them daily on the Mexican side of the border (before they set foot on U.S. soil) , bind them, put them back on planes and helicopters, air-lift them 1500 miles, and dump them right back on the beaches of the countries they ILLEGALLY came here from. And I would do that daily over and over, until they became exhausted with even trying. And I would send CIA or some other federal clandestine force to decimate the marxist leadership organizing these "caravans" and drug cartel organized trafficking routes. Trump by comparison is is being very reserved and patient and playing by the rules.
It is not dishonest of Trump to simply expose the deceitful tactics and rhetoric of the Democrats. Democrats are not on the side of illegals immigrants, they are just using them as pawns, orchestrating chaos to try and make Trump look bad. And the Democrats sure as fuck are not on the side of the American people.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I would also point out that in the case of the 2003 Iraq invasion, Saddam Hussein'ss vice president Tariq Azziz, when captured and interviewed by 60 Minutes, said that even when W. Bush was assembling all those U.S. troops on the Saudi border, and giving Saddam warnign after warning to comply and then to leave Iraq, Saddam and Azziz thought it was an elaborate bluff and Bush would never invade.
So... you don't know what Trump or his cabinet's intentions are. It could be an elaborate head-fake. It could be an actual plan. It could be a head-fake with the potential to actually be enacted. Or a diversion for another different approach. Either way, I trust Trump to do everything he can to secure the border, and I trust the Democrats about as far as I can throw a piano.
The mere threat of securing the border was doen and over when Trump came to office. But Democrat obstruction turned the magnets back on and encouraged the worst wave of illegals we have seen. And that is coming from interviews of Border Guard officers and officials who have been patrolling the border for 30-plus years. I see interviews of Border Guard, ICE, and DHS, from administrators to the frontline officers, as well as police from counties nationwide, especially the illegal-inundated counties, and they ALL support Trump! Former DHS leader Thomas Homan has worked to secure the border through 6 presidential administrations, and none has been as committed to actually securing the border as Donald Trump, who he obviously supports. Fact. Those who understand the situation ALL support what Trump is doing.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I think your trying to argue that Trump's dishonesty is okay because it pleases you. It's still dishonesty though. I might even agree with you that it's a tactic he's using although in this case I suspect it's to draw attention away from the Mueller report. And while your hatred for your fellow countrymen keeps Trump afloat you don't consider Trump needs to work with the Dems on immigration to actually get some of what he says he wants. Instead you get this show. It may be entertaining for you but the country deserves better.
Still reading the report but it's pretty clear Trump tried obstructing the investigation but couldn't get his toadies to cross that line. And Sarah Sanders lying about Comey should have some consequences beyond her losing her job. The bar is so low now though I doubt she'll even lose that.
Still reading the report but it's pretty clear Trump tried obstructing the investigation but couldn't get his toadies to cross that line. And Sarah Sanders lying about Comey should have some consequences beyond her losing her job. The bar is so low now though I doubt she'll even lose that.
Trump contemplated firing Mueller and others, but ultimately did not. He was fucking pissed off at being portrayed as a Russian asset by the liars undermining him at DOJ, FBI, DNI (James Clapper), and CIA (Brennan), and very much wanted to fire them, but ultimately followed the advice of his legal counsel, despite his not being able to traitorusly insubordinate and incompetent employees.
It is a lying cocksmoker's argument of the liberal media, in collaboration with vicious partisans like Representatives Swallwell, Schiff and Nadler, to keep the narrative going with the faintest vestiges left of the "Russia collaboration" false narrative. Ultimately, the report 4 weeks ago (as summarized in 4 pages by Attorney General Barr) found 1) no evidence of Russia collussion, and 2) no evidence of obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation, despite Trump being frustrated the Russia hoax and false narrative to almost act several times.
The impetus of the Mueller investigation and other House investigations was alleged illicit Trump activities with Russia. That has been absolutely disproven. So now Democrats and the lying DNC-PR-wing media are desperately trying to save face by clinging to the very last fading vapors of the former Russia conspiracy false narrative, widened by Mueller to include an "obstruction of justice" false narative, despite that even that was disproven by his partisan investigation by 19 Democrat and DNC donating, and Clinton foundation Hillary loyalist lawyers. EVEN THESE rabid Democrat partisans with an unlimited investigative budget could find nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to support that false narrative. And ultimately, finally had to release a report disclosing that, after dragging it unnecessarily past the Nov 2018 mid-term election, so as to benefit their Democrat brethren.
The committees in the House, despite moving forward at this point on nothing but fumes and lies, will no doubt continue their investigation and false narrative sometime past Nov 2020. Your party has absolutely no ethics, M E M.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Well not shocked at your response but it defies reality. Trump did more than contemplate firing Mueller. The report details his efforts and lies. Also the lies of his toadies like Sarah Sanders. You can bare all the partisan hate you want but we both know who the corrupt liar is here.
Wallace I think pulls his punches on Fox News Sunday with liberal/Dems frequently, to try and look more neutral. It frankly annoyed me in that interview (both with Guiliani, and right after with Schiff himself) that he didn't go harder on Rep. Adam Schiff when Schiff's allegations against Trump were brought up in the program. Three glaring gaps in Wallace's interview:
1) Wallace just acted as if Schiff raised legitimate points about Trump "obviously" and "proven" colluding with Russians, when that has, in fact, been disproven by the Mueller special investigation report.
2) Wallace also didn't raise the point that there is far more evidence against Hillary Clinton, her campaign, the Obama administration, the DNC, and their partisans in the FBI, DOJ, DNI, CIA and FISA court who are guilty of federal crimes for actual collusion, and actual obstruction of justice (submitting false evidence to a judge, malicious prosecution, not disclosing exculpatory evidence, etc., etc.)
3) Wallace also didn't (as Sean Hannity does almost every night on his show) show the eagerness with which Rep. Adam Schiff tried himself to collude with Russians who phoned him offering secret nude/compromising photos of Trump with Russian women. The two guys who called and recorded Schiff have a radio show and recorded the call broadcast live on air, where Schiff during the call eagerly took notes, wrote down every detail and had no reservations about getting this information from what he thought were Russian officials. Interviewed by Hannity, the two Russian guys said Schiff and his congessional staff, not knowing they'd been pranked by a radio show, called the two guys back over and over for weeks trying to get the dirt on Trump from "Russian agents".
The incredible hypocrisy of this was not even mentioned by Chis Wallace, which to me only undermines Wallace's own credibility, to omit and not correct the record with these vital facts.
Witholding the truth and allowing a Democrat false narrative to be fronted is not ethical. It's just not disclosing the truth.
I think Chris Wallace is a dedicated journalist and trying to do right. He's just misguided. He's worried about appearing too conservative. But his job is to challenge false statements from either side, and disclose the true facts. The irony is that despite Fox News is seen as conservative, theirs is in truth the most balanced news coverage, and in cases like this, they are often harder interviewing Republican guests, and often give a free pass to crap like this from Democrat guests.
Harvard released a study last week that analyzed The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the main newscasts on CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Mr. Trump’s first 100 days. No shocker here: 80 percent was negative, just 20 percent positive.
That’s a big change from the past. When the Chosen One, Barack Obama, completed his first 100 days, a similar study found that coverage was 59 percent positive, 41 percent negative. Skewed, but not that bad. The numbers were flipped for George W. Bush, of course: 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive. For Bill Clinton, way back in 1993, in the days when news was news (which means reporters were hard on the president regardless of his political affiliation), the coverage was 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.
and
Quote:
“The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive,” Byron York wrote in the Washington Examiner. “Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.”
It has been a pattern since President Trump was inaugurated well over a year ago. Coverage of the White House on the “Big Three” broadcast networks — ABC, CBS and NBC — remains 91 percent negative, according to a new study by the Media Research Center, which has been tracking the phenomenon since Mr. Trump hit the campaign trail in 2016.
It was over 90 percent hostile then — and remains so now. The trend is unprecedented, according to the analysis.
The conservative press watchdog monitored nightly evening networks newscasts throughout January and February to find that anchors and correspondents uttered 10 times more negative comments about the president than positive statements. Analysts examined over 500 stories.
Out of a total of 712 evaluative comments made on the air, only 65 were positive, or 9 percent. The rest — 647 comments — were negative, amounting to 91 percent. The ongoing Russia collusion investigation was the leading topic of choice, followed by immigration issues, the recent government shutdown, and the White House response to the Parkland student shooting.
Throughout January and February, the analysts found that 63 percent of news coverage was devoted to scandals — and just 37 percent to real policy issues. “The results are essentially unchanged from the 90 percent negative coverage we documented for all of 2017, and matches the 91 percent negative coverage we tallied during the 2016 general election campaign,” said Rich Noyes, senior editor for Newsbusters.org, the analytical arm of the Media Research Center.
It's been another year since that article as well, and chances are the liberal media Trump derangement hasn't diminished a bit.
As in the recent example of Brett Baier and Sheppard Smith both trying to get "Judge Jeanine" Pirro fired, Wallace may be part of a group at Fox trying to get respect from their peers by appearing more moderate (i.e., softpedaling on liberals) under the illusion it will make them more respected in the eyes of their foaming-at-the-mouth ultra-Left liberal colleages. It will not.
Any more than moderates like McCain (2008) or Romney (2012) gained better treatment from the liberal media. These were the most centrist and across-the-aisle guys the GOP could possibly offer, and they were still treated by the media like the second coming of Hitler.
Anyone who is not a brainwashed liberal zealot knows this was an attempt to discredit William Barr before he investigates and indicts the likes of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, James Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, and elements of the Obama administration (STRZOK AND PAGE TEXT: "POTUS wants to see everything we have." ), and Clinton campaign and DNC, who directly funded the Russia Dossier (directly paying Russian state agents for information, the real "Russia collusion").
These Democrat/Deep State agents in FBI and DOJ have obstructed investigations, deliberately sabotaged the evidence against Hillary Clinton, gave immunity to Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills in exchange for no prosecution or other logical reason, and illegally signed off on a FISA warrant to do surveillance (that's spying by any other name) on Carter Page and other Trump officials. Submitting false evidence to a federal judge(FISA court judge) is a criminal offfense, as are obstruction of justice, witness tampering, destruction of evidence, and malicious prosecution. All of which the above named are involved in.
Democrats are attacking Barr's credibility now, to either 1) prevent Barr's investigation and enforcement of the law, or 2) to cast illegitimacy on Barr if he succeeds in prosecuting these criminals. They will not stop him, he will prosecute them. And resurrect equal justice under the law, that Democrats tried to twist into a partisan weapon in the Obama years. Democrat control has become a threat to the republic.
