PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on February 21, 2019, 04:14:56 PM
-
This is simply amazing. The biggest political scandal of our lifetime, and no one in the main stream media wants to cover it. This makes Watergate look like a kindergarten prank.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/21/toensing-doj-coup/
-
https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/21/the-greatest-constitutional-crisis-since-the-civil-war/
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-discusses-silent-coup-effort-president-trump/
-
To be honest, I see nothing wrong with an attempted coup, as long as they follow the law. Being sneaky about it isn't against the law, but secretly recording conversations without a warrant or coercing Federal investigations without just cause may be. And manufacturing evidence surely is.
-
To be honest, I see nothing wrong with an attempted coup, as long as they follow the law. Being sneaky about it isn't against the law, but secretly recording conversations without a warrant or coercing Federal investigations without just cause may be. And manufacturing evidence surely is.
Coups remove the power of the States to elect a President. They circumvent our legal system and take "The People" totally out of the equation. So you were OK with the JFK assassination?
-
To be honest, I see nothing wrong with an attempted coup, as long as they follow the law. Being sneaky about it isn't against the law, but secretly recording conversations without a warrant or coercing Federal investigations without just cause may be. And manufacturing evidence surely is.
And what laws are those that allow an attempted coup? ::)
Watch the Levin video. He breaks it down as well as the law.
Why Comey, Rosenstein, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Baker and Ohr are not sitting in prison cells right now is astounding.
And don't forget, this was began under the BHO administration. The ultimate direction from all of this came from Obama.
-
I did see one liberal media outlet talk about it. It was some online news page. It presented it as a total conspiracy theory, mocking the reported connections such as the source of the Steele dossier as made up as UFO sightings. But after solid facts and evidence kept coming out I haven’t seen a thing about it.
-
Read about it in the New York Times. As far as I can tell it was an idea from one guy that didn’t go anywhere. At least that was the take I got. I’m actually glad folks think about the 25th amendment from time to time. Proves the system works.
As much as I loathe Trumpllethinskin I would not wish to see him removed from office by any means save the ballot box.
-
Coups remove the power of the States to elect a President. They circumvent our legal system and take "The People" totally out of the equation. So you were OK with the JFK assassination?
Exactly. Little Joe seems to miss the point.
A rebellion is one thing. A coup is an attempt by a small group of of power mongers - the deep state, the intelligence community, the military, etc. - to underhandedly use the levers of power in government to undermine the will of the People. Fuck that. That’s treason and should be punished as such.
-
Coups remove the power of the States to elect a President. They circumvent our legal system and take "The People" totally out of the equation. So you were OK with the JFK assassination?
Did you miss, or just ignore the part where I sad as long as they follow thr law. Assassination is not legal.
-
Did you miss, or just ignore the part where I sad as long as they follow thr law. Assassination is not legal.
The point is there is no law that isn’t broken in a coup. They may be peaceful, but I’ve never heard of a lawful coup.
-
Did you miss, or just ignore the part where I sad as long as they follow thr law. Assassination is not legal.
I think you missed the point that a Coup by definition is illegal. It means that subterfuge, and other means are used to circumvent the legal transition of power. We don't have a "Coup option" in the Constitution to remove, and replace Presidents or any other politicians and legally elected Administrations.
-
Exactly. Little Joe seems to miss the point.
A rebellion is one thing. A coup is an attempt by a small group of of power mongers - the deep state, the intelligence community, the military, etc. - to underhandedly use the levers of power in government to undermine the will of the People. Fuck that. That’s treason and should be punished as such.
This is exactly what happened. Trump can’t possibly be elected but if the unthinkable happens we have an insurance policy. We will undo it somehow.
-
I think you missed the point that a Coup by definition is illegal. It means that subterfuge, and other means are used to circumvent the legal transition of power. We don't have a "Coup option" in the Constitution to remove, and replace Presidents or any other politicians and legally elected Administrations.
Well them maybe those bandying about the word "coup" are misusing it.
The 25th amendment provides for a way to removing a sitting President. It is written into the Constitution, therefore, as long as they follow the law, they are not doing anything illegal.
It is a difficult process and if someone initiates the effort and finds that the impediments are too tough, then nothing happens. However, if they can navigate the law and comply with the Constitution, then HOW EXACTLY IS THAT ILLEGAL?
We have a President. Not a King or an Emperor.
-
Well them maybe those bandying about the word "coup" are misusing it.
The 25th amendment provides for a way to removing a sitting President. It is written into the Constitution, therefore, as long as they follow the law, they are not doing anything illegal.
It is a difficult process and if someone initiates the effort and finds that the impediments are too tough, then nothing happens. However, if they can navigate the law and comply with the Constitution, then HOW EXACTLY IS THAT ILLEGAL?
We have a President. Not a King or an Emperor.
Bullshit.
The 25th Amendment is not a “way to remove a President”. That’s the msm ignorant interpretation.
To lawfully remove a President it’s covered in the constitution by a process of impeachment. The 25th is a way to replace a President in the event he can’t fulfill his obligation. It was never ever intended to circumvent the impeachment process.
-
Bullshit.
The 25th Amendment is not a “way to remove a President”. That’s the msm ignorant interpretation.
To lawfully remove a President it’s covered in the constitution by a process of impeachment. The 25th is a way to replace a President in the event he can’t fulfill his obligation. It was never ever intended to circumvent the impeachment process.
THIS. It was intended in the case the President is in a coma or stroked out, or otherwise incapacitated or voluntarily resigns. It was never intended to be weaponized as a tool to remove a President you simply don't like.
-
Bullshit.
The 25th Amendment is not a “way to remove a President”. That’s the msm ignorant interpretation.
To lawfully remove a President it’s covered in the constitution by a process of impeachment. The 25th is a way to replace a President in the event he can’t fulfill his obligation. It was never ever intended to circumvent the impeachment process.
Exactly. Further, the use of the 25th Amendment is not within the power of these people. Power rests with the cabinet, not law enforcement officials.
-
Bullshit.
The 25th Amendment is not a “way to remove a President”. That’s the msm ignorant interpretation.
To lawfully remove a President it’s covered in the constitution by a process of impeachment. The 25th is a way to replace a President in the event he can’t fulfill his obligation. It was never ever intended to circumvent the impeachment process.
FTW
-
So if this turns out to be the case, and it looks pretty convincing what accountability will these officials be held to? Why aren't politicians, and the Media screaming out a Coup attempt to overthrow a legitimate Administration? Have we become such a banana republic, nobody cares about corruption, and illegal acts?
-
Ok, fill me in. Maybe I missed it. What exactly was illegal about this "coup".
And please, don't just say "a coup is illegal". What did they do that constitutes an illegal coup?
-
Ok, fill me in. Maybe I missed it. What exactly was illegal about this "coup".
And please, don't just say "a coup is illegal". What did they do that constitutes an illegal coup?
Just digging your hole deeper.
coup
[ko͞o]
NOUN
a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
So they LIED, created a false narrative about Russia, then tried to use those lies to bring down the President in the court of public opinion, and try to get him impeached. All on fabrications, and LIES. They are still trying to do it, two, and a half years later.
-
Just digging your hole deeper.
So they LIED, created a false narrative about Russia, then tried to use those lies to bring down the President in the court of public opinion, and try to get him impeached. All on fabrications, and LIES. They are still trying to do it, two, and a half years later.
This. Deliberate, premeditated lies. Lying to the FISA court for one thing.
-
This. Deliberate, premeditated lies. Lying to the FISA court for one thing.
The number and scope of the felonies committed is astounding. If this was someone outside of the deep state cabal they would be facing years behind bars.
Instead the perpetrators are going on book tours and speaking engagements.
Folks, welcome to the two tiered justice system.
-
The number and scope of the felonies committed is astounding. If this was someone outside of the deep state cabal they would be facing years behind bars.
Instead the perpetrators are going on book tours and speaking engagements.
Folks, welcome to the two tiered justice system.
And the two tiered justice system has nothing to do with race or sex. It has to do with the deep state primarily, and the color of your jersey secondarily.
-
So they LIED, created a false narrative about Russia, ...
What false narrative?
-
What false narrative?
They used a dossier that was paid for by the Clinton campaign. The dossier was so over the top, and completely unverified. Yet they used this dossier to acquire FISA warrants. Oh, and they didn'y bother to tell the FISA Judge the dossier was a work of fiction.
Also, the Clinton campaign was using Fusion GPS to funnel information into the DoJ/FBI about "Trump-Russia" collusion. This and the leaks to the media to bolster the FBI investigation.
The entire premise of "Crossfire Hurricane" was that somehow the "Russians" had infiltrated the Trump campaign. Of course, this was all just a careful crafted narrative to open the door for the FBI to legitimize their investigation.
-
They used a dossier that was paid for by the Clinton campaign. The dossier was so over the top, and completely unverified. Yet they used this dossier to acquire FISA warrants. Oh, and they didn'y bother to tell the FISA Judge the dossier was a work of fiction.
Also, the Clinton campaign was using Fusion GPS to funnel information into the DoJ/FBI about "Trump-Russia" collusion. This and the leaks to the media to bolster the FBI investigation.
The entire premise of "Crossfire Hurricane" was that somehow the "Russians" had infiltrated the Trump campaign. Of course, this was all just a careful crafted narrative to open the door for the FBI to legitimize their investigation.
THIS. Read it for yourself.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-06%20CEG%20LG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Unclassified%20Steele%20Referral).pdf
-
THIS. Read it for yourself.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-06%20CEG%20LG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Unclassified%20Steele%20Referral).pdf
Old news. Most of this happened while Comey still had his job as Director. At best someone failed to look for untainted corroborating evidence, at worst people may have had political motives. It's still not clear to me what all this has to do with the DOJ investigations focusing on Trump AFTER Trump fired Comey. Trump's admission that it was to try to silence an investigation would make any DOJ official's skin crawl.
-
Old news. Most of this happened while Comey still had his job as Director. At best someone failed to look for untainted corroborating evidence, at worst people may have had political motives. It's still not clear to me what all this has to do with the DOJ investigations focusing on Trump AFTER Trump fired Comey. Trump's admission that it was to try to silence an investigation would make any DOJ official's skin crawl.
WTF?
Have you actually read anything on this?
Old news??? Officials in the DOJ/FBI actively plotted to (a) create a circumstance using bogus evidence (b) then opened an investigation using the “evidence”. They LIED to the FISA court to obtain warrants. These same FBI SES personnel went about setting a purjury trap for Gen Flynn, then falsely set up several low level Trump Campaign personnel through more perjury traps in order to get someone to compose against the President. Low Level personnel Strzok and Page even texted about the “insurance policy” in case Trump was elected. We now know that insurance policy was the phony dossier and a SP investigation to take out the President.
Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, Page and Ohr have all perjured themselves in front of the senate and congress. McCabe has now confirmed the DOJ/FBI we’re out to remove the President.
And none of this bothers you?
-
Old news. Most of this happened while Comey still had his job as Director. At best someone failed to look for untainted corroborating evidence, at worst people may have had political motives. It's still not clear to me what all this has to do with the DOJ investigations focusing on Trump AFTER Trump fired Comey. Trump's admission that it was to try to silence an investigation would make any DOJ official's skin crawl.
Old? It’s a sustained ongoing effort to overturn a legitimate election by people who cannot accept the results. “Someone” didn’t fail to look for corroborating evidence, no one did, because there was never anything to corroborate and they knew it; the whole thing was made up, invented and paid for by the Democrats - for the express purpose of taking down Trump. “...at worst people may have had political motives”... may have? It was entirely politically motivated. People inside the FBI and NSA who aren’t involved in this scheme know what’s going on and they’re disgusted by it. They’re afraid to come forward for fear of retribution but I hope they do eventually.
-
ANYONE who thinks the fake Fusion GPS scandal is 'old news,' or, unimportant is as blind and shallow as the imbeciles who are too ignorant ti wonder why nobody on the special council is looking at the buschels of lies told by comey, rosenstein, clinton and their allies.
-
ANYONE who thinks the fake Fusion GPS scandal is 'old news,' or, unimportant is as blind and shallow as the imbeciles who are too ignorant ti wonder why nobody on the special council is looking at the buschels of lies told by comey, rosenstein, clinton and their allies.
Maybe CNN was right? :)
-
These allegations about the Steele dossier have been circulating for nearly a year now if not more. That's what I meant by "old news". I have no idea when the Senate memo Rush linked to was made public - was that recent? If so, then I stand corrected and there is news here. But it's still not at all surprising to see confirmation of what has been alleged for a long time.
But look at the date on the memo - Jan 2018. Comey was fired in May 2017. That's what, 7 months we're talking about here (at least what I'm talking about).
Yes, it's clear the FBI conducted an investigation based on tainted evidence that they SHOULD HAVE known was tainted.
My question is: what did Comey and McCabe (and Rosenstein) actually know, and when did they know it?
I always say, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. Nothing in that memo comes out and accuses the FBI of deliberately lying in the FISA application. It leaves open the possibility that the top echelon just didn't know. If they turned a blind eye, or willfully ignored evidence that Steele was a liar, then that's criminal. But I don't think we know that they weren't just deceived by low-level operatives like Strzok. That wouldn't excuse their ignorance, it would indicate incompetence, but it's not a crime to be incompetent and it doesn't mean they acted out of political bias.
I stand by what I said, that assuming they didn't know, the way McCabe reacted to Trump's firing of Comey doesn't prove political bias on his part. ANY DOJ official (heck, any LEO officer) would react that way to an admission that Trump was trying to suppress an ongoing investigation since it raises the question of obstruction.
-
I stand by what I said, that assuming they didn't know, the way McCabe reacted to Trump's firing of Comey doesn't prove political bias on his part. ANY DOJ official (heck, any LEO officer) would react that way to an admission that Trump was trying to suppress an ongoing investigation since it raises the question of obstruction.
How was Trump trying to supress an ongoing investigation?
-
How was Trump trying to supress an ongoing investigation?
Whether he was or wasn't, isn't it understandable that they would THINK that he was, in view of his many contradictory statements after he fired Comey? In particular, that "this thing between Trump and Russia is a made up story" and "now the pressure [over Russia] is off"? That they'd be in a panic that their investigation might be shut down if McCabe and others were fired too?
I guess if you think they were all out to bring Trump down from the get-go, it all sounds like spin to prop up a hatchet job and hide abuse of investigative authority. I'm not convinced yet. We've heard only one side of that story so far; McCabe hasn't said anything about the Fusion GPS affair AFAIK. Feel free to believe conspiracy theories, I'll keep an open mind until we have all the facts.
-
Whether he was or wasn't, isn't it understandable that they would THINK that he was, in view of his many contradictory statements after he fired Comey?
Have you actually read about any of this? Seriously. Or are you just relying on MSM coverage?
Do you even realize how, and why Comey was fired? Are you aware that Jeff Sessions wrote a letter recommending Comey's removal? Are you also aware that Rod Rosenstein also wrote a letter recommending Comey's removal?
Comey was fired for cause, which was he was a buffoon as the FBI Director and was doing a terrible job. It was also starting to come out that Comey, in conjunction with McCabe, was leaking classified information to the media.
The whole "Comey was fired to suppress the Mueller investigation" is just another hoax being perpetuated by the left and the MSM with no basis in reality or truth.
In particular, that "this thing between Trump and Russia is a made up story" and "now the pressure [over Russia] is off"? That they'd be in a panic that their investigation might be shut down if McCabe and others were fired too?
Huh? ???
I guess if you think they were all out to bring Trump down from the get-go, it all sounds like spin to prop up a hatchet job and hide abuse of investigative authority. I'm not convinced yet. We've heard only one side of that story so far; McCabe hasn't said anything about the Fusion GPS affair AFAIK. Feel free to believe conspiracy theories, I'll keep an open mind until we have all the facts.
It's painfully obvious you are only getting your info through MSM. It's also obvious you aren't aware of what has actually been going on (not surprising, the MSM has turned a deaf ear to the facts)
Here's the story in a nutshell (based on factual events)
1) The "Trump-Russia Collusion" is nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by the Clinton Campaign to get the DoJ/FBI to investigate and possibly remove Trump from office.
2) The DoJ/FBI senior officials (Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Ohr, Baker) committed several felonies in order to "investigate" the President, including lying on FISA applications.
3) Comey was fired for cause, which President Trump has been forthcoming about. The constitution gives the President authority to fire anyone in the executive branch, for any reason.
4) There has been zero evidence found (after two years) of any collusion (which is not even a crime), or any "obstruction of justice".
5) The Senate Investigation, led by Sen Burr has concluded "No evidence of Russian Collusion" by the President or his campaign.
6) The Congressional Committee under Devin Nunes, after two years also concluded the same.
7) All indictments of Robert Mueller show no collusion was committed. Furthermore, of the indictments so far, none were connected to the President.
8) Gen Flynn was set up by McCabe. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn even stated in their documents they felt Flynn was being honest. This was later changed in order to indict Flynn.
I could go on and on. Again, this is all factual and is out there. The MSM is largely ignoring it because it totally sinks the "Trump Russia" narrative which they have been hoping would drive the President from office.
-
It leaves open the possibility that the top echelon just didn't know.
...
the way McCabe reacted to Trump's firing of Comey doesn't prove political bias on his part.
I'm sorry, but these two statements are just unbelievable. McCabe's political bias is well documented in many way and this is just one part of it. Yes, by itself it says little, but when taken together with all the other things (you do know the other things, right?) it is part of a picture which unquestionably show political bias.
The idea that top leaders of the FBI didn't know the source of the Steele Dossier is just ludicrous. They HAVE to know about the documents they're taking to a FISA judge or else they are being criminally negligent. Think about what you're saying that a top Director of the FBI does not know the integrity of the source documents they swear to in front of a judge?!!
-
Thank you Lucifer and bflynn for typing this out. Azure, these are all well documented facts and the mainstream media has ignored them. It was a top level effort to undo the 2016 election, to hang something on Trump that would justify removing him from office. It was not a low level operation. As I said, the low level peeps in those departments are sickened and appalled at what their "betters" did/are doing.
-
These allegations about the Steele dossier have been circulating for nearly a year now if not more. That's what I meant by "old news". I have no idea when the Senate memo Rush linked to was made public - was that recent? If so, then I stand corrected and there is news here. But it's still not at all surprising to see confirmation of what has been alleged for a long time.
But look at the date on the memo - Jan 2018. Comey was fired in May 2017. That's what, 7 months we're talking about here (at least what I'm talking about).
Yes, it's clear the FBI conducted an investigation based on tainted evidence that they SHOULD HAVE known was tainted.
My question is: what did Comey and McCabe (and Rosenstein) actually know, and when did they know it?
I always say, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. Nothing in that memo comes out and accuses the FBI of deliberately lying in the FISA application. It leaves open the possibility that the top echelon just didn't know. If they turned a blind eye, or willfully ignored evidence that Steele was a liar, then that's criminal. But I don't think we know that they weren't just deceived by low-level operatives like Strzok. That wouldn't excuse their ignorance, it would indicate incompetence, but it's not a crime to be incompetent and it doesn't mean they acted out of political bias.
I stand by what I said, that assuming they didn't know, the way McCabe reacted to Trump's firing of Comey doesn't prove political bias on his part. ANY DOJ official (heck, any LEO officer) would react that way to an admission that Trump was trying to suppress an ongoing investigation since it raises the question of obstruction.
ANOTHER progressive that would rather fight than allow the truth to affect her opinions.
-
http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/27/andrew-mccabes-media-tour-confirmed-fbi-no-basis-investigating-trump/
-
The idea that top leaders of the FBI didn't know the source of the Steele Dossier is just ludicrous. They HAVE to know about the documents they're taking to a FISA judge or else they are being criminally negligent. Think about what you're saying that a top Director of the FBI does not know the integrity of the source documents they swear to in front of a judge?!!
I would agree that it would be negligent; I don't know about the criminally part, but it would be grossly negligent, a sign of incompetence, as I said. And I agree that it would be very unlikely for professionals at that level to have a lapse of that sort. But is the suggestion any more ludicrous that that several top-level DOJ officials conspired to try to undo an election the result of which they didn't like?
That said, I'm going to backtrack just a bit, since "we didn't know" has not been advanced as a theory by the principals involved. And the "other side" isn't alleging that, rather that the "accepted facts" people are stating here are anything but. In particular, contrary to the Grassley memo, they are saying that it is "mostly false" (Politifact) that the FBI relied exclusively on the Steele dossier in obtaining the FISA warrants, and in their investigation of Russian connections to the Trump campaign, and that the FBI investigation into Russian involvement with the Trump campaign had been going on for months before they were given the dossier, initiated by reported comments by Papadopoulos that he had "dirt on Clinton's campaign". It's also not clear how much or how little of the allegations made in the dossier were independently verified by the FBI before being used in the FISA application.
My takeaway is that the whole thing is just a confused mess, that critical facts still aren't available to anyone without a security clearance, and that we still don't know whether the FBI's application for FISA warrants was tainted by political bias. If it was all a political hack job, as claimed, and the MSM reporters buried facts that would prove it, that would be a scandal worth exposing and SOMEONE in the industry would have done so already, I should think. The MSM have a strong liberal bias but they don't work in lockstep, it's a highly competitive business.
So I stand by what I said earlier that this all smells like a conspiracy theory... unless more facts emerge.
-
ANOTHER progressive that would rather fight than allow the truth to affect her opinions.
Not a progressive, and not convinced by EITHER side in this. There are just too many unanswered questions.
-
Not a progressive, and not convinced by EITHER side in this. There are just too many unanswered questions.
Only in the minds of people who think thatmsnbc is a bastion of truth and that Fox News is a propaganda arm.
-
I would agree that it would be negligent; I don't know about the criminally part, but it would be grossly negligent, a sign of incompetence, as I said. And I agree that it would be very unlikely for professionals at that level to have a lapse of that sort. But is the suggestion any more ludicrous that that several top-level DOJ officials conspired to try to undo an election the result of which they didn't like?
That said, I'm going to backtrack just a bit, since "we didn't know" has not been advanced as a theory by the principals involved. And the "other side" isn't alleging that, rather that the "accepted facts" people are stating here are anything but. In particular, contrary to the Grassley memo, they are saying that it is "mostly false" (Politifact) that the FBI relied exclusively on the Steele dossier in obtaining the FISA warrants, and in their investigation of Russian connections to the Trump campaign, and that the FBI investigation into Russian involvement with the Trump campaign had been going on for months before they were given the dossier, initiated by reported comments by Papadopoulos that he had "dirt on Clinton's campaign". It's also not clear how much or how little of the allegations made in the dossier were independently verified by the FBI before being used in the FISA application.
My takeaway is that the whole thing is just a confused mess, that critical facts still aren't available to anyone without a security clearance, and that we still don't know whether the FBI's application for FISA warrants was tainted by political bias. If it was all a political hack job, as claimed, and the MSM reporters buried facts that would prove it, that would be a scandal worth exposing and SOMEONE in the industry would have done so already, I should think. The MSM have a strong liberal bias but they don't work in lockstep, it's a highly competitive business.
So I stand by what I said earlier that this all smells like a conspiracy theory... unless more facts emerge.
You're sticking to the current narrative by the liberals. Why?
The whole "Trump-Russia Collusion" is a hoax and is falling apart. Even Cohen's testimony this last week shot more holes in it. So now the narrative shifts to what you stated above.
You obviously have not taken the time to follow and read all the information that has been made available on this, there are volumes. And that info is not "conspiratorial" but hard facts with time lines. It paints a devastating picture of senior SES personnel in the DoJ/FBI conspiring to change the election results of 2016 through their self described "insurance policy". And the trails led right back to BHO and Hillary.
John Salomon, Greg Jarrett and Sarah Carter have done incredible research, and have citations for all their work using obtained documents. Alan Dershowitz has even commented several times on the evidence.
BHO weaponized several departments of the executive branch under his administration. The scandals were numerous and publicized, but the MSM refused to acknowledge it and the liberals looked the other way. They both scoffed it off as "conspiratorial" even in the face of hard evidence.
-
No, the "narrative" has always been what I wrote just above, previously I had just not done enough reading. I still haven't read everything that is available out there, not because I don't want to, but because I just don't have time. This past week you might have noticed I haven't been active here, or on any other pilot boards for that matter. I had to make up, give, and grade an exam in a course I've never taught before, in addition to other responsibilities. There just isn't enough time in a day.
I am not sticking to any narrative. I am saying there are at least two (if not more) narratives, and not enough hard information that I'm aware of to choose between them. Everything I've seen so far appears to be tainted by partisan bias, including much of the MSM reporting, the statements by congressional Republicans (of course), and even the Grassley memo.
As far as the reporters you mention, I'm aware of Jarrett's book but have not read it because from what I've gleaned, it alleges facts that aren't generally agreed upon. In particular, Politifact has rated what it calls his main points as "false", except for the statement (widely reported) that Comey called the dossier contents "salacious and unverified", which it calls "half true" - and that part, that Comey was referring to the "personally sensitive" aspects of the dossier - presumably the "golden showers" story - has been stated elsewhere.
It seems that whether this material is "devastating" depends on whether you choose to believe it. I've seen timelines that strongly suggest the DOJ's approach to the investigation was at least politically neutral, though maybe not above reproach.
I choose to believe none of it - neither side. Until I have more *hard facts*.
-
No, the "narrative" has always been what I wrote just above, previously I had just not done enough reading. I still haven't read everything that is available out there, not because I don't want to, but because I just don't have time. This past week you might have noticed I haven't been active here, or on any other pilot boards for that matter. I had to make up, give, and grade an exam in a course I've never taught before, in addition to other responsibilities. There just isn't enough time in a day.
I am not sticking to any narrative. I am saying there are at least two (if not more) narratives, and not enough hard information that I'm aware of to choose between them. Everything I've seen so far appears to be tainted by partisan bias, including much of the MSM reporting, the statements by congressional Republicans (of course), and even the Grassley memo.
As far as the reporters you mention, I'm aware of Jarrett's book but have not read it because from what I've gleaned, it alleges facts that aren't generally agreed upon. In particular, Politifact has rated what it calls his main points as "false", except for the statement (widely reported) that Comey called the dossier contents "salacious and unverified", which it calls "half true" - and that part, that Comey was referring to the "personally sensitive" aspects of the dossier - presumably the "golden showers" story - has been stated elsewhere.
It seems that whether this material is "devastating" depends on whether you choose to believe it. I've seen timelines that strongly suggest the DOJ's approach to the investigation was at least politically neutral, though maybe not above reproach.
I choose to believe none of it - neither side. Until I have more *hard facts*.
Wow.
You admit you haven’t spent the time to read on this, but never fear, you have all the info you need to make a decision. Incredible.
And “politifact”??? Seriously?? A hard left publication, yep, no bias there!
Oh, I actually read Jarret’s book. He uses actual credible references.
-
No, the "narrative" has always been what I wrote just above, previously I had just not done enough reading. I still haven't read everything that is available out there, not because I don't want to, but because I just don't have time. This past week you might have noticed I haven't been active here, or on any other pilot boards for that matter. I had to make up, give, and grade an exam in a course I've never taught before, in addition to other responsibilities. There just isn't enough time in a day.
I am not sticking to any narrative. I am saying there are at least two (if not more) narratives, and not enough hard information that I'm aware of to choose between them. Everything I've seen so far appears to be tainted by partisan bias, including much of the MSM reporting, the statements by congressional Republicans (of course), and even the Grassley memo.
As far as the reporters you mention, I'm aware of Jarrett's book but have not read it because from what I've gleaned, it alleges facts that aren't generally agreed upon. In particular, Politifact has rated what it calls his main points as "false", except for the statement (widely reported) that Comey called the dossier contents "salacious and unverified", which it calls "half true" - and that part, that Comey was referring to the "personally sensitive" aspects of the dossier - presumably the "golden showers" story - has been stated elsewhere.
It seems that whether this material is "devastating" depends on whether you choose to believe it. I've seen timelines that strongly suggest the DOJ's approach to the investigation was at least politically neutral, though maybe not above reproach.
I choose to believe none of it - neither side. Until I have more *hard facts*.
I applaud you for keeping an open mind. I try to do the same before I'm convinced one way or the other.
Let me suggest you read this:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/fact-checkers-big-media/
-
I only mentioned Politifact as an example of a website pushing the other side - i.e. showing the facts you are claiming to be true and verified are still in dispute. Not saying I necessarily trust their version to be correct either.
Yes, I'm skeptical that the entire MSM machine would conspire to suppress evidence of a conspiracy on this scale. In fact NPR has had numerous stories about this over the past year, all concluding that allegations of DOJ malfeasance are based on facts that are either not true, or not proven or can't be checked one way or the other without access to classified information.
Doesn't mean they are right. Doesn't mean they are wrong.
Let me ask this: is there one solid piece of reporting containing the evidence that convinced you? If it's less than 100 pages, I will read it and get back to you.
-
I only mentioned Politifact as an example of a website pushing the other side - i.e. showing the facts you are claiming to be true and verified are still in dispute. Not saying I necessarily trust their version to be correct either.
Yes, I'm skeptical that the entire MSM machine would conspire to suppress evidence of a conspiracy on this scale. In fact NPR has had numerous stories about this over the past year, all concluding that allegations of DOJ malfeasance are based on facts that are either not true, or not proven or can't be checked one way or the other without access to classified information.
Doesn't mean they are right. Doesn't mean they are wrong.
Let me ask this: is there one solid piece of reporting containing the evidence that convinced you? If it's less than 100 pages, I will read it and get back to you.
Oh c’mon.
Sorry, there’s no “condensed version” nor is there a cliff note edition. ::)