[Astrodome] schiff attempts to collude with Russia

Anyone who thinks Fox has journalistic integrity is ridiculously stupid.

 

What does that make the ones who think highly of the integrity of CNN, MSNBC, etc.? Brain dead?

MSNBC, NBC News top political editor accused of 'trying to intimidate' reporter on 'behalf of the DNC'


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ms...g-to-intimidate-reporter-on-behalf-of-the-dnc

 

I don't get my news from any of those sources. But I know you quote the propaganda channel to try to support your cause. Look at this point, FoxNews is no more credible than Breitbart. It's already known it's the Trump News Network.

 

Did your news sources tell you Trump colluded with Russia? Did Fox dispute that he colluded? Case closed.

 

The reliability of the various new sources has been charted. I posted the graph and link to it just a bit earlier in this discussion. If you care to check it, you will find how the various news sources you mention, Mick, are comparatively rated. Or are measurable facts not the sort of thing you're interested in when you're trying to push a narrative?

I'll do some of that little bit of legwork for you. Fox is rated on the line between "Extreme/Unfair interpretations of the news" and "Nonsense damaging to public discourse". NBC News is rated "Neutral" bias, "Original Fact Reporting".

 

Collusion isn't even a crime as I have stated over and over on here. Fox is a well know puppet of Trump. My sources have demonstrated the ties and favoritism Trump gets - something no other president has ever gotten from a news network in history.

 

here's one for Sweet Lou

)

 

Utter lack of evidence? They may want to wait until the report comes out....

We publicly witnessed Trump and company change their Trump tower meeting story..... it was about "adoptions", remember?

 

Fox is also saying there's no evidence and it's a hoax.

 

FIFY

 

????

 

Did you forget to put your thinking cap on this morning?

 

Do you and the tweeter not understand what happened with Schiff? He wasn't saying Trump was guilty. Everything that he mentioned is known to have happened. The Mueller report didn't deny any of that happened as far as we know. It wouldn't. It's all on record. The Mueller report said that that stuff wasn't enough to convict Trump of a crime.

I'm not sure why I'm asking because all you do is troll. But I figured I would give it a shot. Do you not understand that whether or not it was a crime, Schiff and others will still be upset because all of that happened?

That doesn't mean everyone thinks Trump should be in prison. It does mean that people have evidence-backed gripes about the President's behavior, policies, loyalty, and leadership.

The real question is that since all of that stuff is on record, why are you, @cml750 and others acting like that stuff isn't a big deal or pretending it didn't happen at all because those things weren't enough to prosecute someone?

 

Mueller appears to be following the example set by the Watergate investigation, which is that rather than submit a recommendation on indictment, the evidence was presented to the House of Representatives, knowing the evidence clearly portrayed the appropriateness of impeachment proceedings. This differs from the traditional actions of special/independent counsels who do include in their report recommendation one way or the other on indictment, but adheres to the sentiment of reluctance to indict a sitting president.

Therefore, any claim that a lack of recommendation from Mueller to indict implies innocence is myopic, unattentive to history, and premature.

Further, the Barr "letter" makes the claim that the evidence falls short of showing a "secret agreement between the Trump campaign and the Russian government". This is not sole form of collusion probed. The Trump campaign did not have a contract with Putin, the IRA, nor GRU, as the Barr "letter" describes the matter, but the collusive activities Schiff enumerates are KNOWN to have occurred. NO ONE has refuted the truth of a single one of the collusive acts Schiff names.

The Barr "letter" says nothing of the quid pro quo of Russian campaign aid (and it bears pointing out it is illegal for foreign persons, entities, or governments to provide any support in a US election) in exchange for money, debt relief, sanction relief, for which there is a great deal of evidence, including court testimony.

 

Os, The Federalist--the source of the tweet you cite-- is regarded as "Extreme/Unfair interpretation of news". It fails to meet the bar of reliable substance for our discussion.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Media-Bias-Chart_4.0_8_28_2018-min.jpg

 

thanks for the info, I'll try to keep that in mind

 

Get em while they’re hot!