Mr trump Tells ABC News "It’s not an interference. They have information. I think I’d take it."

No, he didn’t hire Steele for research. That was the legal and proper method for opposition research.

He told the Russian to hack Clinton server. He and his family were jumping in excitement to get dirt from the Russian government, who stole info from the DNC. He and his family then lied about the contacts and he proceeded to obstruct the fbi and mueller investigations. That something law abiding people do not do.

 

I know this is "politics" area.

But that is one sexy right there.

 

You can't answer it? Just asked your opinion. I don't think I saw a post where you explained that. I am not going to obsess over it though. Just say you don't feel like explaining it.

 

There is nothing clinical about that chart and it displays their bias.

 

Don't shoot the messenger when truth comes knocking.

 

Trump haters: you have to hire a Brit to obtain information from Russians.

 

trump lies so effortlessly... here is a tweet stream that documents just some of the lies during the ABC interview...

 

One of the most ridiculous lies that trump says in the interview...

 

They would welcome any info about Trump but if it's their tribe they complain.

 

A) They hired Fusion, not Steele
B) They paid for the services so it was not an illegal campaign contribution.

The more you know Rojo.

 

Trump supporters are some of the dumbest people I know.

 

It baffles me that Trumpers simply do not understand the difference between Hiring someone (domestic or foreign) vs. a gift to a campaign that has ramifications to compromise.

Then there is the other obvious difference which is the fact that Britain currently does not have nukes pointed at the US mainland. Even if Chris Steele was also working for the British government (he was not... he was retired, and working for Fusion GPS), its an obvious difference in the fact that Britain is our friend, while Russia wants to destroy our democracy, and would go to war with us if they thought they could easily win.

 

Oh, I suspect they know. But to intentionally misstate and even outright lie is the only way they can defend trump. Otherwise they have to acknowledge that they were wrong for supporting and defending him.

 

It wouldn't be so bad if you were to say "I'm not going to spend the time to check it out and get a sense of how reliable I feel it to be". You simply say "there is nothing clinical about" it, as if you actually made an effort to determine that. And this sums up your entire side. You accept as true accounts you want to be true and dismiss out-of-hand accounts you want not to be true.

It actually is clinical as illustrated by these links from the media bias site.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/

 

some additional commentary:

Part 1 . https://ethicsalarms.com/2019/06/16...ut-his-opponent-from-a-foreign-source-part-i/

Part 2 . https://ethicsalarms.com/2019/06/16...-his-opponent-from-a-foreign-source-part-i-2/

 

It's amazing how the internet has empowered people like you to spread so much in propaganda. The only question now is whether or not you are a willing tool, or an unwitting one.

 

that was too quick a response. there's no way you read both those pieces, evaluated them, and formed a judgment that they are "lies."

 

The effort put into this study is admirable and appreciated. Two minor points: all of the methodology at the link fails to say much about how the evaluators were selected.

"Each of the nearly 2000 individual articles and TV news shows will be rated by four analysts with different political views."​

What does "different political views" mean? A Fox guy and an MSNBC guy? An anarchist and a Wahhabi Muslim? Because of this unknown, the ratings may be accurate relative to each other, but the center line is undetermined; the entire chart might need to be shifted to the left or to the right, depending. (For example, both MSNBC people and Fox people love the CIA. So loving the CIA might appear to be a centrist position.)

Also, I am wondering how they classify someone such as former CIA director John Brennan.

Former CIA director John Brennan has become the latest member of the NBC News and MSNBC family, officially signing with the network as a contributor.
https://www.thewrap.com/ex-cia-chief-john-brennan-signs-as-msnbc-nbc-as-contributor/​

Aw! Does the study classify John Brennan as "Paid/Regular Contributor" or "Political/Institutional Spokesperson/Advocate" or simply "Family"?

 

ethics alarms - I've come across that before - from you most likely, and already wasted time looking into that trash site. You need to start posting more legit sources and commentary.

Some right-wing hack's blog is not a source I need to waste my time reading. Jack Marshall has no credibility.