I'll just leave this here.

They were lying before, so it will be safe to assume they will be lying again.

#FakeNews, all of it.

The Daily Wire is an American news and conservative opinion website founded in 2015 by political commentator Ben Shapiro, who currently serves as Editor-in-chief.

It's funny because everything Trump doesn't like is "FAKE NEWS" but all the garbage news Blogs like Breitbart are real news.

It's amazing hiw much turns out to be fakenews in fact, though.

Any more, if you assume it's fake to begin with, you will be right far more often than not.

I call it selective facts. It is a shame it has come to this.

Yes I can agree with this statement. It's not fake news. its biased journalism.

I'd argue that media was historically very biased, and 60s to 90s era was an outlier.

However, lack of skepticism and critical thinking is new, at least in its scale.

Guys, its ok. Alternative facts is a thing now and it will help us defeat these lying journalists. Just look at what Erdogan did with Turkey and their journalists.

Now their press is more free than ever... to find a new career or go to jail.

Makes me wonder why the establishment media didn't take a real stand when Obama went after them, when they were spied upon, subpoenaed, and such. Glenn Greenwald can't go anywhere without govt thugs shaking him down, taking his electronics and going through his stuff, often delaying and detaining him for extended periods at airports and such.

Yet, mainstream mouthpieces were largely silent.

Go back to the financial crisis, where the MSM covered the party line 24/7, working to convince the public that disaster would befall the world if we didn't bail out the bad actors. Barely a shred of objectivity or alternative voice could be heard from most quarters, though they did exist. But hey, the constant fear mongering by Geithner, Bernanke, Paulson et al, to get the criminal enterprises they hailed from bailed out got ratings.

Or the massive silence during the Iraq war period. How many years was it after 9/11 before the media found a spine again? Or what about the media's own complicity in pushing through the tenets of the internal security state? I wonder how many yokels had to be interviewed to find some that would obligingly say something like "Oh, we are so scared of terrorism. Oh my gawd, they need to do something, it could happen anywhere." So an illusion of fear was created. As if Al Qaeda was going to blow up the local VFW Hall during Wednesday night fucking bingo. Instead of voices of reason, it was 24/7 mindless fear mongering, in service to those who wished to spend uncounted billions constructing elaborate surveillance and policing apparatus aimed at those very yokels, and accumulating unchecked and unaccountable political power within the Federal bureaucracy.

Going back to the 90's, I still recall the turn the media made. It was very noticeable, even though I was pretty young. Particularly noticeable was the media had started fear mongering conservatives, and pillorying normal people who somehow got caught in the crosshairs. MSM hatred of gun rights was particularly vivid, which, more than anything, led to both the market for, and creation of Faux News.

-----

What happened in Turkey is instructive. But if we want to avoid that, it is imperative that people in media realize - and internalize - that this didn't happen overnight, and it wasn't some outside force that brought it on. They have, as an industry, done it to themselves.

Of course I say that in overly broad terms - despite editorial and corporate failures, there have still been good journalists, good stories, and good reporting. It still happens, and happens often.

But what the C-suite brass chooses to hammer home, and the messages and narratives they choose to ram down everyone's throat matter. Hopefully they have learned, but it seems that they haven't.

http://www.cjr.org/first_person/podesta_emails_journalists_dinner.php

Bolding by me, for emphasis.

Lots of other good stuff in the article, plus one mistake.



Wikileaks targets anyone and everything. Given their history, there is no reason to believe that they wouldn't have published Trump documents.

Maybe some enterprising reporter should have obtained some, and leaked them.

If Wikileaks ever had anything. They can't leak what they don't have.

Exactly my point.

Can anyone familiar with them really say that they wouldnt have posted say, Trump's tax returns, had someone leaked them? I'm sure they would have.

WashPost Trump - access journalism dead




We can only hope this is so. Though it begs the question, how the hell did it go on for so long in the first place?

I think NPR does a good job - both parties hate it, so they must be doing something right. However, they are no BBC.

I like NPR. All Things Considered is pretty cool, so is Folk Alley.

NPR has its place, but I don't think the government should be subsidizing any news organization. That seems too much like Pravda.

In October 2010, Assange told a leading Moscow newspaper that "[t]he Kremlin had better brace itself for a coming wave of WikiLeaks disclosures about Russia."[193][194] In late November, Assange stated, "we have material on many businesses and governments, including in Russia. It's not right to say there's going to be a particular focus on Russia".[195] On 23 December 2010, the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta announced that it had been granted access to a wide range of materials from the WikiLeaks database. The newspaper said that it will begin releasing these materials in January 2011, with an eye toward exposing corruption in the Russian government.[196][197]

So they never published the Russian material? Looking at the wikipedia entry, it seems there are a few things that didn't get released or pan out for whatever reason.

Do you think the Russian bit is indicative of deeper collaboration? I note that they did release the Syrian files on Syrian govt subsequent to the Russian issue, which doesn't seem particularly pro-Russian.

It sounds as if Wikileaks made good on it's threat to release information, but the paper never printed it.

Corruption runs deep in the former Soviet Union.

so than why wouldn't wikileaks turn around and release it themselves?

Assange has an agenda and he uses wikileaks to accomplish his goals. Let's not for a second think hes benevolent. If hes the arbiter of free info, why did he have an issue with the release of the Panama Papers?

I guess the question then is, does it matter?

I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea that he has a bias, especially against the US Establishment, and Hillary Clinton in particular, seeing the lengths to which he and Wikileask were targeted. After all, what he as a publisher of information reaped from the US, and Hillary in particular as SoS, was attempts at extradition and USGov pressuring the financial sector to cut ties.

So if someone wants to make a case that Wikileaks has become bias against the US, I find that believable. Or if someone alleged that they had to cut deals with certain polities as a matter of survival.

--

The question I posit though, is what does it matter?

Since when in the US, did we as a people, and especially the media, take a position that it should be criminal to publish true, in-context information, simply because we don't like person publishing it or their motives?

Who is benevolent? No one is. US media and govt surely aren't. But so what?

People need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and ask what is more important: That the public get truthful , in-context reporting - or that information reported suits your own personal political opinions.

I have yet to see someone articulate a a case against Assange, or the Podesta leaks, that is more intellectually robust than "I don't like the person who did it, who it helped, or why they did it."

It would be great to find one, but I don't think there is one. Paradoxically, if you attack people for releasing information because you don't like the source, you aren't any better than the authoritarian regimes doing the alleged releasing. Is acting like Putin the best repose to Putin trying to influence politics? I fail to see how those who advocate such a tihng are any better than Putin.

They are looking to generate controversy. They aren't on a grand crusade. This generated no interest, and they didn't want to belabor a topic no one is interested in.

That is not their business model, whatever the Hell their business model is.

That's just as bad or worse than fake news.

How is biased journalism not an instance of fake news?

No, because something can both be biased and still be technically factual, i.e most of what Fox News puts out. So they are not lying to their viewers but they are not presenting them with all the information. This is why you should be getting your news from multiple sources.

Fake news, unless we don't really care what the definition of words are nowadays, is just plain fake.

*addendum - Bias can happen on many different levels as well. For instance, what a news agency chooses to cover and not can be a form of bias.

Biased Journalism example: Interviewing a hundred people, then taking excerpts from the five who said something in line with the narrative you want to push, and reporting it in a manner that makes it sound like the sample was representative of the population surveyed.

Fake news example: Saying Hillary might be arrested for running a child sex ring soon, because you saw it on an anonymous 4chan post.

Another example of biased journalism is providing technically true statements that aren't actually directly relevant to the story, or are unrepresentative of the situation, to create a pejorative mental association.

For example, and this will be an unpopular example, during the Trayvon Martin case. Showing the picture of Martin as a 12-year old, and saying "this kid" , instead of using a more recent picture, giving the impression that the person shot was actually the small kid, not the 6'+ man he'd since become. Or NBC's selective airing of Zimmerman's words.

For the record, I don't like Zimmerman - but that whole incident makes for a great case study in media bias and narrative pushing, especially since they went a bit further with it than normal, making it really easy to catch and call out. Which few people do, because no one wants to give the impression of being on Zimmerman's side.

In my view, this is by far the most pervasive form of bias among the generally reputable media outlets. Especially in regards to political reporting.

Selective biased reporting is just another way of lying.

How would you spin this one against this one?

Same story, two totally different spins. When does bias become an outright lie?

The Independent story is poorly written with contradictory statements within the article. I even see some unsubstantiated claims in here that should never have been allowed to pass edit. This kind of goes beyond bias but that is what you get when you use a tabloid rag in its death throes to try and prove a point.

I guess this illustrates a bigger issue though. What is a reputable site and what isn't. People complain about the mainstream media but the Independent, Buzz Feed, etc is not apart of that. Just anyone nowadays can create a website to report news. Hence why we have people in Macedonia turning out completely fabricated stories and making a living off of doing that.

The CNN article is written a lot better.

It seems like the great bias divide in this issue is if they were fired or resigned. The truth seems to be somewhere in the middle. The senior staff handed in letters of resignation, hence they quit, but from what I have gathered it was more of a forced resignation anyway.


Maybe I need to clarify my position here. The Mainstream Media has an issue of bias not "fake news". CNN is not fake news lol

When we make mistakes and it does happen, we issue retractions. The offenders, depending on the severity can be placed on leave or outright fired. CBS forced Lara Logan and her producer to take a leave of absence and issued an apology about their faulty Benghazi reporting on 60 Minutes.

So then the bigger question is, if you're not a media wonk, which most people are not, how do you tell the difference? Especially now, when most people seem to get their news (from only the headlines, which is how they get away with bullshit in the actual article) from the echo chamber of their facebook feeds. How does the average person know what is a legitimate news source and what isn't? In this particular case CNN seems to be the more unbiased of the two sources, but we all know that isn't always the case.

A few things really stood out for me when examining the two articles.

First, was CNN had already issued a correction for mischaracterization of one person leaving in initial version of article. Mistakes happen, but sometimes it feels like I can't recall the last time CNN made an assertion themselves, and didn't hide behind the opinion of an unnamed "source" and didn't end up having to issue a correction.

Second, the Independant article didn't note the common practice of an incoming administration requesting people to stay on for a while during the transition, giving the appearance of people quitting their jobs entirely to not serve under Trump. They did note however, some reasons why the two parties might not be congenial, such as the Benghazi testimony.

Third, the CNN article did note the recent tradition of people staying on, yet wasn't clear in the written piece on if the resignations were freely offered, or prompted by Trump. In fact, the wording of their anonymous "sources" could easily give one the impression that Trump and co. initiated the departures. This was given extra impetus by the auto-play video box, where breathless people ran with the tag-line from the anon sources: "White House Cleaning House" and basically said it was a mass firing.

Fourth, that CNN basically just ran with not only the opinion, but the wording of their two sources, who remain nameless. CNN never independently articulated any analysis, nor evidence, outside of people who remained unnamed, and reported their opinions on the matter. In rather breathless terms in the video talky-box, and with any possible hyperbole left undisturbed. While technically accurate to say that their two sources said "STUFF", a close inspection reveals the common CNN tactic of pushing someone else's opinion or take on a situation as fact. This allows CNN to technically be truthful, yet still report opinion as fact.

Fifth, what actually happened is that political appointees are required to submit a resignation to a new administration, if it is a PAS position (politically appointed, requiring Senate confirmation.) So the real story here, is that the Trump administration accepted them. We don't know without hearing from the parties involved whether they wanted to leave or not, and the Washington Post notes as much, as well as the internal confusion within the Dept as to which narrative is true.

Sixth, CNN highlighted the "loss of 150 years of institutional knowledge" put forward in the wording of their anon source, despite the fact that several of the people resigning from PAS positions are likely to continue on with the Dept in a different capacity. Is this institutional loss of knowledge, or job reassignment? Make up your mind.

Seventh, the breathless manner of the talking heads in the video box, as they recounted the anon sources opinions, crossed the line from "incomplete, crap" to really being out in left field. Using the opinions cited as a headline is really deceptive, when you state it verbally as fact, and do so in a breathless, incredulous manner.

Is the CNN article better than the Independent? Sure, you can make that argument, especially when considering the corrected CNN version, and the fact that the written CNN article at least states the fact that they are basically just regurgitating the opinions of anonymous sources.

But the CNN article is still a dumpster of shit, by any objective measure. The CNN video-box lights that dumpster on fire.

Par for the CNN course. CNN might not be fake news, but they are fake journalists with fake editors and producers.

I will note one thing though, and that is that I didn't pay a dime for CNN's take. (or the Independant's)

And perhaps, that is the problem.

To quote a German guy who once sold me a car: "joo vill get vat joo pay for."

Some interesting reporting on newsroom politics. Recommended reading.

http://www.politico.com/media/story/2017...tensions-004928

WSJ problem is that overlap of stupid and wealthy is much smaller than either of these sets. As such, laser sharp focus leaves them with a diminished audience.

well did my bit to improve Journalism
Gave the BBC feedback that HMS Belfast was not a a Battleship as they stated at lunch time and this afternoon it was back to being "the old British light cruiser HMS Belfast"
Old is a bit harsh looks good for its age.

If the intent is to deceive by slanting reporting to advance an agenda, then CNN is indeed guilty of disseminating fake news. It isn't their job to tell people what to think. Their job is to present ALL relevant information and allow people to come to their own conclusions.

Once a news organization starts selectively reporting information, they cease to be a reliable trustworthy news organization, and instead they become an outlet for propaganda.

Off the top of my head, I can't come up with any news outlets that this does not describe. This is why I try to get my daily news from as wide a variety of sources as possible. It really is frustrating to have to spend my valuable time trying to sift out facts when that is precisely the job for which these people are paid.

Which is why journalism is becoming a despised profession. Pimps and lawyers are more respected.

You would think so if you get all your facts from Fox News and Trump ^>^


Not really a poll about respect but ethics is still important:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx

Bankers 2 22 46 22 8
Journalists 4 19 34 23 18
Lawyers 3 15 45 26 11

Wow, journalists really are down there with bankers and lawyers.

ouch.

Ethics are important, which is why many journalists fall below pimps in the hierarchy of things. Many have none.

proof? sources? or is this just a feels thing?

I think that the election of President Trump is an indicator. The media called Hillary 'inevitable', and held her coronation a year before the election.

Voters in most states scorned that idea and elected Trump instead.

If the press were held in high regard, you would think they would have had greater influence.

To be honest, people self-selecting their media had something to do with Trump. It also would have had something to do with Hillary had she won.

People trust journalists that agree with them, and that is a problem when the only journalists they trust are the ones that agree with them.

Yes, many segments of the MSM have done a horrible job, prompting and guiding people to the new echo chamber status quo. That still doesn't make the fact that many people seek out what they want to hear and then believe what they want any less of a major problem.

It will be interesting to see if people hang on to Trump, despite the fact he is proving himself completely incompetent and dangerous at best, and a literal foreign agent of our demise at worst. My guess is that they will, because the other "side" is really no better when its all said and done, but still, it is mind boggling how terrifyingly corrupt and stupid the Trump administration is proving.

Speaking of echo chambers, you must not be talking to many conservatives. Trump is keeping all the campaign promises upon which he was elected. For what my opinion is worth, I think so far he has done a fantastic job, and better than I had expected.

LOL the President got so triggered by Journalists he banned CNN, NYT, LAT, BuzzFeed News and Politico from White House gaggles. Straight out the dictator handbook.

*Edit I forgot to add they barred the BBC as well as a few others.

The NYT a fucking newspaper that has won 119 Pulitzer's.

Yes I indeed would like to talk about Echo chambers.

Depends on the sub-group of conservative.

And yeah, lots of people do think he is doing just great so far. The problem lies between their perception and reality.

Plenty of idiocy in Trumplandia, but a couple bits from the past week that made me grind my teeth:

First, FCC rollback of transparency rules. Now, part blame goes to crappy journalists for this bit, because they usually aren't terribly clear on the issue (with some exceptions) and roll it all up into the "net neutrality" umbrella when reporting on the issue. Well, the parts that Trumpland is targeting thus far aren't the "neutrality" bits that many principled conservatives object to, that might force ISPs to operate in a certain manner, but rather, the regulations that basically try and put limits on fraud and deceptive practices. The parts that require some transparency in telling people what they are actually getting.

This is not a conservative move, it is a crony move.

Second, is talk about the war on weed firing up again. Whether from a states rights perspective, or a common sense perspective, theres absolutely no good reason whatsoever to waste a single federal dime or man-hour on people smoking weed. The so-called drug war failed even worse than prohibition, availability was never an issue - even at the heights of the drug war. All it ever did was waste countless dollars, and empower the most crooked practices in "law enforcement" Sure, because it was a Reagan thing, some self-identifying conservatives still are all gung ho about it, living in some long debunked fantasy that sending SWAT teams after potheads is going to somehow bring back the imaginary 50's in their head that never really existed, but the states rights angle should have any constitutional conservative up in arms.

Taking shit that never worked, everyone has realized doesn't work, then doubling down on it is incompetent at best.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg.

Meh.

�It's going to get worse every day for the media,� Bannon said, insisting that the �corporatist� media would continue to see Trump pursue exactly the sort of economic nationalism that journalism allegedly despises. Then he added this call to arms: �If you think they are giving you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken.�

Its simple, Trump under Bannon's guidance is going to slowly turn the right wing news media into a right wing propaganda machine. In return these right wing media outlets must never report anything negative about the president. What Trump will give them is priority access to the White House and breaking stories.

Also I want to add this article. I find it quite interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...m=.1407ebff617f

That's some interesting info on the WP link, still, I wish they'd included a deeper slicing of the data. For example, MSNBC info might be skewed due to Morning Joe outlier for example, which AFAIK is actually pretty popular with moderates that lean conservative. Not that I think they are being deceptive here, it would just be interesting. Theres a lot more that could be gleaned, but I doubt Pew has the deep dive publicly accessible - that stuff usually costs $$.

Also, I note that the data is from 2014. What would be interesting is to see is an updated graph for the Trump era, then examine the recent tone of the various outlets to cross reference with their audience ideological drift over time. With the right data, you could get a pretty good idea of which conservative demographics were drifting towards or away from Trump - much more accurately I think than you could via direct polling, where so many people are programmed to think in dichotomies - in other words, people still comparing Trump to Hillary, when it comes time to answer questions from a stranger.

Oh, bullshit. Dictators shut down media outlets and murder journalists. The folks you name are allowed to operate. They just won't get access.

They are quite able still to make shit up.

If the want to act as opposition party propaganda outlets they shouldn't be surprised when they are treated like opposition party propaganda outlets.

How dare the media write negative articles on the president. That should never be allowed because the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.

We need more outlets like Breitbart that completely fabricate stories and have a direct line to the president. Let's not forget about Infowars. How else would we get amazing stories about how chemicals in our water are turning us gay? No, no, no... Let me tell you. The fucking NYT is fake news with their 119 fake Pulitzers but outlets that hire "Journalists" like Milo are "red pilling" the "cucks" for the purpose of Maga. Those are the true real news outlets.

Give me a break.

On the one hand, the NYT is a sad shadow of its former self. Hard to call it the Paper of Record anymore, though it isn't the worst out there. WaPo is currently much better in my view.

On the other hand, Trump and his group is showing quite a bit of weakness and general ineptitude by not even being able to deal with people who might write things they don't like. I mean, seriously. When you block the BBC - The BBC! - from your pressers, you know you're dealing with a thin skinned, incompetent buffoon.

Dictator move? Eh, that's a bridge too far. But it certainly showcases massive weakness and ineptitude. A real man would face his critics without fear, and not be forced into frightened, emotional reactions in the face of disagreement.

We can only hope that cut off from getting first take from access events, and unable to be among the first to do a lazy spin and regurgitate, that the excluded outlets will get mad enough to spend some resources on doing some real journalism instead. It might be a blessing in disguise, as nothing that Trump says means jack or shit anyhow. Focus on what Washington is actually doing, we'll all be better off.

I don't agree with him blocking access to certain media, if he doesn't like it he should state his beef and move on. As far as being compared to a dictator that's just adding to the lefts BS narrative. I don't think it's a new thing that the Media inserts their own narratives. It's the reality show age, you don't have to be right you just have to be FIRST and damn the truth. That's been going on for a long time. To say none of the media doesn't do that is foolish.

Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, I used to listen to George Nori on coast to coast late at night while I worked night shift years ago. Jones would be on the show from time to time and to listen to some of the shit he would claim would leave anyone with the slightest amount of common sense in awe and wonder how anyone could believe some of the horse shit he says. In saying that I think he stumbles on some real news time to time, even some that you may think is BS.

CNN got caught trying to pull a fast one. When the Huffington post calls you out on it, you know something isn't right. As I said I think Trump is only hurting himself by blocking access to some media.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cnn-trump-dossier-fake-news_us_58a07b94e4b094a129ebbc12


lets not forget others have blocked access to Information... Obama had a passive agressive thing going on, whereas Trump just blurts it out.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/10/10/cpj-report-on-obama-press/2960607/

I think Trump displays neither weakness nor ineptitude. What he does display is that he that he doesn't have to put up with their shit, and he won't.

The BBC, et al, will survive being excluded from pressers. If they want to cease being propaganda outlets, they can be invited back.

In the meantime, they will just have to get by with reprinting questions and answers covered by other organizations.

I really think that media gave Trump no benefit of the doubt, already manufactured a number of "controversies" (e.g. inauguration crowd size, who gives a flying fuck). Trump is right to go around media, as they are actively trying to sabotage him. Just like excessive coverage during elections, now tearing into Trump is what sells. As long as it sells, they will keep doing it no matter how contrived or partisan it might be.

However, banning specific organizations is all-around unethical move. Just don't talk to the media and don't take their questions. Nobody could force you to.

Pretty much, and he made some repugnant promises that everyone hoped he wasn't serious about. However, so far there is truth in advertising with Trump.

Cybersecurity experts say Pence’s emails were likely just as insecure as Clinton’s. While there has been speculation about whether Clinton's emails were hacked, Pence’s account was actually compromised last summer by a scammer who sent an email to his contacts claiming Pence and his wife were stranded in the Philippines and in urgent need of money.

Hillary's felony violation of federal law had nothing to do with the security of her system, but rather that she concealed official government records from federal control, destroyed others, and had information classified above Top Secret on an unsuthorized insecure system/network.

It's just funny that all the things Republicans have been crying about are being done by Republicans. It's as if anyone who seeks the power of a cushy government job is somehow corrupt and both sides of the coin are equally retarded. It's just the Republicans turn to go full retard on this country, I doubt it will last past 4 years before we have the Democrats going full retard again.

By the way, Life Long New Yorker here, can confirm Donald Trump is a scam artist, malcontent, narcissist who doesn't really give a shit about you. I don't get how you guys can't see past the phoniness. Maybe It's just that I had more time to know who he really is?

No, Republicans are not in felony violation of federal law as is Hillary.

What about the phony Democrats I can name one... Chuck Schumar. He along with many in congress right now need a good dose of TERM LIMITS. I know Trump is an asshole. But so are the Democrats. This whole Russian thing with Sessions... it's some horse shit. He like MANY Senators including about 30 Democrats to be exact had also met with Russian Ambassadors and many from other countries while HE was a Senator. McCaskell the Missuour senator said she never met with the Russian AMB. Yet there'sa fucking photo of her sitting in a meeting with him on her twitter account. Call me stupid but I thought Senators meeting with Ambassadors from other countries was how we get a long with other countries. Stupid Idea right?

It's not like Sessions sold guns to the Drug Cartel, then preceded to LIE to congress about it. Only to never be charged with doing so.

I mean we can go on and on about either side being shitty. It's going to go nowhere.

For example, Jeff Sessions used his own senate re-election campaign funds to pay for the RNC trip where he met the Russian ambassador. There are funds appropriated to senators for these trips but instead he choose to use his own money? It's because he was there as a Trump surrogate speaking with the Russian ambassador, hence he lied to congress. That is called perjury.

(Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-s...epublican-convention-expenses-1488509301) - WSJ

When Clinton lied about getting a BJ in the office, republicans were stroking out to get him impeached and thrown out. Why is there this hypocritical double speak now that Sessions committed perjury?

Honestly, I hope you are not getting your info from /r/the_donald. They only peddle in 4chan conspiracies and use sources like Brietbart and inforwars.

*Edit*

1) I am also disgusted on how easily people forgot how the republican congress treated Obama for such a long time.

2) I also want to go on record with you guys as to why I think Trump has a very valid Russian connection. His name is Rex Tillerson and they will do anything to get at the oil that's up there in the Russian Arctic. Trumps administration is going to make themselves very rich over the next 4 years.

“Donald Trump doesn’t want to drain the swamp, he wants to drill in it,” - Senator Ed Markey

I'm not exactly sure of the law with using campaign funds for a trip that's going to your party's convention. I mean he didn't use them to go to the bahammas or something. He used to go to the party's convention. As I said I'm not up on the rules and laws on that but it seems if you're using campaign funds to go to a Party event that seems like a thing I'd be willing to bet they all do that. I don't know they would have to show me a rule or law that says otherwise, that just seems like a petty thing and trying to find a fire where there isn't any smoke.

Clinton lied to everyone, it wasn't about the blowjob... who really gives a shit about the blowjob, in all honesty I think every President should be entitled to the weekly knob gobbling. Dems want to point to that first and not the fact that he lied. I mean come on.

How they treated Obama? OK lets talk about that. How about the fact Obama and the majority congress of Democrats at the time took their ball and went home because the Republicans wanted to negotiate and the Democrats didn't. Remember when they excluded Republicans from making decisions on the Affordable Healthcare act? WHat did you think would happen when you exclude the other side and go it alone??? Don't you think MAYBE that would piss you off enough not to want to be swayed by a bunch of ass hats like that? Then Obama went on to start signing Executive Orders left and right after he lost the majority in congress. Know why? because he had no clue on how to negotiate I think looking back that should be very apparent... it was either all or nothing for him and the democrats. REMEMBER THAT? We all know how well that worked out for him... how many seats has the Democrats lost since then??? That should be your answer right there.

Then lets not forget If you didn't like their ideology then you must have been a racist. I think with everything that's happened the past 3 to 4 years the culmination is the present situation. When people go off touting how racist people are for simply not agreeing with their beliefs then you get this sort of outcome, I don't know many people that you can call names that it doesn't piss them off. So the Democrats/Leftists pissed off a bunch of people.

America does NOT ever need to be Right or Left it needs to be RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. I think anyone that can Remember the First Bill Clinton Term could attest to that. He at least was able to negotiate with the other side. People forget that huge nugget of information. I also remember in that time able to go find a job at just about anytime you wanted. Of course 97/98 was a little different, but there for a while it was easy to find a job. I voted for Bill in his first term.

As for this thing with Oil... what do you want to do keep buying it from the Middle East funding all their bullshit? Also I can remember when Obama and Clinton said they wanted to put coal out of business. That was extremely dumb for them to say that especially when there's a lot of miners on the east coast.

I agree we should have alternative energy. But why fuck yourself when the technology hasn't quiet caught up yet to be efficient and affordable? I know a guy that was going to put two wind turbines (on a small scale) on his property with solar panels and try to get off the grid. Thing is all that would have only gave him half the energy he needs and it would have cost him another mortgage. Once it becomes more affordable and efficient then I can see putting all assistance towards Alt energy. But right now we need to do what we need to do. It's very well known when Oil & Gas is being produced at a high level our economy takes off. what I build goes towards the Oil & Gas Industry along with construction. So this whole thing Trump is trying to get going with the infrastructure will definitely be a boost to the company I work for. Even more so with Oil & Gas. Just to note, I was for the Infrastructure boost when Obama Talked about it. We need to build up our own country before we start building others. I don't see why people hate that, obviously that's a stick in the crawl to democrats. They didn't seem to like that when Trump was talking about it.

There's hypocrisy on both sides, however it seems the higher percentage of it is streaming from the left.
EDIT
Just to add... lets not forget who was going to have more "Flexibility" on top of that you have Clinton selling the Russians Uranium and getting a large donation to the Clinton Foundation along with Bill Receiving a $700K check for speaking at a Bank that heavily backed the Russian Regime. So it seems people forget a lot of things.

Sessions may or may not have an illicit Russian connection, but the man shouldn't be let out of the insane asylum, let alone anywhere near power. He committed perjury. Others who have done the same should also be held accountable, and often haven't been. But still, Sessions should be held accountable, regardless. If nothing else than to save us from his psychosis. He's either a literal 5th column, or else one of the stupidest men to ever draw breath, and more dangerous than truckload of explosives.

He's also not even remotely conservative, but rather the exact opposite. Real conservatives believe in the Federal Govt not intentionally mucking about and screwing with normal people, and instead focusing the Federal on policing and keeping the other, lesser branches in line and on their toes. Sessions believes the 180 opposite, that local law enforcement should have no oversight, and that the Federal Govt should spend endless amounts of money and effort finding ways to fill up for-profit prisons on lame pretexts.

Not since Himmler has a Western nation been forced to suffer depravity on the level of Sessions.

How did Sessions commit perjury? What was the question, and what was the answer?

This is from confirmation hearing. Sessions met with Russian Ambassador on Sept 8th, and possibly other dates.

Franken is talking about alledged communications between the Russians and Trump associates. The question asked was, "If it's true...what will you do?"

In response to that question, Sessions replies he knows nothing about it, and he never had any such meetings.

Where is the perjury?

He said he didn't have any contact with the Russians, but he clearly did.

The thing I find interesting is that he didn't answer the question. He assumed that Franken was accusing him of some impropriety when, in fact, he was asking what he would do as Attorney General if the claims he was reading turned out to be true.

Now, I haven't been a fan of Franken since he quit comedy, but in this case he doesn't seem to be wrong.

Not in the context of the question asked, which is what the government would have to prove to secure a perjury conviction.

Not in the context of the question asked, which is what the government would have to prove to secure a perjury conviction.

As far as answering Franken's question goes, it was a convoluted meandering word salad of a question, so it's not surprising that Sessions gave up trying to tease an actual question out of it, and responded as he did.

Not in the context of the question asked, which is what the government would have to prove to secure a perjury conviction.

As far as answering Franken's question goes, it was a convoluted meandering word salad of a question, so it's not surprising that Sessions gave up trying to tease an actual question out of it, and responded as he did.

It doesn't necessarily matter if he was asked a specific question or not. Old white power Jeff brought up voluntarily that he had no contact with Russians. This was a lie. Lying to congress constitutes perjury.

per·ju·ry
ˈpərj(ə)rē/
nounLAW
the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation.

Which is why perjury convictions are obtained in a court of law, not on the KGB Oracle.

Which is why perjury convictions are obtained in a court of law, not on the KGB Oracle.

Yes, yes. Lets see how this all plays out.

Not sure why that double posted, but the Oracle won't let me delete the duplicate.

The Washington Post agrees with my assessment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cutors-think-not/?utm_term=.e638ae0633cc

I find it VERY Hypocritical that Eric Holder wasn't a big deal to the Democrats when he lied to congress. But then again I don't expect any of them to willfully remember that.

If they have proof Sessions met with the Russians (outside being a Senator) and specifically talked about the things he shouldn't have been, then we can move forward and begin the process of his removal. Right now there's a lot of speculation going on.

I also can remember many woman coming forward that claimed Trump sexually harassed them. I wonder why that's not in the news still...Oh wait.

There's also that fake news of Trump letting whores piss on Pres Obama's bed when he stayed at one of Trumps hotels. See where this is going...

Am I missing something. Is talking to a Russian ambassador illegal??? Also its not perjury if he isn't under oath. I don't think anyone was under oath.

The purpose of ambassadors is to confer with members of foreign governments, so no, talking with an ambassador is not illegal unless the conversation involves illegal acts, such as unauthorized transfer of classified information.

Sessions was under oath, but in the context of the question asked (were surrogates of the Trump campaign in communication with the Russians), the truthful answer Session gave was no. He knew of no such activity, and himself, as a member of the campaign, had no such contact. His contact was in conjunction with his duties as a Senator.

I'm not picking sides here, but to be fair, the question wasn't "did Trump surrogates communicate with the Russians." The question was (in an admittedly rambling fashion, so it could have been misunderstood) "what will you do as AG if these allegations turn out to have some merit?", and he didn't answer that question.

*edit*
To Wolf's point, I agree that there are many willfully ignorant people on the left (there are many on both sides). However, I think it is incumbent upon those of us who seek a more constitutionally limited federal government to honestly assess both sides and call them both out for their shenaniganry. Just because the party in power is, theoretically, more aligned with our way of thinking (although, I'm not sure you can even make that case any longer) doesn't mean that we turn a blind eye when they do the same shit we were jumping up and down screaming about for the last 8 years.

I can agree with this 100%

Hypothetical questions like this are difficult to answer. In his answer Attorney General Sessions called the accuracy of the question into doubt when he responded that he knows nothing about any such meetings. There is no evidence any meetings took place, and if they did, for it to merit the attention of the attorney general, a violation of the law would have to have taken place. There is even less evidence of that.

The question was vaporous and ill defined. Had I been Session, I probably would have asked for the Senator to rephrase the question without all the extraneous bullshit, just to make sure I understood what was being asked. It wasn't altogether obvious to me, reading it after the fact.

It is the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute any and all crimes and to first and foremost uphold the law. Perhaps because this was not always the case under the Obama administration, Senator Franken felt the question to be necessary.

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

In video form: https://twitter.com/JamieOGrady/status/837130762684153858?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

And therein lies a glimpse at the root of our problems. Actual principles don't matter to either "side"

To anyone with an attention span longer than fifteen minutes, it's hard to take the outrage gushing from the Dems too seriously. Trump is indeed a train wreck, but need people with more credibility than Democrats to start calling him out.

He was under oath. The problem isn't that he talked with Russian Ambassador, but that he said he hadn't. If he had not volunteered information (that wasn't even pertinent to the question), or simply admitted to the encounter, it wouldn't be an issue.

What happened, and I can tell, is that he'd been coached on his responses prior to the hearing. (Which pretty much everyone does, before undergoing Congressional hearings under oath, this isn't particular to Sessions by any stretch).

Franken's question touched on a talking point he'd been coached on, regarding the Russians, triggered the coached, canned response. When you see somewhat off-center responses given by people being questioned, that ramble on a topic without addressing the wording of the actual question, this is what has happened, almost all of the time.

So, Sessions was basically hoist via his own petard, due to his pre-hearing prep. Which is pretty damn ironic and humorous.

In what way is Trump a train wreck? He is unorthodox, but that is part of his attraction.

Do not confuse bugs with features.

First, Jeff Sessions.

Second, Ajit Pai.

I could go on all day, but neither of those two men should be anywhere near any type of power. We all deserve better.

I'll agree that some of Trumps actions have been overblown or misconstrued, but that doesn't change the fact that it's mostly harebrained. Aside from appointing McMaster and Mattis, I'd bee curious to hear about one thing Trump has done that makes a lick of goddamn sense.

What about Jeff Sessions? And what about Ajit Pai?

First, I think we have already talked about Sessions. Your contention that he perjured himself is utterly without merit, so his nominations hardly makes Trump a train wreck.

I would not pay too much attention to opposition propaganda. Propaganda is, after all, just propaganda.

No, I know Sessions' history and stances. His perjuring did happen, and has merit. You could argue that he misspoke, fine. But considering he was coached, that he still managed to screw up so royally during the hearing still transmits the man's staggering incompetence.

I previously brought up the two, but as a quick reminder:

Sessions hates state rights, and pretty much anyone's rights. He believes that Federal money and manpower should be used to fill for-profit prisons with people who aren't bothering anyone else, and also believes that instead of policing the police, and giving oversight to state and local level law enforcement, that those agencies should be completely unaccountable. Which is a pretty strong break with established operation - pretty much everyone knows that to hold power accountable, you need some oversight. How dumb? I mean, the man wants to reignite the drug war for fucks sake, even though pretty much everyone not named Jeff Sessions knows what a clusterfuck catastrophe it was - and still is. He has also been a strong proponent of civil forfeiture, which is basically in line with his other "law enforcement" stances, that is: where the police degrade themselves to the point of common thuggery, blatantly stealing from people convicted of no crimes.

Ajit Pai's initial moves at FCC include moving to remove transparency requirements on big telecom, that were instituted to prevent them from basically defrauding their customers.

I can guarantee that I'm not under the influence of leftist "propaganda"

I do however, remember pretty much everything I read. This gives me a relatively clear view of the overall picture, given how much I do read, and have read for the past quarter century. Jeff Sessions is human filth, with no redeeming principles to speak of, when judged by the standards of the Age of Reason, and Northern European Anglo Christian Lockean intellectual and political heritage. He is, quite frankly, more suited to running a gulag in some Southeast Asian despotism than wielding power in a supposedly free society.

Cite the relevant law on perjury then, and demonstrate how Session's testimony satisfies the necessary elements of the crime required to secure a conviction.

Sorry, but your mere opinion on the matter is not convincing.

As far as the other factors you bring up, these may be positions with which you disagree, but those are mere political differences. We sort out political differences in this country through elections, and if the candidate who won the election makes policy decisions with which you disagree, well there is always the next election.

My opinion that Sessions should have known better, but it is uncharitable interpretation unsupported by additional evidence that he perjured himself. Without additional evidence it won't even pass 'balance of probabilities', least 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard.

Until there is actual evidence, Russia Ties appears to be left's version of Benghazi.

By your logic, pretty anything is "mere political difference". Technically accurate, though by the same metric, the differences in governing philosophy between the traditional US, and China, are also "mere". Heck, China actually imprisons fewer people.

It is interesting that you articulate the position of elections justifying anything. As a matter of fact, Sessions will in all likelihood get away with all sorts of vileness in his capacity as AG. At least, unless a good chunk of the GOP grows something resembling a spine, and moral backbone. And elephants might fly. It still wont change the fact that he is a destructive social force that pulls the nation away from its founding principles, and makes the country an objectively worse place for everyone.

There is a reason that no one has taken to actually defending Sessions, instead just brushing off him off as "differences of opinion" - because he isn't defensible. There is also a reason the Bill of Rights wasn't written to say "And the govt, whenever its agents do so feel the whim, are free to both examine the belongings and papers of any person at any time. Additionally, should said govt agents so decide, the belongs and personal affects of citizens may also be confiscated and appropriated for whatever use said govt agents deem fit."

Get back to me when Sessions does something you think is illegal. Given your lack of understanding of what perjury consists of, research the applicable laws before wasting anyone's time.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/al-franken-jeff-sessions-perjury/index.html

Fwiw

I'd stop standing on that platform, your speculation on what the outcome of an actual trial would be isn't any more valid than anyone elses. As you say, mere opinion.

I'm still curious to see any sort of defense of Session's, or Trump's for that matter, actual stances and policies.

Let's break out the notepad:

Trump attacked Hillary for her Goldman Sachs connections, then handed Treasury back over to them. That was a head scratcher.

Rex Tillerman for State? Odd choice, but the jury's still out on that one. Early indications are things not going well, but who's to say? Too early to be certain.

Sessions for AG, who has already indicated his intent to pull back Federal oversight in regards to corruption, civil rights abuses, and wants to re-institute programs of federally backed civil asset forfeiture, which is govt stealing stuff from people without actually convicting them of a crime. Also wants to reignite the failed drug war, and fill up private for-profit prisons. The most charitable thing that can be said for that, is a huge waste of money, since the drug war has to date provably produced no tangible positive benefits. (but many provable negatives)

Wants to drastically increase military spending. What the hell? I mean, seriously? Is someone somewhere worried that China has figured out how to get a hundred millions troops over thousands of miles of ocean, past the Pacific Fleet, and intends to launch a ground invasion of the US? Seems odd, unless someone is plotting to waste another trillion dollars on another useless foreign occupation somewhere that brings no actual benefits to the US.

Wants to increase NSA surveillance of US citizens. Seems odd, considering it doesn't do anything regarding terrorism, the ostensible reason for it. I mean, even for 9/11, before the whole world knew of NSA capabilities, (and before they expanded) the hijack plotters didn't even send emails, they were so paranoid. Instead, they left messages sitting in an inbox, where another plotter would go to the same cafe, log on to the PC, and access the unsent folder of the same email account, as a type of dead drop. Never mind the statistical improbability of detecting terror (go Google base rate fallacy) via bulk data mining, the real terrorists were practicing techniques to avoid the NSA even before it was on steroids.

Building a Mexican wall? How's that gonna work? Israel has a hard time keeping Hamas and others from tunneling under their own walls, which are relatively tiny compared to the Mexican border, and they heavily monitor with sensitive equipment. The international cartels are far better funded than Hamas and their ilk, thanks to aforementioned drug war. That and... thousands of miles of open water on each side of the country, and simple homemade balloons being able to lift over walls with ease, etc. I'm not even getting into the propriety of the intent - just the actual implementation is stupid and wasteful.

Wheres the good stuff, that's supposed to make America Great Again? So far all I can see is gratuitous waste, stupidity, and apathy.

It seems to me that everything you bring up boils down to continued election butthurt. All of this stuff is either things you fear that Trump will do which are the things voters elected Trump to do, or things Trump doesn't intend to do, but are what the left attributes to him hoping to incite fear.

I can't help you with respect to the policies Trump campaigned on. Voters in most states elected him to do those very things, so the only thing you can do is hope for is better luck next election. That isn't very promising because if Trump makes good on his campaign promises, the people who elected him the first time will probably reelect him.

I don't expect him to do any of the fear mongering acts you cite, but if he does, let us all know.

So in other words, you don't have any justification for, or words of support for the actual policies. Instead, you seem to be trolling me with accusations of election butthurt, which seems odd considering that I didn't vote for Hillary either, nor is the current discussion related to Hillary, or the election in any manner. The issue here isn't supporting Trump in the election, but rather ongoing support for Trump and defense of his policies.

Also, everything I outlined is in fact either the current stated policy intent, or in the actual process of implementation. (Things like spending require Congressional involvement of course) Where I fear they will come to pass, this is because the Trump administration is literally standing on a podium and shouting it to the world, or else has already done them - like appointing Mnunchin to Treasury, so I'm not sure why you would seem to question the veracity of the assertions.

The question and issue is not whether some people supported some of the stated policies, or why some people voted for Trump, but rather the ongoing support. Justifications for the decisions and policies is the topic here, if any exist.

Look, I get how many people feel like Trump is a big poke in the ole' eye to the left. Honestly, if there is a silver lining in Trump, its that the coastal SJWs are wailing into their $10 lattes, feeling as disconsolate as many of us in the heartland felt when Obama revealed his own disdain for middle America, when he sneeringly brushed off the Midwest as bitter people who "cling to guns and religion". I get that, I really do. How could I not, when my neighborhood was a literal forest of Trump yard signs (yeah, an exaggeration - houses are too far apart and often separated by actual forest), the churches outnumber the stars in the sky (mild exaggeration), and most days I can hear a neighbor or two doing target practice within earshot (not an exaggeration). What I don't get is the insistence so many Trump supporters have in trolling the rest of us.


You said that Trumps actions and plans were features, and not bugs. Fine. I'm just looking for a bit of edification on where the features are. As I asked before, where is all the good stuff that is supposed to Make America Great Again?

Thus far, no one can actually point any out. It's like that old Wendy's commercial from the 80's - "Where's the beef?"

In case you happen to suffer from amnesia, Derid is well right of center. Your "sore loser" rebuttals make no sense, Derid's team (or what passed for it these days) won the election.

Derid, welcome to getting RINOed for not being authoritarian enough. It is yet another low point for GOP. I'd be gleefuly taking pleasure in this if Dems weren't such SJW-infested shit-show right now.

Here's a little insight from a journalist that is actually going out into the field and doing his work. I think he put it out there perfectly.

There are plenty of #NeverTrump Republicans who remain butthurt from the election. It is a derangement syndrome not confined to the left alone.

I watched his videos of him in Rinkeby. Tim's goal is to document Muslim neighborhoods in Sweden to see if they were as bad as conservative media outlets are claiming. He goes into a ghetto and is apparently warned by Police off camera to leave and that's exactly what he does. No violence or anything happens to him or his crew while filming. The scene in general doesn't look like it was about to devolve into mayhem. He returns to Rinkeby at a later date, goes bowling, and interviews a bunch of people in what looks like a Pub? During the interview these interviewee's talk about protests, burning cars, and alludes to a conspiracy (I say conspiracy because someone saying so is not proof) that kids would burn cars to create stories for money. Interview overall is ok, I think they went a little off topic a few times but I think he mostly got what he wanted out of the interview.

He claims that he has to film on a GoPro because his small hand held camera is noticeable? I thought this was funny seeing that a GoPro on a stick is also very noticeable.

Overall I think Tim does a good job for a freelance photojournalist being funded from the internet and taking the free trip from Infowars. If anything this proves more so that Infowars and Brietbart are garbage tier news outlets. It also sort of vindicates other news agencies from not wasting time to fund and waste money on what amounts to lies by far right outlets.

*EDIT
So I was lucky to be able to work on a project for the Committee to Protect Journalists. If you want to see other Freelance Journalists out in the field, you should look at Oscar Martinez from El Salvador, Anna Therse Day from United States, Shawkan from Egypt who is now in prison, and my personal favorite Can Dundar from Turkey.

Also here is a link to the video profiles we did on each award recipient last year.

https://cpj.org/awards/2016/

Derangement syndrome?

Yeesh. Who would've thought that holding to actual traditional conservative principles would one day get you labelled deranged by the President's strain of GOPer, who are incidentally incapable of articulating their own principles, or expounding on their favored policies.

Both parties are looking less and less like political organizations, and more and more like dangerous cults.

It becomes a derangement syndrome when people start getting neurotic over what Trump MIGHT do, when actually he hasn't really done much of anything unusual.

I expounded on things the Administration has done/is doing/shouts loudly about their intent to do.

All the things he promised to do during the campaign, no doubt.

What a yuuge surprise.

In some cases yes, in some cases no. Seems like his supporters don't know or care either way. Which is, honestly, somewhat typical these days.

I suppose the irritating part is that so many of his supporters defend any and everything he does, even though I know the vast majority of them weren't supporting him because they wanted the particular brand of idiocy we are getting. No one was volunteering for the Trump campaign, or sending him money, because they said to themselves "we need to bring back the most spectacular policy failures of the 80's and 90's" nor did he get support because he wanted to hand the country to Goldman Sachs. Quite the contrary, regarding the latter.

If Trump had told the world that he was going to hand the financial reigns of govt to the same organization that had been bribing and handling Crooked Hillary, I rather think he would have gotten quite a few fewer votes.

Well, since what he is doing is what he campaigned upon, and since what he is doing should hardly come as a surprise as a result, if this is not a case of electoral butt hurt, I guess it will have to do until the real thing comes along.

This Russia Intel hearing with Comey is embarrassing for Trump. Holy shit

A politician walked into a crowded bar - a pretty well-known establishment called the Right Wings Eatery and Pub. He promised everyone a shiny red hat, in exchange for their vote.

"That's a pretty neat hat," said many of the people in the bar. They all agreed to vote for the politician, because they knew a cheap hat was about all they could expect from the political class anyways.

So, the politician won his election. Afterwards, he returned to the bar. Several of his goons were hauling a big bin full of hats, which they proceeded to hand out to patrons.

Everyone was happy, until the politician made a signal to his goons. Before anyone realized what was happening, the goons had pulled out their weapons and shot a dozen of the younger patrons in the head. Some of the goons started hauling off the pretty young ladies, other goons took to snatching purses and emptying wallets from the patrons seated in the far corners.

Sitting at the bar itself were some regular patrons. One of them, a younger fellow who hadn't asked for a hat, looked out at the carnage and said, "Uh. What the hell? I think we should do something. If we let this go on, we aren't even going to have a bar in the future. Who will ever come here again? That politician isn't even a regular at the pub, how dare he?"

Just as that objecting fellow was rising from his bar stool, a gruff, grumpy voice rang out from further down the counter. "Sit down. What are you even getting all excited about?"

Turning to find the source of the gruff voice, the younger man's eyebrows lifted in surprise as he examined the older fellow who'd spoken up in objection. The older man was a large specimen dressed in a full kilt of patterned tartan wool, with calves the size of holiday hams, and a neck as sturdy as an old oak. From under the brim of one of those shiny red hats, his eyes had affixed the younger man with a piercing glare.

Feeling somewhat beside himself, the younger fellow noticed the politician had taken out a large bag labelled 'Wall St', from which endless hordes of small green gremlins were emerging. After finding their way into the pub, the gremlins swiftly proceeded to the support pillars, and began gnawing and chewing, to the sharp sound of wood being crunched. More screams from the less fortunate patrons could also be heard, prompting the younger man to restlessly shuffle his feet. "If nothing else, we should leave. Those gremlins are going to erode the integrity of the whole building, soon we'll all be buried in here."

Snorting derisively, the older fellow took a long draw from his mug of stout, before ostentatiously adjusting his red hat and saying, "People need to stop being butthurt over the damn election already. We got our goddamn red hats, didn't we?"

Let me know when Trump starts shooting people, m'kay?

Otherwise, that a nice delusional fantasy you have going there.

Is this your red line? That is, nothing short of shooting people is objectionable?

Jeez.

It's called literary device. Lighten up already.

It's called sarcasm...

Congrats on hiding it so well.

Condolences on it having gone over your head.

Nunes fucked uppppppppppp

Your shiny hat must be obscuring your vision, it flew well wide of the post.

How so?

House intel chairman tries to vindicate his boy Trump by going to everyone, including the Media before discussing with the rest of the House intel Committee. He obviously can't do his job sufficiently. This political move was a total sham and he should recuse himself. House panels credibility is now at zero which means we are hopefully going to get an Independent Select Committee.

The fact that you don't see how bad he fucked up sort of scares me lol.

Can we all just agree that Trump lied about Obama wire tapping him. We all know hes doubling down on this lie,its getting really sad at this point. Whats that feeling you get when you feel really sad and embarrassed for another human being? That's what I'm feeling for him right now.

The Senator reported to the President news of felony violations of federal law. The Congress has no law enforcement powers under the Constitution. That power lies with the Executive branch. If the Senator has evidence of illegal activity, would it not be his duty to report such violations?

That's the puzzling thing, he had nothing. It was pure political theater to try and save Donnie but it completely backfired. He is unfit to serve as Chairman due to his obvious conflicts of interest and needs to step down.

How do you know he has nothing? Or that anything backfired?

He basically said so at his presser

I think he apologised for not consulting other members of the committe, unnecessarily in my opinion, but that does not mean there has not been a felony violation of the law.

You think? Have you even watched any of Devin Nunes' pressers?

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-Calif.) on Monday denounced what he described as the illegal leak of classified information concerning conversations between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials. He insisted that those who described those contacts to the press be tracked down and prosecuted. He demanded that FBI Director James B. Comey confirm that such revelations “violate . . . a section of the Espionage Act that criminalizes the disclosure of information concerning the communication and intelligence activities of the United States.”

Forty-eight hours later, Mr. Nunes himself held a news conference in which he cited a confidential source to describe what clearly appeared to be classified information about intercepted communications involving Trump associates. He did this outside the White House, where he had rushed to brief the president about the intercepts — even though the House Intelligence Committee he chairs is supposed to be investigating the Trump campaign’s possible connections with Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7dc120_story.html?utm_term=.2a021a8ac5e3

I think we might each be thinking of different felony violations of the law. What violation do you have in mind?