The eternal misrepresentation. The Steele dossier was not considered actionable intelligence by itself. It was Papadopoulos' bragging that did it.

Second, nosfart is equating opposition research with hacking. Only one of those is a crime.

:100:

Cool, we're getting the unredacted Mueller report.

Think on the positive side. The FBI still works well fighting against domestic terrorism.

What are you basing that on? The only thing I'm aware of is the quote I gave from the Ratcliffe letter, and that obviously doesn't imply she did what Trump did. Seems to me you're just echoing Trump's claim that the investigation (the one he obstructed) was a witch hunt.

IMO, the worst provable thing Trump did was to encourage perjury by dangling pardons and following through on the pardon. That was criminal and prosecutable. What did Clinton do that is comparable? If you're simply going on hunches from sketchy evidence against Clinton, then we can open the floodgates on possible acts by Trump.

Again, I’m not saying Hilary Clinton is guilty of anything.

Don’t listen to Bunkey and just think about it. Do you think the American government should use the intelligence apparatus to spy on opposing political campaigns?

Steve Scully, the next debate moderator, just outted himself by trying to gossip with Scarramucci on Twitter. The Commission on Presidential Debates claims the former Biden intern and Never Trumper was hacked. This is the guy who was supposed to be an unbiased moderator.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/steve-scully-twitter-hack-claim-debate-commission-scaramucci

Omg, he said 'Should I respond to Trump?'. Call Bill Barr, arrest him! :lol:

You Trump trolls really are desperate.

@NOS4A2
The commander in chief calls his own soldiers suckers and losers and lies about a pandemic he knew was deadly from the start, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. But what's important is that a debate moderator asked if he should respond to Trump. That's the real scandal.

Do you ever look in the mirror and realize how compeletely worthless these posts are?

An increase in the greenhouse effect isn't a danger to human life (as far as scientists know). — frank

You don't know what you're talking about.

What should we do until then? There isn't a whole lot the average individual can do to influence things one way or another. If you want to position yourself in a safer place, move away from the coast and head north. Otherwise, enjoy life to the max. Life is short. — frank

Your entire take on this is almost nauseating.

Yes, sit back and do nothing. Enjoy life. Nothing else to see here. You'll certainly be admired by future generations.

In the meantime, I'll stick with what climatologists say over an internet poster.

“Trump said...”.

Sorry, but every time you guys wring your hands about the words coming out Trump’s mouth I know you have nothing.

The eternal misrepresentation. — Benkei

At some point, things come to be a belief system and comparable to a religion. Trying to reason with others issues of faith isn't fruitful.

Sorry, but every time you guys wring your hands about the words coming out Trump’s mouth I know you have nothing. — NOS4A2

In a way, yes. Which actually tells precisely just how we ought to take everything coming out of Trump's mouth.

Or his tweets.

I’m not saying Hilary Clinton is guilty of anything.

Don’t listen to Bunkey and just think about it. Do you think the American government should use the intelligence apparatus to spy on opposing political campaigns? — NOS4A2

No, but it's reasonable to conduct surveillance on suspicious individuals irrespective of whether or not they are working on a campaign. Campaigns should vet their staff, and establish rules that require disclosing all past and current contacts with foreign nationals.

I disagree. Some of Trump's words are quite inspirational. Like "Stand Back and Stand By!"

No, but it's reasonable to conduct surveillance on suspicious individuals irrespective of whether or not they are working on a campaign. Campaigns should vet their staff, and establish rules that require disclosing all past and current contacts with foreign nationals.

What if it’s based on fake info sourced from Russian intelligence and payed for by the opposing political campaign? If the FBI using Russian propaganda, lying, concealing evidence, and manipulating documents in order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign isn’t a problem, then what is?

In a way, yes. Which actually tells precisely just how we ought to take everything coming out of Trump's mouth.

Or his tweets.

The problem is most are not aware of everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth, and are basing everything on whatever crumbs the anti-Trump media lets them hear.

Do you ever look in the mirror and realize how compeletely worthless these posts are? — Baden

Do you?

I think rather the problem is that 'the everything that comes out of Trump's mouth' is not worth researching if the man can't not say something like 'stand back and stand by' when everyone is watching.

I see no problem with that. Trump has routinely condemned white supremacists and Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would ask them to stand down.

You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out Antifa and other left wing extremist groups. But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland.

Trump obliged.

The problem is most are not aware of everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth, — NOS4A2

Thankfully unaware, I might add.

... and are basing everything on whatever crumbs the anti-Trump media lets them hear. — NOS4A2

I have a habit of looking at both left and right leaning news headlines and they cover pretty much the same material but with their own spins on it. For instance, if Trump says that virtually nobody is effected by the coronavirus, both sides will report on it, but the right-leaning media will try to put a positive spin on it. So it basically amounts to crumb bashing and anti crumb bashing. Same crumbs, different recipes that cater to their respective audiences' appetites. They're in the game to make money, you understand.

He did not. He avoided a direct answer from the start. He instead asked for a name. Then said "stand back and stand by.". He did not go on to condemn. He let it go at that and later told whoever was listening to 'watch the polls.'. He left it open to ridiculous discussion such as we are having now about it. His loyalties and position are not clear to me at all. In any case as a leader, that's a big fat loser. Time to go.

Big deal. He condemned white supremacists many times. I don’t see why he needs to do it to appease some false narrative.

I said anti-Trump media, not left and right. Nevertrumpers run the spectrum of right/left media.

If you don't think telling white supremacists to 'stand by' for you is a big deal, you're a bigger racist than I thought. Then again, most Trump trolls turn out to be in the end.

Nope. Not worth researching all those 'many times' then comparing then debating. That's a loser of a leader.

Same pattern every time, the racist shows his true colours in the moment then tries to clean up afterwards for political reasons. (Just like his sycophants).

White supremacism is fine with @NOS4A2, but someone asking whether they should respond to Trump is the new Watergate.

This is the level we're dealing with.

I said anti-Trump media, not left and right. Nevertrumpers run the spectrum of right/left media. — NOS4A2

I guess you could clear up any confusion by pointing out the media outlets that tell it like it is and report more than crumbs.

No, but it's reasonable to conduct surveillance on suspicious individuals irrespective of whether or not they are working on a campaign. Campaigns should vet their staff, and establish rules that require disclosing all past and current contacts with foreign nationals.


What if it’s based on fake info sourced from Russian intelligence and payed for by the opposing political campaign? If the FBI using Russian propaganda, lying, concealing evidence, and manipulating documents in order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign isn’t a problem, then what is? — NOS4A2

As a hypothetical, information that was known to be fake would be an inappropriate basis for an investigation. The problem is that you are jumping to politically biased conclusions based on partisan interpretations of sketchy facts and cries from Trump (in the record books for prevarication) that he's been treated unfairly.

Nope. Not worth researching all those 'many times' then comparing then debating. That's a loser of a leader.

Of course not. The truth hurts, so might was well pretend, without evidence, that “stand back, stand by” is some secret white supremacist bat signal.

I guess you could clear up any confusion by pointing out the media outlets that tell it like it is and report more than crumbs.

The reasonable thing to do is judge reporting on its merits, not on where it comes from.