America under President Trump

[The_Squid]

3 minutes ago, blueblood said:

Except it's been debunked.  Mike cohen in Prague?

now he's getting peed on, you said it was the bed getting peed on.  It is tinfoil hattery. The dossier story is so outlandish that the only ones who brought it forward was buzzfeed.  He's not getting manipulated no matter which fantasy to bring him down you want to believe.

So the CIA is the tinfoil hat crowd? 

[blueblood]

2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

The report was that the bed was peed on but Trump's defence that he is a germophone suggests he also got peed on. The CIA brought it forward. Buzzfeed only published the report.

As I have read, the report was referencing a different Michael Cohen.

The report came from a former British spy working for trumps opponents to find dirt.  How credible is that report when the mike cohen part was shredded.  

With the podesta emails, it shows continuing pattern shown from clintons subpoenaed emails along with private server.  That's the difference.

[blueblood]

2 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

So the CIA is the tinfoil hat crowd? 

Jumping to conclusions much? CIA didn't write it only read it

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

 

Even if it's a train load, if it's unverified, it's not important!  It's not news!

How things change when it is your boy. This is a hoot.

[The_Squid]

2 minutes ago, blueblood said:

Jumping to conclusions much? CIA didn't write it only read it

Ignore the facts much?

 

Quote

 

The CIA and the FBI would not have briefed the president and the president-elect on claims that Russia has compromising information on Donald Trump if they did not take the allegations seriously, said former CIA operatives and analysts who spoke to Business Insider.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ex-cia-officers-trump-dossier-russia-2017-1

 

 

 

 

[BubberMiley]

3 minutes ago, blueblood said:

The report came from a former British spy working for trumps opponents to find dirt.  How credible is that report when the mike cohen part was shredded.  

With the podesta emails, it shows continuing pattern shown from clintons subpoenaed emails along with private server.  That's the difference.

Again, two Mike Cohens.

But judging by Trump's reaction and defence (I'm a germophobe. I had my security check my room for cameras), it sounds very credible, given the character of the person involved.

I can't make out what you're trying to say about why it was fair game to report on the unverified and illegally obtained DNC and Podesta emails and it is unfair to report on the unverified Trump allegations. I don't think there was any continuing pattern to speak of. Can you clarify in words what you mean?

 BTW, I'm still waiting for the difference between CNN's coverage and everyone else's. Are you going to explain what you meant or just concede you didn't know what you were talking about?

[blueblood]

19 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

Ignore the facts much?

 

 

 

 

Which shows the CIA read the report

[BubberMiley]

1 minute ago, blueblood said:

Which shows the CIA read the report

And considered it credible.

[blueblood]

18 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Again, two Mike Cohens.

Which they should have figured out before it was ran.

18 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

But judging by Trump's reaction and defence (I'm a germophobe. I had my security check my room for cameras), it sounds very credible, given the character of the person involved.

If I'm a germophobe I don't want to be around piss in general.  Not pissed on, not in a bed of it.  Trump might have been a player, but that's a bit much.

18 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

I can't make out what you're trying to say about why it was fair game to report on the unverified and illegally obtained DNC and Podesta emails and it is unfair to report on the unverified Trump allegations. I don't think there was any continuing pattern to speak of. Can you clarify in words what you mean?

The wiki leaks put it out in public on their site, wiki leaks got influence when they did the manning leaks, so when they find stuff, people are going to be curious.  Buzzfeed and CNN are free to make jackasses of themselves and trump is free to blast them and deny their press credentials.  

The pattern with the emails is hillary's subpoenaed emails, the private server, then the podesta leak which cost Donna brazille her figurative head.  Then there was the FBI reopening the investigation on Anthony wieners relation to it.  All suggests a cloud of shadiness.  The dossier was most likely made up by someone on 4chan and distributed as a troll.

18 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

 BTW, I'm still waiting for the difference between CNN's coverage and everyone else's. Are you going to explain what you meant or just concede you didn't know what you were talking about?

I have you the articles showing that CNN got their hands slapped as they were identified by other media outlets for crossing a line.

[blueblood]

8 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

And considered it credible.

The only thing "credible" was that the dossier was distributed around not the content 

[BubberMiley]

4 minutes ago, blueblood said:

Which they should have figured out before it was ran.

If I'm a germophobe I don't want to be around piss in general.  Not pissed on, not in a bed of it.  Trump might have been a player, but that's a bit much.

The wiki leaks put it out in public on their site, wiki leaks got influence when they did the manning leaks, so when they find stuff, people are going to be curious.  Buzzfeed and CNN are free to make jackasses of themselves and trump is free to blast them and deny their press credentials.  

The pattern with the emails is hillary's subpoenaed emails, the private server, then the podesta leak which cost Donna brazille her figurative head.  Then there was the FBI reopening the investigation on Anthony wieners relation to it.  All suggests a cloud of shadiness.  The dossier was most likely made up by someone on 4chan and distributed as a troll.

I have you the articles showing that CNN got their hands slapped as they were identified by other media outlets for crossing a line.

You didn't identify a pattern. You just listed a bunch of events and hoped that would explain what you meant. It comes down to the fact that they reported unverified information. You can condemn them for it or be a hypocrite.

But what line did CNN cross? Why won't you just say?

Now, speaking of reporting unconfirmed information, how do you feel about Trump saying there are reports that Ted Cruz's father killed JFK?

[blueblood]

10 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

You didn't identify a pattern. You just listed a bunch of events and hoped that would explain what you meant. It comes down to the fact that they reported unverified information. You can condemn them for it or be a hypocrite.

But what line did CNN cross? Why won't you just say?

Now, speaking of reporting unconfirmed information, how do you feel about Trump saying there are reports that Ted Cruz's father killed JFK?

I'm a blind Trump supporter?  His saying reports about Ted Cruz were ridiculous as was the birthed thing.

i posted the CNN article, it was a no-no and was called sonny other media outlets 

All the media outlets ran with the podesta email leak, not al ran with the dossier.  There's a clear difference and your blindness won't let you see it

Edited January 12, 2017 by blueblood

[BubberMiley]

1 minute ago, blueblood said:

I'm a blind Trump supporter?  His saying reports about Ted Cruz were ridiculous as was the birthed thing.

i posted the CNN article, it was a no-no and was called sonny other media outlets 

 

So would you agree that since Trump spread unsubstantiated rumours, perhaps he is suffering the consequences of a political climate that he himself created?

But what specifically was a no-no? What was called sonny other media outlets? (I don't know what that means, but maybe you would be willing to clarify that too.)

[betsy]

56 minutes ago, Wilber said:

How things change when it is your boy. This is a hoot.

 

Let me repeat:

 

Even if it's a train load, if it's unverified, it's not important!  It's not news!

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

Even if it's a train load, if it's unverified, it's not important!  It's not news!

Was FBI investigating Clinton news?

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Was FBI investigating Clinton news?

 

No, the FBI was investigating Clinton.

[blueblood]

5 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

So would you agree that since Trump spread unsubstantiated rumours, perhaps he is suffering the consequences of a political climate that he himself created?

But what specifically was a no-no? What was called sonny other media outlets? (I don't know what that means, but maybe you would be willing to clarify that too.)

Trump isn't suffering at all, he made CNN look like fools.  Politicians sling mud, some stuff sticks and some doesn't.  

Maybe the CNN and other leftists can come up with something more believable than the dossier.

[betsy]

7 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Was FBI investigating Clinton news?

They are investigating Clinton!

 

Quote

FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html

 

No wonder Jeff Sessions had said that , he'll recuse himself in further Clinton investigation.  They know something's up.

http://jamiedupree.blog.springfieldnewssun.com/2017/01/10/sessions-vows-to-recuse-himself-on-further-investigations-of-hillary-clinton/

Edited January 12, 2017 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

10 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Let me repeat:

 

Even if it's a train load, if it's unverified, it's not important!  It's not news!

Let me repeat.

During the election, you were squealing with delight about the potential for more and more unverified leaks to be reported. You thought that was very important and that it was news. In fact, if the MSM failed to report those leaks as soon as they came out, you would have likely been crying about how the media was in the tank for Hillary.

[BubberMiley]

8 minutes ago, blueblood said:

Trump isn't suffering at all, he made CNN look like fools.  Politicians sling mud, some stuff sticks and some doesn't.  

Maybe the CNN and other leftists can come up with something more believable than the dossier.

Are you going to just keep repeating yourself and not actually say what CNN did that was different from the rest of the media? Your citations don't answer the question.

Edited January 12, 2017 by BubberMiley

[betsy]

4 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Let me repeat.

During the election, you were squealing with delight about the potential for more and more unverified leaks to be reported. You thought that was very important and that it was news. In fact, if the MSM failed to report those leaks as soon as they came out, you would have likely been crying about how the media was in the tank for Hillary.

What are you on about?  Verified leaks came out through the media.  They reviewed them for authenticity, that's why it took a while for them to come out.

Edited January 12, 2017 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

5 minutes ago, betsy said:

What are you on about?  Verified leaks came out through the media.

Wrong! They were reported in the media as they were released to the public. How do you immediately verify thousands of emails to ensure the hacker didn't doctor them? It's physically impossible.

Edited January 12, 2017 by BubberMiley

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, betsy said:

They are investigating Clinton!

and they are investigating Trump, since McCain handed over the dossier.

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Wrong! They were reported in the media as they were released to the public. How do you immediately verify thousands of emails to ensure the hacker didn't add information? It's physically impossible.

 

Quote

In the present case, WikiLeaks has a history of releasing information that — whatever you may think about how it was acquired — proves authentic and often reliable. We know that because, to my knowledge, no one has proved any of their documents fraudulent despite having great incentive and opportunity to do so. People and agencies whose documents have been leaked have, in arguing over them, conceded (usually tacitly) that they are what WikiLeaks purports them to be.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440978/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails-morally-questionable-factually-accurate

 

You're in denial.

[betsy]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

and they are investigating Trump, since McCain handed over the dossier.

EH?????