Trump's Russian Collusion

[LandM]

MD,
Name anything that I have stated that is hypocritical? Anything - been true to my convictions best I know. I did not see the LP discussion so i have no idea what you are talking about - but I do know she is guilty as sin and should be tossed in a cell. You or others debating that topic ever had a TS SCI? If not, you may want to read about it - it is a privilege to have that designation and it comes with a responsibility - I think I stated go for the cellphone but also go after the email server, both are wrong and need to be addressed - as i stated treat the lowest paid government employee the same as the elite supposedly well educated employee - btw, not impressed with a Harvard, Yale, MIT, Princeton or any other degree - met allot of them - show me what you got - a degree does not give you street credence.

I read the WSJ - if that is right wing media - ok. I do not live in a bubble - my wife has never voted for an R nor have most of my friends - you should come up with another talking point. BTW, could care two about the current President - his time will come and go BUT I do care about future Presidents - enough of the garbage already.

[Peter Brown]

“The Republican use of blatantly false conspiracy narratives about Ukraine, plus their attacks on our core institutions, will divide our country further, and will help make Russian (and other) disinformation campaigns more successful in future. Happening before our eyes.”

Anne Applebaum

Trinity's corollary sentiment: excessive taxation unites us. Plus, add in some massive xenophobia to divert the taxpayers' attention. Didn't Obama say that the '80's called and want their foreign policy back"?

[MDlaxfan76]

But politics ain't bean bag, so some of it is expected in the right wing media fog you clearly live in, just as it exists in the left wing fog.

Why is that when someone has a different opinion from the prevailing liberal ethos, that person is always accused of being 'in the tank for Fox' or 'lives in a right-wing fog''? Most of our media's reporting, Dan Rather's reporting (omg), or Walter Cronkite's for that matter, has proven so often wrong time and time again post-action, yet the prevailing liberal angle (even after being proven wrong!) is always that they are the ones who are correct and you're the dolt... Most people see this hypocrisy, but some here clearly do not.

As ever, when one screams the loudest about any one thing, it is so often more true that the person screaming is the one guiltiest of what they clamor about...in this case, my hunch is the Left lives in a left wing fog and is embarrassed to admit to being incapable of independent thought.

PB, this appears to be another example in which you have failed to bother to actually read/comprehend the words even of what you have extracted for comment. Note what I bolded above.

This phenomenon of the media fog, left and right, is a reality that is nearly inescapable in today's media world. We see examples of it daily and nightly.

I am a moderate/conservative, a life-long Republican, so I say this with my own degree of skepticism about partisanship from the left in the media, whether conscious or unconscious, including historically.

But I also respect journalism as a profession, its importance as the "fourth estate", so crucial to a functioning (classic) 'liberal' democratic republic like ours. I respect the journalistic intention of telling truth to power, and the ethical code of self-correction when they have had it wrong. This is a actually a 'conservative' position.

Painfully, I see very little of that intention or code of ethics today in the right wing media, whether Fox or OANN or Breitbart or talk radio or Sinclair or...instead I see a full-on propaganda machine. And it's getting worse. (There are still a few honest journalists on the right, but they are rapidly dwindling.)

I see the center or left-leaning media as too often gleeful in its exposure of the flaws, foibles, errors of those on the right, but I do continue to see them as hewing to the intention and code I described above. Not perfectly, but they are continuously challenging themselves in that direction.

You, PB, certainly exhibit signs of having fallen into that right wing fog, which requires the denial of facts that endanger your disdain for those disagreeing with you, those who in specific see the truth about Trump.

[MDlaxfan76]

MD,
Name anything that I have stated that is hypocritical? Anything - been true to my convictions best I know. I did not see the LP discussion so i have no idea what you are talking about - but I do know she is guilty as sin and should be tossed in a cell. You or others debating that topic ever had a TS SCI? If not, you may want to read about it - it is a privilege to have that designation and it comes with a responsibility - I think I stated go for the cellphone but also go after the email server, both are wrong and need to be addressed - as i stated treat the lowest paid government employee the same as the elite supposedly well educated employee - btw, not impressed with a Harvard, Yale, MIT, Princeton or any other degree - met allot of them - show me what you got - a degree does not give you street credence.

I read the WSJ - if that is right wing media - ok. I do not live in a bubble - my wife has never voted for an R nor have most of my friends - you should come up with another talking point. BTW, could care two about the current President - his time will come and go BUT I do care about future Presidents - enough of the garbage already.

LandM, we SEE what you write. Please bother to read what others write.
If you were not on LP, no sweat...that's how it was discussed.
Now you know, so you don't have to assume something else.

Answer to your question about clearance levels, the answer is 'yes'.

No, the DOJ had ample opportunity to investigate and prosecute HRC.
It is impossible (rationally) to argue that this opportunity has not existed whether from Congressional investigations or 2017 forward DOJ (assuming that somehow the pre 2017 DOJ was biased in HRC's favor). This was a GOP President, with GOP DOJ and FBI leadership, with GOP House and Senate investigatory powers for 2 years.

The consistent finding by the prosecutors, throughout, is that they wouldn't have a successful case, so, no, she wouldn't be/ shouldn't be in jail.

You and I may find her actions to be very, very suspicious, but the case was not able to be proved, because the alternative explanations about what was done and their intent could not be proven to be incorrect. So, no, we don't "know" that "she's guilty as sin". At most, you and I may "think" so.

Likewise, the investigation into whether HRC's IT practices were ever actually breached have also come up entirely empty...again and again and again. Were they wise? Definitely not.

No one on here is suggesting that Trump should be prosecuted, tossed in jail, because he has absolutely atrocious IT security practices. We simply ask that those who may agree with some of his policies etc look the issue in the face and agree that the hypocrisy of the Trumpists, most importantly of Trump himself, is absolutely breathtaking on this issue.

He fully knows, there can be no question that he knows, that he is putting national security at risk when he talks on open cell phone lines. But he persists in doing so.

And yet, you go to 'whataboutism' under the false notion that anyone you're talking to here doesn't agree that HRC shouldn't have been using a private server.

That's hypocritical.

Not sure what the comment about educational institutions is supposed to be about, but I'd agree that a "degree does not give street credence" or "street cred".

As my Swiss friend would say, "Ya, und?"

[Peter Brown]

But politics ain't bean bag, so some of it is expected in the right wing media fog you clearly live in, just as it exists in the left wing fog.

Why is that when someone has a different opinion from the prevailing liberal ethos, that person is always accused of being 'in the tank for Fox' or 'lives in a right-wing fog''? Most of our media's reporting, Dan Rather's reporting (omg), or Walter Cronkite's for that matter, has proven so often wrong time and time again post-action, yet the prevailing liberal angle (even after being proven wrong!) is always that they are the ones who are correct and you're the dolt... Most people see this hypocrisy, but some here clearly do not.

As ever, when one screams the loudest about any one thing, it is so often more true that the person screaming is the one guiltiest of what they clamor about...in this case, my hunch is the Left lives in a left wing fog and is embarrassed to admit to being incapable of independent thought.

PB, this appears to be another example in which you have failed to bother to actually read/comprehend the words even of what you have extracted for comment. Note what I bolded above.

This phenomenon of the media fog, left and right, is a reality that is nearly inescapable in today's media world. We see examples of it daily and nightly.

I am a moderate/conservative, a life-long Republican, so I say this with my own degree of skepticism about partisanship from the left in the media, whether conscious or unconscious, including historically.

But I also respect journalism as a profession, its importance as the "fourth estate", so crucial to a functioning (classic) 'liberal' democratic republic like ours. I respect the journalistic intention of telling truth to power, and the ethical code of self-correction when they have had it wrong. This is a actually a 'conservative' position.

Painfully, I see very little of that intention or code of ethics today in the right wing media, whether Fox or OANN or Breitbart or talk radio or Sinclair or...instead I see a full-on propaganda machine. And it's getting worse. (There are still a few honest journalists on the right, but they are rapidly dwindling.)

I see the center or left-leaning media as too often gleeful in its exposure of the flaws, foibles, errors of those on the right, but I do continue to see them as hewing to the intention and code I described above. Not perfectly, but they are continuously challenging themselves in that direction.

You, PB, certainly exhibit signs of having fallen into that right wing fog, which requires the denial of facts that endanger your disdain for those disagreeing with you, those who in specific see the truth about Trump.

Your post is beyond fascinating...I could read it a hundred times and take away something new each time (just not in the way you intended).

You know what really helps any convo? Doubling down on the absolute epistemic authority of comfy educated elites telling everyone else not to believe their own eyes! It's a winning strategy every time. lol

[DMac]

Peter Brown wrote
Dan Rather's reporting (omg), or Walter Cronkite's for that matter, has proven so often wrong time and time again post-action, yet the prevailing liberal angle (even after being proven wrong!) is always that they are the ones who are correct and you're the dolt...

Since it was so often, and time and time again, I'm wondering if you can show me a few of the many times Cronkite's reports were proven wrong. I actually think he was mighty fussy about truth and accuracy when reporting, and I think he'd be the first to step up and correct any inaccuracies in his reports if he were aware of them.
Are you even old enough to have seen Cronkite delivering us the news every night?
If you haven't watched any of Rather's, The Big Interview with Dan Rather, I highly
recommend you do, he does a great job with them.

[dislaxxic]

Doubling down on the absolute epistemic authority of comfy educated elites telling everyone else not to believe their own eyes! It's a winning strategy every time.

There's some Sean Hannity-style rightwingnut musings for ya...you prove with almost every post, PB, that your claims to be a reasoned centrist with left-leaning roots is nothing but fiction...

But hey, we live in the era of fiction and fake news, don't we? You fit right in...but please, keep bringing it, it's instructive to understanding the overall comity.

..

[Trinity]

Pete’s our own Dick Morris.

[Peter Brown]

Peter Brown wrote
Dan Rather's reporting (omg), or Walter Cronkite's for that matter, has proven so often wrong time and time again post-action, yet the prevailing liberal angle (even after being proven wrong!) is always that they are the ones who are correct and you're the dolt...

Since it was so often, and time and time again, I'm wondering if you can show me a few of the many times Cronkite's reports were proven wrong. I actually think he was mighty fussy about truth and accuracy when reporting, and I think he'd be the first to step up and correct any inaccuracies in his reports if he were aware of them.
Are you even old enough to have seen Cronkite delivering us the news every night?
If you haven't watched any of Rather's, The Big Interview with Dan Rather, I highly
recommend you do, he does a great job with them.

Among many other matters and emblematic of how liberal orthodoxy inserts itself into 'trusted' news sources in the US (even after they almost always prove unreliable because of their partisanship), Cronkite was an active supporter of the USSR in its very worst days. Hard to look past that fact...

https://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-terr ... -cronkite/

Rather is an unhinged mental midget with no equal; even today, on MSNBC (of course), he perma-smirks like an insane clown while discussing the only topic he seems comfortable with, bashing Republicans (and by that I mean ALL Republicans). His publication of phony W Bush documents must go down as one of the most egregiously fraudulent media conveyances of all time. I won't even bother to discuss the 'Kenneth Frequency' insanity.

[MDlaxfan76]

But politics ain't bean bag, so some of it is expected in the right wing media fog you clearly live in, just as it exists in the left wing fog.

Why is that when someone has a different opinion from the prevailing liberal ethos, that person is always accused of being 'in the tank for Fox' or 'lives in a right-wing fog''? Most of our media's reporting, Dan Rather's reporting (omg), or Walter Cronkite's for that matter, has proven so often wrong time and time again post-action, yet the prevailing liberal angle (even after being proven wrong!) is always that they are the ones who are correct and you're the dolt... Most people see this hypocrisy, but some here clearly do not.

As ever, when one screams the loudest about any one thing, it is so often more true that the person screaming is the one guiltiest of what they clamor about...in this case, my hunch is the Left lives in a left wing fog and is embarrassed to admit to being incapable of independent thought.

PB, this appears to be another example in which you have failed to bother to actually read/comprehend the words even of what you have extracted for comment. Note what I bolded above.

This phenomenon of the media fog, left and right, is a reality that is nearly inescapable in today's media world. We see examples of it daily and nightly.

I am a moderate/conservative, a life-long Republican, so I say this with my own degree of skepticism about partisanship from the left in the media, whether conscious or unconscious, including historically.

But I also respect journalism as a profession, its importance as the "fourth estate", so crucial to a functioning (classic) 'liberal' democratic republic like ours. I respect the journalistic intention of telling truth to power, and the ethical code of self-correction when they have had it wrong. This is a actually a 'conservative' position.

Painfully, I see very little of that intention or code of ethics today in the right wing media, whether Fox or OANN or Breitbart or talk radio or Sinclair or...instead I see a full-on propaganda machine. And it's getting worse. (There are still a few honest journalists on the right, but they are rapidly dwindling.)

I see the center or left-leaning media as too often gleeful in its exposure of the flaws, foibles, errors of those on the right, but I do continue to see them as hewing to the intention and code I described above. Not perfectly, but they are continuously challenging themselves in that direction.

You, PB, certainly exhibit signs of having fallen into that right wing fog, which requires the denial of facts that endanger your disdain for those disagreeing with you, those who in specific see the truth about Trump.

Your post is beyond fascinating...I could read it a hundred times and take away something new each time (just not in the way you intended).

You know what really helps any convo? Doubling down on the absolute epistemic authority of comfy educated elites telling everyone else not to believe their own eyes! It's a winning strategy every time. lol

"epistemic"?
To paraphrase,
I knew Bill Safire and you're no Bill Safire.

PB, when you actually have something responsive to say, let us know.

[Kismet]

Please do detail all of those Cronkite errors in reporting........and do tell how you are qualified to make such unsubstantiated claims about the man?
He was a proficient war correspondent both in WWII and Vietnam. In WWII, he landed with infantry in North Africa, flew a LIVE bombing mission over Germany in a B-17 and landed in Netherlands in a glider with 101st Airborne in Operation MarketGarden and then The Bulge. He covered the Nuremberg trials live after the war.

Please also link to any credible evidence about your absurd claims about his support of Russian communism - are you channeling Joe McCarthy?

You criticize folks here all of the time for being pompous and then display same in almost all of your posts. Its getting pretty tiresome.

[Peter Brown]

Doubling down on the absolute epistemic authority of comfy educated elites telling everyone else not to believe their own eyes! It's a winning strategy every time.

There's some Sean Hannity-style rightwingnut musings for ya...you prove with almost every post, PB, that your claims to be a reasoned centrist with left-leaning roots is nothing but fiction...

But hey, we live in the era of fiction and fake news, don't we? You fit right in...but please, keep bringing it, it's instructive to understanding the overall comity.

..

One thing I know, being a former Democrat, is when Democrats are challenged, they truly despise it; it hits their very being. Fascinating stuff.

Honestly, I don't care about most of this political stuff; it's simply enjoyable to point out liberal hypocrisy while I am traveling. I see a ton of it here on this board. Are you sure you aren't a liberal? I myself will happily vote for Joe Biden or even Deval Patrick.

I have watched exactly zero of the Impeachment and won't. Like I previously wrote, I tend to read, or when watching TV, I watch ESPN.

[Peter Brown]

Please do detail all of those Cronkite errors in reporting........and do tell how you are qualified to make such unsubstantiated claims about the man?
He was a proficient war correspondent both in WWII and Vietnam. In WWII, he landed with infantry in North Africa, flew a LIVE bombing mission over Germany in a B-17 and landed in Netherlands in a glider with 101st Airborne in Operation MarketGarden and then The Bulge. He covered the Nuremberg trials live after the war.

You criticize folks here all of the time for being pompous and then display same in almost all of your posts. Its getting pretty tiresome.

lol...over the target obviously. When anyone points out when a liberal icon like Cronkite was systemically against the best interest of the United States (Cronkite: "The Soviet threat is likely a myth"), the anxiety ratchets up!

[MDlaxfan76]

Peter Brown wrote
Dan Rather's reporting (omg), or Walter Cronkite's for that matter, has proven so often wrong time and time again post-action, yet the prevailing liberal angle (even after being proven wrong!) is always that they are the ones who are correct and you're the dolt...

Since it was so often, and time and time again, I'm wondering if you can show me a few of the many times Cronkite's reports were proven wrong. I actually think he was mighty fussy about truth and accuracy when reporting, and I think he'd be the first to step up and correct any inaccuracies in his reports if he were aware of them.
Are you even old enough to have seen Cronkite delivering us the news every night?
If you haven't watched any of Rather's, The Big Interview with Dan Rather, I highly
recommend you do, he does a great job with them.

Among many other matters and emblematic of how liberal orthodoxy inserts itself into 'trusted' news sources in the US (even after they almost always prove unreliable because of their partisanship), Cronkite was an active supporter of the USSR in its very worst days. Hard to look past that fact...

https://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-terr ... -cronkite/

Rather is an unhinged mental midget with no equal; even today, on MSNBC (of course), he perma-smirks like an insane clown while discussing the only topic he seems comfortable with, bashing Republicans (and by that I mean ALL Republicans). His publication of phony W Bush documents must go down as one of the most egregiously fraudulent media conveyances of all time. I won't even bother to discuss the 'Kenneth Frequency' insanity.

wow, "one world" true believer. My gosh, he favored international laws!!! The horror.
Fascinating source.
Nah, you're not in the right wing fog. Nope not you!

Again, unresponsive PB.
You were asked for some examples when Cronkite had been incorrect in his reporting.

[Peter Brown]

PB, when you actually have something responsive to say, let us know.

I just did. But I didn't expect you to understand the underlying message.

Onward!

[Peter Brown]

Peter Brown wrote
Dan Rather's reporting (omg), or Walter Cronkite's for that matter, has proven so often wrong time and time again post-action, yet the prevailing liberal angle (even after being proven wrong!) is always that they are the ones who are correct and you're the dolt...

Since it was so often, and time and time again, I'm wondering if you can show me a few of the many times Cronkite's reports were proven wrong. I actually think he was mighty fussy about truth and accuracy when reporting, and I think he'd be the first to step up and correct any inaccuracies in his reports if he were aware of them.
Are you even old enough to have seen Cronkite delivering us the news every night?
If you haven't watched any of Rather's, The Big Interview with Dan Rather, I highly
recommend you do, he does a great job with them.

Among many other matters and emblematic of how liberal orthodoxy inserts itself into 'trusted' news sources in the US (even after they almost always prove unreliable because of their partisanship), Cronkite was an active supporter of the USSR in its very worst days. Hard to look past that fact...

https://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-terr ... -cronkite/

Rather is an unhinged mental midget with no equal; even today, on MSNBC (of course), he perma-smirks like an insane clown while discussing the only topic he seems comfortable with, bashing Republicans (and by that I mean ALL Republicans). His publication of phony W Bush documents must go down as one of the most egregiously fraudulent media conveyances of all time. I won't even bother to discuss the 'Kenneth Frequency' insanity.

wow, "one world" true believer. My gosh, he favored international laws!!! The horror.
Fascinating source.
Nah, you're not in the right wing fog. Nope not you!

Again, unresponsive PB.
You were asked for some examples when Cronkite had been incorrect in his reporting.

hmmm, "The Soviet threat is a myth".

You agree obviously.

[jhu72]

Just more Project Veritas fewmets hey peanut butters?

[foreverlax]

Peter Brown wrote
Dan Rather's reporting (omg), or Walter Cronkite's for that matter, has proven so often wrong time and time again post-action, yet the prevailing liberal angle (even after being proven wrong!) is always that they are the ones who are correct and you're the dolt...

Since it was so often, and time and time again, I'm wondering if you can show me a few of the many times Cronkite's reports were proven wrong. I actually think he was mighty fussy about truth and accuracy when reporting, and I think he'd be the first to step up and correct any inaccuracies in his reports if he were aware of them.
Are you even old enough to have seen Cronkite delivering us the news every night?
If you haven't watched any of Rather's, The Big Interview with Dan Rather, I highly
recommend you do, he does a great job with them.

Among many other matters and emblematic of how liberal orthodoxy inserts itself into 'trusted' news sources in the US (even after they almost always prove unreliable because of their partisanship), Cronkite was an active supporter of the USSR in its very worst days. Hard to look past that fact...

https://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-terr ... -cronkite/

Rather is an unhinged mental midget with no equal; even today, on MSNBC (of course), he perma-smirks like an insane clown while discussing the only topic he seems comfortable with, bashing Republicans (and by that I mean ALL Republicans). His publication of phony W Bush documents must go down as one of the most egregiously fraudulent media conveyances of all time. I won't even bother to discuss the 'Kenneth Frequency' insanity.

Your sources do nothing to make your case....

Accuracy In Media (AIM) is an American non-profit conservative[1][2] news media watchdog founded in 1969 by economist Reed Irvine. AIM supported the Vietnam War and blamed media bias for U.S. loss in the war. During the Reagan administration, AIM criticized reporting about the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador. During the Clinton presidency, AIM pushed Vince Foster conspiracy theories. During the Bush administration, AIM criticized the media for bias against the Iraq War, defended the Bush administration's use of torture, and campaigned to stop the United States from signing UNCLOS. It described 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama as "the most radical candidate ever to stand at the precipice of acquiring his party’s presidential nomination. It is apparent that he is a member of an international socialist movement."

[jhu72]

Peter Brown wrote
Dan Rather's reporting (omg), or Walter Cronkite's for that matter, has proven so often wrong time and time again post-action, yet the prevailing liberal angle (even after being proven wrong!) is always that they are the ones who are correct and you're the dolt...

Since it was so often, and time and time again, I'm wondering if you can show me a few of the many times Cronkite's reports were proven wrong. I actually think he was mighty fussy about truth and accuracy when reporting, and I think he'd be the first to step up and correct any inaccuracies in his reports if he were aware of them.
Are you even old enough to have seen Cronkite delivering us the news every night?
If you haven't watched any of Rather's, The Big Interview with Dan Rather, I highly
recommend you do, he does a great job with them.

Among many other matters and emblematic of how liberal orthodoxy inserts itself into 'trusted' news sources in the US (even after they almost always prove unreliable because of their partisanship), Cronkite was an active supporter of the USSR in its very worst days. Hard to look past that fact...

https://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-terr ... -cronkite/

Rather is an unhinged mental midget with no equal; even today, on MSNBC (of course), he perma-smirks like an insane clown while discussing the only topic he seems comfortable with, bashing Republicans (and by that I mean ALL Republicans). His publication of phony W Bush documents must go down as one of the most egregiously fraudulent media conveyances of all time. I won't even bother to discuss the 'Kenneth Frequency' insanity.

Your sources do nothing to make your case....

Accuracy In Media (AIM) is an American non-profit conservative[1][2] news media watchdog founded in 1969 by economist Reed Irvine. AIM supported the Vietnam War and blamed media bias for U.S. loss in the war. During the Reagan administration, AIM criticized reporting about the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador. During the Clinton presidency, AIM pushed Vince Foster conspiracy theories. During the Bush administration, AIM criticized the media for bias against the Iraq War, defended the Bush administration's use of torture, and campaigned to stop the United States from signing UNCLOS. It described 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama as "the most radical candidate ever to stand at the precipice of acquiring his party’s presidential nomination. It is apparent that he is a member of an international socialist movement."

Adam Guillette (Project Veritas) is the President of AIM. Birds of a feather. Right wing attempt to re-write history. Neville Chamberlain was a liberal.

[a fan]

lol...over the target obviously. When anyone points out when a liberal icon like Cronkite was systemically against the best interest of the United States (Cronkite: "The Soviet threat is likely a myth"), the anxiety ratchets up!

You're slowly working through every single right wing conspiracy talking point, one by one. Nice job!

Voter fraud, the media is liberal.....

Cronkite is a liberal icon. Neat. Can't wait to see what's next.