Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Criminal Inquiry launched into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation

Options
1356789

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,632 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    A study shows media Trump hatred is collaborated by 92% negative coverage of his presidency. That was a year ago. It must be over 98% by now.

    Dang facts... pesky things, aren’t they.

    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-coverage/

    Dang pesky confirmation bias

    The Media Research Center is America’s premier media watchdog. Since 1987, the MRC has worked to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media.

    The MRC’s commitment to neutralizing leftist bias in the news media and popular culture has had a critical impact on the way Americans view the liberal media.

    Why would I trust their opinion on what coverage was negative? Did it matter to them if the coverage was factual?


  • Options
    #63
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    What you call hate is actually negative reporting. It's willfully confusing reporting Trump stories, generally negative even just based on his own tweets, and outright journalistic assassination.
    Reporting what he says and does is not hate. If the stories and his own tweets are negative, you are holding the wrong people responsible.
    If Barack Obama, in 8 years, would have achieved a tenth of what Trump has achieved for this country in 3 years the media would have been demanding Obama’s face be added to Mount Rushmore and to replace George Washington on the One Dollar Bill.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #64
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If Barack Obama, in 8 years, would have achieved a tenth of what Trump has achieved for this country in 3 years the media would have been demanding Obama’s face be added to Mount Rushmore and to replace George Washington on the One Dollar Bill.

    Whilst being extra careful not to obscure the pyramid on the Dollar bill of course


  • Options
    #65
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,632 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If Barack Obama, in 8 years, would have achieved a tenth of what Trump has achieved for this country in 3 years the media would have been demanding Obama’s face be added to Mount Rushmore and to replace George Washington on the One Dollar Bill.

    What has he even accomplished besides a tax cut and a stolen scotus seat?


  • Options
    #66
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,525 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Overheal wrote: »
    What has he even accomplished besides a tax cut and a stolen scotus seat?

    You are about to get a copy and paste from the propaganda wing of the White House.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    What has he even accomplished besides a tax cut and a stolen scotus seat?

    Well he's wound up more people that Claus the cuckoo clock maker.


  • Options
    #68
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If Barack Obama, in 8 years, would have achieved a tenth of what Trump has achieved for this country in 3 years the media would have been demanding Obama’s face be added to Mount Rushmore and to replace George Washington on the One Dollar Bill.

    No. Certainly not.
    He's been a disaster for the environment, health and human rights. He courts dictators and insults U.S. allies. He's destroyed the U.S. legal system by stacking it with biased unqualified judiciary. He's racist and sexist. So, hard no.


  • Options
    #69
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    No. Certainly not.
    He's been a disaster for the environment, health and human rights. He courts dictators and insults U.S. allies. He's destroyed the U.S. legal system by stacking it with biased unqualified judiciary. He's racist and sexist. So, hard no.
    Nice Democratic talking points. Any substance to those claims?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #70
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,632 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Nice Democratic talking points. Any substance to those claims?

    Woah horse it’s still your turn to substantiate claims


  • Options
    #71
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    No wonder the three investigations are taking so long about the crimes committed against the Trump campaign and then against him once he took office. The more information that is uncovered the higher up the Democrat slime chain it goes. Now reports are coming out that it was the Obama administration that set in motion Democrats’ coup against Trump.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/28/how-the-obama-administration-set-in-motion-democrats-coup-against-trump/

    The Democrats goal of impeachment at any cost kinda makes sense now... To politically hurt Trump enough in the eyes of the voters that he loses the election so a Democrat president can provide a pardon, en masse, for all the illegal activities of Obama and his officials for their part in the attempted coup against Trump.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,632 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I’d take anything from the federalist with salt.

    I see you’ve dodged substantiating your previous claims too


  • Options
    #73
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Durham might be close to finishing his findings on why the Obama administration ordered secret surveillance and investigations of figures in Trump’s campaign... which just so happened to be the opposing political party. Although most of the characters of the Obama administration in the criminal investigation are unlikely to emerge unscathed, the only ones most likely to be prosecuted are James Comey, John Brennan and James Clapper. It would be too big a strain on the US economy building a jail big enough to hold all those involved in the criminal activity. But it would put a historical and permanent big ole black mark on Barack Obama’s administration.

    What does the DNC do as the investigations relate to the election? Does it throw Biden to the wolves and give Warren the Golden Ticket? If Biden does win the primary he would be spending the entire election having to defend his party and Barack Obama’s dirty tricks of 2016 and again after Trump became POTUS. Good luck with that! It’s a losing proposition that would hand Trump reelection.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #74
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    The elevation in status of the Durham investigation to a criminal inquiry means he will be able to subpoena witnesses, file charges, and impanel grand juries. Seems Durham also has a good idea of who's involved in the crimes and what the charges might be. You don’t impanel a grand jury unless you are going to indict people.

    I guess many in the DNC and Obama administration now have reason to sweat. Too bad, I guess, Hillary didn’t win and all the wrongdoing would have been swept under the rug.

    In unrelated news online searches for "countries that do not extradite to the United States" have skyrocketed.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #75
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The elevation in status of the Durham investigation to a criminal inquiry means he will be able to subpoena witnesses, file charges, and impanel grand juries. Seems Durham also has a good idea of who's involved in the crimes and what the charges might be. You don’t impanel a grand jury unless you are going to indict people.

    I guess many in the DNC and Obama administration now have reason to sweat. Too bad, I guess, Hillary didn’t win and all the wrongdoing would have been swept under the rug.

    In unrelated news online searches for "countries that do not extradite to the United States" have skyrocketed.

    I am now certain, that they and others are going down. Big time.
    I hope Trump brings both himself and his family to a very secure bunker.


  • Options
    #76
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    From numerous media reports now out, it appears that the so-called ‘whistleblower’ (who had no direct knowledge of the Trump phone call to the Ukraine president) is Eric Ciaramella. He is a 33 year old CIA analyst who once worked for former CIA Director John Brennan (insert shocked face here).

    Now, how does this relate to the Barr/Durham/Horowitz criminal investigations you may ask? Well..
    Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

    Seems this Ciaramella guy might just be under investigation, himself, for taking part in the soft-coup attempt (AKA interference in the 2016 Election) against Trump. No wonder Democrats won't allow the 'whistleblower' to testify or be questioned in their kangaroo court.

    I no longer post in the Trump impeachment thread because I brought these investigations into the picture, as they were interconnected... Which anyone could figure out who'd bother to read news from sources other than media outlets that take their marching orders from the DNC. Seems I was probably RIGHT ONCE AGAIN! Fancy that!

    https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/10/31/may-introduce-young-man-believed-tried-remove-sitting-president-pssst-also-tried-interfere-2016-election/

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #77
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    notobtuse wrote: »
    From numerous media reports now out, it appears that the so-called ‘whistleblower’ (who had no direct knowledge of the Trump phone call to the Ukraine president) is Eric Ciaramella. He is a 33 year old CIA analyst who once worked for former CIA Director John Brennan (insert shocked face here).

    Now, how does this relate to the Barr/Durham/Horowitz criminal investigations you may ask? Well..



    Seems this Ciaramella guy might just be under investigation, himself, for taking part in the soft-coup attempt (AKA interference in the 2016 Election) against Trump. No wonder Democrats won't allow the 'whistleblower' to testify or be questioned in their kangaroo court.

    I no longer post in the Trump impeachment because I brought these investigations into the picture, as they were interconnected... Which anyone who would bother to read news from sources other than media outlets that take their marching orders from the DNC. Seems I was probably RIGHT ONCE AGAIN! Fancy that!

    https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/10/31/may-introduce-young-man-believed-tried-remove-sitting-president-pssst-also-tried-interfere-2016-election/

    I've discovered that actual reading is a problem here.


  • Options
    #78
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    I've discovered that actual reading is a problem here.
    Unless it comes from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSLSD, or any of the other DNC handmaiden media outlets, it must not be true... I guess.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #79
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    notobtuse wrote: »
    From numerous media reports now out, it appears that the so-called ‘whistleblower’ (who had no direct knowledge of the Trump phone call to the Ukraine president) is Eric Ciaramella. He is a 33 year old CIA analyst who once worked for former CIA Director John Brennan (insert shocked face here).

    Now, how does this relate to the Barr/Durham/Horowitz criminal investigations you may ask? Well..



    Seems this Ciaramella guy might just be under investigation, himself, for taking part in the soft-coup attempt (AKA interference in the 2016 Election) against Trump. No wonder Democrats won't allow the 'whistleblower' to testify or be questioned in their kangaroo court.

    I no longer post in the Trump impeachment thread because I brought these investigations into the picture, as they were interconnected... Which anyone could figure out who'd bother to read news from sources other than media outlets that take their marching orders from the DNC. Seems I was probably RIGHT ONCE AGAIN! Fancy that!

    https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/10/31/may-introduce-young-man-believed-tried-remove-sitting-president-pssst-also-tried-interfere-2016-election/

    What about the multiple other witnesses?


  • Options
    #80
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Cody montana wrote: »
    What about the multiple other witnesses?

    Don't you believe that the NSA record ALL phone calls?

    No witness's required.

    Where's the tape?


  • Options
    #81
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Cody montana wrote: »
    What about the multiple other witnesses?
    With 70,000 employees you get differences of opinion on policies. Differences of opinion isn’t an impeachable offense. But criminal investigations aren’t done for differences of opinions, they are done because crimes were determined to have happened.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,632 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    With 70,000 employees you get differences of opinion on policies. Differences of opinion isn’t an impeachable offense. But criminal investigations aren’t done for differences of opinions, they are done because crimes were determined to have happened.

    Like the one that found Trump was involved (nay, orchestrated crimes) as an unindicted coconspirator?


  • Options
    #83
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    Like the one that found Trump was involved (nay, orchestrated crimes) as an unindicted coconspirator?

    Some people are going to need counselling when this dog and pony show ends they are so invested in it.


  • Options
    #84
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,632 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    Some people are going to need counselling when this dog and pony show ends they are so invested in it.

    Like who?


  • Options
    #85
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    Like who?

    Those that are so blinded by propaganda that they cannot see.


  • Options
    #86
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,632 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    Those that are so blinded by propaganda that they cannot see.

    Ah yes I hope they are well after this.


  • Options
    #87
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    Ah yes I hope they are well after this.

    I get ya. Obviously I hope you're wrong.


  • Options
    #88
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,632 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Spencerfreeman wrote: »
    I get ya. Obviously I hope you're wrong.

    Why would you hope people are unwell?


  • Options
    #89
    Spencerfreeman
    Registered Users Posts: 692 ✭✭✭Spencerfreeman


    Overheal wrote: »
    Why would you hope people are unwell?

    Oh, I thought you meant me. I'm not.


  • Options
    #90
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,632 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Speaking of 'Russiagate' though,

    "Reporter Tierney Sneed summed up the White House’s rough day by noting that Judge Jackson made one of the DOJ attorneys reaffirm that he still believed in judicial review, the foundational power of the courts to evaluate the constitutionality of the legislative and executive branches’ actions, as established in 1803.

    “A DOJ attorney just had to assure a federal judge that he’s ‘with her’ on Marbury v. Madison, if you’re wondering how things are going for the Trump administration in the McGahn subpoena lawsuit,” Sneed tweeted about the exchange."

    ouch.

    The court rejected the DOJ attempt to enforce former government employees from complying with congressional subpoena. Don McGahn has been under subpoena for about 6 months now.

    https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/federal-judge-rejects-dojs-argument-over-don-mcgahn-subpoena-in-court/

    I guess that's the outcome when your argument is to contend that your branch is not subject to checks or balances of one of the others.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,140 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Lads, it's a waste of tax payer money and a stunt. Nothing will come of it. He's basically chasing down people for investigating the democratic system wasn't compromised. He's as credible as Barr...not at all.

    Now you sound like a trump supporter talking about the impeachment enquiry or the mueller investigation. Maybe they will find something maybe they won’t but just let them at it would be my advice.

    I’ll never understand this need to pick sides in politics, and the mental gymnastics people go through to avoid condemnation of their chosen side is mad. I’ll always support any investigation into anyone in any position of power. So what if it comes up empty handed?? If the court documents were indeed fiddled I hope they find the truth.


Advertisement