TakeYouToTasker

@Kemp A serious question to consider: Do you believe it is proper, in a free society, for the Federal government to pursue criminal investigations into the lives of private citizens unprompted by evidence of wrongdoing, instead fishing with the intent of finding wrongdoing? IE. If, as I believe, the Russian Collusion narrative, which was the reason the investigation was initiated, turns out to be politically motivated, and initiated either without evidence or with manufactured evidence, should all of those prosecuted have their convictions overturned without prejudice, and be awarded massive settlements by the government? A serious follow-up question: Do you believe that the normalization of seeking to criminalize members of the opposition party in the wake of losing an election (and that's what the Democrats have done, make no mistake) is a positive for the long or short term health of the Republic?

That's a TD!

He needs to work on his pre-snap reads.

We have officially doubled last weeks offensive production!

Teams are now 10/10 in the red zone against us this year, and we haven't even played 3 full halfs of football yet.

Do you think we'll play any games that we don't lose by at least 40?

Such a big arm.

That's a really nice play to Foster there.

Good grief.

That's a heck of a throw by Rivers.

I take no issue with citizens holding there government accountable over these sorts of things. I don't think you'd find anything I've ever said inconsistent with that. Most of the stuff we're seeing at the federal level isn't nearly as cut and dried as what we saw here. In cases like this the outrage of the general public works to serve as a legitimate check on government.

It likely was, which was part of Feinstein's plan all along if I had to guess. This allows her to make two claims: 1) Kavanaugh is a sexual predator, and should not be confirmed without further probing the allegations. 2) The Trump FBI is refusing to investigate a sexual predator.

Exactly this. Whoever was involved with that leak should have an justifiably angry mob, holding pitchforks and torches, on their lawn.

Assuming that was true, and not pre-spin, then yes.

There's also the issue, floated on the Sunday morning shows two weeks ago, that it runs against standing FBI/DOJ policy to publicly announce any legal proceedings involving candidates for office within two months of elections. I can't speak to the veracity of that claim, but it will absolutely be part of the narrative.

I'm curious as to why you think Burt Reynolds is in Hell?

That's gotta be a tough one for Lewis to swallow.

Incorrect. If it's true what they have done is protect the anonymity of an unelected person serving in government actively working to subvert a duly elected President (the democratic will of the people), and provide them with a platform to propagandize. IE. working as a propaganda arm of the deep state.

LOL In this instance it doesn't matter. The person, a poster whom I have found in the past to be able to see past his biases, isn't ready to see past his biases on this issue. Im hopeful he'll get there though.

It's not "quality reporting". They didn't report anything. They either: 1) Fabricated a story from the ground up, demonstrating that they are a propaganda arm of a deep state seeking to undermine a duly elected President. or 2) The OpEd is real, demonstrating that they are a propaganda arm of a deep state seeking to undermine a duly elected President. They are complicit either way. That's all their OpEd served to reveal.

People are not "having it both ways". It's simply the reality of the situation. By advancing the piece the Times has demonstrated that there is a deep state, and that they are one of it's tendrils.

When using anonymous sources, what is it customary for truth seeking journalists to do in order to validate their work? And, as Tom has pointed out, why did Woodward buck the norms of getting an advance copy to the White House?

Correct.

Correct. If it's true, it's direct evidence of a functioning deep state working to under cut the duly elected sitting President. If it's fiction, it's direct evidence that the NY Times is a functioning part of a deep state narrative designed to undercut the duly elected sitting President. Either way, it 100% validates the existence of the deep state.

Look at the timing of the release, coordinated with the NY Times piece, against the backdrop of the Kavanaugh hearings and the upcoming midterm elections. High level politics, conducted by the people who enrich themselves by setting global policy generation after generation, is not a coincidence. Combine that with the fact that none of his sources are first hand, but rather are second and third hand; atypical of hard hitting investigative journalism and... well...