B-Man Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1) In no universe should it be OK for a journalistic outfit to publish a document containing explosive allegations that it doesn’t believe are credible — this is just outrageous; 2) Until we have some confirmation of verifiable details — and no media entity has produced any yet, despite trying to chase them down — we should consider the most damaging information in the dossier to be garbage based on hearsay and rumor.Rich Lowrey
TH3 Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 1) In no universe should it be OK for a journalistic outfit to publish a document containing explosive allegations that it doesn’t believe are credible — this is just outrageous; 2) Until we have some confirmation of verifiable details — and no media entity has produced any yet, despite trying to chase them down — we should consider the most damaging information in the dossier to be garbage based on hearsay and rumor. Rich Lowrey Enough of this yellow journalism!!
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Enough of this yellow journalism!! Okay...that was pretty funny.
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 So many in this thread. The jokes just write themselves. The story's bull ****, of course - there's verifiably false information in it (as in "You can check passports, and people weren't where the story claims they were" verifiable.) But the jokes are great.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 1) In no universe should it be OK for a journalistic outfit to publish a document containing explosive allegations that it doesn’t believe are credible — this is just outrageous; 2) Until we have some confirmation of verifiable details — and no media entity has produced any yet, despite trying to chase them down — we should consider the most damaging information in the dossier to be garbage based on hearsay and rumor. Rich Lowrey They can publish the fact that the security agencies briefed Trump-o on the allegations. Which they did. And why did Trump take such a pro-Russian stance, very suspicious. Smoke....fire? Pee
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 They can publish the fact that the security agencies briefed Trump-o on the allegations. Which they did. And why did Trump take such a pro-Russian stance, very suspicious. Smoke....fire? Pee [This is an automated response.] Shut up, you dumb !@#$ing monkey. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.5.
Chef Jim Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Clinton was ahead in all the polls and especially those close state polls until the FBI intervened, then, not so much. I'll take The Left STILL Doesn't Know Why Hillary Lost for $800 Alex.
B-Man Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 NBC: Intel chiefs did not brief Trump on supposed compromising material, saw it as “disinformation”
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 NBC: Intel chiefs did not brief Trump on supposed compromising material, saw it as “disinformation” What a pisser!
Ted Striker Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 What a pisser! You're using my own quotes? When SDS hears about this the s**t's gonna hit the fan!
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 You're using my own quotes? When SDS hears about this the s**t's gonna hit the fan! Hey, imitation is the highest form of flattery
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Hey, imitation is the highest form of flattery [This is an automated response.] You're an idiot. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.5.
PastaJoe Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Which he'd already done when he went to Congress. That's truly disingenuous: "We don't comment on what we're under subpoena to comment on and have already commented on." Really, the fault lies with the House Judicial Committee members who decided that leaking Comey's letter was appropriate. But you've got your head just a little too far up Hillary's ass to understand that, don't you? Investigating Weiner's emails and making assumptions that they were related to Clinton before they were actually looked at (and subsequently determined to be irrelevant) was not part of the original investigation. But again, Comey was not obligated to mention them until after they were looked at and conclusions were made. But at least you're now conceding that the House Republicans were behind leaking the unnecessary Comey letter that helped sway voter opinions. Comey should have expected such a letter without explaination would be used by the Republicans.
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 Investigating Weiner's emails and making assumptions that they were related to Clinton before they were actually looked at (and subsequently determined to be irrelevant) was not part of the original investigation. But again, Comey was not obligated to mention them until after they were looked at and conclusions were made. But at least you're now conceding that the House Republicans were behind leaking the unnecessary Comey letter that helped sway voter opinions. Comey should have expected such a letter without explaination would be used by the Republicans. You didn't read the letter, did you? It explains why everything you just said is wrong. And I'm not "now conceding" anything. That implies that I at one time said they didn't leak it, when they clearly did. That's not "now conceding," that's a statement of obvious fact months old. Stop projecting your hyperpartisan stupidity on others.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted January 11, 2017 Author Posted January 11, 2017 You didn't read the letter, did you? It explains why everything you just said is wrong. And I'm not "now conceding" anything. That implies that I at one time said they didn't leak it, when they clearly did. That's not "now conceding," that's a statement of obvious fact months old. Stop projecting your hyperpartisan stupidity on others. As if he'd put it in the letter. You are a moron
PastaJoe Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 You didn't read the letter, did you? It explains why everything you just said is wrong. And I'm not "now conceding" anything. That implies that I at one time said they didn't leak it, when they clearly did. That's not "now conceding," that's a statement of obvious fact months old. Stop projecting your hyperpartisan stupidity on others. He reopened a previously closed investigation, and sent a cryptic letter without details that was ripe for misrepresentation by Clinton's opponents. “In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” This written without even knowing the contents of said emails. “Given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression." Too late, Comey did it by simply sending the letter. And it then allowed Trump to exploit a false narrative. “Now the evidence is so overwhelming ― because they wouldn’t have done this unless the evidence was overwhelming."
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 As if he'd put it in the letter. You are a moron [This is an automated response.] I'm not stupid. Yes, yes you are. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.5.
Nanker Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 beta version 0.5! I'm pretty sure DR could use a variant: "You're an azzhat!" Let us know when it goes on sale and what customizable features it'll have. Could become quite the sensation.
Recommended Posts