Jump to content

POLICE STATE BIDEN SHOW TRIALS: Corrupt DOJ/FBI/GA DA/CO SC/ME SoS: Trump Indicted 5x.


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

So you're saying that the 2016 Trump campaign did not have numerous contacts with Russians and work with Russians to help the campaign?

 

Ignore. Then deflect. How very predictable. 

 

1. Did the media writ large and big tech ignore and in some cases outright censor the NY Post reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop in October 2020?

 

Yes or no?

 

2. In my hypothetical in regard to the media doing the same thing with Trump as with the Biden laptop qualify as election interference?

 

Yes or no?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DRsGhost said:

 

Ignore. Then deflect. How very predictable. 

 

1. Did the media writ large and big tech ignore and in some cases outright censor the NY Post reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop in October 2020?

 

Yes or no?

 

2. In my hypothetical in regard to the media doing the same thing with Trump as with the Biden laptop qualify as election interference?

 

Yes or no?

 

 

 

 

 

The irony of deflecting by saying I deflected... I know you'll never answer my question but, sure, I'll answer yours.

 

1. The media effed up the Hunter Biden laptop. The problem with conspiracy believing morons who make up garbage about their political opponents is that when they actually have something with a grain of truth to it (even if that truth isn't exactly what they are claiming), it gets dismissed into the large pile of BS they've been raging about.

 

2. No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The irony of deflecting by saying I deflected... I know you'll never answer my question but, sure, I'll answer yours.

 

1. The media effed up the Hunter Biden laptop. The problem with conspiracy believing morons who make up garbage about their political opponents is that when they actually have something with a grain of truth to it (even if that truth isn't exactly what they are claiming), it gets dismissed into the large pile of BS they've been raging about.

 

2. No.

 

The irony is that the Steele Dossier was believe by conspiracy believing morons. Said Dossier was created by the Dems.  This lead to years of a Russian investigation that in the end was a bunch of nothing. With how large Hillary's campaign was and her husband's foundation what do you think what occur if they investigated every single one of their employees and foreign contacts?  https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/10/inside-hillary-clintons-massive-foreign-policy-brain-trust/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

The irony is that the Steele Dossier was believe by conspiracy believing morons. Said Dossier was created by the Dems.  This lead to years of a Russian investigation that in the end was a bunch of nothing. With how large Hillary's campaign was and her husband's foundation what do you think what occur if they investigated every single one of their employees and foreign contacts?  https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/10/inside-hillary-clintons-massive-foreign-policy-brain-trust/

 

1. The Steele Dossier

The Steele Dossier was covered terribly by the media and caused people to believe it was a thing that it was not. What happened was that the Clinton Campaign paid their lawyers to get oppo research on Trump. The lawyers then found a company that had been doing oppo for one of the GOP primary challengers and paid them to continue their work. That company, FusionGPS, then subcontracted this out to a former spy (Steele) who then put together a raw intelligence piece.

 

There is a tremendous difference between a raw intelligence document and an intelligence assessment. The dossier was the former but was treated as the latter. Essentially, it's a document saying "this is what we've heard and been told, but we have not analyzed these claims for credibility" but the media took it to mean that these claims had been vetted, which was wrong. It is not surprising that most of it was just junk, but that's what happens with raw intelligence and why it needs to be analyzed. The media totally botched this.

 

2. The Russia Investigation

The Steele Dossier did NOT lead to the Russia investigation. The investigation was underway before then. The investigation also was not bogus and was found to be properly predicated. While there were issues with things like the Carter Page FISA, the investigation found dozens of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians. However, since "collusion" is not a legal term of art, Mueller compared the facts to the crime of conspiracy, which requires an agreement between the parties. While the Russians and the Trump campaign both wanted to help Trump and frequently worked together (something that might meet the colloquial definition of "collusion"), they did not have an explicit agreement to work together and therefore did not meet the elements of a conspiracy.

 

3. Hillary Campaign

I would have no problem with investigating the Hillary Campaign for wrongdoing if it is appropriate. In fact, I believe they recently got in trouble over the Steele Dossier. They believed the document was embarrassing and wanted to bury it, so they hid how they paid for it to avoid it becoming public. This was blown when the dossier was leaked (I believe by Steele himself), which lead to the Clinton campaign being fined for not following disclosure requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The irony of deflecting by saying I deflected... I know you'll never answer my question but, sure, I'll answer yours.

 

1. The media effed up the Hunter Biden laptop. The problem with conspiracy believing morons who make up garbage about their political opponents is that when they actually have something with a grain of truth to it (even if that truth isn't exactly what they are claiming), it gets dismissed into the large pile of BS they've been raging about.

 

2. No.

Your completely and absurdly preposterous proposition that "the media"--Washington Post, NYT, the major networks, liberal leaning cable stations with a myriad of supposedly dialed in guaranteed-to-remain-anonymous sources in the know deep within the Washington bureaucracy all reached the same erroneous conclusion on a story with the potential to impact one of the most divisive elections in modern history not-withstanding,  the Hunter Biden debacle is reason enough to discard "the media" as anything approaching trustworthy when it comes to important news sources.  While the 'enemy of the people' is a bit hyperbolic for my liking and after all, the NYPost nailed the story early on), it's certainly fair and appropriate to consider the media 'the enemy of truth'.  

 

 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The irony of deflecting by saying I deflected... I know you'll never answer my question but, sure, I'll answer yours.

 

 

I and others have answered those questions ad nauseum in multiple threads over the years.  My post that you responded to was about the Hunter laptop using a Trump / Russia hypothetical to illustrate exactly what was done by the media.

 

So yes you did indeed ignore the point of the post you were responding to and then followed up with a deflection.

 

55 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

1. The media effed up the Hunter Biden laptop. The problem with conspiracy believing morons who make up garbage about their political opponents is that when they actually have something with a grain of truth to it (even if that truth isn't exactly what they are claiming), it gets dismissed into the large pile of BS they've been raging about.

 

95% of the media all just "effed up" simultaneously about an easily verifiable story in order to justify censoring it from the public in the weeks before an election?  :lol:

 

Just like the FBI "messed up" innocently with all those FISA applications, right?

 

All just innocent mistakes that always benefit the left and democrats. It's really strange that all these issues that you chalk up to human error only seem to go in one direction.  17 major "errors" in the FISA IG report and every single one of them allowed the FBI to continue spying on a presidential campaign and sitting President.  Not even one of those non politically motivated "mistakes" went the other way to inhibit the continuance of the spying as you expect they would if they were only simple clerical mistakes and innocent oversights.

 

Finally, I love that you take the opportunity here to call someone else a conspiracy theorist. You're totally lost dude.

 

 

55 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

2. No.

 

"Mistakes" that are purposely hidden from the public about a presidential candidate enriching himself through his sons foreign entanglements.  Even accepting your ridiculous premise that the media simply "effed up" ....the "eff up" still had major influence on the friggin election. You're beyond delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Imagine reality? Sure, easy enough.

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

So you're saying that the 2016 Trump campaign did not have numerous contacts with Russians and work with Russians to help the campaign?

 

Contact and collusion to rig an election are 2 entirely different things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 

Contact and collusion to rig an election are 2 entirely different things. 

 

It's more like: working together towards a shared goal is not the same as entering into an agreement to work together towards a shared goal.

 

But the end result is the same: there's no crime of collusion and no agreement between the parties means no conspiracy.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aristocrat said:

 

any comment on the actual post instead of deflecting?

 

The answer to this question is no.

 

It was no yesterday, last week, last month and last year. It will be no tomorrow, the day after tomorrow and on and on.

 

My suggestion is to use the ignore function.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 8/3/2022 at 1:38 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Your completely and absurdly preposterous proposition that "the media"--Washington Post, NYT, the major networks, liberal leaning cable stations with a myriad of supposedly dialed in guaranteed-to-remain-anonymous sources in the know deep within the Washington bureaucracy all reached the same erroneous conclusion on a story with the potential to impact one of the most divisive elections in modern history not-withstanding,  the Hunter Biden debacle is reason enough to discard "the media" as anything approaching trustworthy when it comes to important news sources.  While the 'enemy of the people' is a bit hyperbolic for my liking and after all, the NYPost nailed the story early on), it's certainly fair and appropriate to consider the media 'the enemy of truth'.  

 

 

These media outlets manufacture stories and cite "anonymous" sources to give it an air of legitimacy.  How do you verify an anonymous source if its anonymous?  Well you don''t  All you can do is take the word of the reporter of the story.  Which other like-minded media outlets do to provide legitimacy.  Then additional media outlets carry the story that for example, cite the Times story provided by anonymous sources.  As proof the story is legitimate.  Which then gets picked up by other outlets in a self-confirming loop of credibility.  The public perception of the validity of the story is established and its now fact.  A manufactured fact.  That grows to become the lead story on ABC news tonight.  "This just in, more revelations about misconduct inside the administration", states the news anchor with a hint of urgency.

 

What then happens is every single person connected to the actual event or situation states the story is false or misrepresents the actual facts or events.  But the damage is done.  And since the source is fake there's never any action or need to uncover a "source" of sensitive of national security or privileged information.  Because the story's fake there's nobody to identify.  It's one very effective way the media disseminates and broadcast propaganda.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 

These media outlets manufacture stories and cite "anonymous" sources to give it an air of legitimacy.  How do you verify an anonymous source if its anonymous?  Well you don''t  All you can do is take the word of the reporter of the story.  Which other like-minded media outlets do to provide legitimacy.  Then additional media outlets carry the story that for example, cite the Times story provided by anonymous sources.  As proof the story is legitimate.  Which then gets picked up by other outlets in a self-confirming loop of credibility.  The public perception of the validity of the story is established and its now fact.  A manufactured fact.  That grows to become the lead story on ABC news tonight.  "This just in, more revelations about misconduct inside the administration", states the news anchor with a hint of urgency.

 

What then happens is every single person connected to the actual event or situation states the story is false or misrepresents the actual facts or events.  But the damage is done.  And since the source is fake there's never any action or need to uncover a "source" of sensitive of national security or privileged information.  Because the story's fake there's nobody to identify.  It's one very effective way the media disseminates and broadcast propaganda.    

Absolutely, and the reality is  ChiGoose and others here know that.  However, it’s far easier to shrug one’s shoulders, yammer on about conspiracy theories and talk about the free press, or at least the free press that they ascribe to and suits their political agenda. 
 

It’s silly, really. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Which with the liberal media is another way of saying their thinking is governed by confirmation bias.

 

Yeah.  It's like Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony: "I heard..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...