Fake News & Public Record : Smoking Gun not Needed

[themystic]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Hey, dummy!

It's kind of like Mueller's "pit bull", Andrew Weissmann...

https://saraacarter.com/muellers-pit...previous-case/

The author of your Politifact hack job likes to leave shit out that doesn't help prove their case.

That's called "corruption".

Got it now?

May 11, 2017: Trump says "this Russia thing" was part of his reasoning for firing Comey.
Trump tells NBC’s Lester Holt: "When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won."

BFE, Did this not happen?

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

It's not a matter of what "didn't happen". It's what "has" happened that was left out.

It's called "cherry picking".

+1

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by themystic

Not a single talking point from any of you GOPP people. He may be anti Trump, but what is not right?. Were 13 Russians not arrested?, has Manafort not been indicted? what about Flynn?

Not wanting to deal with it is fine. Just give me ONE example of what aint true.

Trump is a Traitor

Because Kruzel ignores and omits the "dots" that deviate from the neat line he has drawn, mistake. Kruzel's analysis is akin to an idiot claiming the barnyard roster makes the sun come up every morning, mistake, when everyone knows other factors are at work which the idiot ignores or is too stupid to understand, mistake.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Because Kruzel ignores and omits the "dots" that deviate from the neat line he has drawn, mistake. Kruzel's analysis is akin to an idiot claiming the barnyard roster makes the sun come up every morning, mistake, when everyone knows other factors are at work which the idiot ignores or is too stupid to understand, mistake.

IB I don't always agree with you but I do respect you. Even when you're taking a position that I think you're just covering for someone out of loyalty, or whatever. I get that. I saw my Dad do it his whole life. I personally don't consider that lying, ( like you're position with Ollie North). By the same token my Dad would defend an innocent person to the nines, no matter politics, race, religion, etc

I know you got a bag of something, unlike most of the other Trump supporters in here.

What I don't get on this whole Russia thing is that there is overwhelming facts to support a lot of this. Trump and his people have an unusually deep connection to the Russians

For example Manafort has been indicted, Page has been indicted, General Flynn, ( didn't even make a whole month), etc

Jeff Sessions recused himself

Manafort worked for the Ukraine politics for decades

Why the staunch defense of whats obviously counter to the factual events?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by themystic

I wasn't claiming credit. just cleaned it up so it wasn't one long single story.

You could have shortened it even more to fit your agenda by posting:

Trump is guilty.

Isn't that what you "assume"?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by themystic

Why the staunch defense of whats obviously counter to the factual events?

That's an easy question to answer. Lawsuits (which a criminal case is) are about perceptions. You don't like Trump or don't want him as President. So your "perception" of the facts in your mind conclude he is "guilty." And since you have concluded already he's guilty anyone who opposes your perception is asserting a "staunch defense of what's obviously counter to the factual events"!

If you were being tried for murder, that would "concern" you if your attorney adopted your "view" of the world and "assume" you were guilty and fail to assert a "staunch defense of what's obviously counter to the factual events"!

And if you KNEW YOU DIDN'T KILL the person who was the victim for which you were charged, and the State offered a witness who said you said "I wish he were dead" you would be wanting your attorney to assert a "staunch defense" and attack the witnesses credibility. Or am I wrong in my "assumption" about you?

You, personally, "assume" a lot of conclusions based on no FACTS!

But you should feel comfort in THE FACT you are not alone on here!

Current event example: Which shoots "real bullets"?

#1:

or #2:

[gfejunkie]

Originally Posted by themystic

May 11, 2017: Trump says "this Russia thing" was part of his reasoning for firing Comey.
Trump tells NBC’s Lester Holt: "When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won."

BFE, Did this not happen?

The part that's been left out is what we've learned about Comey since that interview. The President was right to fire the lying sack of shit who authorized a FISA warrant based on a made up, bogus Russian dossier paid for by Clinton and the DNC.

The only regret is it should have happened sooner!

Cherry picking. Plain and simple.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

The part that's been left out is what we've learned about Comey since that interview. The President was right to fire the lying sack of shit who authorized a FISA warrant based on a made up, bogus Russian dossier paid for by Clinton and the DNC.

The only regret is it should have happened sooner!

Cherry picking. Plain and simple.

Trump didn't even need a "reason" to fire Comey!

He was at "at will" employee (as head of the FBI) of the administration.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's an easy question to answer. Lawsuits (which a criminal case is) are about perceptions. You don't like Trump or don't want him as President. So your "perception" of the facts in your mind conclude he is "guilty." And since you have concluded already he's guilty anyone who opposes your perception is asserting a "staunch defense of what's obviously counter to the factual events"!

If you were being tried for murder, that would "concern" you if your attorney adopted your "view" of the world and "assume" you were guilty and fail to assert a "staunch defense of what's obviously counter to the factual events"!

And if you KNEW YOU DIDN'T KILL the person who was the victim for which you were charged, and the State offered a witness who said you said "I wish he were dead" you would be wanting your attorney to assert a "staunch defense" and attack the witnesses credibility. Or am I wrong in my "assumption" about you?

You, personally, "assume" a lot of conclusions based on no FACTS!

But you should feel comfort in THE FACT you are not alone on here!

Current event example: Which shoots "real bullets"?

#1:

or #2:

I agree with much of what you said.

How is that Paul Manafort, General Flynn-( and convicted), Poponopoluos and Page have been indicted not a fact?

How much of ths list I sent is non factual

Weave and bob Little Lexus

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by themystic

What I don't get on this whole Russia thing is that there is overwhelming facts to support a lot of this. Trump and his people have an unusually deep connection to the Russians So does Team hildebeest, but unlike Trump's business interests, Team hildebeest's connections are mostly political, mistake.

For example Manafort has been indicted, Page has been indicted, General Flynn, ( didn't even make a whole month), etc Manafort's crimes have not a single thing to do with the election. Flynn's crime is a process crime for which he will be eventually absolved. Page seems to be a bit of a flake and not an important player in the Trump campaign, mistake.

Jeff Sessions recused himself It was a fucked up move on his part, because he was not obligated to bend to the whims of the dim-retard party hacks, mistake.

Manafort worked for the Ukraine politics for decades So has hildebeest's buddy and mentor George Soros, mistake.

Why the staunch defense of whats obviously counter to the factual events?You're profferring "assumptions" not born out as facts, mistake.

Also of note, Politifact's Kruzel disingenuously spins:

Feb. 9, 2018: The White House blocks Democrats from releasing their own memorandum rebutting Republicans’ Feb. 2 memo.

But that's not a "true" statement, is it, mistake? Kruzel shows his congenital anti-Trump bias when he omits that what is really holding up the release of the dim-retard memo is Schiff's failure to get it cleared by the reviewing intelligence agencies, mistake. Isn't that the real truth, mistake?

It's also notable that yesterday's indictments made it clear that to date -- in spite of and contradictory to Kruzel's little outline -- there is still no evidence that anyone on Team Trump knowingly collaborated with the Russians, mistake.

[gnadfly]

Politifact has been a joke since they backtracked calling a bunch of Obama health care promises "Kept" and then reassessed calling them "broken." Then they named some Obamacare statement "Lie of the Year" and Madcow called them "useless."

Snopes credibility is very iffy also with a lot of interpretation not only how they phrase their stories but which stories they opt to investigate.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by themystic

Weave and bob Little Lexus

Speaking of "bobbing"!!!



Oh, yea, I almost forgot (It's strenuous to remember microscopic, nonessential info!)

How is that Paul Manafort, General Flynn-( and convicted), Poponopoluos and Page have been indicted not a fact?

I thought this thread was about Trump colluding with the Russians to win the election!