What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (13 Viewers)

Opie said:
Keeping this 100% accurate chart in mind, please explain the Harvard Study that shows a 93% negative reporting on President Trump
Click to expand...
What’s truly atypical about Trump’s coverage is that it’s sharply negative despite the fact that he’s the source of nearly two-thirds of the sound bites surrounding his coverage. Typically, newsmakers and groups complain that their media narrative is negative because they’re not given a chance to speak for themselves. Over the past decade, U.S. coverage of Muslims has been more than 75 percent negative. And Muslims have had little chance to tell their side of the story. Muslims account for less than 5 percent of the voices heard in news reports about Islam.[31] So why is Trump’s coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, he’s been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad. Even Fox has not been able to save him from what analyst David Gergen called the “’worst 100 days we’ve ever seen.”

...How might the press better navigate the days ahead? For starters, journalists need to keep their eye on the ball. We live in a fast-paced media era, as journalists rush to be at the crest of breaking news. Through his tweets and actions, Trump exploits this habit, enabling him to change the subject when it suits his needs. During the presidential campaign, that tactic enabled him to shed a number of damaging revelations before many voters had a chance to hear about them, much less think about them. ...
Click to expand...
Oft mentioned Harvard study.

 
Bucky86 said:
Trump tells ABC that if a foreign government has information on one of his 2020 opponents, "I think I'd want to hear it"
Click to expand...
This is one of the serious problems I have with the Mueller report. He said that as to Don Jr in particular that it smells illegal, it looks illegal, it sounds illegal... but Don Jr (& Pops presumably) would not have committed a crime because they would not have known it was illegal at the time... because it had never arisen in past DOJ cases. - How do you enforce a law if it's never enforced and people are required to know it's a crime for it be enforced? What stops this from happening again?

Meanwhile McConnell has blocked a bill to spell this out in the Senate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bucky86 said:
Trump tells ABC that if a foreign government has information on one of his 2020 opponents, "I think I'd want to hear it"
Click to expand...


Breaking: Q: If foreigners, if Russia, if China, if someone else offers you information on opponents, should they accept it or should they call the FBI?

TRUMP: I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen. I don't -- there's nothing wrong with listening.

 
Stephanopoulos noted that FBI Director Wray told lawmakers last month "the FBI would want to know about" any foreign election meddling.

Trump: "The FBI director is wrong, because frankly it doesn't happen like that in life."

Fair play to Trump, I guess he would be the one to know here.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Clip of Trump interview in link:  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-exclusive-interview-trump-listen-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304

(side note - he has recently been to a tanning bed, with good tanning goggles)
Click to expand...
There was a throw away line by Stephanopoulos at the end of the clip - talking about how excited Trump was to start the re-election campaign "[Trump]  says over 70,000 people will attend [the Orlando rally]"

That piqued my interest because 70,000 people is a really big crowd.  Turns out it was Trump-speak for 70,000 ticket requests - crowd will be limited to 20,000

 
How can anybody question that Trump new about the Trump tower meeting now?  They accepted help from Russia and would do it again.

 
Rove! said:
I see nothing wrong with that.  
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone on here is surprised to see you write that, however that you see nothing wrong with getting intel from a country that may be hostile towards us is disgraceful and especially dangerous to us all as Americans. Then, again, maybe you are really in Moscow and adhere to corruption as a way of life, unfortunately.

 
Mario Kart said:
I don't think anyone on here is surprised to see you write that, however that you see nothing wrong with getting intel from a country that may be hostile towards us is disgraceful and especially dangerous to us all as Americans. Then, again, maybe you are really in Moscow and adhere to corruption as a way of life, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
It’s no different than Obama wanting to know everything Page and Strzok were doing with respect to the Dossier 

(I am assuming that Obama was told that the Dossier was legitimate intelligence and didn’t know it was fake intelligence paid for by HRC)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove! said:
It’s no different than Obama wanting to know everything Page and Strzok were doing with respect to the Dossier 

(I am assuming that Obama was told that the Dossier was legitimate intelligence and didn’t know it was fake intelligence paid for by HRC)
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with anything? And you know what you do when you assume.

 
timschochet said:
Why should you? He never does. 
Click to expand...
Wrong. You ignored much of the information I have posted lately and got kudos from posters here. Totally ridiculous Tim.  Did you bother to read the links about the Mexico deal that proved you wrong with your statement nothing new came from it? Don’t sink to the level of Sho.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John Blutarsky said:
The Commish said:
Given the sources you didn't exactly go out on a huge limb here. Are we supposed to ignore the reputations of those sites?
Click to expand...
How about finding information that debunks what they wrote. This narrative that everthing they report is wrong is ridiculous. 
Click to expand...
Doesn't really answer my question.  The narrative is well earned and assuming :bs:  out the gate seems appropriate.  That doesn't mean they aren't correct every once and a while :shrug:  

 
Trump defenders should keep in mind that Trump gets to claim 'no collusion' because Mueller couldn't prove that Wikileaks was coordinating with Trump via Stone or Farrange (even though Cohen said he did), because he couldn't prove Don Jr knew it was against the law (now Trump does), because he couldn't prove prove that Don Jr told Trump about the TT meeting (though Cohen and Gates aid he did). Trump is saying he would do all those things. The man tells you he would commit illegality and that he probably did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Trump defenders should keep in mind that Trump gets to claim 'no collusion' because Mueller couldn't prove that Wikileaks was coordinating with Trump via Stone or Farrange (even though Cohen said he did), because he couldn't prove Don Jr knew it was against the law (now Trump does), because he couldn't prove prove that Don Jr told Trump about the TT meeting (though Cohen and Gates aid he did). Trump is saying he would do all those things. The man tells you he would commit illegality and that he probably did.
Click to expand...
Maybe time for impeachment now?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rove! said:
I see nothing wrong with that.  
Click to expand...
As relevant here, foreign nationals may not make — and no one may “solicit, accept, or receive” from them—"a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” or “an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.” 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A), (a)(2).1283 The term “contribution,” which is used throughout the campaign-finance law, “includes” “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i). 
Click to expand...
^ From the report you read.

 
John Blutarsky said:
Wrong. You ignored much of the information I have posted lately and got kudos from posters here. Totally ridiculous Tim.  Did you bother to read the links about the Mexico deal that proved you wrong with your statement nothing new came from it? Don’t sink to the level of Sho.
Click to expand...
Within 3 minutes of Sho asking for links you provided 8 of them. There is no way you read those. And only a few days ago, as we both know, you posted links that said the opposite of what you were trying to prove. You may have done it again this time for all I know, I haven’t opened them to find out. If you’re not going to make the effort, why should I? 

 
I'm going to do one of these for fun....because I am bored.  I choose:

https://nypost.com/2019/04/19/top-10-things-the-media-got-wrong-about-collusion-and-obstruction/

with the understand that the assertion that the entire MSM is a bunch of liars. It will also (probably) serve as evidence of why people laugh at NYP as a source at all.  :popcorn:

10. CNN bungles Comey testimony

It took four bylines — including those of CNN stars Jake Tapper and Gloria Borger — to completely botch the most important aspect of former FBI Director James Comey’s June 2017 congressional testimony. Comey, per CNN, would dispute Trump’s claim that Comey told him that he (the president) isn’t under investigation. Oops! Turns out Comey didn’t, in fact, dispute Trump’s position, and Tapper & Co. had to run a correction walking back their big scoop.
Click to expand...
This is journalism.  Mistake was made and corrected.  The alternative is making the mistake and not correcting it.  Do we need to really document those who do THAT regularly and then have to apologize after busted for it?

9.  Times columnist shares fervid dreams

New York Times columnist Charles Blow’s column of Dec. 2, 2018, was silly even by his standards. “Members of Trump’s team were extremely interested in and eager to accept any assistance that the Russians could provide,” wrote Blow. “That is clear.” Actually, it isn’t clear. Mueller’s investigators “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,” said the report. Expect Blow to fail upward.
Click to expand...
Saying they were eager to accept the assistance <> establishing conspiracy/coordination....classic twisting of words to try and confuse.

8. Washington Post ‘fact checker’ needs a fact check

“All the Known Times the Trump Campaign Met With Russians” read the headline on a 2017 Fact Checker feature in the Washington Post. But by fact-checking, the paper really means judging various claims against liberal orthodoxies. Case in point: The claim in question was Trump’s protest that “Russia” is “fake news to try to make up for the loss of the Democrats.” The Washington Post judged that to be “false.” The Mueller report suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...
I haven't read the first volume of the Mueller report, so I guess this was in there?  I don't know much about this one.  Interested to hear thoughts but I have a feeling I know where it's going. Either way, I'm not sure this rises to the level of deceit by the MSM.  

7. The MSNBC spy who should stay in the cold

No senior US official has done more damage to the credibility of the intelligence community than John Brennan. For months leading to the Mueller report, the former CIA director offered a steady stream of collusion drivel on MSNBC. Last month, Brennan confidently predicted that “Friday [March 8] is the day the grand-jury indictments come down” against Trump associates and family members over “criminal conspiracy involving the Russians and US persons.” Nope.
Click to expand...
If we are doing "who guessed the future incorrectly in their opinion piece", it's a pretty decent piece of information that the source doing it probably isn't on the up and up.

6. The Guardian concocts a collusion meeting

Among foreign outlets, none covered itself in as much shame as the Guardian. The British paper in November 2018 published a story — bylined to superstar writer Luke Harding and two others, one of whom later mysteriously disappeared from the paper’s website — about secret talks between one Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange that took place at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. The sourcing was flimsy, to put it generously, and sure enough, as Glenn Greenwald notes at the Intercept, “Nothing in the [Mueller] report even hints, let alone states, that [Manafort] ever visited Julian Assange.”
Click to expand...
Guardian isn't even part of our MSM.  Does this count?  If it does, relying on Glenn Greenwald is problematic for obvious reasons.  This seems to be evidence to back the mocking of using the NYP as a source.  Again, full disclosure, I didn't read the first volume of the report as I figured it was settled, so why bother?

5. WaPo columnist’s overstated, undying Ukraine narrative

“The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes” ahead of the Republican National Convention “to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces.” So reported the Washington Post’s Josh Rogin. Soon the story — of craven Trump campaign officials beholden to Moscow and determined to backstab Kiev — took on a life of its own. But it was false. As Mueller’s report notes, the change to an amendment to the GOP platform wasn’t “undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia.” (Side note: Trump authorized arms sales to Ukraine, something his predecessor refused to do.)

Rogin’s July 2016 Washington Post story overstated the Trump campaign’s involvement in changing the GOP platform on Ukraine. One campaign official, without higher approval, pushed for an expansion of assistance to Ukraine, though that didn’t include arming it.
Click to expand...
This is essentially saying they disagree with the degree of involvement.  One opinion butting heads with the other.  Certainly not a refutation of fact.  Again, in a list where it's supposed to be about our terrible MSM, I'm not sure this rises to any sort of meaningful importance.

4. The Atlantic accuses Jeff Sessions!

In June 2017, the combustible young reporter Julia Ioffe wrote an article for The Atlantic, running to several thousand words, that cast doubt on former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ claim that he didn’t meet with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak as a Trump surrogate but rather as a matter of routine in his role at the time as a US senator. The Sessions-Kislyak meeting, Ioffe suggested, amounted to yet more shady Russian influence on the Trump camp. Mark Ioffe’s reportorial credibility as another casualty of the Mueller report, which noted that the meeting in question didn’t “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.”
Click to expand...
An overstating of position...now we are getting somewhere :thumbup:

3. David Corn’s dossier debacle

It was the document that set off the whole shebang. In October 2016, days before the election, David Corn of Mother Jones wrote of an unnamed “former senior intelligence officer for a Western country,” Christopher Steele (unnamed at the time), who claimed that the Russians had dirt on Trump they could use to blackmail him. Thus were born the infamous “Steele dossier” and endless late-night jokes about a Trump “pee-pee” tape. But the Mueller report barely touches on the dossier — and confirms none of its outlandish claims.
Click to expand...
This seems to be outstanding?  Neither confirmed or denied, correct?  Dubious given the point they are trying to prove.

2. McClatchy catches Michael Cohen in Prague

Speaking of the dossier, remember when McClatchy’s Greg Gordon and Peter Stonereported that Mueller had evidence that Trump consigliere Michael Cohen had “secretly made a late-summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign,” supposedly to meet his dastardly Russian handlers? If this one easily verifiable claim could be verified, the McClatchy reporters said (and perhaps secretly hoped), so could the rest of the dossier! Here’s Mueller’s report on that matter: “Cohen had never traveled to Prague.” What’s Czech for “egg on your face”?
Click to expand...
Sadly, I don't know who this guy is.  Maybe SiD can offer from insight on this guy and where he fell flat?

1. BuzzFeed knows who told Cohen to lie

Which brings us to the top foul-up of the whole sordid saga. That would be BuzzFeed’s report, by Jason Lepold and Anthony Cormier, in January claiming that Trump had directed Cohen to lie to Congress about talks to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Well, here’s the Mueller report on that count: “The president did not direct [Cohen] to provide false testimony. Cohen also said he did not tell the president about his planned testimony.” Ouch.

So surely BuzzFeed has now offered a straightforward correction and apology, right? Think again. Instead, editor in chief Ben Smith published a convoluted self-defense, only begrudgingly admitting that “Mueller has the last word.”
Click to expand...
I think all here agree on this one.  So if we're scoring at home, that's 2/10 legit concerns with several foul tips (at best).  This is why people question these types of sources.  I'm pretty confident this is probably one of the better links you provided.  If I did this with the others, I doubt they fair much better and am willing to bet they are worse.  

I think it's worth also pointing out that 10 different sources being wrong <> one source being wrong 10 times.  It's interesting that this group didn't use any source more than twice in the list.  It would probably serve their narrative better if they could show a pattern among the sources.  Right now, at best, you have a list of the "top 10" worst takes out of literally hundreds in our media.  Assigning responsibility to the MSM in general after going through specific one off incidents is probably not the way to go and certainly doesn't rise to the request for evidence the way you want it to.

My :2cents:  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Evidence usually works.
Click to expand...
That evidence shows that money may have passed between Trump and Cohen....period.
Being his attorney, I wouldn't call it a "bombshell".

What you are looking for is evidence of a "non-event".
Proving something didn't happen is a bit difference from proving that something did happen.

What evidence could possibly exist and be shown to you that proves that a crime wasn't committed?

If there was proof of President Trump colluding with the Russians, don't you think that Mueller, with his unlimited resources, would have found it?
And if Mueller had found it, wouldn't he have reported that he had substantial evidence to go forward in pursuing charges...either now or later?

Do you actually think that Congress, using the same documents used by Mueller, will find something that Mueller didn't?

The burden is to prove that President Trump committed a crime...and after 2 years of investigating, with unlimited resources, a crime hasn't been found much less, who did it.

Again, this is, and always has been, an investigation looking for a crime....it is not an investigation of a crime, looking for the culprit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Within 3 minutes of Sho asking for links you provided 8 of them. There is no way you read those. And only a few days ago, as we both know, you posted links that said the opposite of what you were trying to prove. You may have done it again this time for all I know, I haven’t opened them to find out. If you’re not going to make the effort, why should I? 
Click to expand...
I provided links that proved him wrong. Now you are timing how long it takes people to reply? Lmao

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
197
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 14 (members: 0, guests: 14)
Top