The color was irrelevant. Did you test the DNA or did you trust the agencies that did to arrive at a conclusion?At least with the dress we could see enough to show our work. There wasn't some empirical 17 agencies telling us what color it was and just trust them.
You think the people who don't believe the FBI, CIA, NSA, et al. are going to believe the Aussies? They weren't even born in America.This is pretty big. How does it not completely discredit R's attacks on the propriety of the investigation?
I've never heard that - interesting. I wonder if that's a relic of old fashioned alcohol/drug/moral standards in campus recruiting?Also, the FBI (intelligence in general) skews heavily Mormon compared to percent of the population. Hoover famously started that.
On September 22—40 days before we learned Papadopoulos was cooperating with the Mueller probe—I said that he had directly identified himself to Trump as a Kremlin agent in March 2016. This led to major-media coverage of the now-infamous "TIHDC meeting."
Seth AbramsonVerified account @SethAbramson Sep 22
10/ But on March 24, Papadopoulos had revealed himself to be "acting as an intermediary for the Russian government."
- WaPoLess than a decade out of college, Papadopoulos appeared to hold little sway within the campaign, and it is unclear whether he was acting as an intermediary for the Russian government, although he told campaign officials he was.
It’s a combination of things. First, Mormons go on a mission, often to a country that speaks a non-English language, which gives them foreign language skills and foreign contacts with a non-intelligence background for their knowing each other. Second, they pass background checks really easily (part of this is the booze and drugs thing.). Third, their whole culture brings them up to “serve.”I've never heard that - interesting. I wonder if that's a relic of old fashioned alcohol/drug/moral standards in campus recruiting?
I will also put money on the sun rising that day.Rirruto said:I also wish there was a way to gamble on how this all ends. The smart money has to be that Trump lies to the FBI during his interview, right? I'm not sure whether that will actually lead to any sort of impeachment proceedings, but the odds would be decent enough to plunk a unit or so down. Hypothetically.
https://www.inquisitr.com/4710393/donald-trump-sets-first-year-records-for-most-golfing-trips-lowest-approval-rating-fewest-bills-signed/Now that the dossier has fallen apart the shills are claiming that an Australian tipped them off about muh Russian CollusionTM
Where has this Australian theory been for the last 18 months?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVFd46qABi0
This is all you could come up with? SAD!Now that the dossier has fallen apart the shills are claiming that an Australian tipped them off about muh Russian CollusionTM
Where has this Australian theory been for the last 18 months?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVFd46qABi0
G'day mate. Put some shrimp on the barbie?Now that the dossier has fallen apart the shills are claiming that an Australian tipped them off about muh Russian CollusionTM
Where has this Australian theory been for the last 18 months?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVFd46qABi0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSFWgKl-O-AThis is all you could come up with? SAD!
Seems worth checking out.Lydia Polgreen @lpolgreen 6h6 hours ago
I just walked past a newly minted historical site: the fancy Kensington restaurant where George Papadopoulos had a drunken conversation with an Australian diplomat that sparked the Mueller investigation!
https://twitter.com/lpolgreen/status/947489242263048192
omg, that had me howling. So uncomfortable, but when the interviewer started laughing, i couldn’t help it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSFWgKl-O-A
This is what its like talking to Bozeman and others in this thread.
THE SWEET TALK IS IMPORTANT TOO!omg, that had me howling. So uncomfortable, but when the interviewer started laughing, i couldn’t help it.
Honest question. Is this real?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSFWgKl-O-A
This is what its like talking to Bozeman and others in this thread.
The same question can be asked about some of the posters in this thread. They can't be real. (The interview is not real but that doesn't keep it from being funny.)Honest question. Is this real?
Maybe the dingo ate yo baby!!!G'day mate. Put some shrimp on the barbie?
The manipulation surrounding these texts is inexcusable. Our elected leaders should be better than this.
I don’t want to be defeatist, but anyone abjectly stupid enough to believe what the conspiracy sites were selling on that text is not going to be swayed by this.
https://www.inquisitr.com/4710393/donald-trump-sets-first-year-records-for-most-golfing-trips-lowest-approval-rating-fewest-bills-signed/
Care to comment about your Ineffective In Chief?
There is a recurring theme here.Put the troll on "ignore."
Supposedly non-Fox outlets like CBS and maybe one or two others had access to these and they couldn't provide this kind of context.
How so?Now that the dossier has fallen apart the shills are claiming that an Australian tipped them off about muh Russian CollusionTM
Where has this Australian theory been for the last 18 months?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVFd46qABi0
The dossier has not fallen apart and the only people who ever claimed that the dossier spurred the FBI counter-intelligence investigation were those trying to protect Trump. We've known that the FBI received information from a Western intelligence service that prompted the investigation since April. If you weren't aware of that, that would seem to be the fault of the people working to really hard to muddy the waters. Certainly not the FBI. BTW, because Comey briefed Trump on this investigation, Trump HAS to have known this. But he was still pushing the lie that the dossier led to the investigation last week. Does it bother you in the slightest that he's so willing to outright lie about this?Now that the dossier has fallen apart the shills are claiming that an Australian tipped them off about muh Russian CollusionTM
Where has this Australian theory been for the last 18 months?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVFd46qABi0
They supplied the context over the comments made after the "**** size" comment in the debate. I also heard, relatively early, that Strzok favored Kasich. I'm not sure Strzok is really talking about needing to brief Trump in the insurance policy comment. A few weeks ago, an article came out with (admittedly anonymous) sources saying exactly what I argued here at the time. That Strzok was arguing against a suggestion, made by Page in the meeting with McCabe, that a politically inflammatory investigation could probably be avoided because Trump was unlikely to win.Supposedly non-Fox outlets like CBS and maybe one or two others had access to these and they couldn't provide this kind of context.
This context was seen by me, but it may have been twitter and not the MSMSupposedly non-Fox outlets like CBS and maybe one or two others had access to these and they couldn't provide this kind of context.
I think you and Slap are right and maybe I forgot about that, especially in light of the flurry that Fox has caused around the texts. I do recall the report about the issue being the aggressiveness of the investigation, and the way you put it really makes sense, because inevitably it had to be apparent that pushing the investigation would ultimately be a huge political controversy regardless, which is something the FBI wanted to avoid. - However I do think the press has at times been too passive about reporting the Trump argument about Strzok ("House Republicans say..."), and the context that the briefing was imminent is a really good point, that would have been front and center. Not just how aggressively they should proceed but how much they should discuss with Trump or reveal publicly must have been part of the conversation. - I also think the point about their assuming Hillary would win a '100,000,000 to 0' right after the absurd exchange about d*** size at the GOP debate rings true, because at that point yeah a lot of people did think that he was too ridiculous to win. But that's relevant because it takes the starch out of the claim that the FBI was trying to 'stop Trump'. The FBI had a lot of normal people who just assumed Trump was too absurd to win in the first place, what was there to 'stop'.They supplied the context over the comments made after the "**** size" comment in the debate. I also heard, relatively early, that Strzok favored Kasich. I'm not sure Strzok is really talking about needing to brief Trump in the insurance policy comment. A few weeks ago, an article came out with (admittedly anonymous) sources saying exactly what I argued here at the time. That Strzok was arguing against a suggestion, made by Page in the meeting with McCabe, that a politically inflammatory investigation could probably be avoided because Trump was unlikely to win.
Like Trump, many of the Republicans pushing this narrative had to know that the FBI had been tipped by several friendly intelligence services. This had been reported fairly early.
The press has absolutely been too hesitant in calling out obvious spin. Because they're spooked. Every mistake is taken as a sign of some "Fake News" conspiracy. My Dad, who hates Trump, is convinced that the press "is no better." And he can't really explain how except for some sense that they have an agenda.I think you and Slap are right and maybe I forgot about that, especially in light of the flurry that Fox has caused around the texts. I do recall the report about the issue being the aggressiveness of the investigation, and the way you put it really makes sense, because inevitably it had to be apparent that pushing the investigation would ultimately be a huge political controversy regardless, which is something the FBI wanted to avoid. - However I do think the press has at times been too passive about reporting the Trump argument about Strzok ("House Republicans say..."), and the context that the briefing was imminent is a really good point, that would have been front and center. Not just how aggressively they should proceed but how much they should discuss with Trump or reveal publicly must have been part of the conversation. - I also think the point about their assuming Hillary would win a '100,000,000 to 0' right after the absurd exchange about d*** size at the GOP debate rings true, because at that point yeah a lot of people did think that he was too ridiculous to win. But that's relevant because it takes the starch out of the claim that teh FBI was trying to 'stop Trump'. The FBI had a lot of normal people who just assumed Trump was too absurd to win in the first place, what was there to 'stop'.
It is very hard for the press to fight against such naked propaganda. I would like to see them more plainly fact-check statements from Trump in real-time though. They pass them along too willingly.The press has absolutely been too hesitant in calling out obvious spin. Because they're spooked. Every mistake is taken as a sign of some "Fake News" conspiracy.
That's a rhetorical question, right?The dossier has not fallen apart and the only people who ever claimed that the dossier spurred the FBI counter-intelligence investigation were those trying to protect Trump. We've known that the FBI received information from a Western intelligence service that prompted the investigation since April. If you weren't aware of that, that would seem to be the fault of the people working to really hard to muddy the waters. Certainly not the FBI. BTW, because Comey briefed Trump on this investigation, Trump HAS to have known this. But he was still pushing the lie that the dossier led to the investigation last week. Does it bother you in the slightest that he's so willing to outright lie about this?
The biggest failing of the media, in my opinion, is their ongoing quest to try and normalize Trump. They still to this day can't call a lie a lie. It's "an untruth" or a "misleading statement."It is very hard for the press to fight against such naked propaganda. I would like to see them more plainly fact-check statements from Trump in real-time though. They pass them along too willingly.
The dossier hasn’t fallen apart.Now that the dossier has fallen apart the shills are claiming that an Australian tipped them off about muh Russian CollusionTM
Where has this Australian theory been for the last 18 months?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVFd46qABi0
Catching some of the year-end news recaps has been a reminder of how crazy and dense the news has been. And like you said, the media as a whole isn’t equipped to call the president a pathological liar even when the evidence is overwhelming.The biggest failing of the media, in my opinion, is their ongoing quest to try and normalize Trump. They still to this day can't call a lie a lie. It's "an untruth" or a "misleading statement."
No, it's a lie.
Call it a lie and more specifically call the person telling the lie a liar.
This isn't difficult.
I wish I didn't.Catching some of the year-end news recaps has been a reminder of how crazy and dense the news has been. And like you said, the media as a whole isn’t equipped to call the president a pathological liar even when the evidence is overwhelming.
That said, the Denial Of Service attack on discourse continues. Remember “alternative facts”? Or the Spicer and Mooch eras?
Say what you will about Spicey, but Mooch was freaking awesome. "I'm not just sucking my own #### here, like Bannon"I wish I didn't.
It was a funny line but I long for the days when we can return to our administration not being a bunch of Jersey Shore wannabees, or in the case of Trump, being schooled on Twitter by Jersey Shore cast members.Say what you will about Spicey, but Mooch was freaking awesome. "I'm not just sucking my own #### here, like Bannon"