Some will be coming right after Horowitz submits his report.Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Where is the indictment then?
|
|
|
|
|
Some will be coming right after Horowitz submits his report.Where is the indictment then?
Hope you aren’t holding your breath.
But we're all hoping you are...
This editorial was in the Arkansas Demozette this morning. It was written by Ed Rogers, an opinion writer for the Washington Post, one of the most liberal newspapers in the country. Does the Post know what is coming in Barr's and Durham's investigation? This should shut up our lone liberal. He can't disagree with another liberal.
COLUMNIST: Another day, another day of faux outrage over the president
by Ed Rogers The Washington Post | Today at 1:55 a.m.1COMMENT
President Donald Trump said the wrong thing again this week, and of course some in the media--and practically all the Democratic presidential candidates--are spun up about it.
Specifically, he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he might listen to a foreign government offering opposition research on his political opponents at home and not tell the FBI.
His exact words when asked whether his campaign would accept damaging information on his opponents from foreign governments--such as China or Russia--or hand it over to the FBI were, "I think maybe you do both. I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening."
That was the wrong thing to say. No campaign should accept compromising information from a foreign government.
That said, the media's tunnel vision and failure to pursue the natural line of questioning about foreign influence in the 2016 campaign are surreal. Think for a moment if Hillary Clinton had to answer a similar question truthfully. If she were honest, she would have to answer something like, "why, yes, my campaign would, through the general counsel's law firm, employ a foreign national to contact sources in the Russian government and try to develop opposition research to use against my opponent, and take it to the FBI and media to disrupt my opponent's campaign." Is there something about this I am missing?
Doesn't the pearl-clutching over Trump saying that he might listen to whatever another government wants to share with him mean that those same pearl-clutchers should also be taking what Clinton's campaign actually did very seriously? And yet they are not.
This is not just a case of two competing parties swapping blows. Nor is it just a case of "you investigate me, I'll investigate you." We need to know what happened within the Democratic campaign when it came to using foreign resources to concoct a story that then was used to trigger the power of government institutions for the purpose of damaging their political opponent.
It is not enough to conclude that Trump's campaign did not collude with a foreign power. Just because Clinton did not win in 2016 does not mean we should not know the extent of what was done by her campaign and whether individuals in the Obama administration may have tried to help impact the election.
It is easy to complain of Russiagate fatigue; after all, we have been watching this saga unfold for nearly three years. But it is important to remember that the rest of the world has been watching, too--and not just Russia.
Editorial on 06/15/2019
Buying false information from foreigners and using it against your opponent, using your liberal media to spread the lies, starting an formal Federal inquire and commission with this crappola to start a true coup to impeachment a sitting President of the USA = totally illegal and treasonous
"Listening" to free information from foreigners and reporting to FBI
if malicious and wrong = totally OK
You actually have the law backwards (even if you accept your looney premise), but that is because you are listening to Trump.
We'll find out who's right and who's wrong when Barr and Durham finish their investigation. Horowitz report is going to reveal some really juicy stuff that the crazy democrats aren't going to like.
i don’t personally own or manage any media outlets. But if I did, I would probably seek to maximize the return to shareholders. Because capitalism
Sidenote -- for someone who doesn't watch any liberal media, you seem to know a lot about what's on it.
If you've read or listened to the liberal media one time, you know what they are always talking about. It would be a rare moment to turn on MSNBC or CNN and they weren't talking about impeaching Trump.
I catch clips from the lib media played on FOX. Then on occasion, when I feel I can stomach it, I'll watch bits of it, and find FOX has 100% nailed it.
Those sorry profit-motive SOBs! Catering to their audience! Selling ads! Building marketshare!
The bastages!
Sure, CNN and MSNBC do anything to cater to their loony audiences...as small as they are. They lie, they produce Fake News! It's all fiction which the gullible gobble up. Pro Wrestling has an audience too. It's all fake too.
Wait, pro wrestling is fake? NO! It can’t be!
If their business model is flawed, let it fail. Why do you care?
I generally avoid Walmart because I dont like what I hear of their business practices. But they cater to their customer base, and it doesn't affect me. (At least not directly enough for me to bunch my pannies over it.)
The free market must not be "conservative" anymore.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
