Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Finally, some real news about the Mueller indictments
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1 of 122 (822656)
10-31-2017 2:47 AM


This is from MSN, hardly a conservative news source and I accessed it from the Yahoo main page, also not a conservative news source, So I was completely blown away by its content. I'll say it's honest, it's not fake news for a change, an amazing change, but something I'd expect to find at Infowars or Drudge or Front Page Mag or other conservative site. It's such a breath of fresh air I had to post it.
Couldn't find an appropriate thread though. The fake news thread I started has already gone through summation, and I've been asked to stay off the Trump Presidency thread. So I had to start a new one although I haven't been carefully enough following politics lately to have much to follow up with at the moment. But I'm sure it will draw plenty of flak, so have at it.
It doesn't have the author's name on it nfortunately.
Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.
More than anything else, the indictments of Paul Manafort and his partner Rick Gates demonstrate the fraudulent nature of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The probe has little to do with Russian interference in last year’s election. Instead, it is calculated to protect Mueller and a cabal within the FBI and Justice Department who covered up crimes by Hillary Clinton because they believed it was likely that she would be elected president.
And once Mueller and then his friend and successor James Comey covered for Hillary, they had to keep covering. There was a reason that Mueller was so available when he was so swiftly appointed Special Counsel in May by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The Comey firing threatened to expose all that these same officials had swept under the rug. Yes, Rosenstein bit the bullet and drafted the memo that was the legal basis for firing Comey, but it would be followed by appointing Mueller.
In July, Comey preemptively exonerated Hillary despite her maintenance of a private email server and mishandling of classified material. By accusing her of being extremely careless, he purposely distracted attention from the context of the emails. Hillary and Bill Clinton operated an aggressive shakedown operation of domestic and foreign interests, many of which are unsavory and criminal. Concealing the true nature of the operation was at least part of the Clintons’ motivation for the private server.
The outlines of the Uranium One deal were not a secret. Media outlets like the New York Times reported on the U.S. government approval of a partial sale of the Canadian mining company to Rosatom, a Russian firm, while those who benefitted donated to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a single speech in Moscow.
Then came more detailed reports about how the FBI cracked the case of a major Russian effort to penetrate the North American uranium industry through a host of illegal activities, but somehow the whole matter was slow-walked and kept from U.S. government officials who had to approve the Uranium One deal. Mueller and Comey ultimately supervised the probe.
Meanwhile, the FBI’s email investigation was supervised by now-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who has significant connections to the Clintons through his wife Jill McCabe. Hillary headlined a fundraiser for a group supporting Jill McCabe’s campaign for the Virginia state senate, as first reported in the Wall Street Journal. The National Legal and Policy Center subsequently exposed more Clintonista support, including from then-Clinton Foundation operative Doug Band who wrote a personal check for $50,000.
The plot thickened last week when the bombshell hit that it was Hillary’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee that paid for the Fusion GPS dossier. Reporters were chagrined to realize that they had been lied to repeatedly for months and months. Hillary now claims that the first she heard of it was when the dossier memo was printed by BuzzFeed in January, a likely lie. As long as this what did Hillary know and when did Hillary know it question is of no interest to Mueller, his investigation has no credibility whatsoever. But therein lies the dilemma for Mueller. A real probe of Hillary would mean a review of his own actions and those of his colleagues. He’s cornered.
Mueller’s strategy is clear. He has to rescue himself, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein and others from their complicity in Hillary’s dealings with the Russians. Mueller is creating a diversion by going after Manafort, the lowest of low-hanging fruit. Just about any inquiry into Manafort’s dealings over the years was sure to yield results.
Donald Trump’s demeanor invites assumptions by some about his commitment to democratic values, but it is Hillary and her campaign that colluded with the Russians, paid the hit squad Fusion GPS to manufacture and plant information on her opponent, and hired people to provoke violence at Trump rallies.
The Clintons’ ruthlessness, along with the unwillingness of the nation’s top enforcement officials to stand up to them, has created a Constitutional crisis.
Views expressed in op-eds are not the views of The Daily Caller
.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 10-31-2017 3:07 AM Faith has replied
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2017 9:16 AM Faith has replied
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-31-2017 5:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 122 (822666)
10-31-2017 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Phat
10-31-2017 3:07 AM


Re: Fake Or Real? How To Tell
The piece in the OP (its title by the way is "Manafort Indictment Shows That Mueller Is A Fraud") is remarkable for having been published on MSN, one of the battalions of anti-Trump news sources that are always what the world hears without looking for it; otherwise it's in keeping with what's been said all along by the side that supports Trump, the side you have to make a point of looking for because it's suppressed. I have no trouble identifying the New York opinion piece as the fake news, but since it's the view that you would have been hearing if you don't read the opposing side I can understand why you'd be confused.
I'm puzzled how the piece I posted got into MSM, and how it escaped the suppressing forces to reach the public. I wonder who wrote it. It probably wouldn't be too hard to find out so I'll go look for it eventually.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Phat, posted 10-31-2017 3:07 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 10-31-2017 9:36 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 10-31-2017 8:17 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 122 (822671)
10-31-2017 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
10-31-2017 9:16 AM


Thanks for the information. My question is how did he get published by MSM, which wouldn't ordinarily float such a view as his.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2017 9:16 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2017 9:35 AM Faith has replied
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 3:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 122 (822675)
10-31-2017 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
10-31-2017 9:35 AM


All I know is I was flabbergasted to find such a view headlined on my Yahoo home page, not something I'd expect to see from Yahoo or MSN. I mean, unprecedented. Hard to see how I've misjudged them. That kind of perspective is of course to be found all the time on the conservative and pro-Trump websites and radio talk shows and so on, but again, I was absolutely amazed to see it on Yahoo. I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a similar example.
Anyway, although I haven't been following all this much at all, since I do tune into the suppressed conservative and pro-Trump sources from time to time I do hear bits and pieces of the opposite of the usual Trump bashing found here for instance, and in that New York Times opinion. I'd pretty much accepted that those views will never reach the public. So to me it is a very big deal to find it out there like that.
There IS a conspiracy, a gigantic many-tentacledd conspiracy to bring down Trump. It's not that I'm very happy with Trump at this point myself, but I'm certainly aware that the public is being fed a nonstop smear campaign against him. I recently was treated to the early morning CBS "news" at a relative's home and it was a continuous stream of anti-Trump commentary masquerading as news. I hadn't known until then it was that bad, I mean it was continuous, nonstop. I finally had to leave the room. THAT is what the public is getting day in and day out. Which is fine with most people of course, and fine with most here of course. And as I said, I've pretty much given up and accepted that we are now living in a world of engineered political lies. Which is why the escape into the public eye of this opinion piece by Flaherty was so astonishing to me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 10-31-2017 9:35 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 11:53 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 12 of 122 (822676)
10-31-2017 10:06 AM


One reasonable leftist voice
I did see, I think yesterday on Yahoo, a presentation of the views of Bryan Cranston, the actor who played the lead in "Breaking Bad." He made it very clear he was not for Trump, and yet he argued forcibly against those anti-Trumpers who seem bent on bringing him down, saying he's our President and if we bring him down we are doing damage not just to Trump, not just to right-wingers but to the country. He also said people should recognize that there are patriots who love the country on both sides. I thought that was the most reasonable political statement I'd heard from a leftist during this whole miserable reign of nonstop Trump-bashing.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 10-31-2017 12:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 122 (822697)
10-31-2017 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Diomedes
10-31-2017 2:30 PM


Re: Fake Or Real? How To Tell
The whole 'fake news' mantra is simply a tactic to divert attention away from the Trump administration by attempting to delegitimize news agencies.
OR, maybe THAT's part of the fake news, the propaganda, the bias, attempting to delegitimize Trump and the so-called "alt-right" and divert attention away from the truth about the real villains, such as Mueller himself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Diomedes, posted 10-31-2017 2:30 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 122 (822700)
10-31-2017 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ringo
10-31-2017 12:05 PM


Re: One reasonable leftist voice
The point of bringing down a bad President is to prevent him from doing greater damage.
Right. Such as by fulfilling the promises he made to those who voted him into office so that the views of his defeated opponents can prevail although they were voted out. Yup. That's the idea exactly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 10-31-2017 12:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 3:17 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2017 7:05 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 11-01-2017 3:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 122 (822701)
10-31-2017 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taq
10-31-2017 11:53 AM


Reporting the truth is not a conspiracy.
True, but fake news may well be a conspiracy. And that's the question here isn't it?
Has it ever crossed your mind that bad presidents get criticized by people in the press
But never before has the media nonstop attacked, vilified, and twisted facts about a President before this. The degree of negative "reporting" about Trump has far exceeded anything ever done by the media to any President before, and there was a big study done that proved this a while back. Harvard? Something like Harvard anyway. It showed some huge percentage of Trump reports to be negative.. I didn't need that study to know that, but perhaps some here could make use of the information. Naa, it would just reflect the fact that Trump is the worst President ever and the media are just being fair, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 11:53 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 3:19 PM Faith has replied
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2017 7:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 26 of 122 (822704)
10-31-2017 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
10-31-2017 3:06 PM


I noticed that "content partner" line but wow, what a strange result to get actual content from your partner that would never otherwise see the light of day under your label, laden with disclaimers of course, but out there where someone might actually think there could be something to it. Wow. To me it's sort of a miracle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 3:06 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 3:43 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 122 (822705)
10-31-2017 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taq
10-31-2017 3:19 PM


Fox News? ONE anti-President channel is NOTHING to the total anti-Trump blackout blitz of all the automatically public media. And now Fox is mostly one of the anti-Trump chorus anyway.
The question is why it hasn't occurred to YOU and many others here that you're actually getting fake news and not the truth. THAT is the real question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 3:19 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 3:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 10-31-2017 3:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 29 of 122 (822707)
10-31-2017 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taq
10-31-2017 3:32 PM


They are NOT just "criticizing" the President. They are turning every little bit of factual trivia into an excuse to make him look bad, they are twisting the "news" for that purpose, they are inventing fake news, they are lying. Somebody in government or the public somewhere will give an extreme negative opinion of something Trump did and the media will pick it up and "report" it as if it's the truth. The CBS "news" I heard a few mornings ago was almost totally made up of such fake "news."
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 3:32 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 5:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 122 (822711)
10-31-2017 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Modulous
10-31-2017 3:43 PM


Hooray for greed then, it allowed the truth to slip under the censorship radar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 3:43 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 4:23 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 122 (822718)
10-31-2017 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
10-31-2017 4:23 PM


In this case IMO a very rare eruption of the truth occurred in the midst of leftist propaganda and since greed motivates having a "content partner" of course it's fair to say greed in this case is the cause.
Of course I know an opinion piece isn't news, but these days when the news mostly IS opinion masquerading as news the lines are blurred anyway. We get very very little objective reporting of facts these days. And the Flaherty piece happens to include a lot of information that never gets a hearing in today's atmosphere, so it is actually functioning as a purveyor of news.
If nothing else comes out of this thread, the fact that there is such an enormous divide in this country as to facts as well as opinions should be made only too clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 4:23 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 5:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 7:12 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 122 (822727)
10-31-2017 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Taq
10-31-2017 5:38 PM


Funny how leftists never suspect that some facts have been arranged to support the leftist narrative. Of course there are elements of truth involved, no good conspiracy could do without them. Read the OP again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 5:38 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 11-01-2017 11:06 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 43 of 122 (822733)
10-31-2017 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
10-31-2017 7:12 PM


It's not the source, it's the content
I've never thought of MSN as being a particularly 'leftist' place. Are you thinking instead of MSNBC? One is owned by Microsoft, the other by Comcast via NBCUniversal. Microsoft used to be a major investor and strategic partner of MSNBC (hence the name) - owning a 50% share but they divested their interest in the channel in 2005 and the website in 2012.
I'm not much interested in identifying just how leftist MSN is, the point here is that I've never ever before seen the kind of content in the OP given that kind of public platform, by MSN or Yahoo or any of the outfront media outlets. It hit me smack in the face as unprecedented. I could hardly believe my eyes: indicting Manafort proves Mueller is a fraud!! Wow!! Political labels aren't the point, we just don't see this kind of stuff unless we go looking for it.
What we get instead is a steady diet of circumstantial facts designed to give the false impression that Mueller is hot on the trail of Trump as a colluder with the Russians, when in fact the indictments themselves are actually unrelated to any such possibility except in the spin versions of the media. Unfortunately I get numb to the daily dose, hourly dose, nonstop inundation with, this stuff. I'm not good at keeping track of such stuff either, it's too depressing, it's too much stress for my fragile aging constitution, I just wish it would go away.
As Flaherty says, Hillary was the colluder with the Russians, not Trump, and all kinds of political machinations over the last year have been designed to cover that up and plaster Trump with the guilt. People who don't like Trump or his politics just eat it up. Then we also get the insinuating headlines about such things as how Trump is "fuming" upstairs in the White House over these indictments, implying it's because he's guilty and on the verge of being found out, when if "fuming" is at all descriptive of his actual behavior, that would describe a falsely accused innocent just as well. If he loudly shouts something to claim his innocence, that's spun into an admission of guilt, etc. etc.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 7:12 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024