The Right Side of the News

Can't face the truth as usual.The current three investigations into how the FBI probe started cannot change anything in the report or produce their own report on the results of the Mueller investigation. That's outside their scope.

That is a personal attack and you should be suspended for it. Tired of putting up with those personal little jabs.

Fair warning: I'm an official old person.I lost interest in Saturday Night Live after the original not-quite-ready-for-prime-time crew had left. Mostly because the first subsequent show with a new crew felt flat for me.Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin did a news bit called "Point-Counterpoint", in which Dan would address Jane with, "Jane, you ignorant slut!"Sorry, Faith, but given your long history of outright idiocy, that is my only possible response to you.Here's an analogy in digital electronics, something that I was trained in starting in 1977 and worked with professionally until 2018.All digital electronics operate in binary, full on/full off, 1 or zero. That is the very basis of all computer electronics. Binary.By analogy, your theology and politics and complete world-view is binary, black-white, either-or.But there is a third state in electronics, the tri-state: an output could either drive to zero or to one, or disconnect from the circuit.By analogy, in order to align itself at all with reality, your world view should accept black and white and gray. In the verbiage here: the three states would be collusion, no collusion, possible collusion (the gray).To demonstrate the illogic of what you are about to espouse, consider television. In your own personal black-or-white world-view, analog TV could not have ever possibly started. WARNING: as a USAF electronics geek, I did read through a book of the entire theory of how color TV worked back in the analog days, so you are vastly out-matched.

The personal attacks are against the rules and speaking of old, are getting very old. I think you should be suspended for them. Try sticking to the topic.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The report does indicate no collusion could be determined but to say that "Trump was more open and transparent than any other President" is just silly. For starters, he's the only president who never released his taxes which, lets be honest, is because his transparency in that regard would have vilified him. Today, supposedly is the first day he released that... after four years. And what is known about his financials is that he's been in the red for DECADES, essentially financing the way the China finances itself in an enormous debt bubble through real estate ventures. He's declared bankruptcy at least 3 times.So on top of being about as transparent as a wall of 6-ft thick lead, he's also a terrible businessman.He's also not a Christian... or a Republic for that matter! Never has been, until it serves his purpose.You have been duped to think a man like him could ever truly care about anything besides himself, never mind a God or the common people. That's the part that I don't understand when it comes to Christians voting for him. I don't think there's a more transparent and OBVIOUS wolf in sheep's clothing than Donald Trump. How can honestly not see that? It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for Donald J Trump to be beholden to anything outside of his own malignant narcissism. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

No chance you ever listen to the conservative talk shows, right?

Listen to the overtly lying Fake News Network?Are you fucking kidding?

On occasion. Your premise?

Uh, WHAT THE FRACKING FRIGGING FUCK???????????????Are you really that terminally brain-dead?In Message 1953, I point out that even in binary digital circuitry, there is also a third alternative in the tri-state circuits. And yet You, the Prophetesse from Nevada, wants to proclaim it to be something different.

here's a hypothetical: a man is murdered in his house. there is video evidence of me entering his house and leaving around the time of death as established by the ME. Aside from the video the police have no other evidence which would implicate me as the culprit.Given this situation, which is the more accurate statement:
1: there is no evidence that I committed a murder
2: there isn't enough evidence to charge me with a murder.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Then respond to the substance. What evidence do you have that "did not establish collusion" means "established there was no collusion". Are you saying that it's impossible to not reach a conclusion? Or what?Of course I predict you won't produce any substantive response.It's a fact that you can't face the truth. All you can do is regurgitate right-wing hallucinations. Over and over and over again, the same.It's also a fact that this is your standard behavior. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Actually the browser I use has a wide-ranging news aggregator. I see lots of right wing articles from Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, The Federalist Papers, Townhall,...I am often intrigued by their headlines (usually WTF?). When I open the article I can quickly find the lies or significant omissions around 90%of the time.

The Latest: Judge orders parts of Mueller report unredacted

quote:

---

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the limited order Thursday. Portions of the report relating to Flynn are redacted and would be made public under the order.

​

It is the first time a federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to make public portions of the report the agency had kept secret.

---

ABE BREAKING: Flynn Told Mueller People Tied to Trump and Congress Tried to Obstruct Investigation

quote:

---

The reporting from NBC News’ Tom Winter is based off a newly un-redacted sentencing memo.

​

The memo stated that Trump’s former national security adviser “informed the government of multiple instances both before and after his guilty plea, where either he or his attorneys received communications from persons connected to the administration or Congress that could have affected both his willingness to cooperate and the completeness of that cooperation.”

​

According to the unsealed documents, Flynn also apparently provided a voicemail of one of those efforts:

---

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Let's play spot the lies! BREAKING: Judge Orders Portions of Mueller Report Unredacted - Then Released to Public

quote:

---

As expected, Mueller and the media spun a voicemail President Trump’s personal counsel left for Flynn as a possible effort to obstruct the General’s cooperation with the special counsel.

​

General Flynn’s late 2016 phone calls to Kislyak were unmasked then illegally leaked to the Washington Post ” Flynn was then ambushed by two FBI agents, Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka without his lawyers present and he was ultimately fired from his job as NatSec Advisor.

​

Mueller and his team of angry Democrat thugs charged Flynn with making a false statement to the feds even though Flynn didn’t lie.

​

It is also widely believed that there was a FISA warrant on General Flynn ” the president should issue Flynn a full pardon and prosecute every corrupt official who illegally targeted Flynn for ruin.

​

Flynn is still awaiting sentencing after being harassed by Mueller and Obama’s corrupt officials for the past several years.

---

I'll start.

• He hasn't heard the voicemail, and presenting his assumption that it's innocuous as fact he's lying by omission.
• Flynn is a sufficiently smart adult to decide whether or not he wants a lawyer. Nevertheless, throughout he knew the consequences of lying to the FBI, and many of his lies were with his lawyer present (see below)
• "Ambushed" does not relate to what happened in any way. He was interviewed in a mutually agreeable setting.
• Mueller is, of course, a Republican and many on his team are Republicans or independents or have no affiliation.
• Flynn lied his ass off.
• There is no evidence that anyone "illegally targeted Flynn for ruin".
• There is no evidence of corruption in the Mueller probe, and there is no evidence of any relevant corruption in the Obama administration.

Any more?

---

From Mueller's reply to Flynn's sentencing memo at GOVERNMENT’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING

quote:

---

A sitting National Security Advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired Lieutenant General, and 33-year veteran of the armed forces knows he should not lie to federal agents. He does not need to be warned it is a crime to lie to federal agents to know the importance of telling them the truth. The defendant undoubtedly was aware, in light of his “many years” working with the FBI, that lying to the FBI carries serious consequences. See Def. Sent Mem. at 8. He, unlike Van der Zwaan and Papadapoulous, was a senior national security official with extensive federal government experience, had led an intelligence agency, had worked with the FBI, and was steeped in the importance of accurate information to decision making in areas of national security.

​

The defendant agreed to meet with the FBI agents, without counsel, and answer their questions. His obligation to provide truthful information came with that agreement; it did not turn on the presence of counsel. Moreover, as the defendant has admitted, weeks after the January 24 interview, he made materially false statements in filings he provided to another branch of the Department of Justice pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”). See Statement of Offense at 5, United States v. Flynn, No. 17-cr-232 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2017) (Doc. 4). The defendant made those false statements while represented by counsel and after receiving an explicit warning that providing false information was a federal offense. See, e.g., FARA Registration No. 6406, Flynn Intel Group (March 7, 2017), available at https://efile.fara.gov/...istration-Statement-20170307-1.pdf. The defendant was equally responsible for telling the truth to both Department of Justice entities, and under both circumstances he chose to make false statements.

​

Finally, the interviewing agents did not observe indicia of deception and had the impression at that time that the defendant was not lying or did not think he was lying. See Strzok 302 at 4. Members of the Presidential Transition Team were likewise misled by the defendant’s false denials. Those misimpressions do not change the fact”as the defendant has admitted in sworn testimony to this District Court”that he was indeed lying, and knowingly made false statements to FBI agents in a national security investigation. Those false statements were material, including by raising the question of why he was lying to the FBI, the Vice President, and others.

---

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

When people are searching for a missing child, "We didn't find her yet," does not mean she never existed.