Random Politics & Religion #23 (Fake News)

Sauce

Said openly scheduled meeting only allowed Russian press.

Also, humanitarian reasons? Russia, who is currently rounding up gays for imprisonment and execution, is totally concerned about their humanitarian game.

He has his people come out and make a statement. Then he turns around and contradicts the statement.



Best part: He'll still blame his communications team.

1) the guy was murdered.
2) he was in contact with Wikileaks when he was murdered.
3) that was not known at the time of his death.

You don't think it warrants another look given he might have been the one leaking Hillary's emails to Wikileaks instead of some phantom Russian agent that libs want to believe Trump had a connection to?

Color me shocked!

His statement does not contradict theirs.

Trump eats Pizza crust first...impeachment imminent !

Also the guy at Washington Post that knows Trump leaked classified information shouldn't he be the FBI director... I mean he knows everything.

It isn't because Jezz Bezos bozo clown from Amazon and his flunkies don't like Trump...no they are just telling the truth.

He also eats chicken with a knife and fork.

I don't think you realize why they wouldn't be able to give up their sources. You are right, they could be absolutely bullshitting but you also need to keep in mind that they need to protect their sources because if they don't they will lose them. Whoever told them may have wife, kids and most likely wants to keep his job. You really can't be that narrow minded can you?

Their freedom, because leaking top secret and classified information to anyone, including the press, carries a felony charge up to 20 years in prison.

But Savael is right. If they (MSM and the investigators) really had evidence of collusion, they would have released it already. It also doesn't help matters that WP and Vox (to name a few) has articles telling people how to break the law. Which, of itself, is illegal, but they get a pass because hey,

Not exactly sure what you are saying. So if our government is doing things that aren't for the american people we should just shut up and let them do it? That doesn't sound very patriotic.

Also I'm not 100% sure that an operative saying "Trump shared secret intel with the Ruassians" would be considered classified.

And Savael is incorrect as well. They wouldn't have if their only source of information is from a person whose identity they cannot disclose. They will lose all credibility if they risk the anonymity of one of their sources.

Now if they had documents or recordings then they would release them.


This is all moot because Trump doubled down on him sharing secrets with the Russians.

Also did we really just say that we should trust the government over the media?

Especially in a situation like this, are you really going to believe what McMaster says? Couldn't he just say whatever to prevent a disaster?

We should trust trump 10000x more than the democrat-media complex.

I don't trust the government I trust FFXIAH

Naw, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Sure, if Trump is harnessing Nixon's ghost, then appropriate measures should be taken. And, unless Russia changed everyone's vote from Clinton to Trump, whatever the results of this "investigation" is, it's practically meaningless. Same concept would go on the Obama Administration too, where there's 10 times more evidence of illegal activity going on there.

Arrest the appropriate people, and let's moveon.org

If it is true. Making ***up just to stir the pot should be illegal on itself. That's why we have libel laws.

I mean, when we have the people these "sources" claim is doing X, but those very people say otherwise, that should open up some libel lawsuits right there.

Obviously you don't understand his point. MSM is using the illusion/scapegoat of "unidentified sources" as a way to spread lies and deceit towards the general public.

Let me put it to you this way: I say that you robbed a bank of $100k last night. I say that this information comes from a source not wishing to be identified. By your own argument, you did rob the bank because of the unidentified source stated so.

Wait, you say that's not true? Then don't make statements like this:


You already found Trump guilty of collusion, where the only evidence provided to you was an unverified, unidentified source from a media outlet known for making ***up against Trump. Or should I pull up the "Trump's nukes" argument again?

I don't trust either.

But during this time of TDS, I would take McMaster's word over WP.

Once Washington Post gives me a reason to take them serious I'll be sure to let you know. This is the same newspaper that reported on a woman raising her cat gender neutral....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/04/05/dont-laugh-i-have-a-serious-reason-for-raising-my-cats-gender-neutral/?utm_term=.481bec04819e

I'm happy to report that my cat is a vegan and only eats organic cat food !

McMaster is one of the few people in government with an actual record of credibility. I would also take his word over WaPo any day, any time, any situation.

You see we can hide mental illness when everyone believes the same damn thing.

Just talk to any vegan and you aren't sure if they eat vegetables or are part of a cult worshiping their own narcissism....

Looks like your judgement on who is credible may have failed you.

McMaster and Tillerson are looking to keep their jobs as well, which means they have no reason to tell the truth if it goes against the president. I respect Tillerson but I also respect his ability to make say the right thing to protect his hide.

Obviously the president acted within his means, there is no denying that. But the volatility of his actions are concerning.


This is a dumb analogy and you know it. Say you are working at your office and you have information that your boss is stealing funds from the safe. You report this to corporate. Do you want corporate to mention your name when confronting your boss? Or do you want to remain anonymous to prevent any backslash?



Have I found him guilty? Or do I just simply accept that there is a possibility and want to see that possibility fully investigated? Maybe you should go back and read all my posts without your Trump glasses on.

/yawn. That doesn't negate what McMaster said.

Nobody is saying that there's no reason for anonymous sources to remain anonymous. It's just way, way too easy to lie and say that an anonymous source told you. When it comes to media reporting based entirely on anonymous sources, anonymous source = no proof.

The story was that Trump shared "highly classified" stuff with the Russians that our other allies hadn't even seen yet.

Trump can claim to share facts with them AND McMaster can also claim that highly classified intel wasn't given, and both can be right!

Seth Rich sent 40000 emails to Wikileaks.

Democrats clearly had him killed because of it.

Investigation when?

Wait, did you just say that you trust sources that neither are named nor even showing to exist over those who are being accused of sharing "secrets" to Russian Ambassadors?

Well, you having been saying it for a while now. I wouldn't be surprised if you started sounding off the impeachment horn too.

A) There are whistleblower laws to protect me from telling (in this hypothetical example) my boss to his immediate boss that he was stealing.
B) Almost all companies have open door policies that allow this reporting to occur. It is also in the best interest for such reporting to occur for the business, as theft is harmful regardless of who is committing it (be in middle or upper management, or even the peons on the bottom).
C) Your example is flawed, as I have to name myself to the corporate office anyway explaining what I saw and when I saw it. I already named my source....me.
D) When I do tell my boss's boss what's going on, an investigation happens. They don't take action until the investigation is finished. Unlike this reporting from WP.

There's a difference between your example and mine. I stated this in a public manner, where your example is stated in a private manner. I reported you of robbing a bank using an anonymous source whereas you say that I go to corporate office to report a theft to upper management (or at least, a higher rung on the corporate ladder). Not exactly anonymous.

Yes, you did when you stated this:


That's not a rhetorical statement. You already passed judgement on Trump in the "crime" of sharing confidential information (aka secrets) to Russia. It's not that hard to digest.

You need to take off your Anti-Trump glasses first. And also see that I'm neither defending nor accusing Trump of anything. Well, other than running a slightly better campaign than Clinton.

And the kicker in all of this? Even in the worst case scenario, Trump did nothing illegal.