The propaganda arm, also known as MSM has gotten a lot of things wrong. lets count them.

[Rawley]

Not interested in the IG report. How is the jurisdiction broken up? Park Police/Secret Service/MPD? This report doesn’t wash.

As Trump sees the streets being cleared, he decides that this is a good time to walk over and hoist the Bible?

If your mind is made up, why did you even bother me asking for a source. The report explains the jurisdictional issue, the timeline and why and how the decision was made. But it seems you can't be bother with facts.

 

[Rexedgar]

If you believe that the clearing and the hoisting are not related, I can’t help you. The Interior Department is only on part of the equation, Trump appointee, notwithstanding……

 

[Rawley]

If you believe that the clearing and the hoisting are not related, I can’t help you. The Interior Department is only on part of the equation, Trump appointee, notwithstanding……

If your derangement is that far gone, can't help you either.

The news breathlessly televises violent protesters attempt to burn down the Church literally across the street from the White House, and televises the rioters violently attack the Park Police. And you find it odd that the Park police would move back the perimeter and the the President would have a photo op to show that they were in control, not the protestors.

 

[Rexedgar]

If your derangement is that far gone, can't help you either.

The news breathlessly televises violent protesters attempt to burn down the Church literally across the street from the White House, and televises the rioters violently attack the Park Police. And you find it odd that the Park police would move back the perimeter and the the President would have a photo op to show that they were in control, not the protestors.

Have a nice life………

 

[Rawley]

Have a nice life………

Back atcha

 

[trouble13]

1. lafayette park
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-clear-lafayette-park-area-trump-hold-bible/story?id=78171712

2. Russian bounties
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...as-apparently-fake-news-all-along/ar-BB1fGUwy
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-bounty-story-falls-apart-192123174.html

3. covid origins /wuhan lab - we've all heard about this one.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/damning-science-shows-covid-19-likely-engineered-in-lab-experts

4. vaccines by 2020 - he was correct
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-coronavirus-vaccine-074712144.html

5. hunter Biden - is under investigation
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/hunter-biden-tax-investigtation/index.html


anyone want to add more?

Kavanaugh
Coventon
Russuan Collusion
Insurection
Peaceful Protests
No evidence of election fraud
Hands up Dont shoot
Kids in cages

Honestly it would be far easier to list things they donr lie about.... NOTHING

 

[eohrnberger]

I offer up these for consideration:

Alot of it is fake news. A few examples:

Feb. 2008: NY TImes published an article claiming John McCain had a sexual relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The story's claim relied only on anonymous sources, lacking physical evidence and details. The Times' ombudsman at the time, Clark Hoyt, criticized the article.

Oct. 2008: A WaPo article titled "Exclusive: Verizon and AT&T Provided Cell Towers for McCain Ranch" claimed that the McCains requested a cell tower installed on their ranch in Arizona & that it was somehow criminal. Politico found that the Secret Service made the request & that it was a temporary cell tower to assist in their protection assignment of the McCains.

Dec. 2017: CNN claimed Trump's 2016 Prez campaign was sent Wikileaks info before it went public. CNN later acknowledged Trump's campaign received the info AFTER it became public (and only after the Washington Post proved CNN was wrong).

Aug. 2020: MSNBC's Joy Reid asked why Senator John Kennedy was in Russia in 2018 & "whether he divulged any secrets to any Russian official that could jeopardise American national security." A simple internet search would've told her he was there as part of a Congressional delegation to protest Russian interference in U.S. elections & to leave Ukraine.

Feb. 2021: HuffPost reporter Matt Fuller claimed on Feb. 17th that Idaho House Rep. Russ Fulcher was under investigation for having (as witnessed by Fuller) "very aggressively brush a female officer aside after he set the magnetometer" on Jan. 12th at the Capitol. The Capitol Police debunked this, saying "there is no current investigation into an alleged or rumored incident...involving Congressman Fulcher".

April 2021: The CBS/DeSantis 60 Minutes debacle

​

Latest New York Times story to crumble follows long history of journalism failures

Ashley Rindsberg, author of "The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times' Misreporting, Fabrications and Distortions Radically Alter History," explains the cause of the Times' decades of misreporting.

justthenews.com

On Thursday, the leaders of President Biden's intelligence agencies declared they held little confidence in a New York Times' story from last June that claimed Russia put bounties on American troops in Afghanistan.​

​

It was the latest setback for the famous newspaper, which has seen its reporting on the now-debunked Russia collusion scandal be eviscerated by the FBI and its hit podcast series Caliphate retracted.​

​

Ashley Rindsberg, author of "The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times' Misreporting, Fabrications and Distortions Radically Alter History," said Thursday's setback follows a decades-long pattern of journalism failures. He questioned what the Times will do next with the Afghanistan fallout.​

​

"Now what is the Times going to do? Are they going to print a retraction, a correction? Are they going to apologize? Are they going to do the kind of reporting that will get as much coverage and profile as the original story? And my guess is that they won't, and I say that from looking at past experiences," Rindsberg told the John Solomon Reports podcast.​

​

 

[eohrnberger]

And also:

​

Project Veritas Wins Early Round In Defamation Lawsuit Against New York Times​

MARCH 22, 2021 By Mollie Hemingway​

Project Veritas Wins In Defamation Lawsuit Against New York Times

A New York judge criticized The New York Times for blurring lines between news and opinion in its news articles as he considered a defamation claim.

thefederalist.com

​

A New York judge slammed The New York Times for blurring the lines between news and opinion. The paper had attempted to get a defamation lawsuit against it dismissed on the grounds that, among other things, its reporters were just expressing their personal opinions when they disparaged the investigative journalists at Project Veritas.​

​

The judge ruled the lawsuit can go forward, finding that Project Veritas showed sufficient evidence that The New York Times may have been motivated by “actual malice” and acted with “reckless disregard” when it ran several articles against the investigative journalism outfit.​

​

“f a writer interjects an opinion in a news article (and will seek to claim legal protections as opinion) it stands to reason that the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader, including a court that may need to determine whether it is factor opinion, that it is opinion,” Judge Charles Wood of the New York State Supreme Court said in his March 18, 2021 ruling.​

​

And yet further:

​

Promulgating lies is what? Journalistic integrity now?​

• • CNN’s Marshall Cohen
  • Defense One’s Patrick Tucker
  • MSNBC host Chris Hayes
  • NBC News colleague Ben Collins, who — ironically — works in what the network calls the “disinformation unit,”
  • HuffPost’s S.V. Daté, the White House correspondent

Do you see how they behave? Take a look. Prior to the election, out of desperation to ensure that Biden won, they censored and maligned this reporting by mindlessly endorsing an assertion from life-long CIA operatives that never had any evidence: ignore these documents; they are Russian disinformation. They not only invoked that claim to justify ignoring the story but also to successfully agitate for its censorship by Twitter and Facebook. So they spent weeks spreading an utter lie in order to help the candidate that they favored win the election. Remember, these are journalists doing that.​

Then, yesterday, the intelligence community issued a report that does not even purport to contain any evidence: just assertions. And they all jumped to treat it as gospel: no questioning of it, no skepticism, no demands to see evidence for it, not even any notation that no evidence was provided. They just instantly enshrined claims from the CIA and NSA as Truth. How can you possibly be a journalist with even minimal knowledge of what these agencies do and look in the mirror as you do this?​

But so much worse, in this case, they just outright lied about what the report said — just fabricated assertions that the report did not even allude to, in order to declare their lies from last October to be vindicated. Even if this report had asserted that the Hunter Biden laptop materials were manufactured by the Kremlin, that would prove nothing. Evidence-free assertions from the U.S. intelligence community merit skepticism, not blind faith — especially from people calling themselves journalists.​

But the report did not even claim that. And when some of them realized this, they did virtually nothing to rectify the severe disinformation they had spent the day spreading. These are the people who claim to be so profoundly opposed to conspiracy theories and devoted to combating “disinformation”; as usual, they are the ones who spread disinformation most recklessly and frequently.​

Journalists, Illustrating How They Operate, Yesterday Spread a Significant Lie All Over Twitter​

Eager to obtain vindication for the pre-election falsehood they spread about the Hunter Biden story, journalists falsely claim that the CIA blamed Russia for it.​

Glenn Greenwald Mar 17​

Journalists, Illustrating How They Operate, Yesterday Spread a Significant Lie All Over Twitter

Eager to obtain vindication for the pre-election falsehood they spread about the Hunter Biden story, journalists falsely claim that the CIA blamed Russia for it.

greenwald.substack.com

​

​

 

[eohrnberger]

And also:

​

Bombshell Correction Sums Up the Political Media’s Corruption​

As long as liberal subscribers value partisan porn over accuracy, this woeful trend won’t change.​

By DAVID HARSANYI,March 16, 2021​

Bombshell Correction Sums Up the Political Media’s Corruption | National Review

As long as liberal subscribers value partisan porn over accuracy, this woeful trend won’t change.

www.nationalreview.com

​

Last week, the Wall Street Journal published a piece detailing a six-minute call — with audio — between then-president Donald Trump and the Georgia secretary of state’s chief investigator, Frances Watson. At the time, Watson was conducting a forensic audit of 2020 mail-in ballots in a few Georgia counties.​

​

This week, the Journal’s reporting precipitated the Washington Post to offer a correction to their initial story that went like so:​

​

Two months after publication of this story, the Georgia secretary of state released an audio recording of President Donald Trump’s December phone call with the state’s top elections investigator. The recording revealed that The Post misquoted Trump’s comments on the call, based on information provided by a source. Trump did not tell the investigator to “find the fraud” or say she would be “a national hero” if she did so. Instead, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize ballots in Fulton County, Ga., asserting she would find “dishonesty” there. He also told her that she had “the most important job in the country right now.” A story about the recording can be found here. The headline and text of this story have been corrected to remove quotes misattributed to Trump.​

​

There is, of course, a crucial difference between a president instructing an investigator to “find the fraud” so she can become “a national hero” and a president telling an investigator he believes she will find fraud if she looks. To contend that Trump was “misquoted” or that the quotes were “misattributed” is to critically understate the dishonesty in the original story. Indeed, it is fair to say that the quotes were fabricated by someone, not misattributed, and then they were published by every major news outlet in the country as a verified fact. Even the Post’s headline for its follow-up — “Recording reveals details of Trump call to Georgia’s chief elections investigator” — intimates that the tape merely helps in updating the initial reporting rather than completely decimating it.​

​

The single anonymous source used for the story seems to be Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, whose office was under pressure from the president at time. Fuchs still claims that the story accurately portrayed the spirit of the conversation that was relayed to him, maybe by Watson. The tape tells a different story.​

​

There is a fundamental truth known by any good journalist: If someone brings you a perfect story or a perfect quote, it is almost surely untrue. Skepticism makes for good journalism. It was up to the Post to vet these claims at the time, rather than push a story forward to help Democrats.​

​

The Trump-Watson story is just one of dozens of big scoops over the past six years that are wholly reliant on anonymous sourcing that has misshaped public perceptions for partisan purposes. It is clear that Trump-era newsroom culture had made journalists susceptible to — or often co-conspirators in — spreading deceptive and politically expedient stories. Throughout the Russia-collusion hysteria, major networks simply passed along every eye-popping scoop that was offered to them by Trump antagonists. Regurgitating rumors is not really journalism, but it did help hasten a long and wasteful independent investigation into the alleged Trump criminal conspiracy. The Bob Mueller investigation did hamper the Trump presidency, as intended, but it also did far more to debunk the work of political journalists than it did to uncover criminality.​

​

For Pete's sake! The list goes on and on and on!

Hard to consider these the actions of 'friends of the electorate' . . . with friends like these . . .

 

[Sandy Shanks]

anyone want to add more?

Judging from their posts, apparently a good many of Trump's followers are anarchists. What they got with Trump was more government intrusion, not less.

Trump considered the DOJ as his very own law firm consisting of lawyers who worked for him.

Those who voted for Trump thinking he would "drain the swamp" were disappointed. Trump lied. What they got with Trump was more government, not less.

CNN reports, "New revelations suggesting that the Trump administration abused Justice Department powers to target his political enemies underscore just how far the ex-President went to destroy cherished principles of American republican government.

"They show that the true extent of assaults on democracy by Donald Trump are still coming to light and are probably even now not fully known.

"But this is not just a drama about the alleged misbehavior of a former President. Taken together with the Republican Party's refusal to hold Trump accountable. Trump remains the GOP's dominant figure.

"In some of the most chilling exposés yet of Trump's autocratic tendencies, The New York Times late Thursday unveiled a secret scheme by prosecutors against members of Congress conducting presidential oversight.

"In pursuit of leaks of classified information about contacts between Trump associates and Russia, the Justice Department subpoenaed Apple for data from the accounts of Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, their staff and even their families, including a minor. In a sinister twist to the story, prosecutors also secured a gag order against Apple, preventing it from informing customers their metadata had been seized."

The forum's Republicans along with Republicans in Congress will say nothing about this egregious act. They deal with reality by avoiding it.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

In some of the most chilling exposés yet of Trump's autocratic tendencies, The New York Times late Thursday unveiled a secret scheme by prosecutors against members of Congress conducting presidential oversight.

Trump used the DOJ to attack the free press. Will this concern Trump's followers? Hell, no. They avoid unpleasant realities such as this. They prefer ignorance. They don't know, and they don't want to know. Don't expect to hear from any of them.

NBC reports, "The Justice Department confirmed Friday that it sought the phone records of three Washington Post reporters for calls they made during three months in 2017 while reporting on Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election.

"According to the Post, which was first to report the news, Post reporters Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller, along with Adam Entous, who no longer works for the paper, were notified in letters dated May 3 that the government sought court orders to access information on calls between April 15, 2017, and July 31, 2017."

 

[Sandy Shanks]

1. lafayette park
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-clear-lafayette-park-area-trump-hold-bible/story?id=78171712

2. Russian bounties
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...as-apparently-fake-news-all-along/ar-BB1fGUwy
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-bounty-story-falls-apart-192123174.html

3. covid origins /wuhan lab - we've all heard about this one.
https://www.foxnews.com/health/damning-science-shows-covid-19-likely-engineered-in-lab-experts

4. vaccines by 2020 - he was correct
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-coronavirus-vaccine-074712144.html

5. hunter Biden - is under investigation
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/hunter-biden-tax-investigtation/index.html

I deal in today's reality, not yesterday's trivia and lies.

A few days before Memorial Day, the Republican Party turned its back on those who fought and died for our country. The Republican Party turned its back on our Constitution and our proud traditions.

There was an assault on our government and Republicans do not want Americans to learn why.

Senate Republicans chose to defend the big lie because they believe anything that might upset Donald Trump could hurt them politically!

Politico reports, "Senate Republicans blocked a bill that would form an independent commission to probe the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the first filibuster of the year by the chamber's 50-vote minority.

"The 54-35 vote, with six Republicans breaking ranks to join every Democrat in favor, came after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lobbied his members forcefully against the House-passed commission measure."

McConnell asked wavering senators to block the bill as "a personal favor" to him.

Many cannot imagine anything more disgusting.

Nine Republican senators did not have the balls to vote on the procedural vote that would have advanced the Jan. 6 commission bill.

The Republican Party has disgraced itself beyond measure. We will hear nothing from Republicans on this forum concerning the dishonorable vote.

There is nothing they can say.

 

[Hypothetical]

Well...that's how correction works. To correct something, you first have to have gotten it wrong, and then do what you can to make it right.


Not in evidence. To prove this, you'd have to gather up all the stories about the Trump administration published by the MSM and show that they're all false...well, actually I suppose if you could show something like 80% of them false you'd have a good case for this claim.


I'm not sure what you're on about here. Russian collusion was proven correct. Rosenstein and Barr decided not to prosecute for the reason that the crime that would most likely underlie that collusion require a number of elements, all of which Trump and his advisors tried to commit, but were in cases too incompetent (or that was their official reasoning, anyway--I for one think that they'd probably have gotten a conviction). However, the major claim of the Russian collusion narrative--that the Trump campaign was working in concert with Russian government officials to win the 2016 Presidential election--is correct.

unbelievable someone still thinks this.

the Mueller report: (and I quote from the INTRODUCTION to volume 1, PAGE 2)

"... ,the investigation did NOT establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

I have read the damn thing and have a saved copy, so lets not try to rewrite the findings ok?

All of them. You made the claim that statistically, the MSM gets it wrong most of the time...but you only provided five dubious examples. So for you to be statistically correct, you would need to show how many stories the MSM gets right in order to make a valid claim on how much they get wrong. So if you claim that the MSM got five stories wrong then statistically all the other billions of stories must be right....unless of course, you can prove otherwise....which you can't. Your hesitancy to prove your claim suggests that you know the MSM gets it right more often than not.

Btw...if you're still butthurt over Trump....then you have TDS.

LOL and you think this is about Trump. you haven't presented a billion other stories, so unless you can do that I am 5 to zero, make that about 15 to zero with the others people have presented here.

major news stories... stories that influenced elections. time and again they got it wrong. propaganda is dangerous crap.

 

[ashurbanipal]

unbelievable someone still thinks this.

the Mueller report: (and I quote from the INTRODUCTION to volume 1, PAGE 2)

"... ,the investigation did NOT establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

I have read the damn thing and have a saved copy, so lets not try to rewrite the findings ok?

If you've read it, then you've surely read page 110 and following of volume 1, describing the Trump Tower meeting. The reason that meeting wasn't charged as a crime is because, as Mueller testified, he could not prove willfulness, which would require that the campaign officials in on it had the intent to break the law, and he couldn't prove that they knew what the law was. Nevertheless, it's clear that the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian officials for the purpose of receiving "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. As I said, I suspect the DOJ would have gotten a conviction at a jury trial, but Barr and Rosenstein (admittedly, on Mueller's recommendation) thought otherwise.

Since then, it's also come out that Manafort gave Konstantin Kilimnik internal voter data, presumably for the purpose of helping Russia coordinate their social media efforts. So yeah, the Trump campaign coordinated and cooperated with Russia.

The quote to which you refer in the intro to volume I merely says what I said in my previous post--that in the judgement of the prosecutors, they couldn't prove all the elements of a crime that would underlie cooperation (in this instance, conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws). That does not mean that the Trump campaign didn't work with Russia. They did; there's evidence they did, and no doubt had not so many Trump officials not obstructed the investigation, more evidence would have been found. As the Mueller report also details, there were numerous links between the Trump campaign and Russia, about which (when you dig into the details of the report) those campaign officials memories' got conveniently fuzzy and vague.

 

[Hypothetical]

If you've read it, then you've surely read page 110 and following of volume 1, describing the Trump Tower meeting. The reason that meeting wasn't charged as a crime is because, as Mueller testified, he could not prove willfulness, which would require that the campaign officials in on it had the intent to break the law, and he couldn't prove that they knew what the law was. Nevertheless, it's clear that the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian officials for the purpose of receiving "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. As I said, I suspect the DOJ would have gotten a conviction at a jury trial, but Barr and Rosenstein (admittedly, on Mueller's recommendation) thought otherwise.

Since then, it's also come out that Manafort gave Konstantin Kilimnik internal voter data, presumably for the purpose of helping Russia coordinate their social media efforts. So yeah, the Trump campaign coordinated and cooperated with Russia.

The quote to which you refer in the intro to volume I merely says what I said in my previous post--that in the judgement of the prosecutors, they couldn't prove all the elements of a crime that would underlie cooperation (in this instance, conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws). That does not mean that the Trump campaign didn't work with Russia. They did; there's evidence they did, and no doubt had not so many Trump officials not obstructed the investigation, more evidence would have been found. As the Mueller report also details, there were numerous links between the Trump campaign and Russia, about which (when you dig into the details of the report) those campaign officials memories' got conveniently fuzzy and vague.

WOW, what a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

well if he couldn't prove "willfulness" then as he says in summary, he could not prove there was coordination or conspiracy. if you can;t PROVE a crime then there is no crime.

so no , Trump did not coordinate with Russia. you can write pages of your opinions about what he said all you want, but at the end of the day, the report states what I quoted.

 

[ashurbanipal]

WOW, what a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

well if he couldn't prove "willfulness" then as he says in summary, he could not prove there was coordination or conspiracy. if you can;t PROVE a crime then there is no crime.

so no , Trump did not coordinate with Russia. you can write pages of your opinions about what he said all you want, but at the end of the day, the report states what I quoted.

I am not claiming there is a crime--only that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Collusion itself is not a crime--neither is cooperation. Trump's campaign officials escaped prosecution in part due to technicalities in the relevant laws, and in part because they were just too incompetent to execute a conspiracy as the law is currently written. I doubt lawmakers ever contemplated the notion that a national campaign would do what Trump's campaign did. However, what the Mueller report describes fits the definition of what the MSM were reporting--which is the relevant point for the purpose of this thread. The MSM didn't get it wrong. Unless you've got some links where multiple mainstream media news agencies were reporting that the Trump campaign actually committed a crime through collusion. Do you have such links?

 

[Hypothetical]

I am not claiming there is a crime--only that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Collusion itself is not a crime--neither is cooperation. Trump's campaign officials escaped prosecution in part due to technicalities in the relevant laws, and in part because they were just too incompetent to execute a conspiracy as the law is currently written. I doubt lawmakers ever contemplated the notion that a national campaign would do what Trump's campaign did. However, what the Mueller report describes fits the definition of what the MSM were reporting--which is the relevant point for the purpose of this thread. The MSM didn't get it wrong. Unless you've got some links where multiple mainstream media news agencies were reporting that the Trump campaign actually committed a crime through collusion. Do you have such links?

collusion is never actually mentioned in the mueller report. its a non issue, it has no actual meaning in the given context, defined that way to allow one to cast a bad light on ANY form of communication with the Russians at all by that administration.

on the other hand, conspiracy and coordination are. if there was no conspiracy or coordination , which together cover any wrong doing that could have gone on, there was no issue with them talking to the Russians.

Muller stated the investigation could not find ant conspiracy or coordination with the Russians, end of story.

 

[Dittohead not!]

"No collusion" has been the Trump mantra all along. The facts are: Russia interfered in the 2016 election. That interference helped Trump win. Trump chose to believe Putin over our own intelligence agencies when Putin said Russia didn't do it.

The Russia connection is a great stinking pile of horse hockey whether the Trump campaign actively colluded with that nation or not.

 

[ashurbanipal]

collusion is never actually mentioned in the mueller report. its a non issue, it has no actual meaning in the given context,

What do you mean it has no meaning in the given context? The context is the MSM communicating with the general public. The specific charge leveled by the MSM was collusion with Russia to win the election against Hillary Clinton.

defined that way to allow one to cast a bad light on ANY form of communication with the Russians at all by that administration.

No, it would not. Only communication intended to coordinate efforts to win the 2016 election (where any such effort is illegal on Russia's side).

on the other hand, conspiracy and coordination are. if there was no conspiracy or coordination , which together cover any wrong doing that could have gone on, there was no issue with them talking to the Russians.

No, they do not together cover any possible wrongdoing that could have gone on. The law is not perfect. It's not written to cover every contingency. People come up with new ways to be unduly nasty on an almost daily basis. The law has to catch up.

Muller stated the investigation could not find ant conspiracy or coordination with the Russians, end of story.

All of what you've said above, including this, misses the point anyway. The MSM claimed that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. Your claim is that they were wrong. But, they weren't wrong--that is exactly what happened.

 

[Hypothetical]

What do you mean it has no meaning in the given context? The context is the MSM communicating with the general public. The specific charge leveled by the MSM was collusion with Russia to win the election against Hillary Clinton.


No, it would not. Only communication intended to coordinate efforts to win the 2016 election (where any such effort is illegal on Russia's side).


No, they do not together cover any possible wrongdoing that could have gone on. The law is not perfect. It's not written to cover every contingency. People come up with new ways to be unduly nasty on an almost daily basis. The law has to catch up.


All of what you've said above, including this, misses the point anyway. The MSM claimed that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. Your claim is that they were wrong. But, they weren't wrong--that is exactly what happened.

1. as we have seen , the MSM is stupid. I rarely frame an issue based on what the idiots at the MSM think, for good reason. Mueller stated there was no conspiracy or coordination, that covers everything I can think of., done.
2. obviously , it was either used as a tool to allow them to criticize when "Collusion" had nothing to do with the charges, or they are ****ing idiots and can't read. you decide.
3. conspiracy and coordination... what does that not cover exactly?
4. LOL how the hell does it miss the point when it is EXACTLY what Mueller wrote?

your argument smacks of "well they said he didn't but I KNOW he did something wrong! "

 

[CaughtInThe]

when the OP started a thread because he was so concerned with lies that came from our ex-president i didn't participate.


because it's imaginary.

 

[bongsaway]

"“He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

I don't think you are qualified to discuss the truthfulness of anything.

My oh my how quickly their selective amnesia kicks in.

 

[bongsaway]

The Russian bounty story was NEVER properly sources, and was never legitimate.

Otherwise, you're response is that you do not care that you were fed, and swallowed whole, a bunch of lies.

Coming from a person who swallowed over twenty thousand lies.

 

[eohrnberger]

Even more for consideration.

• the oldest and biggest: Trump colluded with Russia to win in 2016 and might be a Russian agent. That scam involved crooked FBI agents and led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who took two years to conclude there was no evidence to back the charge.
• the “Muslim ban” that wasn’t?
• the mantra that the 2017 tax cuts were only for the “rich” despite studies showing 80 percent of the population benefitted?
• the hottest story going, with Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rushing to the border with photogenic outrage. They vanished when it was revealed the Obama-Biden administration built the cages and the heart-wrenching photos were from 2014.
• the Ukraine impeachment of Trump, a creative fiction based on a complaint from an anonymous member of the swamp who never testified. But others did to say the president, in trying to get information on Biden family corruption in Ukraine, was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
• Take Hunter Biden’s laptop, which is No. 6 on my Top Ten, although it rivals Russia, Russia, Russia in importance. When The Post first showed how the contents revealed his shady foreign business deals and how his father helped him, it was not unreasonable for the Times, Washington Post and others to hold off until they could confirm the explosive information late in the campaign.
• The final proof that media caution had morphed into coverup came when Tony Bobulinski emerged. A former partner of Hunter and Jim Biden, Joe’s brother, in a joint venture with a Chinese energy conglomerate, Bobulinski authenticated the critical e-mails because he had received them as CEO of the venture.
  He also solved a riddle by saying the “big guy” slated to get a secret 10 percent stake was Joe Biden. Bobulinski told me he met with him in early 2017 and said Joe knew everything about the plan to introduce American mayors and governors to Chinese officials so the Chinese could buy US infrastructure.
  All this was public information because of The Post, Fox News and a few others, yet most media cast doubts on the revelations. They were especially loathe to report anything supporting Joe Biden’s role, even though Bobulinski gave all his evidence to the FBI.
  That cone of silence goes well beyond bias. That is Lie No. 7.
• Finally, the 10th lie remains active, so the truth has not fully emerged.
  The subject is ballot integrity, which the left demonizes as improper voter suppression. Joe Biden made the astonishing claim that demands for photo identification are the new Jim Crow.
  Naturally, his claim was magnified by the media, with CNN creating a logo declaring “Voting Rights Under Attack.” Even the normally sober Pew Trusts said, “Republican Wave of Voting Restrictions Swells.”
  One count had 361 bills introduced in 47 states, and Wikipedia labels all of them attempts to restrict voting access. Craven corporate leaders piled on.
  Never mind that polls show overwhelming support for voter ID laws, with a March survey finding 69 percent of black voters and 75 percent of all respondents favor such measures.
  The finding provides hope and reminds us there are antidotes to a corrupt press: Facts, facts and more facts. Or, as the late economist Herb Stein put it, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

My Top 10 media lies: Goodwin ​

By Michael Goodwin, June 12, 2021​

https://nypost.com/2021/06/12/my-top-10-media-lies-goodwin/​

And the list of lies told by the biased, leftist, lying political propaganda media continues to grow.

Hard to call such lies as being 'friends' of the electorate. As the saying goes: "With 'friends' like these . . ."

 

[Hypothetical]

Even more for consideration.

• the oldest and biggest: Trump colluded with Russia to win in 2016 and might be a Russian agent. That scam involved crooked FBI agents and led to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who took two years to conclude there was no evidence to back the charge.

and further to the point of the Mueller investigation, the FBI used falsified documents to enable the FISA warrants to GET the damn intelligence on the Trump campaign.

WHO in their right mind cannot see that this stinks of conspiracy from before DAY 1?

only the progressive left, that's who.