jump to last post 1-50 of 54 discussions (181 posts)

President Obama and his administration spied on President elect Trump?

  1. jackclee lm profile image81
    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago

    This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...
    Why is this not headline news?

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I saw a day or two ago where the FBI agrees they tapped someone in his campaign, including conversations with Trump himself.  Which is pretty much what Trump said months ago and nobody believed him. 

      The excuse was that the tap was to get information on a Russian connection, but, just perhaps, Trump isn't quite the liar everyone says he is?

      1. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        How does such misinformation make past the first person to read it?  Does no one make any effort whatsoever to verify even the wildest claims?

        1. jackclee lm profile image81
          jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Which miss information are you talking about?
          The fact that someone in the Obama admin. spied on Trump or the fact that someone try to influence our perception about Trump and the Russians?
          Or is there something else you had in mind?

          That is the problem with the media... they have screwed up so badly, no one trust anything reported any more.

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            All of it, which is obvious from reading credible sources of information. It's only the right-wing extremist media like Breitbart that screws up everything.

            Where in the world do you have any credible source proving that Obama wiretapped Trump?

        2. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this
          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Oh please. You are posting to stories that repeat what I said in my other post. The FBI with court approval wiretapped Manafort and not Trump.

            1. jackclee lm profile image81
              jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Scott,
              I have a hypothetical question for you and please give it some thought.
              What would you do when Trump's foreign policies starts to work?
              Will you be supportive or be critical? Irregardless of consequences and results.
              You are a smart person, I believe.
              Your answer will be revealing of those like you on the anti-Trump bsnd wagon.

              1. promisem profile image98
                promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Jack, leadership at that level is a combination of both policies and character. I respected Bill Clinton's leadership in getting a budget surplus, for example. I absolutely despised his character.

                If Trump's policies improve the country, which I currently doubt, I will respect him for it. But I will never trust his character.

                1. jackclee lm profile image81
                  jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Well said. At least your are not the self destructive TDS type that we see on the left and in the news media.

                  1. promisem profile image98
                    promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    So what is your opinon about Trump's character?

    2. Misfit Chick profile image70
      Misfit Chickposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Why isn't the Facebook revelations about Russian ad campaigns on the front pages of every news outlet, either?

      I've read about Manafort... Its freakin AMAZING the way T-fans twist everything; and Trump is your teacher, LoL! He does lie... OBAMA didn't spy on Trump; NOR did he 'have' anyone else spy on him... Manafort has been under suspicion for years.

      And EVEN IF Obama directly had someone spying on Trump, they had good reasons to be concerned about him and/or members of his campaign crew.

      I know, your boy is always completely innocent of everything as long as he acts like the complete idiot-a*s you admire. Whatever.

      1. jackclee lm profile image81
        jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        This story has long term implications beyond any individuals.
        Our Constitution is under attack.
        This is the stuff that happens in third world dictatorships...
        Why some democracies are sham...
        You think it is fine for one administration to use their power to spy on another party's candidate...
        I don't and if we don't stop it when it happens we are asking for trouble.

        There is no Russian collusion. It is made up by a biased press.

        1. Misfit Chick profile image70
          Misfit Chickposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Its not made up by the press... the GOP MADE TRUMP sign off on Russian sanctions that he didn't want to sign off on. WHY? Because Russian interference was REAL. The fact that Trump's campaign included people who may have been rubbing shoulders with the Russians during his campaign (Kushner, Manafort, etc.) is a valid question that patriots among us would like to have answered.

          GOP Congressman Hurd on Russia:

          "Russia is our adversary. They are not our ally. The Russians, Vladimir Putin is very clear, he has one goal and that's to re-establish the territorial integrity of the USSR. And he can't do it militarily, he can't do it economically, he has to use asymmetrical warfare and that means eroding the trust in democratic institutions. That's the US That's the EU. That's NATO. And one of the issues, one of the ways that they do this is with disinformation or ... covert influence operations. Which means we, the United States, have to have a counter-covert influence strategy, which we don't have."

          On Russia interferring in our election:

          "I stand behind the intelligence community assessment of this as well. The Russians were trying to manipulate our elections. Now, did they impact the vote tallying machines? No. So, President Trump won the election fair and square, but that doesn't change the fact that there was attempts of manipulation. The Russians have been doing this for decades in Europe, they're doing it now and they are going to continue to do that. ... I think it is frustrating when we allow the Russians to continue to win, and what do I mean by that? The Russians' goal in their activity was to sow, was to drive a wedge, whether real or perceived, between the President, the intelligence community, and the American people. And by the discord that continues, that allows those goals to continue to be achieved. I sit on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and we are doing our review. We are going to be methodical, we are going to be bipartisan, and we're going to be thorough, because that's what the American people deserve. I think folks want to see something sooner rather than later, but to do this right we have to pursue any lead that is out there to ensure we get to the truth and that is what we are going to do.'

          Gotta LOVE a true-blue patriot like that - GOP, or not! wink

          https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13709818.png

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            "Because Russian interference was REAL."
            "The Russians were trying to manipulate our elections."
            "The Russians' goal in their activity was to sow, was to drive a wedge, whether real or perceived, between the President, the intelligence community, and the American people."

            Three statements, all made as known facts.  But all three are nothing but opinions, opinions that at this time have nothing to support them, and to make matters worse the final one contradicts the first two!  And this is acknowledged with the final statement you quoted: "to do this right we have to pursue any lead that is out there to ensure we get to the truth and that is what we are going to do.".  Meaning that leads must be pursued, the truth has to be found.  Because, at this time, we don't know the truth

            What's hard to understand is just why that simple statement is so hard to understand for all those that continue to make unsupported claims.

    3. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      It isn't headline news because it's more fake news from Breitbart.

      The FBI wiretapped Paul Manafort because of his many Russian connections while campaign manager for Trump.

      "Both FBI and [National Security Division] confirm that they have no records related to wiretaps as described by the March 4, 2017 tweets (by Trump)," the Justice Department said in a court filing earlier this month.

    4. Old-Empresario profile image86
      Old-Empresarioposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      The Intelligence Community has a policy of always phone taping calls of certain foreign diplomats in the US. But it is not legal to use these calls (without a warrant) to prosecute or to even spy on US citizens speaking with foreign diplomats. Susan Rice of the Obama administration obtained information from the IC that there was a tapped conversation between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian ambassador. She then illegally leaked this to be used as a political weapon against Trump.
      As for the "wire tapping" of Trump Tower, I think that was a semantic issue. Due to legal loopholes, it is difficult for the FBI to tap the phones of an American citizen without due process. However, there are bugs and other forms of listening technology that they can and may have used.
      Now, to a straw man argument: I honestly don't think they had anything on him other than this vague Russia connection in phone calls. Then, of course, the CIA produced a single dubious word-of-mouth source that came up with the Russian prostitution story. That had to be false. We know going back to the 1950s that the CIA and FBI have dabbled in blackmail of political figures they deem harmful to their organizations or to one political party or another.

    5. colorfulone profile image83
      colorfuloneposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I'd like to know if AG Jeff Sessions is awake or just scared.

      I just read this article by the True Pundit.
      http://truepundit.com/exclusive-six-u-s … vid+Clarke

      "President Barack Obama’s White House too could be implicated, sources said. But while evidence certainly points to involvement of the Obama administration, sources said they did not have access to definitive intelligence proving such a link."

      Its really a good article that lists what is known so far.

    6. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Jack, I love reading this thread.  I've not seen libs so upset since Trump was elected. Trump knew Trump tower was being wire-tapped. He was mocked and taunted by the no-nothing mainstream media for it. Now, it's been proven he was right. This is too funny.  Some of these responses from the libs are hilarious. They don't seem to be able to grasp the seriousness of it and how illegal it was in the first place.  But then, if you were going to vote for Hillary for president, you had to be the type of person who was comfortable with intense corruption as well as misinformation at the highest level.  Never met a lib who could actually make a valid point with honest research.  Based on what I've seen in this thread, that remains very true.

      1. promisem profile image98
        promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Maybe reasonable people are upset that HP is being used as a fake news platform by extremists.

        But let's stick to simple facts. Where is your proof that Obama ordered a wiretap on Trump?

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          No, no.  You don't get to change what was said in order to then call it a lie.  "Trump knew Trump tower was being wire-tapped." was what was said, and nowhere does it mention anything about Obama ordering a tap.  That little tidbit comes only from you.

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            No, you don't get to change what I said: "Maybe reasonable people are upset that HP is being used as a fake news platform by extremists."

            And isn't this the title of the thread and your enthusiastic support of it?

            "President Obama and his administration spied on President elect Trump?"

          2. Old-Empresario profile image86
            Old-Empresarioposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Presidents don't necessarily order things like this. Nixon didn't specifically order the Watergate break-in. Reagan didn't order the Iran-Contra actions. I don't know, but I think a real investigation would find evidence that leaders of President Obama's White House staff were involved in bugging Trump's campaign. Illegal, though not a big deal really. I think many presidents have done it in the past.

    7. Sharlee01 profile image82
      Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Just not sure what's true anymore. I will wait to see what can be proved or disproved.  I hope all of the many investigations come to fruition, and we are given the results.  All of these mysteries are dividing the country.

      1. jackclee lm profile image81
        jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        It is a sad state of our country when we can't figure out what is true and what is spin?what is fake news?
        Our many governmemt agencies are broken including our intelligence community.
        Does everything have to be politicized? When did this take hold of American politics?
        Sad sad

    8. ptosis profile image83
      ptosisposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Lie with dog, get fleas

    9. colorfulone profile image83
      colorfuloneposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

      HOW OBAMA USED HILLARY’S DOSSIER TO SPY ON TRUMP
      The conspiracy that led from the Hillary campaign to eavesdropping on Trump officials.
      http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268230/ … greenfield

      The fake freaking dossier!  Pretty scummy!

      1. ahorseback profile image82
        ahorsebackposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        All of that was and is nothing more than a greater " water-gate " than water-gate actually was !
        An entire administration using federal powers and institutions of justice to subvert a presidential campaign  AND now  the victorious Trump  administration !

        Where is the public outrage ?

        Where is the media ?

        Where are  the D.OJ ?

        All suffering Trump Derangment............still   ?

        1. colorfulone profile image83
          colorfuloneposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          The DOJ recommended Mueller, Trump met with him and hired him and gave him full power and authority.  The wheels of justice turn slowly.  I'm going to stay in faith and have patience, because this isn't over by a long shot.  The swamp is going to get drained.   First things first.

        2. Ken Burgess profile image87
          Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Half of the public is 'still asleep', they buy into the fabricated stories and outright lies that CNN, MSNBC and the MSM at large puts out. 

          This election, and the Trump support, has always been the people rising up against the 'establishment', the politicians like McCain, a delusional old man, a shill for the corporate elite.  He, and all the other criminals that have been in Congress for 30 years or more, making hundreds of millions selling American's out, they are the greatest threat to our county that there is.  Congress needs an enema.

          Our media needs an Enema, 90% of it papers, magazines, cable, owned by a handful, they control the narrative, they control what you see and hear, and what you don't.

          The hearings on the hill today, with Facebook, Google and Twitter being taken to task... its a total lie about 'Russian influence'  that is not what their concerns are, their concerns are people like you and me being able to share information, share ideas, that are not 'acceptable' that do not fit their propaganda.

          We have already seen the beginnings of the coming censorship here in America, videos of anything they consider alt-right or inappropriate are being removed from YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have already begun AI policing of all posts.  Free Speech on the internet will be a memory soon, and we will be no different than China, or the UK... I prefer China, they just block everything they don't want their people to see... the UK has become ignorantly oppressive, arresting people for making posts they deem offensive, their police relegated to surfing the net looking for offenders while real violent crimes skyrocket unchecked.

          I say it all the time.. this is NOT Democrats VS Republicans.  This is the corrupt establishment working overtime to maintain control and regain control of the narrative, against those trying to expose the corruption, expose the lies, and fight for their Country, and their futures.

  2. abwilliams profile image19
    abwilliamsposted 2 months ago

    But, it is not a shocking revelation, Trump informed us of this several months ago, but since he is the laughing stock of the Media, they ridiculed, mocked, joked, dismissed...(name it)
    So now, months later, CNN, they who ridicule and mock the loudest and the longest, have the (not so shocking) revelation leaked to them.
    Shazam! Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

  3. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 2 months ago

    Yes, even though the intel agencies all confirm Russia interfered in the election, Trumps fans claim there's no proof of it. They are similar to Trump in their ability to distinguish fact from lies. No surprise at all..

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Is there a problem in producing that proof?  What is it (the problem)?  Why do we keep hearing "Russia interfered" without ever hearing what they did, when they did it, and who did it?  Some of us are wary of accepting politically biased claims as proof of anything, and doubly so when those claims come out of DC.

    2. Live to Learn profile image79
      Live to Learnposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      The best I've heard is agencies saying what they can tell is that it is similar to other Russian attacks; there is no hard evidence. That isn't proof. And, for the record, if we are going to call that proof and use that as our standard for proof our politicians are knee deep in trouble. I can think of at least 10 incidents where Hillary would have been locked up if anything as flimsy as that were grounds for conviction.

    3. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      It doesn't matter how many times the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. will come out with information about Russian interference.

      It doesn't even matter that Republicans in Congress admit the interference and run investigations into it.

      Trump supporters will continue to blindly deny everything.

    4. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      So what else is new? We all knew foreign agents are interfering and hacking our government all day long....

  4. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 2 months ago

    Do people want foreign entities--especially known Russian spies- to have free reign over US politicians without the chance of them being overseen by our intel agencies? Even if Trump was recorded by a member of FISA--remember a court order is required for such--he would be masked from the conversation. If Obama or Clinton was caught up in such a conversation, the right would be not be so critical of the process. It's SOP people.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "he would be masked from the conversation."

      Would he?  Or, with a little money changing hands, would it be "leaked" somehow?  In today's political hate climate I know where my vote would lie...

    2. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, some people do. It's why a large number of Republicans who formerly hated Russia now think that Vladimir Putin is a hero because he helped Trump win.

      Party before country.

  5. abwilliams profile image19
    abwilliamsposted 2 months ago

    What people should want Randy, is for a sitting President of the United States to not be spying on the competition, the opposing Party, in this case, Donald Trump...before, during and after a Presidential campaign.
    "Even if Trump was recorded by a member of FISA", how can you so nonchalantly throw that out, as if none of this is a big deal?

    1. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Where exactly is there proof that Obama ordered the wiretaps?

  6. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    I almost spit up what I was drinking when Jack said there was no collusion.  In order to convince a judge to grant them a FISA warrant for surveillance, there had to be proof that Manafort was currently in contact with a foreign government.  This while Manafort was working for the Trump campaign. 

    The warrant was granted, so logically, there was proof that Manafort was working with a foreign government, which violates election law.  Likely why there are rumors that Manafort is going to be indicted soon.  And why many of us to continue to believe the Trump campaign colluded with foreign governments in order to get elected.  Again, a violation of our laws.

    1. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Well said!

    2. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Close but no cigar.  If proof was already available there would be no need for a wire tap; instead there was some evidence but not enough to convict.

      There is also the not-so-minor question of why Manafort was tapped.  Some of the answer is here:

      "He's been under scrutiny over his financial dealings and lobbying efforts with pro-Russia and Ukrainian officials but has denied colluding with Russia to influence the election."

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09 … claim.html

      As of now, then, there is no indication that it had anything to do with the election; indeed, it went back to 2014.  Sorry, but still nothing indicating Trump or anyone in the Trump campaign colluded with foreign governments in order to get Trump elected.  Still nothing but a witch hunt desperate for dirt on Trump.

    3. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Hi Valeant, your perspective could be right about the overlap of the FISA warrants and Manafort's tenure as campaign chairman - but there is room for doubt also.

      From what Google tells us, there were two FISA warrants. The first as early as 2014 -which ended sometime in 2016, and the second one sometime in 2016 - speculated to run into some part of 2017. Google also tells us that Manafort joined the campaign in March, 2016, and left in August 2016.

      So you could be right, those FISA warrants could have been in effect while he was involved in the election. But, because the first warrant certainly wasn't related to his campaign position, (as it was authorized before he became involved with the campaign), and there doesn't seem to be a clear starting date of the second warrant - which means there is no way to know it wasn't authorized after he left the campaign, (perhaps more interest in the actions the warrant was issued for?), your certainty could be just your enthusiastic support for speculation that fits your perspective.

      I don't want to cause you to spit-up your drink again, but surely you misspoke when you said there had to be proof in order for a judge to grant a FISA request. Because there does not need to be proof, the judge only needs to be convinced there is probable cause for suspicion.

      The vehemence of your response causes me to wonder why you didn't also consider these quick-facts that were so readily available to me with just a 5-minute Google search. Your faith in your logic is not obviously supported by the details. You may still be right of course, when more details emerge, but until then your "logic" and "proof" are really just speculation on your part.

      [EDIT] Damn! I just scrolled down and saw Wilderness had already mentioned the 2014 detail. Well, maybe the repetition won't hurt.

      GA

  7. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    And another thing that cracks me up is that Trump supporters can ignore the fact that a Russian mobster was living two floors down from Trump himself.  A man the FBI had under surveillance and then indicted as well.  A man Trump had casual contact with after those indictments at the Miss Universe pageant in Russia.

    No way someone that rich lets Russian gangsters live that close unless he condones what they are doing.

    1. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Boy Valeant, you seem both easily cracked-up, and, choked-up.

      Did you hear about Trump using that employment visa program to hire some Russian bartenders and housekeepers? He had to fire them. He found a bug in his drink, and he found his bed sheets came pre-stained.

      GA

    2. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Once had a friend, Charlie, that was a multi-multi millionaire and lived just down the street from me in a gated community.  He was on good terms with his immediate neighbor, although he was never invited to the parties that were thrown periodically.

      He found out why when the feds raided; it was a crack house.  They were cooking crack and left several barrels of toxic, hazardous waste chemicals on Charlie's wooded land.  Cost Charlie more than my home was worth to get rid of it.  I trust you understand what I'm saying.

      But on another front, you are aware that it is illegal to discriminate in rental properties based on national origin?

  8. abwilliams profile image19
    abwilliamsposted 2 months ago

    Isn't this a discussion? Doesn't that mean that there will be different takes and varying opinions on the particular subject which is being discussed?
    If I am on a thread with a group of people, Promise, and I've had my fill of leftist logic, I leave the discussion. I walk away.
    You, on the other hand, Promise, start with the insults, putdowns, and accusations.  You register complaints and you've been successful in having some banned from HP.
    You didn't like the direction this conversation was taking, so you started a brand new discussion. One in which you could lay out and plot the course more to your liking and you named it, 'Is HP being used as a fake news site'.
    Typical.

    1. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      AB, many of my so-called insulting and abusive posts are actually copies of things that your comrades have said to me. I even have one on this thread. I just give their own words right back to them.

      Maybe that's why I haven't been banned. If you think I have insulted you, I'd like to see an example.

      That said, there is no excuse for people to post grossly untrue propaganda on a site like HP or for their supporters who gleefully agree with it.

      I'm fed up with the constant stream of abuse coming from a handful of extremists who target anyone posting something they don't like. It has been going on for years. I will be civil to civil and responsible people. I gave up being civil to the band of bullies.

      You also have no right to claim that I register complaints or get people banned. They do it quite easily themselves because they heap abuse on a lot more people than just me.

  9. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    I guess I struggle to come to grips with everyone stressing that we need to keep America safe, but those same people are not willing to put someone with past known ties to foreign governments, who is running the campaign of one of the two candidates for President, under surveillance to ensure that foreign governments are not influencing American politics.

    1. Live to Learn profile image79
      Live to Learnposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I think my problem is we complain about the individual components of a broken system, as long as those components are not associated with politicians we support; but don't collectively demand an overhaul to correct the broken parts.

      If the perception is that they all cheat, they all lie and they all use whatever means necessary to gain power then any one individual is perceived as no better, or worse, than the other.  Each unfairly manipulating the system to their advantage.

  10. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    Because it was proven to be false six months ago.

  11. abwilliams profile image19
    abwilliamsposted 2 months ago

    I never said that you insulted me, I am not that sensitive. Just pointing out a pattern with you.

    1. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Do you think this is insulting?

      Some of these responses from conservatives are hilarious. Never met a conservative who could actually make a valid point with honest research.

  12. Tim Truzy info4u profile image93
    Tim Truzy info4uposted 2 months ago

    Scott, Jack, Abwilliams, this is a great discussion. All of us agree: We wouldn't turn our backs on Trump: something might wind up in it. (Evidence supports that statement, his behavior, just as president. Ask his former staff members and cabinet.) But we don't want him to fail either. My test of whether he fails or not will be if a nuke doesn't fall on America during his term.
    If the conservatives can go with the idea that Trump wasn't involved in any election tampering because "he wouldn't do that sort of thing." Then Barack Obama wouldn't be involved in listening to him either "he wouldn't do that sort of thing." It's the my great guy is better than your great guy syndrome. (lol)
    But meddling (a Scooby-Doo word) in our elections is no joke. We are looked up to by the world as the example of how democracy should happen in a nation. Tapping phone lines is no laughing matter either. But my question is: if he wasn't doing anything suspicious, why should DJT bother?
    I've spoken with people in national security, that's a standard procedure. Speak with foreigners who are being monitored, you will be tapped.

  13. jackclee lm profile image81
    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago

    I am sorry but the Obama administration on this matter does not pass the smell test. The fact that Susan Rice and Samantha Powers asked for unmasking of numerous individuals connected to the Trump csmpaign both before and after the election is a bad omen.
    Those two needs to be brought to Congressional oversight and answer some tough questions.

    In my mind, if there was some wrong doing, wouldn't they be revealed by now either actual investigation or leaks by high ranking officials...?

    If nothing was found, then what was the reason for the spying in the first place. Either way, there are important questions to be asked.

    1. abwilliams profile image19
      abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Samantha Powers and her husband, Cass Sunstein, IMHO, are some of the most politically dangerous people to have ever had so much power in the U.S. Why isn't anyone talking about how the former U.S Ambassador attempted to unmask more than 250 Americans, in one year, 2016? (surely we all remember the Valerie Plame story that was in the News all the time, day in and day out, a person, 1 person...BUT, George Bush was Prez, not Barack Obama, so.....)
      Such a double standard, but we aren't to notice or talk about that!

      I think that we can all agree, someone trustworthy needs to be on the case and get to the bottom of ALL of this soon!

  14. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 2 months ago

    It's easy to figure what is false news, Jack. Unless of course, you're a Trump fan. tongue

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      That is not true. I see many fakes news with regard to the Trump administration by the main street media. All you have to do is read all the corrections days or weeks later on page 39...

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        But Jack, it's relatively easy to do your own research on the "Main Stream Media." Just because some of Trump's cronies decided to have conversations with a well known Russian spy, are we not to monitor who else the spy is talking to?  Does Trump and his bunch have free rein to deal with our known enemies?

        sad
        Sad!

        1. jackclee lm profile image81
          jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Where is the evident of any wrong doing? After all these months of investigation and secret wiretapping... the fact nothing has turned up should give everyone some pause. Either that or our intelligence services are so screwed up, they can't seem to do their job. Sad.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Jack, are you privy to what the intel committees and Mueller have found out about Trump and his cronies? Why would they tell what they knew before it's necessary? Do you even know how these things are handled? Obviously you don't!roll

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              "Jack, are you privy to what the intel committees and Mueller have found out about Trump and his cronies?"

              Might ask you the same question:

              "...even though the intel agencies all confirm Russia interfered in the election..."  https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/142 … ost2911903

              Because if you know that to be factual you must have a direct line to those intel agencies for they have surely not told the public anything of the sort.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                So Dan, you're taking the "no news is good news" attitude? Not surprising at all.  roll

              2. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                And are you claiming the intel agencies haven't said Russia interfered in the election, Dan?

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  That is correct.  That someone read voter data bases does not prove Russia interfered in anything at all.  Or even tried to (although I have little doubt they did try to).

                  https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/142 … ost2911165

                  https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/142 … ost2912263

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Facebook sold numerous ads to Russian entities in order to affect the outcome of the election. This is a known fact, Dan. Zuckerberg admitted as much. roll

  15. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    Wilderness did not see Putin cast a vote, therefore, Russia did not try to interfere with our election process.

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      What exactly was the Russian interaction with our election? Was this only in 2016? Did they help Trump or Clinton?

  16. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    <---facepalms

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      TDS gone wild?

      1. jackclee lm profile image81
        jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Here is what is fact - and the American People spoke loud and clear...

        https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13717011_f1024.jpg

  17. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    I guess you missed the Congressional testimony under oath by leaders of many of our intelligence services confirming interference and who it favored. 

    But yeah, let's believe the television celebrity who doesn't read those intelligence briefings and then says he doesn't think Russia did it.

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      What was the crime exactly?
      These are the same intelligence agencies that spied on US citizens against our laws and when caught by people like Ed Snowden...they lied to save their ass...
      Don't you know it is part of all spy agencies to gather info on their friends and allies as well as adversaries...?
      What else is new?
      The media over played this Russian collusion business with Trump...there is nothing there and if anything, it exposes the problem with the Obama administration of unmasking Americans...

  18. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    It's quite likely that our President is owned by the Russians.  Whether it be based on helping him get elected or through money interests.  It's why the investigation needs to happen and we can bicker about the differences in what we think all day long. 

    The crime is conspiring with a foreign government to get elected which is a violation of our election laws.  The crime could be that our president is beholden to another government.  The crime is that Trump is using his office to influence hiring practices in private enterprise.  The crime is obstruction of justice for admitting her fired Comey because of the Russia investigation he was conducting.  The crime is not divesting himself of his business interests, but instead going to visit his own properties virtually every weekend so he profits off them.  The crime is appointing his family members to government posts.

    Take your pick of the crimes this man has committed.

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Talk about conspiracy theories... you are on the fringe and have been put there by the media. No one in their right mind believes that Trump is owned by the Russians. He is a multi billionaire that doesn't need money or influence. He is his own man. I might not like him as a person but in no way I believe he is a racist or is he colluding with Russia or any other foreign entity. The Comey firing turned out to be absolutely necessary. We can't have a top official of the FBI leaking information to the NYT? Can we?
      As it turned out, the jig was in. It was revealed recently that he had made up him mind not to indict Clinton well before interviewing her and 17 others involved. His testimony before Congress was full of lies and mis representation... he is not a "straight shooter" as many in the media describes...

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        How do you know he is a multi-billionaire, Jack? He hasn't shown anyone his tax returns yet. Do you have a copy? tongue

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Umm...tax returns do not show net worth, either...

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Of course not, but they do show certain financial arrangements such as large loans and profits. As I asked, how does one know he's a multibillionaire as Jack claimed?

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              If you're really interested, I'd start with Forbes.  And there are quite a few other sources along the same lines.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Cool, I didn't realize Forbes had copies of his taxes. roll

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  If you didn't know (most people do), Forbes has various list of the net worth of wealth people.  I'd give you a link, but they want me to join and I don't care enough what he's worth to put any real effort into the search.

                  But what's the fascination with Trumps taxes?  What do you think you'll be able to see, and why do you care?  It's not like you'd have a chance to go through all his financial records and books from all the businesses he has a stake in, after all.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    I've already told you what one can find out about a person's finances by examining his taxes. So if there's nothing there then why is Trump so adamant about not releasing them. Didn't he say he would if elected? Of course, we all know how he lies. tongue

                    And I'm sure you can tell me where Forbes gets Trump's financial info from. smile

    2. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      You forgot being a mafia boss in New Jersey, polluting the Columbia river with M&M's, illegally cutting trees on Mars and spitting on the sidewalk.  We need more investigations! - better start swabbing sidewalks for DNA samples!

  19. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    Conspiracy theories?  The only one still not proven is the collusion and there is a full blown investigation in effect pertaining to it.

    Irregardless of whether Comey needed to be fired, Trump admitted firing him based on the Russia investigation.  That's obstruction, plain and simple. 

    Using the office to enrich himself?  Totally happening every weekend when he travels to his own properties. 

    Family members getting government jobs - Ivanka, Jared, Trump, Jr.  Violation of the law. 

    It's just a shame this Congress has no spine.

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      What law? There is no such law about family members.
      They work for $1.
      Bobby Kennedy served in the Kennedy administration...
      You are so biased you can't see past your own hate.
      Tell me this, how did Trump survive all these years in NYC and Hollywood? Most liberal Bastian...
      Was he colluding with Russia then?
      You have nothing and just because Comey and Muller concocted this story from a fake DNC dossier, you want to impeach a sitting President?
      It would be civil war when that happens.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        So, what evidence do you have that Mueller and Comey "concocted" the story, Jack? Where did you get this info? Faux News, I'd wager. roll

    2. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Valent, Trump did not admit that he fired Comey for the Russia investigation.  Where do you get this stuff?  From the New York Times, a liberal rag, but a liberal rag liberals listen to "Mr. Trump and his aides gave multiple justifications for Mr. Comey’s dismissal in the days after he was fired. The first rationale was that the F.B.I. director had mishandled the Clinton email case. Another was that Mr. Comey had lost the confidence of the F.B.I. During an Oval Office meeting with Russian officials, Mr. Trump went so far as to call Mr. Comey a “nut job” and said that firing him lifted pressure off the White House." Losing the confidence of the FBI made it impossible to NOT fire him.  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/p … etter.html

  20. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    Jack -
    The law is pretty clear, passed back in 1967, hence why Kennedy was a terrible example by you:

    (b) A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.

  21. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    Sorry to bring facts to the table here, I know you'd prefer to just insult me by calling me blindly biased.

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I call it as I see it.
      It is not meant to be an insult. However, if you choose to see it that way, so be it.
      What I am commenting is for your own good.
      Your TDS is ruining your life.
      Can't you see it?
      I am truly teying to help.
      Sad...

      1. ptosis profile image83
        ptosisposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Going off the rails on the crazy train ....

        1. jackclee lm profile image81
          jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, I guess we are all a little crazy these days...
          It's funny how the election of one person can have such dramatic impact.

  22. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    Again, with the attacks.  Not even an acknowledgement that I just quoted a law that you claimed didn't exist a few posts back.  Your lack of correct information is the sad part here.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Jack prefers to make opinionated statements, not back them up with facts. His Modus Operandi

    2. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Actually, I have nothing to be sad about. Stocks at all time high. My retirement fund is doing better than expected. The GDP is at 3% and the wall is being build as we speak... our country is on the mend, Obamacare, though not repealed, is on its last leg. When it fails, Democrats will be blamed since they refuse to help fix it.
      I am also delighted that jobs is coming back to America. Some companies are moving their manufacturing plants back to the US...
      The EPA has been reduced and climate change is less of an issue in the mind of the public.
      All good signs...

      In a few years, my prediction is that all people will realize that AGW is not as dire as projected and we can go about mitigating the effects of global warming in a more responsible way.
      Check back in 3 years...

    3. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      This law is not as clear cut as you made them out to be...

      Here is link to Time article -
      http://time.com/4574971/donald-trump-tr … otism-law/

  23. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    Mike, I got it from Trumps own words in an interview he did..  Trump told NBC's Lester Holt: "And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story...'

  24. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 2 months ago

    Sorry Dan, as you and Jack are Trump's major apologists on these forums, I figured you knew why you are defending him with info you don't really have. You brought up Forbes as if you were using them as proof of the actual net worth of DT, as if going to some link would tell me something YOU already knew. My bad! roll

  25. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 6 weeks ago

    It wasn't headline news because it's stupid.  But stupid never stops, so stay tuned.

  26. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    The fact that you don't list Fox News as a source of corrupt information undermines the whole rest of your arguments.

    1. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Ken , is right and watch what happens with the newer generations coming on ! The last forty years has swung  way liberal  in all things including media - Watch the coming shift ,
      Fox is but a needle in a liberal haystack my friend !

      1. Misfit Chick profile image70
        Misfit Chickposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Fox is as manipulative as MSN or any other media outlet that you want to label as liberal. I'm not sure where you have been for the past 40 years, but we have had as many Conservative potus's as Moderate or Liberal ones. (Btw, a few decades ago - before Fox News et all (liberal 'media' came later as a response) - Conservatives & Liberals didn't fight nearly as hard nor as ugly. Don't kid yourself that Fox always tells the truth or are part of any solution.)

        This is just another OLD fight between the left and the right as a means to keep us all fighting. And if you are someone who is SO SURE that one side is to blame for absolutely everything over the other side - your brain is in a manipulated rut.

        You see people who are not the enemy as the enemy - which is exactly what the deep state wants. And they won't stop until we're all begging for a military state.

        Wake the fluck up. 'The Left' isn't your enemy and neither is 'The Right'.

        1. ahorseback profile image82
          ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          The difference is the balance of media , Remember balance ?   Not that Fox is good or bad or actually even " fair and balanced " The difference is that most of America  knows the unfair swing of the power of a almost totally liberal media . Check your facts ;  Fact Read your own party studies at Harvard and the others , every study today supports that which we all know and HAVE known ,"There is a preponderance of leftist swing to the news media today"'.

          As to your nastiness ; There is a difference , you just don't see it clearly although you speak it  clearly from the liberal  perspective in your use of  language .

          Outscream your opponent and you win the debate .

          1. Ken Burgess profile image87
            Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Honestly, Fox really is not much better than the rest... and here is why:

            They all stick to the script, they just take polar opposite sides of it.

            In the end, they all avoid HUGE issues going on in the rest of the world, and even in our own country.

            They all avoid bringing any attention to issue that really should be exposed and talked about.

            Let me give you some examples:

            Racial Poverty, abuse, murders skyrocket in South Africa:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C2R12xQDDE

            Why do you think no MSM ever talks about this? 
            Maybe because it would make you think, make you wonder what is going to happen in your own country in the near future?

            Police are under attack in Sweden, immigrant gangs terrorize with escalating violence (bombs and murder):
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GL2z_ykEtg
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxBAVRv4rAg

            Does the MSM cover the escalating violence, the 7 attacks on police stations in 12 days?

            Why do you think that is?  Why do they avoid reporting it completely?

            Does the MSM talk at all about China's growth, how their economy has surpassed our own, how in just a matter of years it will be powerful enough to control the world economy?  Do they talk about how our 'preferred nation' no-tariff policies with China are crippling our economy while allowing China to become a juggernaut at our expense?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUdKYAHJCDA

            No, our MSM talks about none of these issues, they focus you on the petty problems, the idiotic issues, like who can use what bathroom, or if boys should wear pink... anything to keep you unaware of the serious and dangerous problems that are about to be hoisted upon our future.

            Because if you knew that the chances of your children growing up in a poor and wretched existence were becoming greater by the day, if you knew the chances of your nice middle class life might disappear in an economic downturn overnight because of our idiotic trade agreements with China and others, you probably wouldn't be so cavalier with politics and letting the 'progressive' agendas lead you to that future, would you?

            1. ahorseback profile image82
              ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Ken , I know Fox IS as bad as the rest ! However ,  Fox is truly outnumbered by liberal outlets , that's my point AND outnumbered by ideological balance - Harvard studies  showed that recently .

              Fox against the remaining media ?   Pretty much .

    2. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I would expect that type of reply from anyone who still swallows the incredibly transparent and biased 'news' being put out today.  Not that I am defending fox, I don't watch that either, or BBC news, does that help you?

      I get it, some people will NEVER be able to take the blinders off, and why would they, if they have vested their whole lives into believing a certain way, and they are well off because if it.   Most know about Denial and how people reject and refuse to accept facts, no matter how strong or obvious, if it upsets their belief system.

      I have a high moral threshold, but a few million dollars and I'd be peddling whatever lies they wanted me to tell, for what its worth.  I know the MSM peddles lies and propaganda for the sake of agendas and goals that are very rarely related to the truth.  One can be in denial of that reality, or one can accept it.

      It is always interesting to see the debates that rage here regarding politics and how some are so adamant about one side or another... to the point where some people cannot see others in any other way than "us" vs "them" ... you either believe as we do, or you must be one of them.

      I don't see it quite that way, I see a corrupt system, and a lot of people being manipulated into fighting over petty issues that do nothing to address the real problems or focus on those who are really creating them.

  27. colorfulone profile image83
    colorfuloneposted 5 weeks ago

    Peter Barry Chowka has a recent article about Fox, which has regained its ratings.  He says that Fox is the only mainstream news channel that is balanced about 50/50 with conservatives now.  I guess that would make Fox News the only mainstream news site.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/author/p … ry_chowka/

    Chowka is a great American thinker.

    I like Hannity, Carlson, and now Laura Ingraham and Shannon Bream, because they stick to the facts. Dobbs is very good too for sticking to the facts. 

    I don't watch TV, but I do listen to videos and I do my own research, and I trust Mr. Chowka.  Hannity and the President are good friends and they don't make any bones about it, they talk every day, maybe two three times a day. 

    Hannity had tweeted Chowka's recent article on Fox, and then President Trump re-tweeted it.  He felt so honored by that from someone at such a high level. He would have felt the same if it had been President Obama.  ...  Anyway, Chowka's star is rising!

  28. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    I had a good laugh when you used the word facts and Hannity in the same sentence.

  29. ahorseback profile image82
    ahorsebackposted 5 weeks ago

    Sean Hannity IS a hardcore , but honest he is .

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      The most trusted talk show host is Mark Levin. He knows what he is talking about especially when it comes to our Constitution.

      1. ahorseback profile image82
        ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        I absolutely agree ,   Levin is a corker !

      2. colorfulone profile image83
        colorfuloneposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, he does.  Mark Levin says things so well.  I should listen to him more than I presently do.

        So, we know:
        Rigged election - Hillary did it.
        Russian Collusion - Hillary & the DNC did it.
        Spying & abuse of power - Obama did it.
        WHERE IS THE DEPT OF JUSTICE?

  30. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    Two words on Hannity...Seth Rich.

  31. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/alt-twitter- … 38598.html

    Oh, and conservative bloggers could be Russian trolls.  You just never know.

  32. Misfit Chick profile image70
    Misfit Chickposted 5 weeks ago

    You sound like you watch them because you feel sorry for them, ha! Fox News 'reports' the least popular type of 'conservative' news. Fox has a niche on it; and they were the first news outlet to slant things unapologetically one way - all the others came later, as a response to their extreme views. The fighting can't happen to the extent that it does if there isn't equal BS going back & forth. Keeping us fighting - and making things as WORSE as possible is the point of all of these media houses. Take a side if you want, that is your choice - and that is what they are there for. If you ask me, NONE of  them deserve an audience these days - and Fox is definitely toward the top of that long list.

    1. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Except that Fox began as an ideological one sided outlet , true . But  where in the heck has the news media's old definition of accuracy , integrity and honesty  evolved with the remaining media , Fact ; they all once used two or three major news sources  United Press  ,  Associated Press , etc.

      Yet your  Facebook mentality , is the new format for reporting truth by major outlets ?
      By the way I defend Fox but read multiple sources .

  33. peoplepower73 profile image91
    peoplepower73posted 5 weeks ago

    ahorseback:  How many times have you watched CNN, MSNBC, CBS, et al?  What "multiple sources" do you read?

    1. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I look daily  at Fox, CNN, Google news, AOL.news  and others  -Drudge on occasion , -Msnbc  on occasion . and Brietbart's  Andrew Wilkow , Mark  Levin , and guests usually  weekly . All of my news sources  are internet  I also read my local state paper daily    although  I watch almost no TV news anymore  they are a total waste of time .

      I have also tried to stomach some other far more liberal sites , Sirius radio Urban  and other talk shows  but who can stomach them for long . I like the old  saying ,It's good to "know thine enemy well " .

      More and more they are all becoming  Face book like in their news coverage's . Even  our old trusted Fox now seems to be following along in garbage  liberal formats .

    2. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      And You Peoplepower  ?   Do you watch anything other than  Msnbc ?

  34. peoplepower73 profile image91
    peoplepower73posted 5 weeks ago

    ahorseback:  You didn't answer my question.  Yes I switch back and forth between CNN and Fox.  They are two separate realities.  While CNN has the Muller investigation on, Fox is talking about Hillary's emails.  I also watch CBS world news every night at 6:30 p.m. as well.  Funny, now that Trump is president, I don't hear anymore talk of tyranny from Sean Hannity...go figure!!

    1. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Don't you get tired of the same old myopic, non informative news sources?

      MSM is 9/10ths garbage and worthless information.

      Spend a 1/2 hour watching OAN and pick a topic or two for some international perspective from RT or my favorite the WSJ, or just go to the AP.

      The problem with those that still watch CNN, ABC, MSNBC and even Fox, is that they AREN'T getting the real news, they are getting pre-packaged garbage that distracts from the real news out there.

    2. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Peoplepower ,I did answer your question  in my last two posts , don't be closed minded , you should expand your outlook to include conservative and even  neutral source broadcasts  , you might learn that there is more to politics than Msnbc.

  35. peoplepower73 profile image91
    peoplepower73posted 5 weeks ago

    Rupert Murdoch is the owner of Fox news and the WSJ.  He talks to Trump on  a regular basis.  What people people don't realize is he is a very powerful man with a lot of money and influence.  His agenda is to get as close as he can to Trump, because that fits into his business model. 

    He gives advice to Hannity and who in turn gives information to Trump that may or may not be fact.  They are are all in bed together.  The mission of Fox News is and always has been to destroy the democratic liberal agenda. 

    They don't need all the outlets that MSM has, they have Fox News and the constant drum beat of conservative radio, like Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, et al.

  36. peoplepower73 profile image91
    peoplepower73posted 5 weeks ago

    ahorseback: I don't watch MSNBC.  I can say the same thing about you and Fox News.  I watched Brian Stelter today on CNN and he had Kellyanne  Conway on there for 21 minutes.  He asked her what she thought about The Pew poll that showed Trump's popularity is the lowest of any president in the last decade.

    She never answered the question but she insulted, distracted, diverted, deceived, pivoted, and even told him how he should run his show.  She never answered his question.  She is the perfect foil for what Fox News is about compared to the real news. She was like a spider trying to trap Brian in her web.  Here I just found the link.  You can judge for yourself.

    https://youtu.be/z_bVyb-YMpQ

    1. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I had already watched that this AM. and Kelly-ann is 100 % correct , You and I both know there is a media inspired war against Trump from the beginning .   CNN is one of the worst offenders of bias "reporting "   ,  they have traveled so far down the obstruction highway as to  redefine    the entire meaning  and message of media .

      Where CNN once was pretty much the leader in 24 /7 news , they now are  but a mirror reflection of the audacity and naivete  of story -book , face -book news .
      But they sure serve your leader Hilary , don't they ?

    2. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Thank You!

      You just proved my point, you just described why that is NOT news, just a waste of your life & time watching it.

      You had one talking head, talking to another talking head, for over 20 minutes, about a stupid pole, that has nothing to do with anything going on in the world.  A perfect example of why hardly anyone bothers turning on CNN anymore, they don't have news... they just have talking heads babbling nonsensically about things that don't really matter, and people don't really care about.

  37. peoplepower73 profile image91
    peoplepower73posted 5 weeks ago

    Ken Burgess:  So you don't think that it's important that Trump's approval rating is the lowest of any president in seven decades/  And I guess you liked all the twist and turns that Kellyanne took by not answering the question.  You just kiss it all off as talking heads.  It turns out Brian asked a very simple question that required a very simple answer.  But she talked for 21 minutes and never answered the question.  You do know she is a Fox news contributor and the senior counselor to Trump?

    1. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I'm sorry, I didn't waste my time watching that.  I took you for your word when you said she spent 21 minutes ranting.  As if I could care what either of their opinions are.  Why do their opinions matter?

      Why do I care what a Poll says?  Polls said Clinton would win in a landslide.  Who did the poll, why did they poll, etc.  They are worthless IMO, they aren't news, they are just garbage information of what a few hundred people think... a few hundred!  That's what a poll is.

      MSM is garbage, tripe, ignorant and nonsensical arguments about issues that don't matter... or if the topic does matter, they spend their time framing it to their bias... and Fox, CNN, MSNBC all of them are extremely biased to one side or the other.

      I am not interested in having my personal beliefs or biases reinforced, I am interested in hearing the news.  What went on in Poland today, who the Sec of State met with today, China made Bitcoin illegal today, Japan decided it wants nukes lets talk about that... issues that matter.

      I give a crap that Maxine Waters got up on the podium for the 50th time and called for Trump's impeachment, that's not news, that's just an example of how incredibly deplorable the politicians in D.C. have become.

      MSM is just not worth my time, they are petty, repetitive, and myopic in the topics they cover.

  38. peoplepower73 profile image91
    peoplepower73posted 5 weeks ago

    ahorseback:  What is Kellyanne correct about?  She didn't even answer the question for 21 minutes. She went off on tangents for 21 minutes. It's interesting how we can see the same thing and come to completely different conclusions.  She was the one that was babbling.  Unless you watch CNN on a regular basis, your opinion is just that and influenced by what you hear and see on Fox news, which to me is the real fake news.

    1. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Kellyann Conway , would beat anyone in a debate . Anyone .Just like your ultra-liberal house press core that asks the dumbest questions unrelated to anything but lies and fairy tales , WHY should anyone answer the most unrelated obstructionist questions.?
      Because they were asked ? Come on Peoplepower , you lost the election  .Trump won it  , time to move into the future where progress lies waiting  for your very progressive  dreams .

  39. peoplepower73 profile image91
    peoplepower73posted 5 weeks ago

    ahorseback: That was not a debate.  That was a simple question that your queen of distraction, deception, and lies turned to babble.for 21 minutes.

    How is a question of Trump's approval rating being the lowest of any president in seven decades an obstruction question?  If you want to talk obstruction just look at the Muller investigation and the obstruction of justice charges against Trump's  people.  You and people like you are in denial.  Yes, Trump won the election and we can accept  that.  That is what makes all of this so scary.

    You sound like a broken record.  Nothing new here just blame liberals for everything.  Trump and company are in deep sh*t with the Muller investigation.  You know it and I know it and that is why Trump has left Dodge for 15 days. 

    As far as progress goes, I guess bringing back coal and pollution is real progress in a conservative's mind set.  Even Rick Perry who is are energy secretary thinks he can stop sexual abuse by bringing back coal because it will allow the lights to say on longer.  That's why the new tax reform is taking away the incentive for electric vehicles. That's because Tillerson was the CEO of Exxon Mobile.  Let's just stay on fossil fuels and pollute the country even more.

    The coal miners have been offered re-training into today's technology, but they refuse to do it, because they still believe Trump is going to bring back their jobs...as Trump would say "sad, really sad."  But the republican congress needs that voting block to get re-elected next term, so they will say anything to keep the myth going...and Trump needs those people to feed his sick ego. That's why he still holds "campaign rallies" in those states.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Well at least now we are back on track, and this leads me to the point, again, of the MSM.

      I am sorry that you think we all know Trump is in trouble.  The only people who believe this are those who believe in what CNN and MSNBC reports.  And I would say that is likely only a few million people, as the people who watch those channels are a small minority of the country's populace.

      The rest of us who have turned away from CNN and MSNBC, or know that they are biased and lie daily, even fabricating stories that never truly happened.  Don't accept anything they have to say. 

      There is a firm belief that Mueller should be removed, his ties to Clinton and his dishonest behavior on their behalf has already been proven.  And the corruption rampant in Congress is the exact reason why Trump got elected... Congress has had an approval rating hovering around 10% or less for a DECADE now, nothing they do in regards to Trump would be acceptable to anyone who voted for him, and likely a double digit percentage of those who didn't.

      Its not that I or anyone else (though some indeed are) is in love with Trump, it is that we loathe CNN, MSNBC, and the people in Congress that have been there for 20, 30, 40 years and have made the decisions that have so greatly harmed the American people and the Nation... they will never be trusted, never be believed, and if they remove Trump on trumped up (pardon the pun) charges, I daresay we might see some interesting times in America.

  40. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    It's kind of funny that you believe CNN to be behind the reasons why some of us are leery of Trump.  Honestly, it's his own history and words that causes us concern. 

    The fact that he admitted to firing Comey because of the Russia Investigation on national television was an admission to Obstruction of Justice.  That's the same thing that got Nixon canned.

    His nepotism and emoluments from his hotel business in DC are both ethics violations, and his administration's constant lying (the amount of changes to security forms at this point is comical) is more than any in the history of our country.

    We can agree that Congress is corrupt and is likely a reason Trump got elected.  But electing a morally corrupt person such as Trump was the wrong answer.  In the same way we could have expected people to resist Hillary's corruptions and flaws, asking people to get on board with a deviant like him just won't happen.

    But to sit there and say that the media is behind our distrust is missing the point why.  It has nothing much to do with the media, which definitely aims headlines at half-truthing their constituents to fire them up, but in the common sense of a morally enlightened citizenry.

    1. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Either your liberally influenced media IS behind your cultural Trump Derangement or you are just massively politically misinformed ,    take your pick ,  There is however nothing "progressive "about  today's supposed progressives .

      1. ptosis profile image83
        ptosisposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Keep dreaming Ivan. No amount of your rookie naivete bs is going to work here.

        1. ahorseback profile image82
          ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Seen all kinds of trolls here ,  baiting there way through forums to flag  and ban by insulting real people, Keep it up .......you're gaining a lot of credibility here .
          Keep trying though .

    2. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      OK, it would be nice if you provided a clip where Trump said he fired Comey because he was investigating Trump's ties to Russia.  Everything I have seen in the past, including this interview below, says that while Comey may have been working against Trump, and leaking info (which he admitted to) he was not investigating him in regards to Russia. 

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDQTv4vVdg

      Investigating the Russian "hacking" which in itself is a fabrication of the Clinton crime organization and perhaps those in the Obama Administration as well, and investigating Trump are two different things.

      What I see, is a inability for the "left" to admit that there is a very strong dissatisfaction with the "establishment"... let me define that, easily half of the nation is beyond fed up with Congress, D.C. politics, and the media that supports them. 

      Easily half the Nation is aware enough to know that the ACA did not come close to meeting Obama's promises that it would SAVE families money, and they could keep their doctors and insurance plans. 

      People are aware that NAFTA and other trade agreements and benefits given to countries like China has ruined our industrial base, stagnated or reversed wages and benefits, made it harder to make a living in America.

      I could write a book about the lies and deceptions fostered upon the American people by Congress and the last four Presidents, from unjustified wars to the Glass Steagall repeal, and on and on... and more than half the country is AWARE just like I am.

      That is why you have Trump, and that is why there will continue to be turmoil if he is not successful, and should he be removed it will lead to massive social upheaval that makes the 60s Civil Rights movements look mild mannered in comparison.

      The BIGGEST threat to the 'establishment' is that the people on the left, and people on the right, stop arguing with each other about petty insignificant issues, and realize the bulk of their problems and woes stem from a corrupt government.  Which is probably why there are certain elements funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into financing the extreme left and extreme right groups into protesting and rioting, so that we continue to focus on fighting each other rather than a totally self-serving and criminal government.

      Their problem is, after almost two years of trying to destroy Trump through the MSM, through endless attacks no matter how unfounded or unprovable, his support hasn't waivered. 

      They just don't get it, the majority of people realize that Congress and the MSM are full of liars and criminals, and they aren't buying the BS anymore.  So it will be interesting to see what happens in the future... the only way I see the 'establishment' surviving and getting past this, is if the economy rebounds like it hasn't since the mid 80s, and Trump continues his Presidency.

      Best thing the corrupt in Congress could do, is give Trump what he wants, help him succeed, and diffuse the situation.  But they aren't doing that, the likes of Pelosi, McCain, Waters, and others are doubling down on their idiotic rhetoric, and the MSM has pushed all the chips into the center of the table in their efforts to destroy Trump.  And so, we are either going to have one side or the other win this power struggle.

      But the thing is, the MSM and Congress can't win it, because the people who no longer believe in them, the people who believe they are corrupt and the problem, are never going to change their minds about that, and they are only going to bring more people who believe as they do into the fold.

  41. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    So, ahorseback, you're saying Trump didn't admit firing Comey with the Russia investigation in mind?  That the media made that up?  Even though I could show you a clip of those words emitting from his mouth, you still think the liberal media made that up?

    1. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I'll begin here , Comey was fired for his  egocentric politisizing during the election , personally grand standing  and bordering on  treasonous behavior unbecoming of his office , compromising the ethics of his job standing , let me go on ,  admitting  leaking investigative information  to the media ,    Would you want such an idiot working for you .

  42. ahorseback profile image82
    ahorsebackposted 5 weeks ago

    State to state or within the federal government , ANYONE can be fired for any or  absolutely no reason at all .  The head of the FBI included , he serves at the pleasure of the president .

    Next ?

  43. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    Yes, yes, all things Trump said AFTER messing up and admitting to firing him because of the Russia investigation.  You certainly know the Trump talking points very well.

    1. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Stop looking for conspiracies now and admit it , Comey's a doofus , a personal grand stander ,a professional  incompetent  ,    one of the deep state "leaker's" .   And Trump didn't say these things to me , my political intuition is speaking  .   

      And , those in CNN said it too  .

      Comey  totally tripped all over himself on TV .

  44. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    So you're saying the President admitting to firing Comey because the Russia investigation is a conspiracy?  This is why I have trouble taking anything you say seriously.  You cannot take something he actually said as evidence of wrongdoing.

    1. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Do you actually get it that Trump could fire him no matter what ? I watched the entire hearing and I would have fired Comey when he admitted leaking just because of the unprofessional conduct  and circle talking ! I don't care how Trump explains it , you should learn to think independently of  the media B.S. my friend .

    2. ptosis profile image83
      ptosisposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      +++++++


      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13772612.png

      1. ahorseback profile image82
        ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        It's so easy , for some reason , for you guys to take trumps wording out of context and say "There  he said it !  "    The "Obstruction of Justice" is Comey's entire career .  Too bad that he shot himself in the foot at the hearings !

  45. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    He admitted leaking his personal memos, which aren't classified material by the way, long after Trump fired him for investigating his campaign ties with Russia.  It is the job of the FBI to investigate all potentially compromised government employees, and Trump certainly has the potential for that between his business ties to Russia and his campaign's multiple contact with Russia prior to the outcome of the election.

    1. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      He admitted leaking his notes from a meeting between the President of the United States and the head of the FBI  and even if Trump demanded his loyalty instead of asking  OF it  !   I wouldn't want someone so unprofessional and disloyal to any honesty , integrity and professional  conduct like that near the FBI building .

      Comey was simply and admittedly deep state opposition .

  46. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    Two things, your timeline doesn't matter here.  One, Comey leaked his non-classified memos after being fired.  Fired for investigating ties to Russia, which is obstruction. 

    Second, Comey's only loyalty should be to the Constitution of the United States.  Not to Trump.  Constitution should be ahead of a single branch of the government.

    1. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Should be "  doesn't cut it ,  before  or after , it matters not when he leaked but it does however show a pattern of leakage , " Leaker" being  Comey's middle name  .  Timing of incompetence ? ; Comey's entire tirade about the the Hilary investigation being conducted and then  dismissing any chance of  charges before the findings were even released ?  That shows really good timing .

    2. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Again, you are making an incorrect statement, I would like to see you link something to back this up.

      Below is a link that states Comey WAS leaking information BEFORE he was fired, and that he then admitted to this AFTER the fact when before the Senate.

      http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/08/comey … ork-times/

      Former FBI Director James Comey acknowledged that he orchestrated the leak of a memorandum detailing his private interactions with President Donald Trump during testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Thursday morning.

      “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter,” Comey said. “I didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons.”

      The leak to The New York Times’ Michael Schmidt appears to have come by way of Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor and close friend of the former director. The New Yorker describes Richman as Comey’s “unofficial media surrogate.”

      Though Comey claimed he decided to put the leak in motion on the evening of May 15, the Times was quoting from the memo as early as May 11 — the day before Trump’s tweet.

      Although Mr. Comey testified he only leaked the memos in response to a tweet, the public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey’s excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to entirely retaliatory.

      - - - -
      Lets remove Trump from this entirely for a moment.   What we have here is a growing amount of open and transparent information regarding a whole cast of people, from Comey to Rice, Lynch to Clinton, of a variety of abuses of government, collusion, criminal acts, etc.

      Everything from rigging the election to unmasking anyone related to Trump and having them wired, set-up, and investigated, to making deals with Russian businesses and Ukraine politicians and getting millions, perhaps billions in kickbacks. To say nothing of what they had going on with Saudis, and other big 'donors'.

      All this is being exposed and the MSM is trying to ignore it, or minimize it. And that is wrong, these charges need to be fully vetted, and by someone other than Mueller, who is compromised by his past relationships and activities with the Obama Administration and Clinton.

      People will never trust the government, Congress, the MSM until these issues are fully vetted and the guilty parties (not a sacrificial lamb) held accountable for their crimes.

      Trump is a separate issue.  So long as the MSM tries to bury Trump, but covers for the Clinton crime syndicate and the criminal wrongdoings that went on in her behalf within the Obama Administration, it will never wash with the majority of Americans.

  47. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    One time is a pattern?

    And even Trump's new FBI director says his loyalty is to the Constitution and the rule of law.  You're right, it's not that should be, it is.  The only person who didn't understand that was Trump, so he fired Comey for following the rule of law.

    1. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      In your personal opinion . Which by the way , doesn't matter. That is exactly why Comey was fired , his loyally to the Obstructions , legal and illegal of his Obama tenure and his Clinton Crush.

      In other words incompetence  .

  48. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    Not my opinion.  Trump's own words.  That's what I keep saying.  Trump admitted his Obstruction of Justice.

  49. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    Here is the quote from Trump that I'm referencing...And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.."  So, he was thinking about the Russia Investigation when he decided to fire Comey.

    Now, your story still does not contradict my statement.  Comey was fired, then he leaked his unclassified memos.  You say retaliatory, I would say he forced the hand of the Justice Department to appoint an Independent Counsel.

    Saying Mueller is compromised by relationships with Clinton is like saying Trump is too because the Clintons went to his 2005 wedding.

    As for Clinton, I'm all for going after her as well.  She's as shady as Trump and both have crimes to answer for.  Mueller should be allowed to go after all the dirty crooks in Washington after Trump and Clinton.  Maybe he's the guy to end corruption in the capitol.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      What!?!

      It clearly, CLEARLY says Comey's leaked information was used DAYS prior to Trump's tweet by the NYTimes for their article(s).



      Then-Attorney General and now-special counsel, Robert Mueller, actively covered for alleged crimes conducted by Hillary Clinton via her infamous Clinton Foundation.

      Mueller dismissed repeated charges that both Bill and Hillary Clinton were the recipients of tens of millions of dollars in “donations” that were really disguised payments for things like selling uranium to the Russians.

      Mueller closed numerous criminal investigations related to “pay-to-play” accusations, in the process providing no recommendations as to criminal indictments.

      A Canadian company known as Uranium One, owned by a man named Frank Giustra, reportedly paid the Clintons millions of dollars.

      “… [F]rom 2005 to 2013, the public record suggests Giustra was responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in ‘charitable donations’ to the Clinton Foundation and hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Clinton in speaking fees that are suspected of violating numerous federal, state, and international laws governing the operation, administration, and financial reporting of charitable entities,”.

      Moreover, the New Yorker confirmed that Bill Clinton received $500,000 in speaking fees from a Russian investment bank, with ties to the Kremlin, around the same time.  
       
      Lucrative Haiti Gold Mining Permit Awarded to Hillary's Brother - The Washington Post confirmed claims that Hillary's brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a mining company that just happened to score a lucrative gold mining permit in Haiti, one of only two permits to be awarded in 50 years, while then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to contractors who were friends/supporters in the wake of the devastating earthquake of 2010, they were supposed to help Haiti recover rebuilding infrastructure and housing, but that was not what the money went to.

      Keystone Pipeline Support in Return for $2mm in Speaking Fees - After not being engaged to speak by TD Bank during his first 8 years out of the White House, Bill Clinton began a string of speeches for the bank starting just 4 days after Hillary was nominated as secretary of state resulting in over $2mm in speaking fees.  As it turns out, TD Bank happened to be the single largest shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline which needed State Department approval.  Which Hillary Clinton supported as SoS.

      In June 2010, Bill Clinton, along with friend and mining billionaire Frank Guistra, a Canadian, flew into Bogota, Colombia, where, coincidentally, they arrive at about the same time as Secretary Clinton, who flew in on a government plane. In her memoirs, which she wrote after leaving the State Department, she claimed that the meeting between her, her husband and Guistra was just happenstance – as if the two of them had no idea they would both be in Bogota, Colombia at the same time.

      In the days that followed, three companies belonging to Guistra received major concessions from the Colombian government. One of the companies, Prima Colombia Hardwood Inc., received permission to cut timber from a rainforest along the Pacific coast.

      And so much more, the information is out there on the internet, easy to find, if you want to look for it.

  50. Valeant profile image94
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    Ken, go back and reread your own link.  The article says the media was quoting on May 11th, Trump simply tweeted something on the 12th.  Comey was dismissed on May 9th.  Comey leaked after being dismissed.  Nice insult there though.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image87
      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I stand corrected, I CLEARLY have a reading impediment.  ^^
      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/p … d-fbi.html

    2. ahorseback profile image82
      ahorsebackposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Comey Leaked "

      But that's just all okay?

 
working