jump to last post 1-34 of 34 discussions (173 posts)

The Nunes memo - what the heck is going on?

  1. jackclee lm profile image81
    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago

    This case should be clear cut. Either the DOJ and the FBI are following procedures or they are not?
    Either the FISA court is doing its job or it is not?
    We need to get to the bottom of this and it should be bipartisan. Our government and its credibility is at stake. If it is politicized to the point where half the people have no confidence, than we are sunk.
    It was always the case we can rely on our justice system to be the one source of non-partisanship. Either the law is followed or it is violated? Either someone is doing their job or they are committing a crime against the rest of society?

    Why is this memo treated so differently?
    Let’s get to the bottom of this. There are people in our government today that has the answers. Lets get them under oath and get to the bottom of this. Transparency is never a mistake. Let the sun shine in.

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

      I propose an open hearing by Congress. Let all who are invloved and have a stake in this case come forward and present their side. Let the American people decide for our selves who is telling the truth.
      This is a case of he said, he said...  we don’t have anything else to go by.
      Let the people like Comey, Mueller, Strzok, FISA judge, Steele, and others come forward by subpoenas and testify under oath...

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

        What bothers me most about this case is the secrecy...
        This is not like a case of a crime and the victim and perpetrators are all dead and we are left to figure out what happened.
        All the people directly or indirectly iinvloved in the case are alive and walking around and working in their positions in our government. Why can’t we find out what really happened?

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

          Jack, why do you think unes and his fellow committee cons wanted to get their memo out and not release it at the same time as the Libs?  Do you believe it was a partisan move on behalf of the right? If not, why didn't they agree to release them at the same time? I'm always surprised when you endeavor to answer a query from anyone. yikes

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

            Randy, I think the memo will be released soon, they have to go thru an approvsl process that takes about 1 week... I am for all the information to come out as long as it does not jeopardize national security or put our operatives in harms way.
            I will go furthur and ask the people involved to appear in congress hearings and testify under oath.
            This is too important to leave to partisan bickering.

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

              Once more you avoid answering my query as to why the Republicans on the committee didn't wait for the Democrats memo to be approved. We cannot have a reasonable debate on any subject if you continue to simply state your opinion and ignore questions about why you have such an opinion. Do you have a problem with understanding my queries. If so tell me and I'll endeavor to make them simpler.

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

                I am not avoiding your questions. There is no need to question Nunes. He has nothing to do with the iinitial investigation... he is trying to get to the bottom of this case. This case has everything to do with the FBI, FISA court, Surveilance of Trump campaign, and then the Comey firing which lead to the Mueller investigation...

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

                  Apparently you don't understand the question, Jack. Why did the Republicans not wait to release the Nunes memo until the Dems was ready? Was it a partisan move? That's as plain as I can ask the same question, Jack. mad

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

                    Does it matter when the memo come out? Be serious. The information is what is important. How each side want to spin it is another story. I care about the truth. The memo and its implication is what is at stake. The FBI and the DOJ has a lot to answer for.

    2. Hill Watery profile image61
      Hill Wateryposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Deleted

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Abovementioned link is a computer virus-malware.  DON'T USE THE LINK, IGNORE IT.  THIS HAS BEEN REPORTED.

    3. Ewent profile image87
      Ewentposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Trump is the ultimate control freak. Nunes had NO problem ignoring the FBI, DOJ and NSA warnings about his GOP memo. Then, it was disclosed and became a total bogus Trump littered piece of garbage.

      The FBI, NSA and DOJ have every right to ask for FISA warrants for men like Carter Page. The GOP memo was NOT about Hillary, Obama or the Dems. If you read it, you saw it was ALL and ONLY about taking down the FBI. Of course, when you are the subject of a very serious FBI investigation about members of your cabinet like Michael Flynn, you do fire anyone like James Clapper, Sally Yates and James Comey of the FBI to stop the investigation you know will prove not just collusion with Putin and the Russian hackers but also treason and obstruction of justice.

      So, according to headhunter Trump, how DARE the FBI request FISA warrants from 3 different FISA court judges over a period of 18 months? How DARE they use Carter Page's big mouth blabbing to an Australian diplomat in a London pub that he spoke to the Russians who had "dirt on Hillary Clinton."

      Okay...Where is that DIRT? Funny how the only wall Trump will ever see built is the one covering up and protecting him by the Republican Party.

      This is government. Not the United States of Republicans where nothing can ever be done that doesn't in some way, some how benefit Republicans?

      Women in the US are so fed up with American men covering up their guilt. The only women who vote Republican or for Trump are women who live with bullies and domestic violence Trump ignores even when the police photos of Porter's 2nd wife Jennie Willoughby, went viral and showed how the big power boy Porter beat his wife.

      But now the Hypocrite in Chief has the gall to ask where Porter's due process is? When Trump for decades refused to allow HIS victims due process?

      Then, there's one other matter, how many women in the military Kelly also ignore until they were forced to retire? How do we know Porter won't try to spite Americans and sell all of the classified information he was allowed to see to the Russians?

      Worse, why wasn't he given security clearance? Or is this more men protecting men? Sure does explain why men in this country go after women like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren and Maxine Waters. Or as Bannon said recently, "Women are going to change society." Translation: Women are a threat to our MANHOOD.

      You bet we are. The good fortune is that a mob of angry women have not removed bully boys' testicles in a Lorena Bobbit Fest.

      1. GA Anderson profile image81
        GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Are you sure about that "Lorena Bobbit Fest"  ewent? I didn't think it was the testicles she addressed. But, like in other instances - as long as you're within spitting distance of the facts ... ... close enough?

        GA

        1. Ewent profile image87
          Ewentposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          GA, I flunked male physiology in high school. I much prefer the part of the male body that is capable of critical thinking.

          As you are aware, the cornerstone of critical thinking is communicating with an agreed vocabulary. Most men today of the Republican persuasion are far too preoccupied with female body parts and how to control them. Not that that will EVER happen.

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

            First of all, republicans are not monolithic like democrats.
            We don’t just speak one issue.
            You can keep your body and no cares. The issue becomes one of human rights and that includes the unborn. At what point does a women’s have rights over her body? Where do you draw the line? At 3 months, 6 months or 9 months?

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

              Are you expecting answers, or are these more rhetorical questions? lol

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

                This is a real question. Women claim they are in control of their own bodies. Yet, science tells us a fetus is a separate entity with its own DNA... once it is viable, outside the womb, and some are able to live after 6 or 7 months, where is the legal defence for abortion on demand? And late term abortions?

                1. profile image79
                  Hxprofposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Yeah, what you're saying about abortion is absolutely true.  Even so, the ultra extremist view is that women aren't accountable, and they can do pretty much what they wish with the fetus.  And of course ANYONE who believes that's not right is "trying to control women's bodies" - now THAT is one really screwed up argument, and we hear it all the time.

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

                    So, what do we do as a society to protect the unborn?

                    and why would any women carry a pregnancy to term before choosing to abort?

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

                  So you won't deign to answer questions put to you but you want others to answer your queries? lol Sounds about right for you, Jack. While we're at it, you never answered Val's question as to why Trump has failed to extend the sanctions on Russia. Please do so if you expect others to answer your queries.

          2. GA Anderson profile image81
            GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            It didn't read like your confusion was with the physiology of the male body, ewent, nor even its anatomical configuration. It read like a confusion regarding Bobbit's actions.

            As for the critical thinking part - where is the issue with an agreed upon vocabulary? I think I understood what you said - and meant, and I think you understood the same from me. It was the facts that weren't agreed upon, and I think that is an important aspect of critical thinking too.

            Even though I generally agree with your "Republican men" thought, you will have to tell how it fits into the conversation. I did miss that part.

            GA

      2. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Ewent, I can see the men a'squirmin' from reading your post. Female anger makes many of them very uncomfortable. You knw, like when they see a woman with a black eye fighting back and all they can muster up is a lame-ass response that men get unfairly accused sometimes.

        Just witnessed the good ol' boy city council in my small town use their tiny d!ck brigade to publicly bully a female civic leader, just because they could and she's, ya know, "too smart."
        A significant number of men are not only blind to this type of thing, but unconsciously get their tinkles in a twist when their powerful brethren are challenged. They must come to their defense. Even some women do this because they fear an upheaval of the status quo.

        Just had to add my two cents to let you know I get it. ;-)

        A man like Trump occupying the Oval Office is either acceptable or not. I say "not."

        1. GA Anderson profile image81
          GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          "Just had to add my two cents to let you know I get it. ;-)"

          "...tiny d!ck brigade..."

          "Even some women do this....."


          Yeah, I see what you mean.

          GA

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah, I know....my opinion is offensive to you. Lots of things are offensive. What's fascinating is what we, as individuals, decide to address, isn't it?

            This is how successful women talk about a certain type of man we've all had to deal with. We laugh at them. Are you above such things, GA?

            I have a hard time believing you've never joked about an obnoxious boss or colleague. Just yesterday I heard a male colleague  refer to these same councilors as "petty tyrants with little man syndrome." Does that bother you, too?

            1. GA Anderson profile image81
              GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              No, you don't know PrettyPanther. Your opinion, nor how you express it are offensive to me. If I am ever truly offended, I have no doubt my response will make it obvious.

              I was thinking of an analogy last night - after I responded to your comment.  It's kind of like those sand sharks that swim just beyond the breakers. Just can't resist a tasty morsel.

              Or, you could think of me as a sort of guard rail in your conscience... always there to try to help you stay out of the ditches. ;-)

              As for the rest. The only thing I am "above" is sloth. And even that is only by the smallest of degrees when I am successful - which is not always the case..

              GA

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

                Let’s face the hard truth.
                When is this going to lead us to the undeniable conclusion?
                That the Obama administration had used the power of the DOJ, the FBI and the NSA to spy on the Trump campaign and later the Trump administration.
                This is shocking but a real reality.
                As some in the media has surmised, these wrong doings were never meant to see the light of day if Hillary was elected President. It would be buried and the end of it. Yet, with the election of Trump, it is slowing being unveiled, ironically because the Democrats were pushing this Russian collusion story...
                Now we know it was the DNC and the Democrats who has been doing the hanky panky...
                President Obama has a lot to answer for. Either he was totally incompetent or he knew these things were going on and turned a blind eye. Either way, it does not look good for his legacy.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    Two words: Deep State
    … and two more: Lies and Deception

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    Comey
    Mueller
    Strzok
    FISA judge
    Steele
    McCabe
    Rosenstein
    Adam Schiff

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rep-adam-s … -gop-memo/

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    “Firing Rod Rosenstein, DOJ Leadership, or Bob Mueller could result in a constitutional crisis of the kind not seen since the Saturday Night Massacre,” the Democratic leaders wrote, referring to President Richard M. Nixon’s decision during the Watergate scandal to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox, an order that led to the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus.


    wah! wah! wah!< yikes

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/polit … 80203.html

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    House Speaker Paul Ryan denied the memo is politically motivated.

    Ryan: "What it is, is Congress' legitimate function of oversight to make sure the FISA process is being used correctly."

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/impending- … ashington/

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

      Well gee whiz Kate, we all know Ryan is completely unbiased! lol

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        "Ryan is completely biased!"
        so what? Are you against oversight of the matter?

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago
  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    The Steele dossier has never been verified to be factual. Comey and Meuller should have told the judge that they did NOT investigate the accusations. In fact, The FBI should have been able to verify the accuracy of the documents before before submitting them to the judge.

    Q. How can the dossier be verified?

    A. Subpoena all the people who compiled it
    … and reveal that Hillary initiated and paid for it. But then, Hillary had a reason to pay big money to get this info ….

    Q. What was that reason?

    A. To cast doubts about Trump before the election and afterwards.
    … and distract everyone from finding out about her OWN collusion with the Russians.   

    No. it wasn't me! It was HIM! < yikes



    Q.What is holding up the FBI???????

    A. The desire to impeach Trump.

    That and only that.
    Deep State.
    Lies and deception.


    And they call Trump a liar. roll

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Q.What is holding up the FBI???????
      A. Being found out.

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

        Do you believe Trump should sit down with Mueller, Kate?  Donnie isn't above the law you know. Any person talking to the FBI is already under a perjury charge so the oath isn't required at all. 

        I noticed you had Strzok listed on your list.  Are you aware he was instrumental in reopening the investigation into Hillary's emails? Why would he and Comey essentially hurt HRC's chances just before the election if they were against Trump.

        By the way, an American hating commentator on Russia tv is parroting Hannity and claiming the entire Trump/Russia investigation is a scam.  And Russia was caught again using the internet with fake news with #releasethememo. No doubt Putie is very pleased.

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    so, Jacklee, I concur with your request. "...ask the people involved to appear in congress hearings and testify under oath."

    And the American People should demand it happen.

    Thank you.

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

      I have no problem with this as long as Nunes is put under oath as well. He will then be forced to answer if his staff colluded with the WH in writing the memo. But you probably think that would be okay. Why did Trump say he was 100% releasing the memo before he was supposed to have actually read it? How do you think he already knew what was in it? Or do you have a problem addressing my questions as well?

      1. profile image79
        Hxprofposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Put everyone in Washington under freakin' oath and get a citizen committee to ask all the questions they want.  You know what would happen?  More lies.

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

          I'm open to hear your solution, Hx.  hmm

          1. profile image79
            Hxprofposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            There are none forthcoming.  A solution to people lying?

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

              Execution is a solution. tongue

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

                The answer to what we want to know is right in front of us. Why don’t we subpena FBI agents Strzok and Page and find out what they did and who they communicated with all these month? They are not living in a vacuum. There are other agents and other people in government, perhaps even POTUS who are connected... that is the definition of a conspiracy.

                1. Valeant profile image95
                  Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Fox runs a story that Strzok and Page were texting about prepping Comey to give Obama an update on things the FBI was investigating and then you run on here to disparage 'other people in government, perhaps even POTUS.'  You've bought into the conspiracy theories hook, line, and sinker.

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

                    I did not buy into anything.
                    I am asking we should be able to get to the bottom of this sordid affair.
                    These people who are involved with this is still alive and working in our government.
                    How hard is it to put them under oath and find out what actually transpired?
                    Otherwise, we are just going around in circles...
                    These memos are a window into the happenings in our government...
                    If something illegal is done behind closed doors, how else can we find out?

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

          Yes, what a refreshing idea. ++++++

  9. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    Kathryn - you do realize that Steele went to the FBI due to national security concerns, not at the behest of the client.  The head of GPS Fusion testified to this in his hearing already.  And Steele's client was GPS Fusion for all he knew since they subcontracted out to him.

    1. Valeant profile image95
      Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13896164.jpg

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Hillary has never been under oath. ( like that would matter)

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Yes she was, in her testimony to Congress about the emails.  And she lied.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image80
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      … initiated by Clinton as head of the State Department who was funding the DNC, which had no money …. thanks to Obama, who was headed out of the oval office …


      Add Hillary to the list of people who needs to be put under oath:

      Comey
      Mueller
      Strzok
      FISA judge
      Steele
      McCabe
      Rosenstein
      Adam Schiff
      Hillary Clinton

      Can you imagine what will happen as the truth which CANNOT come out DOES???????

      yikes times infinity

  10. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    I conspicuously noticed some things missing from your list, Jack. 

    - You don't want to know if the guy elected president worked with or is beholden to a foreign government. 
    - You don't want to see Trump's taxes to know if he's laundering money for Russian mobsters (some lived in Trump Tower by the way).
    - You don't want people who see crimes being committed by this administration, leak those crimes to the press as their only outlet for action (Example, Mike Flynn.  Yates comes forward about him lying to VP, fired a few days later.  Flynn remains in his post for TWO MORE WEEKS until someone leaks to the Washington Post, at which point the administration is forced to act because it's become public knowledge).
    - You don't trust the intelligence services of this country to act in the best interest of this country, but you'll believe the guy who claims that there was no Russian hacking of our previous election.  Let that sink in for a minute.

    So all you really care about are the issues that conservative media and Trump allies are feeding you.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      LOL  Do you really think that Trumps personal 1040 will show money laundering by Russian mobsters?  Is there a line item for that - "Money laundered by Russian mobsters ______________?

    2. Sharlee01 profile image87
      Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "You don't want to see Trump's taxes to know if he's laundering money for Russian mobsters " Do you have no faith in the IRS? I can assure you if he broke any tax pr there was the slightest indication he was laundering money our IRS would have charged him. He has been under yearly audits for many years...  You need to have proof of such a statement as the one above.

  11. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    If his 1040 shows he's worth 3 million dollars, then you've got to wonder where the other 3.1 billion he says he's worth is coming from.  And why wouldn't you want to make sure someone with as much power and sway as the president has his finances in accordance with the law.  Why do no Trump supporters care about that very pertinent question?

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

      Not to mention Donnie can't get loans in the US because of his past bankruptcies and other nefarious business deals.

      Trump has set a precedent y not allowing his taxes to be examined, something the right would never put up with from a Dem candidate.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Do you not do your own taxes?  Of even go over them?  There is nowhere on that form to list all assets.

      I am not competent to determine if his finances are in accordance with the law, and I very highly doubt that you are either (your question on net worth shown on the 1040 is a very good indication of that!).  The IRS, on the other hand, IS competent to do that and they have a copy of his tax report.  There is no valid reason for you to see it.  Curiosity, "industrial" espionage and an intense desire to throw dirt do not count.

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

        So are you okay with any future POTUS to withhold taxes or have their finances protected even if under investigation for illegal money laundering or similar financial reasons? You and others here would have a shitfit if Obama or Hillary did the same.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Tax forms are available through the court.  Go get 'em if you want them - otherwise quit whining for what you have zero right to have.

          As far as I know he is not under investigation for illegal money laundering - is that just more of your fantasies?

    3. Sharlee01 profile image87
      Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      He is a business man with and has been for many years. Not sure if you realize, one must report income to the Government yearly. He is no different than you or me in that respect.  Ones  earnings must be accounted for.

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

        Foreign assets as well, Shar?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image87
          Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Does having foreign interests make one suspect to breaking the law in some respect? I have several foreign interests, and I certainly have broken no laws...  The stock market opens one to all kind of opportunities in other countries.

  12. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    I say taxes, and all you're focused on is a 1040.  I don't care about seeing his taxes, but there should be a non-partisan person that signs off on a candidate's financial soundness.  We're hearing all about Trump and laundering money through his real estate deals with Russians who were using cash only, which is the biggest red flag for the government when it comes to laundering money.

    How you can ignore this as a national security concern is beyond belief.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "If his 1040 shows he's worth 3 million dollars..."  Still, if you don't like the 1040, which form would you like?  A schedule C, profit or loss from business?  Guarantee that doesn't have net worth on it either.  Or how much is owed in debt.  Or anything else you're really wanting to snoop into.

      If the IRS is not non-partisan, which party do you think it is biased towards?

      I don't see anything in the constitution that a presidential candidate must be "financially sound" - what are you referring to?

      Yeah - we're definitely hearing about Trump laundering money through Russians...from non-partisan sources, right? lol  Much like his many Russian real estate deals, deals that never existed at all.  Still, it's non-partisan, so must be true, right? lol

      How you can read such crap and think there is an ounce of truth in it is beyond belief.  You want a Russian connection and money laundering, look into Clinton's "charity foundation" and the sale of our strategic Uranium to Russia, followed by massive "contributions".  Quit believing what you see on social media and Democratic propaganda sites.

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

        So there's nothing to the investigation, eh Dan? You brought up the partisan issue, so do you think the releasing of Nunes memo should have been held until Schiff's memo could be released at the same time. Gimme a good non-partisan answer if you can.....Dan.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          The FBI was created and has always been used as a weapon - a tool of government to use against the people.  J Edgar started it with his relentless search for, and accusations of, "commies", and little has changed except to drive much of it underground, hidden from the view of the people.

          With the extreme party politics and absolute demand that only one party has any answers, that the opposing party is composed of demons from hell, mafia types that kill babies for food, or other equally stupid, hateful claims is there any doubt at all that the whatever party is currently in power will continue the use of the FBI to hurt any opponents?  Not to anyone with a grain of sense, there isn't - even an outsider like Trump caught it and called it (while liberals all cried "Foul!" and "It's a lie!").

          So no, I'm not concerned with a politically biased, politically based Democratic "rebuttal" to what Nunes had to say.  The sole purpose of it will always be to demonize the opposing political party and anyone in it, and truth will not be a concern.

          You want truth about the memo - sic the FBI on it.  The same FBI that is now the "property" of the GOP. lol

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

            So this is a vast conspiracy and now Trump's in control of the FBI, it is working for Trump now? Your answer was a bit confusing. And does anyone believe anything he says except for his dwindling base?



            Your hyperbole was entertaining re the baby killers etc., but not very informative. I'd like to see some info on your claims about the FBI. It has to be classified because you would not simply make up so serious a claim.      tongue

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Do you disagree that the FBI has very often been used by controlling politics and politicians to "go after" political opponents?  That it has been used to attack ordinary citizens because they offended politicians?

              If you do, start your search and study with J Edgar himself.

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

                Okay, can I give vague opinions and unfounded conspiracy theories instead of actually answering the questions like you guys? tongue

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  It seemed the natural thing to do:

                  Trump colluded with Russians to fix the election.
                  Somebody else, connected with Trump, colluded with Russians to fix the election.
                  Trump laundered money with Russians
                  Trump has business dealings in Russia
                  Trump is buddy buddy with Putin
                  Trump molested children

                  Would it help if I suggested Trump had connections to an FBI agent 40 years ago...would that make it believable that the FBI is used for political purposes?

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

                    It's clearly a Trump voter's modus operandi.

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

      Trump voters do not care how criminal Trump has been or even if he did win the election with Russian assistance, Val. I've heard many local people actually say, "I don't care if Trump won the election with Russia's help. I got what I wanted..."  Also, I've overheard others say, "Now Trump's president we can go back to sayin' n****r again."

      There are more ignorant people than I ever imagined...

      1. GA Anderson profile image81
        GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Judging by what you've "overheard," that's a helluva group of people you hang around with Randy. I think your extrapolation of your  crowd to all Trump voters is a bit of a stretch, but I can certainly agree with your closing remark.

        GA

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

          No GA, I personally witnessed the incidents I mentioned. Sadly enough, one of my closest and oldest friends made the remark about not caring if the Russians helped Trump. I've heard both remarks out in the public by Trump fans many times. Not proud of those in my area.sad

      2. profile image79
        Hxprofposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        No one has yet suggested, even theoretically, how Trump might have received Russia assistance, and even with some assistance, exactly how that assistance helped him.  Really, I've heard the talk and waited for a LOOONG time for something.

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

          I think you will be unpleasantly surprised before long, and get the info you really do not want to hear.

          And apparently you haven't heard how the Russians spent a lot of money on pro-Trump anti-HRC ads on social media. hmm

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            When does "before long" finally end?  You remind me of signs warning the world is ending - we keep seeing the signs just as we keep hearing you, but nothing ever happens!  Except that we spend more money in the fruitless search for presidential collusion with Russians of course.

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

              When Mueller is through interviewing Donnie. Or whenever he makes his mind up or is subpoenaed and/or takes the fifth. You guys didn't seem to mind the endless investigations into HRC's actions and didn't mention the expense either. Double standard perhaps? tongue

              So you haven't heard about Flynn, Manafort, Page, and Papadopoulos pleading guilty or being indicted yet? I think they were possibly charged because of their Russian connections. And then there's Jr. and son-in-law as well as the AG who all seemed to "forget" about Russian meetings.

              So don't get your panties in a wad Dan, it'll be well worth waiting for, unlike HRC's expensive "witch hunt."

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                That you think they were "possibly charged because of their Russian connections" means little to me.  You think Satan lives in Trumps left ear, too.  Or maybe his hairpiece - that's a pretty Satanic work, isn't it?

                As I recall, the investigations into Benghazi stayed on Benghazi.  This ridiculous thing has had to take off in a different direction a dozen times when it couldn't find what was being demanded.

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

                  The secret's in the sauce! smile Did you complain about the cost of Benghazi then?

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    You're claiming that if money was spent, whether for good or bad, that it's a good thing to waste it in the future?  Is that how it works for you?

          2. profile image79
            Hxprofposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Look, I'm good with it it IF Trump deserves to be prosecuted for something like plotting with the Russians - I only voted for the guy because Florida was up in the air, and I couldn't stomach Hillary as president.  So, I'm not a Trumpster, not in the least.  That said, yes I did hear something about the Russians spending money on Facebook ads.  If that's true, then it has to demonstrated that Trump's team knew the Russians were doing it, and that they somehow aided the Russians in their effort, and also demonstrate that Trump knew about it.  If the Russians did this, and Trump's team knew about it AND aided the Russians, they would have almost certainly wanted to keep Trump out of the loop.  But that's going way down a nonsense road.  And regards the Mueller interview with Donnie, who knows what he'll dig up.  All Mueller has to do is catch Donnie lying about anything at all, something like what time of day he normally stops to take a pee, and there'll be trouble, even if there's nothing to the Russian collusion thing - which there almost certainly isn't

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

              Mueller isn't going to go for something petty as it will not stand. The very fact Trump won't release the Schiff memo--it was announced earlier-- only shows his increasing anxiety about Mueller's investigation. And by the way, I don't care what party someone represents, if they're caught in a treasonous act they get the death penalty.

              1. profile image79
                Hxprofposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Don't know why Trump's "nervous" if he is......he claims there's still sensitive info in the memo.  Trump's lawyers apparently ARE nervous about him meeting with Mueller, because Trump tends to spew, and his spewing does indeed often involve lies - he tends to say whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it, and lying to a federal office is serious, as I pointed out above.  Here's a link with info regards Trump's lawyers. http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-lawyers- … ng-800122.  Even if he has nothing to hide about so-called Russian collusion, Trump could get himself in trouble here, and that seems to be what his lawyers are worried about.

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

                  Trump has been forced to give testimony in several lawsuits and bankruptcies over the years and didn't come out so well in doing so. He tends to lie frequently as we've all seen.

                  What many are calling a perjury trap is simply a lawyers way of saying their client has trouble telling the truth. We call these people liars where I come from.

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

                    I support releasing the Democratic memo as is...
                    I want to call them bluff. If this memo is as they claim, I want to see it and read it and determine for my self it it contains secrets...
                    I don’t see how Trump can loose.
                    If the memo contains secret information, then it would fall on Democrats for wanting to release this information to undermine our national security, after they fought to stop Nunes’s memo from seeing the light of day...
                    Either they want the whole truth or they are playing games with national security...which is it?

                  2. profile image79
                    Hxprofposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Agreed.  But what's new with politicians?  Trump fits right in with Washington.

  13. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    Dan, these sales using cash from Russians are a matter of public record.  Do some research buddy.  Sales using cash is a red flag for money laundering.  Russian mobsters lived a few floors down from Trump in his residence in NYC.  Fact.  You're living in denial.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      If they're a matter of public record (something more than paying their hotel bill), show it. 

      I don't think that living not far from what you call "Russian mobsters" (without providing any indication that they are or that they live there) qualifies for being guilty of "laundering money through Russian mobsters".  Do you?

  14. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    Living not far?  The dude owns the building and has a known Russian mobster living and running his money laundering business that led to the indictment of 30 people three floors down from him.  Add in $208 million dollars in cash real estate sales to Russians during this time.  The dots are practically connecting themselves.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Why is this "known Russian mobster living and running his money laundering business" not in jail?  Perhaps because it is known only to you?

      What $208M in cash real estate sales to Russians? 

      Those dots are only connecting themselves to you, and only because you're swallowing ridiculous stories (was that 200M cash in a suitcase?).

      (You forgot to supply proof rather than just claims - want to try again?)

      1. Valeant profile image95
        Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah, Dan, I'm the only one that knows about the thirty Russia dudes operating a gambling ring on the entire 51st floor of Trump Tower that got indicted.  Or the leader of the ring who escaped, was issue a red alert by interpol, and was later seen sitting in the VIP box at the Miss Universe Pageant with Donald J. Trump that Moscow hosted..

        Someday we'll introduce you to Google search.  It's wonderful so you can find out some basic facts about Trump and Russia mobster relationships.

        But since you need it spoon-fed to you before you dismiss it since you didn't witness it personally, here ya go (from a liberal-leaning source):  https://newrepublic.com/article/143586/ … -syndicate

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          From your link: "To date, no one has documented that Trump was even aware of any suspicious entanglements in his far-flung businesses, let alone that he was directly compromised by the Russian mafia or the corrupt oligarchs who are closely allied with the Kremlin. So far, when it comes to Trump’s ties to Russia, there is no smoking gun. "

          So Trump had no knowledge of suspicious entanglements, was not compromised himself and there is no "smoking gun".  Why, then, do you insist the Russians are laundering money for him?  Where does that claim come from - an over-active imagination or just a deep desire to harm the president?  Apparently you are the only one that knows "Trump and laundering money through his real estate deals with Russians who were using cash only" - this link even says there was no deal done in cash - only that they bought some condos and paid with a check.  Doesn't even say whether it was a personal check or from a loan company or some other entity.  These claims that Trump is involved apparently come only from you.

          (You might consider, too, that the claim "...the building and has a known Russian mobster living and running his money laundering business...." is false as well - any illegal activity is long gone according to your link.)

  15. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    Got any better examples from the last forty-five years or so?

  16. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    D: Why, then, do you insist the Russians are laundering money for him?
    -I never claimed they were doing it for him, I said they were doing it through his real estate deals.

    Again, Dan, try doing some research before claiming that I'm the only one saying these purchases were done in cash.  Just once, before speaking, see if what you're saying can be corroborated.  It's now comical how uninformed you are about Trump's ties to Russian interests.

    Five years ago isn't really that long ago, and who here would feel comfortable having Russian mobsters living in the suite right below them if you owned the building?  And running illicit gambling rings using a whole floor of your owned property?  Not many, unless they were complicit.

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

      The desperation of Trump voters is very evident these days, Val. The closer Mueller gets to the Trump interview--Trump's getting cold feet now--the more laughable and ridiculous his apologists become. Lately, they don't want to answer any questions that will debunk their excuses and will instead go with the trite "well Hillary and Obama did so and so". It will get worse for them I'm afraid...

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "I never claimed they were doing it for him, I said they were doing it through his real estate deals."

      Really?  Let's see - "We're hearing all about Trump and laundering money through his real estate deals with Russians who were using cash only..."

      If you didn't mean Trump was using the Russians to launder his money, just what does "Trump and laundering money", regardless of the method used, mean?

      "try doing some research before claiming that I'm the only one saying these purchases were done in cash."

      You tried to prove your assertion...with an article that said it was done via check, and without ever listing who the check was written on.  That's not "cash", so I ask again - where do you find that the real estate deals were done in cash?  And no, I'm not going to try and prove your crazy assertions for you - you made them, you prove them.

      "would feel comfortable having Russian mobsters living in the suite right below them if you owned the building" 

      How did it go from "several floors below" to "the suite right below them"?  Just more exaggeration?  Beyond that, I once lived just down the street from a home the police raided - seems it was a drug house and they were cooking meth there.  I didn't feel bad about it at all (before it was raided) because I had no idea what was going on.  Neither did the landlord; the poor guy had to buy his house back at an auction.  You're trying to blame Trump for not knowing the details of what customers of one of his businesses were doing as if he is personal responsible for the actions of any of the tenants of his far flung financial empire.  A very foolish concept.

  17. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    Randy, I'd be all for Mueller expanding his investigations into the Clinton Foundation and their pay-to-play scheming as well.  Root out corruption on both sides of the aisle.

  18. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 2 months ago

    Me too, Val! I won't defend corruption from any party.

  19. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    I'll address your last question first.  The extortion, money laundering, and gambling ring was run three floors down.  The ring leader lived in the suite just below Trump.  And your example of the meth house would have been better if you or the homeowner lived in the same building.

    I didn't try to prove my assertion about cash transactions with the article.  I tried to educate you about the ridiculous number of business transactions between Trump and shady Russians.

    In terms of cash sales, here are some details since you need them: 
    The surge was driven by the opening of 11 Trump condo buildings between 2008 and 2010 as Trump shifted his real-estate business from developing high-rises to licensing them. Nine were Trump-licensed, and they drew hundreds of shell companies that paid an average of $1.2 million in cash for a condo. In six of the licensed buildings, cash-paying shell companies bought at least a third of the condos, records show.

    At the Trump SoHo Hotel Condominium New York in Manhattan, 77% of the sales were to shell companies that paid cash. One of the project’s Russia-born developers was convicted of money laundering in the 1990s.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "I tried to educate you about the ridiculous number of business transactions between Trump and shady Russians."

      ONE transaction - the sale of real estate - is a "ridiculous number"??? 

      "In six of the licensed buildings, cash-paying shell companies bought at least a third of the condos, records show."

      You will forgive me if I'm not upset over investors buying, and if I don't believe the second claim that someone showed up with a million dollars in a suitcase to rent a condo.  I've already been down the road once; you're going to have to supply more than your word that it happened.

      Are you going to go back to Trump's childhood teachers and look for an ex-Russian there, too?  You're talking nearly 30 years ago and still trying to blame Trump for the crimes of another person!  Or are you just assuming he was complicit in the crime, using the services of the laundry, because you like the idea?  So far everything you've tried to claim Trump was involved in would be laughed out of court.

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

        Better keep your day job, Dan. You'd go broke as an investigator. Like everything else in the Admin, it's merely a coincidence. "I don't know anyone in my admin who dealt with the Russians, I know I didn't."

        How many of his cronies have either been indicted or plead guilty so far? tongue

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          ????  There isn't a single thing that would indicate I investigated anything at all.  Instead, I asked the originator of ridiculous claims to do the legwork to support his claims - something that did not happen.  Another attempt to deflect a question you don't like to answer?

          I don't know how many "cronies" (read: anybody remotely connected to Donald Trump, from his first grade teacher to the Starbucks employee that filled his cup yesterday) have pled guilty.  Want to provide proof of whatever number you claim, along with proof they are a "crony" of Trump?  Although you can leave out those "indicted" until they either plead guilty or are convicted of some terrible crime - while I understand that all it takes for you to determine guilt is an unproven rumor or claim, the rest of us prefer just a little more.  Perhaps a congressional testimony under oath of criminal activity.

          Definition of crony
          plural cronies
          : a close friend especially of long standing

          1. Valeant profile image95
            Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            It's common knowledge that Flynn and Papadopolous have both copped pleas.  And the mere fact you have to ask us to prove they are connected to Trump is ridiculous.

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

              He knows that, Val. Simply distracting from the real issue at hand. And what about the Schiff memo? Isn't it time for it to be released by the Baby man?

  20. jackclee lm profile image81
    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago
  21. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 2 months ago

    Randy, when we speak of "deep state conspiracy theories," it would be good to define our terms. What this means is that many of us have come to realize--not "believe," but "realize," due to FACTS that continue to emerge--that many, many people at the highest levels of government have engaged in unlawful and even seditious lines of conduct. This is not a theory. This is FACT.

    Most recently, undercover FBI informant William Campbell has given written testimony to Congressional investigators after an "iron clad" gag order (imposed by Loretta Lynch) was lifted in October. Campbell was a highly valued CIA and FBI asset deeply embedded in the Russian nuclear industry while Robert Mueller was the Director of the FBI.

    He collected over 5,000 documents and briefs over a six year period, some of which detail efforts by Moscow to route money to the Clinton Foundation. Campbell claims to have video evidence of bribe money related to the Uranium One deal being stuffed into suitcases. The Obama FBI knew about the bribery scheme, yet the administration still approved the Uranium One deal.

    An extremely important aspect of Campbell's timeline is that the Obama FBI , headed by Robert Mueller, knew of the bribery scheme with the transportation company before approving the Uranium One deal which would have utilized TLI for transporting the mined uranium.

    This case, along with the exposure of the staggering criminality at the very highest levels of government, is not a "conspiracy theory." These are FACTUAL instances of the flouting of quite a number of black-letter laws.

    Such pervasive law-breaking cannot (and clearly did not) occur without the complicity of almost all high-level people in government--as FACTS clearly demonstrate to have been the case.

    Facts and evidence do not support your view that these (well documented) actions are "theories" or imaginative flights of fancy.

    I am actually puzzled by your determination to characterize facts and well documented evidence as fanciful. Calling an onion an apple is not a sign of mental hygiene on your part. A lot of people would call this some kind of dissociative disorder, or fugue state.

  22. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 2 months ago

    Here is the link on the material in my previous post: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02- … an-uranium

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

      Do you ever take the time to vet the sites you're linking to, Blue? Apparently not as Trumps fans seem to use these type of sites to back up their arguments frequently. The author of the article you linked has a fictitious name as do others running the site. Please don't use this site for any sort of facts again.

      Here.....you may want to read this about the author of the article you sited:

      www.businessinsider.com/the-men-behind- … ked-2016-4

      1. GA Anderson profile image81
        GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        That link looks like a nice catch Randy. But when I followed it, it turned out to be a report on a Bloomburg article, (that was much more detailed), which also had a link to a Zerohedge response.

        Zerohedge responds to Bloomburg Article

        Which one are we to believe; Businessinsider - a rewrite? Bloomburg - ??? or Zerohedge - which included actual communications, (if you can believe the reproduced text msgs.), from the Bloomburg source????

        Hmm...

        GA

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

          I didn't really depend on either, GA. Simply pointing out how you can get what you want to hear from numerous suspect sites.  smile

  23. jackclee lm profile image81
    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago

    They are rhetorical...

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

      Why ask them if that's the case? Are you talking to yourself?  If not, why bother?

  24. jackclee lm profile image81
    jackclee lmposted 2 months ago
  25. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 2 months ago

    Randy, your attempts rebuttal are consistently focused on "attacking the messenger." You should perhaps take a stab at refuting the FACTS as presented in the articles I link to.

    Clearly you are unable to do so.

    Zerohedge is primarily a news aggregator, reposting articles from other news sites. The article I cited was written by one of "the Tylers." https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02- … an-uranium

    Perhaps you'd like to dispute whether FBI informant William Campbell's written testimony actually occurred? Didn't happen, right? Campbell did not testify that, "He collected over 5,000 documents and briefs over a six year period, some of which detail efforts by Moscow to route money to the Clinton Foundation"? Right?

    You seem to have a lot of trouble confronting objective reality. Whenever you are presented with FACTS, your favorite (and only) strategy is to attack the messenger.

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

      Did you not see my earlier post about zerohedge? You're linking to a site with fake articles by people writing under pseudonyms. Can't you find any reputable sites to link to? Or are you like Jack, simply wanting to opine without bothering to reply to questions properly.

  26. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 2 months ago

    Of course. I was replying to your earlier post.

    Using a psuedonym is no indication of anything at all. As an objection, it is nonsensical. Many people in the public eye do not use their real names. There are a variety of reasons for this.

    As I said, zerohedge is primarily a news aggregator, so articles from many sources appear there. I assume you favor MSM sources. I have already discussed the reasons for the MSM's lack of credibility, plus of course they are continually printing false stories.

    I see that you are still unable to refute the FACTS I presented in the link.

    Got an actual argument? "I don't like your source," is not an argument.

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

      How can one rebut information from an unknown author or source? You yourself have no means to prove what you're posting here. Let me ask you, do you watch Fox News and rely on their reporting? Oh that's right, you and Jack do not care to answer questions, merely opine. Don't quote me anymore or address me if you cannot use a credible source for your claims. If I want to hear BS I'll listen to Hannity and Limbaugh.

  27. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 2 months ago

    Seriously, are you one of the dozen or so people in the US who still believes the MSM? I didn't think CNN had any viewers left, except for the captive audience in airports.

    1. GA Anderson profile image81
      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Now hold on a sec blueheron, It's a martini night so I just thought I would pop in with something seemingly nonsensical, but which is, in fact, probably edifying, (Ha! How about that "edifying," when I could have just said enlightening).

      I have CNN on almost all the time. Not because I believe them, but because if there is anything Trump-controversial, or anti-Trump, I can be sure to hear it there first. Then I can make up my own mind whether to look for the facts or not.

      CNN does still serve a purpose. Just not the one they claim. *except for their weekend "Decades" series. They did a really good job with those.

      GA

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

        That's why it's imperative to watch and read many sources of media to winnow out the chaff, GA.

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          I listen to all news sources-conservative, liberal, & in-between then I form my opinion on the issue.

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

            Good for you, Grace! Those who only get one side of the story are betraying themselves.

            1. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              The more information, the more informed decisions made.  It is good to be exposed to VARIED viewpoints as opposed to ONE.   To be exposed to ONLY ONE viewpoint is the beginning of TOTALITARIAN policies which ISN'T good at all.

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

                You're correct Grace, but it seems some people get hooked on certain types of media, and perhaps it's what they want to believe. It's the same with religion, but most don't bother to take the time to examine their beliefs fully, or are told not to question them by those who are afraid they actually will.  What a mess!

  28. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 2 months ago

    GA Anderson, I commend you for being able to withstand the bombardments of television in any form at all. (I haven't had a TV in many years.) Whenever I chance to be around a TV, my impression is that they are broadcasting from Cyborgia. Some time in the past year, I listened to NPR for awhile in someone's car. If I wanted to hear pompous, inflated, unctuous drivel, I would go to a teachers' meeting.

    One of the problems with broadcast media (apart from the fact that they are controlled by a very small number of elite billionaires), is that there is no detailed or reasoned analysis, or no analysis whatsoever, no back story or perspective, and no documentation (in the form of letters, emails, memos, briefs, legal filings, etc.).

    Print media--or internet print media--can provide all of the above, if they are so inclined. I find I am not interested in hearing the (supposed) opinions of TV or other media "personalities," no matter how stunning their makeup or pear-shaped their tones. I can also do without all the revolting "show biz" embellishments that surround newscasting.

    1. GA Anderson profile image81
      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks blueheron, Although I understand your perspective regarding "TV," I do think they provide a valuable service of bringing issues to the public's attention. Not their analysis of the issues, (whichever position they take), but just the issues themselves.

      From that point it is up to us to evaluate what has been brought to our attention. As you also indicated, I am fully aware that news programs are profit centers, (or "purpose-driven" outlets), and as such, have agendas that must be considered along with anything they say.

      GA

  29. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 2 months ago

    Randy, you ask, "How can one rebut information from an unknown author or source?"

    What would be your criteria for a credible author or source?

    Do you believe that a person of normal intelligence is incapable of assembling facts and documents, and reasoning to conclusions? Do you think that people with normal intelligence cannot understand the law of the land and intelligently review instances in which those laws have been broken?

    The requirements for credibility are merely to present documented facts and apply arguments founded on reason. No imprimatur required.

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

      My criteria for a credible author or source is those who have shown by their past reporting to be factual in what they report. Any sites who hide the contributors or the owners names are not worth my time. 



      Yes I do, if they indeed vet their sources properly. But not if they're only using sources which tell them what they want to hear.



      As long as you present facts you'll have no problem from me, but continue using unverified sources such as zerohedge and I'll certainly call you on it. smile

  30. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 2 months ago

    Some will of course, choose information sources based in the imprimatur of their billionaire overlords, as well as the visual appeal of the newscaster's hair and makeup (and cleavage). I guess we can't all be high school graduates.

  31. blueheron profile image97
    blueheronposted 2 months ago

    You still have not shown me any evidence refuting the FACTS presented in zerohedge article I linked to.

    You are merely saying that you choose not to believe that FBI informant William Campbell gave written testimony to Congressional investigators detailing efforts by Moscow to route money to the Clinton Foundation, and you do not believe that William Campbell testified that the Obama FBI knew about the bribery scheme, yet the administration still approved the Uranium One deal.

    Your reason for not believing this is because it was reported by zerohedge. Hence, in your view, it didn't happen.

    If you are interested in seeking news sources who have shown their past reporting to be factual, the MSM would be your last choice, since they have quite a long record of...ahem..."fake news."

    It's true that we do know who they are: We know they are not investigative reporters, for starters. Broadcast news reporters are merely pretty faces reading the canned scripts, and delivering the canned "talking points," provided by the owners of these media. We know who the owners of these media are: a very small number of elite billionaires whose alignment with the "deep state" is transparent and notorious. The owners of the MSM promote those government policies that serve their interests, which are generally contrary to the national interest, and to the interests of the people of the US.

    Independent journalistic sources like zerohedge do indeed have their flaws. Their strength is that they are independent journalists.

    The real gist of your argument is that you are opposed to independent journalism, and consider independent journalists to be just a bunch of nobodies, and that nobodies should just shut up.

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

      You have the best response against the current main street media. My believe is they are a dying species. Sooner or later, people will find alternative news sources that are less biased. If they continue down the path, they will loose their credibility with their customers...even democrats.

      1. Valeant profile image95
        Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        I personally believe Campbell.  Even as one of the liberal crowd here, the pay-to-play issues surrounding the Clinton Foundation were obvious.  it's why I felt Bernie was a better choice, less baggage.

        As for the mainstream media, they are the only ones holding the Trump Administration accountable right now.  Flynn resigned because of the main stream media.  John Kelly knew about Porter's wife beating, but only when the main stream media released the photos, did they need to get him out.  It really makes you wonder what other corruption is going on behind the scenes that the Trump Administration is ignoring until they get caught.

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

          That may be true but if they had done their job with the same zeal during the Obama years, maybe we would not have a Trump presidency now. The abuses and corruption under Obama is still being exposed now. The other shoe may drop soon..,

  32. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    The hard truth is that there was credible evidence that members of the Trump campaign were in contact with Russians, that Russia was, and likely still is, engaged in assisting the Trump campaign to assume the highest office in the United States, and that Obama and the FBI believed that Trump was compromised by Russia.

    In my mind, we're at treason.  When Congress passes sanctions on Russia for their interference in our last election in a manner that overrides a Trump veto and Trump refuses to enforce those, what would you call it?
    When six leaders of America's intelligence services testify that Russian interference is still going on and Trump refuses to enforce penalties on them for previous cases of such action, then it's obvious he's complicit.

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

      Wow, TDS at its worst.
      So you are ok with the Obama admin. Using the full force of the US government to go after an opposition candidate in an election?

      What evidence did Mueller came up with in 1 year of investigation?

      Now we are seeing what goes on behind the scene on how sausages are made in DC.

      You can continue with your belief of Russian collusion but the American people are smarter than that.
      Now 50% of the people believe there were spying going on in the Obama admin.

  33. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    You completely failed to answer why Trump refuses to enforce sanctions that were passed nearly unanimously by both houses of Congress.

    And yes, if either candidate has members in touch with a hostile foreign nation run by a gangster such as Putin, why wouldn't we put them under surveillance.  Especially when those members have previously been under FBI surveillance and have admitted to working as an agent of said hostile foreign government such as Carter Page, definitely.  And when other members admit they have dirt from said foreign hostile government, such as what Papadopolous did, it's prudent to monitor those campaign aides to protect the United States from espionage.

    When you can explain Trump's reasons for not enforcing sanctions and why you wouldn't want aides that were in contact with a hostile foreign government monitored during an election where said hostile foreign government was assisting the person employing those aides, then I'll gladly change my stance.

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

      The monitoring of American citizens based on a phony dossier is against the law. The FISA court was set up to spy on foreigners after 9/11 the Patriots act. Fisa court were lied to and information withheld from the judge to get the warrant. The abuse of power is clear and simple.
      The revelation of Susan Rice today is another piece of the puzzle. Why would she write a memo to her self the day of the inauguration...to cover for Obama?

      Look, you don’t have to believe me. Just use your own common sense. Go back and examine the past 20 years of Trump and see if he has this inclination to collude with a foreign power...
      His life is an open book. He build real estate in NY, he ran casinos and hotels. He had a top rated TV show. He is a self promoter and he is a patriot. Don’t forget, he contributed to many top Democrats before he ran as a Republican...
      He said he ran to be President to make America great again and I believe him. Every action he did since president is to make America better and more competitive in the wold stage.

      All the investigation by Mueller has turned up zero...so far.

  34. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 2 months ago

    So much misinformation in that post that I don't know where to start. 
    1.)  Since when was 9/11 in 1978?  Because that's when the FISA court was established.
    2.)  Information in the dossier has been corroborated by the Australians pertaining to Papadoplolous.  Just because Trump says it's fake, doesn't make it so.
    3.)  The investigation began before the dossier so you need to stop the claim that the dossier was the reason for the surveillance.  When the democrat memo eventually gets cleared, it will likely show that and that's why Trump is fighting it's release by suddenly saying the FBI is a bastion of integrity and that they wouldn't clear it.
    4.)  Information about the dossier was disclosed to the FISA judge, so that was also a false claim.

    As for my common sense, we have very different perceptions of Trump as a patriot.  A five-time draft dodger isn't a patriot.  Someone who stands up for white supremacists and domestic abusers is not a patriot.  And he has a long history of connections to Russians, even admitting his real estate business is heavily funded by Russian money.  I've chronicled the Russian gangsters living in, and running operations, from Trump Tower.  So, yeah, what you choose to believe and what many other Americans see in Trump are vastly different.

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

      You are sticking to the validitity of the dossier?  Wow, every agency of the government has agreed that it was a fake and paid for and unsubstantiated...rumors...
      You and (I and almost all clear thinking people) are on different plane on this.
      There is not much more to discuss if that is your belief.

      1. Valeant profile image95
        Valeantposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        You're right.  Your constant deflection away from answering why Trump refuses to enforce Congressional sanctions on Russia really says which camp you're in, Comrade.

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

          Jack doesn't like to answer questions, Val. Another reason I don't have discussions with him anymore. He'll continue to ignore the question and deflect until you understand he simply refuses to answer. Trump has corrupted more than just the Republican congress...

 
working