Trump Being Treasonous on Television

[_Kevin Graham]

No, I'm not surprised. Why would you think that? I was simply documenting on the thread.

It was a rhetorical question.

[_Jersey Girl]

No, I'm not surprised. Why would you think that? I was simply documenting on the thread.

It was a rhetorical question.

Sure it was.

[_Some Schmo]

It was a rhetorical question.

Sure it was.

You don't believe him on this?

“F”, you're weird.

[_Kevin Graham]

Because America first!

White House entertaining Russian proposal to interrogate Americans in exchange for Mueller investigation assistance

[_subgenius]

As much as you'd like to describe "Zerohedge" as a "major news source," subs, what you are misrepresenting is the description of what occurred. The FBI requesting something, receiving a counter-offer, and accepting that offer is not the same thing as the DNC not allowing access. Have fun continuing on this point, though. We haven't heard with what InfoWars or Gateway Pundit has to say yet.

1 out of the 5 links was zerohedge.....so delete that one and then just simply refute the "CNN" link as being a major news source.
Apart from your juvenile cherry-picking, the fact that zerohedge reported it does not make it false. Among people who are not arrogant and enjoy reality, it is called<click here for insight>.

So, since "source" matters, and we certainly do not want to get caught up in "fake news"......how about you hear for yourself what the FBI Director said? (is the FBI Director a credible source for you?)
Here is a 1 minute 52 second video - feel free to contradict what is being stated therein...especially the part about "denied access" and "prefer access", etc.

Or how about this video (2 minutes) where Tom Perez (DNC Chair) is twice asked point blank about servers...can you tell me if he says why they did not allow access? or can you tell me if he says they did or did not allow access?

I do not want to MISREPRESENT anything, so perhaps you can REPRESENT the facts better...just take a minute, or three, and offer us all a proper example of how to represent what Comey stated, what Perez stated....or perhaps you would rather kick up some dust about how we should not trust video footage from CNN or video footage from C-Span?

[_EAllusion]

As much as you'd like to describe "Zerohedge" as a "major news source," subs, what you are misrepresenting is the description of what occurred. The FBI requesting something, receiving a counter-offer, and accepting that offer is not the same thing as the DNC not allowing access. Have fun continuing on this point, though. We haven't heard with what InfoWars or Gateway Pundit has to say yet.

1 out of the 5 links was zerohedge.....so delete that one and then just simply refute the "CNN" link as being a major news source.

Your other links consisted of a right-wing Canadian website you opted to describe as "Canada," a random blog, a Hill reporter, and a CNN link. This is what you choose to describe as "every major news source." The two legitimate links in that list that don't use your explicit spin; they don't report what you claim.

Here, you choose to link exactly my characterization in a weird gambit to show how wrong I am. The FBI made a request, was counter-offered, and accepted that counter-offer as fine. If the FBI wasn't fine with that counter-offer, they could've pressed the matter, but they did not because what they received is ordinary practice. Describing this as the DNC refusing access to its servers is wildly misleading, especially in the context of you attempting to suggest that this is a nefarious ploy to mask the real truth of what happened with its hacking.

Or how about this video (2 minutes) where Tom Perez (DNC Chair) is twice asked point blank about servers...can you tell me if he says why they did not allow access? or can you tell me if he says they did or did not allow access?

He doesn't talk about refusing access. His response is to pivot to his talking points and ignore the question entirely. You've never seen a politician do that before on cable news? What black magic that must be.

[_subgenius]

Your other links consisted of a right-wing Canadian website you opted to describe as "Canada," a random blog, a Hill reporter, and a CNN link. This is what you choose to describe as "every major news source." The two legitimate links in that list that don't use your explicit spin; they don't report what you claim.

Sure they did...and regardless of the source (see also logic 101) the fact remains that DNC refused access to FBI.
now kindly point out in my posting of those links where i claimed that list was "major news sources" ? viewtopic.php?p=1131803#p1131803

And now i have posted a C-Span video of the words coming out of Comey's mouth (arguably not a right-wing source)...and then we have a CNN reporter asking the head of the DNC why and if access was refused - and surprisingly the head of the DNC does not take a moment to correct the situation...because pesky facts, ya know.

Here, you choose to link exactly my characterization in a weird gambit to show how wrong I am. The FBI made a request, was counter-offered, and accepted that counter-offer as fine.

Yet, once again, facts are different than your clumsy revision. Comey flat-out testifies that "several requests" at "several levels" were made - all of which were refused.
But ok, let just say that crime scene access was negotiable.
Your house gets robbed and you report the crime to police.
The police tell you that they will be right over to investigate.
You tell the police - "Nope, I hired a professional photographer to take pictures, you can't come in my house".
The police go "ok, that is normal, we will just go after who ever you say is in the pictures".
*in walks insurance agent - "yeah, that is good enough for us too!"

If the FBI wasn't fine with that counter-offer, they could've pressed the matter, but they did not because what they received is ordinary practice.

1. Prove your claim that this is standard practice with the FBI when a foreign agent tampers with election systems.
2. The FBI could have pressed the matter...but they obviously did not...why?...because their boss was on the tarmac with Bill?

Describing this as the DNC refusing access to its servers is wildly misleading,

No it is not, because it is exactly what happened..and to date has not been refuted by DNC and appears as such on Congressional testimony.

especially in the context of you attempting to suggest that this is a nefarious ploy to mask the real truth of what happened with its hacking.

Why would it be nefarious for the DNC to pay someone to have access instead of getting free access by the FBI....or even doing both?

His response is to pivot to his talking points and ignore the question entirely. You've never seen a politician do that before on cable news? What black magic that must be.

No it is not black magic, but when politicians do it they do it for the same reason he did it, don't they.....or do you consider these pivots only inasmuch as they against your partisan position?

regardless, basic common sense that people dodge pivot and ignore questions because they simply do not want to answer the question, or they cannot answer.
I am sure that he had a reason to not answer the question...i mean what difference does it make anyway, amiright?

[_Jersey Girl]

Now he's threatening Putin.

But he added: "Now, with that being said if that doesn’t work out, I'll be the worst enemy he's ever had — the worst he's ever had."

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... afcd5e7844

The man needs to shut his damn mouth.

[_Chap]

Breaking news from the New York Times. Apparently Trump had definitive proof that Russia had interfered since January 2017. This is why intelligence officials are so pissed off at him. They know that he knows, and has known, for quite some time, that this was all Russia. And yet he keeps throwing shade on the whole idea because it affects him personally.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/worl ... ling-.html

Colour me deeply unsurprised,

[_subgenius]

Breaking news from the New York Times. Apparently Trump had definitive proof that Russia had interfered since January 2017. This is why intelligence officials are so pissed off at him. They know that he knows, and has known, for quite some time, that this was all Russia. And yet he keeps throwing shade on the whole idea because it affects him personally.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/worl ... ling-.html

Colour me deeply unsurprised,

There was proof in 2016 also...at least we know your "deeply disturbed" is just the new hair fire.