Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
Author Message
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #41
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 03:19 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  The tears of trump supporters taste so good.

Too bad for you they are tears of laughter from your pathetic attempts at being a troll.
01-18-2019 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMstateU Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,084
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 3551
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #42
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 03:19 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  The tears of trump supporters taste so good.

Those arent tears. I pissed myself laughing at you guys.

#Enjoy
01-18-2019 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #43
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'm continually amazed that the whole FBI being out to get trump for no apparent reason other than they just don't like him (I guess) is totally plausible, but trump colluding with Russia to help win election is a bridge too far.

Perhaps because there appears to evidence of the one but not the other.
01-18-2019 03:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crebman Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,407
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 552
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #44
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 01:59 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 12:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  arguing over this is futile. All of these sources have biases. They do. I used to think. Just wait for the Mueller report, but if Barr is writing it. My argument is moot there too.

It's not a good place we are in as a country. I don't trust your sources and you don't trust mine.
Precisely.

Mach doesn't trust anything that doesn't fit his point of view. Its the standard leftist meme. The WSJ is the only objective American source out there. Its pro business, but has few biases other than that.

Anything else you have to read very closely. Its amazing how often I read leftist media when the headlines say one thing and the details in the article say something else. Mach doesn't read past the headlines.

there has never been any time since the invention of the printing press where editorialized rhetoric is the dominating daily source of disinformation....it disgusts me from value to ethics how this group currently operates....they've become nothing more than a snake oil salesman in the 21st century.....today's version is the Hearst principle x20....

if I had to define a number, I put it at >80% what most people 'SEE' at distorted levels designed to herd sheeple....

that's the shite that disgusts me more so than those that refuse to sift through to the point where 'reason' falls behind that which is disseminated and acknowledged as 'fact'.....

the imbalance within the msm are now operating at extremely dangerous levels....

It reminds me of Pravda of Russia back in the communist days, but on a grander, more varied scale.

Pravda only reported what the communist party told/allowed it to report and it “reported” out andout lies that we all thought were funny they were so absurd. Today’s American media has chosen a side and is all but the “communications wing” of the team they align with.

Being objective isn’t part of the game. Disseminating and twisting half truths to show their team in a good light or making the other team the devil incarnate is the order of the day.........

It’s disgusting.
01-18-2019 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #45
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
My feeling is that even if Mueller comes back at Trump with something---the entire thing can easily be derailed when the AG simply begins an investigation into the origins of Muelers probe. It would be essentially impossible to move forward with any action against Trump until the new probe into the investigation is complete.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2019 06:34 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-18-2019 06:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Shrack Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,717
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 57
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #46
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 02:33 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 12:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  arguing over this is futile. All of these sources have biases. They do. I used to think. Just wait for the Mueller report, but if Barr is writing it. My argument is moot there too.

It's not a good place we are in as a country. I don't trust your sources and you don't trust mine.
Precisely.

Mach doesn't trust anything that doesn't fit his point of view. Its the standard leftist meme. The WSJ is the only objective American source out there. Its pro business, but has few biases other than that.

Anything else you have to read very closely. Its amazing how often I read leftist media when the headlines say one thing and the details in the article say something else. Mach doesn't read past the headlines.

They do this because most people, especially those 30 and under only see the headline. I would bet my home that if a poll was taken on the story: "Cohen Rigged Polls" 70% of those democrats 30 or under would say it had something to do with the election and Russia
And older people (65+) are about 4x as likely to read, believe, and share actual fake news articles than those under 30 according to studies. Older Republicans are the most likely to share fake news articles, at least during this last election cycle.








Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
01-18-2019 07:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #47
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 07:09 PM)Shrack Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 02:33 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 12:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  arguing over this is futile. All of these sources have biases. They do. I used to think. Just wait for the Mueller report, but if Barr is writing it. My argument is moot there too.

It's not a good place we are in as a country. I don't trust your sources and you don't trust mine.
Precisely.

Mach doesn't trust anything that doesn't fit his point of view. Its the standard leftist meme. The WSJ is the only objective American source out there. Its pro business, but has few biases other than that.

Anything else you have to read very closely. Its amazing how often I read leftist media when the headlines say one thing and the details in the article say something else. Mach doesn't read past the headlines.

They do this because most people, especially those 30 and under only see the headline. I would bet my home that if a poll was taken on the story: "Cohen Rigged Polls" 70% of those democrats 30 or under would say it had something to do with the election and Russia
And older people (65+) are about 4x as likely to read, believe, and share actual fake news articles than those under 30 according to studies. Older Republicans are the most likely to share fake news articles, at least during this last election cycle.








Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

lol...excellent use of stats that are virtually impossible to confirm. For instance---the media always says Republicans cause the shutdowns (doesnt matter if they are they are in the position of a president refusing to sign a bill congress passed or if they are in the position of a congress refusing to pass a bill the president will sign)---how exactly would you even determine what articles are "factual". At this point---the media is so slanted that there are virtually no traditional articles that simply present facts with no bias or slant that might or might not be judged as "false" based on the reader.

Stats like that one are what I call "garbage" stats. The researcher can basically make the stat say anything he wants based entirely on how he judges articles and which pool of subject's he selects. Stats like that are almost always from a think tank trying to spin the narrative.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2019 07:24 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-18-2019 07:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Shrack Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,717
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 57
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #48
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 07:09 PM)Shrack Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 02:33 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Precisely.

Mach doesn't trust anything that doesn't fit his point of view. Its the standard leftist meme. The WSJ is the only objective American source out there. Its pro business, but has few biases other than that.

Anything else you have to read very closely. Its amazing how often I read leftist media when the headlines say one thing and the details in the article say something else. Mach doesn't read past the headlines.

They do this because most people, especially those 30 and under only see the headline. I would bet my home that if a poll was taken on the story: "Cohen Rigged Polls" 70% of those democrats 30 or under would say it had something to do with the election and Russia
And older people (65+) are about 4x as likely to read, believe, and share actual fake news articles than those under 30 according to studies. Older Republicans are the most likely to share fake news articles, at least during this last election cycle.








Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

lol...excellent use of stats that are virtually impossible to confirm.
Anecdotal, but many old, retired people share fake news on facebook all day long, at least down in Alabama where I live. They have the free time and I guess end up going down that rabbit hole trying to confirm what they believe or want to believe, left or right. A majority of the time I see a fake news post on my wall it is from someone 60+. About half of my friends are older people I knew through my father.

Older people in general are just more susceptible to getting one upped by new technology and scammers. That's really not debatable as most financial scams target seniors via mail, phone calls, and the internet.

It is what it is and happens to all of us eventually

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
01-18-2019 07:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #49
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 07:27 PM)Shrack Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 07:09 PM)Shrack Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 02:33 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  Mach doesn't trust anything that doesn't fit his point of view. Its the standard leftist meme. The WSJ is the only objective American source out there. Its pro business, but has few biases other than that.

Anything else you have to read very closely. Its amazing how often I read leftist media when the headlines say one thing and the details in the article say something else. Mach doesn't read past the headlines.

They do this because most people, especially those 30 and under only see the headline. I would bet my home that if a poll was taken on the story: "Cohen Rigged Polls" 70% of those democrats 30 or under would say it had something to do with the election and Russia
And older people (65+) are about 4x as likely to read, believe, and share actual fake news articles than those under 30 according to studies. Older Republicans are the most likely to share fake news articles, at least during this last election cycle.








Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

lol...excellent use of stats that are virtually impossible to confirm.
Anecdotal, but many old, retired people share fake news on facebook all day long, at least down in Alabama where I live. They have the free time and I guess end up going down that rabbit hole trying to confirm what they believe or want to believe, left or right. A majority of the time I see a fake news post on my wall it is from someone 60+. About half of my friends are older people I knew through my father.

Older people in general are just more susceptible to getting one upped by new technology and scammers. That's really not debatable as most financial scams target seniors via mail, phone calls, and the internet.

It is what it is and happens to all of us eventually

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Its impossible to confirm because its a garbage stat. For instance---the media always says Republicans cause the shutdowns (doesnt matter if they are they are in the position of a president refusing to sign a bill congress passed or if they are in the position of a congress refusing to pass a bill the president will sign)---how exactly would you even determine what articles are "factual". At this point---the media is so slanted that there are virtually no traditional articles that simply present facts with no bias or slant that might or might not be judged as "false" based on the reader.

I call stats like that one "garbage" stats. The researcher can basically make the stat say anything he wants based entirely on how he judges articles and which pool of subject's he selects.
01-18-2019 07:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #50
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 04:10 PM)Crebman Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:59 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 12:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  arguing over this is futile. All of these sources have biases. They do. I used to think. Just wait for the Mueller report, but if Barr is writing it. My argument is moot there too.

It's not a good place we are in as a country. I don't trust your sources and you don't trust mine.
Precisely.

Mach doesn't trust anything that doesn't fit his point of view. Its the standard leftist meme. The WSJ is the only objective American source out there. Its pro business, but has few biases other than that.

Anything else you have to read very closely. Its amazing how often I read leftist media when the headlines say one thing and the details in the article say something else. Mach doesn't read past the headlines.

there has never been any time since the invention of the printing press where editorialized rhetoric is the dominating daily source of disinformation....it disgusts me from value to ethics how this group currently operates....they've become nothing more than a snake oil salesman in the 21st century.....today's version is the Hearst principle x20....

if I had to define a number, I put it at >80% what most people 'SEE' at distorted levels designed to herd sheeple....

that's the shite that disgusts me more so than those that refuse to sift through to the point where 'reason' falls behind that which is disseminated and acknowledged as 'fact'.....

the imbalance within the msm are now operating at extremely dangerous levels....

It reminds me of Pravda of Russia back in the communist days, but on a grander, more varied scale.

Pravda only reported what the communist party told/allowed it to report and it “reported” out andout lies that we all thought were funny they were so absurd. Today’s American media has chosen a side and is all but the “communications wing” of the team they align with.

Being objective isn’t part of the game. Disseminating and twisting half truths to show their team in a good light or making the other team the devil incarnate is the order of the day.........

It’s disgusting.

What's even worse is when they mix it in with alleged reporting. You are trying to read a factual article and the reporter is throwing in editorial comments every 3rd line. AP reports are that way now.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2019 08:12 PM by bullet.)
01-18-2019 08:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #51
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 07:09 PM)Shrack Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 02:33 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 12:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  arguing over this is futile. All of these sources have biases. They do. I used to think. Just wait for the Mueller report, but if Barr is writing it. My argument is moot there too.

It's not a good place we are in as a country. I don't trust your sources and you don't trust mine.
Precisely.

Mach doesn't trust anything that doesn't fit his point of view. Its the standard leftist meme. The WSJ is the only objective American source out there. Its pro business, but has few biases other than that.

Anything else you have to read very closely. Its amazing how often I read leftist media when the headlines say one thing and the details in the article say something else. Mach doesn't read past the headlines.

They do this because most people, especially those 30 and under only see the headline. I would bet my home that if a poll was taken on the story: "Cohen Rigged Polls" 70% of those democrats 30 or under would say it had something to do with the election and Russia
And older people (65+) are about 4x as likely to read, believe, and share actual fake news articles than those under 30 according to studies. Older Republicans are the most likely to share fake news articles, at least during this last election cycle.








Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I think you are just repeating fake news fed to the under 30 Democratic crowd.
01-18-2019 08:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUYG Away
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,148
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 1644
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #52
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 07:09 PM)Shrack Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 02:33 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 12:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  arguing over this is futile. All of these sources have biases. They do. I used to think. Just wait for the Mueller report, but if Barr is writing it. My argument is moot there too.

It's not a good place we are in as a country. I don't trust your sources and you don't trust mine.
Precisely.

Mach doesn't trust anything that doesn't fit his point of view. Its the standard leftist meme. The WSJ is the only objective American source out there. Its pro business, but has few biases other than that.

Anything else you have to read very closely. Its amazing how often I read leftist media when the headlines say one thing and the details in the article say something else. Mach doesn't read past the headlines.

They do this because most people, especially those 30 and under only see the headline. I would bet my home that if a poll was taken on the story: "Cohen Rigged Polls" 70% of those democrats 30 or under would say it had something to do with the election and Russia
And older people (65+) are about 4x as likely to read, believe, and share actual fake news articles than those under 30 according to studies. Older Republicans are the most likely to share fake news articles, at least during this last election cycle.








Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

So Republicans 65 or over believe fake news but Democrats in that age range dont? In my experience older people tend to read the whole article instead of the headline and first paragraph. Fake or not they tend to base a opinion off what they read.."the whole article". Than just a headline

You can go on Yahoo and find 10 articles (headlines) that are negative to the President and I bet 50% of those dont match what the title/headline stated . Young people sees the headline and just repeats it and believes it.
01-18-2019 08:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoMs Eagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,998
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 683
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
Post: #53
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 07:27 PM)Shrack Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 07:09 PM)Shrack Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 02:33 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  Mach doesn't trust anything that doesn't fit his point of view. Its the standard leftist meme. The WSJ is the only objective American source out there. Its pro business, but has few biases other than that.

Anything else you have to read very closely. Its amazing how often I read leftist media when the headlines say one thing and the details in the article say something else. Mach doesn't read past the headlines.

They do this because most people, especially those 30 and under only see the headline. I would bet my home that if a poll was taken on the story: "Cohen Rigged Polls" 70% of those democrats 30 or under would say it had something to do with the election and Russia
And older people (65+) are about 4x as likely to read, believe, and share actual fake news articles than those under 30 according to studies. Older Republicans are the most likely to share fake news articles, at least during this last election cycle.








Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

lol...excellent use of stats that are virtually impossible to confirm.
Anecdotal, but many old, retired people share fake news on facebook all day long, at least down in Alabama where I live. They have the free time and I guess end up going down that rabbit hole trying to confirm what they believe or want to believe, left or right. A majority of the time I see a fake news post on my wall it is from someone 60+. About half of my friends are older people I knew through my father.

Older people in general are just more susceptible to getting one upped by new technology and scammers. That's really not debatable as most financial scams target seniors via mail, phone calls, and the internet.

It is what it is and happens to all of us eventually

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

You are wrong. The older generation simply trusts the news more than the young. The lies were not always so easily disproved in their day.
How do you explain the gobbling up of fake news by the libs on this board? I would be willing to bet most all are under 50.
01-18-2019 08:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Shrack Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,717
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 57
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #54
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 08:28 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 07:09 PM)Shrack Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 02:33 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Precisely.

Mach doesn't trust anything that doesn't fit his point of view. Its the standard leftist meme. The WSJ is the only objective American source out there. Its pro business, but has few biases other than that.

Anything else you have to read very closely. Its amazing how often I read leftist media when the headlines say one thing and the details in the article say something else. Mach doesn't read past the headlines.

They do this because most people, especially those 30 and under only see the headline. I would bet my home that if a poll was taken on the story: "Cohen Rigged Polls" 70% of those democrats 30 or under would say it had something to do with the election and Russia
And older people (65+) are about 4x as likely to read, believe, and share actual fake news articles than those under 30 according to studies. Older Republicans are the most likely to share fake news articles, at least during this last election cycle.








Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

So Republicans 65 or over believe fake news but Democrats in that age range dont? In my experience older people tend to read the whole article instead of the headline and first paragraph. Fake or not they tend to base a opinion off what they read.."the whole article". Than just a headline

You can go on Yahoo and find 10 articles (headlines) that are negative to the President and I bet 50% of those dont match what the title/headline stated . Young people sees the headline and just repeats it and believes it.
Older people in general believe and share more fake news. Older Republicans just do it more than older Democrats. Democrats still do it. Young people still share fake news. Older people just do it a lot more often.

Have you ever seen a young person think they won the lottery because some flashing popup ad on the internet told them they had? No, other than maybe very, very young children. Old people fall for this kind of clickbait advertisement all the time because a vast majority didn't grow up with the internet. They didn't grow up with incredibly far right and left wing websites trying to steer popular opinion and feed into people's fears. There is little to no consequence for this kind of "reporting" and there is a boatload of money to be gained.

Humans simply become more trusting as they age. People in general tend to not fact check when they're sharing something they agree with.

But yes with all that aside, I agree that we are living in a complete "click bait" news time. Headlines are very often misleading these days. Many websites are so far leaning one direction with their obvious bias language it is frightening. Many of these websites are sponsored and driven by foreign enemies whether people want to believe it or not. They're low cost, subtle, and very effective due to social media.



Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
01-18-2019 09:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
olliebaba Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,100
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 2149
I Root For: Christ
Location: El Paso
Post: #55
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 03:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It also constitutes the illegal use of US assets to spy (violation of civil rights) on US citizens.


or the other side of the coin. It was Russia. Always about Russia Full Stop. Individual 1's name just kept popping up.

Boys..... one thing I must chuckle at. Mueller is a life long Republican. You think he just woke up one day and started playing for the other team?

Nope. I think his boss was a Democrat and it was EXTREMELY likely his next boss would be a Democrat as well. Now...he has done wrong by playing along with Obama's ruse, as did many of the people he has named to his staff, and his only hope to survive is to keep the president (and his administration) on defense until a Democrat is in the White House. His problem is there is about to be a new AG that's going to be MUCH more objective and much more hands on in his management of the Justice Department than his predecessor. Muellers free reign is over. Thats not good news for the Mueller and the gang that spied on an opposing campaign using what they knew was fake evidence from the DNC.


We can only hope that Barr isn't another Sessions. That little weasel while looking timid wasn't. I think his MO was letting someone else do the dirty work and that's why he recused himself. I'm hoping Barr does stop this Mula circus and gets to the real culprit and we know who that is.
01-18-2019 10:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #56
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 06:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My feeling is that even if Mueller comes back at Trump with something---the entire thing can easily be derailed when the AG simply begins an investigation into the origins of Muelers probe. It would be essentially impossible to move forward with any action against Trump until the new probe into the investigation is complete.

If there ever are charges brought against Trump, and at this point I seriously doubt there will be, all the defense team has to say is "We want a Franks hearing" and I imagine it all goes away because of the FISA abuse.
01-18-2019 10:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #57
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 10:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 06:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My feeling is that even if Mueller comes back at Trump with something---the entire thing can easily be derailed when the AG simply begins an investigation into the origins of Muelers probe. It would be essentially impossible to move forward with any action against Trump until the new probe into the investigation is complete.
If there ever are charges brought against Trump, and at this point I seriously doubt there will be, all the defense team has to say is "We want a Franks hearing" and I imagine it all goes away because of the FISA abuse.

The real question then would be how far the "fruit of the poisoned tree" extends.
01-18-2019 11:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #58
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 11:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'm continually amazed that the whole FBI being out to get trump for no apparent reason other than they just don't like him (I guess) is totally plausible, but trump colluding with Russia to help win election is a bridge too far.

Whoever said the whole FBI is out to get Trump? The vast majority of the FBI and virtually all the rank and file are not involved. Its just a handful of high ranking guys in the leadership. Its amazing how the same names keep popping up whether it be the Hillary email scandal, the origins of the FISA application, looking into the Clinton Tarmac meeting, or the Mueller investigation. Its the same half dozen people over and over---was there nobody else at the FBI? Well--I guess its prudent to keep a coup circle small.
(This post was last modified: 01-19-2019 01:16 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-18-2019 11:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #59
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 11:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 10:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 06:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My feeling is that even if Mueller comes back at Trump with something---the entire thing can easily be derailed when the AG simply begins an investigation into the origins of Muelers probe. It would be essentially impossible to move forward with any action against Trump until the new probe into the investigation is complete.
If there ever are charges brought against Trump, and at this point I seriously doubt there will be, all the defense team has to say is "We want a Franks hearing" and I imagine it all goes away because of the FISA abuse.

The real question then would be how far the "fruit of the poisoned tree" extends.

If there wasnt reasonable cause for an investigation--then everything they have is dirty. Here's my problem with this entire 2 year investigation---especially the Mueller portion of it.

We know the Obama administration had actual human intel inside the campaign. We know they had 17 intelligence agencies monitoring the campaign. They even had a real time 3 jump wiretap on the campaign chief. It likley they also had some foreign agencies helping to monitor the campaign. So---the very best most telling evidence would have been gathered and analyzed IN REAL TIME by the Obama Justice Department during the election campaign. They had three months immediately following the election to create a case from the gathered evidence (and they were still spying and trying to get a whiff of Russian collusion right up to the day Obama left). If the Justice Department didnt have anything by the time Obama left office---there just isnt anything to be had.
(This post was last modified: 01-18-2019 11:58 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-18-2019 11:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Oman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,025
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 230
I Root For: Memphis !!
Location: Cordova
Post: #60
RE: WSJ-whole FBI knew they were using Clinton disinformation
(01-18-2019 07:09 PM)Shrack Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 02:33 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 01:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-18-2019 12:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  arguing over this is futile. All of these sources have biases. They do. I used to think. Just wait for the Mueller report, but if Barr is writing it. My argument is moot there too.

It's not a good place we are in as a country. I don't trust your sources and you don't trust mine.
Precisely.

Mach doesn't trust anything that doesn't fit his point of view. Its the standard leftist meme. The WSJ is the only objective American source out there. Its pro business, but has few biases other than that.

Anything else you have to read very closely. Its amazing how often I read leftist media when the headlines say one thing and the details in the article say something else. Mach doesn't read past the headlines.

They do this because most people, especially those 30 and under only see the headline. I would bet my home that if a poll was taken on the story: "Cohen Rigged Polls" 70% of those democrats 30 or under would say it had something to do with the election and Russia
And older people (65+) are about 4x as likely to read, believe, and share actual fake news articles than those under 30 according to studies. Older Republicans are the most likely to share fake news articles, at least during this last election cycle.








Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Wow. Just wow
01-19-2019 09:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.