Trump Leaks Intel to Russians?

[hamster]

W. I highly suspect there will be continued chaos and dysfunction in the White House.

Don't worry. The Dems have it under control.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

You haven't mentioned any facts. Saying that if another R had won the election, there would be another special investigation and talk of impeachment is both rhetorical and hypothetical. That's a very weak point. Being that several of the other R candidates warned against a Trump presidency, it's also a preposterous point, IMO.

I gave these historical and present day facts to explain why this isn't a media created crisis.

You are seriously as easy to reason with as reasoning with a chimpanzee. I never said there would be another special investigation or talk of impeachment if it were another person in the suit, now did I?

Go back, re-read the posts and quote me in context.

I've made the blanket FACTUAL statement that any R would be attacked and the Left and the MSM would work to destroy him/her. It's a fact. Not an opinion. It's happened to every major political Conservative candidate for 20 years.

I've repeated this for you 3 times, as is. How is this simple, factual concept so difficult for your feeble mind to grasp, or why can't you contain the premise and limit it as presented without attempting to recant it incorrectly over and over? I've never given you much credit for intelligence. Less so now.

Here's some examples Troggie. A history. It doesn't matter who would be in the suit. The MSM and Democrats will work to destroy said person.

Whatever you think of Romney from a policy perspective, he is as admirable a man as you will ever meet. To find a presidential candidate of better moral character, you probably have to go back to Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Romney never said a rude word about a woman in his life.

So what happened? Did Romney and the GOP get credit in the press for the candidates’s outstanding character? No. Romney, who helped to create tens of thousands of jobs at Bain Capital, was denounced as a “vulture capitalist” and blamed, absurdly, for one woman’s developing cancer. The Washington Post made a front page story of the fact that 50 years earlier, when he was in high school, he and others had cut a classmate’s hair. Oh, and Romney was a racist, too.

McCain is a great patriot, a man of extraordinary character and courage who survived years of torture and abuse as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Did the liberal media give Republicans credit for nominating such a hero? No. The New York Times, to its everlasting shame, peddled a false rumor that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. (Bill Clinton would have done that before breakfast.) It also berated McCain for failing to release his medical records–which, actually, he did, unlike Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ben-carson-the-left-is-smearing-him

Chris Matthews on MSNBC: “Why would someone running for president . . . lay the blame on those young people in Oregon who were just killed by a mass murderer?” New York Daily News headline: “2016 contender Ben Carson defends remarks criticizing victims of Oregon shooting.” It was grotesque libel.

But even that libel might have even outdone by the reaction to Carson’s comments about the Holocaust and guns: “The likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.” Those comments were actually labeled anti-Semitic.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L42aXh4CvuA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Troglodyte]

You are seriously as easy to reason with as reasoning with a chimpanzee. I never said there would be another special investigation or talk of impeachment if it were another person in the suit, now did I?

Go back, re-read the posts and quote me in context.

I've made the blanket FACTUAL statement that any R would be attacked and the Left and the MSM would work to destroy him/her. It's a fact. Not an opinion. It's happened to every major political Conservative candidate for 20 years.

I've repeated this for you 3 times, as is. How is this simple, factual concept so difficult for your feeble mind to grasp, or why can't you contain the premise and limit it as presented without attempting to recant it incorrectly over and over? I've never given you much credit for intelligence. Less so now.

Here's some examples Troggie. A history. It doesn't matter who would be in the suit. The MSM and Democrats will work to destroy said person.







http://www.nationalreview.com/ben-carson-the-left-is-smearing-him




<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L42aXh4CvuA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LOL! You've come unhinged!

Romney!?!? He was calling Trump a phony and a fraud long before any of this Russia scandal broke. He's part of the problem according to you.

McCain?!?! He's also part of the MSM machine set on destroying Trump.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

LOL! You've come unhinged!

Romney!?!? He was calling Trump a phony and a fraud long before any of this Russia scandal broke. He's part of the problem according to you.

McCain?!?! He's also part of the MSM machine set on destroying Trump.

4th time, for the waffling chimpanzee....

It doesn't matter who's in the suit, the Left and the Mainstream media will work 24x7 to destroy said candidate. They were targets taken down by the media. Trump is just the next in line.

 

[Lmob0621]

First of all i am not liberal. Second i feel that hillary should have been prosecuted. However none of that matters or pertains to this situation. Just because the president can declassify stuff does not mean he should. The president can order a bombing run on canada if he wants. This information was not shared with our other allies. Trump has admitted he shared the Intel so that is not even debateable anymore. Like i said if this was hillary or obama most of you would have want them hanged publically. Wrong is wrong no matter which party you are for

If it was Hillary or Obama, then the media wouldn't have reported on it...

 

[jitter77]

If it was Hillary or Obama, then the media wouldn't have reported on it...

You mean like when the media didn't report on the emails or when they didn't report about comey re opening the investigation right before the election?

 

[Lmob0621]

You are delusional if you believe this. Completely. One only has to look at what the media and Democrats have done to Republican candidates and politicians for the past 20 years...Herman Cain, Ben Carson, George Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and dozens of others. I suppose you would say Ben Carson is an insulting provocateur. Or Allen West is. The minute there is a candidate set to run in an election with R next to his or her name, it's an onslaught. WashPo and others sick legions of reporters on them attempting to dig up or create dirt. Evidence being WashPo putting 20 reporters dedicated to attacking Trump during the election. Or CNN trying to make a story out of ice cream. Or the press going ape **** that Trump went to dinner soon after the election and didn't invite the press corps. Those last two examples show the absurdity of the bald-face tactics the media is playing - destroy at all costs. The suit is irrelevant.

It's a machine. A long standing machine. To claim otherwise is fool-hardy.

And the media does this without any fear because of "free speech" ... They know that the sheep libtards will only remember the false accusation and not the retraction. Yellow Journalism is accepted by the left because it broadens their propaganda.

 

[BAS]

LOL! You've come unhinged!

Romney!?!? He was calling Trump a phony and a fraud long before any of this Russia scandal broke. He's part of the problem according to you.

McCain?!?! He's also part of the MSM machine set on destroying Trump.

I don't think he was talking about those people in particular. He was pointing out the MSM TREATMENT OF those people when for all intents and purposes they all exhibited strong moral character.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

Why are you yelling at me? Before you pop an artery, my answer is of course I'll accept the outcome of the Robert Mueller-led inquiry. A special prosecutor was badly needed in this scenario, it's time to get to the bottom of all the collusion & corruption of the Trump campaign and administration. I don't 'want' any particular outcome besides calling for an independent, fair, probing search for the facts in the case. Those will bear out, sooner or later, and it won't be pretty I'm afraid. But at the end of the day if Trump and his team of shady cronies and cohorts are able to clear their names of any wrongdoing, then yes, I will accept that and apologize here on the board.

Just wanting to be able to hold you to it if and when he is found to be clear. We have had some reasonable discussions in the past just seems like you have lost your mind over Trump like most other Liberals.

 

[Lmob0621]

You mean like when the media didn't report on the emails or when they didn't report about comey re opening the investigation right before the election?

When the MSM was reporting on Hillary's scandals, they were usually trying to refute any evidence against her... They are full blown attacking Trump...

 

[Tibs]

Just wanting to be able to hold you to it if and when he is found to be clear. We have had some reasonable discussions in the past just seems like you have lost your mind over Trump like most other Liberals.

The irony is that I think you Trump supporters are the ones that've lost your minds. We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.

 

[Troglodyte]

I don't think he was talking about those people in particular. He was pointing out the MSM TREATMENT OF those people when for all intents and purposes they all exhibited strong moral character.

Um, that's the point. He used examples of people who have actually sided with much of the media's take on Trump and then he insists it's not Trump, it's the media. Preposterous.

 

[Xnavycl]

If Trump leaked, Hillary must have pissed her pants.

The old Democrat double standard.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[BAS]

Um, that's the point. He used examples of people who have actually sided with much of the media's take on Trump and then he insists it's not Trump, it's the media. Preposterous.

NO, that's not the point.

In the past, the MSM has twisted the words and deeds of right leaning politicians in an effort to discredit them, and at the same time made excuses for the words and deeds of left leaning politicians. THAT is the point being made.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I don't think he was talking about those people in particular. He was pointing out the MSM TREATMENT OF those people when for all intents and purposes they all exhibited strong moral character.

Let it go. Seriously, the guy's a dipshit. He can't comprehend simple points, morphs them into something else and walks away having rebutted something that wasn't even the conversation at hand.

Last night my older son had a basketball game. One of the other families (great, salt of the earth family) have a young son Anthony who's four. He ate an ice cream sandwich, had it all over his shirt. He kept "playing" with me, poking me, sneaking up from behind, shaking his butt at me. Being a general wound up 4 year old. We talked a lot about his age, his super cool little shoes, he handed out fake tickets to people so they could be in his imaginary club, and told me girls are yucky.

I had more intelligent discourse with that cute little man last night than with Trogtard here ever. A ton more substance too.

NO, that's not the point.

In the past, the MSM has twisted the words and deeds of right leaning politicians in an effort to discredit them, and at the same time made excuses for the words and deeds of left leaning politicians. THAT is the point being made.

Thank you for the simple comprehension shown. This simple cranial computation is beyond Trog to compute.

 

[deljzc]

Getting a "special investigation" to investigate a sitting president is like a career FBI guy's wet dream. You basically get carte blanche to do anything you ******* want. You can search into anyone's closet with no restrictions or impunity. I'm not a big fan of them based on the history of them in our political system.

It's also yet another "inside the beltway" institution that now has almost limitless power against Trump and his "outside the beltway" power structure.

I don't know what it's going to find out. I doubt the answers will be as clear or black/white as people think or hope. I suspect lots of legaleze and feigned outrage no matter what the result.

What I do think will happen is the investigation will now go on for the rest of Trump's presidency. When you have the ability to turn stones, why stop. I think if the Democrats win back the Senate in 2018, I think whatever is "found" will lead to impeachment charges. The impeachment will not succeed under the outcry of "partisanship" and "party over country" rhetoric from the left. I don't think impeachment charges will lead to 15 republicans jumping ship but you never know until the "report" gets released. How the media spins it and how deeply the public swallows the hook we will have to wait and see.

If the Republicans remain in control of the Senate, nothing will happen. The investigation will go on throughout his first term. A couple reports will be released to the press. Democrats will cry foul and call for impeachment but I think it won't rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors" to the eyes of Republicans. Thus a stalemate and just more fuel to the fire for those already pre-disposed to dislike Trump heading into his re-election campaign (if there is one).

At this point, I just want as many conservative legislative acts, laws, executive orders, memorandum, etc. done between now and when he leaves office as possible. Let's get as many conservative judges in the courts. Let's get a tax reform package passed. Let's reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy by cutting purse strings and telling agencies to tighten their belts and prioritize their missions. Let's re-invest in military R&D. Let's renegotiate some trade deals. Let's keep kicking out the illegals and inviting more in legally. That's it.

 

[Troglodyte]

I had more intelligent discourse with that cute little man last night than with Trogtard here ever. A ton more substance too.

Well, OK but good luck getting him to explain all of the late night Trump jokes to you.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Well, OK but good luck getting him to explain all of the late night Trump jokes to you.

It is a surprise to no one...I mean literally no one...that you get your political knowledge from the likes of Conan.

 

[Stryker]

I call bullshit again say all you want about intelligence being black and white Everyone has an agenda. Politics does get into intelligence it can't be helped. Those who run things have great influence on how and what gets investigated and what gets buried. You are naive to believe otherwise. People do get killed over politics in intelligence operations. Benghazi is just one example.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

I would like to engage about a discussion on Benghazi in a separate thread, but it's not what is happening here. Though there is a parallel of each side using the intelligence from each to push their own agendas. The Right used Benghazi and the lefts are using the Russian interference.

I can get into it in depth next week, right now, I'm at a Bachelor party and I intend to be at some level of intoxication for the next 72hrs.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

As I have been saying. Fascinating stuff.

Harvard Study Reveals Huge Extent of Anti-Trump Media Bias

A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.

Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.

It found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:

The academics based their study on seven US outlets and three European ones.

In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.

Every outlet was negative more often than positive.

Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.

Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.

The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.

On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:

The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.

Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.

The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 got positive good overall – with 59% of reports positive.

Bill Cinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:

Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility. This study suggests that, at least in recent history, he’s right.

 

[hamster]

That Harvard Study is racist!

 

[Troglodyte]

Fox News 52% negative? I think you need to subtract about 50% from those figures.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

Fox News 52% negative? I think you need to subtract about 50% from those figures.

Apparently you don't watch Fox. They have not given Trump a free pass by any means. Other than the big names the news reporting on Fox is almost as liberal as the others.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Fox News 52% negative? I think you need to subtract about 50% from those figures.

It's called objectivity. You should attempt it.

I'll take Harvard's word for it. And as someone who frequently watches...can't disagree with the results. They aren't always Rachel Madcow boot lickers.

 

[Troglodyte]

Apparently you don't watch Fox. They have not given Trump a free pass by any means.

I watch Fox and Friends most every morning, admittedly, it's mostly to see what the broads are wearing and to amuse myself.

They weren't giving Trump a free pass when it wasn't clear the Republican Party was going to endorse him, now they show the light on in the corner room of the White House and gloat over how Trump is a viewer. It's not as positive as CNN is negative, but I certainly wouldn't say it's anywhere near 52% negative.