Chiphigh

12 minutes ago, candide said:

Axios.com is quite reliable for facts, so is the BBC website. Some less known sources such as Justice Security are quite good too. Politico is not bad. Oh! The Economist is a top one!

 

For a variety of opinions: a mix of CNN, Fox News (not Hannity and F&F, lol), and Al Djazeera provide a good overview. 

A few European sources may be interesting to get a non Anglo-saxon view: DW, Le Monde, etc...

 

What are your usual sources?

Bongino references everything to a source, so does John Solomon, all sources are referenced to a particular source. Also axios and Glen Greenwald. I look for a reference in everything so I can see what context is used. 

So many articles say "sources say" without any back up. 

The way headlines are put out now are too sensational without a valid reference. 

They all are guilty of this at one point, for different reasons. 

One constant remains, the majority of news sites are purposely telling a narrative against trump instead of reporting all aspects of what is actually going on.  Telling A story instead of THE story. 

54 minutes ago, heybruce said:

If only you held Trump to the same standard of correctness that you hold the Steele dossier.

 

The Steele dossier was not debunked.  It was raw intelligence from Russia.  Some was correct, some was discredited, and much is still uncertain.  Steele himself made it clear that raw intelligence from Russia was rarely 100% correct.   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/christopher-steele-trump-russia-dossier-accurate

 

The Steele dossier was an element in the FISA application.  On what do you base your claim that it was "the key element"?

The Steele dossier was not a valid source of information in any way. 

20 hours ago, candide said:

Come on! If there were an official investigation, the Republicans would have used this argument already! The DOJ even publicly stated that there was no investigation. No one wants to start an investigation on the Bidens. 

 

Personally, I have no problem about any official investigation launched into anyone, Biden, Chalupa, etc... They are not protected by any status and can be investigated.

 

Now let's talk about Chalupa: she is criticized for having made contact with Ukrainian officials at the Ukrainian embassy in the US. It happened in the US and so it is directly subject to US law. There's no need for Ukraine to start an investigation.

Just in, Laura Ingraham has obtained emails that show the whistlblower ERIC CIARMERELLA in a meeting in the white house in January 2016 meeting with Ukrainian andrii telizhenko and other Ukraine officials with Obama administration staff from the nsc, doj and state dept to request dirt on Trump and associates. 

NY times reporter Ken Vogel was doing a story on this subject, but nothing was ever published. 

Telizhenko has also just released a new statement saying how we was pressured by chalupa and the state dept to dig up dirt on Trump. 

This is going to blow up in the faces of these idiots and it will be long overdue. 

The association to schiff staffer and the whistleblower is also been proven as well as the whistleblower talking to the schiff staffer in 2017 about how to impeach trump. 

So, let's summarize what the left will say, and the standard liberal torch bearers of this forum:

FOX News source is a lie so none of this ever happened. The dnc and the Obama administration have never interfered in any election. 

Despite having the emails and the Whitehouse visitor logs, this meeting to coordinate election interference never happened. 

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

You are conveniently leaving out the fact that all these facts were reviewed by the DOJ watchdog and it determined that the Russia investigation was justified.   https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-watchdog-finding-origins-fbis-russia-investigation-proper/story?id=67605235https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page

Do actually think the doj would admit to tell you that the investigation they helped with was not justified and was just a partisan attempt to influence an election? 

45 minutes ago, heybruce said:

From your source:

 

"During the drafting of FISA warrants in 2016 and 2017, the CIA confirmed to the FBI that Mr. Page, a Naval Academy graduate and energy investor who joined the Trump campaign as an adviser, served as an informant from 2008 to 2013."

 

"In 2017, the CIA sent an email to the FBI restating that Mr. Page had been an asset. Mr. Clinesmith, who is not named in the inspector general’s report, altered the email to say Mr. Page was not an asset." 

 

Page was not a asset at the time, so the alteration was factually correct. 

You will twist anything to make this investigation legitimate. 

It is a sad and desperate situation for the left. 

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

The reality is trump appointed a yes man to get the result he craved.

What result is that? 

24 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's part of 45 cult of personality ideology - - to claim everyone in opposition of the cult is mentally ill. 

I believe the left does that constantly sir. 

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Well, Mike makes Trump very insecure. After all, he outclasses him in nearly every department, except height. He is worth $50 billion more. He has no debt. Trump has at least $700 million in debt, maybe far more. Also, Mike has never had to commit bank fraud to get a loan, as the president has done on multiple occasions. In addition, Mike has never had to declare bankruptcy, due to his lack of business savvy, and lack of negotiating skills. And Mike has 50-70 additional IQ points, over the deceptor in chief. And alot of political experience. Plus grace, dignity, respect, honor and a great deal of success. The only thing Mike does not do as well as Trump is the art of the swindle. I am hoping Mike wipes Trump off the map. 

Well now, there is certainly a lot of vitriol there. 

Mike lacks one important thing, a personality that people can get behind and a clear list of policies that have actually worked. 

Now que the TDS symphony for the next round of insults...... 

32 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Keep telling yourself that, if it helps you...

It's got nothing to do with what I tell myself, but it does have everything to do with fairness and objective reality. 

If you want to ignore that, it's on you. 

Just now, Bluespunk said:

But, but, but Obama...

 

That all you've got...deary deary me.

It's good to know that you have double standards and ignore reality. 

1 hour ago, candide said:

If Chalupa or the Biden did something illegal, then why is it the Republicans did not investigate them? (Trumpers never answer This questions) This is Trump's trial, not Biden's or Chalupa's.

 

By the way, Trump explicitly cited the "server" and the "Ukrainian" company Crowdstrike, following Russian propaganda, not Chalupa. In case Roberts accepts witnesses who have not witnessed anything, it should be the two bosses of Crowdstrike who should testify. They would tell that there was not one server but 140, that it is an American company listed at the NASDAQ, and that they are themselves not Ukrainian.

What makes you think that they aren't being investigated? Then you rattle on about "Trumper" like a school boy. 

It’s unbelievable that you are concerned about election interference from one side of the equation while ignoring the obvious tactics used by the dnc and the previous administration. 

This whole charade is going to backfire on the left. You can keep up with the phony Russian narrative all you want.