Post from unapproved source removed.  

 

On 12/16/2019 at 12:59 AM, heybruce said:

On 12/15/2019 at 11:27 PM, Tippaporn said:

I remember hearing about all of that somewhere.  I think it was an article in the New York Times by Maggie Haberman.  Or was it the one by Robert Costa of the Washington Post.  Maybe I heard it on the Maddow show.  Or was it the Morning Joe show on MSNBC?  Anderson Cooper on CNN maybe?  Chris Matthews on MSNBC?  No, probably Don Lemon on CNN.  Could have been CNN's Wolf Blitzer.  Lester Holt on NBC, that's it!  Wouldn't have been the tarnished Brian Williams, that's for sure.  I know, George Stephanopoulos on ABC!

 

Damn!  Hard to remember since they all say the same thing.

Of course they are reporting the same thing.  The facts don't change from one reporter to another, unless they are 'alternative facts'.

Dan Bongino does an excellent job totally eviscerating Comey's interview with Chris Wallace.

 

 

In one segment Bongino shows a clip of Comey interrupting Chris Wallace to say, "I have to keep correcting you.  President Trump was not being investigated.  His campaign was not being investigated.  Four Americans, two of whom were no longer associated with the campaign were being investigated."  He then shows text of Comey's own congressional testimony where he states, "I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between any individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and the Russia's efforts . . . "

 

Clearly lying.  I'll point out, also, that he makes it a point in the Wallace interview to state that two of the Americans investigated were no longer associated with the campaign.  He's purposely attempting to make it appear as though in their cases, since they are no longer associated, this would not constitute an investigation into the campaign.  What he is obfuscating, though, is the fact that the FISA allows the FBI to investigate all of these individual's communications when they were involved in Trump's campaign.  That is why they targeted those individuals.  Specifically to get that campaign related information.

 

Bongino goes further to destroy Schiff's responses in his interview with Chris Wallace, highlighting the MSM talking heads all reporting in unison that Steele's dossier was verified, which Schiff also claimed in his counter memo to the Nunes memo.  When that was disproven the media heads, all in unison, then changed the talking point to say that, well, none of Steele's information had been disproven.

 

Remember, too, that Schiff had the identical information as Nunes and the rest of the committee had.  So for him to claim that he didn't know what is now becoming evident is another flat out lie by Schiff.  You have to admire his ability to lie on national TV without even flinching.

 

Which goes to your point, heybruce, that "Of course they are reporting the same thing."  Yes, they are all reporting the same falsehoods, for cryin' out loud!  And that is not to say they're reporting alternative facts.  They are reporting flat out lies.  All of them.  In unison.

 

You might want to ask yourself a very simple question:  Why?

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Dan Bongino does an excellent job totally eviscerating Comey's interview with Chris Wallace.

 

 

In one segment Bongino shows a clip of Comey interrupting Chris Wallace to say, "I have to keep correcting you.  President Trump was not being investigated.  His campaign was not being investigated.  Four Americans, two of whom were no longer associated with the campaign were being investigated."  He then shows text of Comey's own congressional testimony where he states, "I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between any individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and the Russia's efforts . . . "

 

Clearly lying.  I'll point out, also, that he makes it a point in the Wallace interview to state that two of the Americans investigated were no longer associated with the campaign.  He's purposely attempting to make it appear as though in their cases, since they are no longer associated, this would not constitute an investigation into the campaign.  What he is obfuscating, though, is the fact that the FISA allows the FBI to investigate all of these individual's communications when they were involved in Trump's campaign.  That is why they targeted those individuals.  Specifically to get that campaign related information.

 

Bongino goes further to destroy Schiff's responses in his interview with Chris Wallace, highlighting the MSM talking heads all reporting in unison that Steele's dossier was verified, which Schiff also claimed in his counter memo to the Nunes memo.  When that was disproven the media heads, all in unison, then changed the talking point to say that, well, none of Steele's information had been disproven.

 

Remember, too, that Schiff had the identical information as Nunes and the rest of the committee had.  So for him to claim that he didn't know what is now becoming evident is another flat out lie by Schiff.  You have to admire his ability to lie on national TV without even flinching.

 

Which goes to your point, heybruce, that "Of course they are reporting the same thing."  Yes, they are all reporting the same falsehoods, for cryin' out loud!  And that is not to say they're reporting alternative facts.  They are reporting flat out lies.  All of them.  In unison.

 

You might want to ask yourself a very simple question:  Why?

 

No, I have to ask myself who is Dan Bongino and why I would waste time watching his program.  Also, why do you think it is significant that James Comey went from distinguishing between investigating the Trump campaign and investigating two members of the Trump campaign?

 

BTW, do you think I'm a James Comey fan and expect him to be consistent in his words and actions?  Why?

 

Your nitpicking about long past details does not change or refute the events I posted on:

 

" Trump's campaign manager doing business with Ukrainian mobsters backed by Russia.  Trump's lawyer negotiating a major real estate deal with Moscow while Trump ran his "let's be nice to Russia" campaign.  Trump's son meeting with Russians in the hope of getting dirt on Trump's Democratic opponent.  And now Trump making it clear that military aid to Ukraine is contingent on Ukraine publicly announcing investigations to promote conspiracy theories about Joe Biden and Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. "

 

Can you dispute that any of these things took place?

33 minutes ago, heybruce said:

No, I have to ask myself who is Dan Bongino and why I would waste time watching his program.  Also, why do you think it is significant that James Comey went from distinguishing between investigating the Trump campaign and investigating two members of the Trump campaign?

 

BTW, do you think I'm a James Comey fan and expect him to be consistent in his words and actions?  Why?

 

Your nitpicking about long past details does not change or refute the events I posted on:

 

" Trump's campaign manager doing business with Ukrainian mobsters backed by Russia.  Trump's lawyer negotiating a major real estate deal with Moscow while Trump ran his "let's be nice to Russia" campaign.  Trump's son meeting with Russians in the hope of getting dirt on Trump's Democratic opponent.  And now Trump making it clear that military aid to Ukraine is contingent on Ukraine publicly announcing investigations to promote conspiracy theories about Joe Biden and Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. "

 

Can you dispute that any of these things took place?

Dan Bongino is a preeminent authority on the Russian collusion hoax.  Why would you not want to learn something from him?  Seems like a silly decision to me.

 

As to your claims you are being fed that information from the MSM, who, as I've pointed out in my post and at other times repeatedly, have a scripted narrative which they all repeat in unison.  You believe it and will not fact check them by looking at other sources of information.  And when they are fact checked by others and the facts turn out to be counter then you don't believe it anyway.  What can one do in an impossible situation as this?

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Dan Bongino does an excellent job totally eviscerating Comey's interview with Chris Wallace.

 

 

In one segment Bongino shows a clip of Comey interrupting Chris Wallace to say, "I have to keep correcting you.  President Trump was not being investigated.  His campaign was not being investigated.  Four Americans, two of whom were no longer associated with the campaign were being investigated."  He then shows text of Comey's own congressional testimony where he states, "I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between any individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and the Russia's efforts . . . "

 

Clearly lying.  I'll point out, also, that he makes it a point in the Wallace interview to state that two of the Americans investigated were no longer associated with the campaign.  He's purposely attempting to make it appear as though in their cases, since they are no longer associated, this would not constitute an investigation into the campaign.  What he is obfuscating, though, is the fact that the FISA allows the FBI to investigate all of these individual's communications when they were involved in Trump's campaign.  That is why they targeted those individuals.  Specifically to get that campaign related information.

 

Bongino goes further to destroy Schiff's responses in his interview with Chris Wallace, highlighting the MSM talking heads all reporting in unison that Steele's dossier was verified, which Schiff also claimed in his counter memo to the Nunes memo.  When that was disproven the media heads, all in unison, then changed the talking point to say that, well, none of Steele's information had been disproven.

 

Remember, too, that Schiff had the identical information as Nunes and the rest of the committee had.  So for him to claim that he didn't know what is now becoming evident is another flat out lie by Schiff.  You have to admire his ability to lie on national TV without even flinching.

 

Which goes to your point, heybruce, that "Of course they are reporting the same thing."  Yes, they are all reporting the same falsehoods, for cryin' out loud!  And that is not to say they're reporting alternative facts.  They are reporting flat out lies.  All of them.  In unison.

 

You might want to ask yourself a very simple question:  Why?

 

You don't see the difference between 'the campaign being investigated' and 'individuals associated with the campaign being investigated?

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You don't see the difference between 'the campaign being investigated' and 'individuals associated with the campaign being investigated?

". . . and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts . . . "

 

That's in black and white.  What is not clear about it?

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Dan Bongino is a preeminent authority on the Russian collusion hoax.  Why would you not want to learn something from him?  Seems like a silly decision to me.

 

As to your claims you are being fed that information from the MSM, who, as I've pointed out in my post and at other times repeatedly, have a scripted narrative which they all repeat in unison.  You believe it and will not fact check them by looking at other sources of information.  And when they are fact checked by others and the facts turn out to be counter then you don't believe it anyway.  What can one do in an impossible situation as this?

 

Once again, "Russian Hoax" refers to Trump's denial that Russia interfered with the 2016 election.  You are referring to the investigation of possible collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russian during the election.

 

What makes Dan Bongino a "preeminent authority", other than the fact that he spins things in a manner that pleases you?  Doesn't he get his information from mainstream news sources just like the rest of us?

 

Finally, why won't you address the big issues I posted about?  Of course we know the answer, those events are indisputable facts and don't play into your preferred narrative of insisting that legitimate news sources aren't trustworthy.  However in support of your preferred narrative you have ignored big issues, fixated on minor details, and relied heavily on news sources with no credibility. 

 

Go ahead and believe your alternative facts.  The adults will stick with the real thing.

17 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Once again, "Russian Hoax" refers to Trump's denial that Russia interfered with the 2016 election.  You are referring to the investigation of possible collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russian during the election.

 

What makes Dan Bongino a "preeminent authority", other than the fact that he spins things in a manner that pleases you?  Doesn't he get his information from mainstream news sources just like the rest of us?

 

Finally, why won't you address the big issues I posted about?  Of course we know the answer, those events are indisputable facts and don't play into your preferred narrative of insisting that legitimate news sources aren't trustworthy.  However in support of your preferred narrative you have ignored big issues, fixated on minor details, and relied heavily on news sources with no credibility. 

 

Go ahead and believe your alternative facts.  The adults will stick with the real thing.

The Steele dossier was verified.  That was an indisputable fact at one time, too.  The left's "indisputable facts" have an incredible propensity to change over time.  They don't age well.

 

The left has been proven wrong time and time again.  But you still believe you're the adult with the real thing.  555555555555

 

Edit:

 

I may as well mention that Bongino doesn't "spin" things to fit in a manner that pleases him.  He's written two books on the subject, is an investigative reporter, and he deals with facts.  The kind of facts you refuse to accept.

 

29 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The Steele dossier was verified.  That was an indisputable fact at one time, too.  The left's "indisputable facts" have an incredible propensity to change over time.  They don't age well.

 

The left has been proven wrong time and time again.  But you still believe you're the adult with the real thing.  555555555555

 

Edit:

 

I may as well mention that Bongino doesn't "spin" things to fit in a manner that pleases him.  He's written two books on the subject, is an investigative reporter, and he deals with facts.  The kind of facts you refuse to accept.

 

Instead of getting down in the weeds, which you clearly prefer, let's look at the big picture:

 

Fact:  Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

 

Fact:  Trump hired Paul Manafort as campaign manager.  Paul Manafort had connections with pro-Moscow Ukrainian oligarchs and other unsavory people.

 

Fact:  Trump Jr met with Russians in order to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.

 

Fact:  Trump's campaign benefited from the Russian hacking of the DNC server, and Trump encouraged people to take advantage of the hack and read what had been published on Wikileaks.

 

Fact:  Trump was running an unusually pro-Russia campaign.

 

Fact:  The FBI has a responsibility to protect the US against foreign espionage and technology attacks, including cyber attacks and hacking.

 

Do you dispute any of these facts?

 

In view of the above, it would have been criminally irresponsible for the FBI not to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  The fact that the investigation was done sloppily on occasion (not surprising considering how Comey ran the FBI) does not change the fact that the investigation was warranted and not politically motivated, as the subject investigation concluded.

 

People who put loyalty to their man, be it Trump or Putin, above country are tiresome.   

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Instead of getting down in the weeds, which you clearly prefer, let's look at the big picture:

 

Fact:  Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

 

Fact:  Trump hired Paul Manafort as campaign manager.  Paul Manafort had connections with pro-Moscow Ukrainian oligarchs and other unsavory people.

 

Fact:  Trump Jr met with Russians in order to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.

 

Fact:  Trump's campaign benefited from the Russian hacking of the DNC server, and Trump encouraged people to take advantage of the hack and read what had been published on Wikileaks.

 

Fact:  Trump was running an unusually pro-Russia campaign.

 

Fact:  The FBI has a responsibility to protect the US against foreign espionage and technology attacks, including cyber attacks and hacking.

 

Do you dispute any of these facts?

 

In view of the above, it would have been criminally irresponsible for the FBI not to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  The fact that the investigation was done sloppily on occasion (not surprising considering how Comey ran the FBI) does not change the fact that the investigation was warranted and not politically motivated, as the subject investigation concluded.

 

People who put loyalty to their man, be it Trump or Putin, above country are tiresome.   

No time now but I promise I will have a very special reply just for you this weekend.  You won't like it.  So bookmark this for now.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

No time now but I promise I will have a very special reply just for you this weekend.  You won't like it.  So bookmark this for now.

 

 

Leave out the BS conspiracy theory videos.  If you can't put your argument in writing I won't waste my time on it.  Also, don't pretend to have sources by posting irrelevant links, as you've done in the past.  Finally, as you've learned, the moderator won't allow fake news sources, so don't waste anyone's time with those.

 

If you can stay within these guidelines, I look forward to your reply.

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Leave out the BS conspiracy theory videos.  If you can't put your argument in writing I won't waste my time on it.  Also, don't pretend to have sources by posting irrelevant links, as you've done in the past.  Finally, as you've learned, the moderator won't allow fake news sources, so don't waste anyone's time with those.

 

If you can stay within these guidelines, I look forward to your reply.

Thanks for saving me the effort, heybruce.  Since you're limiting me to work within the sheltered world of the MSM then I'm afraid I must inform you that the information I would present doesn't exist in that closed vacuum.  Again, thanks for the heads up.

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Thanks for saving me the effort, heybruce.  Since you're limiting me to work within the sheltered world of the MSM then I'm afraid I must inform you that the information I would present doesn't exist in that closed vacuum.  Again, thanks for the heads up.

????????????  You know the policy against unapproved sources, so I assume you either object to providing links to sources you claim prove your point, but don't. 

 

Either that or you object to summarizing your arguments and insist on using links to tediously long videos of conspiracy theorists and right wing nuts so you can waste people's time and then debate the interpretation of the message and significance of the video.

 

Either way, you are stating you have no argument.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

????????????  You know the policy against unapproved sources, so I assume you either object to providing links to sources you claim prove your point, but don't. 

 

Either that or you object to summarizing your arguments and insist on using links to tediously long videos of conspiracy theorists and right wing nuts so you can waste people's time and then debate the interpretation of the message and significance of the video.

 

Either way, you are stating you have no argument.

I think the reason that right wingers depend so much on these videos is that it's a lot easier to check facts that are written down. And without the histrionic delivery the "evidence" on offer can be seen for the factually challenged stuff it is.

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I think the reason that right wingers depend so much on these videos is that it's a lot easier to check facts that are written down. And without the histrionic delivery the "evidence" on offer can be seen for the factually challenged stuff it is.

I'm sure that is the case for many.  However I think there are others who find the emotional rants of right-wing pundits much more entertaining than dry facts.

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

" Trump's campaign manager doing business with Ukrainian mobsters backed by Russia.  Trump's lawyer negotiating a major real estate deal with Moscow while Trump ran his "let's be nice to Russia" campaign.  Trump's son meeting with Russians in the hope of getting dirt on Trump's Democratic opponent.  And now Trump making it clear that military aid to Ukraine is contingent on Ukraine publicly announcing investigations to promote conspiracy theories about Joe Biden and Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. "

 

Can you dispute that any of these things took place?

 

You've stuck in some blatant lies in with some half truths and one big nothing burger.

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

????????????  You know the policy against unapproved sources, so I assume you either object to providing links to sources you claim prove your point, but don't. 

 

Either that or you object to summarizing your arguments and insist on using links to tediously long videos of conspiracy theorists and right wing nuts so you can waste people's time and then debate the interpretation of the message and significance of the video.

 

Either way, you are stating you have no argument.

Yes, we are forced to fight with our hands tied behind ours backs.  No matter.  You guys lose in the end.  That's a forgone conclusion.  But again, thanks for saving me the time.

Troll post and reply removed. 

 

Secretive Surveillance Court Rebukes FBI Over Handling of Surveillance of Trump Aide

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/secretive-surveillance-court-rebukes-fbi-over-handling-of-surveillance-of-trump-aide-11576615299

 

Fisa Court to FBI:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/440156909/Fisa-Court-to-FBI#from_embed

 

Comey:  "I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years."

 

Liar, liar, pants on fire.  555555555555

Lisa Page text message, Sept. 2, 2016:

 

"POTUS wants to know everything we're doing."

 

Obama's involvement will become known.

Mark Meadows: DOJ exploring 'unbelievably unusual activity' in final months of Obama administration

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mark-meadows-doj-exploring-unbelievably-unusual-activity-in-final-months-of-obama-administration

 

"So this is one of those six ways," Jordan said, adding that the other "ways" include British ex-spy Christopher Steele's anti-Trump dossier the CIA's use of informants to make contact with members of the Trump campaign.

 

From Paul Sperry:

 

"REWIND: On Jan. 29, 2018, FBI Dir Robert Wray issued a statement rebutting the Nunes Memo on FISA abuses & warning Trump not to declassify or release it,citing "grave concerns" with inaccuracies & omissions in the memo. Now we know Wray, too, was lying."

 

From Feb. 1, 2018

 

FBI expresses 'grave concerns' over accuracy of Republican surveillance memo

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-expresses-grave-concerns-accuracy-republican-surveillance-memo/story?id=52751729

 

I never trusted Wray.

 

11 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

You've stuck in some blatant lies in with some half truths and one big nothing burger.

Identify the lies and half truths.

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

From Paul Sperry:

 

"REWIND: On Jan. 29, 2018, FBI Dir Robert Wray issued a statement rebutting the Nunes Memo on FISA abuses & warning Trump not to declassify or release it,citing "grave concerns" with inaccuracies & omissions in the memo. Now we know Wray, too, was lying."

 

From Feb. 1, 2018

 

FBI expresses 'grave concerns' over accuracy of Republican surveillance memo

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-expresses-grave-concerns-accuracy-republican-surveillance-memo/story?id=52751729

 

I never trusted Wray.

 

A little context helps.  From your link:

 

" Only hours after President Donald Trump was caught on a live mic saying a controversial, Republican-drafted memo about government surveillance would be released to the public, the FBI says it has “grave concerns” about the memo’s accuracy. "

 

and:

 

"Even as Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee voted Monday to release the Republican-authored memo, they voted against releasing a memo written by Democrats that Democrats say shows the Republican memo to be highly misleading."

"The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-New York, said he has reviewed the classified source material Nunes' staff used to craft the memorandum, and "those materials tell a very different story than the conspiracy theory concocted by Chairman Nunes and being repeated in the press.""

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Mark Meadows: DOJ exploring 'unbelievably unusual activity' in final months of Obama administration

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mark-meadows-doj-exploring-unbelievably-unusual-activity-in-final-months-of-obama-administration

 

"So this is one of those six ways," Jordan said, adding that the other "ways" include British ex-spy Christopher Steele's anti-Trump dossier the CIA's use of informants to make contact with members of the Trump campaign.

 

As is typical of the Washington Examiner, there is nothing in the article.

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Lisa Page text message, Sept. 2, 2016:

 

"POTUS wants to know everything we're doing."

 

Obama's involvement will become known.

Any context for this statement, or we simply to conclude that Obama, unlike Trump, liked to stay informed?

On 12/17/2019 at 9:22 AM, heybruce said:

Instead of getting down in the weeds, which you clearly prefer, let's look at the big picture:

 

Fact:  Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

 

Fact:  Trump hired Paul Manafort as campaign manager.  Paul Manafort had connections with pro-Moscow Ukrainian oligarchs and other unsavory people.

 

Fact:  Trump Jr met with Russians in order to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.

 

Fact:  Trump's campaign benefited from the Russian hacking of the DNC server, and Trump encouraged people to take advantage of the hack and read what had been published on Wikileaks.

 

Fact:  Trump was running an unusually pro-Russia campaign.

 

Fact:  The FBI has a responsibility to protect the US against foreign espionage and technology attacks, including cyber attacks and hacking.

 

Do you dispute any of these facts?

 

In view of the above, it would have been criminally irresponsible for the FBI not to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  The fact that the investigation was done sloppily on occasion (not surprising considering how Comey ran the FBI) does not change the fact that the investigation was warranted and not politically motivated, as the subject investigation concluded.

 

People who put loyalty to their man, be it Trump or Putin, above country are tiresome.   

How much longer are you going to push the phony narrative Bruce? 

 

The fbi purposely lied to spy on people for political reasons. THAT is a fact

2 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

How much longer are you going to push the phony narrative Bruce? 

 

The fbi purposely lied to spy on people for political reasons. THAT is a fact

Rather than contest any of my stated facts, you invent an alternative fact that defies the conclusions this thread is based on. 

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

Rather than contest any of my stated facts, you invent an alternative fact that defies the conclusions this thread is based on. 

Perhaps you should try stating your facts with more conviction?
 

Which of your stated “facts” do you see as significant? Please? Let’s take them one at a time. 
 

Russia interfered with the election. How is that Trump’s fault?

 

Trump hired Paul Manafort. So what?

 

Jr. met with “Russians” to get dirt on Hillary. So what?

 

What does pro-Russia campaign even mean? Remember the reset/button and the ‘80’s wanting their foreign policy back? Was that pro-Russia policy and sentiment? But really, how was it a pro-Russian campaign? In any event, it seems pretty subjective to be stated as a fact. 

Yes. the FBI is responsible for any number of things, yet they’re busy lying and falsifying documents to get FISA warrants and taking it upon themselves to give HRC a pass. 
 

Yes, the FBI (apparently) were justified in opening the investigation. They were not justified in lying and falsifying documents to pursue it further. 
 

 

 

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

Rather than contest any of my stated facts, you invent an alternative fact that defies the conclusions this thread is based on. 

To be clear, at no time did the report state there was no political bias. 
 

Fact