Trump says he could bring back fired ex-national security adviser Flynn

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, stevenl said:

I have made quite a few posts about the OP already. How about you?

 

So what do you think about the claim 'trump is telling the truth so I keep on supporting him'?

Yes and one was just 6 before this post I quoted.

 

Unless you are quoting something in your second sentence, it is off topic and is also deflecting. I don't remember everything written in every post on any thread, so just in case it is a quote, Trump does not, IMO lie any more than any politician.

Edited May 11, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, simple1 said:

As repeatedly posted by members of the forum we have to await the ruling of the judge.

If that were to include waiting till the election to see if Trump wins, most threads about Trump would have few if any posts.

[simple1]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If that were to include waiting till the election to see if Trump wins, most threads about Trump would have few if any posts.

nearly all OP's relating to trump are related to current events / noise created by trump, as is this OP

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I have provided links to credible sources. Accordingly kindly cease your baiting / misinformation posts. As repeatedly mentioned by myself and others the fact of the matter is to wait and see the outcome of the judge's ruling. No further reply to you on this OP as longer can be bothered to respond to your ceaseless repetition.

Provided links to credible sources where?  On this thread?  Another thread?  I can't find it here.  Repost the link.

[simple1]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Provided links to credible sources where?  On this thread?  Another thread?  I can't find it here.  Repost the link.

In this instance I'll humour you. Hopefully will keep you busy for a while while you work out the trump style spin - few examples

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/17/maga-lawyer-behind-michael-flynn-legal-strategy-098712

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/michael-flynn-lawyer-sidney-powell/index.html

 

 

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes and one was just 6 before this post I quoted.

 

Unless you are quoting something in your second sentence, it is off topic and is also deflecting. I don't remember everything written in every post on any thread, so just in case it is a quote, Trump does not, IMO lie any more than any politician.

I quoted, he replied. And yes, Trump does lie a lot more than any other politician, close to 20,000 lies now. Your opinion notwithstanding that is a fact.

 

But yes, off topic so I won't respond to that anymore.

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

nearly all OP's relating to trump are related to current events / noise created by trump, as is this OP

". . . noise created by trump . . . "

 

LOL.

 

This OP certainly cannot be considered noise considering the recent FBI/DOJ criminality which has been brought to light.  You may think Trump talks out of his ar$e when he tweets (and that would be your personal opinion rather than fact) but consider what information he has available to him.  Do you seriously think Trump makes "outlandish" tweets unless he has a firm basis for making them?

 

Noise.  LOL

[stevenl]

18 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

<snip>Do you seriously think Trump makes "outlandish" tweets unless he has a firm basis for making them?

 

<snip>

 

Fact, he does so on a continuous basis.

 

Many examples here, and there are many, many more.

 

Some more examples

“We have now Tested more than 5 Million People,” he added Sunday morning. “That is more than any other country in the World, and even more than all major countries combined!”

 

He is not happy with Kemp, but Kemp is a great guy doing a good job.

 

"I work from early in the morning until late at night, haven’t left the White House in many months (except to launch Hospital Ship Comfort) in order to take care of Trade Deals, " Except for campaign rallies of course.

 

And those are all factual incorrect claims. Many, many examples.

Edited May 11, 2020 by stevenl

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Fact, he does so on a continuous basis.

 

Many examples here, and there are many, many more.

Correct. Plus never backs up with facts, only outlandish allegations & claims with further muddying by use of conspiracy theories. 

[metisdead]

Some posts bickering about the credibility of news sources have been removed.  

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Fact, he does so on a continuous basis.

 

Many examples here, and there are many, many more.

 

Some more examples

“We have now Tested more than 5 Million People,” he added Sunday morning. “That is more than any other country in the World, and even more than all major countries combined!”

 

He is not happy with Kemp, but Kemp is a great guy doing a good job.

 

"I work from early in the morning until late at night, haven’t left the White House in many months (except to launch Hospital Ship Comfort) in order to take care of Trade Deals, " Except for campaign rallies of course.

 

And those are all factual incorrect claims. Many, many examples.

The COVID Tracking Project from The Atlantic.

 

As of 4 PM ET.

 

US Daily Cumulative Totals - 4 pm ET

Date	States Tracked	New Tests	Positive	Negative	Pos + Neg	Pending	Deaths	Total Tests
Sun May 10 2020	56	277,894	1,322,807	7,664,717	8,987,524	3,095	74,270	8,987,524

 

8,967,524 total tested in the U.S.

 

I just picked the first example you gave.  Do you guys ever check information yourselves or do you just accept what you read at face value?

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

The COVID Tracking Project from The Atlantic.

 

As of 4 PM ET.

 

US Daily Cumulative Totals - 4 pm ET

Date	States Tracked	New Tests	Positive	Negative	Pos + Neg	Pending	Deaths	Total Tests
Sun May 10 2020	56	277,894	1,322,807	7,664,717	8,987,524	3,095	74,270	8,987,524

 

8,967,524 total tested in the U.S.

 

I just picked the first example you gave.  Do you guys ever check information yourselves or do you just accept what you read at face value?

Later information does not affect his lie. When he said that 3 European countries had done more tests, individually, let alone combined.

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Later information does not affect his lie. When he said that 3 European countries had done more tests, individually, let alone combined.

What are you talking about?  As of the date of Trump's tweet, Sunday, April 26th, 5,404,137 people had been tested in the U.S.

 

Vox comes up with similar numbers.  Charting the coronavirus pandemic state by state

 

Of course you're listing Trump's "lies" without offering any evidence or facts whatsoever.  But obviously Trump wasn't lying about the numbers tested in the U.S. at the time of his tweet.  I can understand you guys have extreme bias but to post a lie about a supposed Trump lie to "prove" your claim is stunningly disingenuous.

[stevenl]

36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What are you talking about?  As of the date of Trump's tweet, Sunday, April 26th, 5,404,137 people had been tested in the U.S.

 

Vox comes up with similar numbers.  Charting the coronavirus pandemic state by state

 

Of course you're listing Trump's "lies" without offering any evidence or facts whatsoever.  But obviously Trump wasn't lying about the numbers tested in the U.S. at the time of his tweet.  I can understand you guys have extreme bias but to post a lie about a supposed Trump lie to "prove" your claim is stunningly disingenuous.

Read my post, it said "That is more than any other country in the World, and even more than all major countries combined!”"

Blatant lie. Less than 3 other countries individually.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Read my post, it said "That is more than any other country in the World, and even more than all major countries combined!”"

Blatant lie. Less than 3 other countries individually.

"And those are all factual incorrect claims."

 

Your words, not mine.  That would include the 5 million number.  So now it's some things are true and some things are a lie?  Moving the goalposts a bit?

 

As to the second half of his tweet I found only 4 links to articles which are overall dedicated to "debunking" Trump's tweets in general and are almost identical.  None of those links provide any sources for this "debunking."  There's an old maxim, "Don't believe everything you read."  You do and I don't.  If I can't verify reported information myself from multiple sources or, better, yet, documentation which can't be altered, I won't get suckered into believing anything anyone writes regardless of the source.

 

If you have source data of testing per country from April 26th, the date of Trump's tweet, provide it.  I can't find any.  Otherwise I'll just take your post as someone blindly repeating information which they themselves never bothered to verify as to accuracy.

 

Anyway, all of this is off topic so I won't add anything further.

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"And those are all factual incorrect claims."

 

Your words, not mine.  That would include the 5 million number.  So now it's some things are true and some things are a lie?  Moving the goalposts a bit?

 

As to the second half of his tweet I found only 4 links to articles which are overall dedicated to "debunking" Trump's tweets in general and are almost identical.  None of those links provide any sources for this "debunking."  There's an old maxim, "Don't believe everything you read."  You do and I don't.  If I can't verify reported information myself from multiple sources or, better, yet, documentation which can't be altered, I won't get suckered into believing anything anyone writes regardless of the source.

 

If you have source data of testing per country from April 26th, the date of Trump's tweet, provide it.  I can't find any.  Otherwise I'll just take your post as someone blindly repeating information which they themselves never bothered to verify as to accuracy.

 

Anyway, all of this is off topic so I won't add anything further.

You can take it anyway you want, you have proven again you don't care about facts, independent established facts.

[Tippaporn]

Catherine Herridge asked Barr during the interview on Meet The Press last Thursday, "In closing, this was a big decision in the Flynn case, to say the least. When history looks back on this decision, how do you think it will be written? What will it say about your decision making?"

 

Barr responded, "Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history."  That is the part NBC's Chuck Todd played on his show while editing out the rest of Barr's quote.  After taking Barr's comment out of context Todd then went on to derisively accuse Barr of not citing "the rule of law" in his response.

 

"I was struck, Peggy, by the cynicism of his answer," Todd began. "It's a correct answer. But he's the attorney general. He didn't make the case that he was upholding the rule of law. He was almost admitting that yeah, this is a political job."

 

Here's the edited out portion of Barr's quote:

 

"But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice."

 

Meet The Press was forced to issue this correction:

 

"You’re correct. Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with AG Barr before offering commentary and analysis. The remaining clip included important remarks from the attorney general that we missed, and we regret the error."

 

Perhaps stevenl can now understand why I refuse to take his sources "word" when all they provide is their "word" and do not link to source information which would allow anyone to verify for themselves.  Don't believe everything you read (or watch).  There is no way that Chuck Todd could have missed listening to Barr's full quote beforehand.  This is what the MSM does repeatedly, hoping to get away with it.  And all of the fools who don't come across the correction will then repeat the false information endlessly and claim it came from a reliable source as proof of it's accuracy.

 

And I don't care about facts?  LOL

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by Tippaporn

[stevenl]

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Catherine Herridge asked Barr during the interview on Meet The Press last Thursday, "In closing, this was a big decision in the Flynn case, to say the least. When history looks back on this decision, how do you think it will be written? What will it say about your decision making?"

 

Barr responded, "Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who's writing the history."  That is the part NBC's Chuck Todd played on his show while editing out the rest of Barr's quote.  After taking Barr's comment out of context Todd then went on to derisively accuse Barr of not citing "the rule of law" in his response.

 

"I was struck, Peggy, by the cynicism of his answer," Todd began. "It's a correct answer. But he's the attorney general. He didn't make the case that he was upholding the rule of law. He was almost admitting that yeah, this is a political job."

 

Here's the edited out portion of Barr's quote:

 

"But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice."

 

Meet The Press was forced to issue this correction:

 

"You’re correct. Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with AG Barr before offering commentary and analysis. The remaining clip included important remarks from the attorney general that we missed, and we regret the error."

 

Perhaps stevenl can now understand why I refuse to take his sources "word" when all they provide is their "word" and do not link to source information which would allow anyone to verify for themselves.  Don't believe everything you read (or watch).  There is no way that Chuck Todd could have missed listening to Barr's full quote beforehand.  This is what the MSM does repeatedly, hoping to get away with it.  And all of the fools who don't come across the correction will then repeat the false information endlessly and claim it came from a reliable source as proof of it's accuracy.

 

And I don't care about facts?  LOL

 

There you have the difference, the MSM correct themselves when they have made a mistake, the others, including Trump, double down.

 

I gave you verifiable information. Anyone who claims to support Trump because he is telling the truth doesn't care about facts.

 

But please feel free to answer or not, I don't see any point in reading your posts anymore when all you do is twist arguments from others and create your own facts.

Edited May 11, 2020 by stevenl

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

There you have the difference, the MSM correct themselves when they have made a mistake, the others, including Trump, double down.

 

I gave you verifiable information. Anyone who claims to support Trump because he is telling the truth doesn't care about facts.

For one, no, the MSM don't always correct their mistakes (don't ask me for links because I can't keep track of everything I come across).  That not a factually accurate statement.

 

For another, these "mistakes" have been happening with such regularity it starts to beggar the imagination that they are indeed "errors."  How on earth could Todd not have listened to Barr's entire answer before lying on national television?  Do you have a plausible explanation, steven?

 

I've been posting straight up facts throughout this entire thread so your claim that I don't care about facts is completely unsubstantiated.  Not a single liberal poster who's been on this thread has once brought up any of those facts and they've only attempted to downplay them or pass them off as my "opinion" in their responses to my posts.

 

Edit:  BTW, you did not give me verifiable information.  If it's verifiable then you should be able to link to the source information, not the reporting of it.  The two aren't the same, as the Chuck Todd episode so obviously illustrates.

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by Tippaporn

[metisdead]

A post using a video from an unapproved YouTube source has been removed as it was not from an approved news media source:

 

18) Social Media content is not to be used as  source material unless it is from a recognized or approved news media source,  the source of any such material (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube  etc.) should always be shown.

[simple1]

In an op-ed published Monday in The Washington Post, former federal prosecutor Jonathan Kravis wrote that “the department’s handling of these matters is profoundly misguided,” adding that he is “convinced that the department’s conduct in the Stone and Flynn cases will do lasting damage to the institution.”

 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/11/ex-stone-prosecutor-doj-flynn-248893

[yourauntbob]

On 5/11/2020 at 5:08 AM, stevenl said:

There you have the difference, the MSM correct themselves when they have made a mistake

Corporate media only corrects themselves when they get caught.  Just ask Nick Sandman 

[Crazy Alex]

On 5/11/2020 at 4:08 AM, stevenl said:

There you have the difference, the MSM correct themselves when they have made a mistake, the others, including Trump, double down.

 

Yes, I recall the MSM correcting themselves for the numerous stories of Trump/Russia collusion after the Mueller report that there was no such collusion DESPITE Russian efforts.

 

Please, can we stop with posting such obvious untruths?

[yourauntbob]

On 5/11/2020 at 5:20 AM, Tippaporn said:

I've been posting straight up facts throughout this entire thread so your claim that I don't care about facts is completely unsubstantiated.  Not a single liberal poster who's been on this thread has once brought up any of those facts and they've only attempted to downplay them or pass them off as my "opinion" in their responses to my posts.

This seems to be the new thing with the left.  When their arguments dont stand on merit (which they often dont) they attack the source.  

 

This isnt exclusive to this forum.  Recently anytime I see or present fact that are inconvenient to the narrative there will inevitably be a response discrediting the source.  By doing this, they seem to be happy not to address the information presented.  

 

Remember, back in 2015/2016 there was a huge push to label things "fake news."  They gave examples of a few wack jobs and  unscrupulous reporters and then just lumped everything outside the narrative in.   Trump turned it around on them and they then bemoaned the term for a few years.  Now it looks like they are using the same strategy without the term "fake news."  

 

It's important to call this out as often as possible.

Edited May 12, 2020 by yourauntbob

[Crazy Alex]

18 hours ago, simple1 said:

In an op-ed published Monday in The Washington Post, former federal prosecutor Jonathan Kravis wrote that “the department’s handling of these matters is profoundly misguided,” adding that he is “convinced that the department’s conduct in the Stone and Flynn cases will do lasting damage to the institution.”

 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/11/ex-stone-prosecutor-doj-flynn-248893

Sounds like he's got it about right. Thankfully, the DOJ has dropped the case. The Durham investigation continues. Hopefully, exposing the Flynn scam and frame is just a preview of things to come.

[simple1]

3 hours ago, yourauntbob said:

Corporate media only corrects themselves when they get caught.  Just ask Nick Sandman 

MSM was not 'caught'. Later further extensive video was made available of the incident, after the initial reporting, that is when the reporting was updated. It should be noted Sandman's family sued for hundred's of millions which was settled out of Court, great representatives of US society, not.

Edited May 12, 2020 by simple1

[simple1]

3 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Sounds like he's got it about right. Thankfully, the DOJ has dropped the case. The Durham investigation continues. Hopefully, exposing the Flynn scam and frame is just a preview of things to come.

will be the judge's decision whether the charges will be dropped or not.

[Crazy Alex]

19 minutes ago, simple1 said:

will be the judge's decision whether the charges will be dropped or not.

No, you're wrong.

 

"Criminal charges are filed by a prosecutor because they believe that they can prove their case, but the judge or jury may not agree with them. ... Only the prosecutor or the arresting officer is able to drop charges."

 

https://www.yourphiladelphialawyers.com/criminal-charges-dropped-dismissed/

 

 

[simple1]

Latest news...

 

A federal judge said Tuesday that he would allow interested parties to weigh in on Michael Flynn's case, an unusual move for a criminal prosecution, after the Department of Justice (DOJ) sought to drop the charges against the former national security adviser.

 

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/497447-judge-invites-outside-parties-to-weigh-in-on-flynn-case

[metisdead]

A baiting troll post and the replies have been removed.