Finally, some real news about the Mueller indictments

This is a flat out lie.

Pass up no opportunity, no matter how trivial or how far you have to stretch it or how unlikely, to call your opponent a liar. Never ever consider other possible interpretations. Especially when said opponent is obviously making excellent points you desperately need to keep from being taken seriously..-- unwritten leftist code.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

..that's where the truth lies, as Flaherty's piece also says. I've been hearing since they started accusing Trump of colluding with Russia, how it was Hillary who really did collude with Russia, prinicipally about this uranium deal, this is not something Trump is making up for the purpose of deflecting the Mueller investigation, it's the substance of the important questions here, and the Mueller investigation is in reality the distraction, an attempt to cover Hillary's tracks in the Uranium One deal.

---

Even if the Uranium deal was entirely real, it is obvious that the Murller investigation is not an attempt to distract from it - and it is obvious that bringing it up IS an attempt to distract from the Mueller investigation. Anyone attempting to argue otherwise is engaging in obvious dishonestyThere are real grounds for the Mueller investigation- and more evidence is emerging. The reaction from the Trump camp meanwhile is making it rather clear that they have something to hide.

It is probably not right to make accusations of lying. But sometimes a poster's regard for the truth is so low, that some comment or notice must be made. I'll admit to lacking some tact, so I'll explain my position more fully."Real News" as defined by Trump and some other buffoons appears to be any news that does not paint the Trump administration in a positive light. I continue to see very little evidence that Faith defines "real" and "fake" in any other way. Accordingly, I find attempting a rational dispute with on any topic the very definition of a pointless endeavor. I won't do it.Most people understand that the headlines on CNN or Infowars, or any other web page might contain more sensationalism than truth. My personal approach is to look a bit harder for facts than just absorbing what is thrown at me. I look at the news regarding the indictments of Trump's campaign participants and wonder about the meaning of those indictments. I wonder about and the chance that those who have not plead guilty really are not guilty or are guilty of things that are not particularly relevant.What I don't do is rely on "my favorite lefty or conservative voices" to inform me of the truth. Accordingly, like most folks here I encounter what various people have to say about the importance or unimportance of those things.I'll note that one can find varied opinions about the answers to those questions on CNN, MSN, and on Fox News. So the idea that everybody on the left exists in an echo chamber just because one poster does indeed keep their fingers in their ears rather than on the pulse of events is just the kind of lying projection about lefties we've been accustomed to in every Faith-started political thread.Does the current large amount of negative commentary on the president demean and weaken the office? Of course, it does. But the alternative is to offer no correction or criticism for buffoonery. The ultimate answer to the excessive negative commentary is for the president and his administration to stop doing stupid stuff.Beyond that, if you weren't complaining about the right's treatment of Obama, your credibility on this issue cannot be very high anyway.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..." Surely, you could hear echoes of this as you read Trump's deflecting tweet.Along the same lines, L. Ron Hubbard once wrote:

quote:

---

NEVER agree to an investigation of Scientology. Only agree to an investigation of the attackers. . . . Start feeding lurid, blood, sex crime, actual evidence on the attack to the press. Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way

---

I agree about the tendency to report sensationalistic news, that's what brings readers, but I disagree about any general bias in straight news reporting toward the outlet's general editorial stance. Unless your standard is perfection in both fact and objectivity, most respectable news sources print straight factual news. Here's an example of straight factual reporting from today's New York Times: 8 Killed in ‘Act of Terror’ in Manhattan. After reading the article I'd say it's a typical example of factual reporting from the Times.CNN, that supposed icon of "fake news", printed a straight factual article while still displaying their sensationalistic side: New Yorkers defiant after deadliest terror attack in the city since 9/11Here are some other news sources that filed straight factual stories:

• BBC: New York truck attack: What we know and don't know
  
• Chicago Tribune: Truck Attack leaves 8 dead in 'cowardly act of terror' in New York
  
• Chicago Sun Times: ‘Cowardly act of terror’: Truck driver kills at least 8 on bike path
  
• Los Angeles Times: Driver kills at least 8 in Manhattan in what officials say was a terrorist attack
  
• NPR: Suspect In New York City Truck Attack Worked As Commercial Truck, Uber Driver
  
• Fox News: NYC terror attack leaves 8 dead, several injured; suspect's notes pledged ISIS loyalty

All these articles say pretty much the same thing. Some had facts others didn't, that's about the only difference. This is the nature of most news, just reporting the facts.--Percy

I see you've been accused of lying about this. I presume you believe it's true. It isn't. And it's pretty obvious that you have no real idea of what is or is not familiar to leftists.

No, you don't know the difference between an opinion piece and a news article. You demonstrate that clearly in your very message. No it doesn't. More about that later. The Flaherty piece (Manafort Indictment Shows That Mueller Is A Fraud) is an opinion piece, not a news story. The opinion starts right at the very headline where he calls Mueller a fraud. You're making this up. I just broke down half a news article from the NYT in my Message 44. It was all truth and no lies and certainly no opinion. You're again making this up. In your first sentence you claimed to know "an opinion piece is not news," and now you're claiming that there's no difference between news and opinion. You can't even stay consistent across a single paragraph. But the article isn't about "the overarching claim that Trump colluded with Russia." The article is about the Mueller indictments. By the way, apparently from a legal standpoint collusion isn't a crime, while conspiracy is. Likely Mueller will be trying to prove conspiracy. So you are conceding that the article was factual and did not contain "fake news". As far as the NYT article about the Mueller indictments (Trump Belittles Aide Caught in Russia Inquiry; Calls Him ‘Liar’), what are the "irrelevant truths", what are the "big truths", and how did one cover up the other? So far all we have is an example of straight factual news reporting. Where is an example of this "fake news" reporting you claim exists? News that reflects poorly on your guy is not "fake news". Not that Trump isn't occasionally right, but mostly he lies. Right from day 1 when he made false claims about attendance numbers at his inauguration to the present day with his Monday tweet of, "Report out that Obama Campaign paid $972,000 to Fusion GPS. The firm also got $12,400,000 (really?) from DNC. Nobody knows who OK'd!" Turns out this is false, see Trump’s latest Mueller distraction: An incorrect tweet on a misleading story. A great deal of negative news about Trump would go away if he would just stop tweeting falsehoods and repugnant opinions. Flaherty's *opinion* piece, you mean. The possibility that the Trump campaign may have conspired with the Russians in 2016 to bolster Trump and harm Clinton has nothing to do with a uranium deal in 2010, which has been debunked numerous times anyway,
for example, The ‘dossier’ and the uranium deal: A guide to the latest allegations.The two are not connected. Mueller was appointed by deputy attorney general Rod J. Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, in response to concerns about Trump's dismissal of then FBI director Comey, Trump's admission that it was because of the Russian allegations and Comey's refusal to drop the investigation of former national security advisor Michael T. Flynn over related concerns. Yes, we know what Flaherty is saying in his *opinion* piece. I think all you have to catch up on is telling the difference between news and opinion.--Percy

Link to the Flaherty piece: Manafort Indictment Shows That Mueller Is A Fraud

quote:

---

More than anything else, the indictments of Paul Manafort and his partner Rick Gates demonstrate the fraudulent nature of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The probe has little to do with Russian interference in last year’s election. Instead, it is calculated to protect Mueller and a cabal within the FBI and Justice Department who covered up crimes by Hillary Clinton because they believed it was likely that she would be elected president.

---

Mueller was appointed by deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, a Trump appointee. Rosenstein's motivation as a Republican appointee to appoint an anti-Trump special counsel is completely lacking. He appointed Mueller to investigate Trump campaign connections to the Russians. He did not appoint Mueller to investigate, let alone cover up, Hillary Clinton crimes from seven years ago. That's absurd.

quote:

---

And once Mueller and then his friend and successor James Comey covered for Hillary, they had to keep covering. There was a reason that Mueller was so available when he was so swiftly appointed Special Counsel in May by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The Comey firing threatened to expose all that these same officials had swept under the rug. Yes, Rosenstein bit the bullet and drafted the memo that was the legal basis for firing Comey, but it would be followed by appointing Mueller.

---

There's a lot of undescribed accusation and little logic in this paragraph. Again, Rosenstein is a Trump appointee. His appointment of Mueller was widely praised by both Democrats and Republicans.

quote:

---

In July, Comey preemptively exonerated Hillary despite her maintenance of a private email server and mishandling of classified material. By accusing her of being extremely careless, he purposely distracted attention from the context of the emails.

---

This is untrue. The content and context of the emails were extensively examined.

quote:

---

Hillary and Bill Clinton operated an aggressive shakedown operation of domestic and foreign interests, many of which are unsavory and criminal.

---

This is a completely unsupported and undescribed allegation.

quote:

---

Concealing the true nature of the operation was at least part of the Clintons’ motivation for the private server.

---

The FBI was able to recover around 17,000 of the 31,000 deleted emails that Clinton said were personal. There's was no indication of "an aggressive shakedown operation of domestic and foreign interests." One wonders how, if the Clinton's were so successful at covering up all their supposed illegal activities, Flaherty came to know about them?

quote:

---

The outlines of the Uranium One deal were not a secret. Media outlets like the New York Times reported on the U.S. government approval of a partial sale of the Canadian mining company to Rosatom, a Russian firm, while those who benefitted donated to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a single speech in Moscow.

---

The uranium deal was outside the purview of the State Department, but I object to the donation to the Clinton Foundation by the Rosatom chairman and to the $500,000 Bill Clinton speech. While the Clinton Foundation is a non-profit dedicated to promoting globalization from which neither Clinton receives any financial compensation, it looks bad, and the State Department was one of the nine agencies that had to sign off on the deal. Maybe nothing illegal took place, but that doesn't make it right.

quote:

---

Then came more detailed reports about how the FBI cracked the case of a major Russian effort to penetrate the North American uranium industry through a host of illegal activities, but somehow the whole matter was slow-walked and kept from U.S. government officials who had to approve the Uranium One deal. Mueller and Comey ultimately supervised the probe.

---

The only reference I was able to find to this on the web was Flaherty's own link. I don't know if it's true or not, but the charge that Clinton gave away 20% of American uranium has been debunked many, many times, for instance, No, Hillary Clinton did not "give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in the US.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, the FBI’s email investigation was supervised by now-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who has significant connections to the Clintons through his wife Jill McCabe. Hillary headlined a fundraiser for a group supporting Jill McCabe’s campaign for the Virginia state senate, as first reported in the Wall Street Journal. The National Legal and Policy Center subsequently exposed more Clintonista support, including from then-Clinton Foundation operative Doug Band who wrote a personal check for $50,000.

---

Nothing in this paragraph seems anything but innocuous.

quote:

---

The plot thickened last week when the bombshell hit that it was Hillary’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee that paid for the Fusion GPS dossier. Reporters were chagrined to realize that they had been lied to repeatedly for months and months. Hillary now claims that the first she heard of it was when the dossier memo was printed by BuzzFeed in January, a likely lie. As long as this what did Hillary know and when did Hillary know it question is of no interest to Mueller, his investigation has no credibility whatsoever. But therein lies the dilemma for Mueller. A real probe of Hillary would mean a review of his own actions and those of his colleagues. He’s cornered.

---

I agree that the funding sources for the dossier should be investigated, but investigating Hillary Clinton is not Mueller's mandate. They'll need another special counsel for that. Of course, much has already been uncovered about the funding of the dossier, and there doesn't seem to be much there, except in Trump tweets and opinion pieces by Trump supporters.

quote:

---

Mueller’s strategy is clear. He has to rescue himself, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein and others from their complicity in Hillary’s dealings with the Russians. Mueller is creating a diversion by going after Manafort, the lowest of low-hanging fruit. Just about any inquiry into Manafort’s dealings over the years was sure to yield results.

---

This is just silly. Mueller cannot investigate Clinton about a uranium deal that took place in 2010 while she was Secretary of State because he's supposed to be investigating the possibility that the Trump campaign worked with the Russians in the 2016 campaign.

quote:

---

Donald Trump’s demeanor invites assumptions by some about his commitment to democratic values, but it is Hillary and her campaign that colluded with the Russians, paid the hit squad Fusion GPS to manufacture and plant information on her opponent, and hired people to provoke violence at Trump rallies.

---

This is just a list of unsubstantiated allegations.

quote:

---

The Clintons’ ruthlessness, along with the unwillingness of the nation’s top enforcement officials to stand up to them, has created a Constitutional crisis.

---

The election was a year ago. How long do Trump and his supporters think they can continue distracting attention from their own problems by crying "Clinton"?--Percy

I did read it. It is a bunch of either false or unverified allegations. Crying "Clinton" or "Fake News" every time something inconvenient comes out in public isn't going to work. All it does is make Trump look guilty when he tries these underhanded tactics.

I predicted years ago that the next great war would be a war of ideas, ideologies, beliefs, and definitions. It seems we are in the early stages of this war.They interviewed and are continuing to interview the tech giants who spread information via social media, such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Back in the fifties, it used to be simple truth vs lies...communists vs "good" democracies, but we have since learned that saints and sinners often share the same traits.
Mark Zuckerberg's Big Blind Spot And The Conflict Within FacebookZuckerberg himself acknowledges the power of social media and realizes that it can be used for good or evil. He didn't see this a year ago.I have access to a lot of information. What I don't have access to is the truth. Truth is something that I have to choose and decide within myself.Trying to google information is wise, so long as one can take all sides into consideration and use critical thinking skills to arrive at a personal opinion or belief. Trying to google truth is like checking your brains at the door.

Notice what Trump tweeted: The fact is, this man was sick. Not that he was a member of ISIS. I fear that incidents such as this combined with an authoritarian government will turn us into more of a police state. Thank God for an open media, at least.

The reason for such jihadi attacks is Islam, Phat, even if only a few act on it. The person doesn't need to have mental problems, he or she just needs to be convinced that Allah will reward him or her for killing infidels. Western psychobabble can't explain this stuff and we're dangerously deluded to think it can. For Trump or anyone to try to explain it as a mental illness totally misses the point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The fact remains that the whole narrative about Trump's supposed collusion with Russia was invented to cover Hillary's tracks (and very likely also Mueller's).Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You've bought the party line, that's all. The fact is that the whole Trump-Russia story was invented to cover Clinton, it's entirely fake news from beginning to end. The so-called "alt-right" has been saying this for a year at least. It may not "work," of course, as you say, since the truth is often a casualty where powerful people have the means to suppress it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.