Finally, some real news about the Mueller indictments

I just read an intersting article about a technique known as gaslighting. used in politics, the article elaborates: They accuse Trump of gaslighting, but others would defend him in that he is simply using the tools of modern communication. Lets see if the shoe fits.

quote:

---

It (gaslighting) can be used to deflect attention away from the real issues, making it harder to fight against abuse.

​

According to Dr Stephanie Sarkis, tactics used involve:

​

1. They tell you blatant lies.
2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.
3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.
4. They wear you down over time.
5. Their actions do not match their words.
6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.

---

Comments?

How do you know that's a fact? One man's opinion does not prove it.

It's been discussed to death for a year now with all the evidence you could ask for, by hundreds of voices of the suppressed "alt-right" media. Flaherty is merely affirming what they all have been saying all that time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm asking for that evidence... where can I find it?Remember: opinions don't count.

quote:

---

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).

---

The fact remains that Mueller was appointed to investigate the Trump links with Russia - and not by the Democrats. The fact remains that members of the Trump campaign have been less than honest about their communications with the Russians.In short the narrative of Trump’s supposed collusion with Russia is not invented, is quite likely true, and has nothing to do with Clinton’s supposed collusion.Really, what is the point of these lies ? They only tell us that you are afraid of what Mueller might uncover.

Then show me how those allegations are backed by evidence.Also, show us where Mueller is ordered to investigate Clinton in the mandate he was given by the justice department.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Repeating opinions does not make them facts.

duplicateEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ya don't say. Golly I guess I'm really stupid then aren't I?The point is that we're not just talking about one man's opinion, it helps to read in the context of what is being answered. However, as I said, the evidence has been covered over the last year, starting with the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia, along with one phony disgusting "dossier" against Trump invented by Democrats, followed by the fact that there's plenty of evidence of Clinton's Russia collusion. You won't find out any of that if all you read is the leftist press. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I never said Mueller was ordered to investigate Clinton. It wouldn't be an effective coverup in that case.Show me any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. There has never been any.

They really do know how to cover their tracks well and shovel their own wrongdoings onto Trump. Very well done.

Oh opinions like Flaherty's which cover a lot of factual information do indeed count.

Then show me the evidence instead of just alluding to it.

quote:

---

They really do know how to cover their tracks well and shovel their own wrongdoings onto Trump. Very well done.

---

Of course in reality Trump isn’t being accused of involvement with the uranium deal or the Fusion GPS dossier.In reality Flaherty trotted out the accusations against Clinton because of actual developments in the Mueller investigation - real news. And he is trying to discredit Mueller because he is afraid of what Mueller will find.It’s not a very clever attempt at a cover up. It works only because the right is steeped in evil and hate and lies. And you are a willing part of that.