U.S. Mainstream Media is Having a Meltdown

[EyeBRollin]

LOL!!!

That is why clapper and Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow all talked collusion constantly?

Clapper on Trump/Russia: If "Active Collusion" Wasn't Proven We Have A Case Of "Passive Collusion"

In an interview Thursday night with CNN's Anderson Cooper, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper suggested that despite special counsel Mueller's conclusion that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia, there may have been "passive collusion." JAMES CLAPPER: I do think...

www.realclearpolitics.com

Trump story changes on collusion, obstruction

Rachel Maddow points out that Donald Trump's lawyers' arguments about Trump's legal liability in the Russia scandal have changed from denying Trump's

www.msnbc.com

Is that your way of addressing what I said?

 

[logicallefty]

I’m extremely happy with the outcome of the Muller report and that Trump is in the clear. But was disappointed in Barr’s press conference Thursday. I wanted to hear what the future held regarding punishing those who started the whole mess, mostly Hillary. I decided I’m no longer going to follow this story. Unless Trump is convicted of a criminal act he will have my vote in 2020. All of these committees and special councils trying to impeach Trump can fabricate reality as much as they want. I’m done caring.

 

[EyeBRollin]

If leftists a year ago were talking about collusion, they don't get to move goalposts now.

The accusers define the accusation. They have been saying collusion all along.

Nice try though.

Wrong. Take what I’m saying as a victory. “Leftists” to their own detriment argue against right-wing framing. The right wing media sphere started collusion, just like they started “Obamacare” and “crooked Hillary.” The framing always comes from the right, not the left.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I’m extremely happy with the outcome of the Muller report and that Trump is in the clear. But was disappointed in Barr’s press conference Thursday. I wanted to hear what the future held regarding punishing those who started the whole mess, mostly Hillary. I decided I’m no longer going to follow this story. Unless Trump is convicted of a criminal act he will have my vote in 2020. All of these committees and special councils trying to impeach Trump can fabricate reality as much as they want. I’m done caring.

Lol, he had your vote from the beginning. No need to rationalize.

 

[EyeBRollin]

The evidence is right there in my links.

The accuser starts the frame by setting the accusations. From the start CNN and Rachel Maddow led the collusion charge. As shown in my links.

Nope, your “evidence” doesn’t address any of what I just said in my last two posts. And if you reread page 2, it lays out exactly who the explanation of collusion vs conspiracy is directed to.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I read the pages. And you simply saying something does not make it "evidence".

To date I have two points supporting me....

• The accuser defines the frame, they set the accusation.
• I have provided video from a year ago showing CNN and Rachel pushing collusion.

You have provided ZERO evidence for your claim that the Right started the collusion claim.

The “accuser” (which is whom?) didn’t set the frame and video of pundits discussing collusion has nothing to do with the origin of that frame.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Of course the accuser sets the frame thats how any investigation is identified and pursued. You have to know the crime first.

Collusion isn't a crime.

 

[logicallefty]

Lol, he had your vote from the beginning. No need to rationalize.

If he had been found guilty in a court of law on the collusion he would have lost it. I’d probably just write in a vote for bugs bunny in 2020. Because I sure as hell never voting Democrat in any federal election. One thing that might surprise you though is that in local elections around where I live most of my favorite candidate are the Democrats. The Republicans around here are the really corrupt ones.

 

[ShadowFenix]

I mean sure the report said that there was no collusion. I'll admit I was pretty surprised, but good for him.

What isn't being discussed is volume 2 of the report that focused on obstruction of justice. If he is innocent, why did he do so much to try to shut down the investigation? The thing that comes to my mind is that he believed the investigation to be a hoax and a waste of time, and let his ego get the better of him and so he tried to impede it. There's definitely still something to be said about whether or not he obstructed justice, and how he acts.

Is someone that acts in that way really fit for high office?

 

[EyeBRollin]

If he had been found guilty in a court of law on the collusion he would have lost it. I’d probably just write in a vote for bugs bunny in 2020. Because I sure as hell never voting Democrat in any federal election. One thing that might surprise you though is that in local elections around where I live most of my favorite candidate are the Democrats. The Republicans around here are the really corrupt ones.

Exactly. You were always going to vote Republican.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I mean sure the report said that there was no collusion. I'll admit I was pretty surprised, but good for him.

That's not what the report said.

What isn't being discussed is volume 2 of the report that focused on obstruction of justice. If he is innocent, why did he do so much to try to shut down the investigation? The thing that comes to my mind is that he believed the investigation to be a hoax and a waste of time, and let his ego get the better of him and so he tried to impede it. There's definitely still something to be said about whether or not he obstructed justice, and how he acts.

The report did not say Trump was innocent. It said there was insufficient evidence, and specifically articulated at the beginning of the document that absence of such evidence is not considered evidence that there was no wrong doing.

On conspiring with the Russian government, there were unethical practices but insufficient evidence of coordinated organization between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. On obstruction of justice, intent was likely yet foiled by members in Trump's own administration that refused to break the law despite the President's direct orders to do so.

Is someone that acts in that way really fit for high office?

That's why Mueller didn't treat the investigation as a way to convict the President... rather to let Congress decide if it is impeachable and the voters to decide of Trump deserves another term.

 

[logicallefty]

Exactly. You were always going to vote Republican.

Not voting Democrat does not imply voting Republican. I Voted for Ross Perot in 1992.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Not voting Democrat does not imply voting Republican. I Voted for Ross Perot in 1992.

We have a two party system. If you don't vote Democrat, you vote Republican.. and vice versa.

 

[EyeBRollin]

What direct orders and what proof of these direct orders?

Read the report.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I did. No proof, all hearsay.

No you didn't. You don't read.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I did.

If you had a better argument then you wouldn't need to insult others.

I will ask again.

What direct orders and what proof of these direct orders?

The truth is not an insult. Time and again you refuse to do reading or any kind of research on your own. You're too frightened to have your worldview contradicted.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I always provide evidence and links for my statements, while you provide nothing.

You level accusations and statements and insults but NEVER provide any evidence.

What direct orders and what proof of these direct orders?

You have your homework. All 448 pages are available for download.

 

[EyeBRollin]

No collusion, no charges, no wrongdoing.

I rest my case. Danger can't read.

 

[zekko]

If you don't vote Democrat, you vote Republican.. and vice versa.

That statement is most definitely not true.

 

[EyeBRollin]

That statement is most definitely not true.

Voting Libertarian or Green Party is akin to flushing your vote down the toilet.