ADVERTISEMENT

Meadows texts suggest the conspiracy was bigger than thought

The only democracy a liberal like him cares about is one where they are in charge of it. If they tell you otherwise they are lyinig. Most CNN watchers still think Russis rigged the 2016 election and for four years fought tooth and nail to undermine democracy. But oh yes Russia rigged it and that is not a conspiracy. Democracy is a talking point they use to gain power and nothing more. They have zero problem weaponizing the DOJ just as long as it is their DOJ.

But for him to say he cares about democracy is just laughable.
Bull. I along with most folks here you label as liberal could name a half dozen republicans we could get behind. I'll start with Chris Christie, Larry Hogan, Lisa Murkowski, or Adam Kinzinger just to get the ball rolling.

You name me one Democrat you would back? Hell, you are beyond partisan. Your loyalty is to one man. God your types scare me.
 
was that your attitude when fbi said hilary was fine regarding email server? or did you believe the political hacks in congress back then? Just wondering if there was consistency on which people you believe.
She was not exonerated. The FBI essentially said she was likely guilty without using the word “guilty” and declined to prosecute.

I still think the FBI tries to be objective too.
 
Bull. I along with most folks here you label as liberal could name a half dozen republicans we could get behind. I'll start with Chris Christie, Larry Hogan, Lisa Murkowski, or Adam Kinzinger just to get the ball rolling.

You name me one Democrat you would back? Hell, you are beyond partisan. Your loyalty is to one man. God your types scare me.
There aren't many DINOs. It doesn't pay to walk off that reservation.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: IU_Hickory
She was not exonerated. The FBI essentially said she was likely guilty without using the word “guilty” and declined to prosecute.

I still think the FBI tries to be objective too.

Comey just said she was extremely careless but didn't recommend charges. I don't recall anything that said she was likely guilty...at least not directly from the fbi. I'm sure right wing media may have twisted it.

Of course, even if your post is 100% factual, then we can use the GOP strategy of pretending that Trump was found innocent of colluding with Russia even though Mueller said he was guilty but said he couldn't charge a sitting president.
 
Why wouldn't that old pig allow real Pubs on her little committee? Because its all horseshit.
Lol you were given the opportunity per standard operating procedures for a bipartisan investigation and partial control of who would be on that committee in May, but McCarthy said no.

So quit your bitchin.

Pelosi played your sock puppet for a fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory
The fox hosts weighing in and concerned about the bad optics should be a WTF moment.

Ingraham texting 'this hurts all of us' kindof blows up the notion of being an impartial observer and commentator. It actually leads to something more damning, that she plays a role of the political movement as a propagandist.

That of course isn't a surprise but still, wow.
 
But yet Hillary spent all day doing that and the committee was practically shutout.
Are you talking about when she was S of S testifying about Benghazi? A Secretary of State who took the 5th testifying about Benghazi would have no political future, a fate worst than death for HC at the time. Has she testified under oath about her emails before her political opponents?
 
Imagine if you could subpeona Adam Schiff's emails and phone records concerning the Russian hoax. Or the emails and phone records of Hunter and Joe Biden's 50 closest business associates? Just because you want to....just looking. That's where this crap is leading if the Republicans get back in power.
You are a whack job living in a fantasy world ..
 
There is absolutely no doubt that networks lean into a favored ideology, but this is at a completely different level of the relationship between the state and it's propaganda machine.

They're many levels that are troubling here and I'm sure there are some that I'm not considering.

The obvious, she has a direct line to the state (which is concerning) and is concerned about the optics of the messaging...as in they aren't aligned, but then goes on her network and spews the exact opposite of her real views, feeding the base with state positive propaganda.

Had she done it on the air....well that's her job.

I have a hard picturing Anderson Cooper calling Biden's team and bitching about how it makes him look and then going on the air and trying to wash it out.

Cuomo, as has been brought up, turned out used his influence to help his brothers case....and he was fired for it.

Again, defending an ideology is different than being active in the states messaging.
 
Are you talking about when she was S of S testifying about Benghazi? A Secretary of State who took the 5th testifying about Benghazi would have no political future, a fate worst than death for HC at the time. Has she testified under oath about her emails before her political opponents?
From a transcript of her testimony, bolding is mine. It is Howdy that starts the hearing with some information including this paragraph:

Madam Secretary, the ranking member and I will give opening statements and then you will be recognized for your opening statement. And then after that, the members will alternate from one side to the other. And because you have already been sworn, we will go straight to your opening. So I will now recognize myself and then recognize Mr. Cummings, and then you, Madam Secretary.

I assume sworn means it is under oath, correct?


Addendum, they do question her about her emails. Search email on that link.
 
Bull. I along with most folks here you label as liberal could name a half dozen republicans we could get behind. I'll start with Chris Christie, Larry Hogan, Lisa Murkowski, or Adam Kinzinger just to get the ball rolling.

You name me one Democrat you would back? Hell, you are beyond partisan. Your loyalty is to one man. God your types scare me.
RFK Jr. Tulsi maybe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
From a transcript of her testimony, bolding is mine. It is Howdy that starts the hearing with some information including this paragraph:

Madam Secretary, the ranking member and I will give opening statements and then you will be recognized for your opening statement. And then after that, the members will alternate from one side to the other. And because you have already been sworn, we will go straight to your opening. So I will now recognize myself and then recognize Mr. Cummings, and then you, Madam Secretary.

I assume sworn means it is under oath, correct?

Yes.....as I said any acting SofS that took the 5th in a hearing concerning Benghazi would have had no political future.
 
There is absolutely no doubt that networks lean into a favored ideology, but this is at a completely different level of the relationship between the state and it's propaganda machine.

They're many levels that are troubling here and I'm sure there are some that I'm not considering.

The obvious, she has a direct line to the state (which is concerning) and is concerned about the optics of the messaging...as in they aren't aligned, but then goes on her network and spews the exact opposite of her real views, feeding the base with state positive propaganda.

Had she done it on the air....well that's her job.

I have a hard picturing Anderson Cooper calling Biden's team and bitching about how it makes him look and then going on the air and trying to wash it out.

Cuomo, as has been brought up, turned out used his influence to help his brothers case....and he was fired for it.

Again, defending an ideology is different than being active in the states messaging.
Have you NEVER noticed that all the MSM talking heads use exactly the same catch phrases at exactly the same time as the Democratic pols? Where do you think they get their instructions?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge
There is absolutely no doubt that networks lean into a favored ideology, but this is at a completely different level of the relationship between the state and it's propaganda machine.

They're many levels that are troubling here and I'm sure there are some that I'm not considering.

The obvious, she has a direct line to the state (which is concerning) and is concerned about the optics of the messaging...as in they aren't aligned, but then goes on her network and spews the exact opposite of her real views, feeding the base with state positive propaganda.

Had she done it on the air....well that's her job.

I have a hard picturing Anderson Cooper calling Biden's team and bitching about how it makes him look and then going on the air and trying to wash it out.

Cuomo, as has been brought up, turned out used his influence to help his brothers case....and he was fired for it.

Again, defending an ideology is different than being active in the states messaging.
Lmao. Libs crying about media bias? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
 
That means Pence (Mr. Morality, choke choke) was only an inch and a half from letting his sponsor, Trump, claim reelection regardless of the electors authorized by the individual states.

A strong Pence would not have needed backup from Quayle to be a, well, a strong Pence.
It still speaks to the events and expectations from Trump. As for Pence I don't vote for evangelicals.
 
Have you NEVER noticed that all the MSM talking heads use exactly the same catch phrases at exactly the same time as the Democratic pols? Where do you think they get their instructions?
It's well known that all news, including down to the local level, use news services which is going to cause homogeneous phrasing.

And I agree it's concerning.

But we're talking about a commentary show with huge amounts of influence that has been busted having a direct back line to the state and has been busted how they balance their own beliefs from not just the network...but the state wants.

Again, not surprising but damn...that's some Ministry of Public Enlightenment/Ministry of Truth level of propaganda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Lmao. Libs crying about media bias? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

all "CORPORATE" media, which is all the media of scale anyone sees or hears, is totally far right wing on anything and everything economic.

there is no "liberal" media at all on economic issues. only on social issues that have no effect on bottom lines.

do people just not grasp what CORPORATIONS are, or how they work????????????????????????

do people just not grasp that CORPORATIONS are CORPORATIONS, and not journalistic entities.

anyone who thinks any CORPORATION has any liberal side what so ever on anything economic, is incapable of analytical thought.

total idiocracy!


meanwhile, both sides are more than welcome to fight it out on abortion and guns and masks and confederate statues, because CEOs and hedge fund managers and foreign investors couldn't give a sht about those.

meanwhile the CORPORATIONS, including Comcast/NBC/Universal, News Corp/Fox, AT&T/Time Warner CNN/Directv, Disney/ABC/ESPN, Facebook, Google, keep raiding the treasury, keep consolidating more and more, keep throwing anti trust into the burning dumpster, keep healthcare and drug prices literally as high as possible, keep blocking patent/copyright reform, keep credit card rates at usurious levels, and keep the US as China's bitch and totally dependent on China..

it's not personal. it's just business.

did you guys actually think it was personal???? or journalistic?????

did you actually think any CORPORATE media had a liberal bone in their body on anything economic?

do people just never grasp how this works???????????????????????????????????
 
Last edited:
Have you NEVER noticed that all the MSM talking heads use exactly the same catch phrases at exactly the same time as the Democratic pols? Where do you think they get their instructions?
"all the MSM talking heads"
"exactly the same catch phrases"
"exactly the same time"
"instructions"

Maybe if you could provide reliable links to each of these farfetched assertions, I could "notice" your reliable links.

Otherwise, I will assume you are just making it all up (which, after all, is exactly what it looks like).
 
There's no such thing as Santa.
Santa is more real than the January 6, insurrection.

Santa has been around for centuries and is the subject of song and stories around much of the world. The “insurrection” was done by happy hour on January 6 and only lives on in the hearts and minds of the media and some politicians.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa
Santa is more real than the January 6, insurrection.

Santa has been around for centuries and is the subject of song and stories around much of the world. The “insurrection” was done by happy hour on January 6 and only lives on in the hearts and minds of the media and some politicians.
What do you think would have happened if the crowd had gotten to Pence or Pelosi?
 
Santa is more real than the January 6, insurrection.

Santa has been around for centuries and is the subject of song and stories around much of the world. The “insurrection” was done by happy hour on January 6 and only lives on in the hearts and minds of the media and some politicians.

the "insurrection" is proceeding full steam as we speak, in state houses and conservative think tanks around the country.

conservatives only believe in democracy, if they think they have the votes.

the second they don't think they do, or won't have tomorrow, democracy becomes their target to destroy or circumvent, not embrace.
 
Comey just said she was extremely careless but didn't recommend charges. I don't recall anything that said she was likely guilty...at least not directly from the fbi. I'm sure right wing media may have twisted it.

Of course, even if your post is 100% factual, then we can use the GOP strategy of pretending that Trump was found innocent of colluding with Russia even though Mueller said he was guilty but said he couldn't charge a sitting president.
No twisting necessary. The law is "grossly negligent," and the original draft of his statement said that. They changed it to extremely careless (like there's really a difference) because the consensus was that they shouldn't prosecute her for it (after all, she IS Hillary Clinton). The first three quarters of the statement made it sound like they were going to prosecute her and by the plain language of the law she would have been except for prosecutorial discretion. If she had any integrity (IMO) she would have given up the nomination and let the Democrats put someone else in her place. I probably would have voted for that person.


It wouldn't have been even a question if she was in the military, she would have lost her clearance and at least been subjected to non-judicial punishment. I've seen Sailors go to NJP for carelessly handling Confidential information. HRC was grossly negligent with information classified at the highest level - Top Secret SAP.

Trump may have been worthy of prosecution. You won't find me defending him. Electing him was the biggest election mistake in my lifetime. The Republicans should have nominated a competent candidate.
 
Last edited:
No twisting necessary. The law is "grossly negligent," and the original draft of his statement said that. They changed it to extremely careless (like there's really a difference) because the consensus was that she shouldn't prosecute her for it. The first three quarters of the statement made it sound like they were going to prosecute her and by the plain language of the law she would have been except for prosecutorial discretion. If she had any integrity (IMO) she would have given up the nomination and let the Democrats put someone else in her place. I probably would have voted for that person.


It wouldn't have been even a question if she was in the military, she would have lost her clearance and at least been subjected to non-judicial punishment. I've seen Sailors go to NJP for carelessly handling Confidential information. HRC was grossly negligent with information classified at the highest level - Top Secret SAP.

Trump may have been worthy of prosecution. You won't find me defending him. Electing him was the biggest election mistake in my lifetime. The Republicans should have nominated a competent candidate.
Hilary wasn't my first choice. Last 2 elections for me was voting for who i disliked the least.

I would be willing to guess many politicians on both sides have been negligient with emails and communications. It even came out that some of the trumps used personal emails for government work. High level officials thinking they are above the rules is pervasive in govt
 
Last edited:
Hilary wasn't my first choice. Last 2 elections for me was voting for who i disliked the least.

I would be willing to guess many politicians on both sides have been negligient with emails and communications. It even came out that some of the trumps used personal emails for government work. High level officials thinking they are above the rules is pervasive in govt
It was an election between the two worst Presidential candidates in my lifetime. Terrible choices.

I doubt passing TS (SAP) information via commercial email happens much at all. It actually takes willful effort because you can't even read TS (SAP) outside of a secure room. Whoever took that information and typed it into an email escaped prosecution. I expect it was one of her several close aides that were given immunity in exchange for talking to the FBI. The worst part about her case is that she signed a memo delivered to everyone at the State Department reiterating government policy not to use personal email to conduct official government business and it all had to be done over government email while at the same time she NEVER used her official government email account to conduct government business. That's a classic "Leadership 101" no-no, it's "do as I say, not as I do." She was no leader and should never have been nominated as a Presidential candidate. Trump was just in flawed. It was a nightmare election.
 
If someone was innocent, then they wouldn't mind defending themself under oath.

I don't get why that is difficult to grasp.

If I'm innocent and someone wants me to go under oath to clear things up, then I'm there regardless of whether or not i think the investigation is a witch hunt. It shows everyone you aren't afraid of the truth because lying under oath would put you in hot water (re Clinton).

If Trump wasn't afraid of the truth, then he wouldn't mind saying it under oath or people in his administration saying it under oath.
Then you are even more naive than I had previously taken you for. When the posse comes for you, with the corporate media behind or in the posse, you lawyer up and avoid contact at all costs until subpoenas occur. You’re innocent until proven guilty. You don’t give them any meat to chew because they will stack the deck against you faster than you can say Grover Dill.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT