One Down, Three To Go Totally Innocent President Thread

[The_Noble_Cause]

Again, he won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. That is not much of a mandate at all.

What do you call a candidate who won the electoral college, lost the popular vote, and doesn't have a mandate? The 45th President of the United States! Trump still did what Hillary couldn't and what the media said was impossible. He won.

Not true...he is at a poor %42 average:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5493.html

Polls are meaningless. Have we learned nothing?

[The_Noble_Cause]

What did she lie about, specificly?

I did not see her scandalizing anything. I didn't watch much of Maddow but she broke the story and was obviously excited about it. In the end, it just shows why we need all of the tax forms released, so we can see what is behind the numbers.

Maddow is now a laughing stock on the level Glenn Beck. Actually, I have more respect for Beck than Rachel. Did you know Rachel makes 30k a day spewing her Comcast-approved bullshit? Little wonder, she wants to talk to about Russian conspiracy theories instead of issues that truly impact the American people.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Maddow reached into her magic rabbit hat and pulled out Trumps credibility.

If Hannity, O'Riley, or Carlson pulled in the piss poor numbers Maddow is bragging about, Fox would ax their shows.

MSNBC is more confused than Caitlin Jenner. The network started as Fox News-wannabe featuring the likes of Michael Savage, Alan Keyes, Monica Crowley etc. Then Olbermann pushed it to the left with his nightly sermonizing against George W. Bush, which led to liberal programs like Maddow, Last Word, Ed Schulz etc. What is MSNBC now? Who the fuck knows. Seems like it's the anti-Russian channel. I can't stomach it for more than 5 seconds. REAL liberal programming is now online with Jimmy Dore, Young Turks, (or even the much-vilified Russia Today channel with Chris Hedges, Thom Hartmann). The current state of American mainstream left media is a flaming shitheap.

[The_Noble_Cause]

By contrast, Donald Trump supporters clustered around Breitbart — headed until recently by Stephen Bannon, the hard-right nationalist now ensconced in the White House — and a few like-minded websites such as The Daily Caller, Alex Jones' Infowars, and The Gateway Pundit.

Why did Trump supporters flock to Breitbart during the election? Because Breitbart was the only news site that said Trump still had a fighting chance. And he did.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I do not recall congress and the FBI investigating Obama's birth certificate.

This is obviously more serious than you will ever admit.

That is total innuendo. You don’t know the extent of what the FBI is looking into at this point. Nobody does. Former CIA director, Mike Morell, this week said that when it comes to the Trump/Russia connection, “there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”

You’re being played and when the truth comes out, you will look like a fool yet again. Just like when you said Hillary had permission to use a private server or that Trump couldn’t win.

You are simply WRONG. You posted links to interpretations of the polls..."best guesses".

So, let's take a look at a couple of these big surprises:

Ohio: The last poll in Ohio had Trump up by 7pts:
Ohio: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Emerson Trump 46, Clinton 39, Johnson 7, Stein 3 Trump +7

PA : The last poll had Trump up by 1:
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Trafalgar Group (R) Clinton 47, Trump 48, Johnson 2, Stein 1 Trump +1

FL had been in a virtual tie for a couple weeks.

You look at the raw data, not what some site expected to happen...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... elections/

WI amd MI were surprises, but many of these other states should not have been.

Here is RCP's last poll averages. Almost all of the swing states were within the margin of error. But, they give many of them to Clinton because of the history of the poll and if it is traditionaly a Democrat state. They INTERPRETED the polls wrong.

RCP is ONE website, dude. Boy, you showed me.

That's not true. In fact, you kept complaining that I WAS NOT doing that. I simply kept repeating that she would win.

I think you are patient zero for a new condition I'll call "reverse cyber body dysmorphic disorder."
You are so enamored with your imaginary non-partisan bonafides that you fail to see what is plainly obvious to everyone else - you are a Democratic water-carrying shill.
Just to refresh....
Independents don't go around making excuses for Hillary ("she had permission to use a private server!")
Independents don't go around screeching about the red menace.

Not true again. There are absolutely Republicans who want to understand more about Trump's ties to Russia. You are denying reeality if you deny that...and what you say above is completely false.

Oh sure. There are RINOS like McCain and Graham. McCain labeled Rand Paul an agent of Putin this week because Paul doesn’t want to expand NATO. These are people you look up to?

Where were the FBI and congress?

Busy investigating Hillary’s server and Weiner’s laptop.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Sorry. I had to take a shit and had to pause replying to Monker's nonsense. Where was I?

Then he is proving himself an idiot. He has both houses of congress...NOW is the time to legislate, just as Obama did.

You keep whistfully talking about Obama legislation as if he gave us Social Security or some sort of fundamental bedrock American program. His legacy is pretty much stimulus, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank. They all suck. In fact, in his two terms, he actually signed less bills into law than Carter or Ford

I never said anything of the sort. Find it and quote where I called Trump "paranoid".

My bad. You called it “insane” and “outlandish.” Quotes below...

...from his insane comments about Obama tapping his wires to terrorists in Sweden.

When Trump wants to bask in the glory of reading off the teleprompter in front of congress, but can't because the world is focused on if Obama wire tapped Trump tower, it is HIS fault for making such an outlandish claim.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Yeah, Trump took Georgia by 5.7% and Monker and the crazed libs still don't know what happened to them. They were schlonged.

Yup. And they liked it too.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Too funny. I'll just leave this right here. No commentary necessary.

It is OBVIOUS this election is going to be a rout. I mean, GEORGIA is a tie in the polls. Trump is a failed candidate. He made his shift way too late, and crashed too many times before it was somewhat successful.

With such a large portion of the population being minorities, and over %50 of the population being women, the stupid person is the one who spent over a year insulting women and minorities. The naive are those that believe that person can ever be elected President.

Good luck with that...and he can't win without them. The old white male vote is not enough for him to win an election...he needs other demographics, too.

He has no chance of winning - never has. The fact that he, and you guys, are already making up conspiracy theories is very telling. He is losing nationally, and in almost every swing state...very badly in some.

[Monker]

http://news.wgbh.org/2017/03/15/politics-government/major-new-study-shows-political-polarization-mainly-right-wing

WGBH News

Credit: CJR
MEDIA GUY
A Major New Study Shows That Political Polarization Is Mainly A Right-Wing Phenomenon
March 15, 2017
Dan Kennedy DAN KENNEDY
A major new study of social-media sharing patterns shows that political polarization is more common among conservatives than liberals — and that the exaggerations and falsehoods emanating from right-wing media outlets such as Breitbart News have infected mainstream discourse.

Though the report, published by the Columbia Journalism Review, does an excellent job of laying out the challenge posed by Breitbart and its ilk, it is less than clear on how to counter it. Successfully standing up for truthful reporting in this environment “could usher in a new golden age for the Fourth Estate,” the authors write. But members of the public who care about such journalism are already flocking to news organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and, locally, The Boston Globe, all of which have experienced a surge in paid subscriptions since the election of President Trump. That’s heartening, but there are no signs that it’s had any effect on the popularity or influence of the right-wing partisan media.

The CJR study, by scholars at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, at Harvard Law School, and the MIT Center for Civic Media, examined more than 1.25 million articles between April 1, 2015, and Election Day. What they found was that Hillary Clinton supporters shared stories from across a relatively broad political spectrum, including center-right sources such as The Wall Street Journal, mainstream news organizations like the Times and the Post, and partisan liberal sites like The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast.

By contrast, Donald Trump supporters clustered around Breitbart — headed until recently by Stephen Bannon, the hard-right nationalist now ensconced in the White House — and a few like-minded websites such as The Daily Caller, Alex Jones' Infowars, and The Gateway Pundit. Even Fox News was dropped from the favored circle back when it was attacking Trump during the primaries, and only re-entered the fold once it had made its peace with the future president.

The authors of the study refer to their findings as “asymmetrical polarization,” and they point to some deleterious effects. The Breitbart-led sites were able to push the traditional media into focusing on Trump’s favored issue — immigration — and to frame it on their terms: overwrought fears about crime and terrorism. Clinton, on the other hand, was defined mainly by scandal coverage in the form of her use of a private email server, the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the Clinton Foundation. The authors of the study, Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris and Hal Roberts of Berkman and Ethan Zuckerman of MIT, write:

It is a mistake to dismiss these stories as “fake news”; their power stems from a potent mix of verifiable facts (the leaked Podesta emails), familiar repeated falsehoods, paranoid logic, and consistent political orientation within a mutually-reinforcing network of like-minded sites.

Use of disinformation by partisan media sources is neither new nor limited to the right wing, but the insulation of the partisan right-wing media from traditional journalistic media sources, and the vehemence of its attacks on journalism in common cause with a similarly outspoken president, is new and distinctive.

Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan, writing about the study earlier this week, recalled talking with a Trump voter in Pennsylvania who said she didn’t support Clinton because “I didn’t like how she stole those emails and it got people killed in Benghazi” — a perfect storm of misinformation.

But Sullivan’s prescription is unsatisfying. “There’s another way that the traditional press has allowed right-wing media to flourish — by moving too far to the left itself,” she writes. Though it’s true that studies show most mainstream journalists are liberal, she offers little evidence suggesting that the situation has changed much over the years, although longtime media observer Tom Rosenstiel did tell her that there are fewer Republicans in newsrooms than there used to be.

Besides, in contrast with the partisan right-wing media, mainstream journalists are dedicated to the proposition that facts should be verified and errors corrected. Let’s not forget that it was the Times that exposed Clinton’s email habits — an overblown story that almost certainly cost her the presidency when FBI Director James Comey reopened his investigation on the basis of zero evidence barely a week before the election.

Then, too, the kinds of people who share stories from Breitbart on social media are politically engaged in ways that the average Trump supporter is not. But never fear: the right-wing media machine is there for them, too. The current issue of the National Enquirer features two front-page photos of Trump and the headlines “How I’m Cleaning Up Obama’s Mess!” and “Amazing Secrets Behind Triumphant Capitol Hill Speech.” (Also: Michael Jackson was murdered.) I would quote from the Trump story, but that would require me to read it.

What's at issue here is not just asymmetrical polarization but asymmetrical news consumption. The left and the center avail themselves of real journalism, however flawed it may be, while the right gorges on what is essentially political propaganda — all the while denigrating anything that contradicts their worldview as “fake news.”

Doing a better job of listening to criticism and being open to change, as Margaret Sullivan suggests, is always a good idea. But it is hardly going to give rise to a new “golden age.”

The truest example of horse shit I've seen in a long time. Totally void of any reality.

Yeah, hits a little too close to home for you, doesn't it? That is ALL YOU DO, post bullshit Republican propaganda.

[Monker]

Again, he won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. That is not much of a mandate at all.

What do you call a candidate who won the electoral college, lost the popular vote, and doesn't have a mandate? The 45th President of the United States! Trump still did what Hillary couldn't and what the media said was impossible. He won.

I have NEVER said he didn't win. In fact I said you have to respect the FACT that he won the electoral vote.

The point is that all of this grandstanding that he and some Republicans do is BULLSHIT. He is an unpopular President, who lost the popular vote by over 3 million votes.

He is NOT going to slide things through congress easily. He is NOT going to have his executive orders go by unchallenged when it makes sense to take them to the courts. He is not going to be able to use his election results to get anything done in Washington.

Not true...he is at a poor %42 average:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5493.html

Polls are meaningless. Have we learned nothing?[/quote]

Nope, you haven't. The polls were NOT wrong for Trump's election. How they were interpreted were wrong.

[Monker]

Sorry. I had to take a shit and had to pause replying to Monker's nonsense. Where was I?

Then he is proving himself an idiot. He has both houses of congress...NOW is the time to legislate, just as Obama did.

You keep whistfully talking about Obama legislation as if he gave us Social Security or some sort of fundamental bedrock American program. His legacy is pretty much stimulus, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank.

And, when were those signed? Geez, you are proving my point for me.

[/quote]
They all suck. In fact, in his two terms, he actually signed less bills into law than Carter or Ford
[/quote]

Republicans were obstructing EVERYTHING they could...and that happened AFTER he started losing congress..

I never said anything of the sort. Find it and quote where I called Trump "paranoid".

My bad. You called it “insane” and “outlandish.” Quotes below...

...from his insane comments about Obama tapping his wires to terrorists in Sweden.

When Trump wants to bask in the glory of reading off the teleprompter in front of congress, but can't because the world is focused on if Obama wire tapped Trump tower, it is HIS fault for making such an outlandish claim.

[/quote]

Ok, I called his COMMENTS insane and called his claim that Obama tapped his wires "outlandish". I never called HIM those things...which is what I asked you to quote. I think he is a narcissist and a megalomaniac. I have said that a few times in this thread.

It seems nowadays, nobody even believe this shit...not even Trump.

[Monker]

Yeah, Trump took Georgia by 5.7% and Monker and the crazed libs still don't know what happened to them. They were schlonged.

Yup. And they liked it too.

And, the last Ohio poll had Trump up by 7:
Ohio: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Emerson Trump 46, Clinton 39, Johnson 7, Stein 3 Trump +7

[Monker]

"Yeah, hits a little too close to home for you, doesn't it? That is ALL YOU DO, post bullshit Republican propaganda."

Sure Monker. It's Republicans burning Campuses, Rioting, Calling people scumbags, see Maxine Waters, ect. You are full of shit, and so was that post. A complete pile of steaming horse shit. Tell me Monker, if there's Global Warming like you claim, shouldn't you be melting?

That has nothing to do with people posting articles from Breit Bart of the like. YOU guys are the people constantly posting fake news as if it were true...and you really, honestly, don't know the difference between made up bullshit, spam Email, and reality.

[The_Noble_Cause]

KC and FF are both great Americans.

[The_Noble_Cause]

"Yeah, hits a little too close to home for you, doesn't it? That is ALL YOU DO, post bullshit Republican propaganda."

Sure Monker. It's Republicans burning Campuses, Rioting, Calling people scumbags, see Maxine Waters, ect. You are full of shit, and so was that post. A complete pile of steaming horse shit. Tell me Monker, if there's Global Warming like you claim, shouldn't you be melting?

That has nothing to do with people posting articles from Breit Bart of the like. YOU guys are the people constantly posting fake news as if it were true...and you really, honestly, don't know the difference between made up bullshit, spam Email, and reality.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two prominent Washington Post stories that had to be retracted or qualified with an editor's note. One about Putin hacking Vermont's power grid and the other about Russian propaganda. Newsweek has also been rife with manufactured stories. One accused the website Sputnik of doing Putin's personal bidding when, in fact, the Sputnik article was written by a young American writer making minimum wage named Bill Moran. I have actually communicated with Bill and he is no agent of Putin. So while Trump overdoes it with the claims of "fake news", he is also partially correct. Off the top of your head Monker, how many stories did Breitbart have to recant? You can't name them because you don't even look at the site.

[Monker]

That has nothing to do with people posting articles from Breit Bart of the like. YOU guys are the people constantly posting fake news as if it were true...and you really, honestly, don't know the difference between made up bullshit, spam Email, and reality.

You just spun right around what I posted and ignored it. [/quote]

And, you replied to a post about a study of links and articles posted to social media and their conclusion that conservatives and Republicans contribute more to political polarization than liberals and Democrats by talking about riots and campuses burning. You are such an idiot you don't even realize that you replied to an article accusing people like you of polarization by doing EXACTLY what the articles say you do.

Because you don't see reality does not make it fake.

Just because you can post an article does not make it real, either.

Fake is like that large piece of horse shit you posted about Republicans.

No, it's a study of thousands of posts to Facebook and Tweets. You don't like it because it is pointing the finger directly at you a.

Even your opinion is based worthless liberal propaganda.

You don't know that.

The liberal "media" has lower marks then Congress. It has become nothing but a borderline treasonist propaganda machine and lemmings like you eat it up and pout because your toy got taken away from you last November.

So what. Just because something is unpopular does not mean they are not speaking the truth. In fact, I would say it's easier to be popular by speaking whatever it people WANT to hear, even if it isn't true...and that is basicaly what alt-right media does.

[Monker]

Off the top of my head, I can think of two prominent Washington Post stories that had to be retracted or qualified with an editor's note.

Well, that's something I care nothing about. I'm sure those recanted articles were posted here, right? Because my point is that KC and FF constantly post bullshit.

Off the top of your head Monker, how many stories did Breitbart have to recant? You can't name them because you don't even look at the site.

After Trump's Tweet about Obama tapping his wires, FF and KC went on post after trying to "prove" that it was true. Even to the point where they accused the CIA of planting false evidence of a Russia connection in server logs. Fox did a story that Obama asked Britain's version of the NSA to tap Trump's wires. All of this based on a story in BreitBart of invented BS of a connect the dots conspiracy theory.

Has BreitBart recanted that story? That is now a story that NOBODY believes. It is a story that has had INTERNATIONAL reponses from Britain. It is a story that ended up with the current President accusing the previous President of a felony. It is a story that ended up broadening federal investigations...spendint more taxpayer money and wasting the time of congress and the FBI.

If they are not going to recant and apologize for something of that magnitude then there is no reason for me to take anything they say seriously. BreitBart, and all of the alt-right news outlets are nothing but the political version of the National Enquirer, posting gossip and made up stories with fantastical claims that are simply lies and not true.

I don't know what all the NY Post writes, but at least they recant and admit their wrongs. In one of Michael Crichton's writings he talks about what he calls the "Gell-Mann Amnesia effect". Basically, you are reading an article on a website, or newspaper, on a subject you happen to know a lot about. As you are reading you find the article has all types of facts wrong and the writer just doesn't know what he's talking about. So, what do you do? You stop reading and go on to the next article, or turn the page and find something else to read.....as if the rest of the paper, or website, is going to be more factually correct then what you just read. As you start reading the next article, you completely forget the bullshit you just read.

BreitBart is proven wrong on an almost constant basis...but, you keep reading, you keep forwarding links of bullshit. As if these new stories are going to be any more factually correct then the last bit of bullshit you posted.

[Boomchild]

The CIA’s 60-Year History of Fake News: How the Deep State Corrupted Many American Writers

Whitney’s new book, “Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World’s Best Writers,” explores how the CIA influenced acclaimed writers and publications during the Cold War to produce subtly anti-communist material. During the interview, Scheer and Whitney discuss these manipulations and how the CIA controlled major news agencies and respected literary publications (such as the Paris Review).

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/jo ... e_20170317

[Monker]

Monker said:
"After Trump's Tweet about Obama tapping his wires, FF and KC went on post after trying to "prove" that it was true. Even to the point where they accused the CIA of planting false evidence of a Russia connection in server logs. "

Umbrage: The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.

He acts like this shit is made up!

No, what is invented and made up bullshit is it was used against Trump.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Well, that's something I care nothing about.

You don't care that America's biggest papers of record are churning out spurious BS?

After Trump's Tweet about Obama tapping his wires, FF and KC went on post after trying to "prove" that it was true.

So what? The Kennedys wiretapped enemies and Martin Luther King. FDR wiretapped. Why is this out of the realm of possibility? Why are Democrats, like YOU, now trying to stifle free thought and viewpoints?

Even to the point where they accused the CIA of planting false evidence of a Russia connection in server logs.

Again, entirely plausible. Cyber experts like Jeffrey Carr have poked holes all over the official hacking narrative.

Fox did a story that Obama asked Britain's version of the NSA to tap Trump's wires. All of this based on a story in BreitBart of invented BS of a connect the dots conspiracy theory.

The Britain story came from Fox's Judge Napolitano, who has been a lonely voice on civil liberties during both the Bush and Obama years. He's great and he, too, is entitled to his pov.

Has BreitBart recanted that story? That is now a story that NOBODY believes. It is a story that has had INTERNATIONAL reponses from Britain. It is a story that ended up with the current President accusing the previous President of a felony. It is a story that ended up broadening federal investigations...spendint more taxpayer money and wasting the time of congress and the FBI.

Where's the link? Do you have any proof that Breitbart posited this story as cold hard fact? The most prominent version of the wiretapping story I read on Breitbart came from Mark Levin - a radio host, not a journalist.

If they are not going to recant and apologize for something of that magnitude then there is no reason for me to take anything they say seriously. BreitBart, and all of the alt-right news outlets are nothing but the political version of the National Enquirer, posting gossip and made up stories with fantastical claims that are simply lies and not true.

Again, where's the link? Where's your proof?

BreitBart is proven wrong on an almost constant basis...but, you keep reading, you keep forwarding links of bullshit. As if these new stories are going to be any more factually correct then the last bit of bullshit you posted.

Again, list some actual examples and then get back to us. Thanks.

[Boomchild]

[Boomchild]

Tonight on Hannity, Sara Carter is supose to tell you exactly where the computer in America is that started the bullshit story about Trump and Russia and who the American is using it. Sara Carter has been researching for weeks. My guess from what they have been hinting at is,it's going to be a cooked up DNC hit piece when it's all through. I guess we'll find out tonight.

Better hope that it doesn't become Hannity's "Maddow Moment".

[verslibre]

She knows "exactly where the computer is"...

[tj]

Again, he won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. That is not much of a mandate at all.

That's too bad for Hillary, since the only thing that counts is the electoral college. He could have lost every voter in California, lost the popular vote by another 3 million people, and he would still be your president.

[Boomchild]

Question: Why is Comey still the Director of the F.B.I.??

[Boomchild]

Tonight on Hannity, Sara Carter is supose to tell you exactly where the computer in America is that started the bullshit story about Trump and Russia and who the American is using it. Sara Carter has been researching for weeks. My guess from what they have been hinting at is,it's going to be a cooked up DNC hit piece when it's all through. I guess we'll find out tonight.

Did I miss something????

[Boomchild]

Wikileaks shared on FB the portion of the Senate hearing on "Russian Interference" where a senator was pointing out the U.S.'s interference in foreign elections and government. They pointed out that CNN didn't air this portion.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4642712/ ... -elections

[Monker]

Again, he won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. That is not much of a mandate at all.

That's too bad for Hillary, since the only thing that counts is the electoral college. He could have lost every voter in California, lost the popular vote by another 3 million people, and he would still be your president.

And, where have I argued against that point?

My point above is that he did not win a mandate from the American people. In fact, he LOST the popular vote. Trump, and many of his followers, act as though he won in some type of huge way. He didn't.

It matters for things like the ObamaCare replacement. It makes it more difficult for Trump to pass it because REPUBLICANS are not voting for it. If Trump had won decisively, he could be more convincing to keep his own party on his side.

He is a weak President.

[Monker]

Question: Why is Comey still the Director of the F.B.I.??

Because Trump will look like an ass if he fires him. At this point, if he fires him he wil look like he is hiding something and it will certainly end up with independent investigations...probably even broadening it to his entire Presidency.

As I have said, the President has very little control over these people.

[Monker]

Well, that's something I care nothing about.

You don't care that America's biggest papers of record are churning out spurious BS?

Nope. I don't read them.

But, as I said, at least they DO recant things. That shows they do care.

After Trump's Tweet about Obama tapping his wires, FF and KC went on post after trying to "prove" that it was true.

So what? The Kennedys wiretapped enemies and Martin Luther King. FDR wiretapped. Why is this out of the realm of possibility? Why are Democrats, like YOU, now trying to stifle free thought and viewpoints?[/quote]

That is such a childish thing to say. Just because somebody got away with it doesn't make it any less serious.

The laws changed after Watergate. Prior to that, it was probably legal. Trump accused Obama of a felony. That is a big del.

Even to the point where they accused the CIA of planting false evidence of a Russia connection in server logs.

Again, entirely plausible. Cyber experts like Jeffrey Carr have poked holes all over the official hacking narrative.

It's fantasy. You ask for evidence and links for other things. Why are you not demanding evidence of this? Just because the CIA has the capability to do this does not mean they did. It is irresponsible to put forth such a weak link to create such a chain of bullshit.

Fox did a story that Obama asked Britain's version of the NSA to tap Trump's wires. All of this based on a story in BreitBart of invented BS of a connect the dots conspiracy theory.

The Britain story came from Fox's Judge Napolitano, who has been a lonely voice on civil liberties during both the Bush and Obama years. He's great and he, too, is entitled to his pov.

Napolitano has been proved wrong on so many things that it is irresponsible to believe anything that he says. He was also the guy who said the FBI was furious about not recommending charges and half the agents were going to quit...a bunch of bullshit.

He went on the Daily Show and told Jon Stewart that if Lincoln had purchased the slaves instead of going to war that it would have saved thousands of lives and all the money we spent on the war. JON STEWART knew that Lincoln HAD offered to purchase the slaves but the states did not want to do it. Naplitano didn't know what he was talking about and Jon Stewart did.

Napolitano likes to come off as somebody who is an expert on everything but he's not...and this is thing with cooperating with Brittain is just another example.

Has BreitBart recanted that story? That is now a story that NOBODY believes. It is a story that has had INTERNATIONAL reponses from Britain. It is a story that ended up with the current President accusing the previous President of a felony. It is a story that ended up broadening federal investigations...spendint more taxpayer money and wasting the time of congress and the FBI.

Where's the link? Do you have any proof that Breitbart posited this story as cold hard fact? The most prominent version of the wiretapping story I read on Breitbart came from Mark Levin - a radio host, not a journalist.

[/quote]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/ ... ng-claims/

Levin is the "source" but the chief editer of BreitBart WROTE THE STORY.