For more than year and half, the media have gone all-in on reporting every possible angle of President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. No story update has been too small, no encounter with a Russian too inconsequential, and no anonymous source too sketchy to generate outsize coverage and histrionic claims from major media.
But as the Russian collusion story disintegrates, another interesting story ascends. Investigations by multiple congressional committees as well as an investigation by the inspector general of the Department of Justice have shown irregularities in the handling of the most politically sensitive probes in recent memory: the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information while secretary of State and the investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged nefarious ties with Russia to meddle in a U.S. election.
These investigations have resulted in the firing, demotion, and reassignment of at least six top officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice. And all of those personnel changes were made before even the first official reports and memoranda from these investigations were made public.
In recent weeks, however, some official documents have come to light. These are statements made by elected members of the U.S. government on the record, not selective and political leaks from anonymous sources. So how have the media responded to these official statements regarding wrongdoing? Mostly by downplaying, mocking, and ignoring them.
When the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s majority memo was made public last week, many journalists highlighted Democratic talking points against it or otherwise rushed to defend the agencies credibly accused of abuse of power. As soon as they could, they dropped the story, despite the dramatic claims in the memo.
Two nights ago, a criminal referral by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was published with far fewer redactions than an earlier version of the referral. The less-redacted letter was significant. For one thing, it confirmed all of the major claims from the House memo authored by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).
A Clinton campaign document formed an essential part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application to spy on a Trump campaign affiliate. The application failed to note that the campaign document was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The dossier wasn’t corroborated so much as taken in faith based on the supposed credibility of its author, even after the FBI discovered he’d violated his working agreement with them. A top Justice official’s wife also worked on the Clinton campaign effort. The official funneled her information into the investigation.
The FBI hid their relationship with the Clinton operation from the court. The principal creator of the dossier revealed that he was “desperate” to keep Trump out of office, and the FBI knew this but didn’t tell the court about his extreme political bias. A news article obviously sourced to the dossier author, Christopher Steele, was presented in the application as separate from and corroborating the dossier.
In addition to supporting the major claims of the House Intelligence memo, the criminal referral also said that Clinton associates — elsewhere reported to be the extremely sketchy Cody Shearer and Sid Blumenthal — funneled information to Steele and he took it seriously, itself completely discrediting for someone working with the FBI.
Grassley and Graham had to fight the FBI tooth and nail to get this memo released with few-enough redactions to serve the public. Grassley accused the bureau of playing a “bureaucratic game of hide the ball.” In short, there were multiple interesting angles worthy of serious — perhaps even breathless — coverage.
Yet Major Outlets Don’t Want to Talk About This
Instead, The New York Times ran a story on page 19 of the newspaper. Its portions about the criminal referral — as opposed to its portions repeating Democratic talking points — could not have been more dryly written or uninteresting. Reporters Maggie Haberman, Sharon LaFraniere, and Michael Shear devoted a total of five sentences in a 22-paragraph story to the Grassley and Graham expose. It ran under the false headline “2 Senators Issue Letter To Support House Memo,” even though the letter was issued in early January, weeks before the House memo was made public. The criminal referral was only this week published with few-enough redactions to make sense of it.
What about at the Washington Post? Their reporters did not write a story about the significantly less redacted letter released Tuesday. A blog post mischaracterized the more redacted version of the letter Monday as a letter written “in an effort to breathe life into the deflating Nunes effort. Unsurprisingly, it’s another big nothing.” It’s not nothing, as coverage of the less redacted letter shows. It confirms the dramatic claims in the House memo, which are anything but deflated. And it was written weeks prior to the House Intel memo. But other than that, great job downplaying.
Certainly Politico covered the dramatically more transparent letter released Tuesday, right? Wrong. I mean, it’s not a scandal if you don’t look at it!
To all but those with gelatin for brains, the liberal media’s liberal bias is mind numbing. It is beyond bias; it’s as if Pelosi and Schumer are the only “journalists” in the industry. The fact that, more often than not, Fox News reports the facts as they are simply makes them, compared to the rest of the industry, appear biased to the right, especially since most of the problems right now originate on the left. If you were to convince yourself that CNN and MSNBC is moderate and centrist, then, yeah, Fox is far, far right. Instead, Fox is more centrist and the rest are simply way, way out left and cheerleading for the Democrats.
Of course the investigations of Trump are corrupt and Obama is waste deep in it.
The New York Pravda and the Washington Pravda like most of the vast leftists controled news media are liars their 1% news and 99% B.S.
The story is total bullshit. It hasn’t been established what “POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing” actually referred to. All of this crap results from Sen. Ron Johnson’s idle speculation in a politically motivated memo that it might relate to the Clinton investigation. But it just as well might not. Refer to the footnote at the bottom of page #15 of the document written by Ron Johnson. That single speculative footnote is the primary source of the assertion:
Presumably? On what basis can anyone make such a presumption? Who is this character to be suggesting what “the Department” believes? Who is he pretending to speak for?
The story wasn’t buried. There is no story. There’s just a bullshit assertion with absolutely nothing backing it up.
@Greg: Take your pick either he wanted to know about the illegal spying, or how they were going to let espionage be just careless. Perhaps everything means both. 2 running scandals might need some input.
The certainly were not going to report on it and let you make up your own mind.
@Greg:
No, actually it isn’t.
We don’t have to employ fantasy to determine what it was, as you leftists do regarding Trump and collusion. But, regardless of which scandalous intent it was, one thing is for sure: when Obama stated EMPHATICALLY to Chris Wallace that he does not, no way, no how, discuss ongoing investigations with investigators or directors, he was, once again, lying his lying ass off. PERIOD.
That’s exactly what you’re doing. Senator Ron Johnson didn’t have an effing clue what the quoted words referred to—no more than he did earlier, when he concluded a joking reference to the distribution of a Vladimir Putin gag calendar suggested the existence of a secret society inside the FBI. Regarding the quote:
Ron Johnson Is Very Bad at McCarthyism
The right’s propensity for believing any preposterous conspiracy-theory crap suggested to them seems to be roughly equal to their ability to totally ignore the obvious when they don’t like what the known facts are suggesting.
FOX is attempting to resuscitate the Uranium One story today. By tomorrow that tale will be bouncing all over the echo box again. They’re doing everything they can to distract attention from the investigation of the Trump administration.
@Greg: Well that took you a whole day of rewinding the beta max to parrot MSLSD, Normally you are a bit faster. It isn’t conspiracy theory if its fact.
Mark Warner doesnt want a paper trail to meet with discredited dossier author Steel, end run around an investigation. Our theory is based on documentation not super secret leakers that more than likely were in the middle of the sedition.
@Greg:
No, it isn’t. There IS NO Trump/Russian collusion. There IS NO Trump obstruction of justice because there IS NO justice in investigating crimes you KNOW are not or never have been there. You and your liberal weenies are pursuing a fantasy hoping you can drive Trump from office or, at best, simply keep him from accomplishing the economic and national security goals he has, which will severely damage the nation.
These two FBI lovebirds who spend more time diddling and texting each other than protecting the American people stated it very clearly. First, Obama wants to know all they are doing. Well, what are they doing? They were protecting Hillary from criminal charges and they were whipping up phony collusion accusations against Trump. You don’t have any other choices. But, meanwhile, in YOUR mind, the simple fact that there is a country called Russia and Trump won means, absolutely, that Trump colluded with Russians to win the Presidency. You are absolutely delusional.
No, the undercover agent that was involved in the investigation is shedding light on how Obama, Hillary and Holder all covered their eyes and allowed our uranium to go to Russia. It’s real, it happened and Bill and Hillary got rich(er) off it.
@Greg:
Two stories were mentioned (that the MSM isn’t mentioning). One of them sure doesn’t seem to be BS.
Lying to the FBI. Isn’t that the same thing you were so gleeful about when it happened to Flynn and Papadopoulos in the Mueller investigation?
It isn’t officially an investigation yet, but given that there apparently are documentable discrepancies between his statement to the British authorities and the FBI, my guess is it will turn into one.
Then we’ll find out if it’s a bullshit assertion or not.
But, people with nothing to hide tend not to go into hiding when they are due for a court appearance.
How much of the infamous document ended up being corroborated elsewhere? A whole lot.
February 5 – Republicans are uniting to impugn ex-spy Christopher Steele. But to what end?
Right. Steele lied. We know this because *entirely redacted* .
@Greg:
Talk about bullshit.
Really? Aside from Fox, all your usual suspects ran with the fantasies in this “report” and presented it as gospel.
Yeah, 17 intelligence agencies all agreed, didn’t they? More bullshit.
So you are accusing the DNC of working at the behest of the Russians? Because, it was Hillary and the DNC that were undercutting Bernie, not the Russians. MORE bullshit.
OK, I am stopping at that point in your little Slate propaganda piece. NO WHERE do they provide any information about any independent substantiation of Steele’s tome of turds. I would greatly appreciate it if you would not provide long, convoluted articles that state they provide some definitive when, instead, after a hundred paragraphs only provide the same belief in fantasy.
The fact is that Hillary’s campaign provided some of the information Steele used, Steele and Hillary spread these fairy tales around the media, then the media was used as validation of the dossier. Bullshit through and through.
Maybe you should read the less redacted version. There is a site called “Flopping Aces” which provided it. Check them out. They aren’t Slate, I know, but give them a look.
Lies exposed, Greg. Plots exposed. Sedition exposed. Treason exposed. And, Obama, Holder, Lynch, Hillary, Comey, Mueller and Strzok are in the big middle of it.
@Greg:
Heh. Did you read anything beyond the confirmation bias of the headline?
Talk about weasel-word bingo!
So, where exactly was/is the corroboration in that mush of trying to imply something without actually crossing the line into libel?
For that matter, where in that mess was an actual statement of …anything… that wasn’t qualified to a fare-thee-well?
@Jay: . Its perfectly clear except for the blurry part. Ah screw it get Trump.
@Jay: I went through almost that whole load of crap without finding a single sign of independent corroboration or validation. I gave up and it pisses me off to waste that much time reading something that Greg hoped the title would convince us the dossier was fact or that anyone put forth any effort to verify it.
It did verify one thing, though; the left KNOWS the jig is up and they have been caught lying and trying to undo a legitimate election. Otherwise they wouldn’t waste 10,000 words in a weak attempt to provide cover.
Possibly corroboration will discovered and revealed by Robert Mueller—which is why Trump’s political and media lackeys are doing everything in their power to distract from, discredit, and then kill the investigation. If there wasn’t something very serious to hide, they would be bothering.
Nothing in the Steele document has been thus far disproved.
There’s no doubt about the reality of Russia’s interference with the 2016 election, nor is much doubt that they’re going to use similar tactics in our midterm elections, yet the Trump administration isn’t doing squat to address the problem. They’re trying to convince people that the problem doesn’t exist.
Trump should be careful about how lightly he throws around the word “treason.”
@Greg:
So…. there ain’t none.
Again, that ain’t how it works. None of it has or can be proved… because it is all FALSE. If it wasn’t, we would have seen SOME shred of evidence corroborating some tiny portion of it instead of lengthy articles designed to trick people, with a misleading title, into believing there was ANYTHING in it that was based on fact.
How do you know they aren’t? Just because Obama was happy to stand by and let it happen doesn’t mean Trump is. Or, did you read it in the dossier?
Oh, REALLY? You mean, like you liberals are so careful with the term? It is really developing that seditious and treasonous behavior is behind this false assault on the Trump Presidency.
@Greg:
LOL…I could have sworn what your link said was that ”a whole lot” of the ‘infamous document’ ended up being corroborated.
Wait, it did…
Except that those of us who waded through your linked excrement couldn’t find any mention of any of said corroboration (not even a smidgen of corroboration!) and now you’re adding qualifiers as well.
You’re all the way back to square one, Greg. Maybe…possibly…hopefully…potentially…Mueller might find something.
Maybe if six of the original members of his investigation hadn’t had to be removed, reassigned, demoted, and/or transferred for various offenses they could have found it by now.
Ummm, yeah. I might win the lottery too.
Pointing out the flaws in the process (many of which occurred prior to the appointment of the Special Counsel) and addressing egregious procedural errors isn’t trying to ‘distract’ from it, it is attempting to find out if there was misuse of the FISA warrants and the apparent legal and ethical violations which followed.
Which is why the Democrats and their political and media lackeys (which far, far outnumber Trump’s!) are doing their best to keep the various Congressional oversight committees from peeking behind the curtain…
Right…the folks trying to see and/or release the actual FBI documents are trying to hide things – and I guess conversely then, you think the ones trying to keep that information hidden are the ones committed to transparency…
Ignorance is Strength! Freedom is Slavery! War is Peace!
Heh…”argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false”
Nothing in it has been thus far verified either, or else Comey and McCabe lied to the Congressional committees when they said (other than the fact that Carter Page had been to Russia) just that.
Or, maybe they just forgot to send you the memo…
There was another recommendation in the article…
Funny, I could have sworn someone here brought that up a few days ago.
And as I recall, you were pretty dismissive of the idea.
It’s actually pretty hilarious that if you follow the opposition to voter ID to its conclusion, what you’re more or less saying is that I don’t care if non-citizens actually vote in the election, as long as they aren’t allowed to post negative Facebook memes about my candidate…
@Jay: A the great and mystical meme war for the midterms we republicans, better known by the dems as russian bots , have not yet begun to fight! The buggy eyed Schiff is an endless caption contest. Twitter wont be able to pull accounts fast enough.
@Jay:
OH!
https://latest.com/2018/02/high-ranking-doj-official-rachel-brand-just-abruptly-resigned/
Funny, the left has been falsifying voter registrations, stuffing ballot boxes, recruiting the dead to vote for their candidates and encouraging illegal immigrants to vote but they worry that Russians might interfere. I guess they worry they can’t get the Russians to interfere the right way.
@Greg:
What are they bothering with? WHAT are they hiding? What is the evidence (oh… that hated word) they are doing anything to hide anything? They aren’t hiding the truth; it’s right out in the open. Problem is, you don’t LIKE the truth because it doesn’t match your FANTASY.
@kitt:
Agreed. Given the ‘performances’ (or lack thereof) at the SOTU, Schumer condemning things he was promoting a short time ago, Pelosi being Pelosi, Shiff, Booker, and lots and lots of others, all that really needs to happen is use their own words to make them look like fools.
Of course, a certain group of voters will vote for them regardless, but a lot of independents will wind up voting in favor of common sense.
Which is also why (I think anyway) they are trying to precondition their sheep to ‘expect’ Russian interference. Because ‘everyone knows’ the liberals are so much smarter and so much better that the only way they could lose is if the other side cheats!
Or prevents them from cheating, but that’s a different story.
@Jay:
If only there was an honest media, they could be asking Democrats if they will accept the outcome of the elections, as they loved to do with Trump.
@Greg: How does it feel the back the most, corrupt, dishonest, and divisive incarnation of a political party in the history of America?
Get your people in line, and stop spreading lies about Trump. Your party got caught red-handed trying to cheat in an election. Everyone knows.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #16:
Maybe you should keep that in mind in connection with all the unproven bullshit the right constantly proclaims as gospel truth concerning Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and anyone else who doesn’t meet with their approval. The right’s propensity for belief and condemnation without evidence—or entirely contrary to it—would suggest that’s exactly how it works. That’s precisely what you do.
@Greg: In regards to the accusations you leftists have made against, Trump, you have NO proof and NO reasonable suspicion, only that you WANT to believe he has commited some act worthy of removal from office. Admit it, there is not, after almost 2 years of the government and 95% of the media looking for it, a single solatary shred of evidence to base your accusations on. It’s all wishing and fantasy.
In regards to Hillary, she DID have a private, secret, unsecured server on which she ILLEGALLY kept all State Department emails INCLUDING highly classified information. THAT is a confirmed fact. She DID lie about Benghazi. She DID lie about sending, receiving and storing classified information on her bathroom email server; it is on VIDEO. She DID fund the false dossier the FBI used to spy on US citizens.
Obama also lied about Benghazi; it is recorded. He lied about Obamacare. He lied about the Iran nuclear deal. He lied about being involved in FBI investigations. He lied about IRS corruption. He lied about Fast and Furious. He lied about abusing the FISA system.
Those are the things we know. We will find out about Uranium One, but all the indications are a $500,000 bribe secured that deal for the Russians and Obama, Hillary and Holder all knew it was going down. We WILL find out all the details about the FISA abuses, but all indications point towards Obama abusing the system to surveil US citizens that were political opponents.
I don’t make accusations based on flimsy, thin, fantastic suspicion. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. A corrupt duck.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: Greg will never believe you he doesn’t know we follow the paper trail of real physical evidence that his information sources are screaming just doesn’t exist, our sources put them out for us to read. His sources gave us the clues some even the answers and when put together they were astounding! Yes liberals who grasping for anything to destroy Hillarys rival for Her throne. With their reliable but un-named sources leaking classified information for them to print. So investigate we did, and uncovered their insidious, seditious plot. The paper trail, the text messages, the emails, legal documents filed in court. Now caught in their own trap because they thought they were above the law.
@kitt: I could have included the 33,000 emails Hillary obliterated as soon as she was requested to turn them over, but we know they were just about yoga. I could also include all the devices and evidence on them that was destroyed, but this was allowed by the FBI… something I dare so no other subject of an invest… sorry, “matter” would be afforded.
What does Donald Trump look like to you?
@Greg:
Based on what we’ve seen and what he has done, he looks like The President.
A LEADER.
Maybe he needs to have his photo taken on a horse. This guy also looks like a leader. Leaders have sometimes been known to lead their followers right over the edge of a cliff.
To me, Trump looks like a con man. Everything he’s done thus far looks to me like a con. The tax cuts are clearly a scam being run on the middle and working classes, but it will take a lot of people a few years to realize that. It’s designed that way.
@Greg: What Trump looks like to you is of no interest. After all, you followed Obama and shilled for Hillary. Your judgement of leadership potential is sadly lacking.
Iconic images of half naked men on horses is a leftist thing. Like an empty suit standing before Greek columns and promising to lower sea levels through the power of his personality, propaganized images only work on the weak minded. We conservatives prefer results and Trump has proved all predictions of failure and criticisms of ineptitude and collusion dead wrong.
Sorry, but I’m afraid your weak party is going to have to find some capability and positive ideas to present to the public if you wish to return to the world of influence. Right now, it is a flailing, failing, whining joke.
@Jay: Jay You seem like a reasonable guy.
Why would DT release Repub memo—against wishes of FBI and DOJ– and not release Dem memo?
Other than pure politics.
In Access Hollywood TAPE do you think DT was speaking about himself or simply what OTHER powerful/ wealthy men could do to women? just curious–Thanks RW
Democrats have shown themselves incapable of detecting failure, doing lessons learned and taking corrective measures, but their recent miscalculations have been so large and damaging and the effects so acute that perhaps… just MAYBE… they will see it and adjust. Adjusting will mean getting rid of the crap they have been hoarding, like Pelosi, Schumer, Hillary, Biden, Obama… and Schiff.
@Richard Wheeler:
Thanks Rich, although I’m sure that there are some who may disagree with you.
What’s your take on the initial Dem/FBI/DOJ claims that there were major security concerns with the Nunes memo…that somehow magically weren’t in it when it was actually released? Pure politics at play there?
And technically, Trump didn’t release it. He said he wasn’t opposed to it and the House voted to release it. From what I’ve read, Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution states that Congress is responsible for making the call – and for that matter shouldn’t have asked Trump anyway.
That being said, I tend towards the opinion that Shiff intentionally included ‘sources and methods’ information to play games and set just this situation up. As I understand it, it’s been sent back to Shiff for him to make modifications as he sees fit to eliminate those security concerns at which point Nunes and Trump (from what I’ve read – they have yet to call me for my opinion) are OK with the House releasing it.
Well, the term ‘gold digger’ came into use well prior to Trump – late 1800’s, early 1900’s from what I can find. Most recently Rupert Murdoch & Jerry Hall. Remember Anna Nicole Smith & J. Howard Marshal? Search the term ‘sugar babies’.
It’s not an unheard of concept. Did you think it originated with him?
Thing is, he didn’t say he had ever actually done so, just that it was possible. You don’t think that given his wealth he has never received a proposition from a woman because of what she thought she might be able to gain financially?
I’m just curious about why the group of people who think this statement, made years before he even contemplated running for office, is such a huge deal have so much overlap with the group of people who think Slick Willie taking advantage of a 19 year old intern to get serviced IN THE OVAL OFFICE is NOT a big deal? Any insight there?
@Jay: I don’t believe DT and his lapdog Nunes will ever allow the Dem memo the light of day. Why should they—DT says first questionable memo exonerated him—he must believe the majority of Americans to be fools—well they did vote against him and currently hold him in contempt. Does he care? Certainly seems he doesn’t.
We can believe most powerful men use and are used by women. Trump and his current and former wives no different—Clinton the same.
Problem is DT a serial liar who considers it sport. Hard to find any goodwill for a guy like this.
When he tells me which foot kept him from serving with me in V,N and apologizes to Mac I’ll take another look.
Meantime I consider him a disgrace to the Country I love,
Semper Fi—-THANKS
@Jay: I think you see the trend here. You get asked questions, some of which the answers are obvious and already revealed, and you answer them in good faith. In the process, YOU field a question which has serious implications on the other person’s objective open mindedness… and you get no answer. Why?
Well, because to answer the question exposes the biased, bigoted ideological partisanship. Indeed, how does a liberal square being so outraged over Trump using a dirty word 12 years ago with their beloved, sacred icon keeping young girls in an abuse rotisserie to use and discard at will doesn’t tarnish their reverence for him one bit?
I find it amusing how some pretend they do not see the transparent ploy Schiff tried to pull to try and swing the discussion from the systematic abuse of citizens’ 4th Amendment rights to more imaginary “obstruction”. As Dr. John’s article pointed out, if Trump simply refuses to release this memo because it embarrasses him and NOT because there is classified information within it that should not be exposed, they should LEAK it. Hell, it wouldn’t be the first thing they’ve leaked for political purposes, just LEAK it! Forget that the FBI confirmed there is information in there that should not be revealed (I’m sure, when they say such things, THEY are lapdogs as well), release it if there is nothing exposing sources and methods within it. They are such children.
@rich wheeler:
Again, per the Constitution, it isn’t up to Trump. He (Shiff) could bring it up in the House and call for a vote to release it, why hasn’t he? Thus the ‘game-playing’ aspect.
If Shiff is so adamant that his ‘counterpoint’ needs to be seen, why did he lard it up with items he knew would do what the Dems claimed Nunes’ memo would do so it wouldn’t be released?
For that matter, there appears to be fairly good evidence that Shiff has been the sieve for a good many of the leaks to date – why can’t he just make sure his own memo leaks? He could play Comey and give it to a lawyer friend to make sure it gets out.
Why should he care? Short of resigning, there is nothing he could say or do that would cause the Dems/media to speak less negatively (let alone positively).
75% of the country approved of the SOTU address. Funny how when they hear him direct rather than through the ‘media hate filter’ the ‘contempt’ factor is much lower…
The supposed mid-term advantage for the Dems has fallen from double digits to the low single digits.
Perhaps the general public is starting to see the disconnect between what the Dems and their media ‘lapdogs’ are spouting and reality.
So, by all means, Dems, keep doing what you’re doing!
And that’s with the daily (hourly?) barrage of ‘bad Trump’ reports from the media, versus the obsequious fawning over Obama. Makes me wonder what his poll numbers would be if the media coverage was anything even close to neutral.
Funny how ‘Love trumps Hate’ seems to involve a lot more hate than love.
Like I said, Dems, keep doing what you’re doing!
As is your right.
Bear in mind though, that for all the claims of how Trump would create a ‘totalitarian dictatorship’ people still feel remarkably free to criticize him quite harshly.
Still waiting for a report of any of those folks mysteriously disappearing…
@Deplorable Me:
Oh, absolutely! But, as a friend told me a while back, when we were both commenting on a local forum, it’s not about trying to change their minds, it’s about making sure anyone undecided who reads the forum seeing the other side to the issues.
That wouldn’t be enough. They would still dance on his political grave and continue to attack him. Like with the SOTU speech, his best course of action is to pursue his agenda (pretty successful so far) and let the results speak for themselves.
True that. Besides, it is not totally clear if these guys actually believe the points they defend or if they are simply unable to objectively look at their own ideology. For instance, how can anyone actually believe Schiff has such bombastic information in his memo that Trump is afraid of it rather than understanding the even the FBI has deemed the content harmful? Any adult should be able to detect the BS game there. However, when someone is trying to expose some alleged bias of mine by throwing questions at me, if I answer them I expect the same courtesy in return. When that is denied, I cease considering that person a serious conversationalist. If they expect others to defend their positions but don’t have the fortitude to defend their own, I have no time for them.
@Jay: Rasmussen–c.mon jay you know better–give me a Gallup or RCP AVERAGE
@richard wheeler:
Meh. Consider it like global-climate-warm-cooling (or whatever the proper word we’re supposed to call it this week is) with a proprietary ‘media bias’ correction applied.
Oh, and no, you can’t see the original data. I only kept the revised numbers.
The bigger point I was trying to make still stands – and this one does include RCP, along with another poll outfit.
So, by all means, let’s quibble about how much the majority of voters dislike Trump and ignore any substantive discussions on issues.
‘Cuz it’s apparently working so well for the Dems now {/sarc}
@Jay: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/chuck-schumer-democrats-cant-just-run-against-trump-in-2018-midterms/ar-BBJ2Aqm
Which basically confirms the obvious; that all the Democrats have been doing is demonize Trump for political gain while happily watching the nation swirl the drain. When Trump showed them the error of believing their own propaganda (by boosting the economy and restoring US influence and respect abroad… you know, leadership stuff), Schumer decides they might want to consider trying to think of something to help the country instead of what they usually do.