Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part II Covfefe

[NarrowBandFtw]

Yes Wolf, try Hillary in a court of law or STFU.

A bit hard to do when the thoroughly corrupt head of the FBI recommends publicly that no prosecution should be done isn't it?
Especially considering the equally corrupt Loretta Lynch would have had to do it.

You might as well ask Zuma to investigate the Guptas, only you seem to believe if they find themselves to be innocent then anyone who cries foul is crying wolf ... then again you have demonstrated many times you struggle with the term, if only it didn't bring your own reputation into disrepute it would be funnier

 

[Xarog]

Yes Wolf, try Hillary in a court of law or STFU.

Tbh I think Donald doesn't want to burn that bridge right now. Though Loretta Lynch might not give him a choice.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Nothing in any of this seems weird. Trump fired him because he had the recommendation to do so (based on Clinton's emails) and he wasn't pleased with the way he was handling the Russian collusion narrative, even after privately telling Trump he isn't under investigation.

You mean after questioning him numerous times to find out if he's being investigated and telling him to drop the Flynn investigation. Comey wasn't playing ball, so got dropped for.......the Clinton investigation, which Trump was a cheerleader of.

Not weird at all

 

[Unhappy438]

A bit hard to do when the thoroughly corrupt head of the FBI recommends publicly that no prosecution should be done isn't it?
Especially considering the equally corrupt Loretta Lynch would have had to do it.

You might as well ask Zuma to investigate the Guptas, only you seem to believe if they find themselves to be innocent then anyone who cries foul is crying wolf ... then again you have demonstrated many times you struggle with the term, if only it didn't bring your own reputation into disrepute it would be funnier

Well then stick to your own principles and STFU wolf.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

The article reported that the email contents were verified by "three people with knowledge of the email." The fact that the leaks were anonymous doesn't make it less objective. It's either fake or it isn't, but journalists are allowed to report on anonymous sources.

The fact that every single instance of fake news revealed in the last year or so also made use of anonymous sources means that is no longer acceptable or objective reporting. Look at amaBhungane and Scorpio locally, sure you can mention anonymous sources to add a little bit of context, but you base your article on hard facts or don't bother publishing until you have hard facts.

The NYT does not meet that standard, not even close. They're heading to CNN territory in terms of reputation.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

You mean after questioning him numerous times to find out if he's being investigated and telling him to drop the Flynn investigation. Comey wasn't playing ball, so got dropped for.......the Clinton investigation, which Trump was a cheerleader of.

Not weird at all

And he said he was going to fire Comey regardless, so the 'recommendation' was nonsense anyway. And he basically said it was about the Russia investigation...

 

[cerebus]

The fact that every single instance of fake news revealed in the last year or so also made use of anonymous sources means that is no longer acceptable or objective reporting. Look at amaBhungane and Scorpio locally, sure you can mention anonymous sources to add a little bit of context, but you base your article on hard facts or don't bother publishing until you have hard facts.

The NYT does not meet that standard, not even close. They're heading to CNN territory in terms of reputation.

Just because some fringe loonie sites are calling it fake news, doesn't make it fake news. It's just what you choose to believe about it because it's inconvenient. Like global warming or something.

And speaking of anonymous leaks, wasn't that something Trump was all gung-ho for, before he won the election?

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Well then stick to your own principles and STFU wolf.

Born slow are we? How do you propose a South African citizen with no legal standing or qualification in the US whatsoever proceeds to prosecute Hillary?

I'm perfectly in line with my principles, though people with comprehension problems may not be able to see it through their own tinted glasses as you so aptly demonstrated.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Just because some fringe loonie sites are calling it fake news, doesn't make it fake news. It's just what you choose to believe about it because it's inconvenient

WTF are you on about?!? They're not offering any hard facts or evidence, no fringe loonie site is saying that, I am saying that, as can anyone who is able to read English. It is not exactly difficult.

In this day and age it makes the entire story suspect until proven otherwise, the media has sunk to the level where skepticism comes first when they don't offer evidence, simple as that.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Just because some fringe loonie sites are calling it fake news, doesn't make it fake news. It's just what you choose to believe about it because it's inconvenient. Like global warming or something.

Funny how the stories are 'fake news', yet keep being confirmed, by the Trumps themselves no less. Just like Trump keeps yelling that Obama is actually the bad guy for not doing something about the Russian meddling, which is supposed to be fake news. So Obama should have done something that Trump says didn't happen... The mind of Trump(ets)...

And speaking of anonymous leaks, wasn't that something Trump was all gung-ho for, before he won the election?

Fox News keeps publishing these random anonymously sourced stories, with no byline.

 

[Unhappy438]

Born slow are we? How do you propose a South African citizen with no legal standing or qualification in the US whatsoever proceeds to prosecute Hillary?

I'm perfectly in line with my principles, though people with comprehension problems may not be able to see it through their own tinted glasses as you so aptly demonstrated.

The same way a random journalist does in the US. Your principle is to be as inconsistent as possible, so yes i suppose you're right, you do stick to it.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

The same way a random journalist does in the US. Your principle is to be as inconsistent as possible, so yes i suppose you're right, you do stick to it.

Cute, someone who clearly knows nothing of principles is assuming he knows the first thing about mine. As you were then, wallow in your willful ignorance all you like.

 

[buka001]

Interesting timeline analysis -

Meeting allegedly took place on 9 June 2016.

Prior to this date not a single tweet from Donald Trump regarding Hilary's emails.

Then on that day he tweets about her deleting 33 000 emails. Jr replies to his tweets by saying deleting seems to be the answer for everything.

Strange how absolutely nothing was said about her deleted emails etc until 10 minutes after that meeting.

 

[Garson007]

Denial from lawyer that she was sent by the Kremlin.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-lawyer-who-met-trump-jr-i-didn-t-have-n781631

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Denial from lawyer that she was sent by the Kremlin.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-lawyer-who-met-trump-jr-i-didn-t-have-n781631

That's like Putin denying he meddled in the US election. Must be true

 

[buka001]

Denial from lawyer that she was sent by the Kremlin.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-lawyer-who-met-trump-jr-i-didn-t-have-n781631

Every lawyer who ever denied that their client was guilty?? I guess they all won their cases then?

 

[Garson007]

That's like Putin denying he meddled in the US election. Must be true

The situation is quite different. But okay.

 

[Garson007]

Every lawyer who ever denied that their client was guilty?? I guess they all won their cases then?

Huh? She's not representing anyone.

 

[Xarog]

Interesting timeline analysis -

Meeting allegedly took place on 9 June 2016.

Prior to this date not a single tweet from Donald Trump regarding Hilary's emails.

Then on that day he tweets about her deleting 33 000 emails. Jr replies to his tweets by saying deleting seems to be the answer for everything.

Strange how absolutely nothing was said about her deleted emails etc until 10 minutes after that meeting.

That's actually easier to explain if the meetings with the Russians came up empty and the 33k deleted emails ploy was Plan B.

 

[buka001]

Huh? She's not representing anyone.

No, but why trust what she says?