Not on your life. But Trump will no doubt include the “treaty” in the straws to be grasped at. The more interesting development at FOX is the apparent growing schism between the credible journalists at the network and the overall propaganda mission of the operation. The network is quickly coming to understand that just as with the conservative movement itself, its hand is being forced toward a decision on whether to follow Trump down the toilet or salvage some crumb of viable credibility through a semblance of accurate framing of the issues surrounding the pariah. The loss of Shepard Smith would be a rather devastating body blow to FOX in its struggle to be regarded as more than the auxiliary propaganda outlet of the GOP.

So your stance is that the law is a straw to be grasped at? Interesting. So ignoring the law is a solid foundation?

Do you seriously believe that this “treaty” was what your fool had in mind with that phone call? Do you think he has even a chance of a convincing argument that he was following the law? For my money, now that an impeachment investigation has been formalized, no good can befall Trump or the snakes in his seamy entourage. As with the Mueller probe, those lawyers advocating the hiding and withholding of the phone call from relevant Congressional oversight face the possibility of severe legal repercussions, as once again, anyone in contact with the fool faces obliteration.

Do I believe he had this in mind when he was on that phone call? Nope. But then I don’t believe he did anything wrong on that phone call. It was mainly a congratulatory phone call from one world leader to another. But if the Dems are going to say he broke the law, then yes, I think this treaty does play a role. Funny that the Dems don’t want to follow the law too.
I find it funny also that you are once again swearing up and down that Trump’s demise is just around the corner. And you even bring the Mueller report up. You swore the same thing back then….almost 3 years ago. Yet Trump is still here. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

No.
As specified in the treaty, requests are only to be made between the designated “central authorities”, meaning the colonial AG, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice, and in writing.
Which means, providing you can read, not over phone-calls between the heads of state or their private lawyers.

@ragingloli but wouldn’t that be right in line with Trump telling Zelenskyy that he would have his AG call them? To discuss if the matter required assistance? After all, it was Zelenskyy that brought up the topic of looking into the corruption in his country.

Just around the corner? That is not my claim. My position is simply that even with the passing of the Mueller probe ( which is by no means YET settled) the investigations and inquiries continue to accumulate. What I am saying is that Trump cannot possibly live long enough to even address the multitude of legal difficulties CURRENTLY confronting him. Is his position NOW better than it was at the closing of Mueller’s investigation? In view of his performance thus far, do you imagine this to be the last balloon in his parade of fuckups?

No, because phone calls are not writing.

Trump requested as a personal favor that the Ukrainian president look at Biden. There was no legal issue. Trump asked to create one. This is not covered by the treaty.

No. The allegation being made is that Trump pressured a foreign leader for damaging information about a political opponent while holding out the prospect of US military aid. That isn’t covered by this or any other treaty with a foreign power.

What is more relevant is what the Chair of the Federal Election Committee said several months ago following remarks made by Trump about accepting information about his political opponents from foreign governments:

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Our Founding Fathers sounded the alarm about ‘foreign Interference, Intrigue, and Influence.’

@flutherother the US military aid to Ukraine was done separately and with other reasoning. It is only the left giving innuendo that ties the two together. When Trump, Zelenskyy and everyone else present agrees there was no coercion, no pressure, that entire innuendo falls apart.

As for the chair of the FEC’s statement, what you are telling me is that Hillary and the Dems broke the law by seeking aid from Russia to dig up dirt by way of Christopher Steele, a British national? Thanks for confirming that.

It looks highly suspicious that Trump cut off aid to the Ukraine before the phone call and then resumed aid afterwards. It sure looks like an implicit quid pro quo. There were no official charges against Biden and there is still no evidence that he did anything wrong. Trump requested a personal favor. It is illegal for the president to request investigation of a political opponent as a personal favor from a foreign government. There is also no reason for the attorney general to become involved. The attorney general is supposed to work on domestic issues and act independently of the president. There is a case to be made for impeaching Barr also.

@LostInParadise What Biden did looked even more suspicious, and his admission cements the issue. He violated the law and coerced the Ukrainian government to take action that protected his son. He used tax dollars as part of that coercion.
As for the favor Trump requested, it wasn’t a favor he requested about Biden. That is where the liberal media and the Dems have twisted things. What he said during the discussion was:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with the whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike…I guess you have one of your wealthy people…The server, they say Ukraine has it. There were a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.

The favor had to do with Crowdstrike…the private cyber company Hillary hired to destroy her server. This had nothing to do with Biden and Hillary is not a political opponent. Or maybe it did have to do with Biden if he was entangled in all that, but that isn’t even hinted at. Biden came up later when they were talking about the prosecutor that got fired. Trump made a comment:

There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

Again…no quid pro quo there, just a mention about it. No coercion, no pressure. AND Trump is merely referencing the issue so when Barr calls, which is directly in line with the abovementioned treaty when looking into criminal offenses…which is what was being done before Biden made his threats. Let’s be honest…this phone call scares the shit out of the Dems not because Trump is violating any laws, but because he is working inside the law to get to the bottom of some of the worst corruption this nation has ever seen.

We have a great POTUS: a gangster and a mouth piece “spin-doctor”, who can’t help but open his mouth and make all the Conservatives feel all warm and fussy, because he is getting the Dems and Liberals by trashing EPA and Constitution !

I know @seawulf575 the POTUS is above the law and can change it to his liking.

“Whatever you can do on this would be great.” Sounds to me like an extension of the favor. He does not say that it would be beneficial to Ukraine. And there is still the questionable behavior of stopping and then resuming aid to he Ukraine,

If Biden broke the law, why was he not charged with anything, neither by the Ukraine or the U.S.?

What sounds like an extension of a favor really was part of entirely different topic. They were discussing the corruption of the previous Ukrainian government and some of the problems it encountered. They discussed the fired prosecutor. Biden was a part of that. And Trump sounded to me like he was offering a connection to our government for assistance through AG Barr…not that he was looking for something special outside what was already being done. But that is my take. I’m sure the Dems are trying to spin it into something bad. But, again, the way Trump laid it out is right in line with the treaty…AG talking to Ukraine…not POTUS talking to Ukraine.
Biden was not charged with anything because (a) he had the corrupt Ukrainian government fire the prosecutor that was looking into the crimes AND that same government benefited from the coercion and (b) our own government was corrupt. According to Biden who, when challenged that he didn’t have authority to withhold funds…that only the POTUS could, he responded “Call him”. That means that Obama was in on it as well. So who is left to charge him? And now that Trump has called for honest investigation, the Dems want to try impeaching him. So what is that all about? Remember when the Mueller investigation started? I called it a witch hunt…which it was. All I heard was about how dirty Trump was and if he had nothing to hide, the investigation would show that. It didn’t seem to matter how we got to that point. So now, the same applies to Biden. Let the investigation happen. If Biden did nothing wrong, then he has nothing to worry about. But if he did, he has no business running for POTUS.

One way or another, the Rubicon is crossed and the Congress will sort it out.

If there was a quid pro quo, that’s different than a request for information.

And it’s perfectly legal for the police to investigate someone. But if I offer, or hint at offering, something of value in exchange for a police officer investigating someone for me then that is not legal.

And I see nowhere that Trump offered anything of value…just gave congrats to the new president. That and $3 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

@seawulf575 He cut off aid before the call.

Yep he did. Because Ukraine was about as corrupt as you could get. Trump wanted to make sure our tax dollars weren’t going to be flushed into someone’s pockets. The new president was just elected and Trump called to congratulate him. Most of that conversation was a reiteration of the resolve of the new president to deal with that corruption. Biden was nothing in that discussion, really.

EDIT: I misread Seawulf’s response at first.

@seawulf575 “Because Ukraine was about as corrupt as you could get. Trump wanted to make sure our tax dollars weren’t going to be flushed into someone’s pockets.”

So your argument is that witholding aid isn’t a quid pro quo because Trump has a policy that’s enforced equally (and not just the ones that he wants to pressure for political favors) across all nations that we don’t give foreign aid to corrupt countries?

@seawulf575 , Why didn’t Zelensky charge Biden? He had the support and assistance of Trump, Barr and Giuliani and they still couldn’t find something that would stick.

That’s rich! Trump as champion against corruption. I know I’m convinced, and certain the Congress will agree.

That “corruption” excuse does not hold water. Read:
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/764453663/pentagon-letter-undercuts-trump-assertion-on-delaying-aid-to-ukraine-over-corrup?t=1569612723318
“But in a letter sent to four congressional committees in May of this year and obtained by NPR, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood informed lawmakers that he “certified that the Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability.”

The certification was required by law for the release of $250 million in security assistance for Ukraine. That aid was blocked by the White House until Sept. 11 and has since been released. It must be spent before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.”

Besides, Drumpf is the last person to care about corruption. He is corruption.

@LostInParadise, Zelensky wasn’t elected until May of this year. And that was what he was saying on the phone call…that he was going to really go after the corruption in Ukraine. And they talked about how Shokin was ousted and that he (Zelensky) has found a very good replacement and will be looking at many of the things that were going on. So in answer to your question, he will be going after Biden. And AG Barr will likely be calling Zelensky’s people to offer whatever help he can…as per our treaty with them.

Here is another version of the story, from Bloomberg news. It says that Biden did not originate the request to have the Ukrainian prosecutor removed. It further says that the UK found the prosecutor to be corrupt. So far Zelensky has not appointed anyone to investigate Biden, What is he waiting for? Could it be that there is no case against the former VP?

^^Poor Zelensky. If he’s a decent guy who just wants to do what’s best for his country, it’s so demeaning for a human being bending knees as a supplicant——to a sad but dangerous reality TV show host like trump.

Though I heard Zelensky was also a stand-up comic before he was President. He knows a
good joke if he hears one. Over the phone.

@LostInParadise he is more information on the Biden story:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

Apparently Ukraine kept a lot of memos from that visit. And right after Shokin resigned (under pressure), Burisma attorneys reached out to the new prosecutor. They apologized for the US having to disseminate false information about the previous prosecutor (Shokin). So either Biden’s story of Shokin being corrupt and being replaced because of that is false, or the internal memo from the Burisma attorneys is false. Given Biden’s bragging:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/09/video-of-a-bragging-biden-trading-1-billion-in-ukraine-aid-for-official-firing-resurfaces-amid-trump-flap/

When he admits he threatened to withhold $1B in aid unless they got rid of the prosecutor, I would put my money on the story of Ukraine getting rid of Shokin for being corrupt as being the bogus story.

The bottom line is that it is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election. That applies to Trump as much as anyone else and asking Zelensky for information on the family of a political rival “as a favour” was the wrong thing to do.

It is also a bit odd that Trump asked Zelensky to liaise with his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, on this matter. Anyway, that Trump himself was aware that what he was doing was wrong is evident from his attempts to hide the evidence of the call.

Here is a must watch analysis by an actual lawyer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD3my03ioio

@flutherother It isn’t illegal to offer assistance to the Ukraine to investigate criminal matters. And since that matter had once been opened and never successfully closed, it is not a crime. And telling Zelenskyy that the Attorney General would reach out to him or his people was the appropriate way to handle it. Guiliani was originally brought up by Zelenskyy…not Trump. So I don’t read too much into that.
As for hiding evidence of the call, I don’t see that happened either. I can see why, as POTUS, you wouldn’t want to just broadcast what amounted to a private call with a foreign leader. Especially if you hadn’t talked with that leader before hand. I’m pretty sure Trump has had phone calls with a number of foreign leaders over the past few years and so we only really have the innuendo from the liberal press that the way this one was handled was something unusual. But he did say he would release the transcript of the call and he did and he did pretty quickly. Which tells me that (a) he followed protocol for making the call and (b) kept the records of that call and© that he really didn’t see anything wrong with the call. Neither did Zelenskyy. The only person that had a problem with it was someone that had no first hand knowledge of it. And, of course, the Dems. But then they have a problem with anything Trump says or does, even if they, themselves, have espoused the same ideas and ideals in the past. So that really doesn’t count. It just makes them look useless and foolish when they start these silly games.

Silly games? Are you serious?

Silly games? That’s sbout as lopsided a backwoods analysis of this situation as can be invented. To pass this incident of as just another phone call to a foreign leader, and say that the fool followed protocol is about as laughably feeble an attempt to downplay the severity of the fool’s criminality as we’re likely to hear.

Using the term silly games if serious could be just masking what? A sense of panic? Acceptance of a most likely impeachment by the House?

Here comes another Hillary or Obama whataboutism. lol

From the day of his announcement as a candidate, my take on the fool was that one way or another, he would talk himself into prison. That it is taking him so long is rather an extraordinary and noteworthy achievement for a moron who should not be allowed near a phone, microphone, or any device capable of capturing his words.

@ragingloli I looked at your citation. I saw a number of things that discredit it for me. First, there is nothing that says the guy talking is an attorney, especially someone that specializes in governmental whistleblower cases. The next thing is that he starts with bogus information…the information garnered from the liberal media which has been debunked already. And he even admits that is where he is getting his information. So he has no real information. When it comes to actually dealing with the facts, he glosses over many of them. An example is when he talks about Joe Biden going to Ukraine to offer US aid. He nowhere mentions that Biden threatened to withhold that aid unless they can the prosecutor that was getting ready to interogate Hunter Biden, Joe’s son. So ignoring facts tells me he is skewed way to the left to avoid casting any doubt on anything Democratic. I just can’t see that as a credible representation.
Meanwhile, I have seen interviews with Matt Whitaker, the former acting US AG who is familiar with this sort of thing. He saw nothing illegal about the conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy. Additionally, the DoJ legal team reviewed it and saw nothing illegal about it. Moreover, Zelenskyy has come out publicly and avered that he was not pressured at all, that it was a friendly call…a good call.
So yes, you can get liberal pundits to put forth innuendo as fact (which is what your citation did) or you can get real time facts from the people making the decisions and who are familiar with the situations.

@stanleybmanly yes, I know your tired old rhetoric. Trump is just about to be brought down!!! We have heard it for 2 and a half years now. Yet you are wrong every time. Why? Because you believe the bogus information you get from liberal media. When the NYT has to go back and print retractions almost daily for their overblown claims, you should stop believing them. When Adam Schiff has to make up stuff that was not in the phone call transcript to try painting the entire situation in a different light, you should probably question his neutrality as well. But as long as you continue to believe in this liars, you will continue to be amazed that Trump doesn’t get burned. And yes, the entire thing is a silly game. It is just like every smear job the Dems have wasted time and tax dollars on since Trump was elected. Since before he was elected when you consider they also wasted time and tax dollars dummying up the entire “Russian Collusion” fiasco.
Let’s review a bit. Dems have been calling for Trump’s impeachment since before he was sworn into office. They paid for foreign agents to get dirt on Trump. They got a report that was never verified and tried using that as the lynchpin of an investigation that would show what a cheater he was. You swore up and down for 2 years that he was going down and that Mueller was just getting his ducks in a row…stitching up the case air tight…before releasing it. I disagreed and said the entire thing was made up. I was right and you were wrong. Along the way, Stormy Daniels was a huge scandal. You swore it was going to sink Trump, I said it was overblown and had no merit. I was right, you were wrong. She ended up having to pay Trump, in fact. There was the entire Kavanaugh smear which did nothing but created lies to smear a good man. There was no evidence anywhere that any of the allegations were even close to being true. I called that for the scam it was, you swore Kavanaugh would be lucky if he wasn’t disbarred and arrested. I was right, you were wrong. The list goes on and on and on. Eventually you will get tired of supporting the liars. I know…there I go again…forcing you to defend those that you don’t like. Just a reminder…there is such a thing as character which you can exercise by choosing to speak out against the liars instead of defending them.

The reality TV show host just called Jewish and Hispanic congresspeople savages.

Yeah, more panicky than usual.

Not sure why he’s panicking when everyone knows his base would stick with him no matter what.

A NYT opinion writer is convinced this impeachment inquiry would get him re-elected. Shouldn’t trump and his voters celebrate instead of getting irate?

You have some cheek bringing up character in a discussion on Trump.

@mazingerz88 You called it…an NYT opinion writer. Who cares? I personally that if the Dems pursue impeachment, they will find themselves ostracized by many, many voters. It will hurt them not only in the presidential race in 2020, but also the races for the various congressional seats. They could find themselves very easily losing control of the House and losing seats in the Senate. But personally, I think the entire thing is a waste of time and effort. It is based on lies published in liberal media outlets that have been repeated by partisan Dems. To her credit, Pelosi was rejecting many calls for impeachment, but figured since it looked like some of the Dems were going to do whatever they wanted anyway, she ought to make it look like a united front. That won’t really help her going forward.

@stanleybmanly I was referring to your character, not Trump’s. And please note, I’m not asking you to defend Trump. I’m just asking you to not defend those you know are lying to you.

You mean the press, intelligence services, my own eyes and ears. The very fact that YOU choose to be in bed with the fool speaks VOLUMES on your own character, though I thank you for your concern for MY besmirched reputation, I’ll take my chances, with the press any day when that press is matched in a contest against the fool at WHO IS THE LIAR? And whatever bonehead fantasyland of denial spawned the likes of your analysis of MY difficulties, you may rest assured that I amply equipped to deride the dummy and all who tolerate such despicable lying malevolent idiocy.

So your previous statement of how I force you to defend them was just bullshit, right? I have given you perfect examples of where the lies have come out. I have pointed out the sleaze that has come often from the left. I offered you the out of not supporting Trump but not supporting the lies either. And you immediately jumped to the defense of the lies. And to do that, you had to totally avoid actually addressing any of the lies and biases I mentioned. So your claim of being the victim, while it puts you right in line with any liberals, has been proven to be a lie…just like many liberals.

WTF are you talking about? You have the strangest perception of lies and liars. In fact, your absurdist description of the actualities about us is the shabbiest most concerted effort at disinformation I have ever witnessed. Who are you really? That bit about retired old salt just doesn’t wash. There are just too many gaps to you—huge gaps in your knowledge that make absolutely no sense. You cannot be so impossibly so dense in your reasoning here and yet muster the capabilities to read and write. It just doesn’t make sense.

Huh. Well, a few corrections…I have never claimed to be a retired old salt…just a crusty one. Again…get your facts straight. As for the rest…are you trying to tell me that the NYT, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN or any of the rest haven’t had to print a bunch of corrections for writing up false stuff? Are you seriously trying to tell me that what Adam Schiff “read” from the transcript was reality? Are you that duped?

A RESPONSIBLE press makes mistakes and prints retractions as a matter of routine. What’s your point? No one had to write a retraction on the one subject on which you drone mercilessly—the collusion thing. Do you know why? But never mind that. How do you propose that the negative stories in the press to be the inventions of the left and crooked media when almost every sensational item is the result of a direct quote and action of the fool? You cannot possibly be do stupid. More to the point, you insult the rest of us in the assumption that we are so stupid as to swallow such absurd renderings as truth? I just don’t get it.

A RESPONSIBLE press will make all efforts to verify facts before printing them so as to avoid spreading false stories and having to print retractions. And the fact that you really believe that no retractions had to be written about Russian collusion shows how out of touch with reality you are. I could, of course, give you citation after citation showing how wrong you are, but really…why? You would not believe them anyway and would NEVER admit you were wrong.

Any moron can find other morons to agree with them. Your problem is in casting before us the idea that Tucker Carlson is reliable journalism while the New York Times is biased deception. The supposition is demonstrably preposterous, and your incessant repetition of it only serves to paint you as a none too talented fickle dissembler of visible reality—very much like the fool you serve.

Tell you what…You show me a case of where Tucker Carlson had to print a retraction or issue a correction and I will show you a case where the NYT had to print one. We will do that until we see which one runs out of examples first. The one that has more will be the less reliable source. Deal?

We agree. The exercise would be pointless. There actually ARE people willing to accept Tucker Carlson as credible journalism in preference to the New York Times—stupid ignorant people, and Tucker’s popularity serves primarily as the sad indicator of their numbers.

And there actually ARE people willing to accept the New York Times as being credible journalism in preference to Tucker Carlson—stupid ignorant people, and the NYT’s popularity serves primarily as a sad indicator of their numbers.

Yes. It’s all relative and a matter of consensus. You’re welcome to Tucker and any other dummies you can convince to accept him as a “credible” journalist. If Tucker comes up to what passes with you for “standards”, that’s your affair. But your unceasing allegation that the outlets of record in this country for better than150 years as leftist mouthpieces—and their cataloging of the misdeeds of a lying retrobate the proof of it, take it back to Russia.

You know…I have a pear tree out back. It creates great tasting pears. But if I pick those pears and they are around long enough…they rot. Sounds similar to what has happened to the NYT. There was a time the NYT did a great job and was a good source of news. Those days are long gone.

Yeah the rot is with the Times. It is the fool who is pristine and accurate. Ship him some pears!

Hey, I just decided to subscribe to the NYT today. : )

A body blow to the apparatchiks of disinformation planted here. Congratulations. You’re going to need the ammunition.

Considering the number of retractions and corrections the NYT has had to make, much of that ammo is probably going to misfire.

And look what I just found!

https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/28/new-york-times-quid-pro-quo-trump-nra/

Yet another NYT correction. This happens almost daily, it seems.

The NYT shouldn’t be criticised too much for issuing corrections, it shows they are trying to maintain accuracy despite the embarrassment it must cause the journalists responsible and the paper itself. If the president would take a leaf out of their book and occasionally admit to getting things wrong I would think more highly of him.

^^Will never happen. The rich spoiled brat never stopped being vain and narcissistic. As an old man he’s got delusions of being a great leader of men. But his inner nature is rotten to the core.

The clown had desires of being on the front page of the NYT. Way back then he felt ignored by the paper. Not sure why exactly. Maybe they thought he was just a pathetic poser.

@flutherother it is a responsible thing to issue a correction. But it is even more responsible to get it right in the first place. It is more responsible to not kow-tow to liberal pressure to change headlines just because liberals don’t like that it didn’t slam Trump. When you have to print corrections and retractions almost daily, that isn’t responsible journalism. You have left credibility and integrity sitting on the curb.

@flutherother I would agree with you about Trump, except not everything he has been accused of being wrong about are things he was actually wrong about. Some are things he got wrong and some are things the leftists rewrote to say he got wrong.

You really should just shut the fuck up with this silly shit, but before you do, why don’t you list for us the retractions you can remember from the fool! And it is the height of hypocrisy as well as plain blind stupidity to defend trump by stating that “it’s more important to get it right the first time.” What is wrong with you? The fact is we don’t ridicule you enough. But just keep imitating your fool and you are guaranteed the treatment both you and he deserve. Depend on it!

@stanleybmanly Yeah, I know that silly shit just irks the crap out of you…because you know I am right. As for listing the retractions I can remember from Trump, I was agreeing with @flutherother about him not admitting wrong. Here’s the funniest part….I can do that. I do that on a regular basis. Yet you NEVER admit the left did anything wrong. In fact, you double and triple down on your abuse when you are handed facts to the contrary. Tell you what…why don’t you list for us the retractions you can remember from the idiotic Dems and the liberal press. I’ve never seen you come close, so please…show you aren’t the hypocritical ass you are appearing to be.

Actually, didn’t you claim that the liberal press is “forced” to print retractions? And wasn’t it I who pointed out that retractions are an essential aspect of responsible journalism.

Saying that printing retractions as a sign of responsible journalism isn’t naming anything. That is making excuses. And if you have to be forced to print corrections, that is as irresponsible as you can get. I think we can agree that RESPONSIBLE journalism would be fact checking and proof reading to ensure you aren’t skewing things BEFORE you print them. And I think a safe measure of journalistic integrity is the number of retractions and corrections you have to do in a given time frame. But the left doesn’t seem to believe that is important. They will deny facts as long as they can. In fact, in a different thread, I asked you specifically if you denied bad actions by the left actually happened. You bobbed and weaved and never even claim close to saying a simple yes or no.

Your characterizations of the left are every bit as empty as your head. Who claims that the left is perfect and never makes mistakes? It’s another lying meaningless accusation you pulled straight out of your ass, and then claim as “fact”. Here’s another fact for you. You can no more prove that the mainstream press makes excessive mistakes and retractions, than I can attest to your 3rd grade education. Yet you testify to such an open ended claim as though it were accepted fact. It is like all other fakery from the whack job lunatic fringe—pure puffery, and meaningless DISINFORMATION

It on line 34 of the “Lies from Putin’s Chef” handbook. @stanleybmanly

@stanleybmanly When you argue like a maniac to avoid saying anything bad about a Dem or that liberal news outlets are biased and lie regularly, you are, in effect, claiming the left is perfect. And your latest answer is a perfect example. I asked you in a different thread about specific bad actions by the left and whether you believed they really happened or not. A simple yes or no…and you couldn’t and still won’t answer. All you want to do is try personal attacks to shut me up. When has that ever worked?

The left has plenty of flaws, and I will readily admit that this is the case. Both the left and right are nothing but people. But your infantile blanket characterization of the left or Democrats as pure evil is beyond simplistic and smacks of cheap fairy tale villainy. It is in fact so consistently over the top with imagined menace and chicanery that it serves no sensible purpose beyond a deliberate attempt to undermine and disrupt the democratic process and foment cracks in the civil order of my country through the diliberate dissemination of strident disinformation. You are nothing short of a crudely devised and stridently caustic propaganda device for our burgeoning lunatic fringe, and I have no qualms in labeling a spade a spade. Once again, haul all that silly right wing hyperbole back to your motherland and tell your operators no one here is buying the product.

You really have a lot of gall to talk about cheap fairy tail villainy, imagined menace and chicanery. You, who swore up and down that Trump worked hand in hand with Putin to win the 2016 election. You who swore up and down that Trump’s travel ban was a Muslim ban. You who swore up and down that Trump said Neo-Nazis were “very fine people”. You who has bought into every lie generated about Trump and who cannot come up with a single nice thing to say. You who even went so far as to believe I was a Russian operative put in place by Putin to spread disinformation. Paranoid much?
I understand you are a lost cause. You don’t really believe the nonsense from the left, you just can’t really find it in you to call it out when you see it. And you are, apparently, so weak-minded that I somehow “force” you to defend those actions.

I have decided that my function with you from here on out will be an emphasis on just how useful you are to those seeking disruption of the country through posting superfluous nonsense against the public interest. If you are not a plant, you are certainly a superbly dedicated purveyor of views and attitudes promulgated toward the destruction of the public order, and by now this seems less likely than mere coincidence. So—proceed with the bullshit so that I may point to it for what it is!

I’m with @stanleybmanly Wulfie is a member of the Putin Chef’s team of disrupters, probably enjoys living in warm Arizona.

@stanleybmanly Thank you for proving my point yet once again.

The only valid point you EVER have is at the apex of your con man head.