Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its small potatoes IMO too.
I'm just keeping the information up-to-date.
There hasn't been a congressional hearing since the release of this batch of text.
The up-dates might help people from being ignorant. No small job as you can see.
Yes we need to go to Hannity to get all the details that were missed by the house GOP, such a reliable source of information.
Yes we need to go to Hannity to get all the details that were missed by the house GOP, such a reliable source of information.
You are free to post any source you like on the topic. The more the better.
I post links with all points of view when I find them.
Admittedly, it is to difficult to find actual journalism with the old standards.
Well, you do have a point there. If you believe the lie, is it a lie?
Now you are getting it.
Sometimes its nothing more than a mistake and people make those all the time.
Its part of being human.
I made a mistake several years ago and I still remember it. Maybe b/c its so rare.
I was a little to humble but I forgave myself and moved on.
You are free to post any source you like on the topic. The more the better.
I post links with all points of view when I find them.
Admittedly, it is to difficult to find actual journalism with the old standards.
Here are all the sources I fould find for this story. All of them supporting your post are openly right wing slanted and don't have any sort of credibility that has to do with anything but blind faith. I doubt seriously that you will ever find an outlet that practices "actual journalism with the old standards" will print anything to corroborate your story unless there is some sort of evidence forthcoming. Everything you have so far is heresay and raw opinion.
As far as "old standards", the standard for new when I went to J-school and learned the newspaper trade was to answer the "five Ws", and do it in the lead paragraph. Who, what, when, where, and why. Let the reader decide.
Here are all the sources I fould find for this story. All of them supporting your post are openly right wing slanted and don't have any sort of credibility that has to do with anything but blind faith. I doubt seriously that you will ever find an outlet that practices "actual journalism with the old standards" will print anything to corroborate your story unless there is some sort of evidence forthcoming. Everything you have so far is heresay and raw opinion.
As far as "old standards", the standard for new when I went to J-school and learned the newspaper trade was to answer the "five Ws", and do it in the lead paragraph. Who, what, when, where, and why. Let the reader decide.
When did you first learn that CNN was a right wing source and its #2 on your link list.
Who told you CNN was rightwing ?
Where were you when they taught the class on fact checking your information.
What started the Russian probe ?
Heresay and raw opinion and accusations. No evidence then or now of collusion involving Trump. No American has been charged with it either.
Why have you made such obvious mistakes after being so well educated ?
When did you first learn that CNN was a right wing source and its #2 on your link list.
I never said that. "All of them supporting your post" should be self-explanatory.
Who told you CNN was rightwing ?
Again, I never said that. Reading comprehension.
Where were you when they taught the class on fact checking your information.
How about tell me who you use to check facts? I use Snopes and Politifact, usually.
What started the Russian probe ?
Heresay and raw opinion and accusations. No evidence then or now of collusion involving Trump. No American has been charged with it either.
The Russian probe predates the Mueller investigation. It was begun because of a slip of the tongue by a drunken George Papadopulos to an Australian diplomat. Link below.
The reader can decide and easily see what was claimed. Not going to beat it to death. Moving on.
Your links have no greater claim than mine.
In the very first sentence it uses the word " appears ". That is not a claim of fact and all the farther I had to go to know its likely fill with more such non factual claims. Little more than propaganda and slanted to the low IQ reader that wants confirmation bias.
Mueller's investigation is OVER. Mueller blew it up with Weissmann as Bruce Ohr named him as a source receiving dossier info.
Got a link to support that? If not, FAKE NEWS.
You poor, poor City-Data Trump supporters. I know you're scared for Donald. I know you're worried about what will happen when Mueller's investigation is completed.
But just because you create new threads on City-Data about Mueller's investigation being over, doesn't mean it's going to happen in real life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
