• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Papadopoulos role in Trump campaign appears extensive in undisclosed documents: report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a right-wing, far-right, pro-Trump website. It was founded after the United States presidential election in 2004, according to its founder Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left". The website is often linked to or cited by Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, Drudge Report, Sarah Palin and other well-known conservative people and media outlets. The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.
 
Just because the 'gateway pundit' tried to discredit it doesn't mean squat.

You didn't read the article, did you?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a right-wing, far-right, pro-Trump website. It was founded after the United States presidential election in 2004, according to its founder Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left". The website is often linked to or cited by Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, Drudge Report, Sarah Palin and other well-known conservative people and media outlets. The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.

Well hell...if Wiki says it, it MUST be true, right?

Tell me...do you know how Wiki operates?
 
Russia Wants Americans to Doubt Mueller, Experts Warn

This is how bad America is, that I find this headline in Newsweek......Who gives a **** about what Russia/Putin want, what we want had better come first, and Truth had damn well better be at the front of the line.

We are so ignorant now, no wonder the place is a wreck.

It's from Newsweek...it gets the useful idiots riled up...shrug...
 
You don't have to.

Just read and consider the points and questions presented. If you have good answers and responses, I'd like to hear them.

I have an answer. The premise of the article is a copy of a tweet that says "he was probably talking about this news story detailing a Russian hacking campaign." But there's no information regarding WHY the twitter account in question would assume that. Why he wasn't wiretapped or interviewed until January, I don't know, but they had enough on him to arrest him by then, so maybe he was under surveillance and/or the FBI had the dirt on him already.
 
Well, I hate to burst this thread's bubble and end the Trump Hater circle jerk, but it only took a few hours for someone to ask pertinent questions that pretty much destroy the veracity of this NYT article. It sucks, I know...

NYT 'Russia Papadopoulos Bombshell' Completely Unravels Within Hours of Publication
TheLastRefuge said:
1) Um Maggie, [@maggieNYT ] hate to undercut your *explosive story* on origin of Russia Probe. But George Papadopoulos talking in May 2016, is likely about this *open and public information* from April 2016. Source: No 'coincidence' Romanian hacker Guccifer extradited amid Clinton probe | Fox News
No genius, the plea agreement alludes to Papadopoulos being informed by a Kremlin associate of " Defendant PAPADOPOULOS acknowledged that the professor had told him about the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of"thousands of emails" " thus proving the Trump camp was aware of Russia's targeting Clinton/DNC before it was public knowledge.

TheLastRefuge said:
The @maggieNYT is also nonsense based on common sense. Papadopoulos was so important that:

July 15th 2016 Comey opens counterintel investigation into Russian collusion.

January 15th 2017 FBI visits Papadopoulos for first time.

FBI waited for six months to talk to him?
Why would the FBI let him know what they know about him? Investigators have different reasons for waiting to interview people, particularly if they want to see if someone will lie to them -- which he did.

TheLastRefuge said:
If George Papadopoulos was so important to the FBI “investigation” why did all “intelligence” agencies released their final JAR report without ever speaking to him?
Not even once?
:doh:
Why should they name suspects in their public reports, what are is this guy, retarded? That's like asking why police don't always name targets of murder investigations in press conferences. People flee, people lie, people destroy evidence, and all kinds of things to hide their crimes, so it's no shock if the FBI waited.
 
I have an answer. The premise of the article is a copy of a tweet that says "he was probably talking about this news story detailing a Russian hacking campaign." But there's no information regarding WHY the twitter account in question would assume that. Why he wasn't wiretapped or interviewed until January, I don't know, but they had enough on him to arrest him by then, so maybe he was under surveillance and/or the FBI had the dirt on him already.

Actually, that tweet was only the first point/question that was presented. There's much more in that article that blows away that NYT story.
 
You didn't read the article, did you?

Why would I read something from click bait? As soon as it's the gateway pundit, it is click bait and not reliable. I mean, you wouldn't read anything from the palmer report, would you? That is the liberal equivalent.. click bait.
 
You didn't read the article, did you?
A plethora of weak arguments to overwhelm any respondents, also known as a 'Gish Gallop'.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.
 
Actually, that tweet was only the first point/question that was presented. There's much more in that article that blows away that NYT story.

No there isn't. I read it. Like I said, the entire thing is based on the line of logic that "it just doesn't add up." That's not news, or facts, or anything other than dumb tweets trying to distract readers from yet more evidence that this administration is full of liars. A few drunken ones at that.
 
Not many Trumpers in this thread..

odd..

I don't think it's a concession, because they have been demonstrably wrong so many times, and that never stopped them from doubling down..

maybe they're waiting for Fox News to drum up their talking points.

We're waiting for this to get debunked, so we can LOL at you all.
 
No genius, the plea agreement alludes to Papadopoulos being informed by a Kremlin associate of " Defendant PAPADOPOULOS acknowledged that the professor had told him about the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of"thousands of emails" " thus proving the Trump camp was aware of Russia's targeting Clinton/DNC before it was public knowledge.


Why would the FBI let him know what they know about him? Investigators have different reasons for waiting to interview people, particularly if they want to see if someone will lie to them -- which he did.


:doh:
Why should they name suspects in their public reports, what are is this guy, retarded? That's like asking why police don't always name targets of murder investigations in press conferences. People flee, people lie, people destroy evidence, and all kinds of things to hide their crimes, so it's no shock if the FBI waited.

So...some Aussie says that some guy said that someone told him something...after a night of heavy drinking...and the FBI waited a couple of months, went to the FISA court to get permission for a wiretap...got slapped down by the court...and they didn't even ONCE talk to the guy? So...they waited a few more months...went back to the FISA court right after they got that bogus dossier and got their permission. But hey...it was whatever that drunk guy said that worked...not the dossier.

Believe me...the FBI aren't idiots, though the NYT certainly think their readers are idiots.
 
Last edited:
It's from Newsweek...it gets the useful idiots riled up...shrug...

You know for a lot of decades Newsweek did important journalism.

This is how far America has sunk.

SAD
 
So...some Aussie says that some guy said that someone told him something...after a night of heavy drinking...and the FBI waited a couple of months, went to the FISA court to get permission for a wiretap...got slapped down by the court...and they didn't even ONCE talk to the guy? So hey...they waited a few more months...went back to the FISA court right after they got that bogus dossier and got their permission. But hey...it was whatever that drunk guy said that worked...not the dossier.

Believe me...the FBI aren't idiots, though the NYT certainly think their readers are idiots.

So some Aussie says that some guy told him sonething, therefore Trump is a benevolent angel.
 
You know for a lot of decades Newsweek did important journalism.

This is how far America has sunk.

SAD

It is important for journalists to speak truth to power. Admittedly, they often failed to do so to Obama. However, that does not make it their responsibility to bow in worship before Trump.
 
Well hell...if Wiki says it, it MUST be true, right?
Says the person quoting The Gateway Pundit quoting The Conservative Treehouse Twitter. I bet you have no idea how silly this comment of yours was, do you?

The shilling is strong right now. Also, the Gateway Pundit's re-quoting of Conservative Treehouse's Twitter "breakdown" is horrible. Let's just take the first couple of numbers.

Your lying source said:
1) Um Maggie, [@maggieNYT ] hate to undercut your *explosive story* on origin of Russia Probe. But George Papadopoulos talking in May 2016, is likely about this *open and public information* from April 2016.
Why is that likely? What makes that likely? From where do they get "likely" and how does that in any way refute the New York Times story when you don't even know what you're talking about, as evidenced by "likely"? Obviously Australian intelligence found it interesting enough to pass it up the chain and then eventually on the United States, who then opened an investigation, so I suspect the information passed wasn't "likely" publicly known, but rather contained details which weren't widely known.

Your lying source said:
Additionally, worth noting @maggieNYT is nowhere in the Joint Analysis Report [Comey, Brennan and Clapper construct] is anything about George Papadopoulos even hinted or alluded to.
Assuming this to be true (and I don't trust it to be, but we'll say it is for argument's sake), it has been well established by Comey in multiple hearings that unknown information about those under investigation is not revealed to the public while the investigation is proceeding. Once again, your source lied to you.

Your lying source said:
The @maggieNYT is also nonsense based on common sense. Papadopoulos was so important that:

July 15th 2016 Comey opens counterintel investigation into Russian collusion.

January 15th 2017 FBI visits Papadopoulos for first time.

FBI waited for six months to talk to him?
#3 made no point so we move to #4.

And yes, that is not at all uncommon. Want evidence? See how long they waited to interview Hillary Clinton about her e-mail server.

And I'm not going waste my time with any more of your lying sources. Try reading and presenting facts next time, not propaganda.

Tell me...do you know how Wiki operates?
More reliably than the Gateway Pundit and Conservative Treehouse, which are little more than propaganda blogs?

You sure do love your propaganda sources, don't you?
 
Last edited:
It is important for journalists to speak truth to power. Admittedly, they often failed to do so to Obama. However, that does not make it their responsibility to bow in worship before Trump.

This is not about speaking truth to power, this is about parading trashy propaganda as journalism, because there are brains to mold.
 
All of the counterpoint is "THIS JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME!" The number of facts (not already known) in that article total 0

That's what makes the NYT article utter nonsense. They are trying to present this "heavy drinking and talking" story when that story just doesn't fit already known facts.
 
Papadopoulas wore a wire. For months.
 
No there isn't. I read it. Like I said, the entire thing is based on the line of logic that "it just doesn't add up." That's not news, or facts, or anything other than dumb tweets trying to distract readers from yet more evidence that this administration is full of liars. A few drunken ones at that.

The entire thing was a presentation of facts that show that the NYT story was nonsense. Of course, it's not news. It's a rebuttal. And yes...that NYT article just doesn't add up.
 
Back
Top Bottom