• 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!

Judicial Watch Finds Documents Showing Fusion GPS Working Directly With Obama's DOJ to Frame Trump (1 Viewer)

Notofimport said:
Ok, this does nothing to refute the documents.
When I hear this type of argument, you might as well be telling me that you cannot refute the documents and are trying to change the subject to the people.
If einstein was a racist, has no impact on the veracity of his theory of relativity.
Click to expand...
You are free to read w/e words you think you see on the page.
You are free to assign w/e meanings you wish to those words.
No one can stop you.
NO ONE!

You just read what you want to read and interpret what you read however you wish.
You have the power!
 
OpportunityCost said:
Well, we know that isn't true. A great deal of posters on this board were accepting Trump's guilt based on reporting.
The cutesy so and so bull**** aside, you don't seem to have a point. Maybe make one.
Click to expand...

You know it's not acceptable to question someones credentials when they make pronouncements?

Well, I say Trump is a poopy head.
I am a professional poopy head identifier.
Do not question my credibility or credentials!
 
Simon W. Moon said:
You know it's not acceptable to question someones credentials when they make pronouncements?

Well, I say Trump is a poopy head.
I am a professional poopy head identifier.
Do not question my credibility or credentials!
Click to expand...

About what I thought, argument to ridicule---not a real point.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
You act like you cannot tell the difference from the presentation of a matter on its own and the presentation of a matter as in "So-and-so says..."

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Court documents in which repeated attempts are made to create as many links as possible between Trump and various Russians. Looks like they were trying to bolster the case to conduct surveillance on the campaign.
 
Moot said:
Oh please, Page was hob nobbing with Kremlin officials and oligarchs under the pretense of giving speeches in Moscow. Besides, they have audio tape that his Russians handlers thought he was a "useful idiot" and could be an asset.

Say what you will about papadapolous, but he repeatedly lied to the FBI about his meetings and attempts to hook Trump up with Putin.

The dossier wasn't the only or even the main rationale for the any of the warrants. Four Republican Federal judges reviewed and approved the warrant requests. Are you going to accuse them of wrong doing, too?
Click to expand...
How do you know what the rationale for the warrants were? Has that information been made public?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Moot said:
And yet, they've proven a lot of the dossier's allegations. It turns out that Cohen was in Prague after all. Apparently, the FBI has records of his cell phone pings in Prague. Cohen likely knew they had something on him and that's why he may have dropped his defamation lawsuit against Buzzfeed when he did.
Click to expand...
Not according to muellers team.

Access Denied

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Jetboogieman said:
Judicial Watch has zero credibility whatsoever and the OP and those like him who continue to use such a source says everything you need to know about them.
Click to expand...

The credibility of Judicial Watch is irrelevant here. We have the documents.
 
Moot said:
Well, until you can explain or show how his cell phone was in Prague during the time period that he was alleged to have been there, I'm gonna have to with that he was there.

Ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen dismisses report of Czech meeting with Russians, despite claim his phone was detected in Prague | South China Morning Post
Click to expand...

It's explained....... Your statement was not true!! :naughty

News outlet McClatchy relied on sketchy, anonymous sources – likely from opposition research firm Fusion GPS – to produce two articles last year claiming former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was in Prague in 2016, allegedly to meet with Russians about stealing the election.

Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report has been released, we know for sure that these two McClatchy articles are false. Cohen was never in Prague, just as he claimed. Cohen, being a proven liar, can’t be taken at just his word, but he also showed his passport to prove he had never been to Prague.

The Mueller report states unequivocally: “Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false.”

As I wrote in January, this claim from the dossier created by ex-British Intelligence official Christopher Steele, should have been easy to prove. Yet no major media outlet could. The Washington Post even sent reporters to every hotel in Prague to see if Cohen had stayed there, and came up empty (naturally, they didn’t report this damning revelation).

McClatchy has now added an “editor’s note” to its two Cohen-in-Prague stories. The first article, published on April 13, 2018, still has the original title claiming Mueller had evidence Cohen was in Prague, but now includes the following noted at the top of the article:

EDITOR’S NOTE: Robert Mueller’s report to the attorney general states that Mr. Cohen was not in Prague.

McClatchy Tries To Save Face After Mueller Report Thrashes Cohen-in-Prague Narrative | Daily Wire
 
Common Sense 1 said:
It's explained....... Your statement was not true!! :naughty

News outlet McClatchy relied on sketchy, anonymous sources – likely from opposition research firm Fusion GPS – to produce two articles last year claiming former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was in Prague in 2016, allegedly to meet with Russians about stealing the election.

Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report has been released, we know for sure that these two McClatchy articles are false. Cohen was never in Prague, just as he claimed. Cohen, being a proven liar, can’t be taken at just his word, but he also showed his passport to prove he had never been to Prague.

The Mueller report states unequivocally: “Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false.”

As I wrote in January, this claim from the dossier created by ex-British Intelligence official Christopher Steele, should have been easy to prove. Yet no major media outlet could. The Washington Post even sent reporters to every hotel in Prague to see if Cohen had stayed there, and came up empty (naturally, they didn’t report this damning revelation).

McClatchy has now added an “editor’s note” to its two Cohen-in-Prague stories. The first article, published on April 13, 2018, still has the original title claiming Mueller had evidence Cohen was in Prague, but now includes the following noted at the top of the article:

EDITOR’S NOTE: Robert Mueller’s report to the attorney general states that Mr. Cohen was not in Prague.

McClatchy Tries To Save Face After Mueller Report Thrashes Cohen-in-Prague Narrative | Daily Wire
Click to expand...

For some, once the South China Morning Post has printed their version of the facts, they can never be undone.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
It's explained....... Your statement was not true!! :naughty

News outlet McClatchy relied on sketchy, anonymous sources – likely from opposition research firm Fusion GPS – to produce two articles last year claiming former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was in Prague in 2016, allegedly to meet with Russians about stealing the election.

Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report has been released, we know for sure that these two McClatchy articles are false. Cohen was never in Prague, just as he claimed. Cohen, being a proven liar, can’t be taken at just his word, but he also showed his passport to prove he had never been to Prague.

The Mueller report states unequivocally: “Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false.”

As I wrote in January, this claim from the dossier created by ex-British Intelligence official Christopher Steele, should have been easy to prove. Yet no major media outlet could. The Washington Post even sent reporters to every hotel in Prague to see if Cohen had stayed there, and came up empty (naturally, they didn’t report this damning revelation).

McClatchy has now added an “editor’s note” to its two Cohen-in-Prague stories. The first article, published on April 13, 2018, still has the original title claiming Mueller had evidence Cohen was in Prague, but now includes the following noted at the top of the article:

EDITOR’S NOTE: Robert Mueller’s report to the attorney general states that Mr. Cohen was not in Prague.

McClatchy Tries To Save Face After Mueller Report Thrashes Cohen-in-Prague Narrative | Daily Wire
Click to expand...
That was a noteworthy effort, but no cigar.

The only place in the entire Mueller Report that even mentions Cohen being in Prague, is in Volume II, p.139, under the heading "3. Cohen Submits False Statements to Congress...." Cohen is now sitting in jail for lying, among other things. So the jury is still out on whether Cohen was in Prague or not.
 
dixon01767 said:
For some, once the South China Morning Post has printed their version of the facts, they can never be undone.
Click to expand...

That's probably true for most media publications. But I'm pretty sure the SCMP got their info from an AFP news feed.
 
Notofimport said:
How come nobody wants to dispute the documents?

Seems all the counters are attacking the messenger.

People are aware that judicial watch only makes FOIA requests and then published what comes from them, right?
Click to expand...


They do what the National Enquirer does, create salacious and false headlines derived from scant evidence.

I would no more use JW to arrive at an opinion or search for the truth than I would use NE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom