SPYGATE; SMOKING GUN

[OldCoyote]

Jun 9, 2018 10:13:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So here is the request:

“We hereby request that the Judiciary Committee authorize a grant of use immunity to Mr. McCabe,” to ensure “no testimony or other information provided by Mr. McCabe could be used against him in any criminal case,” Mr. Bromwich wrote in his letter.link

Not being an attorney, I wasn't sure what "use immunity" meant. So I looked it up:

“Use and derivative use immunity prevents the prosecution only from using the witness's own testimony or any evidence derived from the testimony against the witness. However, if the prosecutor acquires evidence substantiating the crime independently of the witness's testimony, the witness may then be prosecuted.link

An individual who is under a criminal referral, as is Mr. McCabe, should keep their mouth shut as allowed by the Fifth Amendment. If Congress wishes him to testify, granting use immunity seems reasonable.

I would see a request for full immunity as a large and bright red flag.

Thanks, bill for your explaination.

[djAdvocate]

You're describing the things that appear in the Venn diagram under "American left" but not "Nazism". Your conclusion, "everything the Nazi's stood for, the American left opposes" is not only false, it doesn't follow from your litany of examples.

the problem is that you ascribe things to Nazi's that were only used for propaganda.  when you examine their actual policies, which were racist and anarchocapitalist, they basically have ZERO overlap with American leftism. 

my conclusion follows precisely from my litany of examples.  and since you offer nothing other than your rhetorical rubbish (which is Cold War propaganda, if you don't know), i consider this debate over.

thanks for playing.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Again- I totally get why some people here are eager to continue a discussion of anything except the damning substance of the exposure of spygate, and the collapse of the Russiagate house of cards, but c'mon people- let's get back on track:

theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/08/the-bigger-story-behind-the-james-wolfe-indictment/

If you missed it- this is not an imaginary indictment. It is directly related to the VERY corrupt SSCI and the entire Russian collusion conspiracy coverup:
Senior Senate Staffer James A Wolfe Arrested For Leaking Classified Documents To Multiple Media Outlets

theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/07/senior-senate-staffer-james-a-wolfe-arrested-for-leaking-classified-documents-to-multiple-media-outlets-indictment-pdf-below/

And as much as I enjoy the granular detail- CTH reminds us to keep our eyes on the bigger picture:

theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/08/the-bigger-story-behind-the-james-wolfe-indictment/

On December 15th, according to the indictment, the FBI investigators were aware of four specific journalists, “reporters”, who participated in the leak material. The FBI likely had more to choose from, but selected those four reporters -with specific intents and purposes- during the interview with Mr. Wolfe. The four reporters are not named, but their activity is outlined enough to make it possible to determine who is who.

From the indictment [Note Male-1 is Carter Page]:

Reporter #1 is likely Manu Raju of CNN.
Reporter #2 is definitely Ali Watkins of New York Times.
Reporter #3 is likely Marianna Sotomayor of NBC
Reporter #4 is likely Brian Ross of ABC

Accepting there has been a great deal of work on the leak investigation; and accepting the purpose therein; the Wolfe indictment appears strategic in that it captures four of the largest media outlets within the net. Four mainstream media enterprises are now on notice. With more than six months of investigation, and with the timing of the indictment becoming public, it’s likely the FBI leak task-force caught more than just Wolfe.

Wolfe is simply the first to be identified. Suspicion: Wolfe will likely lead to Dan Jones.

Now, I have asked the question here- at what point does a journalist stop being a journalist and start becoming a part of a criminal conspiracy. I understand and would agree with the assertion that you cannot arrest a journalist for being biased and/or for being a lazy piece of shit stenographer for whatever a source feeds them with no further investigation.

But as I've discussed on this thread many times: the old Watergate questions come to mind re: journalists: what did they know and when did they know it? Can it be proven that some journalists knew that this was as phony as it gets and when, if ever, did they become aware of the bigger picture that Russiagate itself was a conspiracy to cover up a much larger crime-- and at what point did they potentially become co-conspirators in the crime itself? After ascertaining what they knew (and let's be clear: knowing is enough)- did they themselves conspire with the corrupt actors to further the narrative? Was there coordination? Did journalists participate in "strategy sessions" or take specific actions they knew to be part of an illegitimate attempt to bring down President Trump?

Well...

On December 15th, with the evidence and admissions therein; and specifically noting the FBI showed Mr. Wolfe photographic evidence (he was also under physical surveillance); James Wolfe opened the door to an investigative path that was almost certainly followed. In essence, anyone in contact with Wolfe would now be inside the investigative review.

[*Side-note* Consciousness of Guilt – On the day before this December 15th interview, Reporter #2 Ali Watkins (NYT), announced she would no longer be covering the Senate Intelligence Committee.]

This is important because Wolfe wasn’t arrested until six months after he was clearly busted. Within this time-frame other people would be under investigation.

The FBI would be able to use the information gathered from Wolfe, and exploit his compromise, for search and surveillance warrants on other participants within his contact circle. The investigators would not want the downstream participants to know.

Hence, while it is difficult to gain a search and seizure warrant on a journalist, it is noted Reporter #2, Ms. Ali Watkins, was identified and an appropriate search warrant was authorized by the court. Ms. Watkins notified February 13, 2018.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 9, 2018 10:13:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So here is the request:

“We hereby request that the Judiciary Committee authorize a grant of use immunity to Mr. McCabe,” to ensure “no testimony or other information provided by Mr. McCabe could be used against him in any criminal case,” Mr. Bromwich wrote in his letter.link

Not being an attorney, I wasn't sure what "use immunity" meant. So I looked it up:

“Use and derivative use immunity prevents the prosecution only from using the witness's own testimony or any evidence derived from the testimony against the witness. However, if the prosecutor acquires evidence substantiating the crime independently of the witness's testimony, the witness may then be prosecuted.link

An individual who is under a criminal referral, as is Mr. McCabe, should keep their mouth shut as allowed by the Fifth Amendment. If Congress wishes him to testify, granting use immunity seems reasonable.

I would see a request for full immunity as a large and bright red flag.

The what is interesting, but I would refer you to OldCoyote   's better question: WHY?

Now we have a pretty good idea of WHY McCabe was referred for criminal investigation: 

And by the way- The Gateway Pundit suspected as much in February: www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/senate-investigators-suspect-mccabe-altered-302-report-on-flynn-interview-referred-matter-to-ig-horowitz/

due to Mike Cernovich's Tweet:

McCabe is suspected of having altered the 302 report on General Flynn's interview

And ****I WAS RIGHT**** in suspecting that the delay in sentencing and the demand by the judge of any and all exculpatory evidence for Flynn was evidence that the case against Flynn had fallen apart because the judge had either outright discovered, or at least suspected that it was a malicious prosecution and/or prosecutors were apprised of the discovery of McCabe's criminal set up of Gen. Flynn.

We'll find out for sure soon enough-- but between "Trump is doomed because Flynn is cooperating" and "the case against Flynn is complete horseshit and people like Andrew McCabe are more likely to go to jail than Flynn turning over some smoking gun against Trump"... I like my odds. 

Oh, and for those of you that think "journalism school" is important- go ahead and Google the phrase McCabe altered General Flynn 302 and see what comes up. Note not one single "legitimate news source" such as ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, or even FOX comes up in this search. We know the story is factual, so the only reason they didn't cover it is that they don't like it. Period. They're propagandists, not news. So, when I post Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, and The Conservative Treehouse- just understand that they're the ONLY sources for some information. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 10, 2018 6:47:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We know the story is factual, so the only reason they didn't cover it is that they don't like it. Period. They're propagandists, not news. So, when I post Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, and The Conservative Treehouse- just understand that they're the ONLY sources for some information. 

It's not so cut and dried.

In most breaking stories, there's always a (shall we say) "spectrum of certainty" that starts at some fuzzy value (e.g. 70% real story; 30% fake news) and tends toward one of the extremes as time progresses.

News outlets differ in how they handle the spectrum in regards to different news stories. Right wing outlets hasten to push out stories they "like" ASAP, while these are still in the "fuzzy" region, while left wing outlets will sit on them unless and until they approach 100%. Likewise, left wing outlets hastily push out stories they like, sometimes in error, while the right sits on them unless and until they're impossible to deny.

I have to admit: among the "major" news contributors on both sides, the right tends to push out more "fuzzy region" news than left, simply as a consequence of lower editorial standards. This means both that i) the major right wing sites ultimately put out more "fake news" than the MSM, and ii) the major right wing sites break more stories that ultimately prove factual.

This isn't to say that the MSM doesn't push fake news. Editorial standards for the MSM have declined, especially in recent years, and we've seen some fairly egregious editorial gaffes from even the biggest names. When I say "egregious gaffes", I mean stories that are debunked or put into proper context within days of release. But generally speaking, the Big Boys tend to hold out longer and get caught with their pants down less--at least when it comes to major "bombshell" stories.

There are also huge differences in extent of coverage. It's not hard to find a topic covered by 100 articles on the Drudge Report that might show up once on page F48 of the Saturday NYT, and likewise no challenge to find CNN running 24-hour coverage of some Trump gaffe that Breitbart buries deep. Having said this, it's rare to find a particular story utterly blacked out on either side, with no coverage whatsoever.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 10, 2018 11:25:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 10, 2018 6:47:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We know the story is factual, so the only reason they didn't cover it is that they don't like it. Period. They're propagandists, not news. So, when I post Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, and The Conservative Treehouse- just understand that they're the ONLY sources for some information. 

It's not so cut and dried.

In most breaking stories, there's always a (shall we say) "spectrum of certainty" that starts at some fuzzy value (e.g. 70% real story; 30% fake news) and tends toward one of the extremes as time progresses.

News outlets differ in how they handle the spectrum in regards to different news stories. Right wing outlets hasten to push out stories they "like" ASAP, while these are still in the "fuzzy" region, while left wing outlets will sit on them unless and until they approach 100%. Likewise, left wing outlets hastily push out stories they like, sometimes in error, while the right sits on them unless and until they're impossible to deny.

I have to admit: among the "major" news contributors on both sides, the right tends to push out more "fuzzy region" news than left, simply as a consequence of lower editorial standards. This means both that i) the major right wing sites ultimately put out more "fake news" than the MSM, and ii) the major right wing sites break more stories that ultimately prove factual.

This isn't to say that the MSM doesn't push fake news. Editorial standards for the MSM have declined, especially in recent years, and we've seen some fairly egregious editorial gaffes from even the biggest names. When I say "egregious gaffes", I mean stories that are debunked or put into proper context within days of release. But generally speaking, the Big Boys tend to hold out longer and get caught with their pants down less--at least when it comes to major "bombshell" stories.

There are also huge differences in extent of coverage. It's not hard to find a topic covered by 100 articles on the Drudge Report that might show up once on page F48 of the Saturday NYT, and likewise no challenge to find CNN running 24-hour coverage of some Trump gaffe that Breitbart buries deep. Having said this, it's rare to find a particular story utterly blacked out on either side, with no coverage whatsoever.

In this instance, it's cut and dried. Andrew McCabe WAS referred for criminal investigation-- and the information on this while in the "fuzzy" realm in February is factual today-- and I might add that the fuzziest of fuzzy news is this notion that there's a legitimate investigation into whether Trump colluded with Russia-- and the only reason we're not getting the truth about it is that the media are colluding with Democrats-- and I think you're going to see some criminal prosecution of reporters-- not for 1A suppression-- but because this is a crime and they were actually complicit. 

Remember Jeff Sessions? You know how conservatives think he's not doing anything. I wouldn't be too sure of that:


theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/10/sunday-talks-chairman-bob-goodlatte-discusses-upcoming-ig-report-directs-criminal-investigative-attention-toward-u-s-attorney-john-huber/

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/06/10/sunday-talks-chairman-bob-goodlatte-discusses-upcoming-ig-report-directs-criminal-investigative-attention-toward-u-s-attorney-john-huber/

Sunday Talks: Chairman Bob Goodlatte Discusses Upcoming IG Report – Directs Criminal Investigative Attention Toward U.S. Attorney John Huber…
Posted on June 10, 2018 by sundance

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, the congressional oversight representative closest to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, discusses the upcoming IG report.

As background, it is Chairman Goodlatte who personally selected (and selects) the lawmakers who questioned FBI Counterintelligence head Bill Priestap. Whereas HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes holds primary ‘intelligence’ oversight; Chairman Goodlatte holds primary Justice and Judiciary oversight.

It is worth noting that Goodlatte directs a great deal of attention to U.S. Attorney John Huber on the criminality behind the upcoming IG report. The report is scheduled to be made public on Thursday June 14th:

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

And you can file this one under "Tweets That Haven't Aged Well"...

And all the lefties here said... huh, whut? 

[Virgil Showlion]

I have a plugin that blocks all Facebook and Twitter content, so your last four posts read:

DragonEnergySCP:

DragonEnergySCP:

DragonEnergySCP:

DragonEnergySCP: And you can file this one under "Tweets That Haven't Aged Well"... And all the lefties here said... huh, whut?


My imagination is running wild.

[tallguy]

No need.  I think you got the gist.  

[djAdvocate]

if the "criminal activity" resulted in no harm, why should it be prosecuted?

whose interest would that serve?

oh, that's right.  we are talking to people that would probably rerun Benghazi for another century if they could somehow put Clinton on life support.  never mind.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/a-skeptical-chairman-grassley-really-really-wants-to-see-the-michael-flynn-302?platform=hootsuite

A skeptical chairman Grassley really, really wants to see the Michael Flynn 302

On Feb. 15, 2017 — that would be 16 months ago — Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked the Justice Department to turn over the transcript of fired national security adviser Michael Flynn's infamous call with the Russian ambassador, plus other documents related to the Flynn case.

The department refused.

Some of Grassley's and Feinstein's questions were answered the next month, on March 15, 2017, when the FBI's then-director, James Comey, briefed the committee on Flynn and other matters in the Trump-Russia investigation. It was at that briefing that Comey told lawmakers the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he lied to them."Then-director Comey led us to believe during that briefing ... that the Justice Department was unlikely to prosecute [Flynn] for false statements made in that interview," Grassley wrote later.

After the March 2017 briefing, Grassley and others made the reasonable assumption that Flynn would not be charged. They were surprised on Dec. 1, 2017, when — months after the Trump-Russia investigation passed from Comey and the Justice Department to special counsel Robert Mueller — Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

Last month, Grassley, this time without Feinstein, repeated his demand for the Flynn transcript, and also for the FBI's so-called 302 report, in which the agents who interviewed Flynn made extensive notes on what was said. Grassley also asked for any other notes or documents relating to the interview. And Grassley asked that the FBI make available agent Joe Pientka, one of the two agents (along with Peter Strzok) who conducted the Flynn interview.

Again, the Justice Department refused, and this time with more than a hint of impatience. In a May 29, 2018, letter to Grassley, assistant attorney general Stephen Boyd recounted details of the Flynn plea deal at length and delivered what boiled down to a simple message: Flynn pleaded guilty. You understand? He's guilty. Now stop bugging us.

"Whatever Mr. Comey may have said and whatever Mr. Flynn's demeanor," wrote Boyd to Grassley, "the evidence in the public record proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Flynn knowingly made false statements about contacts with the Russian ambassador." Referring to the Flynn case as a "pending criminal prosecution" — Flynn is currently awaiting sentencing — Boyd said turning over evidence to Congress could create "the reality or appearance of political interference."

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 11, 2018 0:19:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if the "criminal activity" resulted in no harm, why should it be prosecuted?

whose interest would that serve?

oh, that's right.  we are talking to people that would probably rerun Benghazi for another century if they could somehow put Clinton on life support.  never mind.

We prosecute criminal activity that results in "no harm" all the time.

And General Flynn's life was destroyed in all likelihood as a result (see my last post- in which the reasonable conclusion was that he didn't lie and would not be charged) of Deputy Director of The FBI, Andrew McCabe (of "Andy's Office" fame from the Strzok-Page collusion texts) altering the 302's. And the FBI doesn't want to hand them over for examination, so now even if it's not a crime, it's 100% certain it's a cover up. Why? If there's no crime?

[happyhoix]

Jun 10, 2018 23:38:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I have a plugin that blocks all Facebook and Twitter content, so your last four posts read:

DragonEnergySCP:

DragonEnergySCP:

DragonEnergySCP:

DragonEnergySCP: And you can file this one under "Tweets That Haven't Aged Well"... And all the lefties here said... huh, whut?


My imagination is running wild.

(I do too, and I kind of like it that way )

[happyhoix]

Jun 10, 2018 6:47:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 9, 2018 10:13:08 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oh, and for those of you that think "journalism school" is important- go ahead and Google the phrase McCabe altered General Flynn 302 and see what comes up. Note not one single "legitimate news source" such as ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, or even FOX comes up in this search. We know the story is factual, so the only reason they didn't cover it is that they don't like it. Period. They're propagandists, not news. So, when I post Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, and The Conservative Treehouse- just understand that they're the ONLY sources for some information. 

No, actually, we do NOT know the story is factual.

You wish it to be true, and your right wing blogs insist that it is true. That does not make it true.

Two possible reasons the MSM is not reporting it - either none of them can get other sources to confirm it's veracity, or they see what you've described as a mountain to be a molehill not worth reporting about.

You're falling into the mind trap Trump has laid for his followers -- believing if a story is in the MSM it's fake, or if an important story isn't in the MSM, the MSM is fake.

Congratulations, you've been successfully brainwashed.

[billisonboard]

Comey told lawmakers the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he lied to them."Then-director Comey led us to believe during that briefing ... that the Justice Department was unlikely to prosecute [Flynn] for false statements made in that interview," Grassley wrote later.

So the agents didn't "believe he lied" but there were "false statements made".

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2018 6:52:30 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 10, 2018 6:47:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oh, and for those of you that think "journalism school" is important- go ahead and Google the phrase McCabe altered General Flynn 302 and see what comes up. Note not one single "legitimate news source" such as ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, or even FOX comes up in this search. We know the story is factual, so the only reason they didn't cover it is that they don't like it. Period. They're propagandists, not news. So, when I post Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, and The Conservative Treehouse- just understand that they're the ONLY sources for some information. 

No, actually, we do NOT know the story is factual.

You wish it to be true, and your right wing blogs insist that it is true. That does not make it true.

Two possible reasons the MSM is not reporting it - either none of them can get other sources to confirm it's veracity, or they see what you've described as a mountain to be a molehill not worth reporting about.

You're falling into the mind trap Trump has laid for his followers -- believing if a story is in the MSM it's fake, or if an important story isn't in the MSM, the MSM is fake.

Congratulations, you've been successfully brainwashed.

not only that, but he has actually supported my argument.

not only is he mistaking fact for fiction, his failure to rely on journalists is to blame.

[happyhoix]

Jun 11, 2018 0:32:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 11, 2018 0:19:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if the "criminal activity" resulted in no harm, why should it be prosecuted?

whose interest would that serve?

oh, that's right.  we are talking to people that would probably rerun Benghazi for another century if they could somehow put Clinton on life support.  never mind.

We prosecute criminal activity that results in "no harm" all the time.

And General Flynn's life was destroyed in all likelihood as a result (see my last post- in which the reasonable conclusion was that he didn't lie and would not be charged) of Deputy Director of The FBI, Andrew McCabe (of "Andy's Office" fame from the Strzok-Page collusion texts) altering the 302's. And the FBI doesn't want to hand them over for examination, so now even if it's not a crime, it's 100% certain it's a cover up. Why? If there's no crime?

You realize there are about 100 legitimate reasons why the FBI doesn't want to hand over the documents, starting with how notorious politicians are about leaking documents that are supposed to be classified to the media?

You're jumping to the one conclusion that fits your narrative.

It's self evident Flynn lied. He claimed he had no contact with the Russians and there is proof that he did. They may only have been talking about the price of tea in China, but that didn't change the fact that he lied about being in contact with them.  Would he have been prosecuted if the DOJ wasn't trying to get him to flip and share other information with them? Probably not.  It's unfortunate for him he's a small fish caught in a net intended for a big one, but he's not the first ant that got trampled when the elephants were fighting.

(Metaphor Monday - two in one sentence )

[djAdvocate]

Jun 11, 2018 10:46:28 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 11, 2018 0:32:57 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We prosecute criminal activity that results in "no harm" all the time.

And General Flynn's life was destroyed in all likelihood

first of all, perjury is a crime, bra.  it is what got Clinton impeached.  so, if you want to argue with me, then you can join the communists that want that charge overturned.

secondly, it was a plea bargain deal.  i have every reason to suspect his life was "destroyed" for good reason.  you don't, and that is fine.  but you are not in charge, and neither am i.  and you didn't perjure yourself, and neither did i.  so, really, this is just a quaint conversation from the bleachers. 

so, the question stands as unanswered, if General Synn is your example.

[Tennesseer]

Jan 26, 2018 14:45:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

By the way, I am not sharing some things as yet because I can't provide a source, and can't verify it. However, I have sources which have advised that the little coup attempt is the tip of the iceberg. I'm told that there was a massive plot to literally take down the United States of America by literally 1,000's of people in government; that high level officials have been arrested, foreign agents have been rounded up and put in Gitmo and sent to black sites, and that they are working on a sanitized version of events that won't cause a panic or a civil war.

Any updates of all those high level officials having been rounded up and arrested? How about all those foreign agents rounded up too and sent to Gitmo and black sites?

And who is writing the sanitized version of events which won't cause panic or civil war? Have your friend(s) in Washington sent you a draft of the sanitized version of events you can share with us?

[Opti]

Jun 10, 2018 23:07:18 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oh the tangled propaganda weavers continue to . Nice try crazy people. Its still a theory full of shit especially when you include Comey, the single biggest reason she lost votes in the last 10 days.

Reality, I guess its only for some of us.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 26, 2018 14:45:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

By the way, I am not sharing some things as yet because I can't provide a source, and can't verify it.

i would appreciate you using this standard in the future.

NOTE: conservativenuthouse is not verification.

[happyhoix]

Jun 11, 2018 23:32:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 26, 2018 14:45:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

By the way, I am not sharing some things as yet because I can't provide a source, and can't verify it.

i would appreciate you using this standard in the future.

NOTE: conservativenuthouse is not verification.

conservativenuthouse is more like what happens when flock of lemmings get together and decide the best course of action is to run right off the side of a cliff together.

(I know lemmings don't actually do that - the whole thing was a hoax - but I can't think of any other herd animals that get together to make a poor group decision that ends badly).

[djAdvocate]

Jun 12, 2018 7:05:43 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 11, 2018 23:32:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i would appreciate you using this standard in the future.

NOTE: conservativenuthouse is not verification.

conservativenuthouse is more like what happens when flock of lemmings get together and decide the best course of action is to run right off the side of a cliff together.

(I know lemmings don't actually do that - the whole thing was a hoax - but I can't think of any other herd animals that get together to make a poor group decision that ends badly).

Peoples Temple, Guayana

[Virgil Showlion]

If you ladies and gentlemen spent half as much time debunking specific claims made by the CTH as you do deriding it in general terms, i.e. if you show rather than tell the readership it lacks veracity, perhaps they'd reach their own conclusions about its value as a news source.

Also, don't call it "Conservative Nut House". It's childish and it violates the most fundamental ethical principle: do unto others as you'd have them do to you. If your excuse is, "Pres. Trump does it," then for the sake of my dwindling faith in humanity: please keep this to yourself.

[happyhoix]

Jun 12, 2018 11:29:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If you ladies and gentlemen spent half as much time debunking specific claims made by the CTH as you do deriding it in general terms, i.e. if you show rather than tell the readership it lacks veracity, perhaps they'd reach their own conclusions about its value as a news source.

Also, don't call it "Conservative Nut House". It's childish and it violates the most fundamental ethical principle: do unto others as you'd have them do to you. If your excuse is, "Pres. Trump does it," then for the sake of my dwindling faith in humanity: please keep this to yourself.

Sorry, I don't know how to debunk a conspiracy blog.

How do you prove that a routine activity is not something being done by traitors for dark, nefarious reasons? 

Providing statements from reliable witnesses does no good, because those perfectly run of the mill human beings will be painted as dark moon/black hole operatives and therefore people who will be shot at dawn in the coming purge.

Any news articles I can find from legitimate journalistic sources will be dismissed as 'fake news.' My own beliefs will be denigrated because I'm a 'low information' voter.  Even comments by fellow GOPers will be dismissed as 'RINO' comments.

And sorry, life is hard, our time is short, if I can derive some childish amusement from referring to a notorious conspiracy site as the conservative nuthouse, I'm doing it.   If your faith in humanity is dwindling because I'm contemptuous of a website, you really didn't have a very robust faith in humanity to begin with, and an anonymous board is probably not a good place for you to be hanging out.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 12, 2018 12:11:28 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 12, 2018 11:29:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If you ladies and gentlemen spent half as much time debunking specific claims made by the CTH as you do deriding it in general terms, i.e. if you show rather than tell the readership it lacks veracity, perhaps they'd reach their own conclusions about its value as a news source.

Also, don't call it "Conservative Nut House". It's childish and it violates the most fundamental ethical principle: do unto others as you'd have them do to you. If your excuse is, "Pres. Trump does it," then for the sake of my dwindling faith in humanity: please keep this to yourself.

Sorry, I don't know how to debunk a conspiracy blog.

How do you prove that a routine activity is not something being done by traitors for dark, nefarious reasons? 

Providing statements from reliable witnesses does no good, because those perfectly run of the mill human beings will be painted as dark moon/black hole operatives and therefore people who will be shot at dawn in the coming purge.

Any news articles I can find from legitimate journalistic sources will be dismissed as 'fake news.' My own beliefs will be denigrated because I'm a 'low information' voter.  Even comments by fellow GOPers will be dismissed as 'RINO' comments.

And sorry, life is hard, our time is short, if I can derive some childish amusement from referring to a notorious conspiracy site as the conservative nuthouse, I'm doing it.   If your faith in humanity is dwindling because I'm contemptuous of a website, you really didn't have a very robust faith in humanity to begin with, and an anonymous board is probably not a good place for you to be hanging out.

i know this doesn't comport with the shadow government perspective, but if a story is legitimate, it will be picked up by legitimate sources, no matter how badly it reflects on "democrats" or "liberals".  i know that this runs 100% counter to those that subscribe to Pizzagate, but that is really how it is.

really.

honest.