New Texts Reveal FBI Leaked Information to the Press to Damage Trump

[Max E.]

Do you really believe Woodward wrote fiction here?

Chris Cristie is someone who i see as a "No bullshit" type of person.

I think he summed it up best on ABC sunday. Basically what was quoted about him was a lie.

And when he was asked your question "Is Woodward lying" Christies response was "It didnt happen, while i cant tell if hes flat out lying, i can tell you he didnt call me to confirm the quote."

And there is the problem in the media, TMZ level bullshit is sold as news, facts be damned.

Woodward might not be a liar, but the media is no doubt getting sloppier and sloppier in an attempt to take down trump. Third party "Anonymous" sources are now printed as facts.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Third party "Anonymous" sources are now printed as facts.

No, they are printed as third party anonymous sources. As they should be.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

At this point, who really cares if his book is truth or fiction or more likely, a mishmash? The "startling revelation" that Deep State insiders and NeverTrump losers were appalled by some of Trump's ideas is no news at all. It's why Trump got elected. Frankly, I wish more of them were so upset they resigned but of course, they decided to hang onto their prestigious jobs "for the good of the country." After all, the concept that voters choose the policies of the country is just garbage they feed to imbeciles who watch network news and read the WashPost (motto "democracy dies in darkness", whatever that is supposed to mean.)

 

[Max E.]

No, they are printed as third party anonymous sources. As they should be.

If you work in Washington, and you have a problem with policy, put your name on it, there is nothing more cowardly then writing an anonymous oped, or being an anonymous source, unless you are exposing true wrongdoing like when Obama turned the IRS on conservatives.

Basically if you are choosing to remain anonymous in washington, you are admitting you are a fucking coward whose opinions are deeply unpopular.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Basically if you are choosing to remain anonymous in washington, you are admitting you are a fucking coward whose opinions are deeply unpopular.

It's called having your cake and eating it too. Have a prestigious job that will lead to vast riches in corporate America later but backstab the guy who gave it to you. This is what happens when you let people who opposed your election, eg the Republican National Committee and senior congressional figures, dictate whom you appoint.

Trump would have been better off picking internet posters who at least supported him instead of the crew of establishment drones he ended up with. Then to compound it, he allowed most of the few people who did support him to be drummed out of the White House.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Basically if you are choosing to remain anonymous in washington, you are admitting you are a fucking coward whose opinions are deeply unpopular.

Years ago, I watched Titanic with a German woman. You may remember the part there where one of the ship's officers got in the lifeboat with the women and children. The German gal remarked that he was a veasel.

No one likes a frigging Veasel!!!!!

 

[WeToddDid2]

With all of the recently released information, I am wondering when libtards will start to ask themselves if everything they believe is a lie.

This is getting worse by the day:

Damning New Strzok Text to Page: "The Times is Angry With Us About the WP Scoop"
https://saraacarter.com/damning-new...he-times-is-angry-with-us-about-the-wp-scoop/

It isn't even October yet.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

If you work in Washington, and you have a problem with policy, put your name on it, there is nothing more cowardly then writing an anonymous oped, or being an anonymous source, unless you are exposing true wrongdoing like when Obama turned the IRS on conservatives.

Basically if you are choosing to remain anonymous in washington, you are admitting you are a fucking coward whose opinions are deeply unpopular.

Yes, I think it would be great for everyone else that the sources not be anonymous. Except that these people would then be removed and no longer be able to make a meaningful contribution to what they believe to be just. And there's the matter of livelihood. But, yeah, kamikaze is always the right thing to do for the other guy.

 

[Max E.]

Yes, I think it would be great for everyone else that the sources not be anonymous. Except that these people would then be removed and no longer be able to make a meaningful contribution to what they believe to be just. And there's the matter of livelihood. But, yeah, kamikaze is always the right thing to do for the other guy.

Think even about the concept, what kind of an employee needs to remain anonymous while they shit on the boss?

Id be willing to bet that 9.9 times out of 10 its an aggrieved employee who hates his boss. So when you choose to sell "anonymous sources" as "news"..... literally all you get is people who hate the guy at the top.

I wrote about the problem with the #metoo movement, and its exactly the same story.

1 day from now the media will shit on trump, 1 week the same, 1 month the same, 1 year the exact same thing.......... When i can guarantee the coverage a year in advance its not real news, its an agenda.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Id be willing to bet that 9.9 times out of 10 its an aggrieved employee who hates his boss. So when you choose to sell "anonymous sources" as "news"..... literally all you get is people who hate the guy at the top.

Sure. Except you know that Trump is a loon and he's at the helm. And he's an asshole to everybody. If you thought you could have a hand in thwarting him from destroying the world, you'd probably give it a shot.