Doesn't matter what I think. There should be a full and proper independent investigation so that we'll all know. And if there's a legitimate concern regarding Rice, then there should be a similar investigation in that regard. Then we'll no longer be able to pass off speculation as fact.
Susan Rice: CNN vs FOX
- Thread starter RedDuke
- Start date
It does matter. You responded that way because you know the question made my point and that you are wrong. You think what you think because of what the MSM has been reporting. At this point in time, the MSM has zero evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump or his team.
I didn't misquote you, I characterized what you wrote. I don't think there is much room between Bloomberg and say, the NYT, but you may be focusing more on the news side and me on the editorial.
It's like saying the WSJ is conservative because of the neo-con slant of the editorial page. The news side is actually liberal, particularly the Washington desk.
It is also true that the Bloomberg reporter who wrote this story, Eli Lake, was a prominent NeverTrumper.
These days the liberal/conservative break is not as meaningful as it once was. The DC "Conservative Inc." group of foundations, publications and columnists, eg George Will, National Review, were fervently anti Trump. The actual voters are far more populist and nationalist than they are. Trump supporters have more in common with Bernie on some issues than with the traditional conservatives.
Here is just one example.
Why did you make that statement as a fact? You didn't know if he had evidence or not. Where did you get that information? Who reported that as fact?
This just keeps getting better and better. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-03/
Now the liberal defense is that as National Security Director, Rice had an obligation to keep tabs on the Trump campaign because of the possibility of Russian collusion. So she was perfectly justified in unmasking the identities of people who had perfectly legal conversations that were "inadvertently" tapped.
This is seriously their argument. 50 years of liberal concern with privacy rights down the drain in a last ditch effort to protect Obama.
Now the liberal defense is that as National Security Director, Rice had an obligation to keep tabs on the Trump campaign because of the possibility of Russian collusion. So she was perfectly justified in unmasking the identities of people who had perfectly legal conversations that were "inadvertently" tapped.
This is seriously their argument. 50 years of liberal concern with privacy rights down the drain in a last ditch effort to protect Obama.
He is the one who made a statement without presenting any evidence. If he had evidence, then why did he call for a congressional investigation to seek evidence? He was just throwing shit and you were eagerly catching.
Your utter cluelessness? No, it's fairly constant.
Exactly, but they do not see it this way. Just mind boggling how fast people flip when investigation suits their agenda. Facts and truth become irrelevant.
That link comes up page not found.