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

Apr 2019
1,432
177
America
#1
Judicial Watch Finds Documents Showing Fusion GPS Working Directly With Obama's DOJ to Frame Trump
How much more obvious can it be? Trump was framed, set up, by incompetents. They have been caught. Now we just need to see how high it went. Maybe the MSM should give these results of an investigation to their audiences. The documents are real and damning.
"On December 5, 2016, Bruce Ohr emailed himself an Excel spreadsheet, seemingly from his wife Nellie Ohr, titled 'WhosWho19Sept2016.' The spreadsheet purports to show relationship descriptions and 'linkages' between Donald Trump, his family and criminal figures, many of whom were Russians. This list of individuals allegedly 'linked to Trump' include: a Russian involved in a 'gangland killing;' an Uzbek mafia don; a former KGB officer suspected in the murder of Paul Tatum; a Russian who reportedly 'buys up banks and pumps them dry'; a Russian money launderer for Sergei Magnitsky; a Turk accused of shipping oil for ISIS; a couple who lent their name to the Trump Institute, promoting its 'get-rich-quick schemes'; a man who poured him a drink; and others,' Judicial Watch released. "On December 5, 2016, Bruce Ohr emails himself a document titled "Manafort Chronology,' another Nellie Ohr-Fusion GPS document, which details Paul Manafort's travel and interactions with Russians and other officials."
 
Nov 2012
10,828
9,021
nirvana
#5
sorry, I tend to not address rumors coming from an extreme right "watchdog"

if it is reported from someone credible I'll look into it
Exactly. All you have to hear is conservative watchdog or think tank.

They might as well be wearing racing suits with the corporate logos of their funders.
 
Likes: se7en
Nov 2005
8,784
3,282
California
#6
Problem is, if this weren't true the lefties would be saying a lot more than "you gotta start vetting your sources". The silence from the left is deafening.
If what weren't true?

Some posters on the right approach these issues as if they were trying to get the left to play whack-a-mole. They toss something out there, no real validation of anything, and the right-wingers who push the non-credible sources habitually end up just blindly repeating themselves while showing absolutely no comprehension of the argument being pushed.

And then the poster will simply transition to throwing up yet another source (also repeatedly shown to throw out false crap).


On the flip side, you actually try to push the crazed idea that if we don't argue every piece of nonsense that is thrown out there, that must prove it's true??!?!!?
While all the right has to do is say "fake news" and you guys treat the issue as resolved.

So here's the deal Clicker II, for me.
You explain what exactly from the article you are willing to defend and we'll talk about that.
I seriously don't think you even bothered to look at the article in the first place and your reply is so vaguely thrown together I think you have simply recognized the stated conclusion is something you agree with. I'm wondering if there is any reasoning in the article you are willing to defend...

As for coldjoint, he has shown a willingness to just blindly repeat himself so arguing the point with him would just be a bad Monty Python sketch.


For the record:
Judicial Watch - Media Bias/Fact Check
 
Dec 2018
2,275
1,575
Wisconsin
#7
This article is posted on Townhall.com, a right wing outlet with a mixed history of factual reporting. That's alright though because CNN and MSNBC have similar ratings for the left.

The source of the article is from Judicialwatch.org, a FAR right conservative activist group listed as a questionable source of information, classified as propogranda, conspiracy, and fake news.
Judicial Watch - Media Bias/Fact Check

They've made previous false claims about Nancy Polosi travel, the DOJ was planting people in George Zimmerman protests, ISIS had set up camps in Mexico, spreading conspiracies about the murder of Seth Rich, false claims about voter fraud, that taxpayer money was used to make billboards of Trump depicted as a nazi, and several several several false claims about George Soros.
 
Likes: se7en
Dec 2012
19,842
8,385
California
#8
If what weren't true?

Some posters on the right approach these issues as if they were trying to get the left to play whack-a-mole. They toss something out there, no real validation of anything, and the right-wingers who push the non-credible sources habitually end up just blindly repeating themselves while showing absolutely no comprehension of the argument being pushed.

And then the poster will simply transition to throwing up yet another source (also repeatedly shown to throw out false crap).


On the flip side, you actually try to push the crazed idea that if we don't argue every piece of nonsense that is thrown out there, that must prove it's true??!?!!?
While all the right has to do is say "fake news" and you guys treat the issue as resolved.

So here's the deal Clicker II, for me.
You explain what exactly from the article you are willing to defend and we'll talk about that.
I seriously don't think you even bothered to look at the article in the first place and your reply is so vaguely thrown together I think you have simply recognized the stated conclusion is something you agree with. I'm wondering if there is any reasoning in the article you are willing to defend...

As for coldjoint, he has shown a willingness to just blindly repeat himself so arguing the point with him would just be a bad Monty Python sketch.


For the record:
Judicial Watch - Media Bias/Fact Check
A factual search reveals a horrible track record with fact checking. Below is a small sample of their failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers
Your not blindly rejecting it? Are the cellar-dwellers like CNN and MSNBC more to your liking?
 
Jun 2018
5,809
1,349
South Dakota
#10
If what weren't true?
Not understanding the conversation is one thing but running off the tracks on every post going overboard and making every conversation about gun control does nothing. We're trying to talk about a single incident and you keep trying to widen the conversation into every facet of gun control and use the forum to bludgeon those you consider the enemy.
The way you react to articles posted from what you consider to be untrusted sources is a real indicator of the level of fear you see in the subject. It appears that when you have nothing in the way of information to respond to a subject you revert to the attack the poster and the information source.
Get a life.
 

Similar Discussions