Slashdot Mirror

The overwhelming majority of news coverage of Trump was negative (92%).

https://www.westernjournal.com...

Even Fox news had more negative (52%) coverage than positive (48%).

This stands is sharp contrast to his approval rating by the public which ranges from 38% to 48% based on which poll you want to use.

https://www.realclearpolitics....

Having that large of a disparity between the media and the masses shows that the public isn't buying what the media is selling. My point stands that the public doesn't trust the media. If you don't trust someone you will try to avoid paying for their services. The impact is that media outlets are going out of business in large numbers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world...

Those meth jobs are filthy liberal Democrat jobs, without enough toil and supporting hedonistic lifestyles that go against God's teachings.

Most of the states with the most meth labs are Republican, and the state with the most meth labs is Vice-President Pence's very own Indiana.

https://www.realclearpolitics....

Nobody realized he was Putin's professional cock holster at the time. Now you're a WILLING traitor. Obviously his dealings with Russia were quite extensive.

Proven - established by facts, vetted by experts, exposed and sitting in plain sight. Proven. Trump's lies about his finances are numerous, that changes nothing.

Well documented.

The KGB and its current form, the FSB, have been "partnering with Donald Trump" for over 20 years, according to Unger. He said the president has been laundering money for the Russians and the Soviet Union before that. Unger said the best way to launder money is real estate.

"Trump says he has no contacts with Russia. I found 59 people and -- who were in a meeting between Trump and Russia. And I traced them over the years. And I found not just hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars in money laundering from the Russian mafia using Trump properties," he reported.

"They approached him as a powerful businessman, and that was sort of it," Unger said of the Soviets. "And I believe it started out as laundering money. When the Soviet Union crumbled, there were enormous amounts of flight capital that needed to be laundered. And what is the best way to launder money? It is through real estate."

There are literally hundreds of publications that have published the fact that Trump has shady real estate deals with Putin-connected Russians, which he lied about unconvincingly from day 1.

Just because Trump doesn't tell the truth doesn't mean you can't establish facts without him admitting they are true. See - nukes in NK, golfing 4x more than Obama, etc.

If you can't admit that Trump has lied about just about every single topic of discussion, you probably don't live an honest life yourself, to be perfectly realistic about this.

Story directly contradicting your claim.
Has House Majority Leader calling for seizing of guns as a "National Emergency" next time a Democrat is in the White House.

Choosing an obvious lie that is easy to disprove is the actions of a sociopath, which apparently you are. Which makes sense for someone defending the party of the KKK, rapists, and baby killers. Would you like to explain how supporting the KKK as well as lying is a good thing for us?

A quick google search... https://www.realclearpolitics....

Your link didn't mention how Cheryl Mills DESTROYED EVIDENCE and still received immunity. Comey is so deliberately dense he couldn't 'find evidence' that she did this in order to obstruct the investigation, other than that the evidence was purposefully destroyed.

Nor does it mention Bryan Pagliano, and how he was given immunity - only to not bother to appear before congressional summons, and how dems worked in unison to not even find him in contempt.

The so called Trump collusion investigation, and Comey's handling of the "matter", is the contrast between upholding the strictest letter of the law, and being controlled opposition. It's a sick joke for anyone paying attention.

Hillary

Nope. The article says Chaffetz and Goodlatte want to investigate to see if Clinton lied.

Ok so with the precedent set by Mueller, shouldn't there be a special prosecutor assigned to investigate any and all lies from the Hillary team? Or does that only happen with Trump associates?

Eric Holder lies are far from an opinion piece

Clapper

That’s what James Clapper did on March 12, 2013, while testifying before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

That day, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, asked Clapper for a yes or no answer to the following question: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

“No, sir,” Clapper replied.

Wyden, who appeared taken aback by the answer, tried again: “It does not?”

“Not wittingly,” Clapper responded. “There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly.”

Three months later, on June 5, 2013, The Guardian newspaper began publishing a series of reports about the NSA based on documents stolen from the agency by Edward Snowden that proved Clapper had perjured himself.

Days after The Guardian’s bombshell report, Clapper told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that he had responded in “what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner.”

Three weeks later, under increasing pressure, Clapper wrote a letter to the senators on the committee, apologizing for providing a “clearly erroneous” answer. He also changed his story, jettisoning the excuse he had tried to answer in the “least untruthful” manner, and instead claimed the reason he had misled Congress is that he had “forgotten” about Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which covered the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata.

So Clapper's lie is excused because he "forgot" about the law, but the same option is never given to a Trump associate?

When you get a lecture from a Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece...

And your point? Are you trying to make an ad hominem attack on him?
I don't care who he is, I agree with him. Trump has said as much .

I agree with both of them. What HAVE we accomplished over there?

My neighbors' kids coming home crippled, maimed or dead. Our country's finances going to Hell and we're literally blowing trillions up. My roads have potholes. My parks are falling apart. My Libraries struggle to buy books. But yet, there's plenty of money for bullets.

I'm all for protecting this country and even putting away real threats to the World (Hitler) and not being an isolationist. But this "Team America World Police" shit has got to stop.

Maybe you can read it the third and fourth time I say it:

>> Only one, Donald Trump, could lose to Clinton, according to polling during the primaries. Trump was also a pretty crappy candidate - the only one who didn't poll better than Clinton during the primaries.

"Oh that's bullshit, Clinton polled better than Trump", you say. Which is exactly what I said - twice. Derp derp indeed.

As I said, during the primary season (February and March), Ted Cruz beat into by 3-5% in the RCP average.
Marco Rubio had her beat 47% to 43%
https://www.realclearpolitics....

Kasich beat Clinton 48% to 41% - a whopping 7.4% lead
https://www.realclearpolitics....

Again, (for the fifth time) Republicans chose the only candidate who had a shot at losing to Clinton.

Maybe you can read it the third and fourth time I say it:

>> Only one, Donald Trump, could lose to Clinton, according to polling during the primaries. Trump was also a pretty crappy candidate - the only one who didn't poll better than Clinton during the primaries.

"Oh that's bullshit, Clinton polled better than Trump", you say. Which is exactly what I said - twice. Derp derp indeed.

As I said, during the primary season (February and March), Ted Cruz beat into by 3-5% in the RCP average.
Marco Rubio had her beat 47% to 43%
https://www.realclearpolitics....

Kasich beat Clinton 48% to 41% - a whopping 7.4% lead
https://www.realclearpolitics....

Again, (for the fifth time) Republicans chose the only candidate who had a shot at losing to Clinton.

Your partly right.

Well seeing as free thinking, independent, rigorous, robust are all B.S. at this point

Staged news
https://lens.blogs.nytimes.com...

Fake news
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.realclearpolitics....

Not Independent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://theintercept.com/2016/...

https://theweek.com/speedreads...

I suppose robust might be legitimate as in robustly compromised

I have as yet to see any of the mainstream media take any kind of action to remedy deliberate misinformation or lack of reporting on their part

Remember when Chris Cuomo Told The World It Was Illegal To Read Wikileaks
https://www.realclearpolitics....

Or just how much coverage have they given to the screw job the DNC gave the Sanders campaign.

Or the latest we find out James Comey who lead the FBI investigation into Hillary's email was using GMail to handle classified documents. Many of which still can't be published in anything close to a readable state due to the need to redact.

https://www.realclearpolitics....

Indeed, gender—whether we subjectively feel male or female—is biological, not a social construct. An extremely large and consistent body of scientific research has shown that gender is the result of prenatal hormone exposure, even in the case of intersex individuals, as opposed to adults and society imposing gendered norms on unsuspecting children from the moment they leave the womb.

Trump's Lies

All False statements involving Donald Trump

Trump’s Lies Have Grown Far More Frequent—and More Dangerous

The 25 Worst Lies From Donald Trump’s First 200 Days

Donald Trump has said 3084 false things as U.S. president

How Trump Gets Away with Lying, as Explained by a Magician

The Other Side: President Trump’s lies a clear and present danger

Trump lies about having ‘no financial interests in Saudi Arabia’

Trump's Relentless Lying Threatens Our Democracy.

This Is as Obvious and Blatant a Presidential Lie as You're Going to See

It’s True: Trump Is Lying More, and He’s Doing It on Purpose

President Trump Made 1,950 Untrue Claims in 2017. That's Making His Job Harder

But he did. He dropped pallets of cash on Syrian "insurgents" and gave them small arms as well to "fight Assad". Once that funding stopped (and it was Trump who stopped it) ISIS was doomed.

https://www.realclearpolitics....

And the bulk of that is from water vapor, hmm why didn't link mention water except for cooling ? hmmmmmm

Because NASA is part of the global conspiracy. Obviously.

Was that before or after they defined their primary mission to be Muslim outreach ?

https://www.realclearpolitics....

Apparently everyone monkeys it up everywhere! It's just a phrase.
Ooo ooo ooo *flings poo*

https://www.realclearpolitics....
30 seconds in.

RCP Data Picked because they list multiple polls and try to be non-biased even though it is nearly impossible to do so.

There you go. DeSantis given a RCP average of +6.7, won by +19.9. Is that "well within the margin of error"
For DNC Graham given an RCP average of +7.2. Gillium won by +2.9. Is that "well within the margin of error"
Lists all polls they included in their average. ALL well out of margin of error by multiples of margin of error. Not sure how all your experts can be off by 3-5x margin of error constantly and you still tell us they are experts. The only record your experts have is they are guaranteed to be wrong, every single time.

Experts wrong in 2016, experts wrong in 2018, and you seem to be the only idiot telling us we need to listen to them. You have won the dumbest poster on /. today, and that is only because PopeRatzo hasn't seemed to post yet.

Oops forgot the link

https://www.realclearpolitics....

Forgot to add: The reasons Sir Tim Hunt's joke was funny was because it was based on personal experience:

* He met his wife in the laboratory while she was married to another man.

Without the *context* of the joke the mob rule read it literally instead of sarcastic self-deprecating humor.

Also, it was a Korean female politician who had "thanked the ladies for the lunch." but apparently a lie tweeted made it as if Hunt had said "thanks to the women journalists for making lunch". Dr Scott Watkins provided clarification but by then the damage had been done.

You can read the actual events.

German Army trains with broomsticks instead of rifles and vans instead of tanks.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/...

German Air Force grounded.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018...

Few NATO members carrying their share of mutual defense obligations, Germany is leading in this trend.

And when Berlin decides it will not pony up the promised 2 percent of GDP for its NATO contribution, other laggard countries follow its example. Only six of the 29 NATO members (other than the U.S.) so far have met their promised assessments.

https://www.realclearpolitics....

I was going to post more but it was depressing to see the land of my ancestors in such a sorry condition. If you want me to believe that Europe has enough mineral oil and erdgas for Germany on top of what they produce for themselves then I need to see that. I'm not finding it, they are buying erdgas from Russia too. Russia doesn't just provide 40% of erdgas that Germany burns, they supply 40% of erdgas that all of Europe burns.

You think the USA will provide you erdgas? Our Democrat Party blocked the Keystone XL pipeline that was supposed to expand our ability to export oil and gas. Like the democrats in Germany they think we should stop drilling for erdgas and use windmills to power heat pumps for warming our homes and heating our water.

What have the FBI, the NSA, and the rest of our wonderful "intelligence" apparatus been doing, while this was going on?

Oh, yeah, they were busy trying to sabotage Trump

Strzok sat on evidence incriminating Trump campaign members in connection with Russian election interference -- and didn't publish it. And Comey basically threw the election to Trump by reopening the Clinton investigation in late October. That's some strange behaviour for people supposedly trying to "sabotage Trump".

The indictment lodged in Washington, D.C., accuses the Russian spies of hacking into the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton [...] The accused also hacked into state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and into companies that provided software used to administer elections

What have the FBI, the NSA, and the rest of our wonderful "intelligence" apparatus been doing, while this was going on?

Oh, yeah, they were busy trying to sabotage Trump...

At least, there is some silver lining to all this in that there is no longer any doubt, Russia is an adversary — if not an outright enemy. A big and welcome change of both long- and short-term trends.

But don't let that distract you from the soccer championship...

Do YOU even know what you mean by that? Or is it just something you heard Alex Jones say and so you thought it must be true?

Here is a good example. This woman is so toxically vicious that Democrats are trying to stuff her back into her cage like a rabid pit bull: https://www.realclearpolitics....

Funny how Republicans never seem to do that. They put their toxically vicious people at the top of the ticket. Maxine Waters has said she advocates only peaceful protest. 404: Advocating violence not found. The Democrats are only trying to shut her up because they have no balls.

Do YOU even know what you mean by that? Or is it just something you heard Alex Jones say and so you thought it must be true?

Here is a good example. This woman is so toxically vicious that Democrats are trying to stuff her back into her cage like a rabid pit bull:
https://www.realclearpolitics....

Well when Politco, NYT, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, and ABC and several other publications all went out of their way to cheer on the Obama administration repeatedly. Even going as far as to send them stories prior to publication to make sure they weren't damaging, I'm sure that Fox News going after Obama is simply fair. What you didn't hear about that? Let me fill you in, it was called journolist.

What gets far more interesting in this story, is that this person was engaged(read fucking her sources) with multiple high security individuals dating back to college. To put it bluntly, she was a literal presstitute and now we're going to see exactly what happened. Especially since it's come to light that Wolfe transferred to her directly classified material and she apparently retained it(by her own words on social media of all places - absolute fucking genius on that one) in order to dish it out to further her career. This might not be a similar case to Obama snooping on AP, Fox and several independent journalists phones.

Economy is in good shape and getting better. We're finally addressing the failures of NAFTA, killed the TPP, and getting China (and the EU, to a lesser extent) to have real talks about protectionism and free trade. Not to mention getting a little sit-down with North and South Korea. And pulling us out of insane agreements with Iran (who never signed in the first place) that exclude inspections of all military sites. Great jobs report. Positive trends among public opinion that we're on the right track. Actual progress on prison reform. Unleashed the dogs of war against ISIS and effectively ended them (via elimination of 99% of all ISIS-held territory).

But other than those, and many more, yeah - what's he ever done for us?

Economy is in good shape and getting better. We're finally addressing the failures of NAFTA, killed the TPP, and getting China (and the EU, to a lesser extent) to have real talks about protectionism and free trade. Not to mention getting a little sit-down with North and South Korea. And pulling us out of insane agreements with Iran (who never signed in the first place) that exclude inspections of all military sites. Great jobs report. Positive trends among public opinion that we're on the right track. Actual progress on prison reform. Unleashed the dogs of war against ISIS and effectively ended them (via elimination of 99% of all ISIS-held territory).

But other than those, and many more, yeah - what's he ever done for us?

As a note, Bill Maher, in a fit of reasonableness, actually, in his way, apologized to Mitt Romney, said he wasn't actually a bad guy, he just had different opinions/positions than Maher and Bill apologized for the way he treated candidate Romney - who Maher agreed was actually a pretty decent guy.

Nah. It takes a lot of intelligence and creativity to come up with each week's reason that Obama and Hillary are to blame for all of their god's problems.

Not that any of this will matter to you, no matter what is presented when Mueller actually reveals his findings, you'll still think he's innocent, it's a witch hunt, Trump Did No Wrong, it's all a partisan hit job, and on and on to protect your boy.

I'm actually good with believing he's innocent, until there's evidence.

I absolutely *hate* it when some police force make a flashy claim about someone - all the guns confiscated during the search, all the electronic devices taken from the home, nebulous "tip from an informant" - everything is being tried in the court of public opinion nowadays. None of that is evidence of a crime.

Let's not forget that after 9/11 someone was sending anthrax letters to people (remember those?) and Mueller - the lead investigator - ignored a tip about Bruce Edwards Ivins (the perpetrator, from one of Ivins' colleagues) and focused on Steven Hatfill. Mueller went before congress and swore under oath that Steven Hatfill was the person responsible, when in fact there was no evidence implicating Steven Hatfill whatsoever. Among other items, Steven Hatfill had no access to anthrax. The FBI didn't bother to explain this fact, and didn't seem to care.

Steven Hatfill went through several years of hell, having his life turned upside down, condemned in the media, death threats... and was eventually exonerated and sued the government for (IIRC) 5 million dollars.

That's the history of your "unimpeachable, honorable" Mueller.

Remember the indictments of 13 Russian nationals and 3 corporations recently released? It turns out one of the corporations didn't exist at the time of the purported crimes. Mueller indicted the proverbial "ham sandwich".

I like to think everyone is innocent, until proven guilty. and this thing about the court of public opinion is bollocks. Show us the evidence.

I sometimes ask a *question* about how someone appears to have broken the law. For example, Trump is widely believed to be obstructing justice for firing Comey, despite having a memo in-hand recommending it, but the Oakland mayor can warn illegal immigrants of an upcoming ICE raid... and that's not?

Or how Michael Flynn can be charged under the Hatch act for meeting with a Russian diplomat (as a member of the incoming administration, opening dialog and not specifically making claims or policy) while Kerry can negotiate with Iran and European countries to save the Iran agreement... and that's not?

I like to think everyone is innocent, until proven guilty.

Show me the evidence. What you have so far is nothing.

You can check the historical record of how US voters feel about the direction of the country, and it's trending upward after a rather long, 10 year period of trending - or being - down.

Really? He's above Obama for this point in his term, if but barely. Plus, he's been trending up since April started.

https://www.washingtonexaminer...

https://www.realclearpolitics....

I think you are a bit misinformed.

The fact that one cherry-picked poll, Rasmussen, has a favourable number doesn't mean much. There are many other polls that have Trump as low as 39 percent.

An article talking about some nuance in these types of numbers:

* https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/presidential-approval-numbers/

As usually, 538 has some good data with their weighted average:

* https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

Scroll down a bit and you can get comparisons with previous presidents: on Day 476, Obama had a weighted average approval of 49.5% to Trump's 42%.

still commands a very respectable 43.2% approval rating ( https://www.realclearpolitics.... )

Ok, I recognize the need to do mental gymnastics and stretch truths to justify actions after the fact. But in what world is having the lowest consistent approval rating of any president in over 50 years "very respectable"?! May I remind you that even according to the graph you linked, that 43.2% is one of his HIGHEST approval ratings since he was elected?

Really? He's above Obama for this point in his term, if but barely. Plus, he's been trending up since April started.

https://www.washingtonexaminer...

https://www.realclearpolitics....

I think you are a bit misinformed.

It's nothing more than politics as usual.. Is basically what you are saying..

Um, just in case you haven't noticed, the guy in the Whitehouse right now doesn't play "politics as usual". In fact, that's pretty much what he campaigned with and won and how he's governing and yet still commands a very respectable 43.2% approval rating ( https://www.realclearpolitics.... ) Also note that Bernie Sanders was running as an outsider (though not as convincingly) on the left and made a good showing.

I'd be careful with this "politics as usual" play. I suspect it isn't as effective as it once was.

Nearly half the voters in the country agree with me, and you choose to try to insult us all?

Real Clear Politics shows Trumps job approval rating at 43.2% https://www.realclearpolitics....

That's a lot of people who don't agree with you out there..

I guess I know why you posted as an AC then...

the full on Rigging of the Primary

How? I read about a lot of bullshit problems with various state's implementations, handling of their primaries and caucuses, and outright lies like chair-throwing. Clinton, her campaign, and the DNC certainly have a lot to answer for (and as yet have largely not.) But I haven't read anything that gives evidence of "full-on" rigging. If you're talking about super-delegates, which are a really stupid thing, even without them Clinton still solidly won. We can argue about things like psychological effects and preferences, but I think we waste time on conspiracies.

And I say all of this as someone firmly in the "Bernie woulda won" camp (but it's just as pointless to waste time on such what-ifs, rather than focusing on fixing the problems that potentially stopped him from doing so.)

People only voted for her because (D) behind her name

I had lots of Democrat friends who made it clear why they voted for her; their positions weren't wrong, I felt that there were better reasons to vote for Sanders. You might recall the DNC primary race started with three "true" Democrats and one dark-horse, so in early voting it wasn't like people had to choose only between a Democrat and Democrat-alike. Even given three "(D)" options, people overwhelmingly chose Clinton amongst those three.

Other way around. The EC is created precisely because it could allow someone like Trump to become president.

Hardly. You really think elites want a hotheaded failed businessman at the top of government? Hillary was their plan, which is why the entire media and political establishment has kept up the farce that is Russiagate to remind him who's boss. The EC isn't about getting people like Trump in the White House, it's about keeping people like Eugene Debs if he had managed to get a majority vote in any of his presidential campaigns.

The guy didn't have direct popular vote (as the Hillary camp would like to remind you), but he had support from more STATES, which is what Hamilton argued for - the POTUS is supposed to work for the United STATES, so he should be a person who has support from a large number of states, not just a few states with large populations.

You keep harping on this imaginary distinction. Let me guess - you're one of those people who complains that senators no longer represent the states that they are from after the 17th Amendment made them elected by popular vote instead of state legislatures. Except that's a pointless tautology that doesn't actually mean anything, as senators are selected by, you know, a state's voters. Repeal the EC and presidential elections would be conducted by each state, just as they are now.

And all a state is, is a boundary and the people who live there. The EC, aside from being another tool to give power to slave owning states that denied slaves the right to vote, disenfranchises millions of people in states across the country by making their vote pointless.

And the EC makes most of your precious states irrelevant in presidential campaigns. Large states don't matter. Small states don't matter. Only "battleground" states matter when candidates are campaigning for office. So instead of making this about 50 states, you're making this about the same dozen states that decide every presidential election every four years. Without the electoral college, Hillary would have campaigned in Texas and Trump would have campaigned in California, unless you replaced the EC with another asinine winner-takes-all-system. So if you want states to be important in presidential elections, you want to end the electoral college, not perpetuate it.

There's also the fact that electors are free to ignore the vote in their state and select whoever they want as president. So, yeah, the entire institution is an elitist construction to provide the illusion of representative government, and keep the proles from having a say in their own governance. Like I said the first time. Same reason women, slaves, and non-property owners couldn't vote, and why senators were selected by state legislatures instead of voters.

Those Russians that got indicted will never be tried because Russia won't extradite them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

None of those charged are in custody, according to Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counselâ(TM)s office. Russia does not allow its citizens to be extradited to the United States to face trial, so it is unlikely the individuals will be turned over, but the indictment probably will prevent them from traveling outside Russia.

So the only point indicting them was so it looked like the investigation was going somewhere and people like you could say "22 indictments so far" instead of "9 indictments so far".

Still look what Rosenstein said when it happened :

https://www.realclearpolitics....

Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.

I.e. you can't use the indictment of a bunch of Russians, in Russia who posed as Americans to attack Trump.

Russia used misinformation to install Trump and look what we have: mass shooting after mass shooting. At this rate all humanity will be gone in years. It is too bad Hillary has not yet gotten into power, she would be our savior from this kind of misinformation Russian tyranny.

Ironically what you said is the definition of fake news.

"Russia used misinformation to install Trump"

There's no evidence this is true

In fact Rosenstein said it wasn't true

https://www.realclearpolitics....

Now, there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.

"and look what we have: mass shooting after mass shooting. "

Mass shootings account for less than 1% of homicides in the US. They are a bad way to understand gun violence.

A more typical example of gun violence is deaths from gun violence. And most of those happen in places that already have gun control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Gun violence is most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males. Although mass shootings have been covered extensively in the media, mass shootings in the US account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths and the frequency of these events steadily declined between 1994 and 2007, rising between 2007 and 2013.

"At this rate all humanity will be gone in years"

There'll still be loads of humans left at the end of Trump's second term.

"It is too bad Hillary has not yet gotten into power, she would be our savior from this kind of misinformation Russian tyranny."

You know she's conceded the election, right? The idea that if people keep whinging online enough the election result will somehow change and she'll replace Trump in the White House is delusional.

[Vladislav] Surkov turned Russian politics into a bewildering, constantly changing piece of theater. He sponsored all kinds of groups, from neo-Nazi skinheads to liberal human rights groups. He even backed parties that were opposed to President Putin.

In typical fashion, as the war [In the Ukraine] began, Surkov published a short story about something he called non-linear war. A war where you never know what the enemy are really up to, or even who they are. The underlying aim, Surkov says, is not to win the war, but to use the conflict to create a constant state of destabilized perception, in order to manage and control.

Sound familiar...?

The Russian angle was the made up part, out of whole cloth, by Steele.

Here are some undisputed facts about the Russia probe that did not come from the Steele dossier

https://www.axios.com/10-undis...

https://www.realclearpolitics....

Sooo, when evidence appears that the Obama FBI and DoJ colluded to abuse the FISA process in order to spy on a rival political campaign, you're dragging out the Chewbacca defense?

The Russian angle was the made up part, out of whole cloth, by Steele.

Here are some undisputed facts about the Russia probe that did not come from the Steele dossier

https://www.axios.com/10-undis...

https://www.realclearpolitics....

Also best hope your opponents don't illegally pay money through a law firm which then pays an an ex MI6 guy to act as a cutout to talk to the Russians and to get a dossier of bullshit and then use that dossier to get a FISA warrant. Even though James Comey called it salacious and unverified,

https://www.realclearpolitics....

CHRIS WALLACE: Let's turn to the revelation this week that it turns out that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid for the opposition research that led to the writing, the formulation, of this Russian dossier that has made all kinds of accusations against President Trump and his campaign.

What do you think is the significance of that revelation?

GOWDY: Well, one of the areas of significance is just how hard the Democrats in Congress fault Republicans for trying to gain access to this information. If it were up to Adam Schiff and other Democrats, who, of course, want all the facts to come out, they want all the facts of Russia to come out, except who finance the dossier. So, that's the most important thing to me is how unserious the Democrats in the House have been about uncovering all of the facts.

I am interested in who paid for the dossier because that helps you understand motive and intent and whether or not you can rely on the document. I am much more interested in whether or not the Department of Justice and the FBI relied upon that dossier and initiating a counterintelligence investigation or in court findings. That is really important to me.

I don't expect the DNC to be objective. Almost by definition, opposition research is not objective. I do expect an entity represented by a blindfolded woman to be objective. And if they relied on that dossier and they didn't corroborate it or vet it, then we have a serious issue and that's the next thing that House Intel is trying to find out, is whether or not the U.S. government relied on it.

WALLACE: Yes. Let me ask you about that, because your -- what -- the two points you are making, and I agree, these are two very important questions. Did the FBI based its original investigation, at least in part of the dossier? And when you talk about court representations, that's the possibility that they use the dossier to convince a FISA court to allow the FBI to wiretap people in Trump world, Trump associates.

Do you have any evidence of that? I understand the investigation is just beginning.

GOWDY: Well, actually, the investigation is not just beginning. We've been trying for a long time to get the Department of Justice to give us access to this information, and frankly it took the speaker of the House this week to tell the department that we're not going away. You know, Chris, people don't like it when I say this, but it's actually true -- it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between the Obama Department of Justice and the current Department of Justice in terms of transparency and their willingness to share information with Congress.

This is a really simple request. Did you rely on the dossier? And if so, did you vet it before you relied upon it? You can answer that in 30 seconds. But it's taken three months for the Department of Justice, and only recently have they agreed to give us the information.

So, the battle is not just with House Democrats. Unfortunately, it's also with the Department of Justice, the access of the information we need to wrap up this investigation.

WALLACE: What about the fact that the Clinton campaign and the DNC, which paid $12 million for the law firm, Perkins Coie, that paid for the opposition research that led to the dossier, that in the FEC filings, it simply says $12 million to Perkins Coie, the law firm, for legal work? No mention of the fact that it was also paying for oppo

Current favorability polls have him at the lowest of any tracked modern president.
https://projects.fivethirtyeig...

This is from a right leaning website
https://www.realclearpolitics....

His behaviour is a clear aberration compared to any other president. Certainly the chaotic, unprepared, unprofessional behaviour should not belong in the White House.

But really, if there's evidence, provide it. Not "an anonymous source close to the situation" or anything like that. Actual real tangible evidence that would be suitable for submitting to a court of law.

What, members of Trump's team being indicted for lying about their contacts with Russians isn't good enough for you? They've been indicted on real evidence suitable for submitting to a court of law. Here's your link: https://www.realclearpolitics....

Tell me more.

https://www.realclearpolitics....