Sean Hannity reminds you...

[Carbon]

Sean Hannity reminds you:
Michael Cohen wasn't his lawyer
But he still expects attorney-client privilege.
And he has nothing to hide
But he ordered MC not to reveal him.
And He defended MC all week
But now MC's a liar.
And that's why Hillary Clinton must be stopped.

https://twitter.com/JohnFugelsang/status/986061951859118081

[Carbon]

The only possible reason Hannity was named as a client by Cohen's lawyers
is because there are communications between Hannity and Cohen that they
really, really don't want to get out. But Hannity himself is on the record
claiming that he has never hired Cohen or paid him for legal advice. I'll
just go out on a limb here and guess that whatever it is they're trying to
hide will be made public shortly.

Also. Hannity's unrelenting support of Cohen and Trump in recent weeks is
a massive conflict of interest. For any normal network this would be cause
for immediate dismissal. But this is Fox News, so...

[Carbon]

None of our far right apologists have any thoughts about that exemplar of
Fox News journalistic integrity, Sean Hannity? I am shocked, shocked I
tell you... ;-)

The story has been all over the fact-based media, but I guess it's
possible the news hasn't penetrated the far right echo chamber. You see,
Hannity has been ranting non-stop about the Cohen raid while failing to
disclose that he is also one of Cohen's three (3) clients. You'd never
know it from Hannity's show, but this is the biggest facepalm of his
entire sad life.

Aside from the established facts there is quite a bit of speculation going
on in the legitimate media, because Cohen's work on behalf of Trump and
Broidy was to set up confidentiality agreements to hide extramarital
affairs. Of course Hannity says it was for real estate advice, and he is
such an obvious pillar of integrity that we should take him at his word.

Right?

Seriously though, I don't know if Hannity used Cohen to cover up an
affair, but Cohen's lawyers must have had a very good reason to try to
extend attorney-client privilege to him. I personally think this was a
mistake, since Cohen will inevitably flip and testify against everyone he
ever did business with. Hannity would have been better off hiding in the
big dumpster of evidence seized in the raid and keeping his mouth shut.

[-hh]

On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 11:55:55 PM UTC-4, Carbon wrote:
> On 04/16/2018 11:59 PM, Carbon wrote:
> > On 04/16/2018 10:56 PM, Carbon wrote:
> >
> >> Sean Hannity reminds you: Michael Cohen wasn't his lawyer But he still
> >> expects attorney-client privilege. And he has nothing to hide But he
> >> ordered MC not to reveal him. And He defended MC all week But now MC's
> >> a liar. And that's why Hillary Clinton must be stopped.
> >>
> >> https://twitter.com/JohnFugelsang/status/986061951859118081
> >
> > The only possible reason Hannity was named as a client by Cohen's
> > lawyers is because there are communications between Hannity and Cohen
> > that they really, really don't want to get out. But Hannity himself is
> > on the record claiming that he has never hired Cohen or paid him for
> > legal advice. I'll just go out on a limb here and guess that whatever it
> > is they're trying to hide will be made public shortly.

This "he said, she said" is going to make things quite intreating for the
DOJ's Taint Team: whenever they find Hannity-Cohen communications,
they're going to be obligated to decide if they're believing Cohen's claim
or Hannity's claim.

Now if this circle jerk was deliberately done, it would be a clever strategy
to sow confusion - - but I'm not so sure that it was quite that deliberate.

To this end, if I were a Judge on the case, I'd pull them both into a court room
right now and get them sworn in and make them commit to a declarative
statement on this representation yes/no matter - - and then issue a Court
'Gag Order' that forbids them from making any contrary statement to the
public, so as to forbid them from spreading false information. FWIW, I'm
of the personal opinion that a lot of higher visibility cases should do this,
not merely just this one.

> > Also. Hannity's unrelenting support of Cohen and Trump in recent weeks
> > is a massive conflict of interest. For any normal network this would be
> > cause for immediate dismissal. But this is Fox News, so...
>
> None of our far right apologists have any thoughts about that exemplar of
> Fox News journalistic integrity, Sean Hannity? I am shocked, shocked I
> tell you... ;-)

From a Journalistic Integrity & Ethics standpoint, this COI is huge.

> The story has been all over the fact-based media, but I guess it's
> possible the news hasn't penetrated the far right echo chamber. You see,
> Hannity has been ranting non-stop about the Cohen raid while failing to
> disclose that he is also one of Cohen's three (3) clients. You'd never
> know it from Hannity's show, but this is the biggest facepalm of his
> entire sad life.
>
> Aside from the established facts there is quite a bit of speculation going
> on in the legitimate media, because Cohen's work on behalf of Trump and
> Broidy was to set up confidentiality agreements to hide extramarital
> affairs. Of course Hannity says it was for real estate advice, and he is
> such an obvious pillar of integrity that we should take him at his word.
>
> Right?

Sarcasm noted.

FWIW, I've noticed that Hannity's statements have actually been quite deliberately
narrow and not broad, which signals pedantic hair splitting as the defense strategy.
For example, the one that said that he's received no Invoices for Legal Services.

But if there was an invoice, but it included stuff other than legal services -- say that
Cohen picked up Hannity's Dry Cleaning and got reimbursed -- then a claim could
be made which admits to transactions, but that they weren't for "legal fees" but
were instead for a collection of "miscellaneous services", even if 99% of it was in
actuality for legal services conducted by Cohen.

Similarly, if Cohen's practices had clients pay in advance, then Hannity would have
never received a document known as an "Invoice": he would have received a "Receipt".

> Seriously though, I don't know if Hannity used Cohen to cover up an
> affair, but Cohen's lawyers must have had a very good reason to try to
> extend attorney-client privilege to him. I personally think this was a
> mistake, since Cohen will inevitably flip and testify against everyone he
> ever did business with. Hannity would have been better off hiding in the
> big dumpster of evidence seized in the raid and keeping his mouth shut.

And since the investigation isn't Mueller, these guys can't really be fired.

And a Presidential Pardon would be nakedly a deliberate Obstruction of Justice.

Thus, the deafening silence from RSG's Pro-Peanut Gallery.


-hh

[Dene]

Key word is speculation...

[-hh]

Speculation is fine, so long as it is disclosed as such, but the actions
of Hannity et al isn't mere speculation, but is instead clearly malicious
and is in total disregard for the facts.

To whit:

"Sean Hannity and others are blaming the special counsel for one of the
F.B.I.’s worst scandals. But there is no evidence to back up their charges"


"In an April 8 interview with John Catsimatidis on his New York radio
show, Mr. Dershowitz asserted that Mr. Mueller was “the guy who kept
four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the
cover of Whitey Bulger as an F.B.I. informer.” Mr. Mueller, he said,
was “right at the center of it.” Mr. Bulger was a notorious crime boss
in Boston, the head of the Winter Hill Gang, and also a secret source
for the F.B.I.

There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge
who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by
two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison.
Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having
written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say
without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States
attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint
as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He
was never even mentioned."

<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/opinion/robert-mueller-smearing-complicit.html>


-hh

[Carbon]

As HH mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with speculation as long
as it is clearly identified as such. Where you get into trouble is when
you get screeching pinheads like Sean Hannity and Alex Jones slamming
factless bullshit into the brains of hapless fools who lack the ability to
see it for what it is. Don't you agree?

The speculation will be shortlived anyway. Cohen is going to sell out
everyone he has ever worked with and whatever skulduggery Hannity was
trying to hide is going to be all over the news. On a positive note,
Hannity's credibility probably isn't going to change a whole lot...

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

As HH mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with speculation as long
as it is clearly identified as such. Where you get into trouble is when
you get screeching pinheads like Sean Hannity and Alex Jones slamming
factless bullshit into the brains of hapless fools who lack the ability to
see it for what it is. Don't you agree?

I don’t know who Alex Jones says but I do agree that Hannity jump to conclusions as does Rachel and most of the pinheads on CNN.

The speculation will be shortlived anyway. Cohen is going to sell out
everyone he has ever worked with and whatever skulduggery Hannity was
trying to hide is going to be all over the news. On a positive note,
Hannity's credibility probably isn't going to change a whole lot...

Wishful thinking. The tide is turning all the more. I worry about you Carbs. Will you survive another Republican victory this November? Venezuela awaits...

[Carbon]

On 04/19/2018 11:52 PM, Dene wrote:

>> As HH mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with speculation as
>> long as it is clearly identified as such. Where you get into trouble is
>> when you get screeching pinheads like Sean Hannity and Alex Jones
>> slamming factless bullshit into the brains of hapless fools who lack
>> the ability to see it for what it is. Don't you agree?
>
> I don’t know who Alex Jones says but I do agree that Hannity jump to
> conclusions as does Rachel and most of the pinheads on CNN.

Do you not understand the difference between journalism and what
"infotainers" like Hannity and Jones do?

>> The speculation will be shortlived anyway. Cohen is going to sell out
>> everyone he has ever worked with and whatever skulduggery Hannity was
>> trying to hide is going to be all over the news. On a positive note,
>> Hannity's credibility probably isn't going to change a whole lot...
>
> Wishful thinking. The tide is turning all the more. I worry about you

> Carbs.. Will you survive another Republican victory this November?
> Venezuela awaits...

No, Greg. Trump was screwed the day he won the election.

[Dene]

On 04/19/2018 11:52 PM, Dene wrote:

>> As HH mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with speculation as
>> long as it is clearly identified as such. Where you get into trouble is
>> when you get screeching pinheads like Sean Hannity and Alex Jones
>> slamming factless bullshit into the brains of hapless fools who lack
>> the ability to see it for what it is. Don't you agree?
>
> I don’t know who Alex Jones says but I do agree that Hannity jump to
> conclusions as does Rachel and most of the pinheads on CNN.

Do you not understand the difference between journalism and what
"infotainers" like Hannity and Jones do?

Of course I recognize the distinctions between a hard news report and the commentators. Who do you rely upon for journalism?

>> The speculation will be shortlived anyway. Cohen is going to sell out
>> everyone he has ever worked with and whatever skulduggery Hannity was
>> trying to hide is going to be all over the news. On a positive note,
>> Hannity's credibility probably isn't going to change a whole lot...
>
> Wishful thinking. The tide is turning all the more. I worry about you
> Carbs.. Will you survive another Republican victory this November?
> Venezuela awaits...

No, Greg. Trump was screwed the day he won the election.

You actually believe he won the election? That’s progress. :-)

[Carbon]

On 04/20/2018 12:51 AM, Dene wrote:
>> On 04/19/2018 11:52 PM, Dene wrote:
>>
>>>> As HH mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with speculation as
>>>> long as it is clearly identified as such. Where you get into trouble
>>>> is when you get screeching pinheads like Sean Hannity and Alex Jones
>>>> slamming factless bullshit into the brains of hapless fools who lack
>>>> the ability to see it for what it is. Don't you agree?
>>>
>>> I don’t know who Alex Jones says but I do agree that Hannity jump to
>>> conclusions as does Rachel and most of the pinheads on CNN.
>>
>> Do you not understand the difference between journalism and what
>> "infotainers" like Hannity and Jones do?
>
> Of course I recognize the distinctions between a hard news report and
> the commentators. Who do you rely upon for journalism?

I watch very little television. I tend to use news aggregators like
news.google.com and the like. I learned about the scientific process in
university, where the most reasonable explanation of the facts should win
on merit until a better explanation comes along. However it dawned on me
that a lot of folks don't care about reasonableness and just want to be
told who to hate. And behold, the business model of Fox News.

>>>> The speculation will be shortlived anyway. Cohen is going to sell out
>>>> everyone he has ever worked with and whatever skulduggery Hannity was
>>>> trying to hide is going to be all over the news. On a positive note,
>>>> Hannity's credibility probably isn't going to change a whole lot...
>>>
>>> Wishful thinking. The tide is turning all the more. I worry about you
>>> Carbs.. Will you survive another Republican victory this November?
>>> Venezuela awaits...
>>
>> No, Greg. Trump was screwed the day he won the election.
>
> You actually believe he won the election? That’s progress. :-)

He had extensive illegal help, obviously. I'm impressed that so few of the
formerly strident anti-Communists on the far right were upset that
Russians waltzed in and attacked the democratic process in such a brazen
way.

But principles only matter when your side is affected. Right Greg?

[-hh]

Attributions repaired:

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:51:46 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:

> Carbon wrote:
> > On 04/19/2018 11:52 PM, Dene wrote:

> > > Carbon wrote:
> > >> As HH mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with speculation as
> > >> long as it is clearly identified as such. Where you get into trouble is
> > >> when you get screeching pinheads like Sean Hannity and Alex Jones
> > >>slamming factless bullshit into the brains of hapless fools who lack
> > >> the ability to see it for what it is. Don't you agree?
> > >
> > > I don’t know who Alex Jones says but I do agree that Hannity jump to
> > > conclusions as does Rachel and most of the pinheads on CNN.
> >
> > Do you not understand the difference between journalism and what
> > "infotainers" like Hannity and Jones do?
>
> Of course I recognize the distinctions between a hard news report and
> the commentators.

If that's actually true, then Greg's the King of the Trolls on RSG.

> Who do you rely upon for journalism?

Certainly not the ratings-chasers and hit whores.

I've been finding the written business-centric sources to be much better
than the talking head political hacks flame war instigators. They keep better
focus on the facts, particularly as how these affect international relations and
the real world economy.

> >> The speculation will be shortlived anyway. Cohen is going to sell out
> >> everyone he has ever worked with and whatever skulduggery Hannity was
> >> trying to hide is going to be all over the news. On a positive note,
> >> Hannity's credibility probably isn't going to change a whole lot...
> >
> > Wishful thinking. The tide is turning all the more. I worry about you
> > Carbs.. Will you survive another Republican victory this November?

Oh, is Greg making a specific prediction here, specifically that the Republican
Party is going to gain seats in the Senate & House? If that's what he's claiming,
and he's willing to substantiate that its not just King Troll BS, I'll call that bluff
right now with an IRL non-welcherable wager offer _against_ that happening.

And that's even before considering just how many of the year's past special
elections have resulted in such huuuuuuge Republican victories! /S

...oh, and hey, there's also Missouri Governor Greitens too, up on Felony charges
in the courts: how much longer until that seat's up for YA special election?


-hh

[DumbedDownUSA]

Dene wrote:

> On 04/19/2018 11:52 PM, Dene wrote:
>
>
> Do you not understand the difference between journalism and what
> "infotainers" like Hannity and Jones do?
>
> Of course I recognize the distinctions between a hard news report and
> the commentators.

"hard news" I guess that's how most Trumpets see most of the news about
Trump. It's a hard life when you invest in a morally corrupt idol.


--
Trump averages six falsehoods a day; how you doin'?
Moderate! an unwitting, ignorant, cowardly, racist, homophobic, latrine
cleaning mawine.
Dense, if you are reading this you lied.

[Carbon]

On 04/20/2018 06:39 AM, -hh wrote:
> Attributions repaired: On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:51:46 AM UTC-4,
> Dene wrote:
>> Carbon wrote:
>>> On 04/19/2018 11:52 PM, Dene wrote:
>>>> Carbon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As HH mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with speculation
>>>>> as long as it is clearly identified as such. Where you get into
>>>>> trouble is when you get screeching pinheads like Sean Hannity and
>>>>> Alex Jones slamming factless bullshit into the brains of hapless
>>>>> fools who lack the ability to see it for what it is. Don't you
>>>>> agree?
>>>>
>>>> I don’t know who Alex Jones says but I do agree that Hannity jump to
>>>> conclusions as does Rachel and most of the pinheads on CNN.
>>>
>>> Do you not understand the difference between journalism and what
>>> "infotainers" like Hannity and Jones do?
>>
>> Of course I recognize the distinctions between a hard news report and
>> the commentators.
>
> If that's actually true, then Greg's the King of the Trolls on RSG.

That's always been my take.

>> Who do you rely upon for journalism?
>
> Certainly not the ratings-chasers and hit whores.
>
> I've been finding the written business-centric sources to be much better
> than the talking head political hacks flame war instigators. They keep
> better focus on the facts, particularly as how these affect
> international relations and the real world economy.
>
>>>> The speculation will be shortlived anyway. Cohen is going to sell out
>>>> everyone he has ever worked with and whatever skulduggery Hannity was
>>>> trying to hide is going to be all over the news. On a positive note,
>>>> Hannity's credibility probably isn't going to change a whole lot...
>>>
>>> Wishful thinking. The tide is turning all the more. I worry about you
>>> Carbs.. Will you survive another Republican victory this November?
>
> Oh, is Greg making a specific prediction here, specifically that the
> Republican Party is going to gain seats in the Senate & House? If
> that's what he's claiming, and he's willing to substantiate that its not
> just King Troll BS, I'll call that bluff right now with an IRL
> non-welcherable wager offer _against_ that happening.
>
> And that's even before considering just how many of the year's past
> special elections have resulted in such huuuuuuge Republican victories!
> /S
>

> ....oh, and hey, there's also Missouri Governor Greitens too, up on

> Felony charges in the courts: how much longer until that seat's up for
> YA special election?

If Trump is still in office in the fall the Republicans are going to get
creamed in the elections. By then enough evidence will have dropped that
even some of the retards will be second-guessing their vote in 2016.

[-hh]

On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:03:04 PM UTC-4, Carbon wrote:
> On 04/20/2018 06:39 AM, -hh wrote:
> > Attributions repaired: On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 12:51:46 AM UTC-4,
> > Dene wrote:
> >> Carbon wrote:
> >>> On 04/19/2018 11:52 PM, Dene wrote:
> >>>> Carbon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> As HH mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with speculation
> >>>>> as long as it is clearly identified as such. Where you get into
> >>>>> trouble is when you get screeching pinheads like Sean Hannity and
> >>>>> Alex Jones slamming factless bullshit into the brains of hapless
> >>>>> fools who lack the ability to see it for what it is. Don't you
> >>>>> agree?
> >>>>
> >>>> I don’t know who Alex Jones says but I do agree that Hannity jump to
> >>>> conclusions as does Rachel and most of the pinheads on CNN.
> >>>
> >>> Do you not understand the difference between journalism and what
> >>> "infotainers" like Hannity and Jones do?
> >>
> >> Of course I recognize the distinctions between a hard news report and
> >> the commentators.
> >
> > If that's actually true, then Greg's the King of the Trolls on RSG.
>
> That's always been my take.

Frankly, I expected better from him.

I'm not sure that the real revelation will take place from the 2018 election cycle,
as there's been a lot of structuring done to delay the pain, ostensively so that
the Republicans won't take the blame.

Take the tax bill for an example - the pullback squeeze on the general taxpayer
is years away, which will be after this Presidential term ends in 2020, so since it
will fall squarely on the shoulders of the "next guy" (which is likely to not be a
Republican), its the party of said next guy that gets the blame in the voting booth,
particularly in the 2022 elections for Congress.

This is their classical pattern of having a big party for themselves and its then the
other party who has to clean up the mess while they're all hungover from their
drunk, so that its the other party who gets the "Debbie Downer" reputation
from them having to raise taxes, etc. And they do it because history has shown
that they'll get away with it, again and again: voter memory has proven itself
to be pretty surprisingly short.

As it all stands, I'm damn glad I didn't retire a few years ago when I first became
eligible: things are looking like there's going to be damn ugly shoe to drop on
our necks for healthcare costs, as well as SS & Medicare also getting raped.
Anyone with less than $2M in savings will be living in a cardboard box by the
time they hit age 75...

...which also explains why in the market, home ownership rates are down and
owning apartments to rent out is where to be...even before the new tax incentives.


-hh

[Carbon]

> & Medicare also getting raped.. Anyone with less than $2M in savings

> will be living in a cardboard box by the time they hit age 75...
>

> ....which also explains why in the market, home ownership rates are down

> and owning apartments to rent out is where to be...even before the new
> tax incentives.

I am hoping that these changes get reversed when the grown-ups get
re-elected.

[MNMikeW]

Moderate wrote:
> Carbon<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

> Says the screeching pin head.

The clueless one like to pretend there are no screeching pinheads on the
left. Not to mention he is the biggest pinhead screecher here.

[MNMikeW]

Carbon wrote:
> On 04/19/2018 11:52 PM, Dene wrote:
>
>>> As HH mentioned elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with speculation as
>>> long as it is clearly identified as such. Where you get into trouble is
>>> when you get screeching pinheads like Sean Hannity and Alex Jones
>>> slamming factless bullshit into the brains of hapless fools who lack
>>> the ability to see it for what it is. Don't you agree?
>>
>> I don’t know who Alex Jones says but I do agree that Hannity jump to
>> conclusions as does Rachel and most of the pinheads on CNN.
>
> Do you not understand the difference between journalism and what
> "infotainers" like Hannity and Jones do?
>

You obviously do not. You probably actually think Madcow is a journalist
and not a infotainer.

[MNMikeW]

Gee, had only Obama done something about it in 2016. So much for principles.

[MNMikeW]

>>>> Republican Party is going to gain seats in the Senate& House? If

LOL!!! You idiot leftists have done nothing but have childish tantrums
ever since Trump was elected. Grownups, lol!

[B...@onramp.net]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:41:24 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:

<clip>

>LOL!!! You idiot leftists have done nothing but have childish tantrums
>ever since Trump was elected. Grownups, lol!

There's nothing childish about being sick to your stomach over anyone
that thinks Donald Trump has any worth at all. I can't believe that
you've bought that shit. At one time you offered a reasonable
conservative view. Now it is just Trump idiocy.

[Carbon]

From what I've read comfort dogs can really help those who experience
shocking life events. You can still prepare in advance even though you
lack the ability to see the inevitable.

[MNMikeW]

You were reasonable at one time. No more.

[MNMikeW]

>>>> SS& Medicare also getting raped.. Anyone with less than $2M in

>>>> savings will be living in a cardboard box by the time they hit age
>>>> 75...
>>>>
>>>> ....which also explains why in the market, home ownership rates are
>>>> down and owning apartments to rent out is where to be...even before
>>>> the new tax incentives.
>>>
>>> I am hoping that these changes get reversed when the grown-ups get
>>> re-elected.
>>
>> LOL!!! You idiot leftists have done nothing but have childish tantrums
>> ever since Trump was elected. Grownups, lol!
>
> From what I've read comfort dogs can really help those who experience
> shocking life events. You can still prepare in advance even though you
> lack the ability to see the inevitable.
>

LOL!!! Say the moron who had Hillary winning.

[-hh]

Way to avoid the adult conversation, Mike.

> From what I've read comfort dogs can really help those who experience
> shocking life events. You can still prepare in advance even though you
> lack the ability to see the inevitable.

There's also a good number of homeless folks who have a dog. Part of
it can be rationalized as for personal security while living on the
streets (as a working dog), but it also serves the companion/comfort
role as well.

<http://www.humansfordogs.com/2008/05/why-do-homeless-people-have-dogs.html>



-hh

[Alan Baker]

You're really irony-impaired, aren't you?

[Carbon]

Once again, the polling average had Hillary at 74% on election day, so
clearly she was the most reasonable choice. It also seems reasonable in
retrospect that the polling did a poor job of accounting for the non-legal
assistance provided by foreign nationals in the election.

I will also point out that you were dead-assed wrong about the 2008 and
2012 elections, and both times you had exactly the same "gut feeling" even
though they were also behind in the polls on election day.

[B...@onramp.net]

Now where did I hear that? Oh, its what I said to you about an hour
ago. Can't you come up with an original thought?

[B...@onramp.net]

EVERYONE had Hillary winning....including you.

[MNMikeW]

Still the truth.

[Dene]

- hide quoted text -

No truer words...

[Dene]

Carbs screeches....

Once again, the polling average had Hillary at 74% on election day, so
clearly she was the most reasonable choice.

Leftist polls

It also seems reasonable in
retrospect that the polling did a poor job of accounting for the non-legal
assistance provided by foreign nationals in the election.

Still believing that lame excuse even though it’s quite apparent that the only collusion was from Hillary.

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-04-23 8:54 PM, Dene wrote:
> Carbs screeches....
>
> Once again, the polling average had Hillary at 74% on election day, so
> clearly she was the most reasonable choice.
>
> Leftist polls

Only so defined by you when you didn't like what they said.

>
> It also seems reasonable in
> retrospect that the polling did a poor job of accounting for the non-legal
> assistance provided by foreign nationals in the election.
>
> Still believing that lame excuse even though it’s quite apparent that the only collusion was from Hillary.

Ummmmm... ...no.

[Carbon]

On 04/23/2018 11:54 PM, Dene wrote:
> Carbs screeches....
>
>> Once again, the polling average had Hillary at 74% on election day, so
>> clearly she was the most reasonable choice.
>
> Leftist polls

Facts and science matter. They are what lifted western culture out of the
dark ages.

>> It also seems reasonable in retrospect that the polling did a poor job
>> of accounting for the non-legal assistance provided by foreign
>> nationals in the election.
>
> Still believing that lame excuse even though it’s quite apparent that
> the only collusion was from Hillary.

Hey did you know Hillary ran a child porn ring out of a pizza place in
Washington? It's true!*

*Well it's not factually true, but that doesn't matter. Right Greg?

[Carbon]

The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Dene wrote:

> Carbs screeches....
>

Now we know what it sounds like in Gregs head when he reads this
group...

...he's not a well man.

[DumbedDownUSA]

Moderate wrote:

> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

> > On 04/23/2018 11:54 PM, Dene wrote:
> >> Carbs screeches....
> >>
> >>> Once again, the polling average had Hillary at 74% on election
> day, so >>> clearly she was the most reasonable choice.
> >>
> >> Leftist polls
> >
> > Facts and science matter. They are what lifted western culture out
> > of the dark ages.
> >
> >>> It also seems reasonable in retrospect that the polling did a
> poor job >>> of accounting for the non-legal assistance provided by
> foreign >>> nationals in the election.
> >>

> >> Still believing that lame excuse even though it?s quite apparent

> that >> the only collusion was from Hillary.
> >
> > Hey did you know Hillary ran a child porn ring out of a pizza place
> > in Washington? It's true!*
> >
> > *Well it's not factually true, but that doesn't matter. Right Greg?
> >
>

> Here is what is true. There never was evidence of Trump
> colluding with Russia.
>
> It was made up by the Obama deep State and Hillary.

You are the one in a deep state, clearly.

[-hh]

FWIW, saw this week a new claim that Hillary's now running one out
of New York City:

<http://yournewswire.com/nypd-hillary-clinton-child-sex-scandal/>

I'd euphemistically say "can't make this stuff up", except that
this is precisely just deliberately made up stuff:

"Sean Adl-Tabatabai, 35, runs YourNewsWire.com, the source of
scores of dubious news stories, including claims that the Queen
had threatened to abdicate if the UK voted against Brexit. The
story was shared more than 23,000 times on Facebook.

His site was also instrumental in spreading a conspiracy theory
before the US election, which falsely claimed there was evidence
connecting Hillary Clinton to a paedophile ring in Washington..."


<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mother-churns-out-stories-for-master-of-fake-news-fcmzc05sx>

Sean Adl-Tabatabai is behind the YourNewsWire.com platform, the
source of numerous fake news stories....The site has been blacklisted
by a number of fact-checking bodies, including the European Union’s
East StratCom Task Force, a Brussels unit that debunks Russian propaganda.

A former US intelligence officer and Kremlin propaganda expert, Joel
Harding, claimed that the site has been “used by the Russians as a proxy
site to spread disinformation"."

<http://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/01/29/man-behind-one-the-biggest-sites-accused-fake-news-former-bbc-worker>


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Isn't it just?

[Alan Baker]

On 2018-04-24 3:19 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

>> On 04/23/2018 11:54 PM, Dene wrote:
>>> Carbs screeches....
>>>
>>>> Once again, the polling average had Hillary at 74% on election day, so
>>>> clearly she was the most reasonable choice.
>>>
>>> Leftist polls
>>
>> Facts and science matter. They are what lifted western culture out of the
>> dark ages.
>>
>>>> It also seems reasonable in retrospect that the polling did a poor job
>>>> of accounting for the non-legal assistance provided by foreign
>>>> nationals in the election.
>>>

>>> Still believing that lame excuse even though it?s quite apparent that

>>> the only collusion was from Hillary.
>>
>> Hey did you know Hillary ran a child porn ring out of a pizza place in
>> Washington? It's true!*
>>
>> *Well it's not factually true, but that doesn't matter. Right Greg?
>>
>

> Here is what is true. There never was evidence of Trump
> colluding with Russia.
>

> It was made up by the Obama deep State and Hillary. Nobody heard
> of cosmic pizza until some loon showed up with a
> gun.
>
> Which is worse?
>

You mean other than all the contacts with Russians that Trump's people
have lied about?

You mean other than meeting with Russians for the express purpose of
getting dirt on Clinton?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:14:34 -0700, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

Facts confuse Mod.

[Dene]

Your lack of real world awareness is breathtaking...

[Carbon]

I'll let you be the expert on Real America(tm).