"Arrest me! Please!"

[George M. Middius]

Idiot Baby Oranguturd Swamp Thing Orangina wants it all. He said so to
Stefanopolous, on camera, in the Oval, in a nationally televised interview.
Yes, he would definitely commit a crime. The FBI doesn't know from crimes.
Nobody calls the FBI. Are you joking?

Anything to say, Tweedles? ;-)

[MiNe109]

Don't forget everyone does it!

[ScottW]

You finally uttered an absolute truth. Everyone who peddled the Steele dossier was dealing foreign dirt. Shall we make a list of all the peddlers?

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

woah! I'm a rationalist, but this is spooky.

> > > Idiot Baby Oranguturd Swamp Thing Orangina wants it all. He said so to
> > > Stefanopolous, on camera, in the Oval, in a nationally televised interview.
> > > Yes, he would definitely commit a crime. The FBI doesn't know from crimes.
> > > Nobody calls the FBI. Are you joking?
> > >
> > > Anything to say, Tweedles? ;-)
> >
> >
> > Don't forget everyone does it!
>
> You finally uttered an absolute truth.
> Everyone who peddled the Steele dossier
> was dealing foreign dirt. Shall we make a list
> of all the peddlers?

Arnii? Is that you? Who's your medium? Can't be Pooch alone....

[MiNe109]

Wasn't the FBI contacted about the Steele dossier?

[ScottW]

and they turned into one of the primary meddlers and peddlers of foreign dirt.

It isn't as if you liberal progressives have always been in love with and devoted to the FBI...unless it serves you and your true God...the party.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 6/13/19 11:50 AM, ScottW wrote:
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 9:31:20 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 6/13/19 10:43 AM, ScottW wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 6:47:55 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/19 7:42 AM, George M. Middius wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Idiot Baby Oranguturd Swamp Thing Orangina wants it all. He
>>>>> said so to Stefanopolous, on camera, in the Oval, in a
>>>>> nationally televised interview. Yes, he would definitely
>>>>> commit a crime. The FBI doesn't know from crimes. Nobody
>>>>> calls the FBI. Are you joking?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anything to say, Tweedles? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don't forget everyone does it!
>>>
>>> You finally uttered an absolute truth. Everyone who peddled the
>>> Steele dossier was dealing foreign dirt. Shall we make a list of
>>> all the peddlers?
>>
>> Wasn't the FBI contacted about the Steele dossier?
>
> and they turned into one of the primary meddlers and peddlers of
> foreign dirt.

Trump's treasonous intent doesn't bother you? Or that he's too unhinged
to realize the implications of what he said?

> It isn't as if you liberal progressives have always been in love with
> and devoted to the FBI...unless it serves you and your true God...the
> party.

Magic 8-Ball says!

[ScottW]

On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 10:05:59 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> On 6/13/19 11:50 AM, ScottW wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 9:31:20 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> >> On 6/13/19 10:43 AM, ScottW wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 6:47:55 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> >>>> On 6/13/19 7:42 AM, George M. Middius wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Idiot Baby Oranguturd Swamp Thing Orangina wants it all. He
> >>>>> said so to Stefanopolous, on camera, in the Oval, in a
> >>>>> nationally televised interview. Yes, he would definitely
> >>>>> commit a crime. The FBI doesn't know from crimes. Nobody
> >>>>> calls the FBI. Are you joking?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anything to say, Tweedles? ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't forget everyone does it!
> >>>
> >>> You finally uttered an absolute truth. Everyone who peddled the
> >>> Steele dossier was dealing foreign dirt. Shall we make a list of
> >>> all the peddlers?
> >>
> >> Wasn't the FBI contacted about the Steele dossier?
> >
> > and they turned into one of the primary meddlers and peddlers of
> > foreign dirt.
>
> Trump's treasonous intent doesn't bother you? Or that he's too unhinged
> to realize the implications of what he said?

I think you're far more unhinged than Trump could ever aspire to be.
Trump says he'd "listen" and if something was wrong he'd call the FBI.

You think he should call the FBI before he "listens"?

You go all loony tune on this while obliviously accepting that the Clinton campaign and DNC paid foreign operatives to compile dirt on Trump.
This extended to "Russians".
Dirt that turned out to be all lies yet the FBI still used to justify warrants to spy on the Trump campaign all while the intel community engaged in a campaign of media leaks to influence an election.
And a SC that withheld his conclusions for nearly a year to hang a cloud over another election.
All that happened with you not caring one whit...but you freak out over Trump taking a hypothetical phone call.

You are pathetic and deranged.

I can't wait till the IG reports are out and the Durham investigation starts issuing indictments. It's going to make your head explode.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Time to lie, lie, lie, and lie some more.

> Clinton campaign and DNC paid foreign operatives to compile dirt on Trump.

Filthy lying mutt. Go wash your slobbering maw, then chop off your stinking
lying paws and take a headfirst dive into a wood chipper.

[Art Sackman]

That’s the liberal mindset at work. So don’t wonder why I’m not one of them.

[MiNe109]

Yes.

> You go all loony tune on this while obliviously accepting that the
> Clinton campaign and DNC paid foreign operatives to compile dirt on
> Trump.

That was work-for-hire, not an unsolicited donation of stolen info.

> This extended to "Russians". Dirt that turned out to be all
> lies yet the FBI still used to justify warrants to spy on the Trump
> campaign all while the intel community engaged in a campaign of media
> leaks to influence an election.

On the contrary: Steele leaked it himself because the FBI wasn't taking
action; the FISA warrants weren't based entirely on the dossier; no
allegations have been disproven although several have been denied.

> And a SC that withheld his
> conclusions for nearly a year to hang a cloud over another election.
> All that happened with you not caring one whit...but you freak out
> over Trump taking a hypothetical phone call.

No, it's Trump's response that should freak you out.

> You are pathetic and deranged.
>
> I can't wait till the IG reports are out and the Durham investigation
> starts issuing indictments. It's going to make your head explode.

I do believe I'll be quite irate if counter-investigations are used as a
tool to suppress the proper workings of the government.

[ScottW]

so you're crazy.

>
> > You go all loony tune on this while obliviously accepting that the
> > Clinton campaign and DNC paid foreign operatives to compile dirt on
> > Trump.
>
> That was work-for-hire, not an unsolicited donation of stolen info.

and that's not worse? Wow!
Let's see....you've called Russian meddling an act of war...
so paying for Russian meddling would be what? Treason!
Lock her up!

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 6/14/19 4:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:36:51 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 6/14/19 11:51 AM, ScottW wrote:

>>> Trump says he'd "listen" and if something was wrong he'd call
>>> the FBI. You think he should call the FBI before he "listens"?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> so you're crazy.

It's illegal to accept offers of intelligence from foreign nationals
because those are considered campaign contributions.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18677631/trump-campaign-finance-law-fec-illegal-fbi

>>> You go all loony tune on this while obliviously accepting that
>>> the Clinton campaign and DNC paid foreign operatives to compile
>>> dirt on Trump.
>>
>> That was work-for-hire, not an unsolicited donation of stolen
>> info.
>
> and that's not worse?

It's legal, for one thing.

> Wow! Let's see....you've called Russian
> meddling an act of war...

When did I do that?

> so paying for Russian meddling would be
> what? Treason! Lock her up!

Fusion GPS was paid for information, not to run bot-farms, send fake
news to Facebook or steal emails.

[ScottW]

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:41:33 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> On 6/14/19 4:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
> > On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:36:51 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> >> On 6/14/19 11:51 AM, ScottW wrote:
>
> >>> Trump says he'd "listen" and if something was wrong he'd call
> >>> the FBI. You think he should call the FBI before he "listens"?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> > so you're crazy.
>
> It's illegal to accept offers of intelligence from foreign nationals
> because those are considered campaign contributions.
>
> https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18677631/trump-campaign-finance-law-fec-illegal-fbi

So when is Hillary and that crazy Debbie going to jail?

>
> >>> You go all loony tune on this while obliviously accepting that
> >>> the Clinton campaign and DNC paid foreign operatives to compile
> >>> dirt on Trump.
> >>
> >> That was work-for-hire, not an unsolicited donation of stolen
> >> info.
> >
> > and that's not worse?
>
> It's legal, for one thing.

Your own reference which you obviously didn't read...again.

"It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive"

Lock 'em up!

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 6/14/19 9:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:41:33 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 6/14/19 4:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 2:36:51 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/19 11:51 AM, ScottW wrote:
>>
>>>>> Trump says he'd "listen" and if something was wrong he'd call
>>>>> the FBI. You think he should call the FBI before he "listens"?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> so you're crazy.
>>
>> It's illegal to accept offers of intelligence from foreign nationals
>> because those are considered campaign contributions.
>>
>> https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18677631/trump-campaign-finance-law-fec-illegal-fbi
>
> So when is Hillary and that crazy Debbie going to jail?

Paying for services isn't illegal.

>>>>> You go all loony tune on this while obliviously accepting that
>>>>> the Clinton campaign and DNC paid foreign operatives to compile
>>>>> dirt on Trump.
>>>>
>>>> That was work-for-hire, not an unsolicited donation of stolen
>>>> info.
>>>
>>> and that's not worse?
>>
>> It's legal, for one thing.
>
> Your own reference which you obviously didn't read...again.
>
> "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive"

The same reference says:

Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law, hiring or
contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign is allowed...

“You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services, so a
campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who is a Canadian
citizen,” Levinson said. “As long as you pay fair market rates for those
services, that’s not what the federal campaign act says is prohibited.
That’s just a fair exchange of money for services.”

End quote.

It's legal to pay for services.

[Art Sackman]

What is the fair market rate for paying foreign intelligence operatives?

[ScottW]

You can pay for foreign meddling in an election but if they do it for nothing without even being asked....it's a crime.

Are you really trying to diminish this scam to mere campaign finance law violation? Which aren't even criminal but civil violations.

So the FEC may order the Trump campaign to kick in a few bucks to even the score with the dems.

IN YOUR DREAMS!

ScottW

[MiNe109]

Yes, that's right, except Democrats didn't pay for meddling but for info.

The FEC chair puts it in easy to follow twitter form:

https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1139309394968096768?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Enews%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

> Are you really trying to diminish this scam to mere campaign finance
> law violation? Which aren't even criminal but civil violations.

No, it's a crime, a misdemeanor if the value is more than $2000 and a
felony over $25k.

See p. 3:

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal/legacy/2013/09/30/electbook-0507.pdf

> So the FEC may order the Trump campaign to kick in a few bucks to
> even the score with the dems.
>
> IN YOUR DREAMS!

FEC says:
"Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be
subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both."

Whether that happens is another question.

[Art Sackman]

Paying for foreign info and then using that info (which happens to be phoney info) to acquire FISA warrants to spy on ones opposition campaign IS EXACTLY MEDDLING.

[ScottW]

uh...not according to your twitter links
(what is it with your links never making the case you claim they do?)

> except Democrats didn't pay for meddling but for info.

"It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election."

Hillary is toast....LOCK HER UP!

ScottW

[ScottW]

On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:56:35 PM UTC-7, Art Sackman wrote:
> Paying for foreign info and then using that info (which happens to be phoney info) to acquire FISA warrants to spy on ones opposition campaign IS EXACTLY MEDDLING.

Stephen is confused by "soliciting". It isn't the kind he's personally acquainted with.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

MiNe109 wrote:

> FEC says:
> "Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be
> subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both."
>
> Whether that happens is another question.

Prezzie Turdmuffin just (deliberately?) conflated conducting affairs of
state with illicit manipulation of elections.

Then he twittered that the Queen of England had the best time of her life
during his visit.

Then he directed the FBI not to investigate when Americans have contact
with foreign spies, and he directed the CIA not to spy on his beloved Kim
Chubby Un because he and Donnie are BFFs.

If Scottie were to take issue with any of Idiot Baby's assertions, your
willingness to engage with the mutt might be understandable. But don't hold
your breath waiting for that to happen. I'm not.

[MiNe109]

No, the Clinton campaign did not accept unsolicited offers of stolen
information.

>> except Democrats didn't pay for meddling but for info.
>
> "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything
> of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S.
> election."
>
> Hillary is toast....LOCK HER UP!

Hiring or contracting is allowed. Was it also illegal when Republicans
initiated the Fusion research?

[MiNe109]

In this case, soliciting is defined as asking for a contribution or
donation.

[ScottW]

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 5:27:05 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> On 6/15/19 5:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:07:17 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>
> >>>> The same reference says:
> >>>>
> >>>> Experts told me that when it comes to campaign finance law,
> >>>> hiring or contracting a foreigner to do services for a campaign
> >>>> is allowed...
> >>>>
> >>>> “You can pay a foreign national to provide you with services,
> >>>> so a campaign, for instance, could have a campaign attorney who
> >>>> is a Canadian citizen,” Levinson said. “As long as you pay fair
> >>>> market rates for those services, that’s not what the federal
> >>>> campaign act says is prohibited. That’s just a fair exchange of
> >>>> money for services.”
> >>>>
> >>>> End quote.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's legal to pay for services.
> >>>
> >>> You can pay for foreign meddling in an election but if they do it
> >>> for nothing without even being asked....it's a crime.
> >>
> >> Yes, that's right,
> >
> > uh...not according to your twitter links (what is it with your links
> > never making the case you claim they do?)
>
> No, the Clinton campaign did not accept unsolicited offers of stolen
> information.

Talk about moving the bar off your tweet.
But let's get back on tweet.
They were the solicitors of value (over a million $) from a foreign national.

>
> >> except Democrats didn't pay for meddling but for info.
> >
> > "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything
> > of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S.
> > election."
> >
> > Hillary is toast....LOCK HER UP!
>
> Hiring or contracting is allowed. Was it also illegal when Republicans
> initiated the Fusion research?

Did Fusion engage a foreign national for republicans? Not that I know of, but if they did...then yes.
You can't so easily circumvent the law just by subcontracting the crime.
I think you can add "conspiracy" to the charges if that was the case as well.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

You haven't shown that. Unless you're talking about the Clinton
Foundation, which isn't the same thing as the Clinton campaign.

>>>> except Democrats didn't pay for meddling but for info.
>>>
>>> "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive
>>> anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a
>>> U.S. election."
>>>
>>> Hillary is toast....LOCK HER UP!
>>
>> Hiring or contracting is allowed. Was it also illegal when
>> Republicans initiated the Fusion research?
>
> Did Fusion engage a foreign national for republicans?

Yes. They subcontracted Steele on behalf of work done for the Washing
Free Beacon.

> Not that I know
> of, but if they did...then yes. You can't so easily circumvent the
> law just by subcontracting the crime. I think you can add
> "conspiracy" to the charges if that was the case as well.

It's still not a crime to hire someone to do research.

[ScottW]

Are you living under a rock?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier#Research_funded_by_Democrats_produces_dossier

"The second operation of opposition research was funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, working through their attorney of record, Marc Elias of Perkins Coie.[9] In an October 2017 letter, Perkins Coie general counsel Matthew Gehringer described how, in March 2016, Fusion GPS approached Perkins Coie and, knowing that the Clinton campaign and the DNC were its clients, inquired whether its clients wished to pay Fusion GPS "to continue research regarding then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, research that Fusion GPS had conducted for one or more other clients during the Republican primary contest."[30] In April 2016, Elias hired Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump.[9][30]
In June 2016,[2] as part of its work for Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS hired Orbis Business Intelligence, a private British intelligence firm, to look into connections between Trump and Russia. Orbis co-founder Christopher Steele, a retired British MI6 officer with expertise in Russian matters,[2] was hired as a subcontractor to do the job.[31] Prior to his work on the dossier, Steele had been a paid informant for the FBI[32] for information unrelated to the Russia investigation.[33]
In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, of which Fusion GPS paid Orbis $168,000 to produce the dossier.[34] The DNC and Clinton campaign disclosed the total amount paid to Perkins Coie on campaign finance reports.[35]"

> Unless you're talking about the Clinton
> Foundation, which isn't the same thing as the Clinton campaign.

It's hard to imagine how you could remain so blissfully ignorant.

>
> >>>> except Democrats didn't pay for meddling but for info.
> >>>
> >>> "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive
> >>> anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a
> >>> U.S. election."
> >>>
> >>> Hillary is toast....LOCK HER UP!
> >>
> >> Hiring or contracting is allowed. Was it also illegal when
> >> Republicans initiated the Fusion research?
> >
> > Did Fusion engage a foreign national for republicans?
>
> Yes. They subcontracted Steele on behalf of work done for the Washing
> Free Beacon.

Absolutely FALSE.

From the same Wiki link.

"In October 2015, before the official start of the 2016 Republican primary campaign, The Washington Free Beacon, an American conservative political journalism website primarily funded by Republican donor Paul Singer, hired the American research firm Fusion GPS to conduct general opposition research on several Republican presidential candidates, including Trump.[1] The Free Beacon and Singer were "part of the conservative never-Trump movement".[24] For months, Fusion GPS gathered information about Trump, focusing on his business and entertainment activities. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016,[25] The Free Beacon stopped funding research on him.[2][26][27]
In October 2017, the Free Beacon issued a statement:
All of the work that Fusion GPS provided to the Free Beacon was based on public sources, and none of the work product that the Free Beacon received appears in the Steele dossier. The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele. Nor did we have any knowledge of the relationship between Fusion GPS and the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, and the Clinton campaign.[28]

Although the source of the Steele dossier's funding had already been reported correctly over a year before,[2][26][27], and the Free Beacon had issued a statement to this effect in October 2017,[28] a February 2, 2018, story by the Associated Press (AP) contributed to confusion about its funding by stating that the dossier "was initially funded" by the Washington Free Beacon, so the AP posted a correction the next day: "Though the former spy, Christopher Steele, was hired by a firm that was initially funded by the Washington Free Beacon, he did not begin work on the project until after Democratic groups had begun funding it."[29]

>
> > Not that I know
> > of, but if they did...then yes. You can't so easily circumvent the
> > law just by subcontracting the crime. I think you can add
> > "conspiracy" to the charges if that was the case as well.
>
> It's still not a crime to hire someone to do research.

It is if they solicit information from foreign nationals. Read your tweet link.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 6/16/19 1:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 10:19:47 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 6/16/19 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 5:27:05 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:

>>>> No, the Clinton campaign did not accept unsolicited offers of
>>>> stolen information.
>>>
>>> Talk about moving the bar off your tweet. But let's get back on
>>> tweet. They were the solicitors of value (over a million $) from
>>> a foreign national.
>>
>> You haven't shown that.
>
> Are you living under a rock?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier#Research_funded_by_Democrats_produces_dossier
>
> "The second operation of opposition research was funded by the DNC

> and the Clinton campaign...."

<snip>

> It's hard to imagine how you could remain so blissfully ignorant.

You still don't understand the difference between paying for something
and having it given to you.

>>>>>> except Democrats didn't pay for meddling but for info.
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive
>>>>> anything of value from a foreign national in connection with
>>>>> a U.S. election."
>>>>>
>>>>> Hillary is toast....LOCK HER UP!
>>>>
>>>> Hiring or contracting is allowed. Was it also illegal when
>>>> Republicans initiated the Fusion research?
>>>
>>> Did Fusion engage a foreign national for republicans?
>>
>> Yes. They subcontracted Steele on behalf of work done for the
>> Washing Free Beacon.
>
> Absolutely FALSE.
>
> From the same Wiki link.
>

> "...The Free

> Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did
> not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or

> provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele...."

https://www.apnews.com/63c883156e314b68b86209d3b63890f5

Me and the ap. We stand corrected.

>>> Not that I know of, but if they did...then yes. You can't so
>>> easily circumvent the law just by subcontracting the crime. I
>>> think you can add "conspiracy" to the charges if that was the
>>> case as well.
>>
>> It's still not a crime to hire someone to do research.
>
> It is if they solicit information from foreign nationals. Read your
> tweet link.

You're hung up on the word 'solicit.' In this context it means "hire"
which is legal, not "ask for donation or gift" which is not.

[ScottW]

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> On 6/16/19 1:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 10:19:47 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> >> On 6/16/19 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 5:27:05 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>
> >>>> No, the Clinton campaign did not accept unsolicited offers of
> >>>> stolen information.
> >>>
> >>> Talk about moving the bar off your tweet. But let's get back on
> >>> tweet. They were the solicitors of value (over a million $) from
> >>> a foreign national.
> >>
> >> You haven't shown that.
> >
> > Are you living under a rock?
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier#Research_funded_by_Democrats_produces_dossier
> >
> > "The second operation of opposition research was funded by the DNC
> > and the Clinton campaign...."
>
> <snip>
>
> > It's hard to imagine how you could remain so blissfully ignorant.
>
> You still don't understand the difference between paying for something
> and having it given to you.

Both are banned by the tweet. One is soliciting and receiving and the other is just receiving.

>
> >>>>>> except Democrats didn't pay for meddling but for info.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive
> >>>>> anything of value from a foreign national in connection with
> >>>>> a U.S. election."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hillary is toast....LOCK HER UP!
> >>>>
> >>>> Hiring or contracting is allowed. Was it also illegal when
> >>>> Republicans initiated the Fusion research?
> >>>
> >>> Did Fusion engage a foreign national for republicans?
> >>
> >> Yes. They subcontracted Steele on behalf of work done for the
> >> Washing Free Beacon.
> >
> > Absolutely FALSE.
> >
> > From the same Wiki link.
> >
> > "...The Free
> > Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did
> > not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or
> > provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele...."
>
> https://www.apnews.com/63c883156e314b68b86209d3b63890f5
>
> Me and the ap. We stand corrected.

Took the AP two days.
How could you have remained so misinformed on something so thoroughly and widely reported as false so long ago?

>
> >>> Not that I know of, but if they did...then yes. You can't so
> >>> easily circumvent the law just by subcontracting the crime. I
> >>> think you can add "conspiracy" to the charges if that was the
> >>> case as well.
> >>
> >> It's still not a crime to hire someone to do research.
> >
> > It is if they solicit information from foreign nationals. Read your
> > tweet link.
>
> You're hung up on the word 'solicit.' In this context it means "hire"
> which is legal, not "ask for donation or gift" which is not.

Now you're back to claiming simple campaign finance crapola...something Bill, Hillary, and Barrack all have on their resumes.

So why are the dems going so nutso over this when it is so commonplace?

And FWIW...Trump didn't ask the Russians to give him Hillary's hidden/destroyed while under subpoena e-mails....he asked for them to be released to the public...like Podesta's.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 6/16/19 4:57 PM, ScottW wrote:
> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 6/16/19 1:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 10:19:47 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/19 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 5:27:05 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>>
>>>>>> No, the Clinton campaign did not accept unsolicited offers
>>>>>> of stolen information.
>>>>>
>>>>> Talk about moving the bar off your tweet. But let's get back
>>>>> on tweet. They were the solicitors of value (over a million
>>>>> $) from a foreign national.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't shown that.
>>>
>>> Are you living under a rock?
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier#Research_funded_by_Democrats_produces_dossier

>> <snip>
>>
>>> It's hard to imagine how you could remain so blissfully
>>> ignorant.
>>
>> You still don't understand the difference between paying for
>> something and having it given to you.
>
> Both are banned by the tweet. One is soliciting and receiving and
> the other is just receiving.

No, that's simply not correct.

<snip>

>>> "...The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the
>>> Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had
>>> contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work
>>> performed by Christopher Steele...."
>>
>> https://www.apnews.com/63c883156e314b68b86209d3b63890f5
>>
>> Me and the ap. We stand corrected.
>
> Took the AP two days. How could you have remained so misinformed on
> something so thoroughly and widely reported as false so long ago?

No, it was not as widely reported as the news that the Democrats picked
up the account from the Republicans.

>>>>> Not that I know of, but if they did...then yes. You can't so
>>>>> easily circumvent the law just by subcontracting the crime.
>>>>> I think you can add "conspiracy" to the charges if that was
>>>>> the case as well.
>>>>
>>>> It's still not a crime to hire someone to do research.
>>>
>>> It is if they solicit information from foreign nationals. Read
>>> your tweet link.
>>
>> You're hung up on the word 'solicit.' In this context it means
>> "hire" which is legal, not "ask for donation or gift" which is
>> not.
>
> Now you're back to claiming simple campaign finance
> crapola...something Bill, Hillary, and Barrack all have on their
> resumes.

I can't help it if you don't recognize word definitions.

> So why are the dems going so nutso over this when it is so
> commonplace?

Accepting stolen info from dodgy foreign sources isn't commonplace.

> And FWIW...Trump didn't ask the Russians to give him Hillary's
> hidden/destroyed while under subpoena e-mails....he asked for them to
> be released to the public...like Podesta's.

Which was likely coordinated with Roger Stone. Trump has a mafia
boss-like way of maintaining legal distance.

[ScottW]

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 6:26:55 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> On 6/16/19 4:57 PM, ScottW wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> >> On 6/16/19 1:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 10:19:47 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> >>>> On 6/16/19 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 5:27:05 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> No, the Clinton campaign did not accept unsolicited offers
> >>>>>> of stolen information.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Talk about moving the bar off your tweet. But let's get back
> >>>>> on tweet. They were the solicitors of value (over a million
> >>>>> $) from a foreign national.
> >>>>
> >>>> You haven't shown that.
> >>>
> >>> Are you living under a rock?
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier#Research_funded_by_Democrats_produces_dossier
>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> It's hard to imagine how you could remain so blissfully
> >>> ignorant.
> >>
> >> You still don't understand the difference between paying for
> >> something and having it given to you.
> >
> > Both are banned by the tweet. One is soliciting and receiving and
> > the other is just receiving.
>
> No, that's simply not correct.

Yeah..it is.

>
> <snip>
>
> >>> "...The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the
> >>> Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had
> >>> contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work
> >>> performed by Christopher Steele...."
> >>
> >> https://www.apnews.com/63c883156e314b68b86209d3b63890f5
> >>
> >> Me and the ap. We stand corrected.
> >
> > Took the AP two days. How could you have remained so misinformed on
> > something so thoroughly and widely reported as false so long ago?
>
> No, it was not as widely reported as the news that the Democrats picked
> up the account from the Republicans.

Did you ever wonder why that might be? A little media bias perhaps?

>
> >>>>> Not that I know of, but if they did...then yes. You can't so
> >>>>> easily circumvent the law just by subcontracting the crime.
> >>>>> I think you can add "conspiracy" to the charges if that was
> >>>>> the case as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's still not a crime to hire someone to do research.
> >>>
> >>> It is if they solicit information from foreign nationals. Read
> >>> your tweet link.
> >>
> >> You're hung up on the word 'solicit.' In this context it means
> >> "hire" which is legal, not "ask for donation or gift" which is
> >> not.
> >
> > Now you're back to claiming simple campaign finance
> > crapola...something Bill, Hillary, and Barrack all have on their
> > resumes.
>
> I can't help it if you don't recognize word definitions.

Are you denying all those campaigns weren't in violation of campaign finance laws?

Anyway...in your view of things the participation of a foreign national is irrelevant. But it obviously isn't irrelevant so your whole premise falls apart.

>
> > So why are the dems going so nutso over this when it is so
> > commonplace?
>
> Accepting stolen info from dodgy foreign sources isn't commonplace.

Now it's "stolen" info? What did Steele steal? How do you steal made up crap?

>
> > And FWIW...Trump didn't ask the Russians to give him Hillary's
> > hidden/destroyed while under subpoena e-mails....he asked for them to
> > be released to the public...like Podesta's.
>
> Which was likely coordinated with Roger Stone. Trump has a mafia
> boss-like way of maintaining legal distance.

GMAFB...even after Mueller you can't let go of collusion? Trump is going to live in your head forever. Oh well, you deserve it.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 6/16/19 10:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 6:26:55 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 6/16/19 4:57 PM, ScottW wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 12:03:49 PM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/19 1:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 10:19:47 AM UTC-7, MINe109
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/16/19 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 5:27:05 AM UTC-7, MINe109
>>>>>>> wrote:

>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> "...The Free Beacon had no knowledge of or connection to the
>>>>> Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had
>>>>> contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work
>>>>> performed by Christopher Steele...."
>>>>
>>>> https://www.apnews.com/63c883156e314b68b86209d3b63890f5
>>>>
>>>> Me and the ap. We stand corrected.
>>>
>>> Took the AP two days. How could you have remained so misinformed
>>> on something so thoroughly and widely reported as false so long
>>> ago?
>>
>> No, it was not as widely reported as the news that the Democrats
>> picked up the account from the Republicans.
>
> Did you ever wonder why that might be? A little media bias perhaps?

No, it's not that important a point. Besides, the Republicans are
drowning out their connection to Fusion by repeatedly counter-charging
Democrats, which the media dutifully reports.

>>>>>>> Not that I know of, but if they did...then yes. You can't
>>>>>>> so easily circumvent the law just by subcontracting the
>>>>>>> crime. I think you can add "conspiracy" to the charges if
>>>>>>> that was the case as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's still not a crime to hire someone to do research.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is if they solicit information from foreign nationals.
>>>>> Read your tweet link.
>>>>
>>>> You're hung up on the word 'solicit.' In this context it means
>>>> "hire" which is legal, not "ask for donation or gift" which is
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> Now you're back to claiming simple campaign finance
>>> crapola...something Bill, Hillary, and Barrack all have on their
>>> resumes.
>>
>> I can't help it if you don't recognize word definitions.
>
> Are you denying all those campaigns weren't in violation of campaign
> finance laws?

Not in violation: hiring foreigners to do work at market rates.

> Anyway...in your view of things the participation of a foreign
> national is irrelevant. But it obviously isn't irrelevant so your
> whole premise falls apart.

It's not illegal to hire foreigners.

>>> So why are the dems going so nutso over this when it is so
>>> commonplace?
>>
>> Accepting stolen info from dodgy foreign sources isn't
>> commonplace.
>
> Now it's "stolen" info? What did Steele steal? How do you steal
> made up crap?

No, Trump's campaign worked around releases of Podesta etc emails which
were stolen.

>>> And FWIW...Trump didn't ask the Russians to give him Hillary's
>>> hidden/destroyed while under subpoena e-mails....he asked for
>>> them to be released to the public...like Podesta's.
>>
>> Which was likely coordinated with Roger Stone. Trump has a mafia
>> boss-like way of maintaining legal distance.
>
> GMAFB...even after Mueller you can't let go of collusion? Trump is
> going to live in your head forever. Oh well, you deserve it.

Didn't say collusion which doesn't have a legal definition anyway. But
if you want to know what's up with the trial, the indictment is
available online:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5694704-Stone-Indictment-012419.html

FYI, the head of "Organization 1" is described as at the Ecuadorian
Embassy in London, in case anyone hasn't guessed who he is already.

[ScottW]

We've been told that an "independent free press" is crucial.
But since the press has largely become a dem party dependent entity you're ok with it.

Besides, the Republicans are
> drowning out their connection to Fusion by repeatedly counter-charging
> Democrats, which the media dutifully reports.

Same defense as "he had RUSSIAN contacts". Any contact with Fusion no matter the purpose is damning. How do you equate the Free Beacon to a political party organization like the DNC or a campaign like the Clinton Campaign?
Swapping the Free Beacon with "Republicans" is BS...but I suspect you know that and don't care.

>
> >>>>>>> Not that I know of, but if they did...then yes. You can't
> >>>>>>> so easily circumvent the law just by subcontracting the
> >>>>>>> crime. I think you can add "conspiracy" to the charges if
> >>>>>>> that was the case as well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's still not a crime to hire someone to do research.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is if they solicit information from foreign nationals.
> >>>>> Read your tweet link.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're hung up on the word 'solicit.' In this context it means
> >>>> "hire" which is legal, not "ask for donation or gift" which is
> >>>> not.
> >>>
> >>> Now you're back to claiming simple campaign finance
> >>> crapola...something Bill, Hillary, and Barrack all have on their
> >>> resumes.
> >>
> >> I can't help it if you don't recognize word definitions.
> >
> > Are you denying all those campaigns weren't in violation of campaign
> > finance laws?
>
> Not in violation: hiring foreigners to do work at market rates.

Obama campaign was fined and both Clinton campaigns were forced to return illicit donations.

>
> > Anyway...in your view of things the participation of a foreign
> > national is irrelevant. But it obviously isn't irrelevant so your
> > whole premise falls apart.
>
> It's not illegal to hire foreigners.

Remember...this is your reference. You figure out how to reconcile them.

"It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election."

>

> >>> So why are the dems going so nutso over this when it is so
> >>> commonplace?
> >>
> >> Accepting stolen info from dodgy foreign sources isn't
> >> commonplace.
> >
> > Now it's "stolen" info? What did Steele steal? How do you steal
> > made up crap?
>
> No, Trump's campaign worked around releases of Podesta etc emails which
> were stolen.

Mueller didn't find anything on that front. So now you're just desperately grasping at debunked history and trying to obfuscate away from the Clinton campaign and the DNC soliciting for and receiving from Foreign Nationals value.

>
> >>> And FWIW...Trump didn't ask the Russians to give him Hillary's
> >>> hidden/destroyed while under subpoena e-mails....he asked for
> >>> them to be released to the public...like Podesta's.
> >>
> >> Which was likely coordinated with Roger Stone. Trump has a mafia
> >> boss-like way of maintaining legal distance.
> >
> > GMAFB...even after Mueller you can't let go of collusion? Trump is
> > going to live in your head forever. Oh well, you deserve it.
>
> Didn't say collusion which doesn't have a legal definition anyway. But
> if you want to know what's up with the trial, the indictment is
> available online:
>
> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5694704-Stone-Indictment-012419.html
>
> FYI, the head of "Organization 1" is described as at the Ecuadorian
> Embassy in London, in case anyone hasn't guessed who he is already.

Same 'ol process crime (in this case obstruction). No underlying crime.

Trying to find out what Wiki had and what they planned to do with it is not a crime. But using the Steele dossier to obtain warrants and using official positions within the gov't to leak false info to the press to influence an election is a crime..

I'm very much looking forward to those indictments. I have a feeling yours will be petty in comparison.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 6/18/19 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
> On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 8:26:35 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 6/16/19 10:24 PM, ScottW wrote:

> We've been told that an "independent free press" is crucial. But
> since the press has largely become a dem party dependent entity
> you're ok with it.

Like Fox? I don't believe the media is as you describe.

> Besides, the Republicans are
>> drowning out their connection to Fusion by repeatedly
>> counter-charging Democrats, which the media dutifully reports.
>
> Same defense as "he had RUSSIAN contacts". Any contact with Fusion
> no matter the purpose is damning. How do you equate the Free Beacon
> to a political party organization like the DNC or a campaign like
> the Clinton Campaign? Swapping the Free Beacon with "Republicans" is
> BS...but I suspect you know that and don't care.

Who says? Isn't that the right-wing spin? The Free Beacon is considered
right wing and the report's original source of funding, billionaire Paul
Singer, is described as "an active participant in Republican Party
politics."

>>>>>>>>> Not that I know of, but if they did...then yes. You
>>>>>>>>> can't so easily circumvent the law just by
>>>>>>>>> subcontracting the crime. I think you can add
>>>>>>>>> "conspiracy" to the charges if that was the case as
>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's still not a crime to hire someone to do research.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is if they solicit information from foreign nationals.
>>>>>>> Read your tweet link.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're hung up on the word 'solicit.' In this context it
>>>>>> means "hire" which is legal, not "ask for donation or
>>>>>> gift" which is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you're back to claiming simple campaign finance
>>>>> crapola...something Bill, Hillary, and Barrack all have on
>>>>> their resumes.
>>>>
>>>> I can't help it if you don't recognize word definitions.
>>>
>>> Are you denying all those campaigns weren't in violation of
>>> campaign finance laws?
>>
>> Not in violation: hiring foreigners to do work at market rates.
>
> Obama campaign was fined and both Clinton campaigns were forced to
> return illicit donations.

For soliciting donations. Not for hiring foreigners to do work.

>>> Anyway...in your view of things the participation of a foreign
>>> national is irrelevant. But it obviously isn't irrelevant so
>>> your whole premise falls apart.
>>
>> It's not illegal to hire foreigners.
>
> Remember...this is your reference. You figure out how to reconcile
> them.
>
> "It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive
> anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S.
> election."

Solicit = request anything of value

Receive in this context means accept without paying for it.

Your case relies on you deliberately misunderstanding the statute.

>>>>> So why are the dems going so nutso over this when it is so
>>>>> commonplace?
>>>>
>>>> Accepting stolen info from dodgy foreign sources isn't
>>>> commonplace.
>>>
>>> Now it's "stolen" info? What did Steele steal? How do you steal
>>> made up crap?
>>
>> No, Trump's campaign worked around releases of Podesta etc emails
>> which were stolen.
>
> Mueller didn't find anything on that front. So now you're just
> desperately grasping at debunked history and trying to obfuscate
> away from the Clinton campaign and the DNC soliciting for and
> receiving from Foreign Nationals value.

You should read the Stone indictment that shows what was found on that
front.

>>>>> And FWIW...Trump didn't ask the Russians to give him
>>>>> Hillary's hidden/destroyed while under subpoena
>>>>> e-mails....he asked for them to be released to the
>>>>> public...like Podesta's.
>>>>
>>>> Which was likely coordinated with Roger Stone. Trump has a
>>>> mafia boss-like way of maintaining legal distance.
>>>
>>> GMAFB...even after Mueller you can't let go of collusion? Trump
>>> is going to live in your head forever. Oh well, you deserve it.
>>
>> Didn't say collusion which doesn't have a legal definition anyway.
>> But if you want to know what's up with the trial, the indictment is
>> available online:
>>
>> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5694704-Stone-Indictment-012419.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> FYI, the head of "Organization 1" is described as at the Ecuadorian
>> Embassy in London, in case anyone hasn't guessed who he is
>> already.
>
> Same 'ol process crime (in this case obstruction). No underlying
> crime.

No crime except a crime? You didn't read the indictment!

> Trying to find out what Wiki had and what they planned to do with it
> is not a crime.

He's not charged with "trying to find out what Wiki had" etc.

> But using the Steele dossier to obtain warrants and
> using official positions within the gov't to leak false info to the
> press to influence an election is a crime..

The dossier is still not the original basis of the warrants. Steele
leaked the dossier, not government figures.

> I'm very much looking forward to those indictments. I have a feeling
> yours will be petty in comparison.

"Mine" amounts to a Russian overthrow of a Presidential election. You
won't top that.

[ScottW]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:36:19 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> On 6/18/19 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
> > On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 8:26:35 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> >> On 6/16/19 10:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
>
> > We've been told that an "independent free press" is crucial. But
> > since the press has largely become a dem party dependent entity
> > you're ok with it.
>
> Like Fox?

One biased one way against how many leaning left?

>I don't believe the media is as you describe.

I'm sure you don't. But your beliefs often have little connection to reality.
Take a look at how many journalists admit their organizations have a left bias.
Would you deny an inside perspective?

>
> > Besides, the Republicans are
> >> drowning out their connection to Fusion by repeatedly
> >> counter-charging Democrats, which the media dutifully reports.
> >
> > Same defense as "he had RUSSIAN contacts". Any contact with Fusion
> > no matter the purpose is damning. How do you equate the Free Beacon
> > to a political party organization like the DNC or a campaign like
> > the Clinton Campaign? Swapping the Free Beacon with "Republicans" is
> > BS...but I suspect you know that and don't care.
>
> Who says? Isn't that the right-wing spin? The Free Beacon is considered
> right wing and the report's original source of funding, billionaire Paul
> Singer, is described as "an active participant in Republican Party
> politics."

Is George Soros the heart and soul of the democrat party?

In your world of immorality the dossier provided by foreign nationals including Russian sources is OK...simply because they PAID for it.

IF you can't see the twisted sickness of that logic....you're beyond any hope.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

On 6/18/19 12:42 PM, ScottW wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:36:19 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>> On 6/18/19 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 8:26:35 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/19 10:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
>>
>>> We've been told that an "independent free press" is crucial. But
>>> since the press has largely become a dem party dependent entity
>>> you're ok with it.
>>
>> Like Fox?
>
> One biased one way against how many leaning left?
>
>> I don't believe the media is as you describe.
>
> I'm sure you don't. But your beliefs often have little connection to
> reality. Take a look at how many journalists admit their
> organizations have a left bias. Would you deny an inside
> perspective?

Yes. The only "networks" I can think of that lean left are Democracy Now
(a show distributed by PBS) and Pacifica Radio.

The right have been "working the refs" claiming bias for decades. The
broadcast networks are center-right and pro-business. Anyway, too big a
subject to cover except to say that the right has successfully sold
their view. It's part of the eternal victimhood grift.

>>> Besides, the Republicans are
>>>> drowning out their connection to Fusion by repeatedly
>>>> counter-charging Democrats, which the media dutifully reports.
>>>
>>> Same defense as "he had RUSSIAN contacts". Any contact with
>>> Fusion no matter the purpose is damning. How do you equate the
>>> Free Beacon to a political party organization like the DNC or a
>>> campaign like the Clinton Campaign? Swapping the Free Beacon with
>>> "Republicans" is BS...but I suspect you know that and don't
>>> care.
>>
>> Who says? Isn't that the right-wing spin? The Free Beacon is
>> considered right wing and the report's original source of funding,
>> billionaire Paul Singer, is described as "an active participant in
>> Republican Party politics."
>
> Is George Soros the heart and soul of the democrat party?

Hardly. There's no pilgrimage to Soros the way Republicans beseech
Adelson, Mercer, Murdoch, etc

<snip>

> In your world of immorality the dossier provided by foreign nationals
> including Russian sources is OK...simply because they PAID for it.

I do think it's okay, but my point is that it's legal.

> IF you can't see the twisted sickness of that logic....you're beyond
> any hope.

With your evidence, what hope is there I could be convinced?

[ScottW]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 11:13:53 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> On 6/18/19 12:42 PM, ScottW wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 9:36:19 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> >> On 6/18/19 11:13 AM, ScottW wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 8:26:35 AM UTC-7, MINe109 wrote:
> >>>> On 6/16/19 10:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
> >>
> >>> We've been told that an "independent free press" is crucial. But
> >>> since the press has largely become a dem party dependent entity
> >>> you're ok with it.
> >>
> >> Like Fox?
> >
> > One biased one way against how many leaning left?
> >
> >> I don't believe the media is as you describe.
> >
> > I'm sure you don't. But your beliefs often have little connection to
> > reality. Take a look at how many journalists admit their
> > organizations have a left bias. Would you deny an inside
> > perspective?
>
> Yes.

and there you have it. Denial at it's finest.

ScottW

[MiNe109]

I deny lots of stuff that isn't true.