10 ms·

Do you have anything to support this accusation? I've been watching him closely for several years and it seems the mortal sin he committed was his failure to j

by Nacdor 6y ago

Do you have anything to support this accusation? I've been watching him closely for several years and it seems the mortal sin he committed was his failure to join the Russiagate bandwagon. In the end that was clearly the correct choice, but the liberal media no longer tolerates anyone who has the audacity to undermine their chosen narrative.

adobecs3 6y ago
If it's againat Biden it's misinformation and if you don't agree you are alt right. Conpiracy theorist. Also Russia collusion has been proven.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  It's scary I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
threatofrain 6y ago
Tucker Carlson just announced on Twitter that he has lost critical documents relating to the alleged wrongdoings of Hunter Biden. This was moments before Glenn Greenwald's resignation.
- Nacdor 6y ago
  I'm not familiar with this conspiracy theory, can you explain how they're connected?
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    It means evidence backing up Greenwald's controversial position was still not checked out. The fact that the centerpiece of a story could be "lost" before it was even studied would show that Greenwald was jumping the gun. He has no access to the evidence but he is making very preliminary bets.
    - benmmurphy 6y ago
      i think what greenwald is basing is story on is all in the public domain. i think tucker is prone to hyping stuff so these documents probably don't add much.
    - Nacdor 6y ago
      Greenwald doesn't work for Fox and there are multiple copies of the documents, I don't see your point?
      - threatofrain 6y ago
        News agencies outside of Fox / NY Post haven't been able to study the evidence on a developing story, and Tucker Carlson has yet to reveal critical evidence. Glenn Greenwald's own editor is telling him not to make preliminary bets. What's so surprising here?
- benmmurphy 6y ago
  he also tweeted that he has access to copies of the documents and UPS now have come out and said they found the missing documents. https://www.businessinsider.com/ups-said-found-lost-tucker-carlson-documents-sending-back-2020-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/ups-said-found-lost-tucker-c... probably, just a weird coincidence but tucker wasn't lying about the situation.
- nickthegreek 6y ago
  fyi, UPS found the missing mail. So we are waiting with bated breath for Tucker to blow our minds with the critical documents...
- brown9-2 6y ago
  I have critical evidence that this whole story is a fraud, but I can’t show it to you
dkural 6y ago
My conclusion is the opposite. The Mueller report was heavily redacted, and misrepresented by AG Barr - precisely because it is so damning. Trump got impeached by congress over the Ukraine scandal later on, again enlisting foreign help. Trump asked a foreign power to help him against a political opponent - the Ukraine facts are not in dispute. Trump's campaign took multiple meetings with Russians bearing emails, and multiple members of his campaign are now in jail. These two facts are also not in dispute.
- Nacdor 6y ago
  > The Mueller report was heavily redacted So your first argument is essentially "There's proof in the report, we just can't see it"? > multiple members of his campaign are now in jail. Don't you think you should mention the fact that they went to jail for reasons that have nothing to do with Russian collusion?
  - phailhaus 6y ago
    Er, Mueller straight up said "if we could exonerate the President for obstruction of justice, we would. But we can't." So Mueller has admitted that Trump obstructed his investigation, and several members in Trump's circle have gone to jail for _lying to the FBI_. Not to mention the fact that Mueller's investigation clearly found that Trump's campaign was in contact with Russian agents, knew they favored Trump's campaign, and "welcomed" their help (i.e., foreign interference). This is what the public understands as "collusion". However, "collusion" is not a legal term, "conspiracy" is and has a higher bar of proof. So yes, Trump colluded with Russia, we just couldn't prove that they explicitly conspired since Trump's circle lied for him.
    - Nacdor 6y ago
      You may find this shocking, but the Mueller report supports none of the substantive claims about Trump's campaign conspiring with Russians and actually contradicts many of them: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m... > Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”
gkoberger 6y ago
I don't think it's fair to say it was the correct choice. It was a choice, and one he was allowed to make, but it was one of many options. You say "the liberal media no longer tolerates anyone who has the audacity to undermine their chosen narrative". Isn't that what I'm talking about? He founded the org. Do you think "the liberal media" got together and decided to censor him? Or do you think people just weren't buying what he was selling? I don't get how you can accuse the liberal media of anything in this situation... it's not like he works for MSNBC or CNN.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  Why was it not the correct choice? I may be misinformed but I thought all the hullabaloo about Russiagate ended up amounting to absolutely nothing and yet it was presented to the public like a scandal that would take down the Trump regime. I had family members over for the holidays bet actual money that Trump would be successfully impeached because of Russiagate, so when people are so out of line with reality based on something they read in the mainstream news, isn't that a fault of the news? Wouldn't it have been right to not go there with the rest of the news outlets?
- Nacdor 6y ago
  > I don't think it's fair to say it was the correct choice. It's absolutely fair and the Mueller Report proved Greenwald was right all along: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m... > it's not like he works for MSNBC or CNN. There doesn't need to be some grand conspiracy among liberal journalists in order for them to engage in the partisan censorship he describes. It's clear that most of them believe supporting the "correct" candidate is far more important than publishing the truth.
  - rat87 6y ago
    The Mueller report did no such thing.
  - nl 6y ago
archagon 6y ago
> clearly the correct choice I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but saying something with confidence doesn't actually make it true.
- Nacdor 6y ago
  You're right, the Mueller report is what makes it true: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m... > Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.” $35 million wasted on an investigation that started with a FISA warrant based on a phony report (Steele Dossier) commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
  - gkoberger 6y ago
    The Steele Dossier was not commissioned by Clinton. The investigation was because of Carter Page, not the dossier. Mueller's scope of investigation was very narrow, was ended by Barr prematurely, and was filtered through Barr. Donald Trump definitely solicited Russian interference in the election. His family met with Russians in Trump Tower. Right after the meeting, Trump said to expect dirt on Clinton. Soon after that, he looked into a camera and told Putin to hack Clinton. Hours later, Clinton was hacked by Russians for the first time. Mueller may not have found a smoking gun from a legal perspective, but let's not act like this is a Democratic hoax. Trump was caught doing it again a few months later, with Ukraine, and was impeached for it.
serial_dev 6y ago
> In the end that was clearly the correct choice You think (and to be honest, I agree with you) it was clearly the correct choice. If you ask anyone from the MSNBC/NYT/CNN/WaPo's audience (substantial amount of people), they will say it was clearly the wrong choice. Two movies on one screen.
- eindiran 6y ago
  > Two movies on one screen. It reminds me of Shiri's Scissors: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/

by Nacdor 6y ago

adobecs3 6y ago

If it's againat Biden it's misinformation and if you don't agree you are alt right. Conpiracy theorist. Also Russia collusion has been proven.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
It's scary I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

threatofrain 6y ago

Tucker Carlson just announced on Twitter that he has lost critical documents relating to the alleged wrongdoings of Hunter Biden. This was moments before Glenn Greenwald's resignation.

Nacdor 6y ago
I'm not familiar with this conspiracy theory, can you explain how they're connected?
- threatofrain 6y ago
  It means evidence backing up Greenwald's controversial position was still not checked out. The fact that the centerpiece of a story could be "lost" before it was even studied would show that Greenwald was jumping the gun. He has no access to the evidence but he is making very preliminary bets.
  - benmmurphy 6y ago
    i think what greenwald is basing is story on is all in the public domain. i think tucker is prone to hyping stuff so these documents probably don't add much.
  - Nacdor 6y ago
    Greenwald doesn't work for Fox and there are multiple copies of the documents, I don't see your point?
    - threatofrain 6y ago
      News agencies outside of Fox / NY Post haven't been able to study the evidence on a developing story, and Tucker Carlson has yet to reveal critical evidence. Glenn Greenwald's own editor is telling him not to make preliminary bets. What's so surprising here?
benmmurphy 6y ago
he also tweeted that he has access to copies of the documents and UPS now have come out and said they found the missing documents. https://www.businessinsider.com/ups-said-found-lost-tucker-carlson-documents-sending-back-2020-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/ups-said-found-lost-tucker-c... probably, just a weird coincidence but tucker wasn't lying about the situation.
nickthegreek 6y ago
fyi, UPS found the missing mail. So we are waiting with bated breath for Tucker to blow our minds with the critical documents...
brown9-2 6y ago
I have critical evidence that this whole story is a fraud, but I can’t show it to you

dkural 6y ago

My conclusion is the opposite. The Mueller report was heavily redacted, and misrepresented by AG Barr - precisely because it is so damning. Trump got impeached by congress over the Ukraine scandal later on, again enlisting foreign help. Trump asked a foreign power to help him against a political opponent - the Ukraine facts are not in dispute. Trump's campaign took multiple meetings with Russians bearing emails, and multiple members of his campaign are now in jail. These two facts are also not in dispute.

Nacdor 6y ago
> The Mueller report was heavily redacted So your first argument is essentially "There's proof in the report, we just can't see it"? > multiple members of his campaign are now in jail. Don't you think you should mention the fact that they went to jail for reasons that have nothing to do with Russian collusion?
- phailhaus 6y ago
  Er, Mueller straight up said "if we could exonerate the President for obstruction of justice, we would. But we can't." So Mueller has admitted that Trump obstructed his investigation, and several members in Trump's circle have gone to jail for _lying to the FBI_. Not to mention the fact that Mueller's investigation clearly found that Trump's campaign was in contact with Russian agents, knew they favored Trump's campaign, and "welcomed" their help (i.e., foreign interference). This is what the public understands as "collusion". However, "collusion" is not a legal term, "conspiracy" is and has a higher bar of proof. So yes, Trump colluded with Russia, we just couldn't prove that they explicitly conspired since Trump's circle lied for him.
  - Nacdor 6y ago
    You may find this shocking, but the Mueller report supports none of the substantive claims about Trump's campaign conspiring with Russians and actually contradicts many of them: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m... > Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”

gkoberger 6y ago

I don't think it's fair to say it was the correct choice. It was a choice, and one he was allowed to make, but it was one of many options. You say "the liberal media no longer tolerates anyone who has the audacity to undermine their chosen narrative". Isn't that what I'm talking about? He founded the org. Do you think "the liberal media" got together and decided to censor him? Or do you think people just weren't buying what he was selling? I don't get how you can accuse the liberal media of anything in this situation... it's not like he works for MSNBC or CNN.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
Why was it not the correct choice? I may be misinformed but I thought all the hullabaloo about Russiagate ended up amounting to absolutely nothing and yet it was presented to the public like a scandal that would take down the Trump regime. I had family members over for the holidays bet actual money that Trump would be successfully impeached because of Russiagate, so when people are so out of line with reality based on something they read in the mainstream news, isn't that a fault of the news? Wouldn't it have been right to not go there with the rest of the news outlets?
Nacdor 6y ago
> I don't think it's fair to say it was the correct choice. It's absolutely fair and the Mueller Report proved Greenwald was right all along: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m... > it's not like he works for MSNBC or CNN. There doesn't need to be some grand conspiracy among liberal journalists in order for them to engage in the partisan censorship he describes. It's clear that most of them believe supporting the "correct" candidate is far more important than publishing the truth.
- rat87 6y ago
  The Mueller report did no such thing.
- nl 6y ago

archagon 6y ago

> clearly the correct choice I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but saying something with confidence doesn't actually make it true.

Nacdor 6y ago
You're right, the Mueller report is what makes it true: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/ https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m... > Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.” $35 million wasted on an investigation that started with a FISA warrant based on a phony report (Steele Dossier) commissioned by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
- gkoberger 6y ago
  The Steele Dossier was not commissioned by Clinton. The investigation was because of Carter Page, not the dossier. Mueller's scope of investigation was very narrow, was ended by Barr prematurely, and was filtered through Barr. Donald Trump definitely solicited Russian interference in the election. His family met with Russians in Trump Tower. Right after the meeting, Trump said to expect dirt on Clinton. Soon after that, he looked into a camera and told Putin to hack Clinton. Hours later, Clinton was hacked by Russians for the first time. Mueller may not have found a smoking gun from a legal perspective, but let's not act like this is a Democratic hoax. Trump was caught doing it again a few months later, with Ukraine, and was impeached for it.

serial_dev 6y ago

> In the end that was clearly the correct choice You think (and to be honest, I agree with you) it was clearly the correct choice. If you ask anyone from the MSNBC/NYT/CNN/WaPo's audience (substantial amount of people), they will say it was clearly the wrong choice. Two movies on one screen.

eindiran 6y ago
> Two movies on one screen. It reminds me of Shiri's Scissors: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/