If--nine years ago--Obama had publicly asked Cuba to commit espionage against McCain while on the campaign trail, and then Wikileaks released a load of stolen internal communications from the Republican campaign,...
If that had occurred, we'd still, nine years later be seeing
new stories in the MSM detrimental to the Republicans from either direct quotes in the email or "meta analysis" proving some version of the Republicans are racist, sexist, or homophobic, see,"only a racist would so consistently end their sentences with a preposition."
There is absolutely NO question the media wouldn't give two figs about the source if it damaged Republicans instead of Democrats (note all the "anonymous" sources committing literal treason that are protected by the media today, if they are anti-Trump).
Meanwhile, there are next to no stories about the substance of those leaked emails. MSM successfully pivoted the entire country to focus on how the leak occurred and not the substance, but hypocritically, asking for the same treatment on anti-trump leaks is attempting to push a "false" narrative to protect the President.
...and Obama stumped on reopening a closed federal investigation into McCain’s mishandling of classified information, and then the FBI director announced that he needed to reopen the McCain investigation to sort through all of McCain’s aide’s husband’s dick pics to see if McCain had exposed anything highly private to Cuban spies,...
So what's this supposed to be equivalent to? Did I miss where McCain actually committed a federal crime and the Bush administration refused to prosecute? Where there was a secret meeting between two planes on a tarmac where the head of the Justice Department met secretly with McCain's wife (or is it only "obstruction" when a President has a meeting and expresses his hope that a prosecution won't occur?)
If you want to play this game, play it straight, cause throwing down a pre-judged version of nonsense that doesn't matched what happened just proves a bias on your part to me.
and then our National Security apparatus publicly announced that Cuba had been behind the leak in an act of espionage specifically targeting Republicans in order to influence our election...
And then failed to ever put forward actual proof of the fact, while actual questions about whether their claim was politically motivated in the first place persist? Where it became widely known that Cuba was not the only group that hacked them, that some of their staffers leaked information, including one killed execution style in the early morning in a "robbery" where nothing was stolen?
I don't dispute that Russians tried to meddle in the election using media influence. Until the left invested them with mythical super spy/manipulation skills to explain an electoral embarrassment, the obvious intent of their actions was to cause
President Clinton to have to spend years defending her own unethical actions.
...then I might have been laughing my ass off at this failing American democracy experiment of y’all’s, but I do think I’d also have been pointing out that Obama’s “joke” asking Cuban spies to help him win the election was a gag that, in context, quacked like treason...
Wouldn’t you?
Actually no. I'm not a moron, and I've pretty well established where I stand on the Rule of Law. Even for someone like Obama, who in my view, routinely acted against the interests of and to the detriment of the country.
Holding however, the Trump admin responsible to a political standard, while exculpating the Clinton campaign on a legal standard is rank hypocrisy. Colluding with CNN to influence an election is FAR more likely to have an impact than colluding with the Russians would. Whether Russian hackers, US hackers or some poor kid working for the DNC who mysteriously ended up murdered in a robbery where nothing was stolen, revealed a secret shouldn't make a bit of difference to your level of outrage, yet it only matters to the Dems if the Russians did it.
I’m sorry--you were pointing out my partisan hypocrisy, and you lost me in your haste to get to your party: remind me where I exculpated Clinton of anything?
What makes you think that was a personal comment? Was it the vague reference to "Dems" or the prior history there on concepts like "partisans"? Or just cause it's more convenient to try and defend the specific when you made the general charge initially?
Seriesly, who the *censored* do you think you’re talking to?
Don't know you at all. You write like a literary student using words rather than substance to make your case. I take issue with that.
I’m not actually one of them Dems, but even I think it’s funny to see you pretend that they weren’t outraged by the scenes where the Clinton machine colluded with the media mainstream. Anyone not stuck seeing straight red could tell you that the leftmost half of the Democrats haven’t stopped complaining about exactly that since the 2008 primaries! Don’t you suspect that at least some “level of outrage” over CNN feeding Clinton questions (at a Democrat primary townhall) came from folks wearing blue in the Bernie camp?
Actually that's kind of my point. There is a huge chunk of outrage from the extreme left at the party bosses, there's even an active class action law suit by those claiming to be Bernie supporters, and you'd barely know it from the media coverage. It's almost like there's a campaign to suppress that substantive issue or something.
Do you ever publish points that aren’t first filtered through a biased-partisan-hypocrite-talking-point-generation machine?
Of course, though not often on purely partisan talking point arguments. It's hardly my fault that the only talking points from the left are iterations of stop Trump.
Be happy to debate what the left wants to do on tax reform, or reforming Obamacare, or dealing with immigration and illegal immigration. Oh wait, the left doesn't have to do any of that? Why not again? Of yeah, the claim that Republicans were the party of No so we can be the party of Resistance and refusing to "normalize" our opponents, and suppression of speech we don't like.
By the way, you forgot to mention the pizza shop basement pedophilia ring--I’m pretty sure that’s tied together with the DNC intern murder thing, even if the connection is shrouded in mystery--undoubtedly because isn’t getting the coverage it deserves from the mainstream media.
I never read the pizza shop thing directly, what I have read is endless accounts of it as an example. Is it the only example? It would crack me up, if it weren't so sad, that the MSM believes that the pizza shop is the dangerous fake news, but their one sided bias and twisting of stories and narratives is just effective advocacy.
I started this with a specific demand. Show the actual evidence of collusion.
I already did. You can claim the liar was just joking when he publicly asked Russian spies to help him win, but you might keep in mind the fact that federal judges have already ruled that the things Trump said on the campaign trail can and will be used against him in a court of law.
Lol. You clearly know little about law. A public claim can not be evidence of collusion. Look up the word.
I get that District court judges have so ruled, an interesting Precedent - in my view unlikely to hold, may even be reversed by the liberal 9th Circuit. And why? Cause the flip side of it risks every the left holds dear, empowering everyone of the district judges to overrule facially legal rules because of what a politician once said exposes everything.
Think about it, Texas court bans all payments - Nationwide - to Planned Parenthood because of what a politician said in writing the bill that funds them and inputs that the bill was to fund abortion (illegal) despite that it doesn't do so facially.
Rejoicing in a nonsense standard that has district court judges replace the President's decision making with their own personal opinions is directly contrary to the rule of law, and really is only consistent with the idea of totalitarian rule by philosopher kings. A judge ordering -nationwide - that the federal government must make payments to cities, replaces the authority of the legislature and the executive with his autocratic opinion.
If you let the rule of law devolve into the ends justifies the means, it is a pendulum that swings both ways. Don't believe its possible? Did I ever tell you about the time the US elected one of the two worse presidential candidates in recent memory, this guy named Trump, and how he continued to blaze the trail of his immediate predecessor and tried to rule through executive orders?
