NYT Columnist ‘Striking How Little Evidence’ There Is For Trump, Russia Collusion
This guy hates Trump. Some deep-dog liberals now jumping off narrative. Even they can’t support it…Buckle up
Quote:The New York Times’ David Brooks isn’t your typical conservative. In fact, many in the movement don’t consider the columnist an ally at all. He’s of a more moderate stripe and not one to shy away from criticizing Republicans; he once called Sarah Palin a “cancer” to the party. Yet, he did voice his concern about the lack of evidence being put forward with all the Russian collusion hysteria that’s embroiled the liberal news media and the Democratic Party. Are we getting ahead of ourselves? It seems that the “politics of scandal” that the Left is so desperately trying to gin up against Trump while lacking evidence to do so is making Mr. Brooks nervous; he made it known on last Sunday’s Meet The Press. He also said that what's been discussed isn't Watergate reloaded:
"I'm actually getting more uncomfortable with this whole deal, thinking that maybe we're getting a little ahead of ourselves. And I'm bothered by the lack of emerging evidence about the underlying crime, that there was actually collusion or coordination between the Trump White House.
And so what's happened is we've surrounded the president with this legal minefield, and Donald Trump being Donald Trump, steps all over the legal minefield and blows them up six ways from Sunday. But it's become an investigation about itself. And you know, I've lived through Whitewater, I've lived through a lot of these. And there's a lot of shady behavior that don't rise to the Watergate level. And I'm just afraid we're being swallowed up by the politics of scandal, when there's less and less evidence that they actually colluded. And maybe that'll come out, but so far it hasn't, and it bothers me."
What’s ironic is that his paper’s editorial board is doing just that concerning Russia, blasting Trump for being indifferent to Russia’s interference campaign. In other words, they’re attacking Trump for not being pro-active on an issue that they feel is important. Oh, and they also admit that there’s no evidence that the Russian interference campaign impacted the results. Maybe it’s because they didn’t [emphasis mine]:
RE: NYT Columnist ‘Striking How Little Evidence’ There Is For Trump, Russia Collusion
Fake news liberal media needs to be held to account for their conspiracy theory. There is a year's worth of tweets, articles, and video clips that with ZERO evidence whatsoever were sold to us as gospel, that need to be compiled, archived, and shoved right back in their filthy, lying faces.
Never again.
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2017 10:58 PM by Kronke.)
RE: NYT Columnist ‘Striking How Little Evidence’ There Is For Trump, Russia Collusion
What gets me is the fact that a lot of people are making really good money off of "exposing" very tenuous connections. There was one on one of these shoes where they were talking about some important Russian who bought a house from Trump site-unseen and paid a lot more money than it was worth.
What big-timer in real estate hasn't taken money from Russians? It means nothing! It's so frustrating to watch.
Now that doesn't mean Russia isn't specifically using Trump to get to us, but I think it's very indirect.
RE: NYT Columnist ‘Striking How Little Evidence’ There Is For Trump, Russia Collusion
It's all made up b.s. by partisans so it doesn't surprise me that it's starting to make some folks on that side of the bleachers uncomfortable. That feeling when you figure out you took the click bait...
RE: NYT Columnist ‘Striking How Little Evidence’ There Is For Trump, Russia Collusion
Wall Street Journal has an OpEd on this today. Since it is a pay site, I'll provide some highlights:
Quote:...Consider what has passed for proof in the media. Tens of thousands of Americans have done business with Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, not to mention before.
In 2009 President Obama made the first of his two trips to Russia with a gaggle of U.S. business leaders in tow.
Of these many thousands, four were associated with the Trump campaign, and now became evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.
Every president for 75 years has sought improved relations with Russia. That’s what those endless summits were about. Mr. Trump, in his typically bombastic way, also promoted improved relations with Russia. Now this was evidence of collusion.
Russian diplomats live in the U.S. and rub shoulders with countless Americans. Such shoulder-rubbing, if Trump associates were involved, now is proof of crime....
We would probably not be having this Russia discussion today if not for the so-called Trump dossier alleging improbable, lurid connections between Donald Trump and the Kremlin.
It had no provenance that anyone was bound to respect or rely upon. Its alleged author, a retired British agent named Christopher Steele, supposedly had Russian intelligence sources, but why would Russian intelligence blow the cover of their blackmail agent Mr. Trump whom they presumably so carefully and expensively cultivated? They wouldn’t.
Quote:As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.
They promised to rededicate the paper to reporting honestly.
RE: NYT Columnist ‘Striking How Little Evidence’ There Is For Trump, Russia Collusion
(06-21-2017 08:02 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: I read here that NYT is fake news. I'm confused now
They are finally starting to figure out that their readers will get mad when they realize they have been lying to them all this time. So they are slowly weaning them off the idea.
Quote:As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.
They promised to rededicate the paper to reporting honestly.
So far they haven't fared too well.
Well they got rid of the hypocrisy of having a public editor who they never listened to anyway.
RE: NYT Columnist ‘Striking How Little Evidence’ There Is For Trump, Russia Collusion
They know it's all made up BS because they are the ones that made it all up...now they want to block testimony from the handful of people they pointed fingers at.
"...Things are so bad that I’m going to have to give Trump the last word. On June 15 he tweeted, “They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story.” Unless there is some new revelation, that may turn out to be pretty accurate commentary."
RE: NYT Columnist ‘Striking How Little Evidence’ There Is For Trump, Russia Collusion
(06-21-2017 09:18 AM)bullet Wrote:
(06-21-2017 08:02 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote: I read here that NYT is fake news. I'm confused now
They are finally starting to figure out that their readers will get mad when they realize they have been lying to them all this time. So they are slowly weaning them off the idea.
What you mean the Gruber's wil get mad? No way, the Gruber's will believe what their damn well told to believe.
/
NYT Columnist ‘Striking How Little Evidence’ There Is For Trump, Russia Collusion
