That was an extremely badly written article which seemed to consist entirely of unsubstantiated–and in several cases entirely false–allegations. Though, I can see why if you used articles like that as your news source, why you would think that the dossier was the work of “a foreign power”.
I do note that the article was marked “Opinion”, which I suppose allows the “paper” to excuse the multiple lies it contained.
I would strongly suggest finding a more reliable source of news. And also, not spreading lies published as “opinion” as facts, thanks.
You are aware that things like witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and the like are federal crimes, right?
Honestly, even if it turns out that absolutely none of the Trump-Russia collusion threads go anywhere (not likely, but okay), there is plenty of evidence of Trump doing some real fuckin’ criminal shit.
As the Right Rev. Chuck D so aptly said, “Forty cents in New York City, fifty cents elsewhere, and makes no goddamned sense at all. America’s oldest continually published daily piece of bullshit.”
I don’t remember listing an opinion piece as support for any factual claims I’ve made, so I don’t know why you would imply that about my motivations.
But yes, I would separate “Opinion” pieces from “News” articles. And in fact, that’s what reliable news sources do.
Also, I try to avoid “leftie sources” unless they’ve developed a reputation for accuracy. I don’t need anyone telling me what to think, or slanting facts to reflect their bias. I’d hope that, even if I were a “rightie” I’d avoid the NYPost as the garbage heap it was.
I might be overstating my impartiality here. I do read opinion pieces by leftists as a way to understand the news, e.g., this thread by Seth Abramson. But if his interpretation was consistently biased (as shown by deviation from actual outcomes), I’d stop reading him.
Yeah, and I’m aware that similar could be said of many politicians.
Bottom line is they all get away with it, sans what amounts to a taped confession (Nixon)
When a party starts screaming impeachment before or shortly after elections are over and just latching on to anything they think might do the trick it’s 1. Whiny as hell 2. Extreme
I’ve heard plenty of qualifying accusations of federal crimes on either side.
If Hillary had won I’d be talking the same crap to whiny extreme Republicans.
It ain’t right, but we all know how white collar crime goes…and how extensively forgiving a system high level politicians like say the president are actually subject to.
Hell if I would have broken security protocols the way Hillary did…well…I doubt I’d be walking around free.
Within the current system screaming impeachment for anything short of an easy clear cut case puts you way far off into whichever side you sit on.
Now, if the report presents some clear cut case ,different story. I highly doubt a report that’s taking two years to put together is going to be anything resembling clear cut solid evidence.
Really? Didn’t Comey make the point that no one, ever, had previously been charged for what she did? You think you would be the first in the history of the United States?
And if it took two months to put together the claim would be that there was no way to gather solid evidence in that amount of time. Tell me-is there any period of time for an investigation against Trump that would be satisfactory to you?
Riiight. If Mueller had just pulled an all-nighter and cut-and-pasted a few paragraphs from Wikipedia, that would have produced “clear cut solid evidence”. But a two-year-long investigation, with federal search warrants, FBI raids, indictments, multiple people convicted or pleading guilty to federal crimes? Obviously crap.