Horrible. How is that different from New York Times and Washington Post obtaining and publishing Edward-Snowden-stolen documents?
Boom.
I’m not surprised that is your spin. If you wait a few hours then the official obfuscation points will be released.
Because the important thing to remember is that both sides do it. A spoonful, a dump truck, alla same.
The important thing is to remember that Trump must always be defended, no matter what is revealed or what he says or does. No criticism must stand. Liberals are always evil no matter what.
It’s probably just fake news from the well known left leaning Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal. Or something.
So - no response to my question then? How is that different from New York Times and Washington Post obtaining and publishing Edward-Snowden-stolen documents? Or for that matter obtaining and publishing those same Clinton’s emails?
No response to my question posted before the evidence of collusion that just came out?
Why does this matter? I’m not sure if it’s any different at all. When newspapers get newsworthy documents, they publish them. That’s how news works. Always has, always will.
So it’s not different. Ho hum. That’s what I said. The “Boom” part was funny though.
I thought you were complaining about process. In content? It’s different in many ways – a GOP operative was working with outside (and possibly Russian) hackers to try and discredit political opponents. That’s different.
The person at the heart of this story is described as “a veteran GOP opposition researcher”. It’d be interesting to find out that this wasn’t Trump collusion as much as GOP collusion with Trump’s approval.
Are you in favor of Snowden’s leaks? I think they damaged our national security.
Huh?
Hackers steal emails. “GOP operative” obtains them and publishes them. That’s bad.
Hackers steal emails. NYC and WaPo obtain them and publish them. That’s ok.
Journalists are not political operatives. If a political operative was coordinating with foreign agents do discredit an opponent, that’s different than a journalist trying to find info to publish to inform the public.
The new defense seems to be “Trump or his team may have coordinated with Russia, but that’s no big deal”.
What if a political operative “tries to find info to publish to inform the public”? Or is that privilege reserved for “journalists”?
Then we laugh heartily, since that isn’t something that political operatives do.
So you are in favor of Snowden’s leaks. I had no idea you’d be such a Glenn Greenwald fan, but there it is in black and white.
I have a problem with Snowden’s leaks, and I have a problem with hackers stealing emails. Both are crimes. I have a problem with crimes. I do not have a problem with publishing those once they become available. That’s not a crime.
And Sessions forgets any meetings with the Russian ambassador, in front of the Senate? A previous member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who would have no choice but to know who he was?
Bullshit. He didn’t want anything to get in the way of his being confirmed, so he lied. (He may have had other motivations, but that one’s obvious.) You really must think I’m either as gullible as your base or just plain stupid.
For what it’s worth (and so far he hasn’t been messing around), the tick/boom guy is vouching for another person’s “tick, tick, tick” prediction.