And I don't disagree with that. He has been a surprisingly effective President. Imagine what he would have been able to accomplish without all of the ankle-biters, nattering nabobs of negativism, and sheer lunacy being thrown at him day in and day out.

I call BS on Evelyn Farkas' claims. If such intel existed, Adam Shiff would have disseminated it long ago, The real intel is the Russians paid the Clintons $500 million. The coverup involves accusing Trump of what they are guilty of.

Mrs. Farkas might consider the Israelis have it all. Trump is their friend. Obama is their enemy. You think the Israelis are going to let Trump go down??? I have some swamp land in Ariz.............

99.999% of the attacks on Trump are fiction.

He can be and is a real butt hole, but he is a patriotic butt hole. The Clintons and Obama are also butt holes, but patriotism is not part of their culture or life.

I disagree. I believe Farkas was in the loop enough to know that what they were doing was illegal. She wasn't making things up other than agents in Russia were the sources.

It is a valid question/concern, though. One that is being asked by lots of people. And with no really good answer that I can come up with.

How can we "defend" what we think we know without what many people consider credible reporting? Too many people still pooh pooh The blogosphere as internet nonsense.

Wildcat said:

---

Quote:

---

FACTS

---

I think the biggest challenge in 2018 is knowing what these actually are. There is really no reliable, trustworthy news outlet available any longer.

There has always been bias in media. That is unavoidable as we all bring our own perspective to anything we observe; it's human nature. But today's outlets, from both sides of the political spectrum and from traditional and non-traditional sources, are engaged in what I will call "inductive reporting". That is to say, they already have a conclusion and then run around collecting the thoughts and data points that support whatever it is they have decided to report.

So when we say "FACTS", I am not convinced that is what we are actually seeing or if we are simply seeing the "facts" that have been selectively chosen to support a predetermined conclusion.

---

"Facts" these days are total fabrications built on misrepresentation of truth.

The only way to get the truth today is to read the documents yourself. The little we get from FOIA filings is all we have, and even those are withheld or sanitized before being released.

drcrinum said:

---

Trump is amoral? And that's why I voted for him? And that makes me what????

---

It makes you realistic as a voter.

Interestingly enough, we've seen endless press and social media trying to tell Trump voters that his morals are on you because you voted for him. Hell, I've seen people get called racist just for voting for the guy.

What they really mean to say is, "we can't run the usual moral trope on Trump that we use to get Republicans to do what we want, so we have to come up with some other shtick to try and get his voters to alienate him." Which, in my opinion, explains the silly anonymous NYT editorial.

Funny story about all of this is what, exactly, is the media going to do if Trump truly succeeds? What if we get into 2020 election season with a booming economy, US enemies neutered, and positive outlook from the population? Are we going to be told with great fervor by the media (like we are today) not to trust our lying eyes?

aggiehawg said:

---

coyote68 said:

---

The NYT op-ed is pure fiction. It is part of the many fictions that have been and are being used to take down the POTUS. The Robert Mueller SC is the same thing,

The person that wrote it does not work for Trump and most likely is an attorney that works for one of the leftist entities that are trying to destroy our Constitutional government.

The piece is pure fiction.

How do I know? There is no middle ground in this fight. The person that wrote it wants you to believe there is a middle ground. That is a lie.

---

I am viewing it in the exact opposite way. The NYT is tacitly confirming their belief that there is a "Deep State" ( for lack of a better term) working against Trump. They vouched for their source. By that action, they suggest they are a part of it as they are well aware from their other sources.

This Op-ed is a new version of the pee-pee tape but it inadvertently confirms there is an organized Resistance within the federal government. It may be completely made up but if it is just something the editorial board cooked up themselves, it sure went in a weird direction that I don't believe they thought through.

---

Count me in the boat that this was done deliberately by the Trump team.

MooreTrucker said:

---

It is a valid question/concern, though. One that is being asked by lots of people. And with no really good answer that I can come up with.

How can we "defend" what we think we know without what many people consider credible reporting? Too many people still pooh pooh The blogosphere as internet nonsense.

---

Dan Rather and Mary Mapes know better. The Pajamahadeen took them down. But I digress.

Kimberly Stassel at the WSJ, Catherine Herridge at FNC, Sara Carter and John Solomon are doing solid reporting. Andy McCarthy is doing stellar legal analysis at NRO.

There are only 2 explanations that make sense. It was deliberate by the Trump white house or the NYT editorial board is in desperation mode because of Kavenaugh and got sloppy,

Quote:

---

Count me in the boat that this was done deliberately by the Trump team.

---

Putting the humor of Trump putting one over on the NYT aside, why do you think the Trump Team would do that?

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

benchmark said:

---

What was Nellie Ohr's security status while employed at Fusion GPS?

---

I believe she still was able to access the FBI/NSA database of FISA data and mine it for dirt.

---

Confirmation would blow the lid off . Which begs the question; after knowing of the Ohr nexis for almost a year, why were neither interviewed by Mueller and why hasn't Nellie been subpoenaed to testify to Congress?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Count me in the boat that this was done deliberately by the Trump team.

---

Putting the humor of Trump putting one over on the NYT aside, why do you think the Trump Team would do that?

---

To have the left defend it and it be plain support for the deep state theory.

Remember the story of Trump calling in his own PR deal back in the 90's, he knows the media and they are desperate so they chum the water.

Axelrod opines that he believes it is legit and every word of it is true...and questions the motives of the author.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/06/opinions/nyt-oped-axelrod/index.html

Quote:

---

(CNN) What do you do when your boss is dangerously unstable, often clueless and, oh yes ... the President of the United States?

One senior administration official resolved that question Wednesday by unburdening himself -- or herself -- on the op-ed page of The New York Times, describing a "resistance" within the upper echelons of the Trump administration that has acted to protect the country from an unmoored President.

The author suggested that Trump-appointed Cabinet members even discussed the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment, declaring him unfit and removing him from office. Instead, the author said, they resolved to rein in the volcanic President from the inside.

The timing of the piece, coming a day after excerpts were released from Bob Woodward's new investigative tome, "Fear: Trump in the White House," deepened the portrait of an ignorant and amoral President whose escalator isn't stopping at every floor.

The question I keep asking is: What exactly was its intended purpose?

---

I just love how he operates from the presumption that this document and its assertions are entirely legitimate. It's just accepted that Trump is mentally unfit and surrounded by people protecting the country from a mad man.

Quote:

---

Yet, at the end of the day, I still find myself wondering: If the game plan is to stay in place and continue to act as a guardrail, why write the piece at all?

---

So after essentially endorsing the piece, he stops to ponder what was the point of writing it?

blindey said:

---

There are only 2 explanations that make sense. It was deliberate by the Trump white house or the NYT editorial board is in desperation mode because of Kavenaugh and got sloppy,

---

The admission to stealing documents off of Trump's desk would militate against it coming from the Trump Team with Trump's full knowledge.

To add to your post: as Hawg has repeatedly asked, what is the point of publishing it?

blindey said:

---

There are only 2 explanations that make sense. It was deliberate by the Trump white house or the NYT editorial board is in desperation mode because of Kavenaugh and got sloppy,

---

Or one person from thousands of appointees ... disgruntled with the trajectory of his department?

blindey said:

---

To add to your post: as Hawg has repeatedly asked, what is the point of publishing it?

---

Yeah, publishing that blows their whole narrative denying the existence of the "Deep State" completely out of the water.

Now, if that Op-ed really did come from Team Trump and the NYT fell for it, then that is a multi-dimensional chess move by Trump.

But that raises question #2: why on earth would the NYT actually publish this?

aggiehawg said:

---

I disagree. I believe Farkas was in the loop enough to know that what they were doing was illegal. She wasn't making things up other than agents in Russia were the sources.

---

People forget Farkas was in that Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, little clique. She was a deputy under Chuck Hagel and Leon Panetta. She had unmasking powers as well, and when Hagel retire she went to Hillary's Campaign assuming she would get a big appointment when HRC won.... oops. She got caught flapping her gums trying to impress Brzezinski. She's no wallflower either there is a lot of interactions with her and Deripaska. Farkas name will come up again in this deal before it's done.

aggiehawg said:

---

blindey said:

---

There are only 2 explanations that make sense. It was deliberate by the Trump white house or the NYT editorial board is in desperation mode because of Kavenaugh and got sloppy,

---

The admission to stealing documents off of Trump's desk would militate against it coming from the Trump Team with Trump's full knowledge.

---

I've got a decent vocabulary, but I do have to look stuff up occasionally with you and blindey----MILITATE.

I've got to try and find a way to use that tomorrow at the game!

stealing documents? I may have missed that. Was that in the original op-ed? thats a BFD that I did not know about.

Happy to have been of some assistance, there. WHOOP! BTHO Clemson!

BMX Bandit said:

---

stealing documents? I may have missed that. Was that in the original op-ed? thats a BFD that I did not know about.

---

Taking documents off of his desk so he wouldn't see/sign them, IIRC.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

stealing documents? I may have missed that. Was that in the original op-ed? thats a BFD that I did not know about.

---

Taking documents off of his desk so he wouldn't see/sign them, IIRC.

---

Correct.

whether called "stealing" or just moving so he wouldn't see them, still the same in my book.

I barely skimmed the op-ed when it came out because didn't really find it interesting. Is that really in there?

BMX Bandit said:

---

whether called "stealing" or just moving so he wouldn't see them, still the same in my book.

---

Yeah, it's not some staffer's call, other than Kelly's. He manages Trump's schedule. And no one believes Kelly would be the author of that Op-ed.

First interview with CNN? It's a taped interview, already done.
Oh, BTW, Papadopoulos's sentencing day is today, September 7th. Coincidence.

I almost wonder if Trump would be way less effective without the constant assault.

A Christian doesn't fall asleep when he is bruning in a fire or drowning in the ocean but grows dreary in sunshine. - replace christian with politician and this sums up my point previously. The constant attacks fuel Trump and team forward. Failure is not an option. The Dems have destroyed the escape route and now must contend with a fighter with a ton to lose.

Hmmmm.

Now there are reports that the Op-Ed was a fake.

coyote68 said:

---

Hmmmm.

Now there are reports that the Op-Ed was a fake.

---

Of course it was fake. It reeks of desperation.

coyote68 said:

---

Hmmmm.

Now there are reports that the Op-Ed was a fake.

---

I'm not buying it. I think it's probably real and authored by a narcissist.

coyote68 said:

---

Hmmmm.

Now there are reports that the Op-Ed was a fake.

---

Now that it has proven not to be as effective at damaging the President as the New York Times hoped, there are reports it was a fake.

Hannity and Sara Carter just said Trump is about to declassify 8-10 pages of the 4th FISA warrant signed by Rosenstein. Sara said it will blow this whole Mueller investigation to hell. Look for it later tonight or tomorrow, according to what I just heard on his radio program.