DOJ Documents Dump On Clinton Lynch Meeting Prove Media Collusion; FBI Lied

a reply to: Gryphon66

and yet I never stated in my response what you are talking about now regarding voting. What I said is Clinton supporters like to lie by claiming she won a majority of the fictitious national popular vote when in reality she did not. She received a plurality, which means 52% of the people who voted did not vote for her but for someone else. Also latest polling, while showing Trumps popularity as low, he still is ahead of Clinton.

Trump Is Still More Popular Than Hillary Clinton, New Poll Shows - By Greg Price On 7/18/17 at 9:34 AM

Even though President Donald Trump has seen his approval ratings drop to all-time lows, the commander in chief might relish the fact that Americans view him slightly better than his former Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

The former secretary of state notched a 39 percent favorable rating, 2 points lower than Trump, in Bloomberg’s National Poll results released Tuesday, the second-worst score for Clinton in the almost eight years the poll has followed her.

click link for entire article, which includes other polls showing people dislike clinton more than they do trump.

Trump won because Clinton felt she was above everyone else and was to lazy to take her husbands advice and to get out and work the crowds. She failed to take his advice the first time she ran and got the same result. She felt she was owed the Presidency and felt people should just give it to her without the need for hard work or a message to get people on board. One of the campaign slogans clintons team looked at was "Because it's her turn".

Im not the one obsessed with the popular vote but clinton supporters seem to be. You are the one who tried to make an argument about vote percentages and you did so without proper context. Also less than 2% in trumps favor is irrelevant since he won those states. Trying to split hairs in that regards is just sad on your part.

Remind us again who you worked for during the elections.


The correct link. All you had to do was google the title and you would have found the full article. Instead you just ignored it, probably because it undermines the false argument you tried to make by invoking that particular topic.
* - There Are A LOT Of Holes In The Lawsuit Involving Fox News, Seth Rich, And Donald Trump

What does it mean that a majority of people voted against Clinton? What does it mean that even now, with all the bs surrounding Trump, that Clinton would still lose the election if it were held today? What does it mean that even with all the bs surrounding Trump, he is still more liked than Clinton?

The only denial is coming from the butthurt left. You lost so get over it. Thank God Congress has reopened the investigations into Clinton and her minions. Thanks god they sent a request to Rosenstein to appoint a special prosecutor.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, as I said, you're talking about what YOU want to talk about and replying to my post as an excuse to spew.

My point is straightforward and easily understood: every measure we have demonstrates that more Americans are and have been opposed to Mr. Trump than have supported him.

Again, more Americans are AGAINST Trump than are FOR him. I know that tears at the fundamental underpinnings of many of your beliefs, but it's an observable fact.

You, as I said, only want to argue about what you don't like about HIllary Clinton and play games in the "right and left" playpen. I don't. Move on.

I am not interested in your fake news sites. I'm sure the faithful will love them.

a reply to: Gryphon66

and yet he still beat clinton, still beats clinton, and is more popular than clinton.

An undeniable fact.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

and yet he still beat clinton, still beats clinton, and is more popular than clinton.

An undeniable fact.

How interesting that you are far more wrapped up in your own petty political BS than able to face what the American people want.

And they don't (and haven't) wanted Trump. As Trump said in 2012 ... perhaps it's time to end the Electoral College, eh?

a reply to: carewemust

I found it to be very interesting, your welcome!

I'm guessing, but maybe there is a plan between
Trump and Sessions....time will tell.

I'll just leave this here ...



The DOJ document "dump" that you're all excited about shows one thing ... that the DOJ and FBI have people assigned to interact with the Press.

That's it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And we know Clinton never waffled on anything right?

Laughable!

The election deniers must trudge on!

a reply to: Gryphon66

All part of the plan my boy, all part of the plan.

Too many people will never get it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

This is all the proof we need to strip their amendment right of freedom of the press, because theyre clearly not anymore. They've brainwashed countless liberals against their own nation.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: EternalShadow


Move forward when most of the people we elect are not looking out for our best interests in who they hire, and what they vote/don't vote for? How?

By closing the divide, did you actually READ my comment?

a reply to: xuenchen

Trump has tweeted about this very story,
A few hours ago. Washington Examiner did a story
on it.

7.9k likes



And he added the pic of Lynch and Clinton

originally posted by: WhyDidIJoin
a reply to: Xcathdra

This is all the proof we need to strip their amendment right of freedom of the press, because theyre clearly not anymore. They've brainwashed countless liberals against their own nation.

The issue is the media thinks the 1st amendment completely makes them immune to prosecution for their actions when its the furthest from the truth. The other issue is the MSM we have today are not journalists. They are opinion pundits and when they go out of their way to print / report on classified information not to expose illegal activity but to push a certain agenda / narrative, they should be held accountable.

Even the journalists behind the Pentagon papers fiasco were charged. The prosecutor screwed up and a mistrial occurred and he never refiled the charges. Plenty of journalists have gone to jail for refusing to name sources and thats their choice.

I am just tired of each side ignoring the fact we all are on the same plane and going out of their way to get the pilot to crash the plane.

"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.

Jefferson on Politics and Government

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.
Benjamin Franklin

The freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
George Mason

If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, Maybe I could understand some of these illegal injunctions. ... But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Source

Just a few thoughts from some of the greatest American minds on the inviolate nature of Freedom of the Press.

We already have plenty of laws that reasonably limit the Freedom of the Press regarding libel and defamation.

And, believe it or not (which you would not if you listened to some voices here that want you to forget the past) these "questions" have already been settled:

Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints.

In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.

Justice Hugo Black in his 1971 opinion in New York Times v. United States, SCOTUS

Why the Press Can Publish Any Classified Material it Likes - The Atlantic

No one should be surprised that supporters of a authoritarian right-wing nutjob like Trump want "reasonable restrictions" on one of our basic rights.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So, you think this all means it would be OK for the press to out an undercover agent in a dangerous situation... or provide an enemy with locations of US military? ... and if they were told not to that would mean there was a danger to the freedom of US people?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: burntheships

Collusion by whom?

She admitted herself afterwards the meeting was wrong,
once the story escaped control.

Then Comey admitted under oath that she was unethical.

"No phones, no pictures"

Your blind and intentionally so.

Right! After the electoral college Certified the Presidential Election was won by the great Donald Trump, Loretta Lynch (in her own way) begged for forgiveness.

(Here is where I would do a copy/paste of her words, but ATS Admin said that's a breach of the T&C.)

Source: www.washingtontimes.com...

But a month later, she made this video calling for riots, and bloodshed! What a troubled soul she must have.

I think that conversation would have still happened and no one would have known who would tell. She is saying to me, she didn't want people to see them together is such a setting.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

Could you explain what from the emails you find to be wrong exactly? Because I looked at each link and unless I missed something, nothing from the emails themselves looks "wrong." The meeting on the other hand, arguably very wrong.

The wrongness is that the Press is not only taking sides, they are actively facilitating the soft coup against the current administration. Even someone with your intellect should be able to see that. And the problem doesn't stop with Trump, it came with Ron Paul, and won't end here, when you have the MSM driving the public opinion bus and they follow orders from "other sources deep within the government", we all have a problem. Sorry I didn't spell this out in greater detail for you earlier. Next time, I'll do it in crayon.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, you think this all means it would be OK for the press to out an undercover agent in a dangerous situation... or provide an enemy with locations of US military? ... and if they were told not to that would mean there was a danger to the freedom of US people?

Ah the famous "So, you think it would be OK ... [followed by ridiculous crap I've never said]."

I've said what I think. I've quoted what some of the greatest minds in our history have said. And none of that sounds like the BS you just tossed against the wall.

Let me show you ... "So, 'UK', are you saying that you think it was OK that the Trump campaign collaborated with our enemies to attempt to illegitimately influence the Election in 2016?"

Or, "So, 'UK', are you saying that you think it was OK that the Russians hacked the private servers of the an American political party, and gave the personal and confidential communications out to whoever could do the most damage with it, but it's wrong for someone to leak transcripts of Presidential phone calls that demonstrate what a lying nutjob our current President is?"

See how that works ... "UK"?

OK.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Interesting indeed, I am not sure who's winning but they are def losing? What do you say? =]

a reply to: burntheships

You might think it's distasteful, but there is no law against reaching out to media and negotiating coverage of a story. What do you think that people who work in public relations do every day?

And remember, congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press. Therefore, communications between the media and public officials can't be barred by lawmakers. And thank goodness for that.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, you think this all means it would be OK for the press to out an undercover agent in a dangerous situation... or provide an enemy with locations of US military? ... and if they were told not to that would mean there was a danger to the freedom of US people?

You're mixing up feelings with constitutional law. The question of prior restraint of the press was settled in the 70s.

Media is the only private sector occupation protected by the constitution.