Team Trump v/s Everyone

[UNI88]

Not what I said at all. I'm just pointing out that BDK has been very clear that unnamed sources are not credible.

You’re ignoring the evidence and that is the documents

I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of BDK quoting a piece with an unnamed source after all of his caterwauling about the credibility of unnamed sources. kash patel's FBI has about as much credibility as MSNBC.

Care to provide links to all of this other "evidence"? If unnamed sources aren't good enough to use against trump or his minions then the word of an unnamed Democratic intelligence staffer isn't enough to be used against his opponents either.

FTR - this might true, schiff might have done this. Much of what unnamed sources have said about trump and his MAQA yahoos might also be true.

[Caribbean Hen]

You’re ignoring the evidence and that is the documents

I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of BDK quoting a piece with an unnamed source after all of his caterwauling about the credibility of unnamed sources. kash patel's FBI has about as much credibility as MSNBC.

Care to provide links to all of this other "evidence"? If unnamed sources aren't good enough to use against trump or his minions then the word of an unnamed Democratic intelligence staffer isn't enough to be used against his opponents either.

FTR - this might true, schiff might have done this. Much of what unnamed sources have said about trump and his MAQA yahoos might also be true.

So far all lies planted by TDS patients

[Bobcat]

Yep they lied and went after a political opponent. They are Hamas and Trump is Israel.

Wonder how thats gonna turn out?

Hopefully the left supporters of Hamas are screaming about war crimes soon

[BDKJMU]

Withheld so he doesn’t “commit suicide”

I hope not because then BDK won't be able to believe it and shouldn't even have posted it ...

Meaningless without names.

There‘s no way to substantiate an ‘unnamed‘ source. It could be legit, or could be a reporter just embellishing, spinning, omitting, or outright lying/making shit up.

If you want people to find a source credible, put a name behind it.

(Unnamed’ or ‘anonymous’ usually means Fake News)..

Yeah unnamed WITH NO COLLABORATING EVIDENCE. The document was provided- it‘s posted above.

[BDKJMU]

I hope not because then BDK won't be able to believe it and shouldn't even have posted it ...

So you’re defending Shifty up Shitz creek now


you’re ignoring the documents that they’ve released now

The documents substantiate what the whistle blower was reporting to the FBI

Bingo.

[BDKJMU]

So you’re defending Shifty up Shitz creek now

you’re ignoring the documents that they’ve released now

The documents substantiate what the whistle blower was reporting to the FBI

Not what I said at all. I'm just pointing out that BDK has been very clear that unnamed sources are not credible.

Only without corroborating, publicly released evidence.

[BDKJMU]

You’re ignoring the evidence and that is the documents

I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of BDK quoting a piece with an unnamed source after all of his caterwauling about the credibility of unnamed sources. kash patel's FBI has about as much credibility as MSNBC.

Care to provide links to all of this other "evidence"? If unnamed sources aren't good enough to use against trump or his minions then the word of an unnamed Democratic intelligence staffer isn't enough to be used against his opponents either.

FTR - this might true, schiff might have done this. Much of what unnamed sources have said about trump and his MAQA yahoos might also be true.

That‘s because there wasn‘t any corroborating evidence provided by the news reporter/outlet. They just claimed they had unnamed source(s).

[UNI88]

I hope not because then BDK won't be able to believe it and shouldn't even have posted it ...

Yeah unnamed WITH NO COLLABORATING EVIDENCE. The document was provided- it‘s posted above.

It appears to me that the document shows interviews with a SINGLE UNNAMED SOURCE. Where is the COLLABORATING EVIDENCE? I must have missed it?

Do you want me to believe an unnamed source is suddenly credible simply because they're sited by kash patel's FBI? kash patel is about as credible as whoopi goldberg.

If everything that unnamed sources have said about trump and his MAQA yahoos are lies planted by TDS patients then everything that unnamed sources have said about biden and Democrat are lies planted by b/DDS patients.

[Bobcat]

Oh so NOW unnamed sources are not worthy of believing! LOL

This is basically the journalistic equivalent of “My cousin’s girlfriend knows a guy.” but hey the left was 100% certain when it came to the unnamed source that said DJT had classified papers about nuclear weapons.

Trumps guilty. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from a guy who knows a kid who's going with the girl who saw him pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I think it's serious.

[kalm]

Some prisoners get alligator, others get min sec prisons where they recreate, play sports, go out on work release, watch TV.

The fix is in.


https://www.newsweek.com/inside-ghislai ... on-2107984

[BDKJMU]

Some prisoners get alligator, others get min sec prisons where they recreate, play sports, go out on work release, watch TV.

The fix is in.


https://www.newsweek.com/inside-ghislai ... on-2107984

Some prisoners are convicted of violent crimes, some aren‘t.

[Caribbean Hen]

Some prisoners get alligator, others get min sec prisons where they recreate, play sports, go out on work release, watch TV.

The fix is in.


https://www.newsweek.com/inside-ghislai ... on-2107984

Some prisoners are doing dead peoples time

[kalm]

Some prisoners get alligator, others get min sec prisons where they recreate, play sports, go out on work release, watch TV.

The fix is in.


https://www.newsweek.com/inside-ghislai ... on-2107984

Some prisoners are convicted of violent crimes, some aren‘t.

So all of the inmates at an Alligator Alcatraz are violent criminals, huh. You sure?

Are they all convicts?

Even if they were, why do you think Maxwell deserves and was given a break?

[BDKJMU]

Some prisoners are convicted of violent crimes, some aren‘t.

So all of the inmates at an Alligator Alcatraz are violent criminals, huh. You sure?

Are they all convicts?

Even if they were, why do you think Maxwell deserves and was given a break?

No. Are all drug dealers (who didn’t use violence) violent criminals? Are all all pedophiles & statutory rapists who didn’t use violence? Are all drunk drivers?

Any of them who crossed the border illegally are criminals.

I don‘t think Maxwell deserves a break- she’s a despicable cunt, but given what she was convicted of, under what criteria should she be in a max security vs minimum?

[Bobcat]

Some prisoners are convicted of violent crimes, some aren‘t.

So all of the inmates at an Alligator Alcatraz are violent criminals, huh. You sure?

Are they all convicts?

Even if they were, why do you think Maxwell deserves and was given a break?

They broke the law, same as any other law breaker.

[SeattleGriz]

You’re ignoring the evidence and that is the documents

I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of BDK quoting a piece with an unnamed source after all of his caterwauling about the credibility of unnamed sources. kash patel's FBI has about as much credibility as MSNBC.

Care to provide links to all of this other "evidence"? If unnamed sources aren't good enough to use against trump or his minions then the word of an unnamed Democratic intelligence staffer isn't enough to be used against his opponents either.

FTR - this might true, schiff might have done this. Much of what unnamed sources have said about trump and his MAQA yahoos might also be true.

The source of the information was from declassified FBI 302's. This issue was presented before Garland, but he supposedly didn't do anything because of statute of limitations.

The source is unnamed because she was a whistleblower. I sure don't remember you complaining about unmasking the "whistleblower" that led to Trump's first sham impeachment

[UNI88]

I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of BDK quoting a piece with an unnamed source after all of his caterwauling about the credibility of unnamed sources. kash patel's FBI has about as much credibility as MSNBC.

Care to provide links to all of this other "evidence"? If unnamed sources aren't good enough to use against trump or his minions then the word of an unnamed Democratic intelligence staffer isn't enough to be used against his opponents either.

FTR - this might true, schiff might have done this. Much of what unnamed sources have said about trump and his MAQA yahoos might also be true.

The source of the information was from declassified FBI 302's. This issue was presented before Garland, but he supposedly didn't do anything because of statute of limitations.

The source is unnamed because she was a whistleblower. I sure don't remember you complaining about unmasking the "whistleblower" that led to Trump's first sham impeachment

BDK has a problem with unnamed sources, not me. Using his logic, the information isn't credible unless the name of the source is revealed.



As I stated, this might true, schiff might have done this. Of course, much of what unnamed sources have said about trump and his MAQA yahoos might also be true. I'm just pointing out BDK's hypocrisy/double standard - sources of information disparaging trump must be revealed, sources of information disparaging his opponents can remain confidential. It's bullshit and you know it.

[kalm]

The source of the information was from declassified FBI 302's. This issue was presented before Garland, but he supposedly didn't do anything because of statute of limitations.

The source is unnamed because she was a whistleblower. I sure don't remember you complaining about unmasking the "whistleblower" that led to Trump's first sham impeachment

BDK has a problem with unnamed sources, not me. Using his logic, the information isn't credible unless the name of the source is revealed.



As I stated, this might true, schiff might have done this. Of course, much of what unnamed sources have said about trump and his MAQA yahoos might also be true. I'm just pointing out BDK's hypocrisy/double standard - sources of information disparaging trump must be revealed, sources of information disparaging his opponents can remain confidential. It's bullshit and you know it.

The misses on your parody here are delicious!

[SeattleGriz]

The source of the information was from declassified FBI 302's. This issue was presented before Garland, but he supposedly didn't do anything because of statute of limitations.

The source is unnamed because she was a whistleblower. I sure don't remember you complaining about unmasking the "whistleblower" that led to Trump's first sham impeachment

BDK has a problem with unnamed sources, not me. Using his logic, the information isn't credible unless the name of the source is revealed.



As I stated, this might true, schiff might have done this. Of course, much of what unnamed sources have said about trump and his MAQA yahoos might also be true. I'm just pointing out BDK's hypocrisy/double standard - sources of information disparaging trump must be revealed, sources of information disparaging his opponents can remain confidential. It's bullshit and you know it.

I get what you are saying, because I pull the same trick, but I think it's a little different when FBI agents interview someone versus the NYT using, "unnamed sources say".

Regardless, and I'll get this out here now. You know of my affinity for the Conservative Treehouse because they did such a great job of uncovering what was happening. Anyways, I asked one of them on X if anything new has come out and they were like, "no, nothing new, but with less redactions it does confirm what we had speculated". They like what Tulsi is doing, but since before Bill Barr, they see nothing will come of this.

It's more of the same. Trump's going to jail. Nope. Hillary is going to jail. Nope.

I do hope those that pulled this stunt do get drug through the mud though.

[UNI88]

BDK has a problem with unnamed sources, not me. Using his logic, the information isn't credible unless the name of the source is revealed.



As I stated, this might true, schiff might have done this. Of course, much of what unnamed sources have said about trump and his MAQA yahoos might also be true. I'm just pointing out BDK's hypocrisy/double standard - sources of information disparaging trump must be revealed, sources of information disparaging his opponents can remain confidential. It's bullshit and you know it.

I get what you are saying, because I pull the same trick, but I think it's a little different when FBI agents interview someone versus the NYT using, "unnamed sources say".

Regardless, and I'll get this out here now. You know of my affinity for the Conservative Treehouse because they did such a great job of uncovering what was happening. Anyways, I asked one of them on X if anything new has come out and they were like, "no, nothing new, but with less redactions it does confirm what we had speculated". They like what Tulsi is doing, but since before Bill Barr, they see nothing will come of this.

It's more of the same. Trump's going to jail. Nope. Hillary is going to jail. Nope.

I do hope those that pulled this stunt do get drug through the mud though.

It's still just one source with no corroborating evidence that I'm aware of. I don't think an old school reporter would publish based on something that weak or they would at least admit that it was uncorroborated rather than trying to act as if it's gospel.

Schiff reminds me of comer when it comes to overhyping evidence. Like I said, he might be guilty. Can you admit the same about trump and election interference, obstructing the return of documents, sexual assault, etc?

I trust gabbard and bondi even less than I trusted garland.

hildamort and trump and their allies have dragged this country through the mud for the last 9+ years and we have at least 3 more years to go. It's fvcking depressing. We're in significantly worse shape now than we were in 2015 and we're getting worse (more divided) not better. So much for making America great again.

[SeattleGriz]

I get what you are saying, because I pull the same trick, but I think it's a little different when FBI agents interview someone versus the NYT using, "unnamed sources say".

Regardless, and I'll get this out here now. You know of my affinity for the Conservative Treehouse because they did such a great job of uncovering what was happening. Anyways, I asked one of them on X if anything new has come out and they were like, "no, nothing new, but with less redactions it does confirm what we had speculated". They like what Tulsi is doing, but since before Bill Barr, they see nothing will come of this.

It's more of the same. Trump's going to jail. Nope. Hillary is going to jail. Nope.

I do hope those that pulled this stunt do get drug through the mud though.

It's still just one source with no corroborating evidence that I'm aware of. I don't think an old school reporter would publish based on something that weak or they would at least admit that it was uncorroborated rather than trying to act as if it's gospel.

Schiff reminds me of comer when it comes to overhyping evidence. Like I said, he might be guilty. Can you admit the same about trump and election interference, obstructing the return of documents, sexual assault, etc?

I trust gabbard and bondi even less than I trusted garland.

hildamort and trump and their allies have dragged this country through the mud for the last 9+ years and we have at least 3 more years to go. It's fvcking depressing. We're in significantly worse shape now than we were in 2015 and we're getting worse (more divided) not better. So much for making America great again.

I trust Gabbard, at this point, but not Bondi...at all. She has a horrific past in her dealings with Trayvon Martin. Essentially she turned over the whole apple cart to try and frame George Zimmerman. Absolutely despicable.

Gabbard is in an interesting position as ODNI. She gets to look down all the silos the IC has built to prevent accountability. Her bringing these items to light is good and bad. Good it's out there, but bad because we all know nothing will happen and just piss more off at the two levels of justice.

[UNI88]

It's still just one source with no corroborating evidence that I'm aware of. I don't think an old school reporter would publish based on something that weak or they would at least admit that it was uncorroborated rather than trying to act as if it's gospel.

Schiff reminds me of comer when it comes to overhyping evidence. Like I said, he might be guilty. Can you admit the same about trump and election interference, obstructing the return of documents, sexual assault, etc?

I trust gabbard and bondi even less than I trusted garland.

hildamort and trump and their allies have dragged this country through the mud for the last 9+ years and we have at least 3 more years to go. It's fvcking depressing. We're in significantly worse shape now than we were in 2015 and we're getting worse (more divided) not better. So much for making America great again.

I trust Gabbard, at this point, but not Bondi...at all. She has a horrific past in her dealings with Trayvon Martin. Essentially she turned over the whole apple cart to try and frame George Zimmerman. Absolutely despicable.

Gabbard is in an interesting position as ODNI. She gets to look down all the silos the IC has built to prevent accountability. Her bringing these items to light is good and bad. Good it's out there, but bad because we all know nothing will happen and just piss more off at the two levels of justice.

gabbard has also been in trump's dog house and appears willing to say things and engage in witch hunts just to get back in his good graces. I don't trust her.

trump complained about the DoJ and IC being weaponized against him. If they were, it was covertly. Now he and they don't even try to hide it, they have overtly weaponized them against his opponents and that's absolutely wrong and not what those positions should be about.

[kalm]

I trust Gabbard, at this point, but not Bondi...at all. She has a horrific past in her dealings with Trayvon Martin. Essentially she turned over the whole apple cart to try and frame George Zimmerman. Absolutely despicable.

Gabbard is in an interesting position as ODNI. She gets to look down all the silos the IC has built to prevent accountability. Her bringing these items to light is good and bad. Good it's out there, but bad because we all know nothing will happen and just piss more off at the two levels of justice.

gabbard has also been in trump's dog house and appears willing to say things and engage in witch hunts just to get back in his good graces. I don't trust her.

trump complained about the DoJ and IC being weaponized against him. If they were, it was covertly. Now he and they don't even try to hide it, they have overtly weaponized them against his opponents and that's absolutely wrong and not what those positions should be about.

Gabbard is a massive opportunist and dishonest in a sea of dishonesty and craven opportunists.

[SeattleGriz]

gabbard has also been in trump's dog house and appears willing to say things and engage in witch hunts just to get back in his good graces. I don't trust her.

trump complained about the DoJ and IC being weaponized against him. If they were, it was covertly. Now he and they don't even try to hide it, they have overtly weaponized them against his opponents and that's absolutely wrong and not what those positions should be about.

Gabbard is a massive opportunist and dishonest in a sea of dishonesty and craven opportunists.

Gabbard isn't a part of the neocon crowd and why she's currently getting shit on, that's why I like her so far. I'll be honest, I don't think she will, or will be allowed, to do any real damage.

[UNI88]

Gabbard is a massive opportunist and dishonest in a sea of dishonesty and craven opportunists.

Gabbard isn't a part of the neocon crowd and why she's currently getting shit on, that's why I like her so far. I'll be honest, I don't think she will, or will be allowed, to do any real damage.

I will give you that - she isn't a neocon and she does have a tendency to speak her mind.

But that gets her in trouble when her opinion is at odds with trump and the rest of the qabinet. His #1 requirement is loyalty. It's trump's version of DEI, more important than competence, experience or knowledge. And when she's in the dog house, she'll have to say and do things that will please trump but might not be in the best interests of the country in order to get back into his good graces. It will be an interesting but vicious cycle and it will cost her dearly.