Breaking! Clapper Does An About Face--"It's Possible Trump's Voice Was Picked Up In Manafort Wiretap

[Spare_change]

Update!

Clapper Says He Was Unaware of Manafort Wiretap Order – He Previously Claimed He Would 'Absolutely' Know if a FISA Warrant Existed (VIDEO)

Gateway pundit is as bad as Infowars.

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Nationalism, Some Fake News

The Gateway Pundit - Media Bias/Fact Check

I notice how you conveniently "forget" to address the actual content of the post ... instead, you try to deflect by saying it must not be true because it comes from a particular source.

Are you incapable of addressing the issue raised, or are you just uncomfortable with its content?

I never deflect dude NEVER.
I rely on real facts and truthfulness. You are telling me that Gateway pundits supposed to be credible media? I already prove it to you that it's worthless and not even worth my time reading those craps.
Dude these kind of media are catered especially for people like you.

Update!

Clapper Says He Was Unaware of Manafort Wiretap Order – He Previously Claimed He Would 'Absolutely' Know if a FISA Warrant Existed (VIDEO)

Gateway pundit is as bad as Infowars.

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Nationalism, Some Fake News

The Gateway Pundit - Media Bias/Fact Check

I notice how you conveniently "forget" to address the actual content of the post ... instead, you try to deflect by saying it must not be true because it comes from a particular source.

Are you incapable of addressing the issue raised, or are you just uncomfortable with its content?

I never deflect dude NEVER.
I rely on real facts and truthfulness. You are telling me that Gateway pundits supposed to be credible media? I already prove it to you that it's worthless and not even worth my time reading those craps.
Dude these kind of media are catered especially for people like you.

Simply, the source is irrelevant. Either the content of the post is accurate, or it isn't.

It's not your job to comment on source - it's your job to comment on the content of the post. Either prove to us where he's wrong, or acknowledge that he's right.

To hide behind your "the source is bad, so I'm not even going to address the content" canard is both cowardly and intellectually dishonest. Your comment about the source is of no more value than "Well, he posted this on a Sunday, so we KNOW it can't be true - because nobody ever says anything truthful on Sundays. Well, unless they're eating pizza at the time - and he never mentioned pizza so I'm going to take the intellectual low road and ignore what has been presented. Of course, I will - in order to try to salve my flagging ego - scoff at his source. That way, maybe they won't notice that I don't know a damn thing about what he's talking about."

That, sir, summarizes the quality of your inputs.

LOL. Cry me river. You are very funny clown.
It is my job to question the source that you and others used. That's the reality.
The problem with people like you are digging something that are just pure lies to support your ignorance and lies.
That tells me you don't what you are talking about. Grow up.

If they are lies, then do your damn job.

Prove they are lies.

You simply don't want to address the subject - you want to find some convenient canard to hide your ignorance behind.

 

[charwin95]

Did you really read your link or you just look at it?
And you consider Faux News, Infowars or Gateway pundits your real news then you are deranged sick American.

Give us a fake news that CNN broadcasted. Name us one. I'm waiting.

5 Examples Of CNN’s “Fake News” – Return Of Kings

FYI regarding your SOURCE!

Return of Kings

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.


Bias: Hate Group, Extreme Right


Notes: Return of Kings is run by Daryush Valizadeh (known by his Internet alias Roosh Vörek or Roosh V) who is an American manosphere denizen, misogynist, rape apologist, pick-up artist, and sex tourist. We suggest you take a look at RationalWiki’s write up on Roosh V for more information.

Rape apologist? for a while there I thought you had segued to Hillary!

Next you'll be telling me that the Democrats didn't start the KKK, that the Republicans didn't oppose slavery, that Robert E. Lee actually ever owned a slave, that Democrats didn't oppose civil rights for blacks until counting the potential votes and the ease of pandering to get them...

Roosh V - RationalWiki

Outstanding non-response!

Are you suggesting that none of that which he posted is true, simply because of the source? Or, do you choose to actually refute the facts under discussion?

Never mind - we already know. You aren't intellectually capable of having an intelligent discussion about anything more difficult than Play-Doh.

Using those kind of source or links justify your intelligence and ignorance.

Why would anyone use a link that are just pure lies? Why? Either you are ignorant or poorly informed.

 

[charwin95]

Did you really read your link or you just look at it?
And you consider Faux News, Infowars or Gateway pundits your real news then you are deranged sick American.

Give us a fake news that CNN broadcasted. Name us one. I'm waiting.

5 Examples Of CNN’s “Fake News” – Return Of Kings

How does "5 Examples of CNN's Fake News" compare with the total of Dotard's documented lies?
Fact Checker- Analysis
President Trump’s list of false and misleading claims tops 1,000
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/22/president-trumps-list-of-false-and-misleading-claims-tops-1000/?utm_term=.f43e08477c52
All False statements involving Donald Trump
All False statements involving Donald Trump | PolitiFact
It is clear that Trumpsters have no problem with Trump's over a thousand of documented lies, but crap in their pants over the much fewer alleged "fake news" by the MSM. That says a lot about their hyper-partisan selective requirement for honesty.
Can Trumpsters be even bigger hypocrites? It wouldn't surprise me.

You asked for "one" example of CNN fake news.

Give us a fake news that CNN broadcasted. Name us one. I'm waiting.

I gave you 5.

Go fuck yourself!

No you didn’t. You idiotically gave a link with 5 examples of morons bitching that CNN is fake news. Not one example of it actually being fake news.

You are but one example of an idiot that will accept any lie that is repeated continuously by your handlers.

So far you and your fellow Trumpets here are lying. Give one example that CNN broadcasted fake news.

Can you or anyone name one?

 

[charwin95]

Gateway pundit is as bad as Infowars.

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Nationalism, Some Fake News

The Gateway Pundit - Media Bias/Fact Check

I notice how you conveniently "forget" to address the actual content of the post ... instead, you try to deflect by saying it must not be true because it comes from a particular source.

Are you incapable of addressing the issue raised, or are you just uncomfortable with its content?

I never deflect dude NEVER.
I rely on real facts and truthfulness. You are telling me that Gateway pundits supposed to be credible media? I already prove it to you that it's worthless and not even worth my time reading those craps.
Dude these kind of media are catered especially for people like you.

Gateway pundit is as bad as Infowars.

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Nationalism, Some Fake News

The Gateway Pundit - Media Bias/Fact Check

I notice how you conveniently "forget" to address the actual content of the post ... instead, you try to deflect by saying it must not be true because it comes from a particular source.

Are you incapable of addressing the issue raised, or are you just uncomfortable with its content?

I never deflect dude NEVER.
I rely on real facts and truthfulness. You are telling me that Gateway pundits supposed to be credible media? I already prove it to you that it's worthless and not even worth my time reading those craps.
Dude these kind of media are catered especially for people like you.

Simply, the source is irrelevant. Either the content of the post is accurate, or it isn't.

It's not your job to comment on source - it's your job to comment on the content of the post. Either prove to us where he's wrong, or acknowledge that he's right.

To hide behind your "the source is bad, so I'm not even going to address the content" canard is both cowardly and intellectually dishonest. Your comment about the source is of no more value than "Well, he posted this on a Sunday, so we KNOW it can't be true - because nobody ever says anything truthful on Sundays. Well, unless they're eating pizza at the time - and he never mentioned pizza so I'm going to take the intellectual low road and ignore what has been presented. Of course, I will - in order to try to salve my flagging ego - scoff at his source. That way, maybe they won't notice that I don't know a damn thing about what he's talking about."

That, sir, summarizes the quality of your inputs.

LOL. Cry me river. You are very funny clown.
It is my job to question the source that you and others used. That's the reality.
The problem with people like you are digging something that are just pure lies to support your ignorance and lies.
That tells me you don't what you are talking about. Grow up.

If they are lies, then do your damn job.

Prove they are lies.

You simply don't want to address the subject - you want to find some convenient canard to hide your ignorance behind.

I did proved to you that all those are lies by where they came from. Your link are nothing but pure garbage and only ignorant idiot or imbecile like you believed those craps.
I'm surprised you have not use Infowars yet.

 

[charwin95]

Oh boy. Coming from Return of kings. Did you ever check where your link came from? This is a biased Extreme right and hate groups. Sex tourist.
Go get me something credible.

Return of Kings - Media Bias/Fact Check

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Bias: Hate Group, Extreme Right

Notes: Return of Kings is run by Daryush Valizadeh (known by his Internet alias Roosh Vörek or Roosh V) who is an American manosphere denizen, misogynist, rape apologist, pick-up artist, and sex tourist. We suggest you take a look at RationalWiki’s write up on Roosh V for more information.

Typical liberal retort: When you can't debunk the information, just discredit the source.

Truth hurts. It's not about liberals dude it's about facts and truthfulness. Not from a source that is nothing but pure garbages and dishonesty. Using these links proves 1. Desperation time. 2. Very poorly informed.



I watched both CNN and Fox News
If I see a fake news coming from CNN I will be more than happy to post it here.

You're likely so into the CNN shit that you swallow all you can get and call it gospel. CNN is a liberal cesspool, designed to keep the general public from knowing the truth.

Really? Prove it.
Just because Trump doesn't like CNN that doesn't mean it's fake news. Dude Trump is the most bullishit asshole ever elected POTUS.


So far you not a single one of you provided a real sample of fake news coming from CNN.

What is that supposed to mean? That this funny dude knows what he is taking about?

 

[charwin95]

Seek help. I’m not the one ignoring what the news is reporting and making up my own version of alternative facts. That would be the looney right.

If you consider CNN NEWS to be newsworthy, you are the sick one. The fake news media has attempted deception of the people down to a fine art.

US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman - CNNPolitics

Read the article before you reply to this post.

Did you really read your link or you just look at it?
And you consider Faux News, Infowars or Gateway pundits your real news then you are deranged sick American.

Give us a fake news that CNN broadcasted. Name us one. I'm waiting.

How about a bunch of em.
Busted for Fake News CNN - Bing video

Really? REALLY? Coming a masked and video? Post a link where here we can read. That way every single one of those items can be debunked.
Mentioned Hillary was a public defender. A public Defending a rapist years before she even enter the politics. Really?
Go get me something credible.

Yup, deny deny deny. Great solution.

I watched only portion coming from an unknown masked person. What a credible lunatic source.

Then attacking Hillary when she was a Public Defender--- that shows it's nothing but dishonest and twisted--- That only poorly informed dumb Americans will even listen to that kind of garbage.

 

[charwin95]

Did you really read your link or you just look at it?
And you consider Faux News, Infowars or Gateway pundits your real news then you are deranged sick American.

Give us a fake news that CNN broadcasted. Name us one. I'm waiting.

How about a bunch of em.
Busted for Fake News CNN - Bing video

Really? REALLY? Coming a masked and video? Post a link where here we can read. That way every single one of those items can be debunked.
Mentioned Hillary was a public defender. A public Defending a rapist years before she even enter the politics. Really?
Go get me something credible.

Do you know what a Public Defender does? You do know they are appointed, right?

I do know that is why i mentioned it but I'm not sure about these snowflakes even understand what that mean.
I saw that same topic at Fox News couple of times. Even sherif David Clarke doesn't understand what a public defender means.

If these people listen solely to Fox News then they are screwed that is why they are so poorly informed.

Like the other night Hannity was saying that hitting Hillary with a golf ball at the back by Trump is not bullying but it's acceptable. How fuck up Fox News can that be. God bless America.

Like I've mentioned before....not everyone gets their "news" from Facebook.

I never pay attention to Facebook gossip news.

So can you or any of you snowflakes debunked my link post #163?

 

[charwin95]

Did you really read your link or you just look at it?
And you consider Faux News, Infowars or Gateway pundits your real news then you are deranged sick American.

Give us a fake news that CNN broadcasted. Name us one. I'm waiting.

5 Examples Of CNN’s “Fake News” – Return Of Kings

Oh boy. Coming from Return of kings. Did you ever check where your link came from? This is a biased Extreme right and hate groups. Sex tourist.
Go get me something credible.

Return of Kings - Media Bias/Fact Check

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Bias: Hate Group, Extreme Right

Notes: Return of Kings is run by Daryush Valizadeh (known by his Internet alias Roosh Vörek or Roosh V) who is an American manosphere denizen, misogynist, rape apologist, pick-up artist, and sex tourist. We suggest you take a look at RationalWiki’s write up on Roosh V for more information.

Typical liberal retort: When you can't debunk the information, just discredit the source.

Hilarious! You just spelled out the GOP MO. Call every fact "fake news".

They live in their own deranged world of alternative facts.

Sadly these are Trump supporters. Actually I'm having a lot of fun proving how funny are these clowns.

 

[Spare_change]

I notice how you conveniently "forget" to address the actual content of the post ... instead, you try to deflect by saying it must not be true because it comes from a particular source.

Are you incapable of addressing the issue raised, or are you just uncomfortable with its content?

I never deflect dude NEVER.
I rely on real facts and truthfulness. You are telling me that Gateway pundits supposed to be credible media? I already prove it to you that it's worthless and not even worth my time reading those craps.
Dude these kind of media are catered especially for people like you.

I notice how you conveniently "forget" to address the actual content of the post ... instead, you try to deflect by saying it must not be true because it comes from a particular source.

Are you incapable of addressing the issue raised, or are you just uncomfortable with its content?

I never deflect dude NEVER.
I rely on real facts and truthfulness. You are telling me that Gateway pundits supposed to be credible media? I already prove it to you that it's worthless and not even worth my time reading those craps.
Dude these kind of media are catered especially for people like you.

Simply, the source is irrelevant. Either the content of the post is accurate, or it isn't.

It's not your job to comment on source - it's your job to comment on the content of the post. Either prove to us where he's wrong, or acknowledge that he's right.

To hide behind your "the source is bad, so I'm not even going to address the content" canard is both cowardly and intellectually dishonest. Your comment about the source is of no more value than "Well, he posted this on a Sunday, so we KNOW it can't be true - because nobody ever says anything truthful on Sundays. Well, unless they're eating pizza at the time - and he never mentioned pizza so I'm going to take the intellectual low road and ignore what has been presented. Of course, I will - in order to try to salve my flagging ego - scoff at his source. That way, maybe they won't notice that I don't know a damn thing about what he's talking about."

That, sir, summarizes the quality of your inputs.

LOL. Cry me river. You are very funny clown.
It is my job to question the source that you and others used. That's the reality.
The problem with people like you are digging something that are just pure lies to support your ignorance and lies.
That tells me you don't what you are talking about. Grow up.

If they are lies, then do your damn job.

Prove they are lies.

You simply don't want to address the subject - you want to find some convenient canard to hide your ignorance behind.

I did proved to you that all those are lies by where they came from. Your link are nothing but pure garbage and only ignorant idiot or imbecile like you believed those craps.
I'm surprised you have not use Infowars yet.

You really don't see the idiocy of what you say, do you?

The source can NOT make something a lie - only the content can make it a lie. Prove the content is false, or shut the hell up.

You haven't even bothered to study the issue - you have a closed mind. You automatically assume that because he - or she - said it, it must be a lie.

How do I know that you haven't even looked at it?

To quote you: "Your link are nothing but pure garbage."

I haven't posted a single link - not one little solitary one. I simply attacked your intellectual dishonesty and disingenuity. You don't even know who the hell you're talking to.

 

[charwin95]

Spare change.

Last year I told you that I will let you if and when you are qualified to talk to me----- I gave you a chance a year later. And still not qualified to talk to me.

 

[Spare_change]

Spare change.

Last year I told you that I will let you if and when you are qualified to talk to me----- I gave you a chance a year later. And still not qualified to talk to me.

LOL --- run and hide. We understand.

 

[radical right]

LOL --- run and hide. We understand.

What's the issue. I tried reading one of your posts and you were all over the place.

Restate your case.

 

[Spare_change]

LOL --- run and hide. We understand.

What's the issue. I tried reading one of your posts and you were all over the place.

Restate your case.

My point was very simple ---- if I was all over the place, it's because I was following Charwin - and Lord knows where he wanders to.

Charwin rejected a poster's input because of its source - not because of its content. I simply told him that was intellectually lazy. He, in order to avoid having to actually discuss the issue, immediately rejected any sourced counter-argument based on its source.

While the source may cause you to look closer, rather than accept it at face value, you cannot reject an input based solely on source. It is incumbent upon you to discredit the CONTENT.

All the rest? That was Charwin wiggling since he had been hoisted on his own petard.

 

[radical right]

While the source may cause you to look closer, rather than accept it at face value, you cannot reject an input based solely on source. It is incumbent upon you to discredit the CONTENT.

Doesn't Trump take anything reported by the mainstream media and immediately dismiss it, by calling it "fake news"

Trump also called national intelligence reports "fake news".

Where do you stand on Trumps doing what you accuse Charwin of. Show your position on the principle.

 

[Spare_change]

While the source may cause you to look closer, rather than accept it at face value, you cannot reject an input based solely on source. It is incumbent upon you to discredit the CONTENT.

Doesn't Trump take anything reported by the mainstream media and immediately dismiss it, by calling it "fake news"

Trump also called national intelligence reports "fake news".

Where do you stand on Trumps doing what you accuse Charwin of. Show your position on the principle.

Answer to your questions, in order ....

No.

A specific statement about a specific instance co-opted by the media to be a general statement.

Since Trump doesn't do what Charwin did, i think I've been clear on my position.

 

[radical right]

Doesn't Trump take anything reported by the mainstream media and immediately dismiss it, by calling it "fake news"
Where do you stand on Trumps doing what you accuse Charwin of. Show your position on the principle.

Since Trump doesn't do what Charwin did, i think I've been clear on my position.

Trump dismisses every mainstream media source, right to their faces, refusing to even answer their questions. Charwin only dismissed certain sources known to be biased.

How is Trumps universal denial, not like Charwins selective denial?

 

[Peach]

"Wiretap" by proxy, that is a new one.

 

[ABikerSailor]

"Wiretap" by proxy, that is a new one.

A made up term to try to make it look like they were going after Trump.

Interesting things about wiretaps, if the person being tapped is talking to someone that is NOT on the wiretap warrant, they have to hang up as soon as they know.

 

[Peach]

"Wiretap" by proxy, that is a new one.

A made up term to try to make it look like they were going after Trump.

Interesting things about wiretaps, if the person being tapped is talking to someone that is NOT on the wiretap warrant, they have to hang up as soon as they know.

Yes, so A Dump's paranoia remains.

 

[Thinker101]

"Wiretap" by proxy, that is a new one.

A made up term to try to make it look like they were going after Trump.

Interesting things about wiretaps, if the person being tapped is talking to someone that is NOT on the wiretap warrant, they have to hang up as soon as they know.

Yup, I'm sure the Obama administration always followed the rules.