Mother Jones bombshell: Florida Massage Parlor Owner Has Been Selling Chinese Execs Access to Trump

[BWK]

I know you don't "give a shit" because the story plays into your viewpoint! It's why the liberal media go with stories like the phony Steele dossiers...because people like you will eat it up with a spoon!

My point was that supposedly legitimate journalists see a story that they'd love to go with because it fits their political viewpoint...but know that as journalists that they shouldn't run stories without verifying that the story is indeed factual. They get around that however by "reporting" on a story that someone ELSE has done! That way they can say "Oh, well that wasn't OUR story...that was Rolling Stone's story...we were just reporting on what THEY reported on!" I'm sorry but that's not ethical journalism!

DOOD. I posted sixteen separate reports of this story. Then I added a few more. The point was, and still is, that all these wags trying the old Poison the Well Fallacy by going "Mother Jones huh huh huh snicker snicker" are thereby exposed for that fallacy. DEAL with it.

It's also telling that such a fallacy was all they could come up with in flailing defense of the Cult.

And no I don't believe RS originated it. I suspect it was one of the Miami media.

I never said that RS originated it. I was simply using them as an example of a media outlet that doesn't feel compelled to comply with journalistic standards.

And where in the link are they falling short there?

And what about the other twenty sources?

Can you not grasp the concept that NONE of those twenty sources actually vetted the accusations that were IN the Steele dossiers? That they went with the story because it validated their view of Donald Trump?

Who the fuck brought up "Steele dossiers [sic]"? This thread has nothing to do with "Steele dossiers [sic]".

Post #166 is where the coward decided to go off-topic; Mother Jones was the first to report on the Steele dossiers and then Buzz Feed published the dossiers themselves. Once that took place a slew of liberal media outlets ALL began reporting on the dossiers...which was my point all along!

 

[Pogo]

DOOD. I posted sixteen separate reports of this story. Then I added a few more. The point was, and still is, that all these wags trying the old Poison the Well Fallacy by going "Mother Jones huh huh huh snicker snicker" are thereby exposed for that fallacy. DEAL with it.

It's also telling that such a fallacy was all they could come up with in flailing defense of the Cult.

And no I don't believe RS originated it. I suspect it was one of the Miami media.

I never said that RS originated it. I was simply using them as an example of a media outlet that doesn't feel compelled to comply with journalistic standards.

And where in the link are they falling short there?

And what about the other twenty sources?

Can you not grasp the concept that NONE of those twenty sources actually vetted the accusations that were IN the Steele dossiers? That they went with the story because it validated their view of Donald Trump?

Who the fuck brought up "Steele dossiers [sic]"? This thread has nothing to do with "Steele dossiers [sic]".

Post #166 is where the coward decided to go off-topic; Mother Jones was the first to report on the Steele dossiers and then Buzz Feed published the dossiers themselves. Once that took place a slew of liberal media outlets ALL began reporting on the dossiers...which was my point all along!

That's quite amazing, that they're still trotting out the Poison the Well Fallacy expecting different results after it was debunked two days ago in post 28.

 

[BWK]

I never said that RS originated it. I was simply using them as an example of a media outlet that doesn't feel compelled to comply with journalistic standards.

And where in the link are they falling short there?

And what about the other twenty sources?

Can you not grasp the concept that NONE of those twenty sources actually vetted the accusations that were IN the Steele dossiers? That they went with the story because it validated their view of Donald Trump?

Who the fuck brought up "Steele dossiers [sic]"? This thread has nothing to do with "Steele dossiers [sic]".

Post #166 is where the coward decided to go off-topic; Mother Jones was the first to report on the Steele dossiers and then Buzz Feed published the dossiers themselves. Once that took place a slew of liberal media outlets ALL began reporting on the dossiers...which was my point all along!

That's quite amazing, that they're still trotting out the Poison the Well Fallacy expecting different results after it was debunked two days ago in post 28.

They repeat the same lies over and over, hoping to recruit another cultist.

 

[Pogo]

And where in the link are they falling short there?

And what about the other twenty sources?

Can you not grasp the concept that NONE of those twenty sources actually vetted the accusations that were IN the Steele dossiers? That they went with the story because it validated their view of Donald Trump?

Who the fuck brought up "Steele dossiers [sic]"? This thread has nothing to do with "Steele dossiers [sic]".

Post #166 is where the coward decided to go off-topic; Mother Jones was the first to report on the Steele dossiers and then Buzz Feed published the dossiers themselves. Once that took place a slew of liberal media outlets ALL began reporting on the dossiers...which was my point all along!

That's quite amazing, that they're still trotting out the Poison the Well Fallacy expecting different results after it was debunked two days ago in post 28.

They repeat the same lies over and over, hoping to recruit another cultist.

There's a bit of the Cult of Ignorance mentality at work here too. I got curious about what Mother Jones reported about the Steele Dossier and looked it up.

Sure enough, the headline reads, "A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump"

-- which is completely accurate; said spy DID give said info. Basic reading comprehension.

It goes on to describe a report by the then-unidentified Steele, which alleged a symbiotic relationship between Rump and Russia going back "at least 5 years". What details are in there, other than the bed-peeing escapade later divulged by BuzzFeed or whoever it was (which isn't mentioned in the MJ article), we don't know and those details are presumably in Mueller's investigation if applicable. But there's nothing unreliable in the MJ article so it's hard to understand why they're bringing it up.

(/offtopic)

 

[Oldstyle]

I never said that RS originated it. I was simply using them as an example of a media outlet that doesn't feel compelled to comply with journalistic standards.

And where in the link are they falling short there?

And what about the other twenty sources?

Can you not grasp the concept that NONE of those twenty sources actually vetted the accusations that were IN the Steele dossiers? That they went with the story because it validated their view of Donald Trump?

Can you un validate the validated parts of the dossier?

Why would anyone even waste their time "validating" something that was obviously a political "dirty trick" employed by the Clinton campaign to smear Donald Trump right before the election? Are there items in the Steele "dossiers" that are factual? Yes...that's how one weaves a believable lie...you intersperse what you've made up out of whole cloth with things that can be confirmed. The bottom line is Richard Steele was hired to do a political hatchet job on an opposition parties nominee by the other parties nominee! Hillary Clinton PAID to make that happen! Paid to have the dossiers created! Paid to have them disseminated to media outlets that would put them out in a manner most harmful to the Trump campaign!

You on the left have spent two plus years chasing imaginary "collusion" between Trump and Russia while studiously ignoring the REAL collusion that took place during that election between Hillary Clinton's campaign...foreign agents...the DNC...and the Obama Administration!

The believable parts are being used. No one knows about the unverified parts, so how can something be made out of "whole cloth", when we don't know what that "cloth" is? You aren't making any sense with your argument. Especially the part about wasting time validating something that was "obviously a political trick.". Lol! How can it be a "political trick" when you yourself said some parts of the dossier were verified? Do you have any idea, that when people read your posts how easy it is to pick out the contradictions and the lies? You are straight full of shit. Prepare your arguments. Your contradictions are in the way.

Sigh...do you not grasp the English language? Should I use big pictures drawn with crayons?

I'll say this again...

When a confidence man attempts to con someone they don't do so with lie built upon lie...they do so with lies built upon things that are factual...which is exactly what Richard Steele did with his "dossiers"! He took something factual...like Michael Cohen visiting Prague, which did happen...with an outright lie...that Cohen's real reason for visiting was a meeting with agents of the Russian government to pay for the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails!

Once again...Richard Steele was paid by Hillary Clinton to pull off a political dirty trick on the Trump campaign.

 

[Oldstyle]

I know you don't "give a shit" because the story plays into your viewpoint! It's why the liberal media go with stories like the phony Steele dossiers...because people like you will eat it up with a spoon!

My point was that supposedly legitimate journalists see a story that they'd love to go with because it fits their political viewpoint...but know that as journalists that they shouldn't run stories without verifying that the story is indeed factual. They get around that however by "reporting" on a story that someone ELSE has done! That way they can say "Oh, well that wasn't OUR story...that was Rolling Stone's story...we were just reporting on what THEY reported on!" I'm sorry but that's not ethical journalism!

DOOD. I posted sixteen separate reports of this story. Then I added a few more. The point was, and still is, that all these wags trying the old Poison the Well Fallacy by going "Mother Jones huh huh huh snicker snicker" are thereby exposed for that fallacy. DEAL with it.

It's also telling that such a fallacy was all they could come up with in flailing defense of the Cult.

And no I don't believe RS originated it. I suspect it was one of the Miami media.

I never said that RS originated it. I was simply using them as an example of a media outlet that doesn't feel compelled to comply with journalistic standards.

And where in the link are they falling short there?

And what about the other twenty sources?

Can you not grasp the concept that NONE of those twenty sources actually vetted the accusations that were IN the Steele dossiers? That they went with the story because it validated their view of Donald Trump?

Who the fuck brought up "Steele dossiers [sic]"? This thread has nothing to do with "Steele dossiers [sic]".

This thread is simply one more example of a liberal main stream media that no longer reports news...but rather spends it's time attacking the man who defeated the woman that they backed in the election with one unverified accusation after another.

 

[Pogo]

DOOD. I posted sixteen separate reports of this story. Then I added a few more. The point was, and still is, that all these wags trying the old Poison the Well Fallacy by going "Mother Jones huh huh huh snicker snicker" are thereby exposed for that fallacy. DEAL with it.

It's also telling that such a fallacy was all they could come up with in flailing defense of the Cult.

And no I don't believe RS originated it. I suspect it was one of the Miami media.

I never said that RS originated it. I was simply using them as an example of a media outlet that doesn't feel compelled to comply with journalistic standards.

And where in the link are they falling short there?

And what about the other twenty sources?

Can you not grasp the concept that NONE of those twenty sources actually vetted the accusations that were IN the Steele dossiers? That they went with the story because it validated their view of Donald Trump?

Who the fuck brought up "Steele dossiers [sic]"? This thread has nothing to do with "Steele dossiers [sic]".

This thread is simply one more example of a liberal main stream media that no longer reports news...but rather spends it's time attacking the man who defeated the woman that they backed in the election with one unverified accusation after another.

How is this not "news"?

And how is your citation of Mother Jones relevant at all?



We keep asking you that and you keep going "b-but... but Steele Dossiers [sic]!" and now you're onto "b-but... but Hillary!"

Can't you address the actual topic here?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Several things to this story...................some of which I care about, and some I don't.

First, she USED to own one of the spas that was caught up in the prostitution ring, but she no longer does. She says that she doesn't do anything illegal at the spas she does own, and there is no evidence that says she has. As far as this part of the story, I really don't care. It's a salacious detail meant to help the story spread further, because people love scandal.

As far as her being a successful business owner? Again, I don't care. She's here legally, and managed to make a successful business. I don't really care what her business is either, as long as she's running it legally.

HOWEVER.......................................

The part that I DO care about is the part where she is selling access to Trump to Chinese businessmen. Why do I care about that? Because it makes Trump look like he's playing both sides of the fence. He's started a trade war with China, and we still don't know how that is going to play out, but yet he's meeting with Chinese businessmen? Sorry, but why would Chinese businessmen pay for access to Trump if it wasn't going to benefit their bottom line? The short answer is, they wouldn't. So, again, why is she selling access to Trump?

And another thing I would like answered, is that since this has surfaced in the news, is Trump going to stop meeting with her? He certainly should, because it looks like a severe conflict of interest if he doesn't.

 

[Oldstyle]

I never said that RS originated it. I was simply using them as an example of a media outlet that doesn't feel compelled to comply with journalistic standards.

And where in the link are they falling short there?

And what about the other twenty sources?

Can you not grasp the concept that NONE of those twenty sources actually vetted the accusations that were IN the Steele dossiers? That they went with the story because it validated their view of Donald Trump?

Who the fuck brought up "Steele dossiers [sic]"? This thread has nothing to do with "Steele dossiers [sic]".

This thread is simply one more example of a liberal main stream media that no longer reports news...but rather spends it's time attacking the man who defeated the woman that they backed in the election with one unverified accusation after another.

How is this not "news"?

And how is your citation of Mother Jones relevant at all?



We keep asking you that and you keep going "b-but... but Steele Dossiers [sic]!" and now you're onto "b-but... but Hillary!"

Can't you address the actual topic here?

Since you seem to be intent on being deliberately obtuse I'll attempt to explain my point ONCE AGAIN!

Mother Jones was the media source that first published Steele's made up dossiers and did so without verifying that the accusations contained in those dossiers were based on factual information! Because Mother Jones ran the story...the rest of the liberal main stream media felt it was OK for them to run it as well even though they had not vetted the story either.

My point about Mother Jones is relevant because it's how the liberal media now conducts itself. If they hear a negative story about Trump they will run with it without vetting the story. If it turns out to be incorrect or even worse...a paid for smear job by Trump's political enemies...then they will simply move on to the next negative story about Trump.

 

[Pogo]

And where in the link are they falling short there?

And what about the other twenty sources?

Can you not grasp the concept that NONE of those twenty sources actually vetted the accusations that were IN the Steele dossiers? That they went with the story because it validated their view of Donald Trump?

Who the fuck brought up "Steele dossiers [sic]"? This thread has nothing to do with "Steele dossiers [sic]".

This thread is simply one more example of a liberal main stream media that no longer reports news...but rather spends it's time attacking the man who defeated the woman that they backed in the election with one unverified accusation after another.

How is this not "news"?

And how is your citation of Mother Jones relevant at all?



We keep asking you that and you keep going "b-but... but Steele Dossiers [sic]!" and now you're onto "b-but... but Hillary!"

Can't you address the actual topic here?

Since you seem to be intent on being deliberately obtuse I'll attempt to explain my point ONCE AGAIN!

Mother Jones was the media source that first published Steele's made up dossiers and did so without verifying that the accusations contained in those dossiers were based on factual information! Because Mother Jones ran the story...the rest of the liberal main stream media felt it was OK for them to run it as well even though they had not vetted the story either.

My point about Mother Jones is relevant because it's how the liberal media now conducts itself. If they hear a negative story about Trump they will run with it without vetting the story. If it turns out to be incorrect or even worse...a paid for smear job by Trump's political enemies...then they will simply move on to the next negative story about Trump.

I already posted that MJ article and it contains no content of the dossier (it's a single, not "dossiers"). It simply says that a spy (then unnamed) had reported info to the FBI, WHICH IS TRUE. And that info comprised at least five years of observations, which MJ did not describe.

There's nothing to vet in a simple story like that. DID a spy report something to the FBI? Yes he did. PERIOD.

**NONE** of that however has anything in the world to do with the present topic.

 

[deanrd]

This from her website where she was selling access to Donald Trump at Mar a lago.

She probably thought as long as it wasn't in English, it was OK.

 

[basquebromance]

"Best new Bob Kraft/massage parlor baron tie-in. In her visa selling racket Cindy Yang offered prestige real estate investments. One of which was to invest in the house of the Billionaire owner of the Eagles, Jeffrey Lurie."

 

[Deno]

A Florida massage parlor owner has been selling Chinese execs access to Trump at Mar-a-Lago

The founder of the spa where Robert Kraft was busted also runs an investment business that has offered to sell Chinese clients access to Trump. The criminality and corruption surrounding Trump is unlike anything that we have ever seen.

OH this is it for Trump

 

[basquebromance]

Head of Asian GOP group says he "wouldn't rule out" illegal foreign donations to Trump

 

[ABikerSailor]

Now Congress is calling for an investigation to see what kind of connection this woman has to Trump.

 

[basquebromance]

Florida spa founder denies selling access to Trump

 

[basquebromance]

Chinese influence group shuts down after report on Cindy Yang's ties

 

[basquebromance]

‘Extreme’ flight risk: Chinese woman arrested at Mar-a-Lago says she owns $1.3M home, BMW

 

[basquebromance]

Mystery man in Trump's Mar-a-Lago/China scandal prompts counterintelligence concerns

 

[basquebromance]

Mar-a-Lago trespasser found to have sensors to detect hidden cameras and other items suggesting espionage: CNN