CNN's Acosta: Trump lied about birtherism, Inauguration crowd, Comey tapes, but nobody had to resign

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

[The only thing that has been proven are Trump lies. Obama had a far far bigger inauguration crowd, and he deserved it.

Define far far.

Exactly. Fake news and you bought it hook, line and sinker.

CNN Quietly Releases Updated Pic Showing Trump’s Inaugural Crowd Size Greater than Obama’s 2009 Inaugural Crowd
However, the pictures in the article show the crowd size for Obama when he was speaking during his 2009 inauguration with the crowd from Trump’s inauguration approximately 3 hours before Trump spoke.

Like I said, when the Right are caught lying they just keep on lying. And what better source for fake news lies than the GatewayPundit!!!

First of all, the photo I posted has the DATE STAMP right on the bottom with the time 11:49 AM, Don THE Con spoke at noon! So 11 minutes has been blown up into a 3 hour lie.

And here is a zoom in on the tiny crowd a little later, cropping out all the places with NO people and you can clearly see Tramp speaking on the screens on the right!!!!

How do you know that time stamp is accurate? We watched the ceremony live in my school and I never saw that much white.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Was there some kind of ban on photographs taken after noontime that day?

The never ending conspiracy theories of the loony Right!
Here is a photo taken at 12:05 PM.

NAMA_Events_Inauguration_01202017-MJ-028 (12.05PM)

Again, how do we know the time stamp is accurate?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What's amusing is that you use photos that are a deliberate attempt to deceive about what really took place that day...to "prove" that someone else is a liar! Think about that, Faun! You've resorted to lies in, quite frankly, a rather pathetic attempt to paint someone else as a liar. That says more about YOU than it does about Donald Trump!

Except it is YOU who are lying about the photos! Lies that you could have easily checked by simply looking at the date and time stamped on Don THE Con's crowd photo.
THAT says a lot more about YOU than Faun!!!!

I can change the time stamp on any photo I take. I could take your picture and put a time stamp on it before you were born!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Shame on CNN and Donald Trump for being fake news purveyors. Great point by Acosta.

CNN's Jim Acosta: Trump lied about birtherism, Inauguration crowds, and Comey tapes, but "nobody had to resign"

CNN is not a fake news purveyor.

the orange sociopath, however....

How many times do they have to admit that they put out fake news before you believe it?

 

[Oldstyle]

All liberals think that what they believe to be true is true, perception is reality.

Thus they want there to be tapes just like Watergate. So in their heads there are tapes that are damning.

So Trump says there are not tapes, thus Trump has to be lying because he goes against the liberal narrative.

What was so pathetic about Trump's claim about possible tapes was not that there never were any....but how nobody gave him any credibility once he spouted his threat

There was only one person who was worried about Trump's "credibility" with the threat of a tape, Winger...and that was James Comey! Trump's comment was directed at Comey basically daring him to lie about what was said in their meeting. I know how you folks on the left love to denigrate Trump's intelligence but when it comes to street smarts he's light years ahead of all of you.

So he is a huckster who doesn't hesitate to lie. Aren't you proud?

So now Trump is a "huckster" because he scared James Comey into having to tell the truth with the threat of a tape? That's preventing lies...not telling them!

Comey didn't change a syllable of his testimony.

And you know that how?

 

[edthecynic]

[The only thing that has been proven are Trump lies. Obama had a far far bigger inauguration crowd, and he deserved it.

Define far far.

Exactly. Fake news and you bought it hook, line and sinker.

CNN Quietly Releases Updated Pic Showing Trump’s Inaugural Crowd Size Greater than Obama’s 2009 Inaugural Crowd
However, the pictures in the article show the crowd size for Obama when he was speaking during his 2009 inauguration with the crowd from Trump’s inauguration approximately 3 hours before Trump spoke.

Like I said, when the Right are caught lying they just keep on lying. And what better source for fake news lies than the GatewayPundit!!!

First of all, the photo I posted has the DATE STAMP right on the bottom with the time 11:49 AM, Don THE Con spoke at noon! So 11 minutes has been blown up into a 3 hour lie.

And here is a zoom in on the tiny crowd a little later, cropping out all the places with NO people and you can clearly see Tramp speaking on the screens on the right!!!!

How do you know that time stamp is accurate? We watched the ceremony live in my school and I never saw that much white.

You, like Tramp, see only what you want to see.

Well then how do you rationalize Don THE Con's ugly mug on the monitor screens on the right if the photo was not taken during his 15 minute speech????

 

[edthecynic]

How do you know that time stamp is accurate? We watched the ceremony live in my school and I never saw that much white.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How do you know that time stamp is accurate? We watched the ceremony live in my school and I never saw that much white.

Wow! Great picture of you! Who did you get to take it?

 

[Oldstyle]

Was there some kind of ban on photographs taken after noontime that day?

The never ending conspiracy theories of the loony Right!
Here is a photo taken at 12:05 PM.

NAMA_Events_Inauguration_01202017-MJ-028 (12.05PM)

Seriously, Ed? So the famous photo everyone references was taken at 11:47...I ask for some photographs taken after noon time and you give me one EIGHT MINUTES LATER!!! I'd like to establish the different size crowds according to time but remarkably...there don't seem to be any pictures taken after the start of the inauguration! How can that be? Could someone explain to me why the media stopped taking photos when they did?

 

[Oldstyle]

Did they decide they HAD the story they were going with? No crowd at Trump's inauguration! Took the pictures before the crowd got there and then never took another because it wouldn't fit with their narrative? Where the hell are the photos from 12:30? From 1:00? Why don't they seem to exist?

 

[edthecynic]

Was there some kind of ban on photographs taken after noontime that day?

The never ending conspiracy theories of the loony Right!
Here is a photo taken at 12:05 PM.

NAMA_Events_Inauguration_01202017-MJ-028 (12.05PM)

Seriously, Ed? So the famous photo everyone references was taken at 11:47...I ask for some photographs taken after noon time and you give me one EIGHT MINUTES LATER!!! I'd like to establish the different size crowds according to time but remarkably...there don't seem to be any pictures taken after the start of the inauguration! How can that be? Could someone explain to me why the media stopped taking photos when they did?

Why do you continue to lie? You were shown photos with Don THE Con giving his short 15 minute speech, he could be seen in the monitor screens on the right, and yet you still lie about no photos after noon and no white areas while Tramp was speaking.

If you click on the photo it gets big enough to see Tramp's ugly face on the right.

 

[edthecynic]

Where the hell are the photos from 12:30? From 1:00? Why don't they seem to exist?

And if there were photos from 12:30 or 1:00 you would ***** that they were taken after Don THE Con's 15 minute speech finished and the people already left.

 

[edthecynic]

Seriously, Ed? So the famous photo everyone references was taken at 11:47...I ask for some photographs taken after noon time and you give me one EIGHT MINUTES LATER!!!

When the Right gets caught lying they pretend to be so dumb they can't tell time.
12:05 PM is AFTER noon and EIGHTEEN minutes later!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

Was there some kind of ban on photographs taken after noontime that day?

The never ending conspiracy theories of the loony Right!
Here is a photo taken at 12:05 PM.

NAMA_Events_Inauguration_01202017-MJ-028 (12.05PM)

Seriously, Ed? So the famous photo everyone references was taken at 11:47...I ask for some photographs taken after noon time and you give me one EIGHT MINUTES LATER!!! I'd like to establish the different size crowds according to time but remarkably...there don't seem to be any pictures taken after the start of the inauguration! How can that be? Could someone explain to me why the media stopped taking photos when they did?

Why do you continue to lie? You were shown photos with Don THE Con giving his short 15 minute speech, he could be seen in the monitor screens on the right, and yet you still lie about no photos after noon and no white areas while Tramp was speaking.

When did I ever say anything about white areas? As for what's on the monitors? When did those come on? What did they show before the speech started? To be quite frank with you...the main stream media has done nothing to inspire trust in what they show us! As I said before...I've never maintained that Trump's crowd was as large as Obama's. What I've said all along is that the main stream media did everything they could to make the crowd appear as small as they could...just as they did everything they could to make the crowds protesting against Trump that day look as HUGE as they could!

 

[edthecynic]

Was there some kind of ban on photographs taken after noontime that day?

The never ending conspiracy theories of the loony Right!
Here is a photo taken at 12:05 PM.

NAMA_Events_Inauguration_01202017-MJ-028 (12.05PM)

Seriously, Ed? So the famous photo everyone references was taken at 11:47...I ask for some photographs taken after noon time and you give me one EIGHT MINUTES LATER!!! I'd like to establish the different size crowds according to time but remarkably...there don't seem to be any pictures taken after the start of the inauguration! How can that be? Could someone explain to me why the media stopped taking photos when they did?

Why do you continue to lie? You were shown photos with Don THE Con giving his short 15 minute speech, he could be seen in the monitor screens on the right, and yet you still lie about no photos after noon and no white areas while Tramp was speaking.

When did I ever say anything about white areas? As for what's on the monitors? When did those come on? What did they show before the speech started? To be quite frank with you...the main stream media has done nothing to inspire trust in what they show us! As I said before...I've never maintained that Trump's crowd was as large as Obama's. What I've said all along is that the main stream media did everything they could to make the crowd appear as small as they could...just as they did everything they could to make the crowds protesting against Trump that day look as HUGE as they could!

They showed the swearing in which started at 11:59 AM.

The MSM showed the truth which you refuse to accept.

 

[edthecynic]

What I've said all along is that the main stream media did everything they could to make the crowd appear as small as they could...just as they did everything they could to make the crowds protesting against Trump that day look as HUGE as they could!

OK, here is the FOX video from just before Don THE Con is sworn in, shot from the same bad angle as the photo Tramp uses to lie about his crowd size, only a little higher showing some of the white that the lower angle hides. Remember this is FOX not the MSM and it is live video not stills.



You can easily see the video does NOT show that "the 20-block area all the way back to the Washington Monument was packed" as the liar in chief claimed.

And here is the still photo the deliberate deceivers like to use, notice how much of the white the lower still camera angle conceals compared higher video angle.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Oh yes, Robert Mueller investigating why his associate and friend of over 10 years was fired. I'm sure his investigation is completely impartial without prejudice that any material uncovered which he attempts to link as proof has a chance to stand up "legally". Impartiality to the circumstance of Comey is the first thing that will succeed in going after his credibility of interpreting those findings.

LOLOL

Since when does the right give a shit if a special counsel is partial??

Ken Starr filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of Paula Jones prior to being selected to investigate Bill Clinton -- who was being sued by Paula Jones.....

Can you name anyone on the right who objected to such obvious bias?

Can you name one who challenged Starr's charge accusation of perjury because he wasn't impartial?

You have linked facts that Ken Starr had any relationship with those he represented? Let's just see how knowledgeable you are of the facts.

The appointment was a milestone, in many senses. Starr worked at Kirkland & Ellis, a prominent Washington law firm. According to an article in Salon Magazine last November 18, he represented the tobacco industry; he was also peripherally involved in friend-of-the-court activities on behalf of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against the President.

Smoke in Starr's Chamber

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

Obviously you don't know regarding legal representation

Oh yes, Robert Mueller investigating why his associate and friend of over 10 years was fired. I'm sure his investigation is completely impartial without prejudice that any material uncovered which he attempts to link as proof has a chance to stand up "legally". Impartiality to the circumstance of Comey is the first thing that will succeed in going after his credibility of interpreting those findings.

LOLOL

Since when does the right give a shit if a special counsel is partial??

Ken Starr filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of Paula Jones prior to being selected to investigate Bill Clinton -- who was being sued by Paula Jones.....

Can you name anyone on the right who objected to such obvious bias?

Can you name one who challenged Starr's charge accusation of perjury because he wasn't impartial?

You have linked facts that Ken Starr had any relationship with those he represented? Let's just see how knowledgeable you are of the facts.

The appointment was a milestone, in many senses. Starr worked at Kirkland & Ellis, a prominent Washington law firm. According to an article in Salon Magazine last November 18, he represented the tobacco industry; he was also peripherally involved in friend-of-the-court activities on behalf of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against the President.

Smoke in Starr's Chamber

If there is no relationship of any form among any of the clients he represented, including Paula Jones, there is no reason he can't represent them. If a judge hearing the case is buddies or close friends of the prosecutor, it's the responsibility of that judge to recuse his or herself.

Robert Mullier has a close developed business relationship over 10 years with one of those effected, Comey, from the Trump administration which Mullier AS A RESULT has taken over as part of a special investigation.

Do we have a clear understanding now under what circumstances a prosecutor has to recuse themselves from a legal case, or are you still in need of some help?

Now you're venturing into strawman territory. I said nothing about when a prosecutor "has to recuse" themselves. I said Starr was not impartial and pointed to him filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of the person suing Clinton.

So I give you a clear cut example of a council's inability to show impartiality, and you come back with a phrase you found on a web page to which you can't explain nor go into specifics concerning the situation the term was actually making reference to. Does that sound about right? Why don't you reply with case you do know something about and have the ability to explain and make your argument beyond throwing a "phrase" you read somewhere. From here it doesn't look like you know Jack about the legality behind needing to show showing impartiality.

You DO know that if a prosecutor or a criminal investigator is in any way connected (be it a friend, family member, someone they worked closely with, etc) to those they are representing... or even a judge hearing the case has a personal tie with any of the attorney's representing the case... that they can't, on legal footing, be connected with the outcome of that particular case.

 

[BULLDOG]

What was so pathetic about Trump's claim about possible tapes was not that there never were any....but how nobody gave him any credibility once he spouted his threat

There was only one person who was worried about Trump's "credibility" with the threat of a tape, Winger...and that was James Comey! Trump's comment was directed at Comey basically daring him to lie about what was said in their meeting. I know how you folks on the left love to denigrate Trump's intelligence but when it comes to street smarts he's light years ahead of all of you.

So he is a huckster who doesn't hesitate to lie. Aren't you proud?

So now Trump is a "huckster" because he scared James Comey into having to tell the truth with the threat of a tape? That's preventing lies...not telling them!

Comey didn't change a syllable of his testimony.

And you know that how?

Feel free to point out anything you think he might have lied about.

 

[Faun]

What's amusing is that you use photos that are a deliberate attempt to deceive about what really took place that day...to "prove" that someone else is a liar! Think about that, Faun! You've resorted to lies in, quite frankly, a rather pathetic attempt to paint someone else as a liar. That says more about YOU than it does about Donald Trump!

Except it is YOU who are lying about the photos! Lies that you could have easily checked by simply looking at the date and time stamped on Don THE Con's crowd photo.
THAT says a lot more about YOU than Faun!!!!

I can change the time stamp on any photo I take. I could take your picture and put a time stamp on it before you were born!

So find any picture from that camera showing a bigger crowd than Obama's.

Y'all keep crying about the time of these pictures, yet none of you can post a photo from the Washington Monument showing a bigger crowd at any time.

 

[Faun]

Was there some kind of ban on photographs taken after noontime that day?

The never ending conspiracy theories of the loony Right!
Here is a photo taken at 12:05 PM.

NAMA_Events_Inauguration_01202017-MJ-028 (12.05PM)

Seriously, Ed? So the famous photo everyone references was taken at 11:47...I ask for some photographs taken after noon time and you give me one EIGHT MINUTES LATER!!! I'd like to establish the different size crowds according to time but remarkably...there don't seem to be any pictures taken after the start of the inauguration! How can that be? Could someone explain to me why the media stopped taking photos when they did?

Must be some conspiracy with the national parks services. Ya think they turned off that camera after Trump gave his speech and his crowd showed up?