[Igor Antunov]

Yes whatever Soros traitors reside in the white house don't have to tiptoe around operatives feeding the media headlines anymore. I'm suggesting that the media is corrupt and not to be trusted zag. It is evident.

Tell me this isn't propaganda, top of google news:

With pressure mounting, Donald Trump fled Washington on Friday. He's off to Saudi Arabia, Israel and various points in Europe on his first foreign trip as President. In his wake Washington is reeling, after days of gangbuster developments in the story that keeps giving – the links between Trump's campaign and associates with Russia.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/trump-flees ... w9aix.html

Nice headline and lede you got there MSM. This Russia fantasy was a sad joke months ago, now it is just irritating.

[Zagadka]

Well, we certainly do appreciate how many foreigners with no investment or involvement who know very little and watch mostly with a bucket of extra-buttered popcorn. Thanks for shopping America!

[Godstud]

There is a difference between reporting facts, and reporting facts and then making a comment/personal opinion on it. Trump did leave Washington. That's a fact.

That they are commenting, is because of recent events and it being evident that Trump having a few days without problems, might be important.

Besieged at home, Trump sets off for 'do-or-die' foreign trip
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/19/polit ... p-preview/

Trump White House rocked by two leaks, just as he leaves Washington on long trip
The Canadian Press
Air Force One had just left for the Middle East when trouble struck.

At 3 p.m. the Times tweeted out its latest scoop: the president told the Russians in an Oval Office meeting that former FBI director James Comey was a "nut job," that he had been under pressure over the Russia affair, and that firing Comey eased the pressure.

A Democratic member of Congress, Ted Lieu, drew an instant conclusion about the implications, tweeting: "This. Is. Obstruction. Of. Justice."

Spokesman Sean Spicer disputed not the facts of the report, but the interpretation, telling the Times that Trump was talking not about the criminal investigation, but about post-election scrutiny that was making it hard for him to work with Russia.

The bad news didn't end there.

A couple of minutes after that story struck, the Washington Post followed up with a potentially even more troubling one: It said the law-enforcement investigation into possible co-ordination between Russia and the Trump campaign had identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest, showing that the probe is reaching into the highest levels of government.

"The senior White House adviser under scrutiny by investigators is someone close to the president, according to (sources)," said the Post report, which added that the FBI declined to comment.

Equally intriguing was the question of where these reports came from. The Times cited a U.S. official reading from a document summarizing Trump's meeting last week with Russia's foreign minister and ambassador.

Trump is on a nine-day trip to the Middle East and Europe, his first foreign trip as president. Most senior White House staff are travelling with him, leaving few senior officials back in Washington to defend the president.

The content of the leaked details in those reports, not to mention their simultaneous timing at a particularly vulnerable moment for the president, make it clear Trump has some enemies inside the U.S. government.

One hot topic of conversation in Washington these days is whether conservatives in town — weary of the Trump-related drama and longing for the comparative normalcy of a Mike Pence presidency — are preparing to abet his downfall.

Already, since the Comey firing, congressional committees controlled by the GOP have become more aggressive in seeking documents and witnesses, planting potential seeds for trouble to grow later.

"I think most of them are ready to flip," one Democratic congressional staffer said of his Republican colleagues this week. A Republican staffer concurred: "The tide seems to be changing in town, right?"

Both made the point that the slightest whiff of obstruction of justice, which grew more pungent with Comey's firing and in remarks thereafter, is more serious than talk of previous Trump controversies related to collusion and conflicts of interest.

Another trouble spot for Trump has to do with finances.

Congressional committees have said they want to know more about the president's businesses, and have requested documents from a Treasury Department's money-laundering unit that fined a Trump casino $10 million in 2015 for persistent, wilful, and long-term violations of protocols designed to keep criminal cash from being laundered through casinos.

Additionally, a special counsel was appointed this week — the well-regarded former head of the FBI, Robert Mueller.

Nonetheless, Trump retains a powerful retinue of defenders.

Outside Washington, he has sky-high approval ratings — among Republican voters. He has also had the full-throated backing of conservative media. One example of that was the Breitbart News headline published instantly after the Times scoop Friday.

"New York Times collaborates with deep state to smear Trump again," read the headline.

The support of the conservative base offers Trump a bit of a firewall, as congressional Republicans feel political pressure not to go too hard on the president. It's unlikely too many, if any at all, would join the call from the few Democrats who have already demanded impeachment.

Democratic leaders themselves are trying to tamp down the impeachment talk for now. They argue that the priority should be to investigate the case, build one if there is one, and revisit the matter when appropriate.

"We're going to learn some things in the process," said prominent Democratic lawmaker Elijah Cummings.

"Will it lead to impeachment? I don't know."
http://www.capebretonpost.com/news/regi ... -trip.html

[Igor Antunov]

I'm still only seeing;

sources report
sources report
sources report
sources
sauces
ketchup
97 varieties

<----- * infinity

Well, we certainly do appreciate how many foreigners with no investment or involvement who know very little and watch mostly with a bucket of extra-buttered popcorn. Thanks for shopping America!

Our media is even worse, since it just parrots the prescribed sauces. At least Washington Post/CNN/NYT have the gumption to make shit up from scratch. We're fed sloppy seconds. Your annoying swamp media smells all the way to here. Give that swamp a clean.

[SpecialOlympian]

Vox's source, which it listed, was the Washington Post. The Washington Post IS a reliable source, and is not "fake news".

News is far less fake than the fuckwit right wingers would like you to believe. If it's ANYTHING negative about Trump, they scream, "Fake news!", like insane toddlers.

Godstud, you'e talking to Igor. A man in his 30's who hires illegal immigrant maids to clean offices for his office cleaning business who spends his free time emulating depressed teenagers from 4chan because he feels like he lacks something to identify with.

Don't take Igor any more seriously than he takes his own life, which is very little.

He's only in it for teh lols. Or, more accuratley, chasing the dragon of the time when he could lol for real.

[Zagadka]

[Rich]

Trump's only got himself to blame. Sessions told him, he needed to get rid of Rosenstein.

[Hong Wu]

One of the things about anonymous sources is that if it's a big deal and it's real, the source usually becomes non-anonymous at some point. The left have to make their move pretty soon here. If you have a story built up on a chain of anonymous sources and a link early on in the chain fails, everything built on it fails and the whole thing comes crashing down.

Anonymous sources aren't going to cut it for the next four years straight. They will play their hand soon

My bet is still on the God Emperor.

[Igor Antunov]

Remember, all built on anonymous sources:

[Zagadka]

Or maybe news is negative because it disagrees with you.

[Godstud]

Why wouldn't the news have a negative tone when the bullshit Trump's doing is totally negative? Don't be naive.

Also, what Zagadka said.

Please post your source for this information.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Remember, all built on anonymous sources:

Uh, no - that's a chart of news coverage of Trump's first 100 days - built on Republican, not anonymous, sources:

The stories reviewed for the Harvard report weren't exactly slam pieces, as the people interviewed or speaking were almost exclusively Republicans:

Trump did most of the talking. He was the featured speaker in nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of his coverage. Members of the administration, including his press secretary, accounted for 11 percent of the sound bites. Other Republicans, including Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, accounted for 4 percent. Altogether, Republicans, inside and outside the administration, accounted for 80 percent of what newsmakers said about the Trump presidency.

The simple fact remains that Trump loves media coverage--and the media loves covering Trump. And he's getting exactly what he has worked for: he's the top story day in and day out. As the report details, "reporters are tuned to what’s new and different, better yet if it’s laced with controversy. Trump delivers that type of material by the shovelful."

That Trump--doing most of the talking himself, or through his surrogates--manages to produce such negative coverage may speak more about the man than it does the media.

"The fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising," the Harvard report says. "The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurelmogl ... 41ae8226d2

[Igor Antunov]

Correct its even more skewed now. And yes, the GOP was trying to eliminate him from the presidential race too. Deep state and all that. And he's targeted because he promised to drain the swamp and ran on a populist platform. He's despised by the establishment because he's at war with it no matter what he does, even if its just eating pizza or ice-cream; those are now scandals. The voters made their choice, the urban based establishment is struggling to accept it. He was not part of the insider club. He was not supposed to be allowed to go so far. But he did by outplaying their propaganda. These illegal coup plotters are playing with fire.

[Hong Wu]

The left is in a pretty bad place. They wanted Comey's head because he broke all norms of impartiality to screw Hillary over, now they are basically dependent on him sticking his neck out for them to keep the narrative they've built from collapsing.

When he in all likelihood doesn't do it, they can't kill Trump during this time of peak hysteria that they're going to be able to generate because if they kill him in Saudi Arabia, they can expect a military coup or people hunting them down and killing them over it ten years into the future.

This is probably their Waterloo, as people have been fond of saying lately, and it's an especially fitting term since we're talking about liberals here.

[Godstud]

Stop making up shit to defend your false narrative. The left only questioned the timing of the investigation , and Comey's comments.

The left was NOT calling for Comey's head. That's simply a big fat lie that you, and other Trump twits, are only NOW telling yourself, as your Child-God comes under increased scrutiny for his big fucking mouth.

Also, when the shoe is on the other foot, you Trumpsters are total hyopcrites.

Convict Trump! Convict Trump! Convict Trump!

[Suntzu]

Of what? Of what? Of what?

[Suntzu]

Only one thing you can do to a sitting president, impeach.

[Godstud]

Of what? Of what? Of what?

Obstruction... Conflict of interest(Emoluments clause)... Treason(giving intelligence to foreign powers)...


Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution prevents anyone holding an "Office" from accepting presents or emoluments from "any King, Prince or Foreign State." The Founders' idea here, of course, is to prevent foreign powers using gifts or money to corrupt the President's loyalty to the U.S.

When it comes to the new President-elect, some say that Trump could violate the letter or spirit of the law if a king or foreign country spends money at or on one of his businesses.

It's an anti-bribery law.

[Igor Antunov]

Not enough shitposty roflmao gifs exist in the world, so I won't bother. Let it tickle you on its own;



Pathetic!

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Correct

So you admit the bad press is mainly based on quoting Trump. You see, that's his problem. People report what Trump says, and it makes him look bad. They report what his subordinates say, and what Republicans in Congress say, and it makes Trump look bad. The negative reporting is an accurate reflection of the disaster Trump has produced already.