[BlutoSays]

[Godstud]

@BlutoSays Joe Rogan is a propagandist, himself.

[BlutoSays]

CNN has lost 80% of it's audience since January.

[Godstud]

@BlutoSays You're making shit up.


In Q3 ’21, CNN averaged 822,000 total viewers in prime time (No. 8 on basic cable), a -10% loss from Q2. The network also averaged 598,000 viewers in total day (No. 4 on basic cable), a -9% loss from Q2 . The network also averaged 188,000 adults 25-54 in primetime (where TV networks set premium advertising rates) and 130,000 adults 25-54 in total day. That’s down -16% and -19%, respectively, from what the network averaged in those measurements in the second quarter. In fact, those are the smallest average audiences in the demo since 2014. While the trend is poor, CNN still averaged more A25-54 viewers than rival MSNBC.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q3-21-r ... 54/489955/

[BlutoSays]

@BlutoSays You're making shit up.


In Q3 ’21, CNN averaged 822,000 total viewers in prime time (No. 8 on basic cable), a -10% loss from Q2. The network also averaged 598,000 viewers in total day (No. 4 on basic cable), a -9% loss from Q2 . The network also averaged 188,000 adults 25-54 in primetime (where TV networks set premium advertising rates) and 130,000 adults 25-54 in total day. That’s down -16% and -19%, respectively, from what the network averaged in those measurements in the second quarter. In fact, those are the smallest average audiences in the demo since 2014. While the trend is poor, CNN still averaged more A25-54 viewers than rival MSNBC.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q3-21-r ... 54/489955/

"CNN averaged a devastating 480,000 in total day viewership in October, a whopping 76% drop from January amid the chaotic transition from President Trump to President Biden."

"CNN’s weeknight primetime lineup didn’t fare much better, averaging just 733,000, an astonishing 78% drop from January. "


From: https://thepalmierireport.com/major-sha ... ir-talent/

[Rancid]

My side versus your side!

RAWWWWR!

I don't know why I'm angry, I don't know why I hate you!

I'm scared so I'm going to project it has anger and by spreading bullshit!

[BlutoSays]

Back away from CNN (The most Trusted Name in News) slowly and deliberately.




CNN Staffer John Griffin Charged With Enticing Moms, Daughters Into 'Sexual Activity'
Brendan Cole - Dec 11, 2020

A CNN employee has been charged with three counts of using a facility of interstate commerce to sexually abuse underage girls.

John Griffin, 44, of Stamford, Connecticut, was arrested on Friday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), according to a statement by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Vermont.

The indictment says that between April and July 2020, he used Google Hangouts and Kik to communicate with people purporting to be the parents of underage girls.

He allegedly used the applications to say that women should be "sexually subservient and inferior to men" and that a "woman is a woman regardless of her age."

"On these communication platforms, Griffin sought to persuade parents to allow him to train their daughters to be sexually submissive," the indictment said.

Griffin works as a senior producer at CNN, where he has worked since 2013, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said he transferred more than $3,000 to the mother of two daughters aged nine and 13 who he had been communicating with.

The mother and the 9-year-old flew from Nevada to Boston in July 2020. Prosecutors say Griffin picked them up from the airport and drove them to his house in Ludlow, Vermont.

At the property "the daughter was directed to engage in, and did engage in, unlawful sexual activity," the indictment said.

More: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/cn ... ar-AARI9ik

[BlutoSays]

@Istanbuller No, I won't be silent because you simply don't like what I have to say. You should STFU.


Lying isn't against the law, and you're probably one of those freedom of speech guys only when it's convenient, right?

Filing a false police report is illegal. Lying to the media, is not.

Facts:
Key Findings of the Mueller Report

The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity
The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.

Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.

A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.

Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016
Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]

Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]

Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]

The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton”

see article for details

Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct

see article for details

Congress needs to continue investigating and assessing elements of the Mueller Report

The redactions of the Mueller Report appear to conceal the extent to which the Trump campaign had advance knowledge of the release of hacked emails by WikiLeaks. For instance, redactions conceal content of discussions that the Report states occurred between Trump, Cohen, and Manafort in July 2016 shortly after Wikileaks released hacked emails;[18] the Report further notes, “Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming,” but redacts the contextual information around that statement.[19]

A second issue the Report does not examine is the fact that the President was involved in conduct that was the subject of a case the Special Counsel referred to the Southern District of New York – which the Report notes “ultimately led to the conviction of Cohen in the Southern District of New York for campaign-finance offenses related to payments he said he made at the direction of the President.”[20]

The Report also redacts in entirety its discussion of 12 of the 14 matters Mueller referred to other law enforcement authorities.[21]

Further, the Report details non-cooperation with the inquiry by the President, including refusing requests by the Special Counsel for an interview; providing written responses that the Office of the Special Counsel considered “incomplete” and “imprecise” and that involved the President stating on “more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not recall’ or ‘remember’ or ‘have an independent recollection.’”[22]
https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-pre ... er-report/

...
Sure, maybe the Clinton campaign yelled, "Fire!", but where there was smoke there turned out to be a conflagration. The only problem is that they couldn't prove that Trump started the fire, so now Trumpanzees like you @Istanbuller are looking for anything, in desperation, to draw attention away from your loser of an idol.

Funding the creation of false information against a political opponent to enact a FISA warrant IS against the law.

" Throughout the campaign, and for many weeks after, the Clinton campaign denied any involvement in the creation of the dossier that was later used to secure a secret surveillance warrant against Trump associates during the Obama administration. Journalists later discovered that the Clinton campaign hid the payments to Fusion as a “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to the law firm. New York Times reporter Ken Vogel at the time said that Clinton lawyer Marc Elias had “vigorously” denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier. When Vogel tried to report the story, he said, Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman likewise wrote: “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” Even when Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was questioned by Congress on the matter, he denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS. Sitting beside him was Elias, who reportedly said nothing to correct the false information given to Congress.

Later, confronted with the evidence, Clinton and her campaign finally admitted that the dossier was a campaign-funded document that was pushed by Steele and others to the media."

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/05/t ... -the-news/

[Godstud]

The indictments are evidence that the investigation was not fraudulent and that you have no valid argument, @BlutoSays. Pretending that the FBI is corrupt is absolute rubbish, and not supported by any facts, only your misguided belief.

[BlutoSays]

Do you get tired of being wrong all the time?

[Godstud]

@BlutoSays Where is the context? Can you post the whole interview and not a snippet that may, or may not, be true? I don't think this says what you think it says. Memes are rarely true.

Over 34 indictments. You don't get convictions when it's faked or not true. You like to forget this, don't you?

Where there was smoke, there was fire.

Do you get tired of being proven wrong, while saying other people are wrong? The evidence does not support your narrative and ridiculous beliefs.

[BlutoSays]

@Godstud - The context is YOU don't even know about the text conversation until I point it out to you. Efff your "context".

You wanna talk about James Comey going over to the New York Times to leak FBI information right as he was fired by the president also? Did you know about that?

Don't lecture anyone on the FBI being wholesome, when you have no idea of what went on. Start researching it for yourself, instead of living off of MSNBC and Washington Post headlines.

The information is out there. That it's not convenient to your argument, so you don't look for it, is the problem.

[Godstud]

@Godstud - The context is YOU don't even know about the text conversation until I point it out to you. Efff your "context".

So you won't link the conversation, so we can see the whole dialogue, because it would disprove what you're saying. Check.

I never said FBI was wholesome. The investigations into Russian collusion and corruption links to the Trump campaign results in 34 indictments, so it was not a fraud, like you claim.

The information is out there. That it's not convenient to your argument, so you don't look for it, is the problem. It's not my job to defend what you say by searching for the information.

That's up to you to present a source verifying what you say. The onus is upon you to prove your arguments, and other people aren't going to do it for you. Are you going to go looking for information to support my argument, or are you going to have me present it?

Think on that.


You might want to stop with memes and Youtube videos of idiots like Joe Rogan, too. Those sources are rarely accurate, or even factual.

[BlutoSays]

So you won't link the conversation, so we can see the whole dialogue, because it would disprove what you're saying. Check.

I never said FBI was wholesome. The investigations into Russian collusion and corruption links to the Trump campaign results in 34 indictments, so it was not a fraud, like you claim.

That's up to you to present a source verifying what you say. The onus is upon you to prove your arguments, and other people aren't going to do it for you. Are you going to go looking for information to support my argument, or are you going to have me present it?

Think on that.


You might want to stop with memes and Youtube videos of idiots like Joe Rogan, too. Those sources are rarely accurate, or even factual.

You lazy democrat (redundant). There you go. 165 page transcript from congressional testimony. All the context you want.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-tr ... -interview

BTW, your 34 indictments never led to ANY convictions of collusion between Trump, the Trump campaign and Russians. Not one.

Hillary Clinton and John Podesta were closer to collusion with Russians through Chris Steele, Igor Danchenko and Fusion GPS than any Trump official ever was.

As they say, you can indict a ham sandwich.

[Godstud]

@BlutoSays
1) I am not lazy. You unwilling to support your arguments shows us all that you are the lazy one.
2) I am not a Democrat. Who I am is irrelevant to the discussion. I don't have a horse in this race, but you do, it seems.
3) I will not make your arguments for you.
4) Please quote the relevant text that supports your argument. I am not going to scour a 165 page report just to find out that it doesn't say what you think it does. This is very common when people don't want to support their arguments with facts. I doubt you've read the testimony yourself.

BTW, your 34 indictments never led to ANY convictions of collusion between Trump, the Trump campaign and Russians. Not one.

That's irrelevant. The fact is that Russiagate was not a fraud, as people in Trump's camp were the ones indicted. That he wasn't, only means that they couldn't find the evidence to convict.

Hillary Clinton and John Podesta were closer to collusion with Russians through Chris Steele, Igor Danchenko and Fusion GPS than any Trump official ever was.

As they say, you can indict a ham sandwich.

They're in jail, so that's a false statement. People don't go to jail when there is no evidence. An opinion not based on fact is simply a misguided belief.

I am all for investigations into Hillary Clinton, if there is any indication of collusion. You think I am supporting the Democrats, when I am not.

[BlutoSays]

@BlutoSays
1) I am not lazy. You unwilling to support your arguments shows us all that you are the lazy one.
2) I am not a Democrat. Who I am is irrelevant to the discussion. I don't have a horse in this race, but you do, it seems.
3) I will not make your arguments for you.
4) Please quote the relevant text that supports your argument. I am not going to scour a 165 page report just to find out that it doesn't say what you think it does. This is very common when people don't want to support their arguments with facts. I doubt you've read the testimony yourself.

That's irrelevant. The fact is that Russiagate was not a fraud, as people in Trump's camp were the ones indicted. That he wasn't, only means that they couldn't find the evidence to convict.

They're in jail, so that's a false statement. People don't go to jail when there is no evidence. An opinion not based on fact is simply a misguided belief.

I am all for investigations into Hillary Clinton, if there is any indication of collusion. You think I am supporting the Democrats, when I am not.

Yes, you are lazy. BIGLY. I will not do your work for you. If you want to remain ignorant, so be it.

Russiagate was a fraud between the FBI and The Clinton Campaign and her surrogates.

[Godstud]

@BlutoSays Ignorance is what you are presenting by not having a willingness to present source material or a cogent argument.

As for laziness... I'm not willing to make your arguments for you, nor am I willing to search documentation simply to prove your point or argument. I doubt you'd do the same for me.

Prove me wrong, please, and proceed to prove my argument for me. If you are not willing to do this, is it just laziness on your part? Do you see my point?

If you are unprepared to have an adult discourse on politics, then why are you here?

Russiagate was a fraud between the FBI and The Clinton Campaign and her surrogates.

So you say... Everyone has an opinion.

[BlutoSays]

You lazy democrat (redundant). There you go. 165 page transcript from congressional testimony. All the context you want.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-tr ... -interview

[Godstud]

@BlutoSays You have the nerve to call me lazy and a Democrat? I must be for Democracy and that's why you call me that. I'm not an American, and you're not as smart as you think you are.

Quote the relevant text that supports what you say. I am not going to read 165 pages, that you yourself have not read.

Here is evidence that you're wrong, and your claims are false. It's only 448 pages, long, of course. Get on it... or are you too lazy?

Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/fi ... 6/download

Check and mate.