Faucci had no power to "shut the country down". Those decisions were made by politicians. And not just democrats. How does your brain create these stories in your mind?
Stop deflecting you stated that "Let corporations keep more of the money they earned, and they will in turn invest more, hire more people, give employees raises,"
I debunked every word of that nonsense. It's certainly true that if you target major tax cuts by putting that money in the hands of consumers that need things, appliances, cars and goods, they will in turn purchase those products. That creates the demand for those products. Then and only then does business need to expand and hire more employees to meet that demand.
What we see now is the bulk of tax cuts going to major corporations and the wealthy and a much smaller percentage getting in the hands of consumers. That in no way stimulates the economy.
A bunch of one line BS doesn't change any of that. Your entire "Let corporations keep more of the money they earned, and they will in turn invest more, hire more people, give employees raises," has been proven to be nothing but nonsense. Now deflect away from that some more. You have no intent on having anything close to a meaningful discussion.
It is a fact that businesses make more money they invest infrastructure to make more goods. That creates jobs in the construction world to build that infrastructure. Once created, the employer will then hire more people to produce more goods with the added infrastructure Which in turn causes more people employed and working to make money and buying goods for them and their families. Which causes businesses to make even more money and employees then get raises. Which all of that creates more tax revenue at a lower rate. I don't expect folks who always have their hands out to understand a simple concept like that though.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
They don't build homes that aren't selling. They don't make products there is no demand for. I don't expect people that have no understanding of how things work to understand that. They have been programmed to believe this BS.
I'll tell you what. Ask any business owner in any field if they expands their business and production unless there is a demand for his or her product? I don't have my hand out. I just have a basic understanding of how this all works. And it's very basic. Something you can't seem to grasp.
As of now communities are actually giving huge tax breaks to companies just to come to their towns. The result is workers pay the taxes and the businesses don't.
Please explain one logical reason businesses would make or build things that are not selling? They only make and build things based on demand. Dear Lord man.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
They don't build homes that aren't selling. They don't make products there is no demand for. I don't expect people that have no understanding of how things work to understand that. They have been programmed to believe this BS.
I'll tell you what. Ask any business owner in any field if they expands their business and production unless there is a demand for his or her product? I don't have my hand out. I just have a basic understanding of how this all works. And it's very basic. Something you can't seem to grasp.
As of now communities are actually giving huge tax breaks to companies just to come to their towns. The result is workers pay the taxes and the businesses don't.
Please explain one logical reason businesses would make or build things that are not selling? They only make and build things based on demand. Dear Lord man.
More people working will drive the demand. More money in the hands of those that supply the jobs to those that need to be working kicks start the whole process.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
Only more people get hired when a business needs workers to meet increased demand. At this point you sound so ridiculous it's obvious to see you're doing nothing but trolling. Everyone knows that our our economy is based on supply and demand. Even those acting like they don't. But it's what trumpians do.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
‘It’s just wildly misleading’: Why the administration’s latest allegations about the Russia investigation don’t add up
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified and released new intelligence documents Friday that she claimed were evidence of a “treasonous conspiracy” by top Obama administration officials to manufacture the notion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
But the allegations conflate and misrepresent what the intelligence community actually concluded, according to a review of a GOP-led Senate investigation from 2020 and interviews with congressional sources familiar with the probe.
The newly unsealed documents do nothing to undercut the government’s core findings in its 2017 assessment that Russia launched an influence and hacking campaign and sought to help Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton, the sources said.
The new allegations from Gabbard lean on assessments before the election and statements from Obama-era intelligence officials finding that the Russians did not alter the election results through cyber-attacks aimed at infiltrating voting systems.
But the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment never concluded that Russian cyberattacks altered the outcome of the 2016 election or compromised any election infrastructure in the first place, though state voting systems were probed.
Instead, the assessment focused on Russia’s influence campaign ordered by President Vladimir Putin and cyber operations against US and Democratic Party officials, including the hacked emails released by WikiLeaks.
“These are two different things — cyberattacks on infrastructure and hacking the DNC — which they’re conflating in an attempt to make a political point,” said a former senior congressional source familiar with the Senate review. “It’s just wildly misleading on its face.”
In 2020, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee review agreed with the intelligence community’s conclusions on Russia’s election interference and Putin’s role directing the effort.
Multiple congressional sources familiar with the Senate report said that Gabbard is trying to lean on intelligence assessments that no voting systems were breached to falsely make a broader leap that a Russian influence and cyber campaign did not occur. The Senate review included interviews with the intelligence analysts who drafted the report, none of whom reported any political interference, the congressional sources said.
In response to questions from CNN, an ODNI official said, “What the IC assessed before the Obama-Brennan-Clapper politicization, was that attempts by Russia to meddle in the 2016 election were designed to undermine public confidence in the vote outcome, not ‘hack’ U.S. elections.”
Intel assessment sparked Trump’s distrust of ‘deep state’
Gabbard’s declassified document release is only the latest example of Trump administration officials trying to rewrite the history of the Russia investigation during the president’s first six months in office.
Last month, CIA Director John Ratcliffe also released a review that criticized the intelligence community’s conclusion that Putin sought to help Trump, which he said was reached “through an atypical & corrupt process.” Ratcliffe referred former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey to the Justice Department, which is now investigating, CNN previously reported. Gabbard also threatened on Friday to refer Obama officials to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution.
Trump and his allies have spent years trying to denigrate all aspects of the Russia investigation, which consumed much of the first two years of Trump’s first term – including the 2017 intelligence assessment; special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe and the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation; and the infamous dossier written by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, which was funded by the Clinton campaign and alleged coordination between the Russian government and people associated with the Trump campaign.
Trump touted Gabbard’s findings over the weekend, reposting videos of Gabbard speaking on Fox Business and memes of former President Barack Obama and his top officials in prison jumpsuits. Earlier this year, Trump declassified and released redacted documents from a binder that the White House compiled in 2020 criticizing the FBI’s probe, including the bureau’s errors in relying on the dossier to obtain foreign surveillance warrants on a Trump adviser.
“Obama himself manufactured the Russia, Russia, Russia HOAX. Crooked Hillary, Sleepy Joe, and numerous others participated in this, THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY!. Irrefutable EVIDENCE. A major threat to our Country!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social Monday evening.
The January 2017 intelligence assessment, released days before Trump took office, was a key first step in turning Trump against the “deep state.” He’s long disputed the conclusion that Putin and the Russian government aspired to help him win, believing it undermined the legitimacy of his 2016 victory.
A 2018 report by the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee disputed the tradecraft behind the conclusion that Putin tried to help Trump. Ratcliffe was a member of that committee at the time, and FBI Director Kash Patel was a top aide on the panel. Ratcliffe’s review last month did not dispute the intelligence community’s finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
Allegations tied to Steele dossier
Gabbard alleged that the intelligence assessment on Russian interference relied on the Steele dossier and was used by the Obama White House to “subvert the will of the American people.”
In an 11-page memo accompanying the declassified documents, Gabbard cites emails from intelligence officials and an earlier September 2016 intelligence assessment stating that foreign adversaries don’t have the capability to “covertly overturn the vote outcome.” The memo points to talking points in December 2016 for then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, stating: “Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the US Presidential election outcome.”
Gabbard’s memo alleges that when the January 2017 intelligence assessment on Russian interference was released, it “falsely alleges, based in part on ‘further information’ that had ‘come to light’ since the election, that Putin directed an effort to help President Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.”
“This ‘further information’ is later confirmed to be the Steele Dossier,” the memo states.
But congressional sources took issue with both of her claims: The intelligence community conclusion of a Putin-directed campaign was not evidence that the election outcome had been altered, they said, and the committee’s interviews with the analysts who drafted the assessment said that the Steele dossier did not inform its analysis.
There was an internal debate about whether the dossier should be part of the assessment or a separate annex, but the CIA insisted it be kept out of the report, according to the committee’s report.
“All individuals the Committee interviewed stated that the Steele material did not in any way inform the analysis in the ICA — including the key judgments — because it was unverified information and had not been disseminated as serialized intelligence reporting,” the committee report states.
Gabbard’s memo claims the dossier was involved in the assessment on the basis of an “ODNI whistleblower,” who had worked previously on election interference and said they were sidelined on the January 2017 Russia document.
The memo states that the whistleblower was “shocked” to be told in helping to respond to a 2019 Freedom of Information Act request that the dossier was “a factor” in the intelligence assessment.
But the email that’s cited in the memo merely states that the dossier was a factor because it was an annex to the intelligence assessment — there’s no suggestion that means it was involved in the crafting of the analysis itself.
Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that the panel’s investigation resulted in a “unanimous, bipartisan conclusion” that Putin interfered in 2016 to benefit Trump.
“This is just another example of the DNI trying to cook the books, rewrite history, and erode trust in the intelligence agencies she’s supposed to be leading,” Warner said.
Gabbard threatens Obama officials with criminal referral over 2016 election assessment
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday threatened to refer Obama administration officials to the Justice Department for prosecution over the intelligence assessment of Russia’s 2016 election interference, in the latest example of officials going after perceived enemies of President Donald Trump.
Gabbard declassified documents Friday that she claimed were evidence the Obama administration’s intelligence officials “manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork” for the FBI’s Russia investigation into Trump.
In a post, Gabbard said she was “turning over all documents to the DOJ for criminal referral,” though she didn’t specify whether she was referring any specific officials. A criminal referral does not necessarily mean the Justice Department will investigate or prosecute.
Earlier this month, however, CNN reported that the FBI is investigating former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey for possible false statements to Congress following a referral from the current CIA Director John Ratcliffe, which was also related to the intelligence assessment on Russia’s election interference.
Both Gabbard and Ratcliffe declassified documents this month as part of an effort to undermine the intelligence community’s 2017 assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election and tried to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton – a conclusion that contributed to Trump’s longstanding distrust of the intelligence community.
Other reviews did not discover such issues, however, including a bipartisan 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report that supported the intelligence community’s assessment of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.
Democrats criticized Gabbard’s release Friday as an attempt to “rewrite history.”
“The Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a bipartisan investigation reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents and interviewing witnesses over several years. The unanimous, bipartisan conclusion was that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump,” Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the committee, said in a statement. “This is just another example of the DNI trying to cook the books, rewrite history, and erode trust in the intelligence agencies she’s supposed to be leading.”
Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, “Every legitimate investigation, including the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, found no evidence of politicization and endorsed the findings of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment.”
The FBI’s criminal investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia began in 2016 and stretched into the first Trump administration. It then became the subject of investigations by the Justice Department’s inspector general and by special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr to also examine the handling of intelligence that led to the Trump-Russia probe.
The Durham probe ended with no finding of wrongdoing in the handling of the intelligence, but it did end with the indictment of three people, including a former FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to falsifying information in a surveillance warrant request targeting a Trump campaign aide.
Gabbard’s Russian interference claims directly contradict what other Trump officials have said
When President Donald Trump sided with Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence community on the topic of Russia’s interference in the 2016 US election, then-Sen. Marco Rubio sharply rebuked Trump.
The Florida Republican said in 2018 that the intelligence community’s “assessment of 2016 is accurate. It’s 100% accurate. The Russians interfered in our elections.”
He added: “I think it was not a good moment for the administration, obviously. Hopefully, something like that never happens again.”
But seven years later, it just keeps happening — over and over again — as Trump and his most loyal allies seek to sow doubts about that 2016 episode and punish their political enemies. That’s now taken the form of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard threatening criminal referrals and even floating allegations of treason for key officials in the Obama administration.
Her argument is full of holes, as even critics of the Russia investigation such as the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy have noted. (Basically, the whole thing conflates Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 election with nonexistent attacks on election infrastructure that changed votes. )
But just as notable is that Gabbard’s move to cast doubt on Russia’s 2016 interference is wholly at odds with several top Trump administration officials, most especially Rubio, along with a pair of congressional investigations spearheaded by Republicans.
To be clear, Gabbard is basically suggesting there was no Russian interference.
Her memo last week cited what it cast as false reporting “that the CIA ‘concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened’ in the election to help President Trump.”
The memo said the assessment “falsely alleges … that Putin directed an effort to help President Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.”
Gabbard in Fox News interviews accused the Obama team of ordering a “a manufactured piece of intelligence that detailed not if, but how Russia tried to influence the outcome of the United States election.” She cited an intelligence document that purportedly said Russia “did not attempt to affect the outcome of the election.”
In fact, that document — a President’s Daily Brief, or his daily intelligence report — merely said Russia hadn’t impacted the election results “by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.”
It was referring narrowly to a very specific (and severe) type of potential election interference. The Obama administration never alleged such interference took place or that Russia manipulated actual votes that were cast.
This is a kind of sleight of hand we’ve seen before with Trump allies trying to call Russia’s election interference into question.
But Gabbard’s commentary is especially striking when juxtaposed with those she serves with in the second Trump administration.
Rubio didn’t just rebuke Trump for siding with Putin’s denials back in 2018; he also spearheaded the Senate Intelligence Committee’s big, bipartisan Russia report in 2020.
The report concluded that Russia had “engaged in an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to influence, or attempt to influence, the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.”
It not only said Russia had interfered, but also that it had done so to benefit Trump.
“The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president,” the report said. “Moscow’s intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.”
The report differed slightly from a similar report from the House Intelligence Committee in 2018. The House report, which was written by Republicans, did not say that Russia aimed to help Trump, but it did say it interfered and that Putin had ordered it.
“In 2015, Russia began engaging in a covert influence campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election,” the Republican-led House report said. “The Russia government, at the direction of President Vladimir Putin, sought to sow discord in American society and undermine our faith in the democratic process.”
Gabbard, who was a Democratic member of Congress until 2021, now suggestively casts all three of these pillars as false: that Russia interfered, that Putin ordered it, and that it was meant to help Trump.
And her conclusions also run afoul of other Trump administration members’ statements.
During his 2020 confirmation hearing to become Trump’s director of national intelligence, now-CIA Director John Ratcliffe — who then served on the House Intelligence Committee — made clear Russia interfered.
“Chairman, my views are that Russia meddled in or interfered with active measures in 2016,” Ratcliffe said. “They interfered in 2018. They will attempt to do so in 2020. They have a goal of sowing discord, and they have been successful in sowing discord.”
Even just days before Gabbard launched her effort last week, Ratcliffe issued a report that not only didn’t dispute that Russia interfered, but actually praised the initial intelligence assessment’s “analytical rigor.”
Mike Waltz, Trump’s nominee for United Nations ambassador and his former national security adviser, has also issued strong statements on the topic.
He at one point even warned that people were conflating Trump’s claims of “no collusion” with the idea that Russia didn’t interfere at all.
“We do have to draw a bright line between ‘no collusion’ … versus the Russians attacking our constitutional system and attacking our electoral system, which they absolutely are doing,” Waltz, then a Florida congressman, told CNN’s Jake Tapper in 2019.
He added: “We have to stay focused on that, because that is our democracy under attack.”
Today, Trump’s administration is yet again seeking to blur those lines. The conflations are continuing. And these officials will apparently just keep doing it — no matter what they said before.
YouTube wipes out thousands of propaganda channels linked to China, Russia, others
Google removed nearly 11,000 YouTube channels and other accounts tied to state-linked propaganda campaigns from China, Russia and more in the second quarter.
Google removed YouTube channels, Ads accounts, and a Blogger blog linked to RT, the Russian state-controlled media outlet accused of paying prominent conservative influencers for social media content ahead of the 2024 election.
The active removal of accounts is part of the Google Threat Analysis Group’s work to counter global disinformation campaigns
Google
announced Monday the removal of nearly 11,000 YouTube channels and other accounts tied to state-linked propaganda campaigns from China, Russia and more in the second quarter.
The takedown included more than 7,700 YouTube channels linked to China.
These campaigns primarily shared content in Chinese and English that promoted the People’s Republic of China, supported President Xi Jinping and commented on U.S. foreign affairs.
Over 2,000 removed channels were linked to Russia. The content was in multiple languages that supported Russia and criticized Ukraine, NATO and the West.
Google, in May, removed 20 YouTube channels, 4 Ads accounts, and 1 Blogger blog linked to RT, the Russian state-controlled media outlet accused of paying prominent conservative influencers for social media content ahead of the 2024 election.
Tim Pool, Dave Rubin and Benny Johnson — all staunch supporters of President Donald Trump — made content for Tenent Media, the Tennessee company described in the indictment, according to NBC News.
YouTube began blocking RT channels in March 2022, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine.
The active removal of accounts is part of the Google Threat Analysis Group’s work to counter global disinformation campaigns and “coordinated influence” operations.
Google’s second quarter report also outlined the removal of influence campaigns linked to Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Romania and Ghana that were found to be targeting political rivals.
Some campaigns centered on growing geopolitical conflicts, including narratives on both sides of the Israel-Palestine War.
“The findings from the most recent update are in line with our expectations of this regular and ongoing work,” a YouTube spokesperson said in a statement.
Google took down more than 23,000 accounts in the first quarter.
Meta announced last week it removed about 10 million profiles for impersonating large content producers through the first half of 2025 as part of an effort by the company to combat “spammy content.”
1. There are more than just tax breaks with Every. Single. Group. Of corporation that I named.
2. Time has shown again, and again, and again that trickle down methodology you just named is a failure. I just talked about how they buy their own stock. It was at record levels when Trump passed the original bill during his first term. After Lockheed and Raytheon gouged the tax payers (they almost exclusively make money from the Govt) they went out and spent $20B of the money they just made from US to buy back their own stock.
You can’t just retort with anecdotal falsehoods because you don’t like factual data presented to you.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Here's a quick recap for you so we can move on from your bogus misdirection and get back to the BS of this administration: From a quick use of the internet:
1: The Mueller Report:
The Mueller investigation uncovered extensive interference by Russia in the 2016 U.S. election through two key operations:
Social Media Manipulation: The Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian organization, conducted a coordinated campaign to sow discord and support Donald Trump. This included thousands of fake accounts across Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Hacking & Leaking: Russian intelligence (GRU) hacked Democratic Party emails and leaked them through platforms like WikiLeaks to damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Mueller concluded:
“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.”
Over 30 indictments were issued, including 12 Russian military officers.
The investigation did not establish criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but it did not exonerate the President on obstruction.
2: William Barr's Lies about the Report:
William Barr, who served as Attorney General under President Trump, was widely criticized for misrepresenting key findings of the Mueller Report in his March 24, 2019 summary and in public statements. Multiple fact-based critiques—including from Robert Mueller himself—show that Barr’s portrayal minimized the seriousness of the findings and distorted public understanding.
Here’s a breakdown of how Barr was untruthful or misleading:
Obstruction of Justice Findings Misrepresented Barr’s claim: Mueller found there was no obstruction of justice, and he personally concluded that the evidence was insufficient.
Reality: Mueller explicitly stated that he could not exonerate the President and detailed at least 10 instances where Trump may have obstructed justice.
Mueller wrote: “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
Barr’s summary ignored this nuance and instead claimed Mueller had deferred entirely to him to make a prosecutorial decision — which Mueller later contradicted.
Collusion vs. Conspiracy Language Barr’s claim: The report found no collusion between Trump and Russia.
Reality: “Collusion” is not a legal term used in the report. Mueller investigated criminal conspiracy, and while he did not find sufficient evidence to charge members of the Trump campaign with that crime, the report detailed extensive contacts and a welcoming attitude by the campaign toward Russia’s efforts.
Barr used the vague term “no collusion” to falsely imply complete vindication.
Barr released his “summary” almost a month before releasing the full (redacted) report, shaping public opinion in the meantime.
By the time the actual report came out, the narrative that Trump had been fully cleared had already taken hold — despite the report documenting serious misconduct.
On May 1, 2019, Robert Mueller sent a letter to Barr stating that the AG’s summary:
“did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions.”
Mueller made clear that Barr’s letter caused “public confusion” and urged the release of the report’s executive summaries — which Barr initially resisted.
Federal Judge’s Reprimand In 2020, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote that Barr's summary was:
Barr claimed Mueller cleared Trump of obstruction. False — Mueller detailed 10+ potential obstruction events & said he could not exonerate the President.
Barr said "no collusion." Misleading — "Collusion" isn’t a legal term. Mueller found extensive contacts between Trump’s team & Russia.
Barr withheld the full report for weeks. He shaped public opinion before the facts were known.
Mueller publicly rebuked Barr for distorting the findings. “Did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance.”
A federal judge later said Barr lacked candor.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
1. There are more than just tax breaks with Every. Single. Group. Of corporation that I named.
2. Time has shown again, and again, and again that trickle down methodology you just named is a failure. I just talked about how they buy their own stock. It was at record levels when Trump passed the original bill during his first term. After Lockheed and Raytheon gouged the tax payers (they almost exclusively make money from the Govt) they went out and spent $20B of the money they just made from US to buy back their own stock.
You can’t just retort with anecdotal falsehoods because you don’t like factual data presented to you.
I don't like lies either. I lived thru Jimmy Carter and now Joe Biden. I also lived thru Ronald Reagan turning this country around and it really has not stopped since. Clinton had a good economy after he passed tax cuts in year 3 of his term. Then Trump had the economy rolling in his first 3 years. That is lived experience not some spin doctor's theory.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
Yes, Reagan maxed out the credit cards, put the cars into hock and took out a second mortgage on the house and came home and said “Wow, look at all this cash we have now!”
You’re definitely correct that has not stopped since his presidency.
Clinton is oddly enough the only conservative fiscal president we have had since Reagan. He cut taxes but he also cut spending…and he didn’t do it like a buffoon and/or lie about the cuts he made. The guy is a total sleazebag and definitely not without faults but the central point above rings true.
I should pull back and realize that I am chasing you down a tangential rabbit hole. My central point for which I am advocating is that trickle down is ineffective. In the post-Jack Welch era, margins are kings and shareholders are the absolute priority. Not customers. Not workers. That is rampantly evident. If you need proof, go to corporate deep dive and check out the bonus metrics for the C suite in every public corporation.
When mega corps come into money and are allowed to consume each other in rampant anti-competitive practices, it does not trickle down. The margins expand, our debt rises and the select few benefit. Look at how much Bezos was able to spend on his wedding while taxpayers likely subsidize a lot of the warehouse workers via Medicaid and other social benefits.
This may surprise you, but I am a fiscal conservative. The problem is that we have crossed a rubicon with how easy we have made it for corps and elites and never received the benefits of the benefits we have bestowed on them. Instead, we are in debt up to our eyeballs. Reagan is the one who made the snowball and started rolling it down the hill.
I was a big fan of his too…until I thought very critically about it.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
At this point, I think it's just an attempt to distract from Epstein...
Why didn't O Biden release the files?
If the Dems had any evidence of Trump wrongdoing in Epstein files, they would have sacrificed whoever to get Trump. The fact they did not release any files shows there was no real Trump evidence. I am confident of that.
It could've just as easily been that there was incriminating evidence in there against them... and releasing would hurt them just as much as Trump.
I may only speak for myself, but Trump and his corner had been stoking this conspiracy theory throughout the campaign... but now want to hand-waive it away now that he's in office. Like someone said above, he made this bed and now he gets to lay in it.
If the Democrats had the goods on Trump they would have sacrificed their own Mother's to get him exposed. I believe there are names on that list that will take down people on both sides. I don't care if you were a contributor of child sex trafficking you should not be protected you should go down.
Try and keep up. Those files were sealed by a court. Biden couldn't have released them if he wanted to.. In fact, they were cleared to be released in January of this year, so trump can if he wishes, get them released..
Tell me again, why he won't release them? What's he afraid of? who or what is he protecting?
He's the leader of the gang that can't shoot straight. He presides over the worst, Most unqualified group of cabinet officials ever. They guys are so bad, they can't even get their lies straight.
Any bets on how long it will take for the DOJ to meet up with Maxwell, secure her cooperation and then offer her a pardon?
What do you think Day, do you think a deal is in the works?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
OMG - the Trumptards must really be woprried -- they are pulling all sorts of stuff out to try and deflect. 2019? LMAO.
Either flooding the zone with excrement - or Dead Cat politics. Take your pick. Dead catting only works if you let them distract you of course, same for flooding the zone.
Last edited by mgh888; 07/23/2511:02 AM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Even though you have to dig back in the archives for the clips and use them as distraction to ignore what's going on now. I can see why you would think that is good.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
If all of this proves out, and it looks pretty credible, lots of people are looking at long prison terms. This runs up the ladder to President Obama.
I see lots of people boohooing this, but it is a pretty serious mistrust perpetrated on the American people....again, if it all proves out.
LOL - there goes that critical thinking again. Funny how - based on nothing - you say it looks credible. But based on real eidence, testimony and convictions you dismiss claims that don't sit well ... or rather you dismiss things your echo chamber have told you to dismiss.
Last edited by mgh888; 07/24/2503:13 AM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
I should be more fair…what about the report, in light of everything that was also assessed by the bipartisan committee, to you shows that there was “treasonous conspiracy” (Gabbard’s words)?
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
The entire EU bloc is well to the left of the U.S. politically — and many EU nations are WAY WAY left of the Democratic Party. Yet none of those countries are 'socialist,' and many rank among the highest in quality of life, education, and healthcare.
But I get it—those are nuances that might be hard to grasp if your only news diet is Fox/Breitbart talking points. When you’re spoon-fed propaganda, critical thinking tends to take a backseat.
His statement is somewhat true, as Socialism is the stepping stone to Communism. That's what their own literature says. Also, I can tell you why certain countries are more prosperous. It has certain things to do with demographics. You won't like those talking points though.
And what do you say about the EU regulating and arresting people for what others deem petty insults on social media? You support that garbage as well? Also, you are free to pay more in taxes to the government then required. Keep giving them money to flush down the toilet into a 30 plus trillion dollar hole. And you'd trust them to do anything. So stupid and it defies logic as well.
Originally Posted by PitDAWG The United States will be what future voters decide it should be. Seemingly unbeknownst to you that's what decides how the country runs. The voters decide. You claim Social Security is treason? You claim Medicaid and Medicare is treason? Minimum wage is treason? So any changes other than totally unbridled capitalism is treason? Anything you disagree with or are against is treason? That is what dictators say. Nobody wants to "wipe out" capitalism. This is what people such as yourself who have no clue what democratic socialism is say because you refuse to inform yourselves.
There can be no true "capitalist system". That's been proven over and over again. Any system of government can be abused and it has been. That's why we have safety regulations. That's why workers compensation came about. That's why business had to be regulated. That's why we have child labor laws. That is why we have minimum wage and Social security came about. The list is virtually endless of the many ways capitalism has been abused in the past. Keeping capitalism in check is needed and has had to come about over the abuse of it. We have been taught the need and for almost a century now lived in a society where capitalism has been mixed with socialism. You can't promote capitalism and the wealthy only to ignore the people. There has to be a balance.
You call that treason. But then of course you would. Do you actually even engage your brain before you post? Socialism has been a fabric within our society for almost a century now. Did you not understand that? And pure capitalism is the very reason that happened in the first place. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////
Full stop one of the dumbest posts I've read in the last twenty years. We've got looney people advocating for Socialism like they haven't studied a lick of world history, economic systems, or politics. What makes you think a collective knows more than the individual about the said individual's own circumstance and how much quantity of goods\products they need? You're also falling into the price fallacy and trying to have people run the economy instead of the invisible hand. It doesn't work like that. I thought this was common sense, but I guess not. You CANNOT have people manually run an economy because they don't have enough information to make the correct decision in order to set quantity, supply\demand, and prices. The prices aren't really the prices because they're not using the true price indicator of the free market. That's your free Economics 101 lesson for today.
Any money that I give in taxes to any government entity, I completely disagree with. Last year may property taxes went up for a school levy that I didn't vote for, and put many people out of the neighborhood due to not being able to afford the increase. It kicked seniors out and took money right out of their pockets.
Did it work that time? Increasing people's property taxes? What about the time ten years ago? Twenty? Thirty? Personally I think property taxes should be illegal. Why do you trust an entity who is 30 plus trillion in debt to spend your money wisely? And you want to give them more of it. That's an award winning idea there.
There’s a lot to pick apart from Memphis’ tweet blasts and you can do a point by point address of it, but let’s go ahead and assume all of it is even true and that somehow the dots could be connected. How is this “treasonous conspiracy”…especially on the part of Obama?
Lisa Murkowski of all people also questions the timing of these allegations:
“It does cause one to wonder if this is an effort by folks in this administration to have the conversation move on to something else, other than the Epstein matter. So let’s focus on someone else…prior presidents.”
Has all the markings of that…a tried and true strategy, and it is being spearheaded by someone who incurred Trump’s wrath a month or two ago, who now would need to save face.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Regardless of it being credible, no one will go to prison.
I don't disagree with that. Looking at and actually getting are two different things, even if convicted.
You mean listening to it.Nobody has shown you anything to "look at". All of this has been investigated several times already and nothing was found. Suddenly in the middle of the Epstein drama you really believe they found something nobody before them could find? They're putting on another carnival show.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Your confusion lies with the fact in your mind you have invented some thoughts that I advocated a socialist government. I see the problem here. You read things you don't comprehend. That's why things that make common sense sound stupid to you. Here's just a hint on what you posted. Schools are just like anything else. As time goes on teacher salaries go up. Book and supplies costs go up. Old schools must be replaced with new schools. Building those schools cost much more than the ones they built 50 years ago. So guess what? That costs money. These factors are all a part of the capitalist system. The same thing goes for road repairs, maintenance and upkeep. Over time all those costs increase. Your answer to that? 'Increasing my taxes to pay what it costs to run schools is socialism!' Of course the cost of educating our children would be something you would object to.
The capitalist system is just fine so long as there are checks and balances in place to prevent capitalism from abusing the people. That's how it was back before changes began to come about in the 1930's and moving forward. I gave you examples of that but of course you ignored those things like the plague. Exactly as I expected you would do. Speaking of one of the dumbest posts I've read in the last twenty years.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
You were being far too kind. All I see is a poop, more poop, and yet more poop. Posted by really ignorant people who are either trolling or are very very stupid. It's as simple as that. Occams razor .... What you're seeing is the right wing media and Trump flooding the zone. And Trumptards are gobbling it up.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
The Situation: The Lies of Tulsi Gabbard Benjamin Wittes Tuesday, July 22, 2025, 5:12 PM
Print this article Why is the director of national intelligence getting in on the retconning of “Russiagate”?
Subscribe to Lawfare The Situation on Saturday took a look at the president’s latest pressure tactic lawsuit against the media—his libel suit against the Wall Street Journal.
And it came to pass, in the days that followed the Wall Street Journal’s story about the president’s birthday wishes to the pedophile financier, that the director of national intelligence declared that “a treasonous conspiracy” had been “committed by officials at the highest level of our government” and that “Their egregious abuse of power and blatant rejection of our Constitution threatens the very foundation and integrity of our democratic republic. No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again.”
And it came to pass—only today, actually—that the president raged that his predecessor as president—the one whose middle name is Arabic in origin and which middle name the current president bothered to articulate clearly—was guilty of treason and should be prosecuted for nine-year-old conduct for which all statutes of limitations will have passed and for which Barack Hussein Obama would anyway be immune.
I am not going to spend this column rebutting the substance of the allegations the DNI makes in her very silly press release. Suffice it to say that it is—like the CIA director’s earlier effort to gin up an investigation of former intelligence leaders by lying about the review he ordered—a package of false rhetorical claims wrapping a set of findings that do not actually contradict what the intelligence community found in 2016 and do not remotely support the claims.
Even to rebut these claims requires giving them further attention, and life is short. I don’t want to spend more of it than I absolutely have to arguing with dilettantes and liars. Yes, it makes it complicated that, in this case, the lying dilettantes in question are the president of the United States and his director of national intelligence, who is discussing her supposed findings in an official statement and on an official U.S. government website. Such are the times we live in.
But acknowledging the awkwardness, I don’t argue with people about whether vaccines prevent infectious disease; I don’t argue with people about whether climate change is happening; and I’m not going to argue with people—even senior level officials—anymore over whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
I am also not going to freak out about the supposed “investigation” of Obama and the other supposed conspirators that will likely get announced now that Fox News has dutifully reported that the Justice Department has “received” the DNI’s referral. Yes, it is disgusting. It is an abuse of law enforcement. It is profoundly dangerous to use both the law enforcement and intelligence communities in this fashion. That said, as I wrote back when the CIA director pulled the same stunt a couple of weeks ago,
I don’t believe there is an investigation—not a real one, anyway.
There is an announcement of an investigation. There may be a paper investigation that gets closed quickly because there’s no evidence that anyone committed any sort of crime, the statute of limitations of which would have run anyway. There may be a decision not to close anything and to feed occasional further stories to Fox News or like-minded news outlets because having an investigation open—like opening it in the first place—is politically useful.
But an actual investigation? Come talk to me when a grand jury issues a subpoena or hears from a witness. Come talk to me when an actual agent is deployed to make an actual inquiry of someone.
The only reason to talk about this issue at all—and not just ignore it—is that it’s important to understand the play the administration is making here, which is not just about distracting from the Epstein controversy. There’s a reason why the distraction takes the specific form of harkening back to what Trump has trained an entire movement of people to call the “Russia hoax.” There’s a reason why, when confronted with the fact that he and his top aides promised to release the so-called Epstein files and then reneged, he falls back on the false claim that the Obama administration made up the Russia collusion narrative nearly nine years ago.
That reason is that the Russia story is the ur-text of all of Trump’s anxieties about his perceived legitimacy. Made to face genuine questions about his untoward relationship with the Russian power elite, which genuinely intervened on his behalf in the 2016 on his behalf, Trump concocted a defense mechanism which was remarkably successful. He labeled it all a hoax, the intelligence community which investigated it a treasonous cabal, and the whole investigation a witch hunt. And whenever new allegations would arise, on any subject—some connected, some not—he would treat them all as an extension of the “Russia hoax.” It was all a single witch hunt endlessly in search of a subject matter over time, and it all came back, always, to “Russia, Russia, Russia.”
So now Trump confronts a different sort of scandal, one that’s a little awkward for him. It’s not, after all, a scandal which Democrats or career bureaucrats have ginned up against him. It’s actually one that his supporters ginned up against Democrats—or at least thought they did.
But sometimes, the arrows that one looses against one’s enemies turn around midair and head back one’s way. And while the cry to “release the Epstein files” began as a call to expose the supposed liberal elites who were allegedly operating as some kind of pedophile cabal, it turned out that Trump’s own relationship with Epstein was perhaps the bigger story in those files. And in any event and for whatever reason, the new Justice Department and FBI leadership weren’t able to deliver the goods that Epstein was murdered to protect the pedophilia cabal.
All of which is pretty hard to sell as an extension of the witch hunt that began with Russia.
But Trump is trying anyway, and why shouldn't he? Running this playbook has never failed him before—not with his base, anyway—and reminding people that the cabal his supporters loath has always been out to get Trump and, indeed, that getting Trump is such a priority for this malevolent clique that its members even take a break from their satanic child-exploitation rituals to do it is thus not as crazy as it may seem in the information ecosystem that about which Trump most cares.
Decoded for the mainstream information consumer, Trump and Gabbard are saying this: We know you’re mad, but if you give oxygen to these allegations, you’ll be helping the people who have been after Trump the entire time he has been fighting for you against the Deep State. You’ll be siding with Obama and Comey and Brennan and effectively admitting that they were right all along. So we’re reminding you who the bad guys are. We’re reminding you that Trump is the guy who stands against them. We’re reminding you that they are treasonous. And we are asking whether you are sure you want to be on their side?
If you think I’m drawing connections here between unconnected threads, I promise it’s not me who’s doing so. It’s Trump himself.
Trump’s rant today began not in response to questions about Gabbard’s findings. It began in response to a question about whether it was appropriate for the Justice Department to reinterview Epstein sidekick Ghislaine Maxwell.
Trump responded: “I didn't know that they were going to do it. I don't really follow that too much. It's a—it's sort of a witch hunt, just a continuation of the witch hunt. The witch hunt that you should be talking about is they caught President Obama, absolutely cold, Tulsi Gabbard, what they did to this country in 2016, starting in 2016, but going up all the way going up to 2020 in the election.”
A continuation of the witch hunt.
I’m done engaging the substance of the lie. There’s nothing new to be said. As Renee DiResta eloquently put it the other day, “the truth remains: Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It did so to help Trump and hurt Clinton. It relied on both trolls and hackers, memes and leaks, real-world events and digital manipulation. This conclusion was not remotely controversial at the time. And it isn’t controversial now.”
The only way I know how to respond to the barrage of lies emanating from the highest levels of America’s intelligence apparatus is to go meta—to explain how the lies work and how I think they are designed to operate on the minds of the president’s supporters.
To explain, in other words, how the lies help ensure that The Situation continues tomorrow.
At this point, I think it's just an attempt to distract from Epstein...
Why didn't O Biden release the files?
If the Dems had any evidence of Trump wrongdoing in Epstein files, they would have sacrificed whoever to get Trump. The fact they did not release any files shows there was no real Trump evidence. I am confident of that.
It could've just as easily been that there was incriminating evidence in there against them... and releasing would hurt them just as much as Trump.
I may only speak for myself, but Trump and his corner had been stoking this conspiracy theory throughout the campaign... but now want to hand-waive it away now that he's in office. Like someone said above, he made this bed and now he gets to lay in it.
If the Democrats had the goods on Trump they would have sacrificed their own Mother's to get him exposed. I believe there are names on that list that will take down people on both sides. I don't care if you were a contributor of child sex trafficking you should not be protected you should go down.
I think you and I are saying the same thing. The only difference I'm seeing is pointing out the hypocritical about-face this admin is trying to do.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
