Trump accused his own intelligence agencies of presenting fake news this week

[BWK]

Trump calls intel chiefs public testimony ‘fake news’

After disputing all testimony from the top Intel chiefs in this country this week, Trump took the liberty to tell the world today that it was all "fake news".

What we have here is an authoritarian wanna be who takes his marching orders from Putin. After lying to the press today, he said the Intel admitted to misquoting themselves about their testimony, then interrupted further questions by dismissing the press. We'll, first off, no, they did not admit any misquotes. That's a lie. They said what they said, which was contrary to everything Trump has said in the past about foreign policy. And second, the biggest national security threat to this country is Trump, his Republican goons who try and cover for him, and his base. Going against our intelligence staff is our biggest threat to date, and he must be totally stopped from doing further damage.

The libs constantly said that the Intelligence Reports that Dubya got were incorrect on Iraq. Why is questioning intelligence agencies so unthinkable now?

Then go ahead. Be my guest. What is wrong with what they are reporting? They indicted thirteen Russians for interfering in our election, and thus far, no Republican has countered that evidence. So what did they get wrong? I'll be waiting.

Indictments are not evidence. That type of thinking is just what you would expect to find in a witch hunt.

In this case they are, because no Russians ever showed up to plead their cases.

The Presumption of Innocence is something our leftist friends have a problem with.

There is no such thing in these cases.

 

[BWK]

Trump calls intel chiefs public testimony ‘fake news’

After disputing all testimony from the top Intel chiefs in this country this week, Trump took the liberty to tell the world today that it was all "fake news".

What we have here is an authoritarian wanna be who takes his marching orders from Putin. After lying to the press today, he said the Intel admitted to misquoting themselves about their testimony, then interrupted further questions by dismissing the press. We'll, first off, no, they did not admit any misquotes. That's a lie. They said what they said, which was contrary to everything Trump has said in the past about foreign policy. And second, the biggest national security threat to this country is Trump, his Republican goons who try and cover for him, and his base. Going against our intelligence staff is our biggest threat to date, and he must be totally stopped from doing further damage.

The libs constantly said that the Intelligence Reports that Dubya got were incorrect on Iraq. Why is questioning intelligence agencies so unthinkable now?

Then go ahead. Be my guest. What is wrong with what they are reporting? They indicted thirteen Russians for interfering in our election, and thus far, no Republican has countered that evidence. So what did they get wrong? I'll be waiting.

Indictments are not evidence. That type of thinking is just what you would expect to find in a witch hunt.

The Presumption of Innocence is something our leftist friends have a problem with.

bwk, made that pretty obvious with that one. I wonder if that he has even the slightest hint of self awareness to realize what he revealed about himself there.

I made aware that I challenged the poster, you, or anyone else on the evidence the intelligence community presented as inaccurate. No one has. That says more about you and others that you all are afraid to lock horns over the truth. But ha, we are now at the point where Republicans have no counter arguments to these topics, so it's best to attack your opponent. Just like clock work. You folks never disappoint.

 

[BWK]

The weapons team never found any "nuclear weapons" which is what Bush was trying to pedal. In the meantime, Cheney was pushing a connection between Zarqawi and Saddam, and our CIA insisted there was no connection, but Cheney invented a connection. A few leftover chemical weapons that we sold to Saddam were found.

West seems to be trying to imply that the weapons teamed reported that there were no WMDs.


That is a significant revision of history, and I want him to clarify if that is his intent.

You are here to hijack whatever message you can to muddy up what was said, and what wasn't. You really have no purpose to be here. This is what west said; They had aging yellow cake which we already were aware of. If Saddam had WMDs why wouldn`t he have used them against the criminal invasion? Because he was a nice guy? Are you trying to imply that he was a threat to the U.S.? We were pissed because of the 9-11 terrorist attack so we chose a country that had very little to defend itself. A country with no ties to 9-11 btw. Do you know the difference between WMD nuclear weapons, and WMD chemical weapons?

Before that he said other stuff. And so I asked for him to clarify and he has not.

What other stuff?

He kept going on about how the teams "failed to find any WMDs" and how Bush was wrong to ignore their findings.


To me, it sounds like he is trying to imply that the teams reported that Iraq had no WMDs, which is not true.



I asked him to clarify, what he meant, on that, and he has not done so.


He has responded, but not actually addressed my question.

Because he probably doesn't engage in semantic nonsense with other posters such as yourself.

 

[Correll]

Trump calls intel chiefs public testimony ‘fake news’

After disputing all testimony from the top Intel chiefs in this country this week, Trump took the liberty to tell the world today that it was all "fake news".

What we have here is an authoritarian wanna be who takes his marching orders from Putin. After lying to the press today, he said the Intel admitted to misquoting themselves about their testimony, then interrupted further questions by dismissing the press. We'll, first off, no, they did not admit any misquotes. That's a lie. They said what they said, which was contrary to everything Trump has said in the past about foreign policy. And second, the biggest national security threat to this country is Trump, his Republican goons who try and cover for him, and his base. Going against our intelligence staff is our biggest threat to date, and he must be totally stopped from doing further damage.

The libs constantly said that the Intelligence Reports that Dubya got were incorrect on Iraq. Why is questioning intelligence agencies so unthinkable now?

Then go ahead. Be my guest. What is wrong with what they are reporting? They indicted thirteen Russians for interfering in our election, and thus far, no Republican has countered that evidence. So what did they get wrong? I'll be waiting.

Indictments are not evidence. That type of thinking is just what you would expect to find in a witch hunt.

In this case they are, because no Russians ever showed up to plead their cases.

The Presumption of Innocence is something our leftist friends have a problem with.

There is no such thing in these cases.

Indictments are not evidence. That you think they are, shows you have a witch hunt mentality.


That you double down on it, even when it is brought to your attention, shows that you are Cotton Mather reincarnated.

 

[Correll]

The libs constantly said that the Intelligence Reports that Dubya got were incorrect on Iraq. Why is questioning intelligence agencies so unthinkable now?

Then go ahead. Be my guest. What is wrong with what they are reporting? They indicted thirteen Russians for interfering in our election, and thus far, no Republican has countered that evidence. So what did they get wrong? I'll be waiting.

Indictments are not evidence. That type of thinking is just what you would expect to find in a witch hunt.

The Presumption of Innocence is something our leftist friends have a problem with.

bwk, made that pretty obvious with that one. I wonder if that he has even the slightest hint of self awareness to realize what he revealed about himself there.

I made aware that I challenged the poster, you, or anyone else on the evidence the intelligence community presented as inaccurate. No one has. That says more about you and others that you all are afraid to lock horns over the truth. But ha, we are now at the point where Republicans have no counter arguments to these topics, so it's best to attack your opponent. Just like clock work. You folks never disappoint.

You must have missed the post where I ridiculed their attempt to spin the illegal immigration crisis as under control.

 

[Correll]

West seems to be trying to imply that the weapons teamed reported that there were no WMDs.


That is a significant revision of history, and I want him to clarify if that is his intent.

You are here to hijack whatever message you can to muddy up what was said, and what wasn't. You really have no purpose to be here. This is what west said; They had aging yellow cake which we already were aware of. If Saddam had WMDs why wouldn`t he have used them against the criminal invasion? Because he was a nice guy? Are you trying to imply that he was a threat to the U.S.? We were pissed because of the 9-11 terrorist attack so we chose a country that had very little to defend itself. A country with no ties to 9-11 btw. Do you know the difference between WMD nuclear weapons, and WMD chemical weapons?

Before that he said other stuff. And so I asked for him to clarify and he has not.

What other stuff?

He kept going on about how the teams "failed to find any WMDs" and how Bush was wrong to ignore their findings.


To me, it sounds like he is trying to imply that the teams reported that Iraq had no WMDs, which is not true.



I asked him to clarify, what he meant, on that, and he has not done so.


He has responded, but not actually addressed my question.

Because he probably doesn't engage in semantic nonsense with other posters such as yourself.

Asking for a clarification of something he said, is not playing semantic games.


That he is refusing to clarify, supports my suspicion that he was trying to imply something not true.

 

[BWK]

The libs constantly said that the Intelligence Reports that Dubya got were incorrect on Iraq. Why is questioning intelligence agencies so unthinkable now?

Then go ahead. Be my guest. What is wrong with what they are reporting? They indicted thirteen Russians for interfering in our election, and thus far, no Republican has countered that evidence. So what did they get wrong? I'll be waiting.

Indictments are not evidence. That type of thinking is just what you would expect to find in a witch hunt.

In this case they are, because no Russians ever showed up to plead their cases.

The Presumption of Innocence is something our leftist friends have a problem with.

There is no such thing in these cases.

Indictments are not evidence. That you think they are, shows you have a witch hunt mentality.


That you double down on it, even when it is brought to your attention, shows that you are Cotton Mather reincarnated.

The Russians, if they were not guilty, would defend themselves. If they were doing business here, that ended. The fact that you would defend indicted adversaries, says more about you than it does about them.

 

[Polishprince]

Then go ahead. Be my guest. What is wrong with what they are reporting? They indicted thirteen Russians for interfering in our election, and thus far, no Republican has countered that evidence. So what did they get wrong? I'll be waiting.

Indictments are not evidence. That type of thinking is just what you would expect to find in a witch hunt.

In this case they are, because no Russians ever showed up to plead their cases.

The Presumption of Innocence is something our leftist friends have a problem with.

There is no such thing in these cases.

Indictments are not evidence. That you think they are, shows you have a witch hunt mentality.


That you double down on it, even when it is brought to your attention, shows that you are Cotton Mather reincarnated.

The Russians, if they were not guilty, would defend themselves. If they were doing business here, that ended. The fact that you would defend indicted adversaries, says more about you than it does about them.

The Russians are prepared to defend themselves, but Mueller is delaying the case like he doesn't want to move one with the persecution. These are private, Russian nationals not "adversaries" at all. And they are PRESUMED as innocent as newborn babes.

"indicted" doesn't mean shit.

 

[Correll]

Then go ahead. Be my guest. What is wrong with what they are reporting? They indicted thirteen Russians for interfering in our election, and thus far, no Republican has countered that evidence. So what did they get wrong? I'll be waiting.

Indictments are not evidence. That type of thinking is just what you would expect to find in a witch hunt.

In this case they are, because no Russians ever showed up to plead their cases.

The Presumption of Innocence is something our leftist friends have a problem with.

There is no such thing in these cases.

Indictments are not evidence. That you think they are, shows you have a witch hunt mentality.


That you double down on it, even when it is brought to your attention, shows that you are Cotton Mather reincarnated.

The Russians, if they were not guilty, would defend themselves. If they were doing business here, that ended. The fact that you would defend indicted adversaries, says more about you than it does about them.

1. Pointing out that an indictment is not evidence, is not defending those accused.

2. There are several, very obvious reasons why someone would not defend themselves even if they are not guilty. It is not credible that you cannot think of them. That was a lie on your part.

3. And they are defending themselves.

4. I am not defending them. Nothing I said, could sanely be called a defense of them.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Trump is an active agent of foreign hostile nations.
He`s the Manchurian Candidate in real life who needs to be arrested. The Saudis, Chinese, Russians, North Koreans and Turks have this traitor by the balls. What else could explain his refusal to heed the advice of our intelligence agencies?

I think it had something to do with the fact that they were SPYING ON HIM!!!!

He can always fire them -- and appoint replacements -- then complain about them too...

And then he can fire them --- and appoint replacements -- then complain about them too...

And then he can fire them --- and appoint replacements -- then complain about them too...

And then he can fire them --- and appoint replacements -- then complain about them too...

And then he can fire them --- and appoint replacements -- then complain about them too...

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Indictments are not evidence. That type of thinking is just what you would expect to find in a witch hunt.

In this case they are, because no Russians ever showed up to plead their cases.

The Presumption of Innocence is something our leftist friends have a problem with.

There is no such thing in these cases.

Indictments are not evidence. That you think they are, shows you have a witch hunt mentality.


That you double down on it, even when it is brought to your attention, shows that you are Cotton Mather reincarnated.

The Russians, if they were not guilty, would defend themselves. If they were doing business here, that ended. The fact that you would defend indicted adversaries, says more about you than it does about them.

The Russians are prepared to defend themselves, but Mueller is delaying the case like he doesn't want to move one with the persecution. These are private, Russian nationals not "adversaries" at all. And they are PRESUMED as innocent as newborn babes.

"indicted" doesn't mean shit.

Unless you are a democrat.

 

[BWK]

You didn't watch and listen to their testimony? If you didn't, don't ask me. You're too lazy to do your own research because you have zero interest in the truth, and have no natural curiosity.

Your op complained a lot about something, but never actually mentioned what the "issue" is.


Almost like you don't care about the "issue" you are upset about and just want to throw shit at the President.

Five days later, and you have no natural curiosity as to what our intel is telling us about Iran, N. Korea, ISIS, and the wall? This is exactly why a third of the country are Trump apologizing Sheep. They haven't a clue about what is going on. They have no understanding of the truth or reality. But when Trump pops up and calls everything fake news, his Sheep are Johnny on the spot to listen. You, like a third of the country only have selective interests. The convenient type.

At this point, they don't have any credibility, especially on the Wall, beyond any hard evidence they can present and the logic of their arguments, such as it is.


I'm still waiting for you to tell me what specifically they said that you are so concerned about, that Trump is not doing the right thing on.


Your op contained no hint of what issue you were whining about, in your whine.

FFS, this is pathetic. His point was quite clear to everybody else that commented on this thread.

His point was vague as hell. And nothing of substance regarding it was in the OP.

Watch the entire testimony. If you can't figure that out for yourself, no one can help you. You'll just have to stay lost to the world like most Trump's Sheep are.

And another thing, for those who take themselves out of the loop on purpose, our entire intelligence community already bi -passed the indictments, knowing none of them would show up. And they concluded the Russians were guilty of hacking into our computers and emails to try and disrupt the election in Trump's favor. That is the conclusion they have already made.

 

[Correll]

Your op complained a lot about something, but never actually mentioned what the "issue" is.


Almost like you don't care about the "issue" you are upset about and just want to throw shit at the President.

Five days later, and you have no natural curiosity as to what our intel is telling us about Iran, N. Korea, ISIS, and the wall? This is exactly why a third of the country are Trump apologizing Sheep. They haven't a clue about what is going on. They have no understanding of the truth or reality. But when Trump pops up and calls everything fake news, his Sheep are Johnny on the spot to listen. You, like a third of the country only have selective interests. The convenient type.

At this point, they don't have any credibility, especially on the Wall, beyond any hard evidence they can present and the logic of their arguments, such as it is.


I'm still waiting for you to tell me what specifically they said that you are so concerned about, that Trump is not doing the right thing on.


Your op contained no hint of what issue you were whining about, in your whine.

FFS, this is pathetic. His point was quite clear to everybody else that commented on this thread.

His point was vague as hell. And nothing of substance regarding it was in the OP.

Watch the entire testimony. If you can't figure that out for yourself, no one can help you. You'll just have to stay lost to the world like most Trump's Sheep are.
...

If you can't give the point in the OP, you shouldn't post the op.

 

[BWK]

Five days later, and you have no natural curiosity as to what our intel is telling us about Iran, N. Korea, ISIS, and the wall? This is exactly why a third of the country are Trump apologizing Sheep. They haven't a clue about what is going on. They have no understanding of the truth or reality. But when Trump pops up and calls everything fake news, his Sheep are Johnny on the spot to listen. You, like a third of the country only have selective interests. The convenient type.

At this point, they don't have any credibility, especially on the Wall, beyond any hard evidence they can present and the logic of their arguments, such as it is.


I'm still waiting for you to tell me what specifically they said that you are so concerned about, that Trump is not doing the right thing on.


Your op contained no hint of what issue you were whining about, in your whine.

FFS, this is pathetic. His point was quite clear to everybody else that commented on this thread.

His point was vague as hell. And nothing of substance regarding it was in the OP.

Watch the entire testimony. If you can't figure that out for yourself, no one can help you. You'll just have to stay lost to the world like most Trump's Sheep are.
...

If you can't give the point in the OP, you shouldn't post the op.

You're not only lazy, you are a coward; https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...24486280311_story.html?utm_term=.12f23bc185bc Intel chiefs reveal gulf with Trump on North Korea, Iran, ISIS - CNNPolitics

 

[Correll]

At this point, they don't have any credibility, especially on the Wall, beyond any hard evidence they can present and the logic of their arguments, such as it is.


I'm still waiting for you to tell me what specifically they said that you are so concerned about, that Trump is not doing the right thing on.


Your op contained no hint of what issue you were whining about, in your whine.

FFS, this is pathetic. His point was quite clear to everybody else that commented on this thread.

His point was vague as hell. And nothing of substance regarding it was in the OP.

Watch the entire testimony. If you can't figure that out for yourself, no one can help you. You'll just have to stay lost to the world like most Trump's Sheep are.
...

If you can't give the point in the OP, you shouldn't post the op.

You're not only lazy, you are a coward; https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...24486280311_story.html?utm_term=.12f23bc185bc Intel chiefs reveal gulf with Trump on North Korea, Iran, ISIS - CNNPolitics

It is not lazy or cowardly to ask for you to present the point in the op.

A link is not a point. A link is to SUPPORT a point, that you still have not made. Page 10 and counting.

 

[BWK]

FFS, this is pathetic. His point was quite clear to everybody else that commented on this thread.

His point was vague as hell. And nothing of substance regarding it was in the OP.

Watch the entire testimony. If you can't figure that out for yourself, no one can help you. You'll just have to stay lost to the world like most Trump's Sheep are.
...

If you can't give the point in the OP, you shouldn't post the op.

You're not only lazy, you are a coward; https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...24486280311_story.html?utm_term=.12f23bc185bc Intel chiefs reveal gulf with Trump on North Korea, Iran, ISIS - CNNPolitics

It is not lazy or cowardly to ask for you to present the point in the op.

A link is not a point. A link is to SUPPORT a point, that you still have not made. Page 10 and counting.

It's abundantly clear you do not play with a full deck. The point of the OP, minus the bells and whistles, couldn't be any clearer. The fact that you cannot comprehend the point that was already made, just tells us that you are either playing games, or are unbelievably stupid. The testimony from Trump's own intelligence was disputed by Trump. Anyone who doesn't understand that point, is just dumber than a rock.

 

[Correll]

His point was vague as hell. And nothing of substance regarding it was in the OP.

Watch the entire testimony. If you can't figure that out for yourself, no one can help you. You'll just have to stay lost to the world like most Trump's Sheep are.
...

If you can't give the point in the OP, you shouldn't post the op.

You're not only lazy, you are a coward; https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...24486280311_story.html?utm_term=.12f23bc185bc Intel chiefs reveal gulf with Trump on North Korea, Iran, ISIS - CNNPolitics

It is not lazy or cowardly to ask for you to present the point in the op.

A link is not a point. A link is to SUPPORT a point, that you still have not made. Page 10 and counting.

It's abundantly clear you do not play with a full deck. The point of the OP, minus the bells and whistles, couldn't be any clearer. The fact that you cannot comprehend the point that was already made, just tells us that you are either playing games, or are unbelievably stupid. The testimony from Trump's own intelligence was disputed by Trump. Anyone who doesn't understand that point, is just dumber than a rock.

So, present the most dangerous, in your opinion, example, and let's review it to see who is right, If Trump had a good reason to be disagree, what if any potential dangers there are to America as a result,


YOu know, DISCUSS that issue, that you pretend to be so upset about.



I know this is not what you want to hear. But circle jerks only work if everyone is participating. In an open forum, you should realize that that is not the case.

 

[BWK]

Watch the entire testimony. If you can't figure that out for yourself, no one can help you. You'll just have to stay lost to the world like most Trump's Sheep are.
...

If you can't give the point in the OP, you shouldn't post the op.

You're not only lazy, you are a coward; https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...24486280311_story.html?utm_term=.12f23bc185bc Intel chiefs reveal gulf with Trump on North Korea, Iran, ISIS - CNNPolitics

It is not lazy or cowardly to ask for you to present the point in the op.

A link is not a point. A link is to SUPPORT a point, that you still have not made. Page 10 and counting.

It's abundantly clear you do not play with a full deck. The point of the OP, minus the bells and whistles, couldn't be any clearer. The fact that you cannot comprehend the point that was already made, just tells us that you are either playing games, or are unbelievably stupid. The testimony from Trump's own intelligence was disputed by Trump. Anyone who doesn't understand that point, is just dumber than a rock.

So, present the most dangerous, in your opinion, example, and let's review it to see who is right, If Trump had a good reason to be disagree, what if any potential dangers there are to America as a result,


YOu know, DISCUSS that issue, that you pretend to be so upset about.



I know this is not what you want to hear. But circle jerks only work if everyone is participating. In an open forum, you should realize that that is not the case.

The most dangerous is off topic and not relevant to this discussion. The point of the OP was made, that Trump disagreed with all his intelligence chiefs. One being more dangerous than another is another discussion. Dude, something in that head of yours isn't right. You have proven over and over that you are unfit for intelligent discussion with your off topic/ridiculous questions, and your inabilities to comprehend basic messages.

Never argue with an idiot. He will bring you down to his or her level, and beat you with experience. Too bad, I haven't taken that advise.

 

[Correll]

If you can't give the point in the OP, you shouldn't post the op.

You're not only lazy, you are a coward; https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...24486280311_story.html?utm_term=.12f23bc185bc Intel chiefs reveal gulf with Trump on North Korea, Iran, ISIS - CNNPolitics

It is not lazy or cowardly to ask for you to present the point in the op.

A link is not a point. A link is to SUPPORT a point, that you still have not made. Page 10 and counting.

It's abundantly clear you do not play with a full deck. The point of the OP, minus the bells and whistles, couldn't be any clearer. The fact that you cannot comprehend the point that was already made, just tells us that you are either playing games, or are unbelievably stupid. The testimony from Trump's own intelligence was disputed by Trump. Anyone who doesn't understand that point, is just dumber than a rock.

So, present the most dangerous, in your opinion, example, and let's review it to see who is right, If Trump had a good reason to be disagree, what if any potential dangers there are to America as a result,


YOu know, DISCUSS that issue, that you pretend to be so upset about.



I know this is not what you want to hear. But circle jerks only work if everyone is participating. In an open forum, you should realize that that is not the case.

The most dangerous is off topic and not relevant to this discussion. The point of the OP was made, that Trump disagreed with all his intelligence chiefs. One being more dangerous than another is another discussion. Dude, something in that head of yours isn't right. You have proven over and over that you are unfit for intelligent discussion with your off topic/ridiculous questions, and your inabilities to comprehend basic messages.

Never argue with an idiot. He will bring you down to his or her level, and beat you with experience. Too bad, I haven't taken that advise.

So, your desire is that we just accept the idea that is there is a disagreement between the President and the Intelligence agencies, that we should assume the intelligence agencies are always right and then just dog pile the President?



That is not a reasonable position.

The fact that you hate Trump, is not a supporting argument.