Soooo...you admit you're on the side of the fucking Nazis? See how that works?
Fox News confirms The Atlantic’s story!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Soooo...you admit you're on the side of the fucking Nazis? See how that works?
You lose, the Nazis are on your side. Look at the streets of the cities and you see Anti-Fa and BLM brownshirts.
Sorry to see you are not able to follow the conversation. Good luck.
Agreed. In fact, Fox's confirmation pissed off Trump enough that he wants Griffin fired. Trump's behavior indicates he knows the story is true. His preemptive attack against General Kelly was the most telling proof since, if the story was false, Trump would be pushing General Kelly to refute it.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/media/the-atlantic-trump-military-fox-news/index.html
In a late-night Friday tweet, Trump attacked Griffin and claimed her reporting had been "refuted by many witnesses." The President then went further, saying, "Jennifer Griffin should be fired for this kind of reporting." He added that he believed Fox News is "gone."
Then Bolton shot them both down. The only way it will be believable is when a name is attached to the claim. Period.
How so? Bolton didn’t deny it!
I am not interested in your periods but Bolton added that it was the kind of thing Trump would say. The Fox Gnus reporter says she has unimpeachable sources. Just admit you refuse to believe it no matter what.
Bolton said he did not hear it. That means whoever did should come forward and we know that will not happen. If a name emerges Trump can prove he or she is wrong. That is why it will not happen. Another lie backed by liars. Nothing burger.
Then where are the names? Surely that person(s) would be a hero to the Left. Where is he or she?
Nobody heard Hillary say Benghazi was caused by a video!
So you do not understand how journalism works. We have always protected our sources. We defend them from attacks by the powerful. I am sure you know what Trump would do to them. America has always protected sources and are trying to do it now. Your lack of knowledge about how journalism works does not translate into destroying it for your edification No he or she. Do you understand 4 sources were cited? And others have verified. The Fox reporter says she has unimpeachable sources that corroborate. Your lack of knowledge does not Trump American journalism.
No, but they did hear her say they would punish the guy that produced the video. You need to think before you post.
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpu...to-nose-that-the-mohammed-video-was-to-blame/
https://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanu...ho-made-that-film-is-arrested-and-prosecuted/
Notice there are names of real people saying Hillary did this, they are not anonymous.
Last edited:
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
This is not in any way a breaking news story. We all heard this back on the the same day it happened.
It is an example of a story that was first heard of on the evening it occurred on the Rachel Maddow Show, but got quickly overlooked, dropped, and forgotten, as Donald Trump's Crazy TRAIN presidency has even larger stories the next day as bad if not worse than this sad event.
Rachel Maddow reported that the same evening on her show, that Donald Trump refused to go to the Paris Soldiers grave site because he didn't want to get his hairdo all wet and mussed up as it was raining, as reported by members of his on White House Staff.
THAT STORY IS BAD and sad ENOUGH WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID ABOUT DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY.
And just the fact that these individual trips to Europe for Donald Trump and his Wife to stay in the world's most luxurious hotels, eat the world's most lavish dinners, cost the taxpayers about 20 million dollars or more, AND THEN HE DOESN'T EVEN PARTICIPATE IN WHAT HE WAS SENT OVER THERE TO DO- BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO GET HIS HAIRDO WET IS BAD AND SAD ENOUGH!
SO Donald Trump's now denying that he said those things SHOULD BE A MOOT POINT!
AND THANK YOU RACHEL MADDOW FOR CONTINUING TO EXPOSE THIS HORRIBLE PRESIDENT WITH FACTUAL AND TRUTHFUL BREAKING NEWS REPORTS ON YOUR SHOW!
It is an example of a story that was first heard of on the evening it occurred on the Rachel Maddow Show, but got quickly overlooked, dropped, and forgotten, as Donald Trump's Crazy TRAIN presidency has even larger stories the next day as bad if not worse than this sad event.
Rachel Maddow reported that the same evening on her show, that Donald Trump refused to go to the Paris Soldiers grave site because he didn't want to get his hairdo all wet and mussed up as it was raining, as reported by members of his on White House Staff.
THAT STORY IS BAD and sad ENOUGH WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID ABOUT DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY.
And just the fact that these individual trips to Europe for Donald Trump and his Wife to stay in the world's most luxurious hotels, eat the world's most lavish dinners, cost the taxpayers about 20 million dollars or more, AND THEN HE DOESN'T EVEN PARTICIPATE IN WHAT HE WAS SENT OVER THERE TO DO- BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO GET HIS HAIRDO WET IS BAD AND SAD ENOUGH!
SO Donald Trump's now denying that he said those things SHOULD BE A MOOT POINT!
AND THANK YOU RACHEL MADDOW FOR CONTINUING TO EXPOSE THIS HORRIBLE PRESIDENT WITH FACTUAL AND TRUTHFUL BREAKING NEWS REPORTS ON YOUR SHOW!
Last edited:
Capitalism used to stop propaganda. When advertisers who were paying for time on the air found out media sources were lying, the pulled their revenues. Third world Dictators control the media there and use propaganda. The exact same thing happening with the uber rich who own the media in this country. Of course most of the media is owned by uber rich liberals. They know their propaganda has willing ears for a non to bright audience.
Terri4Trump
Verified User
CA Democrats Author Bill to Protect Sex Offenders Who Lure Minors
No sex offender registry if perpetrator within 10 years of age of the minor
By Katy Grimes, February 19, 2019 3:03 pm
https://californiaglobe.com/legisla...ill-to-protect-sex-offenders-who-lure-minors/
State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblywoman Susan Eggman (D-Stockton) introduced recent legislation “to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry.”
However, under their bill, SB 145, the offenders would not have to automatically register as sex offenders if the offenders are within 10 years of age of the minor.
Wiener claims the current law “disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse.”
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, amended by Proposition 35 by voters in 2012 (Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery), requires a person convicted of a certain sex crime to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California.
Wiener says, “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”
“This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor,” SB 145 states.
No sex offender registry if perpetrator within 10 years of age of the minor
By Katy Grimes, February 19, 2019 3:03 pm
https://californiaglobe.com/legisla...ill-to-protect-sex-offenders-who-lure-minors/
State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assemblywoman Susan Eggman (D-Stockton) introduced recent legislation “to end blatant discrimination against LGBT young people regarding California’s sex offender registry.”
However, under their bill, SB 145, the offenders would not have to automatically register as sex offenders if the offenders are within 10 years of age of the minor.
Wiener claims the current law “disproportionately targets LGBT young people for mandatory sex offender registration, since LGBT people usually cannot engage in vaginal intercourse.”
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, amended by Proposition 35 by voters in 2012 (Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery), requires a person convicted of a certain sex crime to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California.
Wiener says, “Currently, for consensual yet illegal sexual relations between a teenager age 15 and over and a partner within 10 years of age, ‘sexual intercourse’ (i.e., vaginal intercourse) does not require the offender to go onto the sex offender registry; rather, the judge decides based on the facts of the case whether sex offender registration is warranted or unwarranted. By contrast, for other forms of intercourse — specifically, oral and anal intercourse — sex offender registration is mandated under all situations, with no judicial discretion.”
“This bill would authorize a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors to seek discretionary relief from the duty to register if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor,” SB 145 states.
At least you can laugh about it. They rely on that kind of lack of intelligence also.