Epic, Brutal, Takedowns of Rachel "Roswell" Maddow

[cowslinger64]

SMH.

Cowshitter still spewing the pre-release talking points spin even after Horowitz destroyed them with a single sentence:

"I think the activities don't vindicate anybody who touched this." - Michael Horowitz

Lol @ destroyed.


It's hilarious how you and vette will take anything that suits your idiotic narrative, and run hog wild with it.

In the end, there were mistakes made, but still shown to be a good basis for the investigation into trump, his administration and Russia. If the AG wasn't trumps personal attorney, it could have been much more damaging to him just by the investigation not being obstructed. Of course you dummies won't see it that way, no surprise there.


It's cute how you poke at my username... beats being the limpdick that was too much of a broke pussy to come here and show me how you can run your mouth. You were owned like the little bitch you are, queball.

 

[freakyguy41]

Yeah but, FOX doesn't lie over and over again, like CNN.

"Fact Checker Finds 60% Of Fox News Statements To Either Be Mostly False Or An Outright Lie"

"Fact Checker Finds 9% Of CNN Statements To Be Mostly False and only 2% are Outright Lies"

That means 89% of CNN statements are mostly or completely true vs only 40% of Fox Statements are mostly or completely true.

 

[freakyguy41]

Are you Rachel Maddow's alt? The FBI knew the dossier was bunk 2 days after Mueller was appoint to Special Counsel. The Mueller team made a direct end around where the dossier was concerned. Had Mueller and Weissmann put any effort into the Steele dossier investigation they would have been forced to shut down the whole Mueller investigation!!

Small correction, Mueller knew the Steele dossier was bogus 2 days after he was appointed. The FBI knew about it for a while.

In other words, you can't identify a single thing in the Steele Dossier that is inaccurate.

If I wanted talk radio's opinion of the Steele Dossier, I would listen to talk radio... unfortunately for you, I only want FACTS... and the very simple FACT is... absolutely everything in Steele Dossier is true or it's predictions based on the findings at the time later turned out to be completely true.

 

[freakyguy41]

All of it was bullshit. You didn't read the IG report, did you? The FBI knew in January of 2017 the Dossier was total crap, months before Mueller was appointed. READ THE FRIGGIN" IG FISA REPORT, before shooting off your cluelessness.

Then you can quote what things in the Steele Dossier were inaccurate... I'm listening.

July 19, 2019 - DOJ inspector general Horowitz found Steele dossier author ‘credible’

All RightGuide does is repeat the lies he hears on talk radio like a ventriloquist dummy because he WANTS the lies to be true... nothing he claims is ever based on FACT... and that's simply proven by asking him for FACTS. He will always tell give you another reference that states what he's claiming is true, and often, like in this case, his statement that IG Horowitz' report debunked the Steele Dossier is also a LIE.

 

[freakyguy41]

These people don't read what's put before them.

December 10, 2019 - "Horowitz concludes there was no evidence of “political bias or improper motivation” in the FBI’s probe of Donald Trump’s Russia contacts, an investigation Horowitz reports the bureau had “authorized purpose” to conduct."

 

[Rightguide]

Then you can quote what things in the Steele Dossier were inaccurate... I'm listening.

July 19, 2019 - DOJ inspector general Horowitz found Steele dossier author ‘credible’

All RightGuide does is repeat the lies he hears on talk radio like a ventriloquist dummy because he WANTS the lies to be true... nothing he claims is ever based on FACT... and that's simply proven by asking him for FACTS. He will always tell give you another reference that states what he's claiming is true, and often, like in this case, his statement that IG Horowitz' report debunked the Steele Dossier is also a LIE.

December 10, 2019 - "Horowitz concludes there was no evidence of “political bias or improper motivation” in the FBI’s probe of Donald Trump’s Russia contacts, an investigation Horowitz reports the bureau had “authorized purpose” to conduct."

Hey dummy, read my post # 39. It's straight out of the IG FISA Report. Show me where on July 19, 2019 the IG said the Dossier was credible, exactly what page,

 

[Wrong Element]

This from the leftist Slate:

Rachel Maddow’s Conspiracy Brain

On Monday night, the first night that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show aired after Attorney General William Barr released his four-page memo on the Mueller report, Rachel Maddow was skeptical. Like, extremely, extremely skeptical. In fact, she had 15 questions worth of skepticism about the “the Barr Report,” which she displayed in remarkably tiny font behind her head.

A skepticism that proved to be ... (checks archives) ... completely well-founded because Barr lied his ass off about the report.

Some takedown that was!

 

[Rightguide]

A skepticism that proved to be ... (checks archives) ... completely well-founded because Barr lied his ass off about the report.

Some takedown that was!

Show me where Barr "lied his ass off about the report."

 

[freakyguy41]

The IG report does not state the Steele Dossier is credible... and it does not say the Steele Dossier is not credible either... it is ONE source of information that any researcher or reporter knows must be corroborated by one or more other sources stating or providing the same information.

That said, while the IG tried to throw water on Steele's sources of information as unreliable or insufficient, all of Steele's assertions have been CORROBORATED by one or more other sources.

Example... the Pee tapes and trump being peed on... Steele initially reported it but Cohen has provided text messages and evidence of payment to Russian agents for stopping the tapes in Russia. Then Comey separately testifies that then president elect trump told him what might be on the tapes and that Comey had to launch an investigation to prove the existence of pee tapes was a lie. Comey refused to compromise his own integrity to produce such a report so Comey was fired, vilified and smeared.
Why is it that multiple people independently relate the same information about trump and republicans believe they're all liars if the testimony doesn't support trump... and if they're all liars, then ONLY trump is telling the truth. In the meantime, trump's confirmed count of publicly stated outright lies and gross exaggerations is over 15000 in just 3 years.

 

[RoryN]

Is she still on TV?

When do the "epic, brutal takedowns" begin?

 

[Conager]

The IG report does not state the Steele Dossier is credible... and it does not say the Steele Dossier is not credible either... it is ONE source of information that any researcher or reporter knows must be corroborated by one or more other sources stating or providing the same information.

That said, while the IG tried to throw water on Steele's sources of information as unreliable or insufficient, all of Steele's assertions have been CORROBORATED by one or more other sources.

Example... the Pee tapes and trump being peed on... Steele initially reported it but Cohen has provided text messages and evidence of payment to Russian agents for stopping the tapes in Russia. Then Comey separately testifies that then president elect trump told him what might be on the tapes and that Comey had to launch an investigation to prove the existence of pee tapes was a lie. Comey refused to compromise his own integrity to produce such a report so Comey was fired, vilified and smeared.
Why is it that multiple people independently relate the same information about trump and republicans believe they're all liars if the testimony doesn't support trump... and if they're all liars, then ONLY trump is telling the truth. In the meantime, trump's confirmed count of publicly stated outright lies and gross exaggerations is over 15000 in just 3 years.

The Story Ideas Forum is over there------------------------------->

Please take FakeSpyPilot71 with you.

Thanks.

 

[Rightguide]

The IG report does not state the Steele Dossier is credible... and it does not say the Steele Dossier is not credible either... it is ONE source of information that any researcher or reporter knows must be corroborated by one or more other sources stating or providing the same information.

That said, while the IG tried to throw water on Steele's sources of information as unreliable or insufficient, all of Steele's assertions have been CORROBORATED by one or more other sources.

Get a fucking clue. All of Steele's assertions came from the same discredited source, dummy. I already posted the portions of the Report that said so. he didn't have any original "assertions" of his own. He had "one" source, the totally discredited one shown in the Report. The Dossier was a fabrication.

 

[Conager]

I can't find it but I read an article today that was referencing an article in a major publication where they went through and asked all of the so-called journalists who had been pushing the dossier what they thought about their coverage now in hindsight.

 

[Conager]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/08/so-this-is-all-about-collusion-an-inventory-media-remarks-steele-dossier/

I got there from a link from hot air.

 

[Rightguide]

Looks like the WaPo is attempting to claw back a portion of their credibility with this article:

Washington Post asks reporters to explain their ‘sunny remarks’ about the Steele dossier in light of the IG report

John SextonPosted at 7:21 pm on January 8, 2020

Erik Wemple is now on part 10 of his series of articles about the media’s handling of the Steele Dossier. I’ve had my disagreements with Wemple in the past but the work he’s done on this topic is exemplary. As a conservative who wonders why progressives in the media never get held accountable for things they say that later turn out not to be true, Wemple is doing his level best to restore my faith in the major media with this series.

Last month, Wemple put together a devastating account of Rachel Maddow’s Steele dossier obsession. If you haven’t read that, it’s worth your time. Today, he published a roundup of “sunny remarks” about the dossier by various figures at MSNBC, CNN, and elsewhere. He asked each reporter to comment on their past expressions of confidence about the dossier in light of the findings in the IG report. The responses to Wemple’s inquiries can be divided into three groups: Those who didn’t respond (at least not on the record), those who regretted their past comments, and those who defended their past comments. Here’s a list of the reporters who didn’t respond to Wemple’s questions (on the record):

MSNBC’s Rachel “Maddow declined to comment on the record.”

CNN’s Alisyn Camerota “Declined to comment on the record.”

CNN’s John Berman “Declined to comment on the record.”

Former State Department official Jonathan Winer (appearing on CNN) “did not return a request for comment.”

Former federal prosecutor Paul Butler (appearing on MSNBC) offered “No response to a request for comment.”

CNN counterterrorism analyst Phil Mudd…Wemple lists this as “Awaiting a reply.”

Journalist Jacob Weisberg (appearing on MSNBC)…Wemple writes “Attempts to secure a comment from Weisberg have been unsuccessful.”

Journalist Natasha Bertrand (appearing on MSNBC) “Bertrand did not respond to requests for comment.”

It’s interesting how many of these journalists who were part of the pro-dossier chorus on left-leaning networks suddenly have nothing to say about it. To their credit, some of the people who did respond expressed regret or at least admitted to reassessing their past comments:

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote an email saying, “I’m still working through the IG report and doing some reporting, trying to decide what, if anything, is still credible in the Steele dossier.” The work to answer that question has already been done and the answer is “not much.” But at least he answered.

https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-...s-media-figures-sunny-remarks-steele-dossier/

 

[freakyguy41]

The Story Ideas Forum is over there------------------------------->

Please take FakeSpyPilot71 with you.

Thanks.

You can't provide an intellectual rebuttal so you need to be condescending? SMH... Grow up.

 

[freakyguy41]

Get a fucking clue. All of Steele's assertions came from the same discredited source, dummy. I already posted the portions of the Report that said so. he didn't have any original "assertions" of his own. He had "one" source, the totally discredited one shown in the Report. The Dossier was a fabrication.

We'll take just one example...

how can Steele's source assertion about pee tapes be discredited if months later, Michael Cohen has a cancelled check and text messages providing corroboration that pee tapes exist? how can steele's assertion about pee tapes be discredited if months later, Comey testifies that trump told him about the tapes and trump asked him to launch an investigation which would produce a report stating the pee tapes didn't exist because if melania ever saw them she'd be upset? Is everyone lying except trump?
The mountain of evidence in situation after situation, case after case, that trump is a liar and a criminal is staggering yet you choose to ignore it all. What is it... 15,413 outright lies and gross exaggerations in just 3 years... but that's all fake because everyone is lying except trump? We're not talking about a handful of claims... it's a pattern of behavior instilled in him... this is 10s of thousands.
Do you really think he launched an illegal air strike in Iraq... without permission and condemned by Iraq... which precipitated a demonstration at the U.S. embassy resulting in vandalism without weapons and without shots fired, just tear gas to drive the protestors back and then the protestors didn't leave, they executed a sit in... which in turn precipitated an illegal drone strike to assassinate a bad guy, and it would only be legal if the U.S. can truly prove Iran itself was orchestrating imminent attacks against the U.S. but, so far, there's been no divulging of the evidence of imminent attacks. 15413 lies later, we're all supposed to buy this bullshit on his word only? LOL... i might have been born at night but it wasn't last night. I don't believe in coincidence and this is all too convenient given impeachment and a forthcoming trial in the Senate along with a rapidly slowing economy and rising prices...

 

[Rightguide]

We'll take just one example...

how can Steele's source assertion about pee tapes be discredited if months later, Michael Cohen has a cancelled check and text messages providing corroboration that pee tapes exist? how can steele's assertion about pee tapes be discredited if months later, Comey testifies that trump told him about the tapes and trump asked him to launch an investigation which would produce a report stating the pee tapes didn't exist because if melania ever saw them she'd be upset? Is everyone lying except trump?
The mountain of evidence in situation after situation, case after case, that trump is a liar and a criminal is staggering yet you choose to ignore it all. What is it... 15,413 outright lies and gross exaggerations in just 3 years... but that's all fake because everyone is lying except trump? We're not talking about a handful of claims... it's a pattern of behavior instilled in him... this is 10s of thousands.
Do you really think he launched an illegal air strike in Iraq... without permission and condemned by Iraq... which precipitated a demonstration at the U.S. embassy resulting in vandalism without weapons and without shots fired, just tear gas to drive the protestors back and then the protestors didn't leave, they executed a sit in... which in turn precipitated an illegal drone strike to assassinate a bad guy, and it would only be legal if the U.S. can truly prove Iran itself was orchestrating imminent attacks against the U.S. but, so far, there's been no divulging of the evidence of imminent attacks. 15413 lies later, we're all supposed to buy this bullshit on his word only? LOL... i might have been born at night but it wasn't last night. I don't believe in coincidence and this is all too convenient given impeachment and a forthcoming trial in the Senate along with a rapidly slowing economy and rising prices...

You are, as usual, full of shit. The Dossier was a TOTAL fabrication, that's a fact. Get over it. Read the friggin' FISA Report.

Salami was was declared a terrorist by the Obama administration and was a legal target under the Iraq AUMF, as the DOD just explained to stupid Democrat members of Congress, the clueless left, and the thumb sucking media, yesterday. Read the Iraq AUMF.

 

[Conager]

You can't provide an intellectual rebuttal so you need to be condescending? SMH... Grow up.

Gratuitous assertions can and should be gratuitously dismissed. Seventh grade debate team members would wipe the floor with you.

 

[HisArpy]

Gratuitous assertions can and should be gratuitously dismissed. Seventh grade debate team members would wipe the floor with you.

And then wash their hands with soap and warm water when they were finished to avoid contamination.

 

[Conager]

You are, as usual, full of shit. The Dossier was a TOTAL fabrication, that's a fact. Get over it. Read the friggin' FISA Report.

Salami was was declared a terrorist by the Obama administration and was a legal target under the Iraq AUMF, as the DOD just explained to stupid Democrat members of Congress, the clueless left, and the thumb sucking media, yesterday. Read the Iraq AUMF.

He was also subject to a travel ban, personally, yet he chose to travel to Iraq where he had no permission to enter to meet with, support, and strategize with the very guy that tried to Bengazi our embassy and was likely planning to 1979 our embassy.

By the way. Good job that the DNC's Pravda arm put the spokeswoman from the 1979 takeover in the air.

 

[Rightguide]

He was also subject to a travel ban, personally, yet he chose to travel to Iraq where he had no permission to enter to meet with, support, and strategize with the very guy that tried to Bengazi our embassy and was likely planning to 1979 our embassy.

By the way. Good job that the DNC's Pravda arm put the spokeswoman from the 1979 takeover in the air.

So typical of the Democrat media, running enemy propaganda as truth and not giving a shit since it fortifies their anti-American narrative.

 

[schism666]

here's the real takedown.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Epic!


Rachel Maddow Dominates Ratings For A Second Straight Night

The first night of the exclusive interview was Maddow’s highest-rated night ever, followed by the second part of the interview which aired Thursday night, when Maddow drew a total audience of 4.3 million viewers—the largest audience in cable on the night and Maddow’s third-highest rating ever—and put Maddow far ahead of her cable news competition: Fox News finished second in the 9 p.m. ET hour usually won by Sean Hannity, with 3.86 million viewers.

Among viewers 25-54, the demographic group most valued by advertisers, Maddow’s show on Thursday evening drew 745,000 viewers, well ahead of Fox News’ Hannity (621,000) and CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time (375,000).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjo...bcs-rachel-maddow-to-number-one/#1d39f1454a39

 

[BotanyBoy]

here's the real takedown.

Might be, if they weren't all partisan conspiracy theorist who peddle fake news for ratings.

Trash is trash, even well educated trash.

Epic!


Rachel Maddow Dominates Ratings For A Second Straight Night



https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjo...bcs-rachel-maddow-to-number-one/#1d39f1454a39

Network TV has some SAD viewership numbers.

I wonder how many of them will exist in 20 more years.