Matt Gaetz and The Great Conservative Hypocrisy

[Little Monster]

Originally Posted by bambino

“Opponent”? I don’t look at you that way. I like competition. You don’t provide any level of competition. Therefore, you’re not an opponent.

Look at it however you want to. I prove your ass wrong every time. Your next honest and factual post will be your first. Now run along bambi. It has to suck to lose all the time.

[gnadfly]

So Gaetz has been under surveillance for at least 6 months. No charges. Lots of allegations. Why?

Every vote in now precious in the House of Representatives. The Dems have 218 seats and the Reps 212. There are 5 vacancies. A loss here or there and gain here or there is vital. 4 of the vacancies were Dems.

https://pressgallery.house.gov/membe...arty-breakdown

Pelosi barely let the Republican from Iowa keep her seat. She knows she has a slim margin and much of her shenangins aren't appreciated by these purple districts.

Now she's sitting behind hurricane fences protected by thousands of national guardsmen. It doesn't look good. It would be worse if BLM protestors and MAGA protestors clashed in front of the steps.

Fort Pelosi must not stand. Gaetz's seat is critical. Can they keep the COVID vote from home scam up until 2022?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

So Gaetz has been under surveillance for at least 6 months. No charges. Lots of allegations. Why?

It's been a lot longer than "6 months"! These allegations surfaced back when he was serving in the Florida legislature. But here's the bottom line:

A woman who traveled to the Bahamas with Rep. Matt Gaetz in 2018 says no one was underage on the trip, according to Politico

https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-tra...130928831.html

Do the CommunistSocialistLiberalDumbo Crats get tired of losing their bullshit talking points or do they enjoy the humliation?

Any Federal investigation can obtain flight records with arrival and departure documentation on all occupants into and out of the Bahamas.

It's the small unincorporated islands for which it is problematic, which is why so many folks and BILL CLINTON enjoyed his predator friend who died in jail.

[HedonistForever]

Seems like such an easy accusation to prove or refute. Where is this "child"? Where are the documents?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Seems like such an easy accusation to prove or refute. Where is this "child"? Where are the documents?

Like so many of these "political" hit jobs when the time comes for the TESTIMONY under oath .... there will be a "no show"! I have even heard of prosecutors threatening alleged "victims" with perjury prosecutions, if not "obstruction of justice" prosecutions.

Have you reviewed the statutory defense etched into the Federal criminal statute?

18 USC 2423(g)Defense.—
In a prosecution under this section based on illicit sexual conduct as defined in subsection (f)(2), it is a defense, which the defendant must establish by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant reasonably believed that the person with whom the defendant engaged in the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 years.

Until one has participated in enough charging and sentencing conferences with Federal judges it is probably best to refrain from drawing any "legal" conclusions about commission of crimes that haven't even been indicted. But that's the environment in which we live in today ... unfortunately for those accused in the media. As we should know some Fed judges have chased pussy in college while drinking beer!

The THING that disturbs me the most about these "Federal Investigations" is just how the fuck does anyone KNOW what is being investigated and what is being "uncovered" in the alleged "investigation"! And that includes Hunter Biden's! Not to mention HillariousNoMore's "investigation"!

[VerySkeptical]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's been a lot longer than "6 months"! These allegations surfaced back when he was serving in the Florida legislature. But here's the bottom line:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-tra...130928831.html

Do the CommunistSocialistLiberalDumbo Crats get tired of losing their bullshit talking points or do they enjoy the humliation?

Any Federal investigation can obtain flight records with arrival and departure documentation on all occupants into and out of the Bahamas.

It's the small unincorporated islands for which it is problematic, which is why so many folks and BILL CLINTON enjoyed his predator friend who died in jail.

Humiliation? Like the trumpies and their election fraud court cases?
Bottom line? A yahoo article quoting one of the people involved isn't a "bottom line". We'll see what the investigation says about the ages. We'll see what their "bottom line" is.
The investigating agencies are under no obligation to let you know the scope of their investigations.
Greenberg is negotiating a plea deal. We'll see what new information is released.

It's funny listening to a multi-faced election fraud/Flynn/Trump apologist.
You being unaware of information and too lazy to do valid research shows in many of your posts.
There is no point in arguing with someone who will not acknowledge posting incorrect info or won't correct misinformation that has been debunked.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Little Monster

A close Trump ally/Beavis look alike Matt Gaetz is currently in some hot water for engaging in activities which we can't discuss on here as well as trafficking. Birds of a feather...

Funny how far right conspiracy group QAnon is trying to defend him, after they FALSELY accused everyone from Tom Hanks to Hillary Clinton of doing the same. So now they show that they don't give two shit's about these so called "trafficking victims" and only care about pushing their political agenda.

Funny how conservatives are screaming about Cuomo and now Hunter Biden, but their mouths are shut about Gaetz aka Beavis.

Is it just a requirement in order to be a conservative, one must be a blatant hypocrite?

Respectfully Little Monster, this whole Gaetz thing is bull shit. I don't like Gaetz ever since he ran up to Wyoming to do a hit job on Liz Cheney. However, everyone here, Democrats and Republicans, should be up in arms about this. If you pay a woman to have sex and you have her cross state lines, then the Feds want to charge you with trafficking and lock you up. He probably shouldn't be charged with jack. I say "probably" because apparently there's the possibility that one of the alleged incidents occurred with a person who was slightly under the age of consent in Florida. If that's the case and if she lied about her age (say in her profile on a sugardaddy web site) I'd still question whether it makes sense to lock him up and throw away the key for a crime he didn't even know he committed.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Tiny

....If that's the case and if she lied about her age (say in her profile on a sugardaddy web site) I'd still question whether it makes sense to lock him up and throw away the key for a crime he didn't even know he committed.

The Feds actually try few age related sex cases, but get a lot of pleas in exchange for a reduction in sentence. There are several reasons for that and not all apply in every case. One primary reason is producing the alleged victim for testimony in the trial. They are working off the grid and evaporate during the long months, if not years, before the trial. Some have moved on to a marriage and have "buried" that part of their life. And there is always their family who was unaware of those fund raising years entertaining the highest bidder.

Gaetz had been offered an opportunity to pay money to have this all disappear and be forgotten for "ever" ... I heard him say it. His polite way of describing the rejection of the opportunity was "no"! Although I didn't hear him say it, the world saw what happened to Trump after he paid ... Gaetz is a fast learner. Then there is always another looking for $$.

There are a couple of Federal statutes that don't require the age given to be accurate to support a conviction. They can be prosecuted even if the female lies about the age. The one frequently mentioned in Gaetz's situation has a specific age defense if he reasonably believed her to be "of age". In those other statutes an adult can claim to be younger than an adult and one younger than an adult can claim to be an adult. If the actual age is nonadult it is still convictable. It's absolute BS, but it's there.

In those later cases there doesn't even have to be actual sexual contact.

[gnadfly]

I wonder how many of those are Fed produced "honey traps."

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I wonder how many of those are Fed produced "honey traps."

Local PDs co-operations with Fed oversight. The locals do the bait development, computer tracking and analytics, and witness culling.

The agent-in-charge communicates, coordinates, and provides interstate/international contacts. They will only testify if absolutely necessary. And will admit to no knowledge due to local involvement.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The Feds actually try few age related sex cases, but get a lot of pleas in exchange for a reduction in sentence. There are several reasons for that and not all apply in every case. One primary reason is producing the alleged victim for testimony in the trial. They are working off the grid and evaporate during the long months, if not years, before the trial. Some have moved on to a marriage and have "buried" that part of their life. And there is always their family who was unaware of those fund raising years entertaining the highest bidder.

Gaetz had been offered an opportunity to pay money to have this all disappear and be forgotten for "ever" ... I heard him say it. His polite way of describing the rejection of the opportunity was "no"! Although I didn't hear him say it, the world saw what happened to Trump after he paid ... Gaetz is a fast learner. Then there is always another looking for $$.

There are a couple of Federal statutes that don't require the age given to be accurate to support a conviction. They can be prosecuted even if the female lies about the age. The one frequently mentioned in Gaetz's situation has a specific age defense if he reasonably believed her to be "of age". In those other statutes an adult can claim to be younger than an adult and one younger than an adult can claim to be an adult. If the actual age is nonadult it is still convictable. It's absolute BS, but it's there.

In those later cases there doesn't even have to be actual sexual contact.

Good post, thanks, honestly. That is just crazy, that people can be convicted when there's no sexual contact. Or IMHO that they convict when the accused believes the woman is an adult.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Good post, thanks, honestly. That is just crazy, that people can be convicted when there's no sexual contact. Or IMHO that they convict when the accused believes the woman is an adult.

The challenge is for the Feds to prove the age of the alleged victim. It is particularly challenging when the only visual evidence they have is a photo. How many photos do we see daily on pages advertising female connections for p4p? How many are fake and how many are real...as far as advertiser is concerned? All photos are "real" IMO, even shopped ones are "real"!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Humiliation? Like the trumpies and their election fraud court cases?
Bottom line? A yahoo article quoting one of the people involved isn't a "bottom line". We'll see what the investigation says about the ages. We'll see what their "bottom line" is.
The investigating agencies are under no obligation to let you know the scope of their investigations.
Greenberg is negotiating a plea deal. We'll see what new information is released.

It's funny listening to a multi-faced election fraud/Flynn/Trump apologist.
You being unaware of information and too lazy to do valid research shows in many of your posts.
There is no point in arguing with someone who will not acknowledge posting incorrect info or won't correct misinformation that has been debunked.

that depends doesn't it? when article after article including Yahoo came out with any story using anonymous sources that were negative about Trump did you believe it as fact? probably so since like many your preconceived notions of Trump are negative.


ever heard of "circular reporting"? that happened time and again with Trump and it's happening now with Gaetz. one "source" probably a DOJ insider is feeding press reports to paint Gaetz as already "guilty".

don't think a DOJ insider would leak info, which in most cases is against DOJ policy without official approval to the press? sure they would!


as we all know now, this happened with the Steele dossier. we know now that Comey and/or McCabe (probably both) releasing confidential info to the press who then duly reported it as "fact".


classic example of circular reporting. in fact, news articles were cited by Blobbo Mueller in his report. those reports were from one source (Comey/McCabe) yet reported as verified by multiple sources.


The Rise and Fall of the ‘Steele Dossier’

A case study in mass hysteria and media credulity.

https://www.thenation.com/article/po...teele-dossier/

Credulity

noun: credulity
a tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true.

"As they vouched for Steele’s tradecraft, anonymous officials also fed media contacts a false picture that Steele’s dossier had been factually checked out. “US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier,” a CNN headline proclaimed in February 2017, weeks after the dossier’s publication. The FBI is “continuing to chase down stuff from the dossier, and, at its core, a lot of it is bearing out,” an unidentified “intelligence official” told The New Yorker later that month."

"MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow was an early and particularly fervent believer in Steele’s sleuthing powers. Days before Trump’s inauguration, Maddow speculated that Putin might use the pee tape to blackmail Trump into withdrawing US forces near Russia’s border. Weeks later, after no such withdrawal materialized, and no underlying Trump-Russia conspiracy had been unearthed, Maddow assured her audience that “all the supporting details” in Steele’s reports “are checking out, even the really outrageous ones. A lot of them are starting to bear out under scrutiny. It seems like a new one each passing day.”


to this day, without any verified source, many people believe the Steele dossier has been verified and is true.


in fact it has never been proved, not one allegation, and as the light of day shined a bit too brightly on the dossier it's accuracy now has few if any in an official role, present or prior, that will claim any of it is accurate. especially the pee tape.

[HedonistForever]

And one of the other circular reporting events seems to have now fallen flat on it's face, the idea that Russia was paying the Taliban for killing American soldiers. Literally every single MSM "journalist" from Morning Joe to evening Maddow and our new President was calling Trump a traitor for not going to war with Russia.

Now the Intelligence community has come clean now that Biden won, that any "evidence" of this was low to moderate which in the world of Intelligence, means no response called for. On top of that, it seems like this story may have never even appeared in the President's daily briefing for that very fact, a low to moderate chance of being actionable.

Think any of the hundreds of people that called Trump a traitor for not acting are now apologizing?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...news-all-along

The Russian bounties story was apparently fake news all along

It was the scandal of the summer of 2020.

Moscow allegedly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan, the New York Times reported in an exclusive based entirely on anonymous sources. Worse still, the article added, then-President Donald Trump was briefed on the bounty plot and did nothing about it.
Pundits, reporters, and lawmakers responded to the supposed bombshell revelation with a mixture of horror and righteous fury, many of them reviving the popular narrative that Trump was beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

However, now the Biden administration says the U.S. intelligence community only ever had “low to moderate” confidence in the bounty story, the Daily Beastreports, adding, “Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven – and possibly untrue.”

I know. I am just as surprised as you are the same people who alleged, without evidence, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is a serial gang rapist and Trump “colluded” with the Russians to steal the 2016 election may have gotten another major story wrong. More seriously, that the New York Times's anonymously sourced report, which bears three bylines, came in an election year and that it complicated the Trump White House’s efforts to withdraw from Afghanistan are two details one should not overlook.

If you can believe it, this bounty business reportedly originated with a detainee who simply told his jailers what he thought they wanted to hear.

“The reporting about the alleged ‘bounties’ came from ‘detainee reporting’ – raising the specter that someone told their U.S.-aligned Afghan jailers what they thought was necessary to get out of a cage,” the Daily Beast notes, citing a Biden White House official. “Specifically, the official cited ‘information and evidence of connections to criminal agents in Afghanistan and elements of the Russian government’ as sources for the intelligence community’s assessment.”

This is a hell of a thing to read, considering the Washington Post claimed in June 2020 it had confirmed the New York Times’s reporting. Confirmed what, exactly?
The Biden official continued, noting the “difficult operating environment in Afghanistan” makes it especially complicated for U.S. operatives to confirm what could be nothing more than a rumor.
In other words, the story we were told last year represented possibly the greatest political scandal of the last two decades may be a complete fabrication. And to think of all the anger and outrage it inspired from Democratic politicians and members of the press.

MSNBC contributor Steve Benen authored an article bearing the headline, “On Russian bounties, what did Trump know and when did he know it?”
The Washington Post, which, again, claimed it had “confirmed” the story, awarded Trump four Pinocchios for claiming it was “fake news.”
Later, when Trump claimed he was never briefed on the matter, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California responded, saying, “Is this an issue where they cannot tell the president things he doesn't want to hear when it comes to Vladimir Putin and Russia?”

Then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden himself said in response to the story that Trump’s “entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale.”
He added, “It’s a betrayal of the most sacred duty we bear as a nation, to protect and equip our troops when we send them into harm’s way. It’s a betrayal of every single American family with a loved one serving in Afghanistan or anywhere overseas.”

Those are some strong words for a story Biden’s own administration says is doubtful. Oh, well. At least he got his election-year sound bite.
“The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier,” a senior Biden administration official said this week.

Yet, from the way the press told the story last year, uncritically repeating whispers originating from nameless intelligence officials, coalition troops were absolutely targeted by a bounty scheme put together by the Russians.

The funny thing is: Even before the Biden administration conceded this week the story is, at best, dubious, it didn’t even make sense. Why would Moscow pay Taliban-linked fighters to do what they were already doing free of charge? Further, though Russia has long been suspected of funneling cash to insurgent operations, what good reason would the Kremlin have to sponsor attacks that could potentially lead to a shooting war with the U.S.? Perhaps revenge for the Mujahedeen? If so, we're going to need something a bit stronger than "sources say."
If the bounty scheme was about regional dominance, why persuade Taliban-linked fighters into action most likely to ensure a continued U.S. presence? Was Moscow merely trying to stick its finger in America's eye? If so, there are ways to do this without also threatening all-out war with a global superpower.

Nearly as frustrating as the press's eagerness to lap up a nonsensical, anonymously sourced report is the fact multiple intelligence officials and experts, including former national security adviser John Bolton, went on the record last year to say they had serious doubts about the New York Times’s supposedly shocking scoop.

Gen. Frank McKenzie, the senior U.S. general for the Middle East and South Asia, even said at the time there did not seem to be any “causative link” between the bounty allegation and actual U.S. deaths.
Their on-the-record concerns did nothing to cool the righteous indignation of Democrats and members of the press, many of whom continued to treat the allegation as gospel truth.
Yes, the Daily Beast's report is also based entirely on the input of nameless officials. However, unlike the New York Times, the Washington Post, and everyone else who pushed the bounty “bombshell” in 2020, the Daily Beast’s reporting enjoys the backing of independent, on-the-record corroboration from multiple intelligence officials, who said at the time the story sounded extremely unlikely.

It has been

said before,

but it bears repeating: Of the many disturbing examples of media malpractice in the Trump era, none are so alarming as the press’s unswerving trust in the say-so of anonymous officials.

And the article above and this, are just two in many, many lies told by our MSM for the purpose of making sure Trump didn't get elected and the fact that some of the people reading this, were perfectly OK with that after calling out Trump for lying, they supported the telling of lies. Hypocrites all.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

And one of the other circular reporting events seems to have now fallen flat on it's face, the idea that Russia was paying the Taliban for killing American soldiers. Literally every single MSM "journalist" from Morning Joe to evening Maddow and our new President was calling Trump a traitor for not going to war with Russia.

Now the Intelligence community has come clean now that Biden won, that any "evidence" of this was low to moderate which in the world of Intelligence, means no response called for. On top of that, it seems like this story may have never even appeared in the President's daily briefing for that very fact, a low to moderate chance of being actionable.

Think any of the hundreds of people that called Trump a traitor for not acting are now apologizing?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...news-all-along

The Russian bounties story was apparently fake news all along

It was the scandal of the summer of 2020.

Moscow allegedly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan, the New York Times reported in an exclusive based entirely on anonymous sources. Worse still, the article added, then-President Donald Trump was briefed on the bounty plot and did nothing about it.
Pundits, reporters, and lawmakers responded to the supposed bombshell revelation with a mixture of horror and righteous fury, many of them reviving the popular narrative that Trump was beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

However, now the Biden administration says the U.S. intelligence community only ever had “low to moderate” confidence in the bounty story, the Daily Beastreports, adding, “Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven – and possibly untrue.”

I know. I am just as surprised as you are the same people who alleged, without evidence, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is a serial gang rapist and Trump “colluded” with the Russians to steal the 2016 election may have gotten another major story wrong. More seriously, that the New York Times's anonymously sourced report, which bears three bylines, came in an election year and that it complicated the Trump White House’s efforts to withdraw from Afghanistan are two details one should not overlook.

If you can believe it, this bounty business reportedly originated with a detainee who simply told his jailers what he thought they wanted to hear.

“The reporting about the alleged ‘bounties’ came from ‘detainee reporting’ – raising the specter that someone told their U.S.-aligned Afghan jailers what they thought was necessary to get out of a cage,” the Daily Beast notes, citing a Biden White House official. “Specifically, the official cited ‘information and evidence of connections to criminal agents in Afghanistan and elements of the Russian government’ as sources for the intelligence community’s assessment.”

This is a hell of a thing to read, considering the Washington Post claimed in June 2020 it had confirmed the New York Times’s reporting. Confirmed what, exactly?
The Biden official continued, noting the “difficult operating environment in Afghanistan” makes it especially complicated for U.S. operatives to confirm what could be nothing more than a rumor.
In other words, the story we were told last year represented possibly the greatest political scandal of the last two decades may be a complete fabrication. And to think of all the anger and outrage it inspired from Democratic politicians and members of the press.

MSNBC contributor Steve Benen authored an article bearing the headline, “On Russian bounties, what did Trump know and when did he know it?”
The Washington Post, which, again, claimed it had “confirmed” the story, awarded Trump four Pinocchios for claiming it was “fake news.”
Later, when Trump claimed he was never briefed on the matter, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California responded, saying, “Is this an issue where they cannot tell the president things he doesn't want to hear when it comes to Vladimir Putin and Russia?”

Then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden himself said in response to the story that Trump’s “entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale.”
He added, “It’s a betrayal of the most sacred duty we bear as a nation, to protect and equip our troops when we send them into harm’s way. It’s a betrayal of every single American family with a loved one serving in Afghanistan or anywhere overseas.”

Those are some strong words for a story Biden’s own administration says is doubtful. Oh, well. At least he got his election-year sound bite.
“The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier,” a senior Biden administration official said this week.

Yet, from the way the press told the story last year, uncritically repeating whispers originating from nameless intelligence officials, coalition troops were absolutely targeted by a bounty scheme put together by the Russians.

The funny thing is: Even before the Biden administration conceded this week the story is, at best, dubious, it didn’t even make sense. Why would Moscow pay Taliban-linked fighters to do what they were already doing free of charge? Further, though Russia has long been suspected of funneling cash to insurgent operations, what good reason would the Kremlin have to sponsor attacks that could potentially lead to a shooting war with the U.S.? Perhaps revenge for the Mujahedeen? If so, we're going to need something a bit stronger than "sources say."
If the bounty scheme was about regional dominance, why persuade Taliban-linked fighters into action most likely to ensure a continued U.S. presence? Was Moscow merely trying to stick its finger in America's eye? If so, there are ways to do this without also threatening all-out war with a global superpower.

Nearly as frustrating as the press's eagerness to lap up a nonsensical, anonymously sourced report is the fact multiple intelligence officials and experts, including former national security adviser John Bolton, went on the record last year to say they had serious doubts about the New York Times’s supposedly shocking scoop.

Gen. Frank McKenzie, the senior U.S. general for the Middle East and South Asia, even said at the time there did not seem to be any “causative link” between the bounty allegation and actual U.S. deaths.
Their on-the-record concerns did nothing to cool the righteous indignation of Democrats and members of the press, many of whom continued to treat the allegation as gospel truth.
Yes, the Daily Beast's report is also based entirely on the input of nameless officials. However, unlike the New York Times, the Washington Post, and everyone else who pushed the bounty “bombshell” in 2020, the Daily Beast’s reporting enjoys the backing of independent, on-the-record corroboration from multiple intelligence officials, who said at the time the story sounded extremely unlikely.

It has been

said before,

but it bears repeating: Of the many disturbing examples of media malpractice in the Trump era, none are so alarming as the press’s unswerving trust in the say-so of anonymous officials.

And the article above and this, are just two in many, many lies told by our MSM for the purpose of making sure Trump didn't get elected and the fact that some of the people reading this, were perfectly OK with that after calling out Trump for lying, they supported the telling of lies. Hypocrites all.

Yep! let's also not forget the "Bombshell" report from The Atlantic about Trump's so-called comments about fallen US soldiers. this of course supposedly happened in 2017 in France and was the "reason" Trump didn't visit the Marine cemetery outside of Paris.


so for 3 years not one source comes forward then less than 3 months from the election here comes that bastion of liberalism The Atlantic pulling a "New York Times" with "multiple credible anonymous sources" claiming as FACT Trump said soldiers who died in combat were "losers".


interesting how that whole story has now faded away yeah? no sources have come forward because there never were any. it was concocted in part on Trump's comments about McCain and meant to sway voters.


at least two people who were in Trump's admin are retired 4 star Generals. Kelley and Mattis. while you might consider that both would keep quiet while part of Trump's admin both had left before this "report" came out. either of them was then free to comment if they had heard Trump make such a statement and not one word from them to this day. in fact no one has come forward to confirm publicly Trump ever said such nonsense.


does anyone really think that either Mattis or Kelley, as 4 star Generals, would not confirm such comments if they had heard them?


of course they would and so would Rexie Tillerson, at least after his own exit from Trump's admin. recall Tillerson supposedly called Trump a Moron". so why after he left as Sec of State would he not report such a outrageous comment?


Because Trump never said it. yet millions of voters took it as fact he did and yes that is Election Interference by DOMESTIC THREATS . the Mainstream Media.


interestingly, just before The Atlantic published its hit piece yet another former Trump Admin insider releases his own "Bombshell" book that actually confirms the Trump admin position from 2017 that it was the secret service that advised against the trip due to weather conditions.


none other that John Bolton wrote that in his book. i guess The Atlantic doesn't consider him a credible source yeah?


BAHHAHAAAAAAA