Welcome to America

I knew I would lose Leader of the Lakeview Poppas with the occassional Jenksy, but there are plenty of reader/lurkers on here. Its for them.

It's all CNN employees detailing how obsessed Zucker is with Trump. You would definitely like it.

On a deeper level, it's about a major news organization, a member of the "fourth branch" trying to take down a sitting President.

Project Veritas has as much credibility as trump.

What is ABC News' tagline? "Your Trusted Source"? OK.

Here you can see where ABC has been busted using footage from a semi annual machine gun shootout @ a Kentucky gun range as footage of the Kurds in Syria being "slaughtered". Lazy, lying, arrogant MSM wimps get caught.

ABC with the actual footage from the gun range at the end. Notice all of the smartphones recording the event.
Another view of the gun range shootout (short version) :
Longer version (in case some of you want to cry foul for the short version being from AJ:

Ahhhh, the whistleblowers...don't just love 'em? The real ones, that you know who they are; not the made up ones.

CNN, the once vaunted CNN. Remember when they first launched the first 24/7 news concept? They really were the pioneer. They were the go-to for up to the minute, accurate news, all pre-Twitter, pre-FB. And now they have just become an ardent partisan propaganda source with the Jabba the Hutt look a like President, Jeff Zucker.

Enjoy the latest whistleblower video from Project Veritas. Sorry for the Leftists on here, but you still have MSNBC, haha. Oh, and you lost ABC news this weekend too.

That was silly. Just plain silly. Do you really want to compare a bunch of drunk disgruntled low level cameramen who repeat themselves ad nauseum to a career CIA analyst who has first hand knowledge of serious crime being committed by the POTUS and steps forward and files a legitimate, and credible complaint through proper channels. If this is what call truth in news, you truly are about as silly as can be. Silly.

We don’t know anything about the whistleblower being credible or not. We do know he DID NOT go through proper channels since he was in contact with Schiff prior to filing the complaint. And the whistleblower himself says it was second hand information.

The inspector general said he followed proper procedure. The NSA director, under oath, said he did everything right. He did not personal meet with Schiff, but was in contact with his staff, which is standard operating procedure when a whistleblower doesn’t get traction talking to this immediate superior. The only thing you are correct about is that the first whistleblower did not have direct knowledge of the event. The second whistleblower did have direct knowledge of the event, and did go through proper channels. Now I want to hear your assessment of Drufter’s video. Please.

I knew I would lose Leader of the Lakeview Poppas with the occassional Jenksy, but there are plenty of reader/lurkers on here. Its for them.

It's all CNN employees detailing how obsessed Zucker is with Trump. You would definitely like it.

On a deeper level, it's about a major news organization, a member of the "fourth branch" trying to take down a sitting President.

Please provide link on SOP going directly to congress if not getting traction from immediate superior.

There are two ways the whistleblower could report the alleged misconduct to Congress.

First, they can prepare a report and submit it to the Intelligence Community Inspector General, essentially an ombudsman for these kinds of problems. The inspector general will then determine if the complaint is credible and of “urgent concern.” Assuming the report is both of these things, they will send the whistleblower report to the Director of National Intelligence, who is supposed to send the report, along with any comments or concerns, to the appropriate congressional committee.

Secondly, the whistleblower can submit the report directly to Congress, but only if the inspector general decides the issue is not of urgent concern or is not credible. Additionally, the whistleblower must comply with appropriate security protocols to accommodate the existence of sensitive or classified information in the complaint.

The ICIC did determine it to be credible and did determine it to be of urgent concern. The DNI concurred under oath. They were suppose to forward it to DNI I believe within 5 days, but were told not to. I believe it took 14 days to get there. They had no credible explanation for that.

I really don't know when in the timeline the first whistleblower talked to House Intelligence Committee staffer, but it is SOP. I listen to credible sources such as ABC, NBC, NPR, and NYT so I can't really say where I got that.

I know relatively nothing about the second whistleblower other than he has direct first hand knowledge of the event. There are approximately 10 people who listened to the phone call, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Do you really think all of them will risk obstruction of justice and lying to Congress to protect the liar in chief?Do you think Guiliani is going to take the rap?

Oh, and please give me your appraisal of Drifter's video. Let's compare sources.

Isn’t Project Veritas the group that broke the “selling of baby parts” video.? Of course it is. Instead of dealing with the content of the video, you chose to attack the credibility of the whistleblower and Pro

Now that is funny

Claim:
The undercover videos show Planned Parenthood trafficking in fetal tissue for profit in violation of federal law.

• Planned Parenthood engages in the “illegal sale of aborted baby parts.”[1]
• Planned Parenthood engages in “selling baby parts.”[2]

Facts:
The videos include no credible evidence that Planned Parenthood profits from its fetal tissue donation program.

Claim:
Planned Parenthood is paid for fetal tissue donations in violation of federal law.

• “Planned Parenthood is still receiving $50, $75, sometimes $100 per specimen per fetal part. So all of that is just straight up profit that goes to their bottom line.”[6]

Facts:
Planned Parenthood receives reasonable reimbursement for its tissue donation services, as expressly permitted by law.

Claim:
Planned Parenthood is paid for fetal tissue donations in violation of federal law.

• “Planned Parenthood is still receiving $50, $75, sometimes $100 per specimen per fetal part. So all of that is just straight up profit that goes to their bottom line.”[6]

Facts:
Planned Parenthood receives reasonable reimbursement for its tissue donation services, as expressly permitted by law.

Claim:
Planned Parenthood collects fetal tissue without obtaining proper consent in violation of federal law.

• “If there was a higher gestation and the technicians needed it, there were times they would just take what they wanted and these mothers don’t know and there’s no way they would know.”[18]

Facts:
There is no credible evidence that Planned Parenthood collects fetal tissue without obtaining proper consent.

Is this what you're blabbing about?
Planned Parenthood: Fact v. Fiction

The project Veritas video? I think the video contents are and have been common knowledge for anyone who pays attention.

Planned Parenthood executives and doctors admitting to illegally profiting from the sale of the fetal tissue of aborted babies.

At the time the videos were released, Planned Parenthood and its many defenders in the pro-choice movement repeated ad nauseam that the videos had been “heavily [and] deceptively edited.” This same line was often parroted uncritically by media outlets in their coverage of the videos.

In its ruling tonight, the Fifth Circuit not only affirmed the state’s right to terminate its agreement with Planned Parenthood affiliates, but also confirmed that the videos were undoctored. The court noted that an independent forensic firm’s review of the undercover footage found “that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited.” This directly refutes Planned Parenthood’s own false claim.

But how do the whistleblowers compare? Zucker instructed his guys to stay on impeachment and said Fox News false journalism was ruining the country. That was the entire content of the 20 minute video. I believe whistleblower #1, a career CIA official, had about a 20 page written analysis of the incident with multiple corroborating sources. Which whistleblower was better?

We don’t know anything about the whistleblower being credible or not. We do know he DID NOT go through proper channels since he was in contact with Schiff prior to filing the complaint. And the whistleblower himself says it was second hand information.

I knew I would lose Leader of the Lakeview Poppas with the occassional Jenksy, but there are plenty of reader/lurkers on here. Its for them.

It's all CNN employees detailing how obsessed Zucker is with Trump. You would definitely like it.

On a deeper level, it's about a major news organization, a member of the "fourth branch" trying to take down a sitting President.

Both are doing a public service. Too early to tell which one is better. We gotta wait for all the facts.

What is ABC News' tagline? "Your Trusted Source"? OK.

Here you can see where ABC has been busted using footage from a semi annual machine gun shootout @ a Kentucky gun range as footage of the Kurds in Syria being "slaughtered". Lazy, lying, arrogant MSM wimps get caught.

ABC with the actual footage from the gun range at the end. Notice all of the smartphones recording the event.
Another view of the gun range shootout (short version) :
Longer version (in case some of you want to cry foul for the short version being from AJ:

Re: Syria/Turkey

Here's what will happen:
Kurds will align with Syria; Russia will monitor them. Iran will be exited out of Syria and Lebanon. Syrian refugees who are now in Turkey will be able to return home. We, the US, our guys, will be able to come home. Not to mention the millions of dollars not spent in Syria by the US.

Now let's hear from Col. Douglas MacGregor, who has many years experience in that region break it down. Before you all have a mini freak out, it is on Fox with Tucker, but Tucker asks maybe two questions. MacGregor speaks for 90% of the clip.

What is the first thing I post above? "Kurds will align with Syria; Russia will monitor them."

While American MSM media (ABC) posts fake footage of "Kurds being slaughtered" when it's really a semi annual machine gun shootout at a gun range in Kentucky, around the world, news agencies are reporting:

Israel: Syrian Kurds shift alliance in deal with Assad government to resist Turkey

France: Alliances shift as Syrian Kurdish alliance holds talks with Assad regime


Syria, done. Now lets work on getting our guys home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

What is ABC News' tagline? "Your Trusted Source"? OK.

Here you can see where ABC has been busted using footage from a semi annual machine gun shootout @ a Kentucky gun range as footage of the Kurds in Syria being "slaughtered". Lazy, lying, arrogant MSM wimps get caught.

ABC with the actual footage from the gun range at the end. Notice all of the smartphones recording the event.
Another view of the gun range shootout (short version) :
Longer version (in case some of you want to cry foul for the short version being from AJ:

At least 50% of the American public is openly trying to take down a sitting president. The more the merrier.

No news source should fake coverage. Are you suggesting any news org, group, or individual that lies, presents false video, misrepresents events, or promotes false stories should not be trusted?