Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
That’s a whole bunch of conjecture with zero facts
It's a fact that the NYT did not reveal the source of their info
The NYTs reporting matches the documents they received from legal sources to publicly available documents.
We don't know that the "sources" were legal. The Times won't give us the "sources." And if they were legal, we don't know if their giving the info to the Times was legal. You want Trump to reveal his taxes to prove he did nothing illegal or unethical, but you're OK with the NYT not proving that they obtained their info legally by revealing the source.
And only portions of the documents match public available documents. But so what? No illegality was uncovered. Nor was any tax fraud proven. Just some supposedly distasteful stuff to try to make Trump look like a cheat.
This anonymous sources bit has been a pattern in trying to get Trump. It, rightly, creates suspicion and distrust. Especially with an agency that is so blatantly political as the NYT.
And claiming that it’s patently false because a rightwing rag with hardly a sterling reputation says so is status quo for you.
I didn't say it was patently false. There you go putting words in my mouth. I quoted a "rag," as you put it, characterizing another rag, the NYT to demonstrate that distrust of the NYT is not an aberration. A lot of people don't trust that rag.
As far as Durham goes, active investigations don’t have reports.
Prosecutors don’t write reports.
Durham isn’t writing a report.
He has to get indictments through grand juries....or plea deals.
It took Durham 10 months to get a plea deal on Clinesmith, after his lawyer asked for the deal. Gift wrapped.
So take a deep breath
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I didn't say there were reports. I said "the possible Durham and DOJ bombshells which will probably show the dirty FBI mission to illegally remove Trump." Any DOJ or Durham or Senate investigation findings or indictments will be made public. And it would be beneficial for the Dems and for Anti-Trump rags to disseminate as much innuendo, if not proven fact, as possible before the election and especially to influence early votes to be cast on the basis of anti-Trump "bombshells" before any info that is anti-Biden or pro-Trump is revealed by any ongoing investigation and so will be too late to change those votes already cast. I wouldn't be surprised if that were one of the motives to make massive or universal early voting available.
Threaded Mode