[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

File: DSo2T-pW0AE6qUg.jpg (39 KB, 640x360)
39 KB
.....But Breitbart is still Legit for the GOP, correct?
>Legit for the GOP
The ones they call cukservative RINOs?

Were they ever?
>Were they ever?
That's the real question too few people are asking.
>Friendship ended with Bannon
>Now Paul Ryan is my best friend
None of this makes any sense. Either Bannon misspoke or the media is blowing up a non-event like they always do. The thing that Bannon supposedly said was that the debunked Fusion GPS collusion meeting (where nothing improper happened and where the "Russians" were Fusion GPS assets) was "treason." Even Democrats have backed off of that story, so why would Bannon try to revive it now?
Bannon and Jared hate each other.
Bannon wishes he was still in the White House.
Bannon is probably angry about Alabama.
Bannon is a private citizen and not a party official or bureaucrat, so if he did go objectively crazy it would mean hours of fun for lisping journalism majors but not much else.
>we know nothing improper happened at the meeting that was secretly held between Trump's senior campaign staff and Russian cronies because they all said nothing happened. Irrefutable evidence!

>Even Democrats have backed off that story

>4 lines arguing that Bannon is butthurt

And Breitbart has published the quotes. It'd be strange for Bannon to publish things that were falsely attributed to him.
My favorite line:
>The chance that Don Jr did not walk these jumos up to his father’s office on the twenty-sixth floor is zero.

Another good excerpt:
>“The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor — with no lawyers. They didn’t have any lawyers. Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it’s all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately.”

Keep hugging your cognitive dissonance, you might have to face some really harsh truths without it.
This is a lot of nothing.
Bannon didn't call these guys traitors just now. Bannon mumbled under his breath that the meeting was stupid and treasonous, a half a year ago, reacting to the first New York Times story about this. This is something that happened six months ago and as an initial reaction.
Furthermore this story is actually free advertising for an upcoming book by Michael Wolff, whom the noted Trump cultists at Slate (not) call a con-artist with a record of making things up.
I know who the "Russians" were and what Washington, DC firm that took massive amounts of cash from a major party they are connected to. Do you?
I don't, since your grammar is incomprehensible and I don't really know what you're asking. But assuming you're alleging that the Steele dossier was funded by the Russians, your argument is still incomprehensible. If you'd like to cite any evidence that the Russians that Jr, Kushner, and Manafort met with were in any way connected to the Steele dossier, feel free to do so. Because I can't find any evidence of the kind. Even the most boldly conservative outlets (outside of sheitbart or infowars perhaps) are not brash or dumb enough to claim that the Clinton campaign colluded with Russia to undermine her own campaign.

The only argument that conservatives with any level of common sense are making is that the Steele dossier was given improper notice by the FBI and used as an excuse to start investigating Trump. This argument is also baloney though, since we now know that it was Papadopolous drunkenly fessing up to being familiar with stolen Russian secrets that started the investigation.
Even assuming that the FBI was acting improperly (which they weren't), that still doesn't explain why they kept the investigation of Trump a secret until well after the election. If the accusation is that the FBI was trying to undermine Trump's electoral chances, it seems like a pretty poor tactic to announce the investigation of Clinton, but not Trump and his dossier (which, once again, was leaked well after the election).

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.