ORANGE ALERT: The (almost) daily outrage
More InfoFor a president who revels in chaos — and in orchestrating it himself — Monday brought a political storm that Trump could not control.
More by Ben Hillman »
« Previous
Welcome to Real Estate Friday!
Selectboard round-up: Housatonic water woes prompt action from the town; search firm hired to replace town manager; Manv...
Of course they are not freaking out. The indictments dealt with alleged actions that took place long before the Presidential campaign. No connection or reference of connection to alleged Russian collusion. However, there is mounting evidence that the President’s opponent, who lost by the way, could have colluded with foreign entities including the Russians. I guess there is no need to deal in honesty and objectivity. Sensationalism without factual backup seems to suffice.
No need to repeat the talking points of Fox and the Trump cohort. Of course, we know it’s all Hillary’s fault.
No need to repeat Fox and right wing commentators’ talking points. And we all know Hillary colluded with Putin not Trump. There is nothing she isn’t guilty of.
Interesting Leonard. OK to post Orange Alert that references WaPo article but not OK to repeat Fox? By the way, what makes you think my opinion is a repeat of Fox and right wing commentators’ talking points. Do you know something I do not? Also, this appears to be an opinion section, am I not allowed to express my opinion. I saw OA, disagreed and expressed my disagreement. Is that not what the United States is about? Free and honest discourse? If you disagree with me, feel free to do so, but please do not try to tell me what to do. We shall see what happens regarding Hillary, President Trump, (then candidate), and Putin over the next several months. Neither you nor I will solve that one here.
Fact: Manafort’s conspiracy did not take place “long before the Presidential campaign”. The indictment alleges that it continued into 2017.
Fact: the campaign official who tried to collude with the Russians and pleaded guilty to lying did not attempt to deal with the Russians until AFTER he joined the Trump campaign.
I agree that comments need to deal in honesty and objectivity.
George, facts? or allegations. May want to consider reading the indictment.
Charles, it was you who wrote that the indictment dealt with alleged actions that took place “long before the Presidential campaign.” The FACT that you misstated is that the indictment deals with actions alleged to continue into 2017. And you ignore the FACT that Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying about colluding with the Russians AFTER joining the campaign, not “long before.” For Manafort and Gates, these are allegations, but not about actions “long before.” For Papadopoulos, they are facts he has admitted when he pled guilty.
George, Did not misspeak at all. What I said was quite correct. Did not mention Papadopoulos as his pleading guilty is insignificant with respect to the Trump campaign. Like I said, take the time to read the indictment, no allegations related to the Trump. The action(s) that you allege that the “it” continued into the 2017, please be specific regarding what “it” is. Having served on a number of boards and committees, I get very suspicious when someone starts a statement with FACT. I often find ,after the fact, that the facts that are alleged are only those that the author believes to be facts with no real evidence to back them up.
Charles, I have read the indictment several times. FACT: although you deny that the indictment so states, paragraph 14 specifically alleges that Manafort’s scheme continued into 2017. That allegation is then incorporated by reference (i.e., repeated) as an element of each of the 12 counts of the indictment, in paragraphs 37, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48 and 50. I am surprised that you missed these 8 paragraphs of the indictment if, indeed, you took the time to read it yourself. Your unilateral decision not to mention Papadopoulos supposedly because his guilty plea is, in your personal view, “insignificant” is at best disingenuous. The news reports indicate that the White House was not as unconcerned as you claim to be.
It all continues to sound like a witch hunt…and is a waste of tax payer debt…
That this whole “Russia Connection” crap has even gotten so much attention is rediculous.
We have far more serious issues to address in this country than how or why someone released Podesta’s hacked emails and showed Hillary for who she is. There was no shortage of trash on Trump either. The electorate decided, now let’s get to work on fixing some of the REAL problems facing our nation – instead of continuing the “party” posturing.
I’m sure you would be writing the same thing if it appeared that a foreign power had weighed in with leaks, targeted social media ads, and disinformation to elect the Democrat. You’d be saying, nothing to see here, time to move on…
Sorry, is it only “foreign powers” that spew misinformation in a Presidential election cycle? Seems Hillary had editorial oversight of news stories about her on the national level, she colluded with the DNC to block Bernie from ever having enough delegates, and more… I don’t think we should be spending our great-grandchildren’s taxes chasing the bogus crap. If there was valod evidence of vote tampering, that would be a different story…
This is a witch hunt plain and simple…
PS: by the way, according to wiki-leaks the CIA and FBI have the capability to change the source IP address from communications to make it appear they come from other countries…the technical details are spectacular and very believable…and I don’t doubt other countries have the same capability.
George, My original statements are as follows, “The indictments dealt with alleged actions that took place long before the Presidential campaign. No connection or reference of connection to alleged Russian collusion.” While the behavior of Manafort et al are alleged to have carried on into 2017 my response to the “Orange Alert” was to question the original statement that the White House was freaking out which it was not. That is, unless you choose to follow certain “news” stations that appear to deal in fiction and opinions of the less informed or somewhat biased. It is clear that you wish to make more out of this than it really is. All I did in my original statement was question an apparent lie.