moldyoldy

This story is the result of another fox news book, full of made up crap just like all the others


In a mid-morning tweet, President Donald Trump promoted Fox News analyst Gregg Jarrett’s upcoming book, The Russia H**x: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump. Jarrett, who joined Fox News in 2002, is an frequent shill for the president, especially on all matters related to the Russia investigation, and a favorite of Trump propagandist Sean Hannity. The president’s interest in Jarrett’s new book, which he tweeted is “a must read,” is hardly unexpected given Jarrett’s constant, and often legally dubious, explanations for why the Trump team’s actions are legally acceptable and why Trump’s opponents, especially those in the intelligence community, are the real lawbreakers.
Jarrett’s willingness to shill for the president appears boundless, and his sycophancy has checked all the boxes to earn a coveted spot in a Trump tweet:
Jarrett has repeatedly claimed that even if the president or his team colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 e******n, they wouldn’t have broken any laws. During an appearance on Hannity, the Fox analyst went so far as to argue that, because “the Constitution gives us the freedom to freely associate with anybody, including Russians,” “Vladimir Putin, former KGB, could have sat in on that [Donald Trump Jr.] meeting and it wouldn't be a crime.” In another appearance, he said, "It was always a myth that collusion in a political campaign is a crime." Jarrett also claimed, “Even conspiring to subvert the government doesn't rise to the level of treason.”
He has defended the idea that the president might fire special counsel Robert Mueller and called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “un-recuse” himself and fire the entire special counsel team.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

moldyoldy wrote:
"What Russian H**x are you talking about? As far as we know, the Republicans tried to block Obama's attempts for more investigation.
Oh wait, I just checked what you’re referring to.
Is it the book from Fox’s Gregg Jarrett about the f**e deep state connections? You know, the one without any credible sources except from anonymous blog sites, which my grandma can create with a few clicks of a button?
The problem with this book is that after it came out, Putin went on to further ruin any credibility of the book by personally acknowledging that he helped Trump by interfering with the e******n.
It’s on television. Unedited. Checkmate." - moldyoldy


Moldy; We are still waiting for your source.
"You know, the one without any credible sources except from anonymous blog sites,.... Putin went on to further ruin any credibility of the book by personally acknowledging that he helped Trump by interfering with the e******n. - moldyoldy

Give us your source, Moldy.

vettelover Loc: Richmond Va

His source is either nobody because it's made up OR it came from VOX, the Day Kos or some other n**i socialist Democrat rag.

moldyoldy

You are quoting a book by a fox person. automatically there is no credibility to that and that is the only source for this most recent conspiracy. You want me to disprove a fantasy.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"The problem with this book is that after it came out, Putin went on to further ruin any credibility of the book by personally acknowledging that he helped Trump by interfering with the e******n.
It’s on television. Unedited. Checkmate." - moldyoldy

give us your source, that "Putin went on to further ruin any credibility of the book by personally acknowledging that he helped Trump by interfering with the e******n."

moldyoldy

Putin answered yes twice, I am sure you saw the video.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Another quip by a Trump h**er about this story being a lie. I guess that is what it was about but none of you people ever talk about specific things being lies. You just pick up on what the media says and take their counts about lies. It really bothers me that you can talk about Trump lies without getting specific and listing what you like to call lies.

moldyoldy

Maybe you should go back and read.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

I could not get the video to C & P.

but it is easy to find.. have a look and you will see that Moldy is correct.. as usual..
THis should do it for you...


https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/putin-trump-e******n-t***slation/565481/


On Tuesday, I noted that one of the key exchanges in the Trump–Putin press conference in Finland doesn’t appear in full in the White House transcript, or at all in the Kremlin’s English-language transcript of the event. The Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asked, “President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the e******n and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?” But how exactly did Vladimir Putin respond to those pointed questions?

If you listen to the English t***slation that was broadcast during the press conference, the Russian leader said, “Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.” This rendering of Putin’s remarks leaves open the possibility that he’s stating “Yes, I did” in reference not just to wanting Donald Trump to win the 2016 p**********l race, but also to ordering Russian officials to help Trump win, even though Putin repeatedly denied Russian interference in the e******n and collusion with the Trump campaign throughout the rest of the news conference.

But I’ve heard from a number of Russian speakers who point out that Putin’s actual comments in Russian concerning who he wanted to win the e******n are much less ambiguous than the way they were t***slated. He seems to have not used the phrase Yes, I did once, let alone twice. Instead, in Russian, Putin roughly said, “Yes, I wanted him to win, because he talked about the normalization of Russian–American relations.” In other words, he was apparently answering the first part of Mason’s question but not the second about whether he directed help Trump’s way. It’s unclear if that’s because Putin didn’t hear the second half of the question, it wasn’t t***slated into Russian accurately, or he simply chose to ignore it.


The comments are still significant: Putin is publicly admitting, in the clearest form yet, that he wanted Trump to beat Hillary Clinton during the U.S. p**********l campaign and that this preference stemmed from Trump’s conciliatory approach to Russia. He is acknowledging a motive for meddling in the U.S. e******n even as he rejects allegations that he did so.

vettelover Loc: Richmond Va

What's wrong with Putin wanting or not wanting a specific candidate to win? I mean Putin LOVED himself some Obama! Obama even had that little hot mic moment when he told Russian President Dmitri Medvedev "he would have more flexibility to negotiate on issues like missile defense after the 2012 e******n."

Why dont you Obama loving Socialist go investigate that! Oh yeah, you all are a bunch of hypocrites! All of you!

moldyoldy

Obama’s actions on Russia and sanctions show where he stood compared to Putin’s lap dog.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

The e******n was about Lady Hillary and the orange Russian in cahoots with Putin..

trump has proved to be a Putin lover and promoter of all things Russian..

lady Hillary would have place greater sanctions and continued strong ties with NATO..

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

F**e Russia collusion has unintended consequences
https://youtu.be/gcE7QKLLsSo

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Nothing is f**e... true and proven.. will we nail the orange thing..

That is not yet determined..

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Lets just keep America great again.
Apparently, Perma thinks that Putin wants America to stay great.

Could be.
Hilda was getting itchy.