Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Krystal and Saagar: MSNBC Has Russiagate MELTDOWN In Middle Of RNC" video.

  1. She is merely acknowledging that there was some evidence of Russian involvement concerning how the Podesta emails came out. Not overwhelming proof, but some evidence.
    4
  2.  @coryCuc  Can you be serious? This story made her rich beyond anything she could have hoped. She's taking home the money. There isn't some other measure.
    3
  3.  @zakichoudhary507  I disagree less than you seem to think I do. :/ Much less, actually.
    2
  4.  @zakichoudhary507  LOL
    2
  5.  @coryCuc  Hey, here's another idea: money does not equal truth. Okay, that's too controversial. Sorry. I take it back.
    2
  6. @Joe And the FBI had no business interrogating him. Gen. Flynn could have declined to answer such questions. There is evidence he did lie, including his original guilty plea. Please. Ending that case hushed up FBI misconduct as well. Naturally! Funny how that worked out. Nothing got tested in court with all actors under oath.
    1
  7. @Joe And there is some evidence of Russian involvement in the Podesta email leak/hack. Again, not overwhelming, and of course never tested in court. (Nothing goes to court. Especially not Wall Street.)
    1
  8. @Joe That all may be exactly right. Funny how we won't know for sure. Yeah, I don't believe in things that go conveniently missing.
    1
  9.  @zakichoudhary507  You clearly care. Laws are not enforced, you mean? We noticed.
    1
  10.  @zakichoudhary507  I'm not doing their propaganda. I would have liked this case to proceed, however, just like I'd like plenty of people on Wall Street to have been indicted. I know people lie under oath, but at least technically there are penalties. Lying to reporters and to voters is not only legal, it can be lucrative.
    1
  11. This convention is worse than the Dem one. For those who thought that was impossible.
    1
  12. They have a poor vocabulary. "Those claims are wrong." "Those assertions are wrong." "Those purported facts are wrong" "They made claims that aren't true." All sorts of stuff to say instead. But no. :/ :)
    1
  13.  @coryCuc  She made huge money from Russiagate, more than ever before, and is already set for life. "Nice work if you can get it."
    1
  14.  @coryCuc  I don't believe any other motive comes close. And people did love it.
    1
  15.  @coryCuc  I didn't say she "needed" it. I said it rewarded her far more than any other story she pitched -- and for less work. Maybe look up her salary history, and take out your smartphone calculator? Or maybe read Matt Taibbi's book? There are things you can do besides condescend to those more astute and more realistic -- and better read -- concerning MSM and its motivations than you are. But you probably won't. This is more fun for you, and Russiagate was sure fun for her. $$$$
    1
  16.  @coryCuc  Huh? "Defend?" Where in the world did that come from? I do not have a television at the moment, I have never had cable, and I'm not American. To say, as I did, that someone does what they do for money -- especially in the realm of journalism, or writing or film of any kind, and especially if they already have enough money -- is the supreme insult. How could you take it any other way? Do Americans really think like this? You are joking on some level? You cannot mean it. This had to have been a language barrier of some sort.
    1
  17.  @coryCuc  Matt Taibbi wrote "Hate, Inc.: Why Today's Media Makes Us Despise One Another," (hint: $$), and Maddow is one of two people on the cover. Taibbi often does good work. He is a well-known Russiagate sceptic and critic of Wall Street avarice. I would recommend Aude Lancelin on media corruption even more, but I don't think they translated her yet.
    1