Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, October 06, 2019

Donald Trump disputed that Russia was behind the attempted murder of a former Russian spy in a tense call with Theresa May, it has emerged.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Donald Trump is a monkey that dances.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-06 05:36 PM | Reply

What an embarrassing idiot.

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-06 11:08 PM | Reply

I liked the original title fwiw.

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-10-06 11:08 PM | Reply

"said a figure briefed on the call."

You dolts love this hearsay shht.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-10-06 11:51 PM | Reply

If this isn't true, Trump can sue using UK libel laws.

#5 | Posted by bored at 2019-10-07 01:00 AM | Reply

"I got a beautiful letter from Vlad. Beautiful letter!"

#6 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-07 04:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 5

#4

Since Russia is BRAGGING about Trump denying they attacked Skripal, we don't have to worry about hearsay.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-07 07:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"said a figure briefed on the call."

You dolts love this hearsay shht.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter

You idiots keep whistling past the graveyard.

I'm surprised you're turning as intellectually dishonest as you are. Sad, really.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-07 10:13 AM | Reply

You dolts love this hearsay shht.

#4 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

No kidding. It seems like once a month a story like this comes out and it's all based on a couple of anonymous sources that got the information second or third-hand.

Most of these stories end up being bogus but these fools lap it all up. Every time.

Seriously, how many anti-stories have the MSM botched? I've lost count.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-07 10:31 AM | Reply

Most of these stories end up being bogus

Which stories about Trump gargling Putin's balls have turned out to be false? He does it openly, in public, every single chance he gets. Is a second hand account of him doing it again really that hard to believe?

Trump sided with Putin over our own intelligence community in Helsinki and embarrassed the nation on a global stage. He gave classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in the Oval Office and then defended his right to do that.

He admits to these things. So why are you so opposed to believing it when he does it again?

#10 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-07 11:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Advertisement

Advertisement

Who's winning the trade war Trump started? Putin.

Who wins when Trump uses Ukraine as a domestic election pawn? Putin.

Again, it's really not hard for anyone who pays attention to believe that Trump would say this to Theresa May.

#11 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-07 11:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Most of these stories end up being bogus but these fools lap it all up. Every time.

Complete nonsense.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-07 11:23 AM | Reply

Seriously, how many anti-stories have the MSM botched? I've lost count.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ

Maybe you shouldn't ignore how many were right.

You'd look less foolish.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-07 11:38 AM | Reply

Here's how the right handles the accusations against Trump. If they tell an alternative lie and enough of them repeat it they then honestly begin to believe it is true, as in Ukraine not Russia meddled in our elections in 2016. It's utter horse crap but enough of them are repeating so, in their distorted, right wing minds it becomes true.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-07 11:53 AM | Reply

Complete nonsense.
#12 | POSTED BY JPW

Here is just the 10 most embarrassing.... just on Russia-Trump

theintercept.com

#15 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-07 12:05 PM | Reply

Here is one just retracted recently...

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell retracts report that Trump loan had Russian signers
www.washingtonpost.com

Pretty sure that made the DR FRont page .... never saw the retraction did you?

#16 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-07 12:07 PM | Reply

Here is one where someone lost their job ... but who cares right?

Damage has been done

Bloomberg Law retracts report on Trump Labor official's social media posts one month after backlash
www.foxnews.com

#17 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-07 12:08 PM | Reply

The left wing media knows you click on anything Anti-Trump ...

Knowing for dolts, the accusation is more important than the truth.

It really makes the climate change -------- look pretty sketchy as well, its not a good look if you "really" want to save the planet, to be going off the deep end over all these outlandish accusations.

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-07 12:11 PM | Reply

Here is just the 10 most embarrassing.... just on Russia-Trump

All you're doing is showing your confirmation bias.

www.aljazeera.com

See, I can do that too.

You focus on the leaks that were wrong in order to disregard all of them.

Because you're a hack who refuses to see or admit the obvious.

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-07 12:18 PM | Reply

The left wing media knows you click on anything Anti-Trump ...

They do jump the gun quite a bit, particularly when it comes to stupid, petty stuff.

Knowing for dolts, the accusation is more important than the truth.

LOL this from the guy who'll swallow anything Trump gives him.

Hey dolt, YOU are the dolt. You're being scammed like the sucker you are LOL

It really makes the climate change -------- look pretty sketchy as well

You don't know enough about it to make that claim.

Stick to things in your pay grade, like deflecting for Trump with obvious false BS.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-07 12:20 PM | Reply

Which stories about Trump gargling Putin's balls have turned out to be false?

Last week I posted a link that chronicled all of the discredited anti-Trump stories from 2017. I cannot find that link now and I can't find that post in my posting history.

I'll keep digging...

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-07 12:25 PM | Reply

Good.

---- Syria and ---- the Kurds.

If you got a problem with it and you love nation building so much, feel free to fly yourself down there and fight what you think is the good fight.

#22 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-10-07 12:52 PM | Reply

as in Ukraine not Russia meddled in our elections in 2016. It's utter horse crap but enough of them are repeating so, in their distorted, right wing minds it becomes true.

#14 | Posted by danni

Ya, this entire Ukraine mess began when Trump sent Giuliani to the Ukraine in an effort to get Putin off the hook for meddling in the 2016 election by attempting to place the blame on the Ukraine, who had absolutely no role whatsoever in the 2016 election.

It later morphed into Trump's extortion over military aid/dirt on Biden.

#23 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-07 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ukraine, who had absolutely no role whatsoever in the 2016 election.

They had one incident that did play a role: The disclosure of the secret ledger that showed Paul Manafort had received millions from the former corrupt officials/oligarchs which he did not claim on his US tax returns.

I don't think for a second that this disclosure played any role whatsoever in the electorate's voting decisions since obviously Trump's kitty-grabbing tape was released long after Manafort was gone.

But this is the original thread Giuliani and the Trump revisionists are falsely claiming shows Ukraine was out to get Trump. As usual, anything against any one of his minions has to be tied to those who might benefit from the disclosure's natural impact. Then voila, we have a manufactured faux scandal.

#24 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-07 03:53 PM | Reply

Everyone should ask themselves, "why is Trump so eager to get Putin off the hook for a wide ranging series of misdeeds?" The poisoning, 2016 election meddling, handing Syria to Putin, etc etc etc.

#25 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-07 04:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#24 | Posted by tonyroma,we have a manufactured faux scandal? The Ukraine gas company deal is not a fake, else why would a gas company hire a druggy who got kicked of the Navy for failing a drug test, later busted in Las Vegas for possession, who had no experience in the oil and gas industry what so ever, yet was worth 1.4 million a year for his "services". What is out in the wings coming in like a hurricane is a little hedge fund deal with the Chinese, which amounted to 1.5 billion. You can bet Biden believes that charity begins at home.

#26 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-10-08 06:50 AM | Reply

You can bet Biden believes that charity begins at home.

#26 | Posted by docnjo at 2

You create a scenario that's still many times less worse than what Trump and is family have done and are doing NOW.

If you believe this about the Bidens then I don't expect you to be supporting either Joe or Donald. So for the love of Mike stop defending Trump. It makes you look like a hack.

#27 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-08 08:12 AM | Reply

#26 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

What does "being a druggy" have to do with it? Republicans had a coke head run the country for 8 years. If you can be a druggy and be a Republican president, why do you think that should matter for someone on a board of directors.

Republicans don't have any real argument that Hunter Biden did anything untoward, so you stoop to character assassination.

#28 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-08 08:13 AM | Reply

Another un-named source strikes a again.

There is a new thing every day.

#29 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-10-08 12:22 PM | Reply

#29 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Why would anyone let themselves be named? It just means that they can rely untold Republicans prying into their personal lives and making up lies about them as an ad hominem to deflect from the information that the "source" released. You REALLY think it would be a good idea for them to come out publicly?

Look... we have actual whistleblowers (people following the legal process for airing government misconduct) coming out and Congress is scrambling to determine a way to protect them from Republican retaliation. "Sources" don't have that protection.

"Unnamed" is the only logical option (other than whisteblower) when you have scum in charge like the current conservatives in the White House.

YOU built that.

#30 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-08 01:45 PM | Reply

#27 | Posted by Zed That is always the rebuttal of the defenseless argument, "well they did worse". I have watched politicians retire much richer than when their carrier started. It is high time we impose term limits on the house and senate.
Now, describe under the rule of law what charges should be delivered to the Senate to impeach Trump? This is something the democrats have been screaming for before the damn Yankee ever took office and only cast light on many of the more unsavory aspects they have practiced for decades.

#31 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-10-08 01:59 PM | Reply

Now, describe under the rule of law what charges should be delivered to the Senate to impeach Trump?

#31 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Charges under "the rule of law"? You think this is a criminal proceeding?

Trump abused his office. He asked a foreign government to investigate his political opponent, while delaying aid to said foreign government. Look up "high crimes and misdemeanors".

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, including such offenses as tax evasion.

The word "High" refers to the office and not the offense. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute.

Now, Republicans may think that abusing your elected position for personal gain is expected (see Elaine Chao and Mitch McConnell), but the founding fathers did not think so. That is why impeachment exists. You may tolerate corruption in your elected officials, but Democrats don't. Corruption always works its way into any system with power and money, but at least Democrats fight it instead of excusing and defending it.

#32 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-08 03:59 PM | Reply

Now, describe under the rule of law what charges should be delivered to the Senate to impeach Trump?

#31 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Charges under "the rule of law"? You think this is a criminal proceeding?

Trump abused his office. He asked a foreign government to investigate his political opponent, while delaying aid to said foreign government. Look up "high crimes and misdemeanors".

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, including such offenses as tax evasion.

The word "High" refers to the office and not the offense. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute.

Now, Republicans may think that abusing your elected position for personal gain is expected (see Elaine Chao and Mitch McConnell), but the founding fathers did not think so. That is why impeachment exists. You may tolerate corruption in your elected officials, but Democrats don't. Corruption always works its way into any system with power and money, but at least Democrats fight it instead of excusing and defending it.

#33 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-08 03:59 PM | Reply

That is the thing that conservatives can't understand, and why Trump will be impeached. Clinton broke the law (lied under oath) but the public did not care because it did not make him a bad president. He committed his "crime" completely outside of the office of President. And Republicans got punished for concentrating totally the "crime".

Now they focus solely on whether Trump broke a law. Even though he is obviously abusing his position... therefore making him a "bad president". So they will sit here and defend what is obviously a person who is unfit for public office because they are caught up in whether what he did was illegal. And it makes it obvious that they are not the party of moral, or ethical. They are the party of "winning at all costs" (mainly because they are so used to losing that they will take ANY win).

They don't get it because that is their whole definition of "right" and "wrong". If it is illegal it is "wrong", otherwise it is "right". Anything else goes. For liberals, on the other hand, legal is the MINIMUM standard for our politicians. We also care about ethical and moral. Would I vote for Hunter Biden for elected office? Probably not. What he did was not illegal, but it was AT LEAST ethically ambiguous, and I would not want an ethically ambiguous person as my representative. But he does not represent me, and I have seen no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong (unlike Republicans, I don't believe in collective responsibility). If you can show Joe Biden did something wrong, go for it. Otherwise, lets focus on Trump who clearly abused his office by using it to target his political opponent.

#34 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-08 04:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#34 | Posted by gtbritishskull

Brilliant.

#35 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-08 05:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort