Breaking News: Dr. Anthony Fauci has tested positive

Someone ought to tell Trump that.

Citation please.

When I replied to him, I stated that his response would be to make defamatory remarks about Trump ultimately traceable to unknown sources, which is, of course, just what he then did.

The accusation that Trump called dead soldiers "losers" is from a New York Times article with anonymous sources, precisely as I predicted. An actual witness, John Bolton, has said that he was present for the event and that the president's decision not to go to the ceremony was based on his advisors' admonition about the weather and that the remarks attributed to him were fictitious. Bolton said, “I don’t know who told the author that, but that was false.” Just typical liberals lies to try to cancel someone.

Here is one: https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/

Stay away from comments about class, Bandon. You have none if you are a Trump supporter.

Trump certainly has none.

This why I usually don't bother with you: you support your arguments against mine someone else's words, usually a blog that is not reognized as a source of news.'

I trust NYT. I don't care if you don't.

What we are left with is a guy who's told 1000's of documented lies over the years. A guy who gets fact checked in real time.

So lets get back to the specific event that he denies and check out the truthfulness of his denial.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/03/report-trump-disparaged-us-war-dead-as-losers-suckers-2/

In denying disrespect of soldiers, Trump cites call to Melania. There’s just one problem.

PUBLISHED: September 5, 2020 at 8:58 a.m. | UPDATED: September 5, 2020 at 2:41 p.m.
By Holmes Lybrand, Tara Subramaniam and Kevin Liptak, CNN

(CNN) — President Donald Trump has vehemently denied reports that he skipped a 2018 visit to a World War I memorial in France because he was concerned about his hair and considered the cemetery “filled with losers,” as the Atlantic first reported.

Trump told reporters Thursday that he “called home” to Melania Trump at the time and told her how upset he was about not being able to visit the cemetery. At the time, the White House said he had to cancel the visit because of bad weather.

Trump said: “I called home, I spoke to my wife and I said, ‘I hate this. I came here to go to that ceremony.’ And to the one that was the following day, which I did go to. I said I feel terribly. And that was the end of it.”

But Melania Trump was not at “home” — she was on the trip with the president and was also scheduled to visit the cemetery.

A readout from the first lady’s office at the time said, “Due to inclement weather, the First Lady and President were unable to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery and Memorial in Belleau, France.”

He sure hooked up another date that I gaurentee included helicopters and/or motorcade PLUS dealing with the French security for Macron.

That evening, Trump and Melania went to a dinner hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron.

When the decision was made to cancel the visit to the Aisne-Marne cemetery, no aides cautioned Trump that it would play poorly, which he later blamed on Gen. John Kelly and one of Kelly’s top aides, Zach Fuentes. One person familiar with the discussions in the aftermath said Trump accused them of “f*cking him” by not predicting the inevitable fallout. Because if he had he'd have gone.

Aides said at the time that Trump did not push to attend the ceremony after being told he could not fly there in the helicopter and that traveling by motorcade would prove difficult logistically.

Kelly replaced Trump on the visit to the cemetery. How Kelly get there and Trump couldn't???

Instead of the visit, Trump spent hours on that Saturday afternoon watching television inside the US ambassador’s residence, people familiar with the situation said.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2020 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.


https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/03/report-trump-disparaged-us-war-dead-as-losers-suckers-2/

SNIP!
The allegations were first reported in The Atlantic. A senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press, including the 2018 cemetery comments.

The defense officials said Trump made the comments as he begged off visiting the cemetery outside Paris during a meeting following his presidential daily briefing on the morning of Nov. 10, 2018.

Staffers from the National Security Council and the Secret Service told Trump that rainy weather made helicopter travel to the cemetery risky, but they could drive there. Trump responded by saying he didn’t want to visit the cemetery because it was “filled with losers,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss it publicly.

SNIP!

Do you think that Trump has surrounded himself lying traitors?????
If he lied about the circumstances why wouldn't he lie about what he said especially once he found out the political cost of having not gone?

The rule is one bad apple ruins the barrel: you seem to think one good apple make a barrel of bad apples good.

He called John McCain a loser, why wouldn't he call the dead who can't defend themselves from Cadet Bonespurs suckers and losers?

Unverifiable, subjective name calling. Now that's low class.

You don't believe your lying eyes, right?

You think the partisan Catholics for Trump has less bias than the NYT????







Please.

I’m not mocking anyone there. You said I mock people all the time, but you can’t give examples.

Precisely as I predicted, you responded with defamatory remarks about the president based on unnamed sources. Bolton is a named source who was present for the incident and says the accusation is untrue. What are the names of the sources for the Atlantic story???

The left's standard operating procedure is to make false defamatory remarks about someone attributed to unnamed sources. Not exactly demonstrating that your ideas are superior based on calm, reasoned debate.

Yeah, from the man who regards it as a personal insult if asked to defend his assertions. Okay, here is one:



From:

https://able2know.org/topic/552731-1#post-7064794

Bolton isn't particularly known for his open minded partisanship, now is he?

John Bolton was not with the President personally for most of the trip was he????

Here, lets impeach your witness:

https://www.propublica.org/article/john-bolton-national-security-adviser-intelligence
John Bolton Skewed Intelligence, Say People Who Worked With Him

Former colleagues say the next national security adviser — whose job is to marshal information and present it to the president fairly — resists input that doesn’t fit his biases and retaliates against people he disagrees with.

by Sebastian Rotella March 30, 2018, 5 a.m. EDT

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stands in the elevator at Trump Tower in New York in December 2016. (Justin Lane/Pool via Bloomberg)

In early 2002, as the Bush administration hunted for Osama bin Laden, pressed its war in Afghanistan and set its sights on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, John Bolton saw another looming threat: that Cuba was secretly developing biological weapons.

Bolton, who was then the State Department’s undersecretary for arms control issues, included a warning about the Cuban threat in a draft of a speech and sent it around the department for the necessary clearance. A biological warfare analyst wrote back that Bolton’s proposed comments overstated what U.S. intelligence agencies really knew about the matter, and, as routinely happens, suggested some small changes.

The analyst was summoned to Bolton’s office. “He got very red in the face, and shaking his finger at me, and explained to me that I was acting way beyond my position,” the analyst, Christian Westermann, recalled later during a Senate inquiry. Bolton then demanded that Westermann’s supervisor remove him permanently from the biological weapons portfolio, thundering that “he wasn’t going to be told what he could say by a mid-level munchkin.”

Last week, President Donald Trump named Bolton to be his new national security adviser, a job that would arguably make him the government’s most important arbiter of competing views on foreign policy and a key judge of what intelligence information reaches the president on the most serious threats to national security.

The nomination — which does not require Senate confirmation — has drawn attention mainly for Bolton’s combative bureaucratic style and the hawkish views he has espoused in three Republican administrations and as a Fox News analyst. Among other ideas, Bolton has advocated overthrowing the Islamic government of Iran, bombing that country’s nuclear facilities, and (just last month) taking preemptive military action against North Korea.

But many foreign policy experts, including some who worked closely with him, argue that the more significant issue for Bolton’s new role may be his history as a consumer of intelligence that does not conform to his views, and the lengths to which he has sometimes gone to try to suppress analyses that he sees as wrong or misinformed.

An examination of Bolton’s record, based on interviews with some of his former colleagues and the Senate hearings on his nomination in 2005 to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, reveal a tendency to aggressively embrace intelligence that supported his positions, while discounting information that undercut those views. The confrontations that arose from that approach have often been ascribed to partisanship or sharp elbows, but even some conservative veterans of the Bush administration accused Bolton of exaggerating, minimizing or cherry-picking intelligence information to bolster his policy positions, and of retaliating to try to silence intelligence professionals with whom he disagreed.

Classic Brandon ad hominem from the guy who NEVER insults.

Citations, please.

It was deserved. Oristar and I have a history. He gets ideas in his head which he insists are true. One such notion was that the outcome of the American Revolution explained why America is so much more religious that Britain.

Now both Setanta and I provided loads of sources proving why that was not the case, and I mean loads, pages of the stuff. Not only would he not have any ofit he got really nasty and really insulting.

I don’t mock people for their appearance or way of talking.

Oralloy had asked a bloody stupid question and as he’s a nasty piece of work he deserved the response he got.

You fail to mention I answered his bloody stupid question for him. If he had to rely on you he’d be none the wiser.

You sealion, you waste people’s time asking them to give citations for things that are widely reported and are common knowledge. You’’re not asking for proof of someone's personal opinion at all.

You are the master of sealioning on A2K. It’s a tactic right wing websites advocate, to slow down debate and make their opponents waste time.

Its not insulting if someone is truly begging for it.

Exactly, I had years of posts with Oristar where I helped him until he went mad over his American Revolution theory.

Another thing I find interesting about you and your pals is you don't believe anonymous sources in the White House quoted in the NYT but you will gobble a **** nugget from "Q" in an a New York second.

James O’Keefe labels New York Times “Propaganda Vortex”



The New York Times has zero credibility. Whenever they release bombshell accusations, they always come from "anonymous sources". How convenient...

Sorry, when did I do that? This is a very specific charge. Please show me where I did that. I have never made a post about "Q" at any time in my life. Do you make accusations without making the slightest effort to see if they're true? Where is my post about Q?

https://able2know.org/topic/549289-3#post-7057462