Skip to content


I wonder why people keep falling for the old repetition trick. You know, where someone repeats a falsehood often enough that people think it is true.

Tom Tomorrow
© Tom Tomorrow


  1. Anonymous wrote:

    So I guess your also referring to Adam Schiff repeatedstatements thats he’s seen substantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russians. Over and over, along with most of the media.

    Lets review facts and compare the cases of:
    1. Trump collusion with the Russians and
    2. Hillary’s storage of classified government documents in her house.

    Let’s start with case #2.
    No Special Prosecutor, no independent lawyers, no subpoena’s, no interviews of witnesses, no signing or cyber collection, no wire taps, no phone records collected, no staff investigated. There was one (tried to be secret) meeting between the ex president on a tarmac away from prying eyes, with the AG to catch up on “the grand kids”. And the case was dismissed a week later. With the reason being, while there was clear evidence of wrong doing, we don’t think it rose to the level of criminal intent. Case closed. And the media cheered. And Bill’s meeting with the AG was not “collusion”? Laughable.

    Case #2: A 2 year investigation by a special prosecutor with 20 of the best attorney’s he could find. 40 full time FBI agents plus forensic experts, intelligence analysts and staff. 2800 subpoena’s, 500 witnesses interviewed, wire taps, signals and cyber collection, pen registers, and a majority of media figures, Congress folk, ex cia directors and intelligence chiefs, saying over and over and over that there’s collusion beyond a doubt.
    Special Prosecutors exhaustive conclusion: there was no evidence of collusion by Trump, his campaign or staff that could be found. And as to obstruction there was no determination either guilty or not guilty.
    (Because you can’t have obstruction if there is no crime to obstruct)

    I don’t know, you tell me. If your honest, you’d probably say we should lock her up and give her a cell next to military folks in jail for the same offenses.

    It’s time to let go, your team has lost twice now. But if the mindless table keeps up at least we’ll have Trump for another 5 1/2 years and probably Winn back the House. So please, keep it up.

    Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
  2. Iron Knee wrote:

    Wow, talk about cherry picking. Mueller’s investigation indicted 34 people for actual, serious crimes. Five associates of Trump have been convicted and are serving time. One more (Roger Stone) is awaiting trial.

    You say “there was no evidence of collusion by Trump, his campaign or staff”. The report doesn’t say that at all.

    Yes, it is time to let go. Let go of Benghazi, of the email server (which was investigated by the FBI and others).

    You have not seen the report. All you have seen is a document written by an Attorney General who was hand picked by Trump for his loyalty.

    If you’re honest, you will be appalled by all the direct evidence of crimes committed by Trump, his family, his staff, and his campaign. And all the lies.

    Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
  3. paradoctor wrote:

    First the crime. (“Russia, if you’re listening…”)
    Then the obstruction.
    Then the cover-up.
    Then the lies.

    All 100% predictable. Next up: drip… drip… drip…

    Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 9:55 am | Permalink
  4. Iron Knee wrote:

    Oh, and Anonymous, you are wrong when you assert “you can’t have obstruction if there is no crime to obstruct”. First of all, you don’t obstruct the crime, you obstruct justice. Second of all, what brought Nixon down was obstruction of justice, not any particular crime.


    Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 10:34 am | Permalink
  5. Jonah wrote:

    Here’s George Conway himself on the verdict–of-being-unfit-for-office/2019/03/26/0b5f851e-4ffd-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html

    Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
  6. Anonymous wrote:

    Well then how do you know this:

    You say “there was no evidence of collusion by Trump, his campaign or staff”. The report doesn’t say that at all.

    Since you haven’t seen the report either? But you assert that “you know”. Sounds like double speak.

    Lastly, how many crimes would a proper investigation (unrelated to the original charge) would have been found if everyone around the clintons was investigated as thoroughly as Trumps crew? Would they have charged Huma and Anthony for possessing classified info on their personal computer. How about Bill’s excursion’s with Jeffrey Epstein? How about Bill’s meeting with the AG? How about Bill’s paid Russia speech and the subsequent approval by Hillary of the Russian Uranium One deal? And on and on.

    I hope they do release the full document. Since you allege that the current AG just lies and put out a false synopsis of Muellers report.

    Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 1:58 pm | Permalink
  7. Anonymous wrote:

    One last thing. If the hack congressman Schiff has, in his own words, substantial and significant evidence of “Trumps Collusion”, why didn’t he turn it over to Mueller? I mean he must be smarter then 20 Attorneys and 40 FBI agents.

    Or maybe he’s a deep state Trump supporter and was just trying to embarrass Mueller. Who was hailed as the best pick to lead the investigation and of the highest integrity when he was chosen. That Schiff dude missed his chance to bag the big guy.

    Your still 0-2. If you know of any collusion why didn’t you give it to Mueller? Or CNN or your girl Maddow?

    I know, you don’t have nothin. Just like the party of open borders, infantacide, socialism and anti semitism.

    Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 2:30 pm | Permalink
  8. paradoctor wrote:

    If the report exonerates Trump (spoiler alert: Barr says it doesn’t) then why doesn’t Barr release it? And why is the utterly corrupt McConnell blocking its release?

    Trump’s victory lap lasted 15 minutes. The sour taste of the report’s absence persists and increases. I see that we both want it released.

    You want evidence of collusion? Try this: the orange conman said on video, “Russia, if you’re listening…”; and the very next day Russian hackers went to work.

    Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 7:19 pm | Permalink
  9. Anonymous wrote:

    Oh jeez. What a joke.

    Try again, still 0-2.

    Why didn’t Shady Schiff give his evidence to Mueller?

    Cause there is none.

    I understand your suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), but you really need to find a hobby. The sun came up today, and it will come up tomorrow. And the birds are singing in the morning. It’s anothher beautiful day!

    Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
  10. Mad Hatter wrote:

    Do these talking points come from Mockba Comrade? If not, you’re sure carrying their water. And, btw,it really isn’t a game nor should there be two “sides”….our democracy is at stake.

    Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 6:16 pm | Permalink
  11. Anonymous wrote:

    Yep, from the biased media, the deep blue state and the flagrant misconduct of the democrat party.

    The democrat party more closely resembles the Venezuelan Maduro government wanting to silence all opposition.

    Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 7:11 pm | Permalink
  12. Iron Knee wrote:

    Anonymous, since you appear to be new here, I should let you know that this site is different from others. You have already noticed that we don’t require people to have an account to post comments, nor even to identify themselves with a name. But we do expect people to make valid arguments and engage in reasonable discussions. As long as you just resort to name calling (“Shady Shiff”) or just spewing out Republican talking points, you aren’t going to change many minds here, so you are wasting your time.

    We do have conservatives and staunch Republicans who contribute to this site, and you are welcome to join them in the discussions. Just try to keep to real evidence, and tone down the personal attacks. ok?

    Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 7:26 pm | Permalink
  13. Anonymous wrote:

    Understood, but why aren’t calling out Paradoctor who uses an equally degrading term when referring to the President
    “orange conman”.
    I can only surmise its because Schiff is A Dem And the President is not. Is that not the definition of hypocrisy?

    As to Paradoctors claim that because the report has not been released belies a lack of understanding. The report almost certainly contains grand jury data and they contain secret and sensitive information that requires redaction. When that doesn’t occur, innocent people can be harmed, particularly in today’s in your face world.
    Point in case is the Lewinsky incident, when the report was released without redaction and the Clinton machine destroyed the poor young lady.
    There were 1000’s of subpoenas, many court order for signals collection, bank records with PII, and other information that could be weaponized.
    So yeah, I can talk facts, if facts are discussed here in a meaningful way. And please for your contributors do not cite the “Steele Dossier” as proof. Mainly because it is a completely fabricated piece of political $#!@. That has been completely debunked. And if your crew thinks a funny (really funny) joke made on live TV at a Presidential debate was an actual order to Putin to give back Hillary’s lost 30,000 emails, then all is lost.
    And that translates to no evidence.

    Likewise, if contributors are allowed to make false and unsubstantiated claims, like collusion, i’d Say they are not sourcing their comments either.

    Friday, March 29, 2019 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
  14. paradoctor wrote:

    I call the orange conman an orange conman because 1) he’s orange; for evidence, use your eyes: and 2) he’s a conman; for evidence, consider Trump University.

    For more evidence, consider this: which of his campaign promises, good or bad, has he delivered on? Build the wall? No, thank goodness. Lock her up? No, thank goodness. Restore working-class jobs? No. Repeal and replace? No. Defend Medicaid? No. Drain the swamp? Hell, no. Make America great? Hell, no. He’s nice to rich sociopaths and foreign tyrants, but you’re neither.

    By the way, the Steele dossier has not been debunked at all. Video evidence of the fun, gross, and sexy part has not appeared; but all of the meetings with crooked oligarchs have been corroborated. So the attention-catching part is not proven; but the boring substantive part is.

    I agree that open solicitation of espionage is hilarious; and it was even funnier when Russian hackers broke into the DNC files later that very day. The orange conman likes cracking such jokes; he’s a funny man. Really, really funny.

    Well, one jest deserves another, and the House will soon be issuing lots of amusing subpoenas. Just as side-splitting are the 17 ongoing state investigations.

    Friday, March 29, 2019 at 4:24 pm | Permalink
  15. Anonymous wrote:

    So site moderator IK anything to add?

    Friday, March 29, 2019 at 4:59 pm | Permalink
  16. Anonymous wrote:

    Paradoctor, name one thing in the Dossier that has been proven correct. Please site your response.

    Friday, March 29, 2019 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
  17. Anonymous wrote:

    And here are some sources that debunk your un substantiated claims:

    Friday, March 29, 2019 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
  18. Iron Knee wrote:

    Anonymous, thanks for posting links.

    Now, if both sides could just calm down a bit so we can have a constructive (and a little more polite) discussion. Then maybe we can find some truth.


    Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 12:20 am | Permalink
  19. paradoctor wrote:

    From Wikipedia:
    25 =
    26 =
    27 =

    Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 1:36 am | Permalink
  20. paradoctor wrote:

    Text didn’t post. Retry:

    In May 2018, former career intelligence officer James Clapper stated that “more and more” of the dossier had been validated over time.[25] Overall, some allegations of the dossier have been corroborated,[26] others remain unverified and, according to a December 2018 Lawfare retrospective, “none of [the dossier], to our knowledge, has been disproven.”[27] Some parts of the dossier may require access to classified information for verification.[28][29]

    Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 1:38 am | Permalink
  21. paradoctor wrote:

    Anonymous’s first link shows a curiously mislabeled news story. It speaks of manufacturing jobs; but this was fifth on the list, behind education and health services, leisure and hospitality, professional and business services, and construction. Why this emphasis on #5 escapes me.

    The second link shows that Hispanic poverty rate has been falling since 2010. Pre-Trump.

    The third link leads to a paywall. Pass.

    Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 2:00 am | Permalink
  22. Anonymous wrote:

    Here is a key part on your article #1

    “Clapper stressed that the dossier was never used as a source for the 2017 intelligence community assessment”

    That has now been proven false;

    Republican Senator Rand Paul is calling on former CIA director John Brennan to testify before Congress after it was revealed he insisted the fake Steele dossier be included in the intelligence report

    I,ll work on the the rest, heading to work now. While Clapper said what he did, he never actually provided any proof.
    Brennan is also on the record (don’t have the source but will provide)as stating “he was told Mueller had proof”. He then later said he might have been given bad information. And that, from the former CIA director, who’s job it is to sort out the truth. Think back to when CIA and all the other intel agencies told Bush and Powell that there were WMDs in Iraq. (there had been,but Hussein moved them out)

    What did that blunder by the intelligence community cost our country?

    Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 6:23 am | Permalink
  23. Iron Knee wrote:

    Ah, I see where you are getting your news from. See

    You say “That has now been proven false”. I don’t see any proof even offered. Just an accusation from a somewhat unreliable source that is known for toting water for Trump.

    Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 8:12 pm | Permalink
  24. Anonymous wrote:

    So does that mean any reporting form these sites should not be taken seriously or ignored?

    Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 7:57 am | Permalink
  25. Iron Knee wrote:

    The media bias site rates news sites based on two measures — their bias and their veracity. The second is the most important one.

    For example, I often use Electoral-vote as a source. They have a left bias, but they rate very highly for factual reporting (according to Media Bias they have never failed a fact check).

    Even so, there are plenty of sites in this list that I do not trust, and others that I take with a big grain of salt. Typically, if I see an article from one of these sites, I will corroborate the story with a more reliable or less biased source.

    You (and everyone else) should do the same.

    Other good sources include Political Wire (who rate both “least biased” and “factually high”), and Politico (same ratings as Political Wire). For fact checking, Fact Check and Snopes are both excellent. I also like to read Axios (which is kind of a spinoff from Politico), even though they have a slight left bias (but are rated factually high). If a site is rated “factually mixed” (or worse) I try to avoid using them as a source. The bias rating is generally most useful for keeping in mind when you read their stories (as opposed to a reason for ignoring them).

    I hope this helps.

    Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 8:25 am | Permalink
  26. Anonymous wrote:

    Great info, thanks!

    For most (nonpolitical) sourcing I prefer to try and find some .gov site.

    The only draw back is it tends to not come with much statistical analysis, which is usually done by a 3rd party like a university. The other problem, particularly crime data, takes years to collect the demographic components. The only issue with that is sometimes how and what data they used for their analysis. Which can skewer results one way or the other. It’s also been my experience that more then a few “studies” based on real data have cherry picked to substantiate their hypothesis.

    And that makes it challenging to get to the truth.

    Most political “wedge data” ie. Pro-choice vs Pro-life comes down to personal opinion and choice. Which leaves the result as neither right or wrong.

    Thanks, I’ll keep checking back and BTW Alex Jones is a wacko. (Just my opinion)

    Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 11:33 am | Permalink
  27. Iron Knee wrote:

    You’re welcome! And you are more than welcome to contribute to this site.

    And you’re right, wedge issues have no right or wrong. But there is still the (fact-free) evidence used to back up an opinion that can be evaluated.

    Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 11:14 pm | Permalink