Van Jones "Russia is a nothingburger" - Project Veritas

[Madmick]

Yes, the left (which includes almost all MSM) is motivated by a patriotic desire to protect our national security... right. Their fervent hope is to get Trump impeached or to damage him as much as possible. They'd stop at nothing to get that done--including fabricating stuff. The MSM's hate for Trump is what motivates their entire political programming.

This persecution complex has nothing to do with the validity of the FBI Russian investigation and the (currently not fully understood or known) malfeasance of Trump's advisers.

 

[HereticBD]

Denial of what?

His opinion given in the edited video clip, that some were questioning as being suspect.

 

[Madmick]

His opinion given in the edited video clip, that some were questioning as being suspect.

Again...denial of what?

 

[vespasian]

This persecution complex has nothing to do with the validity of the FBI Russian investigation and the (currently not fully understood or known) malfeasance of Trump's advisers.

did I mention the fbi?

 

[HereticBD]

Again...denial of what?

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

 

[Madmick]

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

Sure you do. You just don't want to give it shape.

did I mention the fbi?

No, I did. Are we ignoring that they're the ones who have determined that an investigation is warranted?

 

[HereticBD]

Sure you do. You just don't want to give it shape.

Okay, I'll give it shot, just for you.

In the clip in the OP, he says the Russian story is a nothingburger. Some, understandably so, questioned the editing of the clip, and that maybe he was talking about a specific aspect of the Russian story, and that the opinion given was taken out of context. In his reply, he doesn't appear to refute that he thinks the whole Russian story is indeed a nothingburger.

 

[Madmick]

Okay, I'll give it shot, just for you.

In the clip in the OP, he says the Russian story is a nothingburger. Some, understandably so, questioned the editing of the clip, and that maybe he was talking about a specific aspect of the Russian story, and that the opinion given was taken out of context. In his reply, he doesn't appear to refute that he thinks the whole Russian story is indeed a nothingburger.

You were good up until this part. No, that's not what he said at all in the reply video.

He made it clear that "Democrats are fooling themselves" if "they think this Russian investigation" will produce a "Presidency-ending" revelation in the scandal. He quite concretely pointed out at the beginning of the reply video that he was happy there was a Russian investigation and believes it is necessary/well-founded.

 

[HereticBD]

You were good up until this part. No, that's not what he said at all in the reply video.

He made it clear that "Democrats are fooling themselves" if "they think this Russian investigation" will produce a "Presidency-ending" revelation in the scandal. He quite concretely pointed out at the beginning of the reply video that he was happy there was a Russian investigation and believes it is necessary/well-founded.

Are you and I talking about the same video? The one you posted? Because he doesn't say anything like that. Like, at all.

Are you sure you posted the right video? Even I was a little confused at him talking about the "Obama coalition" being a rebuttal to the OP. It was kind of related, so I was thinking it could be a reply, but it doesn't jive with what you're saying.

 

[Madmick]

Are you and I talking about the same video? The one you posted? Because he doesn't say anything like that. Like, at all.

Are you sure you posted the right video? Even I was a little confused at him talking about the "Obama coalition" being a rebuttal to the OP.

Oh, shit, LOL, no, it's not the right video. I didn't watch it before posting because it was the most recent in his feed and I could tell it was from the exact shoot for the video I watched (same clothes/background/etc). It's just an edited selection from a different part of the video. Sorry, a pro-Trump friend and I were discussing this in mobile message, but I posted from a desktop. He had sent me the original Van Jones reply video. I'll track it down and post it.

 

[Madmick]

Fuck me, @HereticBD, it's telling me the page doesn't exist. Here is a manual copy of the HTML address from my mobile conversation:

*Edit* Okay, well nvm, there it is. I got a page missing error when I tried entering the URL in a different tab, but I entered it here in this post, and there it is. This is the sequence of that video I intended to reference above.

 

[HereticBD]

Fuck me, @HereticBD, it's telling me the page doesn't exist. Here is a manual copy of the HTML address from my mobile conversation:


*Edit* Okay, nvm, I got an page missing error when I tried entering the URL in a different tab, but I entered it here in this post, and there it is. This is the sequence of that video I intended to reference above.

Doesn't sound like much of a backtrack TBH. He essentially says he believes it's going to turn up nothing of substance, and Dems should stop wasting their time with it. So, while he may claim he's happy an investigation is happening, he believes it's ultimately going to lead nowhere and the absurd amount of attention it's getting from Dems is pointless and counterproductive.

Nothingburger is an apt description of his feelings on the matter.

 

[Madmick]

Doesn't sound like much of a backtrack TBH. He essentially says he believes it's going to turn up nothing of substance, and Dems should stop wasting their time with it. So, while he may claim he's happy an investigation is happening, he believes it's ultimately going to lead nowhere and the absurd amount of attention it's getting from Dems is pointless and counterproductive.

Nothingburger is an apt description of his feelings on the matter.

It's an incredibly short statement that doesn't require this sort of paraphrasing reduction. No, he didn't say this.

He said he didn't believe a "smoking gun" would come out of the investigation that would end Trump's Presidency. That isn't at all tantamount to saying that he doesn't think it is warranted or that nothing of substance will be yielded by it. It's quite specific. If that's what "nothingburger" defines, groovy, but that doesn't contradict the validity and seriousness of the investigation itself.

 

[HereticBD]

It's an incredibly short statement that doesn't require this sort of paraphrasing reduction. No, he didn't say this.

He said he didn't believe a "smoking gun" would come out of the investigation that would end Trump's Presidency. That isn't at all tantamount to saying that he doesn't think it is warranted or that nothing of substance will be yielded by it. It's quite specific. If that's what "nothingburger" defines, groovy, but that doesn't contradict the validity and seriousness of the investigation itself.

Van Jones isn't the authority on the gravity of the situation, but he clearly does think nothing of real substance is going to come from this, and given the other video you posted, he's clearly a little annoyed that Dems are wasting so much effort on this, as he put it, nothingburger.

I don't see how you think he doesn't think it's, in the grand scheme of things, a big waste of time that will ultimately yield nothing that will benefit the Dems.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Then you definitely missed or forgot about my criticism of Hillary. As many have pointed out, though, Colin Powell also managed his servers in such a vulnerable fashion, and people like Huckabee (while in accordance with the law) were no more secure with regard to state secrets. Furthermore, Clinton's vulnerability was exploited by the Russians, was it not? It's not like this stuff doesn't overlap.

I am one of the only people I know who has been consistently concerned with regard to all. I gladly would rate my concern with Trump as greater than my concern with Clinton, but they're both crooks. I've said it. Do you hear any of the #Trumpets admitting that he's a crook? He is.

#TrumpU

tbf my first sentence was 'not singling you out'

just more the overall sense I have got of things, especially on SM. That 'NowThis' shit on FB got annoying like the first day, now it's just patently absurd

 

[Madmick]

Van Jones isn't the authority on the gravity of the situation, but he clearly does think nothing of real substance is going to come from this, and given the other video you posted, he's clearly a little annoyed that Dems are wasting so much effort on this, as he put it, nothingburger.

I don't see how you think he doesn't think it's, in the grand scheme of things, a big waste of time that will ultimately yield nothing that will benefit the Dems.

I don't care. I don't watch CNN. I don't watch any cable or TV news outside my local coverage except clips (as of Carlson's show) that get discussed here or by my friends in closed message groups on Messenger/Whatsapp/SMS. I prefer to read. Flipboard is my primary MSM (and non-MSM) fix, so everything to me is story by story. I fucking hate Twitter.

The notion that the network should completely stop coverage of an actual FBI investigation of our own administration pertaining to national security is absurd.

All of you come off as whiners to me who simply complain a story exists depending on whether or not it aligns with your politics, and not whether or not it has factual basis, or a reasonable basis to be covered. You don't argue the facts of the matter. Rather, you guys merely identify which team it is fielded for, and then attack the very fact that it exists and the team/body that fielded it as if that has merit. It doesn't. Simply because liberals make an argument doesn't make it #fakenews any more than it would if a conservative did. It's the substance itself that must be debated. That's why you were all impugning the allegation that Russia hacked the election as #fakenews last year, and none of you yet has the character to admit that networks like CNN and MSNBC quite legitimately covered it when you wanted them to go away. It's factual.

If you guys don't like CNN's coverage, or think that it is too obsessed with one particular topic, then do what I do, and turn it off. Don't click the link. It's called Capitalism. It's called freedom.

In the meantime, if you wish to complain about a network, then I suggest you focus on a misrepresentation of the facts, or simply voice your disagreement with its editorial character. For example, when Hannity presents certain videos that are years old as if they were recent for one of his pulpit montages, liberals decry it, and rightly so. That's fair. When Hannity ceaselessly plays partisan politics with his coverage, and they bemoan the lack of a "fair and balanced" perspective from him, that's fair, and so too is it for conservatives on the other foot. That's the nature of editorialism.

What isn't appropriate is simply writing off any argument that Hannity presents simply because Hannity was the one who voiced it, or more broadly FOX News. What isn't appropriate is silencing them due to sheer politics. We've seen the devastation associated with that sort of character destruction, and so far the right has suffered most acutely. One would think rightists would protest it (I do). Just because FOX is conservative doesn't make it #fakenews; doesn't make it an entity that we should "war" against and seek to destroy with extreme prejudice. The idea isn't to "war" against journalism just because it has a conservative or liberal tilt. These tilts are inevitable, so war against them is war against journalism itself.

Such prejudice is better reserved for news outlets with atrocious records of accuracy. Breitbart and Huffington Post would be the most successful examples, and even they aren't so bad I would argue to silence them. This prejudice is better reserved for bodies that abuse copyright law, or routinely violate nonpartisan codes of conduct and ethics. That would be like all the fringe Alt-Right or Regressive Leftist sources that gave birth to the phrase "fake news" as on Facebook last year, and produced a rate of roughly 36% bullshit for pro-conservative coverage and 19% bullshit for pro-liberal coverage on Facebook's trending stories last year. The Palmer Luckey bullshit.

But you aren't concerned about that stuff. You aren't concerned about the real fake news. You're sitting there with a perma-tampon over CNN. To quote Trump: it's sad.

 

[HereticBD]

I don't care. I don't watch CNN. I don't watch any cable or TV news outside my local coverage except clips (as of Carlson's show) that get discussed here or by my friends in closed message groups on Messenger/Whatsapp/SMS. I prefer to read. Flipboard is my primary MSM (and non-MSM) fix, so everything to me is story by story. I fucking hate Twitter.

The notion that the network should completely stop coverage of an actual FBI investigation of our own administration pertaining to national security is absurd.

All of you come off as whiners to me who simply complain a story exists depending on whether or not it aligns with your politics, and not whether or not it has factual basis, or a reasonable basis to be covered. You don't argue the facts of the matter. Rather, you guys merely identify which team it is fielded for, and then attack the very fact that it exists and the team/body that fielded it as if that has merit. It doesn't. Simply because liberals make an argument doesn't make it #fakenews any more than it would if a conservative did. It's the substance itself that must be debated. That's why you were all impugning the allegation that Russia hacked the election as #fakenews last year, and none of you yet has the character to admit that networks like CNN and MSNBC quite legitimately covered it when you wanted them to go away. It's factual.

If you guys don't like CNN's coverage, or think that it is too obsessed with one particular topic, then do what I do, and turn it off. Don't click the link. It's called Capitalism. It's called freedom.

In the meantime, if you wish to complain about a network, then I suggest you focus on a misrepresentation of the facts, or simply voice your disagreement with its editorial character. For example, when Hannity presents certain videos that are years old as if they were recent for one of his pulpit montages, liberals decry it, and rightly so. That's fair. When Hannity ceaselessly plays partisan politics with his coverage, and they bemoan the lack of a "fair and balanced" perspective from him, that's fair, and so too is it for conservatives on the other foot. That's the nature of editorialism.

What isn't appropriate is simply writing off any argument that Hannity presents simply because Hannity was the one who voiced it, or more broadly FOX News. What isn't appropriate is silencing them due to sheer politics. We've seen the devastation associated with that sort of character destruction, and so far the right has suffered most acutely. One would think rightists would protest it (I do). Just because FOX is conservative doesn't make it #fakenews; doesn't make it an entity that we should "war" against and seek to destroy with extreme prejudice. The idea isn't to "war" against journalism just because it has a conservative or liberal tilt. These tilts are inevitable, so war against them is war against journalism itself.

Such prejudice is better reserved for news outlets with atrocious records of accuracy. Breitbart and Huffington Post would be the most successful examples, and even they aren't so bad I would argue to silence them. This prejudice is better reserved for bodies that abuse copyright law, or routinely violate nonpartisan codes of conduct and ethics. That would be like all the fringe Alt-Right or Regressive Leftist sources that gave birth to the phrase "fake news" as on Facebook last year, and produced a rate of roughly 36% bullshit for pro-conservative coverage and 19% bullshit for pro-liberal coverage on Facebook's trending stories last year. The Palmer Luckey bullshit.

But you aren't concerned about that stuff. You aren't concerned about the real fake news. You're sitting there with a perma-tampon over CNN. To quote Trump: it's sad.

Jesus Christ, calm down. It's not my fault you decided to stick you're neck out for CNN at the precise moment they got exposed as bullshit artists.

You turned a simple response to what I believe Van Jones thinks, into whatever the fuck that^^^ is. Take a lap. If you truly don't care about about CNN, and how they do their reporting, then act like it.

 

[Madmick]

Jesus Christ, calm down. It's not my fault you decided to stick you're neck out for CNN at the precise moment they got exposed as bullshit artists.

You turned a simple response to what I believe Van Jones thinks, into whatever the fuck that^^^ is. Take a lap. If you truly don't care about about CNN, and how they do their reporting, then act like it.

It's not my fault you cried for a year about CNN fabricating the Russian hacking scandal, and then had to be told by your God-King himself that Russia did it.

I don't care much how CNN reports. I do care about people calling legitimate news stories-- particularly the FBI Russian investigation that involves many people at the highest level of our government-- "fake news" merely because CNN reports on them. I do care about people arguing that Trump (or the fringe news outlet most supportive of him) is a more reliable source than CNN. It's a fucking joke.

 

[Ruprecht]

Then you definitely missed or forgot about my criticism of Hillary. As many have pointed out, though, Colin Powell also managed his servers in such a vulnerable fashion, and people like Huckabee (while in accordance with the law) were no more secure with regard to state secrets. Furthermore, Clinton's vulnerability was exploited by the Russians, was it not? It's not like this stuff doesn't overlap.

I am one of the only people I know who has been consistently concerned with regard to all. I gladly would rate my concern with Trump as greater than my concern with Clinton, but they're both crooks. I've said it. Do you hear any of the #Trumpets admitting that he's a crook? He is.

#TrumpU

Trumpets seem to forget (or never knew) that these same accusations were being leveled at Trumps advisors before they were Trumps advisors.
Manafort and Davis drew the same criticism when they were advising McCain, despite the fact that McCain was always stridently opposed to Russia.
Carter Page was well established as an advocate of Russian interests, as was Michael Flynn.
The fact that all these known pro-Russia advisers coalesced around Trump (all that was missing was Dana Rohrabacher), given Trumps pronouncements on Foreign Policy during his campaign and the history of Russian interference, of course it should be investigated.

 

[dfoster]

from my mobile conversation:

hey, he's pretty fair minded here.