The judge is back on fox, stands by his sources

That should tell you something

Where there is smoke, there is fire

I recall he was "taken off the air" based on threads on the TD. But I forget the issue - anyone care to give a one-sentence description to revive my memory cell.

quote:

---

O RLY?

-Democrats regarding Russia

---

Then why aren't they up in arms about Clinton's deals with China, Russia, hell Haiti

quote:

---

Then why aren't they up in arms about Clinton's deals with China, Russia, hell Haiti

---

Probably because she's largely irrelevant

Anyway, I'm rejecting the idea that smoke=fire.

quote:

---

Probably because she's largely irrelevant

Anyway, I'm rejecting the idea that smoke=fire.

---

Point taken

quote:

---

You mean including involvement from trump? Where's the smoke? Besides.... muh Russians.

---

It's smoke. Smoke usually doesn't involve ties to the principal. That's why it's smoke, not fire.

Smoke = Multiple, odd hires with very questionable ties to Russia, overly obsequious toward Putin, responding to questions about Russia's human rights record with flustered "well we're worse!" responses, receiving some level of benefit from WikiLeaks.

Anyone who tho nd a judge and man of his character and life achievements, would go on the highest rated cable program in history, and fabricate a story that had no truth....well, that person or those people would be some of the most ignorant, moronic people on Earth.
To think there was zero truth in his words is laughable. Now he's back and doubling down...that should tell you all you need to know. FOX is satisfied of its validity by putting him back on and letting him comment.

Now to the dissenters. Is it possible some of his info is bad? Sure it is. But to fool yourself and believe there is no truth...well, you know

quote:

---

Anyone who tho nd a judge and man of his character and life achievements, would go on the highest rated cable program in history, and fabricate a story that had no truth

---

Even if the story is false, I don't think he fabricated it. However, because he's not a journalist, he is given leeway on what he can discuss, without requiring verification. So even it true, he wouldn't have been allowed to report it without verification if he was a typical journalist.