Um...nope...he declared war on them.
Who, exactly, are you quoting? Oh. Bwaaahahahaha! You're quoting conservative commenter, disgraced ex agent John Schindler, a total nutjob fired for witness intimidation, sexual assault, sending dick picks, , blackmail, and pure insane hatred of Muslims. Great source....for bullshit.
Jesus..."deep state". You really drank the coolaid and asked for seconds, didn'tcha? When are you going to bring up pizzagate, the Clinton murders, and the horrifically sad fish people Obama created?

Facepalm.

He doesn't own most of the properties that bear his name, in case you're confused. In fact, there's no evidence that he owns any of them since he won't release any financial information.
I'll admit, he was great at selling his name as a brand, but today his name is Mud. Watch how many skyscrapers or clubs he puts his name on after he's out of office.

That's not what Republican senators are saying, many have started using the "I" word in public.
BTW....Hillary DID win the election, but lost the electoral college...something you seem to have forgotten because you believe Trump when he says he won by the biggest margin ever and there were 3 million fraudulent votes, all for Clinton (even though the only one actually found voted twice for Trump) and you never even check to see if it's true. (It's not)

At least we finally have an investigation of Russian involvement (and any cover-up of it) where Trump can't fire or blackmail the lead investigator. Time will tell what he finds.

Ha! I totally gave him a chance, but he had already blown it in week one.

By non political missteps, you mean public witness intimidation, admitting obstruction of justice on national television, and attempted public blackmail of a law enforcement official using the threat of releasing illegal recordings?
Those are just last week's impeachable offences.

Really?
Then enlighten us..... what's your rational explanation for keeping someone as National Security Advisor who Trump knew is a liar, someone who illegally coordinated with the Russians (on Trump's behalf, recorded but still lied about publicly) before taking office, and worked directly for them repeatedly but neglected to disclose that when asked under oath, (edit:someone so completely unprepared to be a National Security Advisor that he didn't understand that phone calls to and from hostile foreign diplomats are all recorded), and who Trump was aware is vulnerable to Russian blackmail and instead having him keep his security clearance and work with those same Russians for weeks?

Not sure about 1968, but these days, the only requirement is enough money. I don't know anything about his past, but I'm going to assume that he got his degree from one of those pay-your-way-through universities, where they just give the degree if you keep failing but paying enough.

Even at normal uni's this happens somehow too: I see thousands of rich international students get degrees at my uni each year, and there is no way they have passed anything given that they can't even speak the local language. They all seem to have really nice cars though....
But international students pay upfront, and pay many times the admission price of local students.

Trump could have payed someone else to do the course work, or even still bribed or blackmailed someone too I suppose. Everyone has a price, and most people have skeletons in the closet too.

Few have seen the transcripts, but those who have characterized his conversations as containing information the Russians could use to blackmail him with. To me, that sounds much worse than 'He mentioned sanctions, but only to say he won't discuss them.'

Trump had already publicly stated that he would remove any sanctions Obama implemented (which by itself is subversive), so for me to think his proxy said anything differently would require proof.

They have that proof, the full transcripts recorded by the intelligence community, and Trump could declassify it and show us today...but he hasn't and he won't because undoubtedly what was said on his behalf looks terrible at best, and more likely treasonously unAmerican.

I'm not at all sure if you're referring to me in your description.
I thought I explained well why a respected reporter working for a propaganda site is both making themselves suspect and lending veracity to the propaganda machine, and that you mostly agreed.
I also mentioned Maddow specifically as being willing to fudge the news for her bias....BUT it bears mention that here she did NOT say what the narrator said she said, she said "we are about to find out if Russia MAYBE has something on our president." That's arguing that, if Trump does what Russia wants, it MIGHT be because they blackmailed him into it...or might not. If he goes against Russia on something serious like securing our allies borders from an expansionist Russia that indicates they MIGHT not be blackmailing him. This guy totally exaggerated and misstated her statement to feign outrage, he's a complete bombastic liar....sorry @enoch. That's not to say she doesn't also exaggerate and omit.

As to the troops on the border, that's what Russia did, and claimed it was just defensive until after they took Crimea and part of Ukraine proper.
As to the treaty with Russia, we also have a treaty with the Ukraine (and so did Russia) that, in return for their nuclear disarmament, we would guarantee their borders and come to their aid militarily if anyone attacked them....and we completely failed to stand up when Russia invaded TWICE. Of course now our allies want our troops ON the border, if American troops aren't killed, we don't care if Russia invades them, and they want us to keep our word, so we need our troops in harm's way to force us to live up to our responsibilities since we've horrendously failed to do so incredibly recently and now look even less likely to oppose Russian expansion.

You still don't get it.
It was an actual INTELLIGENCE report including some unfounded (not proven to be lies) accusations about blackmail against the president elect (*electorally), including the one about video footage of him having hookers pee on his bed alleged to be held by Russia as blackmail material. They reported that it was in the report listed as unfounded, not that it was true. That is NOT a fake story, it is real, it happened, they reported it. They factually checked, it is true. That the right has an inability to hear a news story without exaggerating it in their own mind instantly to create something to be outraged about, well, that's 100% on you.

If it was about Clinton, you would be angry that every news organization didn't lead with the story, and calling them useless propaganda machines for not making it the only story. I recall a few times exactly that happened during the election, even though the stories were covered on national news at the time, it just wasn't enough for you, even though the accusations/stories were total bullshit.

No, it's like me as president (or another publicly elected figure) hiring top notch professionals to make a report including accusations that may be upcoming, them finding some idiot that said Newtboy gave him a blowjob and he was going to blackmail be with video of it that was never produced (you might try to spell the name of the person you accuse properly, it looks better), and that accusation making it into the report listed as unfounded, and the report becoming public (the right has no leg to stand on complaining about how the information becomes public, btw...Clinton and DNC emails). That would be a true story...not that anyone including me would care. I certainly wouldn't give it credence by getting upset over something I saw as patently ridiculous that only idiots that already irrationally hate me would believe.....Trump, on the other hand, got irate, which is the reaction of the guilty when caught, not the actions of adults when accused of something silly that never happened.

Verifiability untrue. Any way you look at it shows Faux is king of biased opinion and conjecture masquerading as news. The others are trying to catch up.
That said, I defy you to show what they reported that was untrue in this last case involving the Trump blackmail material. They reported on a briefing that included charges of blackmail against the president elect( *electorally). That briefing absolutely exists. Where's the lie, Bob, where exactly is the lie?

I agree, SOME media outlets are clearly biased for the dems, just as some are for the republicans.

I listed a number of fake Clinton stories Faux repeated, you addressed none. Where's the witty retort? Cat got your tongue?

I also mentioned Bernie, and Clinton's unfavorability. No wonder you can't understand my arguments, you don't seem to have read them.

So then, Faux is not news media, nor is right wing radio, newspapers, or websites? Glad you've come around.
Yes, most mainstream media got it as wrong as the democrats. They clearly suck ass, just not quite as hard or deep as Faux....not for lack of effort.

They are not me me team. I'm not a democrat.
Faux is so far beyond biased that, for over a decade, it's repeatedly been proven that watching Faux makes you LESS informed.
CNN is far from perfect, but Fox is the grand champion of fake scandals....birth certificate, Vince Foster, WMDs, Benghazi, .....nothing else need be said.
If he ran as a democrat, he would probably have been screwed just as hard or harder than Sanders, he would absolutely not have won, democrats don't believe any insane thing their leader tells them like republicans will, because democrats are more likely to be college educated (22% more) so they know better.

I lost before the election started when Sanders was cheated out of the nomination.

Trump bashing will go on for his lifetime, he has ensured it with his bat shit crazy rhetoric. You might note that Faux was leading the charge against him, calling him an idiot, a liar, and completely unqualified to hold office until it started looking like he would win, then they changed their tune.

Fake news and biased media are FAR worse from the republicans, just look at the myriad of fake stories about Clinton in the last 6 months, then compare with the fake Trump stories, and there's no comparison, no one has accused him of running child slavery rings, or of murdering numerous close allies over some made up secrets, or of intentionally abandoning diplomats and military personell in hostile foreign countries, but Clinton has dealt with fake news since the 90's (dealt with it poorly, granted).

I am adult, Bob. Ask your president elect to grow up, he won the electoral college (not the electorate by 3 million votes though) but he's still acting like a spoiled 2 year old.

Edit: You might notice that the story that set Trump, and therefore you, off was NOT a fake story, it was a piece about a real report on what MAY or may not be a fake accusation about a foreign government having blackmailed the president elect (that they helped get elected), a report produced by the intelligence community for, and given to Trump (who may well be the one that leaked it, in order to distract from it with his outrage, knowing it would come out eventually). Maybe that's a good reason a president elect might want to not throw a tantrum at the intelligence community, they can destroy him with no effort if they choose just by reporting claims they've heard....like he does. Not good....sad.

I guess the only reason daddy had a son was to make this video some day to emotionally blackmail Valve.

Evil genius.

Perfect blackmail material for when she's a teenager. "First time I catch you drinking this goes up on Facebook."

"Can [They] be so insanely sheltered that they think her 'answers' help her?"

If you piece together all of her statements on a plethora of different topics, it is inescapably obvious that they (!) truly have no connection to anyone or anything outside their bubble. Surrounded by sycophants as the Clintons are, people have wondered, and justifiably so, whether she cares or even knows that she's lying on a regular basis. One might make the case that the entire concept of an objective "truth", connected to reality, has no meaning for them.

Additionally, she really does suck at campaigning. But that's not punishable by extended prison sentences, unlike, I don't know, sending Special Access Program (SAP) info through your own bloody email server.

Lastly, Joe mentions Powell (6:16 onwards). When Colin Powell was SoS, his office was connected to the internal system, but had no connection to the internet or the outside world in general. You can't get shit done that way, not in this day and age. That's why he had additional gear set up to at least send and receive emails. This was done separate from the internal network and, if I remember correctly, his entire staff was not only open about it every step of the way, they applied for and received special permissions before they touched anything.

Clinton didn't give a jar of cold piss about the rules that are meant to safeguard access to sensitive information. It was inconvenient to her, and since the rules and laws only apply to plebs, she and her posse set up their own system.

A whole lot of people have to adhere to tedious rules and procedures, with severe punishment looming just around the corner. One guy was in the press for receiving three years of prison after he placed a document on the wrong desk. So, if the FBI drags out the investigation or even buries it, you can bet your ass that a lot of people at different agencies are going to be fuming. And between the FBI, the NSA and CIA, a lot of people have access to the remaining emails from Clinton's server. That opens Clinton up to blackmail, a lot of it. Can't have a compromised president. Not to mention that someone's going to take the data and just drop it over at WikiLeaks or the Intercept.

Someone must have some really good blackmail material to get that cast for this movie.