There is nothing here to research - this is nothing!
You're the one needing to prove the "cooperation" you claim exist and you have NOTHING! This is just like Trump's "Obama tapped my phone in Trump Tower!" - there is NOTHING to prove that!
So there is nothing to talk about, no "things" happened - this is just actual fake news like Trump and the right wing now wrongly calls all news the don't like.
Someone at the DNC sending Chuck Todd an email is not proof of any "cooperation" what so ever - you really need to understand that basic fact.
It's ridiculous you're even trying to argue anything else and clearly intellectually dishonest.
If someone sent you an email like that and I would then use it as "proof" that you where in on some secret conspiracy with that person, you'd never accept that as proof in a million years of course!
It's so obvious you're adapting your definition of "proof" to fit your own desires here. You BELIEVE there to be a conspiracy between the Democrats and the media so you'll use anything as "proof" of that conspiracy.
What will you do next? Claim that the fact that Chuck Todd has met just about every leading Democrat as "proof" of this conspiracy? Measure the distance between their homes or offices and if they happen to be closer then between Todd and the Republicans use that as "proof"?
Read some tea leafs? This is just utterly ridiculous...
Regarding the "director" comment - it's not my job to guess what you mean. If you talk about Chuck Todd you should use his name.
I'm sure Todd is a lot of things like a father, brother - maybe a golfer or Presbyterian, but if you chose to describe him as such instead of using his name you run the risk of not being understood. That's your problem - not the readers.
MSNBC of course also has a lot or different directors so using just that term without stating which one you're talking about is just setting yourself up to not be understood. And again - it's not the readers job to guess what you mean - it's you job to express yourself clearly.
0
@Recon250
There is nothing here to research - this is nothing!
You're the one needing to prove the "cooperation" you claim exist and you have NOTHING! This is just like Trump's "Obama tapped my phone in Trump Tower!" - there is NOTHING to prove that!
So there is nothing to talk about, no "things" happened - this is just actual fake news like Trump and the right wing now wrongly calls all news the don't like.
Someone at the DNC sending Chuck Todd an email is not proof of any "cooperation" what so ever - you really need to understand that basic fact.
It's ridiculous you're even trying to argue anything else and clearly intellectually dishonest.
If someone sent you an email like that and I would then use it as "proof" that you where in on some secret conspiracy with that person, you'd never accept that as proof in a million years of course!
It's so obvious you're adapting your definition of "proof" to fit your own desires here. You BELIEVE there to be a conspiracy between the Democrats and the media so you'll use anything as "proof" of that conspiracy.
What will you do next? Claim that the fact that Chuck Todd has met just about every leading Democrat as "proof" of this conspiracy? Measure the distance between their homes or offices and if they happen to be closer then between Todd and the Republicans use that as "proof"?
Read some tea leafs? This is just utterly ridiculous...
Regarding the "director" comment - it's not my job to guess what you mean. If you talk about Chuck Todd you should use his name.
I'm sure Todd is a lot of things like a father, brother - maybe a golfer or Presbyterian, but if you chose to describe him as such instead of using his name you run the risk of not being understood. That's your problem - not the readers.
MSNBC of course also has a lot or different directors so using just that term without stating which one you're talking about is just setting yourself up to not be understood. And again - it's not the readers job to guess what you mean - it's you job to express yourself clearly.