|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
You might want to have a look at recent interviews by members of the Mueller team who are pretty pissed that Mueller himself didn't have the guts to put the explicit words that there was obstruction, though they found ample proof of it and provided it in the report.
They should have known better. I called as much all the way back in early 2017
Mueller is a pro at letting people off the hook. He cleared the NFL on the Ray Rice thing (while not really clearing them) and he helped stop the renewal of a wildly unconstitutional wiretapping program (while not really stopping the wiretapping).
I'm about 85% sure he's there to suck up the attention on the whole Russia thing...
When Mueller is done he'll say Trump's team did some questionable/bad stuff, none of it will be "throw him in jail/must impeach" bad (although I don't doubt it's there)...
|
In case anyone hasn’t caught on, doodsmack basically plagiarizes from far right media outlets like National Review and then parrots their editorializations as his own. Politico did an article on the Barnett interview that strikes a rather different, more even tone, I’ll find a link in a bit.
|
On September 26 2020 05:25 farvacola wrote:
In case anyone hasn’t caught on, doodsmack basically plagiarizes from far right media outlets like National Review and then parrots their editorializations as his own. Politico did an article on the Barnett interview that strikes a rather different, more even tone, I’ll find a link in a bit.
Isn't that what most if not, all of the right leaning people do?
|
On September 26 2020 05:25 farvacola wrote:
In case anyone hasn’t caught on, doodsmack basically plagiarizes from far right media outlets like National Review and then parrots their editorializations as his own. Politico did an article on the Barnett interview that strikes a rather different, more even tone, I’ll find a link in a bit.
By which you mean I repeat valid conclusions drawn by others, usually citing the source that contains proven facts/open source research. Nothing out of the ordinary about it.
BTW, any individual media story can be evaluated on its own merits. Its pretty lazy to dismiss it out of hand, especially if you rely on and repeat the conclusions of outlets like the NYT.
|
On September 26 2020 05:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 05:25 farvacola wrote:
In case anyone hasn’t caught on, doodsmack basically plagiarizes from far right media outlets like National Review and then parrots their editorializations as his own. Politico did an article on the Barnett interview that strikes a rather different, more even tone, I’ll find a link in a bit. Isn't that what most if not, all of the right leaning people do?
Yep, that’s why those outlets have carved out an enduring niche, they give people cover for turning op-ed shock jock Ben Shapiro shit into legitimate news.
and whatever you say dood, every single time you post about the Mueller investigation you regurgitate the farthest right points almost verbatim, if you wanna say you trust National Review and Fox News as more reliable than NYT and Politico, go ahead and say that instead of hiding the ball
|
On September 26 2020 05:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 05:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:On September 26 2020 05:25 farvacola wrote:
In case anyone hasn’t caught on, doodsmack basically plagiarizes from far right media outlets like National Review and then parrots their editorializations as his own. Politico did an article on the Barnett interview that strikes a rather different, more even tone, I’ll find a link in a bit. Isn't that what most if not, all of the right leaning people do? Yep, that’s why those outlets have carved out an enduring niche, they give people cover for turning op-ed shock jock Ben Shapiro shit into legitimate news. and whatever you say dood, every single time you post about the Mueller investigation you regurgitate the farthest right points almost verbatim, if you wanna say you trust National Review and Fox News as more reliable than NYT and Politico, go ahead and say that instead of hiding the ball
The question is whether the known facts support the conclusion, not whether the facts were divulged by the Federalist or the NYT. Like I said its lazy to dismiss a source out of hand.
|
I would argue that it's lazy to trust a source out of hand, especially when their record looks the way it does.
|
On September 26 2020 05:53 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 05:37 farvacola wrote:On September 26 2020 05:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:On September 26 2020 05:25 farvacola wrote:
In case anyone hasn’t caught on, doodsmack basically plagiarizes from far right media outlets like National Review and then parrots their editorializations as his own. Politico did an article on the Barnett interview that strikes a rather different, more even tone, I’ll find a link in a bit. Isn't that what most if not, all of the right leaning people do? Yep, that’s why those outlets have carved out an enduring niche, they give people cover for turning op-ed shock jock Ben Shapiro shit into legitimate news. and whatever you say dood, every single time you post about the Mueller investigation you regurgitate the farthest right points almost verbatim, if you wanna say you trust National Review and Fox News as more reliable than NYT and Politico, go ahead and say that instead of hiding the ball The question is whether the known facts support the conclusion, not whether the facts were divulged by the Federalist or the NYT. Like I said its lazy to dismiss a source out of hand.
Lets think about this one. Are the known facts supporting the conclusion. Did Trump know of russian interferences in 2017 ? Did he went on camera to say he would welcome them ? Is he doing all he can to stop it ? Is he friendly with Putin ? Did he do anything when bounties were put upon american soldiers heads ?
So can we say that Trump currently welcomes the current support of Russia ?
Also would you count yourself amongst Qanon supporters ?
|
There's also plain bias. Federalist/Brietbart defending Trump : literally meaningless. They're expected to do it and have been caught wildly distorting things in the past to defend him.
Same goes for Shareblue (if it even still exists, it was some idiot's idea to make a DNC breitbart) defending Biden.
If those sites say they have new, breaking information that totally exonerated Trump, then : I still don't believe them. I trust that other news sites will investigate it and confirm it if true. This is how any controversial story works in the news, regardless : there's no harm in waiting a few hours for confirmation. But literally no where outside of far right rags has ever confirmed any of the stories you've been posting, Doodsmack. In fact, I've read lengthy breakdowns of legal court documents that go into exactly why Manafort, et al were charged with "Conspiracy against the United States" - which is what collusion is, legally speaking.
The stories you've been posting are less verified than Nettles' various youtube videos.
This is why credibility is such a big deal to media organizations : once lost, it can never be regained. They have to do everything in their power to maintain it, and legitimate ones will jettison people who start to damage it.
On a smaller scale, individual journalists can be trustworthy or not, but I can't keep track of all of them.
Andy Ngo, for instance, is not someone I will ever trust as a source to break news. Nor will James O'Keefe. They've lost that privilege because they knowingly lied about things that they claimed were news. This isn't even a partisan thing - Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are examples of why a journalist who has exercised terrible judgement (not even outright lying in some cases) can never work as a legitimate journalist again. If either of them made an extreme claim, I'd also be skeptical before additional proof.
|
On September 26 2020 06:20 Nevuk wrote:
There's also plain bias. Federalist/Brietbart defending Trump : literally meaningless. They're expected to do it and have been caught wildly distorting things in the past to defend him.
Same goes for Shareblue (if it even still exists, it was some idiot's idea to make a DNC breitbart) defending Biden.
If those sites say they have new, breaking information that totally exonerated Trump, then : I still don't believe them. I trust that other news sites will investigate it and confirm it if true. This is how any controversial story works in the news, regardless : there's no harm in waiting a few hours for confirmation. But literally no where outside of far right rags has ever confirmed any of the stories you've been posting, Doodsmack. In fact, I've read lengthy breakdowns of legal court documents that go into exactly why Manafort, et al were charged with "Conspiracy against the United States" - which is what collusion is, legally speaking.
The stories you've been posting are less verified than Nettles' various youtube videos.
This is why credibility is such a big deal to media organizations : once lost, it can never be regained. They have to do everything in their power to maintain it, and legitimate ones will jettison people who start to damage it.
On a smaller scale, individual journalists can be trustworthy or not, but I can't keep track of all of them.
Andy Ngo, for instance, is not someone I will ever trust as a source to break news. Nor will James O'Keefe. They've lost that privilege because they knowingly lied about things that they claimed were news. This isn't even a partisan thing - Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are examples of why a journalist who has exercised terrible judgement (not even outright lying in some cases) can never work as a legitimate journalist again. If either of them made an extreme claim, I'd also be skeptical before additional proof.
"Skeptical before additional proof" are the key words. If a story contains documents for example, those can be the proof. If a story makes claims about FBI texts and you can see the texts yourself, you can judge the story's claims. Waiting for the NYT and WaPo to report on it is not gonna work because they're not going to report on it out of bias.
|
What about the other nations news ? Are they trustworthy ?
|
On September 26 2020 06:30 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 06:20 Nevuk wrote:
There's also plain bias. Federalist/Brietbart defending Trump : literally meaningless. They're expected to do it and have been caught wildly distorting things in the past to defend him.
Same goes for Shareblue (if it even still exists, it was some idiot's idea to make a DNC breitbart) defending Biden.
If those sites say they have new, breaking information that totally exonerated Trump, then : I still don't believe them. I trust that other news sites will investigate it and confirm it if true. This is how any controversial story works in the news, regardless : there's no harm in waiting a few hours for confirmation. But literally no where outside of far right rags has ever confirmed any of the stories you've been posting, Doodsmack. In fact, I've read lengthy breakdowns of legal court documents that go into exactly why Manafort, et al were charged with "Conspiracy against the United States" - which is what collusion is, legally speaking.
The stories you've been posting are less verified than Nettles' various youtube videos.
This is why credibility is such a big deal to media organizations : once lost, it can never be regained. They have to do everything in their power to maintain it, and legitimate ones will jettison people who start to damage it.
On a smaller scale, individual journalists can be trustworthy or not, but I can't keep track of all of them.
Andy Ngo, for instance, is not someone I will ever trust as a source to break news. Nor will James O'Keefe. They've lost that privilege because they knowingly lied about things that they claimed were news. This isn't even a partisan thing - Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are examples of why a journalist who has exercised terrible judgement (not even outright lying in some cases) can never work as a legitimate journalist again. If either of them made an extreme claim, I'd also be skeptical before additional proof. "Skeptical before additional proof" are the key words. If a story contains documents for example, those can be the proof. If a story makes claims about FBI texts and you can see the texts yourself, you can judge the story's claims. Waiting for the NYT and WaPo to report on it is not gonna work because they're not going to report on it out of bias.
I didn't say NYT or WaPo, but I'd be fine with both of them (NYT alone isn't enough for me anymore).
Here's a non-exhaustive list of sites I would accept any combination of two from-
Al-jazeera, BBC, NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, Atlantic, WaPo, WSJ (not the editorial section), Boston Globe
What you're effectively saying is "they're biased unless they are willing to confirm the reporting", which is circular logic.
As an example on why the additional proof they provide isn't enough: FBI texts were selectively leaked to right wing news orgs leaving out all context, at least once in the past. So the sites (or their sources) would do things like cherrypick the 50 most inflammatory texts about Trump, and leave out the 3500 about Hillary, and also remove any context that certain things were jokes.
Also,
Amy Coney Barret is the SC nominee.
|
On September 26 2020 05:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 05:25 farvacola wrote:
In case anyone hasn’t caught on, doodsmack basically plagiarizes from far right media outlets like National Review and then parrots their editorializations as his own. Politico did an article on the Barnett interview that strikes a rather different, more even tone, I’ll find a link in a bit. Isn't that what most if not, all of the right leaning people do?
Nettles is the only one that comes to mind as someone who reads right-leaning articles they don't understand, regurgitates them here, and then leaves again without actually engaging any discussion.
Most of the rest of the right-leaning posters seem to at least be willing to engage in discussion. There's also a decent bit of left article regurgitation going on, to be fair.
|
|
|
On September 26 2020 07:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 06:30 Doodsmack wrote:On September 26 2020 06:20 Nevuk wrote:
There's also plain bias. Federalist/Brietbart defending Trump : literally meaningless. They're expected to do it and have been caught wildly distorting things in the past to defend him.
Same goes for Shareblue (if it even still exists, it was some idiot's idea to make a DNC breitbart) defending Biden.
If those sites say they have new, breaking information that totally exonerated Trump, then : I still don't believe them. I trust that other news sites will investigate it and confirm it if true. This is how any controversial story works in the news, regardless : there's no harm in waiting a few hours for confirmation. But literally no where outside of far right rags has ever confirmed any of the stories you've been posting, Doodsmack. In fact, I've read lengthy breakdowns of legal court documents that go into exactly why Manafort, et al were charged with "Conspiracy against the United States" - which is what collusion is, legally speaking.
The stories you've been posting are less verified than Nettles' various youtube videos.
This is why credibility is such a big deal to media organizations : once lost, it can never be regained. They have to do everything in their power to maintain it, and legitimate ones will jettison people who start to damage it.
On a smaller scale, individual journalists can be trustworthy or not, but I can't keep track of all of them.
Andy Ngo, for instance, is not someone I will ever trust as a source to break news. Nor will James O'Keefe. They've lost that privilege because they knowingly lied about things that they claimed were news. This isn't even a partisan thing - Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw are examples of why a journalist who has exercised terrible judgement (not even outright lying in some cases) can never work as a legitimate journalist again. If either of them made an extreme claim, I'd also be skeptical before additional proof. "Skeptical before additional proof" are the key words. If a story contains documents for example, those can be the proof. If a story makes claims about FBI texts and you can see the texts yourself, you can judge the story's claims. Waiting for the NYT and WaPo to report on it is not gonna work because they're not going to report on it out of bias. Will NPR report on it? If not why?
I doubt it, but they should. The documents are there. I wouldn't be surprised though if NPR (which I think is fair to say is not in trumps corner), as with the liberal outlets, was part of the media hype machine on collusion. Those outlets are essentially complicit in the underlying misconduct, in this instance. So I wouldn't expect them to report on it.
They spent 3 years telling us there might be collusion, so they would look quite stupid shining a light on the dearth of collusion evidence. Of course they can point to the after-the-fact findings of grifting by manafort etc, and the pressured plea deals, as their escape hatch now. But the issue is what happened at the outset. See the Fourth Amendment.
|
It isn't hard to figure this stuff out lol, so much for your grand conspiracy. The following is an NPR article on the topic of the recently released interview with FBI Agent Barnett.
An FBI agent assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller's team told investigators he thought the probe into Michael Flynn was "unclear and disorganized" and that the former national security adviser wasn't conspiring with Russia.
That assessment from William Barnett is contained in a 13-page document summarizing an interview Barnett did on Sept. 17 with Justice Department investigators.
The department provided the summary to Michael Flynn's attorneys, who filed it late Thursday in federal court as part of the ongoing legal fight over his case.
The Justice Department is seeking to dismiss its case against Flynn, who pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the then-Russian ambassador.
Critics say the department's effort to drop the prosecution smacks of a political favor by Attorney General William Barr, who approved the move, toward an ally of the president.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has scheduled a hearing for next Tuesday on the government's motion to dismiss.
The interview with Barnett is one of several internal Justice Department documents that Flynn's attorneys filed late Thursday that they claim support their allegations of government misconduct in the case.
Skeptical investigator
Barnett, who began working for the FBI in 1999, was assigned as the original case agent on the bureau's investigations into Flynn and President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
In his interview, Barnett expresses skepticism about the foundations of the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to the summary.
Barnett told investigators that he found the Flynn probe to be "unclear and disorganized" in its initial stages, and that little was done on it through November 2016. And even later, he says, he didn't believe that Flynn had committed a crime, although he says others in the FBI, including the lead analyst on the case, did.
Flynn was interviewed by the FBI in January 2017, during which he lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.
Barnett acknowledges that Flynn lied, but he said he believes Flynn did so "to save his job" and not to cover up collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
After Mueller was appointed special counsel and took over the broader Russia investigation in May 2017, Barnett joined Mueller's team with the hope, he told investigators, that his perspective would prevent "group think."
The special agent accuses some attorneys in the special counsel's office of having a "get Trump attitude." He says many of the lawyers tended to interpret information that would point to a crime having been committed.
He accuses one attorney, Jeannie Rhee, of being obsessed with Flynn after she disagreed with Barnett's assessment about money Flynn received for a speech he gave in Russia.
Flynn received tens of thousands of dollars in payments from foreign sources, including Russian ones, after he left the government following his stint as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Investigation of the investigation
It is highly unusual for the Justice Department to provide documents detailing internal discussions, including handwritten notes and instant-messaging communications, from an investigation to defense counsel.
But in the Flynn case, Barr appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeff Jensen to review the Flynn matter after Trump and supporters raised concerns about his prosecution.
Barnett was interviewed as part of Jensen's review, although it's unclear why it took place on Sept. 17 — when the department had moved to drop the Flynn prosecution back in early May.
Judge Sullivan has not granted the government's motion to dismiss the case. Instead, he appointed a former judge to provide an opposing viewpoint. After a failed bid by Flynn's attorneys to force Sullivan to sign off of the bid to dismiss, a hearing is scheduled next week in the case.
FBI Agent In Flynn Case Had Doubts About Investigation, Document Shows
On an unrelated note, word is that Trump will pick Judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Justice Ginsburg.
|
This coming up via a DoJ investigation is just extra gravy on top. Barr has thoroughly proven his bias and everything he touches loses massive credibility as a result.
|
|
|
NPR is literally as in Trump's corner as they can possibly be without losing all of their listeners.
While the average reporter there may lean left, the head of the org was replaced by someone Trump picked last year and they've had a noticeably conservative bent since 2013, when a venture capitalist (in fact, the former director of the board for Riot Games) was named its president.
Some of the individual talk radio programs on it definitely lean left, but those are syndicated shows from local stations. Listening to any of the actual national domestic news programs run by NPR makes it clear that they've been directed to do anything in their power to maintain the appearance of objectivity, refusing to push back even in the face of the most blatant lies from any republican interviewee, while criticizing democrats for their tone.
Refusing to fact check when only one side is lying so openly is being on the GOP side, just in a less obvious way than Fox News does with Trump.
They'll report on Democratic criticisms of Trump for lying, and then say "but the republican says" and give the standard talking point on the issue, giving the republicans 75% of the time allotted. If it's a republican politician besides Trump lying, they usually won't even do that, unless he's been thrown under the bus by the GOP.
I basically stopped being able to listen to NPR's news in mid 2017, and the tonal shift was gradual but massive.
|
On September 26 2020 07:40 farvacola wrote:It isn't hard to figure this stuff out lol, so much for your grand conspiracy. The following is an NPR article on the topic of the recently released interview with FBI Agent Barnett. Show nested quote +An FBI agent assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller's team told investigators he thought the probe into Michael Flynn was "unclear and disorganized" and that the former national security adviser wasn't conspiring with Russia.
That assessment from William Barnett is contained in a 13-page document summarizing an interview Barnett did on Sept. 17 with Justice Department investigators.
The department provided the summary to Michael Flynn's attorneys, who filed it late Thursday in federal court as part of the ongoing legal fight over his case.
The Justice Department is seeking to dismiss its case against Flynn, who pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the then-Russian ambassador.
Critics say the department's effort to drop the prosecution smacks of a political favor by Attorney General William Barr, who approved the move, toward an ally of the president.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has scheduled a hearing for next Tuesday on the government's motion to dismiss.
The interview with Barnett is one of several internal Justice Department documents that Flynn's attorneys filed late Thursday that they claim support their allegations of government misconduct in the case.
Skeptical investigator
Barnett, who began working for the FBI in 1999, was assigned as the original case agent on the bureau's investigations into Flynn and President Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
In his interview, Barnett expresses skepticism about the foundations of the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to the summary.
Barnett told investigators that he found the Flynn probe to be "unclear and disorganized" in its initial stages, and that little was done on it through November 2016. And even later, he says, he didn't believe that Flynn had committed a crime, although he says others in the FBI, including the lead analyst on the case, did.
Flynn was interviewed by the FBI in January 2017, during which he lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.
Barnett acknowledges that Flynn lied, but he said he believes Flynn did so "to save his job" and not to cover up collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
After Mueller was appointed special counsel and took over the broader Russia investigation in May 2017, Barnett joined Mueller's team with the hope, he told investigators, that his perspective would prevent "group think."
The special agent accuses some attorneys in the special counsel's office of having a "get Trump attitude." He says many of the lawyers tended to interpret information that would point to a crime having been committed.
He accuses one attorney, Jeannie Rhee, of being obsessed with Flynn after she disagreed with Barnett's assessment about money Flynn received for a speech he gave in Russia.
Flynn received tens of thousands of dollars in payments from foreign sources, including Russian ones, after he left the government following his stint as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Investigation of the investigation
It is highly unusual for the Justice Department to provide documents detailing internal discussions, including handwritten notes and instant-messaging communications, from an investigation to defense counsel.
But in the Flynn case, Barr appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeff Jensen to review the Flynn matter after Trump and supporters raised concerns about his prosecution.
Barnett was interviewed as part of Jensen's review, although it's unclear why it took place on Sept. 17 — when the department had moved to drop the Flynn prosecution back in early May.
Judge Sullivan has not granted the government's motion to dismiss the case. Instead, he appointed a former judge to provide an opposing viewpoint. After a failed bid by Flynn's attorneys to force Sullivan to sign off of the bid to dismiss, a hearing is scheduled next week in the case. FBI Agent In Flynn Case Had Doubts About Investigation, Document ShowsOn an unrelated note, word is that Trump will pick Judge Amy Coney Barrett to succeed Justice Ginsburg.
This story seems pretty fair and balanced. Key quotes:
"An FBI agent assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller's team told investigators he thought the probe into Michael Flynn was "unclear and disorganized" and that the former national security adviser wasn't conspiring with Russia."
(The actual documents show Barnett saying the theory against Flynn consisted of "supposition upon supposition.")
"In his interview, Barnett expresses skepticism about the foundations of the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia."
"Barnett told investigators that he found the Flynn probe to be "unclear and disorganized" in its initial stages, and that little was done on it through November 2016. And even later, he says, he didn't believe that Flynn had committed a crime."
If you thought any of that is flattering for the investigation, you might want to reconsider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
