"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[rjs330]

So I take it you only listen, read from Conservative sources.

There is so much mainstream media bias these days it's crazy. If you can't see that, well I don't know what to say.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

 

[Pommer]

There is so much mainstream media bias these days it's crazy. If you can't see that, well I don't know what to say.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

Really?
An agent of chaos runs the Executive Branch but it’s the “left wing media’s fault” for all the “bad news” about him?

 

[Arcangl86]

That's what I meant by verified. If you don't know it's true it's wrong to put it on the affidavit. Verified simply means you checked out the information and found it to be true. The FBI swore that the information was true, but they didn't really know.

No, that's not how it works. Think about it. If that was the case, then what's the point of using sources or witnesses at all? All they needed to do was put on the warrant what they were told as well as why they believed it. Warrants only require a standard of probable cause, and it's up to the judge to determine if it was met, including by evaluating the potential truthfulness of the source.

 

[Hank77]

Can you name any actor or singer, that still has a job, that are Trump supporters?

Jon Voight - plays Mickey Donovan in the Showtime tv series Ray Donovan.
Wayne Newton - still performing in Vegas.

 

[stevil]

There is so much mainstream media bias these days it's crazy. If you can't see that, well I don't know what to say.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

I don't see the point of that article

"When you add it up, 58.47% admit to being left of center. Along with that, another 37.12% claim to be "moderate."

What about the mythic "conservative" financial journalist? In fact, a mere 0.46% of financial journalists called themselves "very conservative," while just 3.94% said they were "somewhat conservative." That's a whopping 4.4% of the total that lean right-of-center."

So what if the journalists have a private life and a private choice of which ideology they like.
A journalist who takes their job seriously, they put aside their personal ideology and they report the news. They investigate the facts and they report.

For a person that goes to unashamedly conservative news sources, they are reading stuff from sources where journalistic integrity matters very little. Those sources are only interested in pushing an agenda, and quite often they come up with unsupported conspiracy theories. They try and shock their audience, they polarize, they try and make it all out to be some big fight. This way you come back tomorrow and the next day as you think this is some urgent serious matter that demands attention.
And when you don't bother to see the other side, don't bother to watch main stream or even the journalists at Fox such as Wallace or Smith (I'm sure you have already labelled these guys as leftists). You aren't at all seeking balanced information.

 

[Pommer]

I don't see the point of that article

"When you add it up, 58.47% admit to being left of center. Along with that, another 37.12% claim to be "moderate."

What about the mythic "conservative" financial journalist? In fact, a mere 0.46% of financial journalists called themselves "very conservative," while just 3.94% said they were "somewhat conservative." That's a whopping 4.4% of the total that lean right-of-center."

So what if the journalists have a private life and a private choice of which ideology they like.
A journalist who takes their job seriously, they put aside their personal ideology and they report the news. They investigate the facts and they report.

For a person that goes to unashamedly conservative news sources, they are reading stuff from sources where journalistic integrity matters very little. Those sources are only interested in pushing an agenda, and quite often they come up with unsupported conspiracy theories. They try and shock their audience, they polarize, they try and make it all out to be some big fight. This way you come back tomorrow and the next day as you think this is some urgent serious matter that demands attention.
And when you don't bother to see the other side, don't bother to watch main stream or even the journalists at Fox such as Wallace or Smith (I'm sure you have already labelled these guys as leftists). You aren't at all seeking balanced information.

What we’ve all been witness to is the bloggers demanding to be considered “real journalists”, and some do become such.
But what most are missing is the “institutional ethos” that goes with the job, hence anyone with a penchant for writing and an ax to grind can set themselves up as a journalist.
Advocacy-journalism is a fine and honorable career. Pushing a particular issue (or set of issues) is fine, so long as you’re up front about it.

But the “school” of “just asking questions”, is more insidious and downright nefarious, at times; meant more to sow discord and doubt than inform, these hacks do it for the money and notoriety.

 

[rjs330]

No, that's not how it works. Think about it. If that was the case, then what's the point of using sources or witnesses at all? All they needed to do was put on the warrant what they were told as well as why they believed it. Warrants only require a standard of probable cause, and it's up to the judge to determine if it was met, including by evaluating the potential truthfulness of the source.

What your witnesses and informants tell you has to be verified. You can't take what they said at face value. Steele himself stated that what he was providing could be false information. Steele was not the witness. He was a third or fourth hand or maybe even more purveyor of information. It was up to the FBI to verify the information. They could have talked to the people who gave him the information. Warrants on not given out because some says some told them something that someone else told them that someone told them etc. There had to be some veracity of information. I've said this in the past. I work in the justce system. I know what's required.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What your witnesses and informants tell you has to be verified. You can't take what they said at face value. Steele himself stated that what he was providing could be false information. Steele was not the witness. He was a third or fourth hand or maybe even more purveyor of information. It was up to the FBI to verify the information. They could have talked to the people who gave him the information. Warrants on not given out because some says some told them something that someone else told them that someone told them etc. There had to be some veracity of information. I've said this in the past. I work in the justce system. I know what's required.

That may be true, but it's totally irrelevant to the discussion. You brought in the FBI's misuse of the Steele report as justification for calling people hypocrites for not having an issue with the Clinton campaign paying for the Steele report while condemning the Trump campaign for trying to accept campaign contributions from the Russian government.

They may well have done so - that investigation is ongoing - but you haven't provided any reasoning for why we should consider the FBI a part of the Clinton campaign.

 

[rjs330]

What we’ve all been witness to is the bloggers demanding to be considered “real journalists”, and some do become such.
But what most are missing is the “institutional ethos” that goes with the job, hence anyone with a penchant for writing and an ax to grind can set themselves up as a journalist.
Advocacy-journalism is a fine and honorable career. Pushing a particular issue (or set of issues) is fine, so long as you’re up front about it.

But the “school” of “just asking questions”, is more insidious and downright nefarious, at times; meant more to sow discord and doubt than inform, these hacks do it for the money and notoriety.

Exactly, and that's what a lot of the main stream journalists are. Hacks with an agenda. They are left wing with an agenda to push. Just take a look at Obama. He had scandals in his administration, he used executive orders, he used tear gas on immigrants at the border etc. Yet you heard very little if anything about it. Trump uses executive orders, he uses tear gas he has questions on obstruction and it's non-stop, all day attacks on him. The economy is roaring, African Americans and Hispanics are enjoying higher employment than they have had in decades and not a peep.

Over 90% of the news coverage is negative news on Trump. You're buying the agenda the media is selling

 

[rjs330]

That may be true, but it's totally irrelevant to the discussion. You brought in the FBI's misuse of the Steele report as justification for calling people hypocrites for not having an issue with the Clinton campaign paying for the Steele report while condemning the Trump campaign for trying to accept campaign contributions from the Russian government.

They may well have done so - that investigation is ongoing - but you haven't provided any reasoning for why we should consider the FBI a part of the Clinton campaign.

Here's an article on this dossier and the Clinton involvement in it. The Clinton campaign knew about the dossier and her lawyer tried to share it with the justice department. She paid for it. High level Russians we're used. It turns out to be full if false information and none of you seem to care. In fact most defend her.

Meanwhile Trump gives nothing, receives nothing and it's a horrible thing.

Hillary Clinton, like Donald Trump, endorsed idea of political dirt from overseas

I don't know what was going on with the FBI at the time. That's under investigation. But they sure didn't do their job correctly. One has to ask themselves why. I want to know why they failed so badly to follow the proper criminal procedures.

 

[KCfromNC]

Here's an article on this dossier and the Clinton involvement in it.

Seems like a great resource for a thread where it is remotely on-topic.

 

[bhsmte]

Here's an article on this dossier and the Clinton involvement in it. The Clinton campaign knew about the dossier and her lawyer tried to share it with the justice department. She paid for it. High level Russians we're used. It turns out to be full if false information and none of you seem to care. In fact most defend her.

Meanwhile Trump gives nothing, receives nothing and it's a horrible thing.

Hillary Clinton, like Donald Trump, endorsed idea of political dirt from overseas

I don't know what was going on with the FBI at the time. That's under investigation. But they sure didn't do their job correctly. One has to ask themselves why. I want to know why they failed so badly to follow the proper criminal procedures.

5he dossier, is a separate issue from trump's behavior. The dossier and the actions of those in the fbi, doj and intelligence agencies, is being looked at.

As i have said all along, this isnt an either or situation. Both trump and those in the fbi etc, could have both abused their power.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Here's an article on this dossier and the Clinton involvement in it. The Clinton campaign knew about the dossier and her lawyer tried to share it with the justice department.

That's the first I've seen that her law firm knew anything about the dossier beyond the fact that research was being done, and the article provides no sources for the assertion. As for the rest of the campaign, high level campaign staff claim that they had no idea that Steele was working for them until the report leaked on BuzzFeed. But even if they did know about the report, I still don't see why it would be an issue - the information was delivered to the FBI and wasn't used in the campaign. That's what should be done if you uncover possible evidence of a crime.

She paid for it.

Yes, that's what you do. You PAY for opposition research. Otherwise it counts as a campaign contribution.

High level Russians we're used.

I mean, if you're researching events that occurred in Russia, who else are you going to talk to? The key thing is that they did not know what they were providing information for, and in many cases were not aware that they were providing information at all. That's the goal of a good intelligence officer.

It turns out to be full if false information and none of you seem to care. In fact most defend her.

Why would that be her fault unless the campaign knew that the information was false (which they didn't)? People give lousy information to the FBI all the time. It's the job of the FBI to evaluate it. If you want to rag on the FBI, fine, they may well deserve it. But once again, I don't see how the failure of the FBI to properly evaluate the information (assuming that that's what happened here) in any way reflects back on the Clinton campaign.

Meanwhile Trump gives nothing, receives nothing and it's a horrible thing.

The giving nothing is the problem here. Receiving nothing was out of his control.

Another analogy for you: You're complaining about your wife and what a horrible person she is, how she nags you all the time, can't cook, etc. Your friend Steve hears and says that he could make your problem go away if you really want. You agree, set a time and a place, but Steve chickens out at the last minute and just joins you for lunch instead of slipping some poison in your wife's wine. The only reason why your wife is still alive is because Steve decided not to kill her. You told him to go ahead and made no effort to stop him. In fact, you brought her to the lunch where he was going to poison her. The fact that Steve didn't kill her doesn't make you any less guilty.

 

[rjs330]

Seems like a great resource for a thread where it is remotely on-topic.

Yeah we kind of derailed the thread here.

 

[rjs330]

5he dossier, is a separate issue from trump's behavior. The dossier and the actions of those in the fbi, doj and intelligence agencies, is being looked at.

As i have said all along, this isnt an either or situation. Both trump and those in the fbi etc, could have both abused their power.

How has Trump abused is power?

 

[rjs330]

That's the first I've seen that her law firm knew anything about the dossier beyond the fact that research was being done, and the article provides no sources for the assertion. As for the rest of the campaign, high level campaign staff claim that they had no idea that Steele was working for them until the report leaked on BuzzFeed. But even if they did know about the report, I still don't see why it would be an issue - the information was delivered to the FBI and wasn't used in the campaign. That's what should be done if you uncover possible evidence of a crime.


Yes, that's what you do. You PAY for opposition research. Otherwise it counts as a campaign contribution.


I mean, if you're researching events that occurred in Russia, who else are you going to talk to? The key thing is that they did not know what they were providing information for, and in many cases were not aware that they were providing information at all. That's the goal of a good intelligence officer.


Why would that be her fault unless the campaign knew that the information was false (which they didn't)? People give lousy information to the FBI all the time. It's the job of the FBI to evaluate it. If you want to rag on the FBI, fine, they may well deserve it. But once again, I don't see how the failure of the FBI to properly evaluate the information (assuming that that's what happened here) in any way reflects back on the Clinton campaign.


The giving nothing is the problem here. Receiving nothing was out of his control.

Another analogy for you: You're complaining about your wife and what a horrible person she is, how she nags you all the time, can't cook, etc. Your friend Steve hears and says that he could make your problem go away if you really want. You agree, set a time and a place, but Steve chickens out at the last minute and just joins you for lunch instead of slipping some poison in your wife's wine. The only reason why your wife is still alive is because Steve decided not to kill her. You told him to go ahead and made no effort to stop him. In fact, you brought her to the lunch where he was going to poison her. The fact that Steve didn't kill her doesn't make you any less guilty.

Just more defense of something that did happen while being up in arms over something that didn't happen..The only people that actually collaberated with the Russians were people associated with the Clinton campaign.

 

[bhsmte]

How has Trump abused is power?

Obstructing an investigation, is abusing power.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Just more defense of something that did happen
while being up in arms over something that didn't happen.

"Something" absolutely did happen with the Trump campaign. The Russian government contacted them and told them that they had information on Clinton. The Trump campaign said they wanted that information. This is fact, documented in email communications. Had they been given that information, that would have been illegal, no question. The only reason why they did not receive the information is because Russia decided not to give it to them. Some legal scholars argue that that still makes it illegal because they demonstrated intent. In the end, the conclusion was that they could not be charged with a crime because they didn't seem to realize that it was illegal, so the intent did not exist. That is "something."

This is not the same thing as paying someone to do research, who then pays someone else to research further into something that they researched, who then sends out people to gather information from other people (including Russians) that is then compiled into a report. You're creating a false equivalence.

ONE MORE TIME: The issue is not the fact that Russians are involved. It's that the Russian government was knowingly offering information to a political campaign, and that the campaign was attempting to accept that information knowing that it came from the Russian government. Replace "Russian" with literally any other nation on the planet and it would be equally illegal.

The only people that actually collaberated with the Russians were people associated with the Clinton campaign.

If you're defining "collaborated" as "talked to," then this is verifiably untrue.

 

[Pommer]

Exactly, and that's what a lot of the main stream journalists are. Hacks with an agenda. They are left wing with an agenda to push. Just take a look at Obama. He had scandals in his administration, he used executive orders, he used tear gas on immigrants at the border etc. Yet you heard very little if anything about it. Trump uses executive orders, he uses tear gas he has questions on obstruction and it's non-stop, all day attacks on him. The economy is roaring, African Americans and Hispanics are enjoying higher employment than they have had in decades and not a peep.

Over 90% of the news coverage is negative news on Trump. You're buying the agenda the media is selling

How does one get rid of “the enemy of the people”?
How do we make sure that only “The Truth®“ gets aired?

 

[rambot]

There is so much mainstream media bias these days it's crazy. If you can't see that, well I don't know what to say.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/

Oh yeah. The a right wing paper highlights left wing bias. Colour me shocked.
And does so in an editorial, giving them the freedom to extrapolate as needed.
Interesting that they interview reporters but not the editors who decide what ends up in the paper and how it's worded.

I would wager a GREAT deal of htis has to do with the fact that these institutions have probably hired journalists who have gone through university. And you know what happens when people learn things about the world. I mean, as Stephen Colbert once mightily quipped, "Reality, as you know, has a left wing bias".

In lieu of looking at individual reporters who create content that then gets edited by an editor with input and consideration of the people who own these news organization, why not do a survey of organizations (since these are more directly reflective of what people READ and not the political wings of the journalist)