James Comey and Loretta Lynch to be investigated

[Mountain Man]

You talked about "an example of Breitbart publishing a story with significant, factual errors", and that's what I provided. If it's not good enough, it's only because you're trying to shift the goalposts.

I was looking for something more along the lines of CNN-style fake news, but I suppose I didn't make that clear.

[Sparko]

If you use Chrome, right-click the link and select "Open in incognito window". Firefox has a similar option. This blocks the cookies they use to keep track of the number of visits you've had this month, and so brings up the page as if it were your first visit.

hey it works! Thanks.

[One Bad Pig]

It's already been done and the FBI couldn't find enough evidence to bring a criminal case against Clinton, so that's that. Her reckless behavior was made public, by the FBI and she lost the election because of it.

Er, no. Comey laid out quite sufficient evidence, and then pretended it was nothing. I'm not convinced, either, that she lost because of the FBI's investigation; has any research been done to support such a contention?

And remember your sentiments for how long Mueller takes in his probe.

Sure. I expect it to drag on interminably.

[Mountain Man]

I expect it to drag on interminably.

At least through the 2018 mid-terms, because Democrats think it's their key to taking control of Congress. Heck, they'll drag it out to the end of Trump's first-term, if they can.

[Starlight]

And remember your sentiments for how long Mueller takes in his probe.

How long does Mueller usually take in probes? I am largely unfamiliar with the man. It currently seems like his investigation is going incredibly fast, working weekends, and filling the team with dozens of highly competent people and digging into all sorts of things.

[demi-conservative]

Good grief.

The election and FBI investigation into Clinton have long been over. It went on for a year and half and in the end, it cost her the presidency.

ale:

Time for them all to go to jail!!!

[Mountain Man]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.2b7d355a686e

You missed some rather obvious "sleight-of-hand" there. They said they were shocked by how the story had been politicized, not that the story itself was untrue. Same with accusations of "distortion". They accuse Breitbart of exaggeration, not fabrication.

You gotta read this stuff more critically, Chuck.

[Charles]

You missed some rather obvious "sleight-of-hand" there. They said they were shocked by how the story had been politicized, not that the story itself was untrue. Same with accusations of "distortion". They accuse Breitbart of exaggeration, not fabrication.

You gotta read this stuff more critically, Chuck.

They said Breitbart politicized the story. The German police said that. Would the police say that if the story was factually correct? I don't see what sence that would make. And what you of course do not point is the fact that a German news media dedicated an entire article to showing the fake news angle Breitbart had: http://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/staedt...art930,3187550

And here is another important part of what I wrote:

And where do we see "a mob of more than 1,000 men" who "set fire to a historic church"? I have not been able to find any picture of the church actually on fire. Yes a small fire had started on some netting on scaffolding around the church. It was caused by one firework . Does that equal "a mob of more than 1,000 men" who "set fire to a historic church"? (A rather extreme form of guilt by association?)

And the error in the headline? You are perhaps reading it too critically to notice that one? What does it say about the research they put into their articles? Yes, they admit it now. But they made the error anyway when they actually published it. That seems rather low-info doesn't it?

[Mountain Man]

They said Breitbart politicized the story. The German police said that. Would the police say that if the story was factually correct?

What makes you think a factually correct story can't be politicized? That's a rather strange assertion. If the story contained factual errors then I would expect the German police to simply say so.

You say you can't find pictures of the incident. So what? All that means is you can't find pictures. It doesn't prove it never happened. But you agree that the church was set on fire. Whether it was the roof itself or construction netting on the roof seems immaterial. The fire department was still called out to deal with it.

Oldest church in Germany, or merely the oldest in the city? Hairsplitting. A bit like accusing Breitbart of "politicizing" an otherwise factually correct story.

[Charles]

What makes you think a factually correct story can't be politicized? That's a rather strange assertion. If the story contained factual errors then I would expect the German police to simply say so.

You say you can't find pictures of the incident. So what? All that means is you can't find pictures. It doesn't prove it never happened. But you agree that the church was set on fire. Whether it was the roof itself or construction netting on the roof seems immaterial. The fire department was still called out to deal with it.

Oldest church, or merely one of the oldest? Hairsplitting. A bit like accusing Breitbart of "politicizing" an otherwise factually correct story.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ortmund-church

Can you find the picture? No picture of a historical church being burned by a mob of more than 1000 people. How credible is that?

Claiming it is the oldest church in the headline when it is not the case is just a minor detail? Seriously?

[Charles]

And while Breitbart states that the "fireworks were launched at" the church, there was no indication from local news outlets or from the fire services that the fire had been started intentionally.

The fire was small and lasted 12 minutes before firefighters put it out, Ruhr Nachrichten reports.

Police told local media that overall it was a quiet night.

From this rather interesting article: https://www.thelocal.de/20170105/ger...e-on-new-years

[Mountain Man]

Can you find the picture? No picture of a historical church being burned by a mob of more than 1000 people. How credible is that?

Claiming it is the oldest church in the headline when it is not the case is just a minor detail? Seriously?

All I see is you desperate to make this into something more than it really is because you can't find anything more damning against Breitbart.

[Charles]

All I see is you desperate to make this into something more than it really is because you can't find anything more damning against Breitbart.

Is that the best you can say in favour of Breitbart in this case? Instead of going for the facts you make the claim that I am desperate. That is a little too easy, isn't it?

And making it into more than it really is... German police, journalists and politicians all felt the need to point to the fact that Breitbart presented fake news or exaggerations in this context. But I guess they are all desperate people trying to make this into something more than it really is... Or? And Breitbart claiming "a mob" of more than 1000 people set the oldest church in Germany (which it wasn't) alight when the truth is that one piece of firework that may not even have been directed at the church caused a brief fire in the netting are just pointing to facts? Or what?

[Starlight]

And, of course, Breitbart has never published a piece about climate change that was remotely true in any way shape or form. We've analyzed multiple such articles on this site in the past. They usually start with the first sentence being an outright lie and get worse from there.

[Starlight]

Can you find the picture? No picture of a historical church being burned by a mob of more than 1000 people. How credible is that?

Claiming it is the oldest church in the headline when it is not the case is just a minor detail? Seriously?

When Breitbart entirely makes stuff up like this it's a Minor Mistake. When CNN makes a minor mistake of not following internal processes regarding anonymous sources in articles, it's FaKe NewS!