House Intel votes to release FISA memo...

[carpedm9587]

Actually, I owe you an apology for a sloppy post. I saw IRS and immediately went to that "great scandal" of how the IRS targeted right-wing groups. That was the meme I was referring to. You were referring to something different, which I actually knmew nothing about. I've followed the story through several sources, most with a right-wing bent. I've been trying to get to coverage from a neutral source, and so far the least biased source I've found is Al Jazeera, and they confirm that this occured and that the journalist was simply reporting about a missle strike that killed civilians. I'm trying to get to the discussion about it that was recorded, but haben't succeeded yet. So far, it appears this story is indeed true, and would be added to my list of "things I didn't like about Obama.

The Hitler comparison is just a tad over the top, Rogue. There is simply no way Obama was "like Hitler."

I have not had a chance to chase down the St. Louis story.

So I have gone as far as I can go with the Shaye story. It does appear to be true that Obama expressed "concern" in a call and, as a result, the journalist was not released for another 2 years. The charges against him were "terrorism-related," and Human Rights Watch and Amnesty international (among others) described the trial as a "sham trial." I don't know if Obama knew that at the time of his comment, but he should have known that within a short time if he didn't. Either way, this goes on my list of "things I don't approve of that Obama did." Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Rogue. I will look into the St. Louis journalist next.

[carpedm9587]

Yet again you are quick to hand wave things you don't like as "yet another right-wing meme" when even a cursory examination shows it isn't I just posted this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post514904) in response to jimmy claiming that Trump is no different than Hitler because he "disparaged the so called MSM." It contains mention (with sources) of Obama siccing the IRS after a local reporter in St. Louis along with several other things that garnered a collective yawn from the left (with a very few exceptions).

OK, I'm finished looking into the St. Louis claim, and it's a nothing burger. The journalist in question did a "hard hitting" interview with Obama, and then claimed afterwards, on his facebook page, that the IRS had been "set on him." He acknowledged he could not prove his claim, later it came out that the IRS had been after him for back taxes of $85K BEFORE the interview, which he acknowledged, he took down the facebook claim, and he was fired for his social media posts because the station felt he had compromise his journalistic integrity. The right, however, never let it go. It continued to be reported by Fox, The Blaze, Brietbart, Daily Liberator, Drudge Report, and many other far-right news outlets.

This one goes on my list of "right-wing memes" that have no substance.

[carpedm9587]

Comments inserted...

Source: Breitbart

Here are 16 things the media do not want you to know about the Nunes memo:

• Which was originally a document funded by members of the GOPThe "opposition research" had been vetted and a portion of it found to be accurate/confirmed. The memo fails to tell us which parts of this research paper were used for the FISA warrants. Oh yeah, and domestic law inforcement does not usually use the term "spying" for its surveillance operations, so that's a loaded word intended to convey a political point - which Brietbart does all the time.The court was set up to track the activity of foreign spies within the U.S. A U.S. Citizen can be a foreign spy. Again, Brietbart is selectively using language to paint an ideological picture.We actually do not have all of the data provided to the FISA court, and the fact is that links between campaign officials and Russia have already been shown to be true, so this claim lacks substantiationSee aboveSee aboveInterestingly, in June of that same year, Comey refused to publicly answer questions about the document, citing the need for it to be private. If the entire document were unverified, why would this be necessary? Is it perhaps, more likely, that the verified portions would reveal sources/confidences that could not be discussed publicly? Bottom line is, this is an assumption, on both sides - which Brietbart puts forward as fact.That a person has a preference in one direction or another is not proof that they are acting on that preference. I dislike Trump in the extreme. I would never manufacture evidence or lie to get him out of office.And this proves...? This is accusation by innuendo - which Brietbart is famous for.See all of the above. There is nothing new in this item, just more Brietbart hammering home their theme. This item was completely redundant with previous items. If I were their editor, I would have said, "superfluous."AFAIK, there is no evidence that this information was withheld. This is an assumption.At this point, there are so many assumptions here, the claim just fails on it sown merits
• Also hidden from the FISA court was the fact that the FBI obtained Steele as a source but had to fire him in October of 2016 when, in a bid to use his phony dossier to derail the Trump campaign, he leaked his information to the far-left Mother Jones. I have seen no evidence that any of this was "hidden" from the FISA court. Only the selective claim of the memo, written by partisan members with a clear agenda.Brietbart continues to hammer on "salacious and unverified" despite the fact that some of the dossier HAS been verified (and parts have not). It muddies the waters by labeling the entire dossier unverified, on which rests most of this line item. It cites many things that do indeed have bad optics, but do not prove a problem.
  
• All of this dishonesty occurred under Comey, the man our media now hold up as a living saint, a man so desperate to destroy Trump, he not only oversaw those committing the above abuses, he leaked classified information to the news media in order to see a Special Prosecutor appointed against Trump, which his pal, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, immediately did. And this is sort of the nail in the coffin. Nothing Comety leaked to the media was "classified," AFAICT. That the president felt it should have been kept private does not make it "classified." Comey has a long record of acting ethically, all the way back to the Ashcroft incident. Brietbart is, again, showing a clear political bias and putting forward as "fact" things that are simply not "fact." They are opinion. They are also poorly informed opinion.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...not-want-know/

© Copyright Original Source

This makes Watergate look like a petty crime.

If this list from Brietbart does not demonstrate to you that they are indeed an "extreme right" outlet with "mixed" reputation for factual reporting, then I have to assume that facts and accuracy don't matter to you as much as partisan politics.

[Mountain Man]

Comments inserted...



If this list from Brietbart does not demonstrate to you that they are indeed an "extreme right" outlet with "mixed" reputation for factual reporting, then I have to assume that facts and accuracy don't matter to you as much as partisan politics.

Sorry, but your attempt at a rebuttal is laughable. We have the facts as stated in the memo. That's what Breitbart is CORRECTLY reporting, and do far, nobody has presented a credible rebuttal. Case in point, your objections are based on speculation, just-so stories, claims for which there is no evidence, and other deceptions.

For instance, you push the liberal talking point that parts of the dossier have been verified without bothering to mention that the only parts that have been verified are inconsequential details that Steele sourced from a local newspaper and have nothing at all to do with Trump. The rest of it appears to pure fiction, and the fact that McCabe is on record saying that they couldn't have gotten their warrants without the dossier is damning.

Until the Democrats can mount a credible response, that is if they can, the memo is a smoking bazooka that blows a big hole in their entire Russian conspiracy theory. And now we know the Democrats fought like cornered rats to block its release.

And seriously, Media Bias Fact Check?

[carpedm9587]

Sorry, but your attempt at a rebuttal is laughable. We have the facts as stated in the memo. That's what Breitbart is CORRECTLY reporting, and do far, nobody has presented a credible rebuttal. Case in point, your objections are based on speculation, just-so stories, claims for which there is no evidence, and other deceptions.

For instance, you push the liberal talking point that parts of the dossier have been verified without bothering to mention that the only parts that have been verified are inconsequential details that Steele sourced from a local newspaper and have nothing at all to do with Trump. The rest of it appears to pure fiction, and the fact that McCabe is on record saying that they couldn't have gotten their warrants without the dossier is damning.

Until the Democrats can mount a credible response, that is if they can, the memo is a smoking bazooka that blows a big hole in their entire Russian conspiracy theory. And now we know the Democrats fought like cornered rats to block its release.

And seriously, Media Bias Fact Check?

I actually am serious. Do you really think, MM, that by inserting a rolling/laughing face you can undermine those who truly look to find how they can sort out media bias? There is not a single site that assesses media bias that I have found that classifies Brietbart as anything other than "far right" and "unreliable' (using one set of language or another). That you discount anyone/anything that doesn't agree with you speaks volumes about your political orientation. Despite all of the mocking emojis, I suspect most people can see how you derive information and how you defend it. I will trust to the rationality of those reading these posts, except (of course) for those who are likewise locked into your "bubble."

As for your other observations, I invite you to read a bit more broadly than Brietbart, Fox, and the Drudge Report. When you only read within your "bubble," the only views you hold will be controlled by those who control the bubble.

[Mountain Man]

There is not a single site that assesses media bias that I have found that classifies Brietbart as anything other than "far right" and "unreliable'...

You're talking about the same website that calls Politico and The Washington Post "center left" and rates their accuracy as "high", and it rates Snopes as "least biased". That in and of itself proves that Media Bias Fact Check is a joke.

You gotta be more diligent in vetting this stuff, dude.

[One Bad Pig]

He was referred for an indictment by Grassley and Graham.

It should be remembered that Steele is a foreign national.

Ah. I did not recall that.

[rogue06]

Yeah - I noticed that about Fox

They're guilty too. But considering that "conservative media" is so tiny when compared to the liberal MSM...

[carpedm9587]

They're guilty too. But considering that "conservative media" is so tiny when compared to the liberal MSM...

Actually, not. I suggest you spend some time on the two sites I linked. Sinclair Broadcast Group now has a dominant hold of local television affiliates. Fox has grown to a significant market share, dominating most other cable news programs and triggering CNN and MSNCB to replicate their business model (which is sad, actually). Add to that Brietbart, The Blaze, and all of the rest of the "soft" and "hard" right outlets, and a chief executive on the warpath for any media outlet that does not report as he wants them to, I think the day of complaining that the right is "dominated" by media is pretty much behind us. It's an old mantra, but no longer accurate.

But the left does dominate late night! Somehow, the right still haven't learned how to laugh without grimacing

[carpedm9587]

You're talking about the same website that calls Politico and The Washington Post "center left" and rates their accuracy as "high", and it rates Snopes as "least biased". That in and of itself proves that Media Bias Fact Check is a joke.

You gotta be more diligent in vetting this stuff, dude.

Somehow, I didn't think you would respond otherwise. I am satisfied that I've vetted these sources adequately, MM. I was under no illusion you would approve.

[rogue06]

OK, I'm finished looking into the St. Louis claim, and it's a nothing burger. The journalist in question did a "hard hitting" interview with Obama, and then claimed afterwards, on his facebook page, that the IRS had been "set on him." He acknowledged he could not prove his claim, later it came out that the IRS had been after him for back taxes of $85K BEFORE the interview, which he acknowledged, he took down the facebook claim, and he was fired for his social media posts because the station felt he had compromise his journalistic integrity. The right, however, never let it go. It continued to be reported by Fox, The Blaze, Brietbart, Daily Liberator, Drudge Report, and many other far-right news outlets.

This one goes on my list of "right-wing memes" that have no substance.

The fact is that he was on a payment plan with the IRS to pay some back taxes which all of a sudden got cancelled without warning or comment almost immediately after his interview and then the IRS placed a lien on his house. This is incredibly rare unless the person involved is reneging on the payments or is constantly falling behind (there is no evidence that either is the case). Apparently his attorney could not get a response from the IRS (again incredibly rare since in reality they are far more interested in collecting back taxes than punishing the person unless they have a reason to do so).

Further, the fact that he publicized it and refused to retract it cost him his job is another strong reason to believe he was telling the truth. Very few folks are willing to get fired from a well paying job over a false claim that will get him in even deeper trouble with the IRS (now he had no source of income to continue any payments to the IRS if they decided to go back to their previous arrangement.

[rogue06]

Actually, not. I suggest you spend some time on the two sites I linked. Sinclair Broadcast Group now has a dominant hold of local television affiliates. Fox has grown to a significant market share, dominating most other cable news programs and triggering CNN and MSNCB to replicate their business model (which is sad, actually). Add to that Brietbart, The Blaze, and all of the rest of the "soft" and "hard" right outlets, and a chief executive on the warpath for any media outlet that does not report as he wants them to, I think the day of complaining that the right is "dominated" by media is pretty much behind us. It's an old mantra, but no longer accurate.

But the left does dominate late night! Somehow, the right still haven't learned how to laugh without grimacing

The left controls the network news (ABC, CBS, NBC) which usually gets more viewers than cable stations. And that isn't just the nightly news but morning shows like Good Morning America, the Today Show, and CBS This Morning, and gabfest shows that follow them like the View. They also have PBS and NPR. And on cable they have CNN, MSNBC and Bloomberg News among a few others.

It is the same, if not more so, with newspapers and magazines.

For every conservative outlet you list you can list 5 to 10 liberal ones.

[Tassman]

Comments inserted...



If this list from Brietbart does not demonstrate to you that they are indeed an "extreme right" outlet with "mixed" reputation for factual reporting, then I have to assume that facts and accuracy don't matter to you as much as partisan politics.

[rogue06]

The one where Obama took responsibility, and ordered an investigation.

Then a day or so later scoffed at the whole thing and announced before the investigation started that there was nothing to it

[Starlight]

The left mega-corporations control the network news (ABC, CBS, NBC)

FTFY. The fact that you think of these massive corporations and the mega-rich who own them as 'left' just shows your delusions. The leanings of such corporations are typically right-wing on economic issues and liberal on social issues, as well as pro-war and pro-government-corruption.

The fartherest left they ever go is Clintonite 3rd-way centrist neoliberalism (which is equivalent to the major right-wing party here). They regularly make a habit of getting rid of any presenters who turn out to be serious progressives or who are anti-war, and they are usually openly hostile to anyone who's on the actual left (Sanders, Greens, etc).