The Media Industry

Garmel said:
And we have people like you who don't have a problem with a president who gives billions of dollars to a terrorist nation and thinks that ISIS is the JV team. .....
Click to expand...

There is a rumor out there, unconfirmed so far, that ISIS has infiltrated American Airlines mechanics crew maintaining planes

I was tempted to make a joke about this being a rumor started by United, but it's not really very funny. I was just looking earlier this week at prices on American to Europe
 
Garmel said:
OMG!!! Kavanaugh told reporters to lie!!!

NY Times reporters: Kavanaugh asked us to lie in exchange for an interview
Click to expand...

These reporters blew their credibility so badly that I wouldn't believe a thing they said. They are thoroughly discredited.

Garmel said:
OMG!!! Trump's a traitor!!!
Trump's communications with a foreign leader has sparked a whistleblower complaint - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

Let the inspector general do his job. If there's a real problem, I'm sure CNN will shout it from the rooftops.
 
Why would He have agreed to talk to them even off the record?
They said they wanted to "imagine themselves in his shoes" but the book was in final stages. The time for that would have been when they were just starting.

Phil is right. They should have come up with a better lie.

I hope they sell zero books.
 
I am so confused.
Hillary Campaign and DNC tried to get Ukraine to provide oppo research on Trump.
Biden held Ukraine hostage unless the prosecutor going after Biden's son was fired
"Speaking at a Council on Foreign Relations event, Biden said that President Obama tasked him with visiting Ukraine to announce that the U.S. had provided a $1 billion loan guarantee to European nation. Biden said that he had also secured a commitment from Poroshenko that he would “take action” against Shokin, who had been accused of failing to fight corruption in Ukraine.

But Biden said that Poroshenko had failed to remove Shokin from office by the time he visited Ukraine, so he told the foreign leader: “Nah…we’re not going to give you the billion dollars.”

“They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president,'” Biden recalled the Ukraine side saying.
“I said, ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.’ I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours.’ I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.'”

“Well, son of a *****. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” he added.( meaning someone who dropped the investigation in Biden's son and the Soros NGO)

Shokin submitted his resignation on March 29, 2016.

Neither the White House nor the Biden campaign responded to requests for comment. Andrew Bakaj, the attorney for the whistleblower,declined comment."

Did I miss Schiff etc calling for investigation into that?

Why Not?
 
Horn6721 said:
I am so confused.
Hillary Campaign and DNC tried to get Ukraine to provide oppo research on Trump.
Biden held Ukraine hostage unless the prosecutor going after Biden's son was fired
"Speaking at a Council on Foreign Relations event, Biden said that President Obama tasked him with visiting Ukraine to announce that the U.S. had provided a $1 billion loan guarantee to European nation. Biden said that he had also secured a commitment from Poroshenko that he would “take action” against Shokin, who had been accused of failing to fight corruption in Ukraine.

But Biden said that Poroshenko had failed to remove Shokin from office by the time he visited Ukraine, so he told the foreign leader: “Nah…we’re not going to give you the billion dollars.”

“They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president,'” Biden recalled the Ukraine side saying.
“I said, ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.’ I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours.’ I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.'”

“Well, son of a *****. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” he added.( meaning someone who dropped the investigation in Biden's son and the Soros NGO)

Shokin submitted his resignation on March 29, 2016.

Neither the White House nor the Biden campaign responded to requests for comment. Andrew Bakaj, the attorney for the whistleblower,declined comment."

Did I miss Schiff etc calling for investigation into that?

Why Not?
Click to expand...

I'm sure LH knows nothing of this. If he does know it can't be true because the MSM said it wasn't true.
 
Garm
No doubt
so here is a compilation of all of LH's fave MSM sources asking questions about Biden and Ukraine. Hunter was getting 50K a month from the Ukrainian gas company
 
LongestHorn said:

Handling of Whistleblower Complaint Makes It Impossible for IG To Do His Job
Click to expand...


I've never heard of this guy, but he's either incredibly stupid, or he has Adam Schiff's balls so firmly and deeply entrenched in his mouth that I fear for his malnutrition. Either way, his analysis is laughable.

First, he acts as though the DNI withheld the complaint arbitrarily. He didn't. He had a reason. He believes it violates executive confidentiality and privilege - something this doofus doesn't even address.

Second, he acts like refusing to turn it over to Congress is some outrageous move. It's not. When Bill Clinton signed the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (which this dumbass hasn't read), he stated that the law “does not constrain [his] constitutional authority to review and, if appropriate, control disclosure of certain classified information to Congress.” In other words, he anticipated disputes like this to arise. The Obama Administration followed the same policy.

Third, he suggests that this makes it impossible for the IG to do his job. It doesn't. The IG can still investigate and still issue a report. The agency head doesn't have to concur with the IG, but that's always true.

Finally, he suggests that this move kills congressional oversight. It doesn't. Schiff can issue a subpoena for the report. This dolt does at least mention the subpoena, but he glosses over the fact that the subpoena can be enforced through the judiciary. In other words, he is using the term "subpoena," because it's legalese and (he thinks) makes him sound smart, but he has no idea what a subpoena is.

For the record, I am not a fan of executive privilege, and if I was a judge, I'd construe it very narrowly and probably rule against the DNI here. However, this goober's analysis of the dispute is garbage.
 
Trump whistleblower: New revelations deepen scandal over complaint - CNNPolitics

"The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower's concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration's determination that the complaint didn't fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said."

Another nothingburger, folks. Once again, LongestHorn falls for fake news.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I've never heard of this guy, but he's either incredibly stupid, or he has Adam Schiff's balls so firmly and deeply entrenched in his mouth that I fear for his malnutrition. Either way, his analysis is laughable.

First, he acts as though the DNI withheld the complaint arbitrarily. He didn't. He had a reason. He believes it violates executive confidentiality and privilege - something this doofus doesn't even address.

Second, he acts like refusing to turn it over to Congress is some outrageous move. It's not. When Bill Clinton signed the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (which this dumbass hasn't read), he stated that the law “does not constrain [his] constitutional authority to review and, if appropriate, control disclosure of certain classified information to Congress.” In other words, he anticipated disputes like this to arise. The Obama Administration followed the same policy.

Third, he suggests that this makes it impossible for the IG to do his job. It doesn't. The IG can still investigate and still issue a report. The agency head doesn't have to concur with the IG, but that's always true.

Finally, he suggests that this move kills congressional oversight. It doesn't. Schiff can issue a subpoena for the report. This dolt does at least mention the subpoena, but he glosses over the fact that the subpoena can be enforced through the judiciary. In other words, he is using the term "subpoena," because it's legalese and (he thinks) makes him sound smart, but he has no idea what a subpoena is.

For the record, I am not a fan of executive privilege, and if I was a judge, I'd construe it very narrowly and probably rule against the DNI here. However, this goober's analysis of the dispute is garbage.
Click to expand...
It's good that you have time to address some of the truckloads of idiocy streaming from the media/faux media/random twit on twitter, and the simple minded folks that reiterate the idiocy as if it has real value. My reaction is "what a bunch of Sheila Jackson Lee-like dumbasses".
 
iatrogenic said:
It's good that you have time to address some of the truckloads of idiocy streaming from the media/faux media/random twit on twitter, and the simple minded folks that reiterate the idiocy as if it has real value. My reaction is "what a bunch of Sheila Jackson Lee-like dumbasses".
Click to expand...

What's a bit disturbing is that the guy who wrote this isn't part of the media, nor is he a random twit on twitter. He's an investigator with the Government Accountability Project and specializes in intelligence and military whistleblowing, and frankly, that's good stuff. I'm all for what he does. Furthermore, the article he wrote was published by NYU Law School. In terms of credentials and the supposed credibility of the publisher, his article should be pretty authoritative, but it might be the poorest and sloppiest analysis of a legal matter I've ever read - certainly the worst I've read in a serious publication. And I'm not talking about his area of expertise. I'm talking about basic stuff that a person who wanted a clear picture of the situation would obviously want to examine like why people did what they did, the implications of their actions (like what a subpoena is and does), how an issue has been previously examined, etc. It's really shocking that a serious publication would run with something so sloppy.

Like I said, I'm not familiar with this guy, so I don't know his politics or if he's a good guy or bad guy. However, if you look at his photo, he's clearly very young - probably under 35. Like most millennials, he has probably been told that he's special and has been getting participation trophies his whole life and thinks human history didn't start until he jerked off for the first time. Accordingly, he probably wasn't very receptive to learning (since he thinks he knows everything) and didn't think to look at a signing statement from 1998 because it's too old for him to care about it. To him, something that happened in 1998 may as well have happened in 1998 BC.
 
Horn6721 said:
I am so confused.
Hillary Campaign and DNC tried to get Ukraine to provide oppo research on Trump.
Biden held Ukraine hostage unless the prosecutor going after Biden's son was fired
"Speaking at a Council on Foreign Relations event, Biden said that President Obama tasked him with visiting Ukraine to announce that the U.S. had provided a $1 billion loan guarantee to European nation. Biden said that he had also secured a commitment from Poroshenko that he would “take action” against Shokin, who had been accused of failing to fight corruption in Ukraine.

But Biden said that Poroshenko had failed to remove Shokin from office by the time he visited Ukraine, so he told the foreign leader: “Nah…we’re not going to give you the billion dollars.”

“They said, ‘You have no authority. You’re not the president,'” Biden recalled the Ukraine side saying.
“I said, ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.’ I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours.’ I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.'”

“Well, son of a *****. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” he added.( meaning someone who dropped the investigation in Biden's son and the Soros NGO)

Shokin submitted his resignation on March 29, 2016.

Neither the White House nor the Biden campaign responded to requests for comment. Andrew Bakaj, the attorney for the whistleblower,declined comment."

Did I miss Schiff etc calling for investigation into that?

Why Not?
Click to expand...

There are some weird angles to this. If Trump encouraged Zelensky to investigate Biden, and that's all he did, he's probably in the clear. That's not illegal. In fact, it's basically what the Democrats did in 2016. What if Trump threatened to hold up or otherwise interfere with the military aid if Zelensky didn't investigate Biden? Now, we have a quid pro quo in which military aid is being doled out in return for political dirt. That's a big problem - almost surely impeachable. Of course, until we know what was said in that phone call, we have no idea if there's a case here at all.

But what if Democrats decide to actually pursue the matter with an impeachment inquiry? It's a high-risk move, because the matter will turn to evidence involving Biden. Why? Because it'll beg the question of what Trump wanted Zelensky and his people to investigate. Did Biden threaten to hold up $1B to Ukraine to bailout his son? Well, we know he threatened to hold up the $1B. He said so. We know the prosecutor he wanted shitcanned was going after his son. We know said prosecutor did get shitcanned. The hard part is already established. There was a quid pro quo. Biden will claim that it was because the prosecutor was corrupt, not because he was investigating his son, and obviously that makes a bid difference. Of course, what's dicey is that this prosecutor likely was corrupt, so it's going to be hard to establish what Biden's real objective was. (Honestly, he probably had both matters in mind.)

We know what the media will do. They'll do the same thing they did with Hillary's e-mail hacking. They'll spend 99 percent of their time on what Trump may or may not have done and almost completely ignore the content of any investigation on Biden just like they largely ignored the contents of Hillary's e-mails. However, they won't be able to stop that stuff from coming up. That means it very likely could hurt Biden. If it hurts him now, the big winner is Elizabeth Warren. She can exploit it big time, because she can attack both Trump and Biden as corrupt. What if it things hit the fan after Biden is the nominee? Then it take a lot of steam out of Biden.

One thing that makes me laugh a little is that for 3 years all we heard about was that Trump was whoring for Vladimir Putin and the Russian government. Now he's getting accused of (and perhaps accurately) making a shady deal with someone who's unquestionably an enemy of Vladimir Putin's. It's tough to keep your credibility if you crap your pants falsely so many times over such a long period of time. What if they had just acted like mature adults and waited patiently for the Mueller Report rather than taking a dump on themselves every ten minutes for three years? It would have been much easier for them to disengage from that issue, and they'd have far more credibility when they try to make an issue of this.
 
Some new media polling - as they continue to rapidly lose influence (which, of course, is their own fault)

Here, they have lost the trust of key Independent and Unaffiliated Voters.
They now only carry Democrats - and even this by just a single point.

EDdNVpLWwAAXYgF



 
Husker?
Are you seriously saying you do not know that the DNC tried to get Ukraine to do oppo research on Trump?
Really?
come on Man, You know better.
 
Because it'll beg the question of what Trump wanted Zelensky and his people to investigate.
Click to expand...

Pedantic pet peeve here: "beg the question" means a logical fallacy of using your conclusion as a premise to get to the same conclusion. It doesn't mean "leads us to believe we should ponder the question". Oddly enough, neither really makes sense to go along with the word "beg" (I think the technically correct usage is actually a long-entrenched mistranslation of Latin). Anyway, back to the regularly-scheduled bickering....
 
Statalyzer said:
Pedantic pet peeve here: "beg the question" means a logical fallacy of using your conclusion as a premise to get to the same conclusion.
Click to expand...

You are correct. However, when I want to characterize such a fallacy, I usually describe it as circular.

Statalyzer said:
It doesn't mean "leads us to believe we should ponder the question". Oddly enough, neither really makes sense to go along with the word "beg" (I think the technically correct usage is actually a long-entrenched mistranslation of Latin). Anyway, back to the regularly-scheduled bickering....
Click to expand...

You are correct. I use the phrase "beg the question" this way just because everybody else does, and I haven't taken the time to come up with a more appropriate alternative phrase.
 
It's a reasonable question - why has the media waited so long to ask questions about this? The topical facts have been out there for awhile

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top