I agree with you.

The truth is actually simple and right in front of us.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...-community

(05-25-2019 10:14 AM)nj alum Wrote:  I agree with you.

The truth is actually simple and right in front of us.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...-community

So am I reading right from the link provided that you think because Trump went against the intelligence community regarding Russian hacking, they decided to frame him? That is your simple truth? That is a Tom Clancy novel.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/f...20%251%24s

(06-11-2019 12:11 PM)nj alum Wrote:  https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/f...20%251%24s

I couldn't get the link to open. Though, being the National Review, I'm sure it is [sarcasm] fair & unbiased [/sarcasm]

The link worked for me.

It’s the latest Victor Davis Hanson column entitled “The FBI Tragedy: Elites above the Law”.

This link I got to work

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/f...e-law/amp/

Is there anything to learn from this article? All I gleaned was the regurgitated conspiracy theories of the last 2 years. It's one thing to suspect or theorize that the FBI is/was up to no good. Where it gets problematic is presenting unproven or debatable theories & suspicions as absolute facts. This article relies entirely on these "facts"

I know I come across as some hardcore lib. I'm really not though. I believe I actually fall conservative in many ways. What we see coming out of republican party right now isn't conservativism though. It's mutated into something else. The dems have shifted as well. Both sides say what they want to win at all costs. Sanity is often thrown out the window. Trying to navigate facts is difficult with the over the top narratives on both sides. That's where I try to stand. Listen to what is said and try to cut through the politically motivated BS.
I don't think that Comey is some model of ethical perfection. I do know that a lot of the barbs being thrown at him and the FBI/DOJ have the reek of BS.

There is a FISA Court opinion about FBI abuse, and this article discusses, in part, the FISA Court’s findings re: FBI abuse-

https://themarketswork.com/2018/01/15/th...narrative/

Something reeks, but it’s not the opinions of those who are looking under the rock and exposing slime to sunlight.

(06-11-2019 02:03 PM)nj alum Wrote:  There is a FISA Court opinion about FBI abuse, and this article discusses, in part, the FISA Court’s findings re: FBI abuse-

https://themarketswork.com/2018/01/15/th...narrative/

Something reeks, but it’s not the opinions of those who are looking under the rock and exposing slime to sunlight.

So an opinion piece by a conservative blogger says the FISA warrant was no Bueno? Well that has got to be true, right? Again, it's taking debatable findings and details and presenting them as settled fact. I know for a fact I can pull up a zillion left leaning blogs by lawyers claiming that the process was followed properly.

Pull articles from journalists that actually try to lay out info without over seasoning with opinion or an angle and perhaps we might land on more common ground.

Mr. J.-

The chief judge of the FISA Court wrote a court decision (aka an “opinion” in legal terminology). The opinion/decision is public knowledge. In the opinion/decision, the FISA Court noted an 85% non-compliance rate with the applicable minimum FISA query procedures, notably by the FBI and FBI contractors.

I think the referenced Court opinion has some settled facts which are, at the least, unsettling.

(06-11-2019 02:45 PM)nj alum Wrote:  Mr. J.-

The chief judge of the FISA Court wrote a court decision (aka an “opinion” in legal terminology). The opinion/decision is public knowledge. In the opinion/decision, the FISA Court noted an 85% non-compliance rate with the applicable minimum FISA query procedures, notably by the FBI and FBI contractors.

I think the referenced Court opinion has some settled facts which are, at the least, unsettling.

NJ, I've seen the opposite. That four different FISA court justices (Collyer, Mosman, Conway, and Dearie), including the presiding justice (Collyer) approved the original request from the FBI.

(06-11-2019 03:02 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 02:45 PM)nj alum Wrote:  Mr. J.-

The chief judge of the FISA Court wrote a court decision (aka an “opinion” in legal terminology). The opinion/decision is public knowledge. In the opinion/decision, the FISA Court noted an 85% non-compliance rate with the applicable minimum FISA query procedures, notably by the FBI and FBI contractors.

I think the referenced Court opinion has some settled facts which are, at the least, unsettling.

NJ, I've seen the opposite. That four different FISA court justices (Collyer, Mosman, Conway, and Dearie), including the presiding justice (Collyer) approved the original request from the FBI.

This, too, is what I gather. There was very little resistance to the FISA application. Where the debate happens is where the politics intersect and the Nunes/Graham's get involved. Nunes claims the FBI mislead the court and didn't disclose who involved they were targeting. The FBI claims as standard practice that the names are kept anonymous. The further debate on both sides is if Page is defined as simply a US citizen or if he is a possible foreign agent. Depending on your political flavor, there are arguments to go both ways.

My opinion is that the FBI made a fairly standard request for a FISA warrant. Details of which, by nature, are fairly broad. FISA warrants provide a great deal of latitude investigating an agent of a foreign country. I don't know if Page was truly an agent of a foreign power, but it isn't a unreasonable with his background to suspect it. There was enough going on in that orbit to raise flags.

My litmus test is if it didn't blow back on "candidate 1", would it ever have been viewed as improper? Personally, I don't think so. Interject politics and it's a deep state witch hunt.

(06-11-2019 02:28 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 02:03 PM)nj alum Wrote:  There is a FISA Court opinion about FBI abuse, and this article discusses, in part, the FISA Court’s findings re: FBI abuse-

https://themarketswork.com/2018/01/15/th...narrative/

Something reeks, but it’s not the opinions of those who are looking under the rock and exposing slime to sunlight.

So an opinion piece by a conservative blogger says the FISA warrant was no Bueno? Well that has got to be true, right? Again, it's taking debatable findings and details and presenting them as settled fact. I know for a fact I can pull up a zillion left leaning blogs by lawyers claiming that the process was followed properly.

Pull articles from journalists that actually try to lay out info without over seasoning with opinion or an angle and perhaps we might land on more common ground.

You really have to wince at that chart. Just looking at the top, calling NBC, the AP and ABC neutral? No one seriously tries to argue the media is not highly skewed to the left. It's real, similar to academia. If they are neutral, they have been incredibly incompetent the last two years.

(06-11-2019 03:55 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 03:02 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 02:45 PM)nj alum Wrote:  Mr. J.-

The chief judge of the FISA Court wrote a court decision (aka an “opinion” in legal terminology). The opinion/decision is public knowledge. In the opinion/decision, the FISA Court noted an 85% non-compliance rate with the applicable minimum FISA query procedures, notably by the FBI and FBI contractors.

I think the referenced Court opinion has some settled facts which are, at the least, unsettling.

NJ, I've seen the opposite. That four different FISA court justices (Collyer, Mosman, Conway, and Dearie), including the presiding justice (Collyer) approved the original request from the FBI.

This, too, is what I gather. There was very little resistance to the FISA application. Where the debate happens is where the politics intersect and the Nunes/Graham's get involved. Nunes claims the FBI mislead the court and didn't disclose who involved they were targeting. The FBI claims as standard practice that the names are kept anonymous. The further debate on both sides is if Page is defined as simply a US citizen or if he is a possible foreign agent. Depending on your political flavor, there are arguments to go both ways.

My opinion is that the FBI made a fairly standard request for a FISA warrant. Details of which, by nature, are fairly broad. FISA warrants provide a great deal of latitude investigating an agent of a foreign country. I don't know if Page was truly an agent of a foreign power, but it isn't a unreasonable with his background to suspect it. There was enough going on in that orbit to raise flags.

My litmus test is if it didn't blow back on "candidate 1", would it ever have been viewed as improper? Personally, I don't think so. Interject politics and it's a deep state witch hunt.

I guess where my jaw dropped is when Comey showed up 15 minutes late for an interview with Bret Bair on Fox and responding to a direct question, said he saw no difference in the FBI handling of Hillary Clinton vs Trump. That's all I needed to hear to understand this was no impartial "public servant".

(06-11-2019 05:20 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  Comey said he saw no difference in the FBI handling of Hillary Clinton vs Trump.

I'm not sure if I disagree with that statement.

Dems to this day hate Comey and blame him for costing Clinton the election. Comey claimed he was trying to be thorough as to why he opened up a late investigation into her. They think she was treated unfairly.

Reps think that the Russia investigation is unfair and some plot because he disliked Trump. Comey claimed he was trying to be thorough as to why he opened up a investigation into him. Some push that he overlooked thousands of damning Clinton emails to protect her (one of my favorite theories).

You can never make everyone happy. He seems to have stepped on a lot of political toes. In my book, if both sides are pissed at you, you probably did as fair a job as possible.

(06-11-2019 05:14 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  You really have to wince at that chart. Just looking at the top, calling NBC, the AP and ABC neutral? No one seriously tries to argue the media is not highly skewed to the left. It's real, similar to academia. If they are neutral, they have been incredibly incompetent the last two years.

I can agree with you on NBC & ABC having a bit of a left lean, but the AP? The Associated Press, aside from maybe PBS and Reuters, is about as neutral as it gets in a news outlet. You may get the occasional opinion of a journalist, but the overall narrative of the company isn't politically driven.

(06-11-2019 05:48 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(06-11-2019 05:14 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  You really have to wince at that chart. Just looking at the top, calling NBC, the AP and ABC neutral? No one seriously tries to argue the media is not highly skewed to the left. It's real, similar to academia. If they are neutral, they have been incredibly incompetent the last two years.

I can agree with you on NBC & ABC having a bit of a left lean, but the AP? The Associated Press, aside from maybe PBS and Reuters, is about as neutral as it gets in a news outlet. You may get the occasional opinion of a journalist, but the overall narrative of the company isn't politically driven.

I mean, they do lean way left of the far right. It's a matter of perspective, I think.

CNN and MSNBC in the square of credible, factual news? That's laughable.

This chart needs to be updated. Maybe part of the criteria should include news stories carried being knowingly false (CBS, ABC, CNN, Buzzfeed) and how many employees these organizations have had to fire for false and misleading accounts (CNN).

Bias also includes news stories ignored or uncovered due to political damage control. You can throw half these well to the left on that barometer.

In the end, the market will tell you who's really trusted by the audience, not one woman who developed a chart.

The market is driven by who can get their narrative out to the most eyes and who can shout it the loudest for the most to hear. If you make it a talking point and say it enough times, it has to be true, right? Market share has little to do with the measure of journalistic integrity.
We are in a world of pick a team, take as gospel anything positive and anything negative is fake news. Truly scary times.
I agree that the chart I posted isnt perfect. I would take it more as a starting point. I would nudge some of the news outlets around a bit, but it's not completely off base. I agree those networks you mentioned all share a left lean to various degrees. I disagree that they fabricate stories. And, if a story proves wrong, they generally will come out and admit the error. Curious for your opinion on where you would go for neutral reporting?

(06-12-2019 06:57 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  The market is driven by who can get their narrative out to the most eyes and who can shout it the loudest for the most to hear. If you make it a talking point and say it enough times, it has to be true, right? Market share has little to do with the measure of journalistic integrity.
We are in a world of pick a team, take as gospel anything positive and anything negative is fake news. Truly scary times.

One last comment and my thoughts on media are done.

I think your recap really sells the audience short. It has been increasingly apparent, people do pay attention and vote with their choices of where they go for trusted news. Look at the trends, who's gaining and who's not. Look at the ratings free fall at MSNBC and CNN following the Mueller report. The recent staff reductions at NYT and CNN. The collapse of Newsweek.

"Fake news", if nothing else, has made people take notice of sources and accuracy. That's not a bad thing. The real danger is when the political ruling class and mainstream media are chirping in unison. The people are smart enough to see when and where they are being deceived. Look at Fox, attacked for years, by Presidents, etc, the original target of "Faux News" - now a leader and still growing.

Well said SB