With a new special counsel appointed it ought to be fun to watch. Those special counsels never seem to go the way people intended them too. So when this new special counsel starts going after the only known crime committed, the unveiling of private citizens that were found during "incidental" surveillance of others.
With a new special counsel appointed it ought to be fun to watch. Those special counsels never seem to go the way people intended them too. So when this new special counsel starts going after the only known crime committed, the unveiling of private citizens that were found during "incidental" surveillance of others.
Yes, I have limited knowledge about the special council but I have heard they can delve into basically anything they find while investigating.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-18-2017).]
I kind of expect that it would at the most be a repeat of the Hillary emails thing. They will find that although there are legal transgressions that it doesn't rise to prosecutable action. I don't believe there was Russian involvement in the wiki-leaks. It was Seth Rich who leaked the emails to wiki-leaks before he was shot in the back in a robbery where nothing was taken although he had $2000 in jewelry and cash. They found 44,000 dnc emails on his laptop post murder (I mean robbery).
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 05-18-2017).]
Originally posted by dratts: I kind of expect that it would at the most be a repeat of the Hillary emails thing. They will find that although there are legal transgressions that it doesn't rise to prosecutable action. I don't believe there was Russian involvement in the wiki-leaks. It was Seth Rich who leaked the emails to wiki-leaks before he was shot in the back in a robbery where nothing was taken although he had $2000 in jewelry and cash. They found 44,000 dnc emails on his laptop post murder (I mean robbery).
Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.
While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship (RELATED: Snopes Caught Lying About Lack Of American Flags At Democratic Convention)
She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”
She once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)
Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being “at least guilty of criminal negligience” in the September 11 attacks. (The future “fact-checker” offered no evidence to support her accusation.
Her columns apparently failed to impress her readership, oftentimes failing to get more than 10-20 shares. After blogging the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined Snopes, where she regularly plays defense for her fellow liberals.
She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban.
Similarly, Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim.
After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”
Lacapria even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as “rumors.” In that “fact check” article, Lacapria argued that “Facebook Trending’s blacklisting of ‘junk topics’ was not only not a scandalous development, but to be expected following the social network’s crackdown on fake news sites.” The opinion-heavy article was mockingly titled: The Algorithm Is Gonna Get You.
Lacapria again played defense for Clinton in a fact check article when she claimed: “Outrage over an expensive Armani jacket worn by Hillary Clinton was peppered with inaccurate details.”
One of the “inaccurate details” cited by Lacapria was that, “The cost of men’s suits worn by fellow politicians didn’t appear in the article for contrast.” She also argued the speech Clinton gave while wearing the $12,495 jacket, which discussed “raising wages and reducing inequality,” wasn’t actually about income inequality.
With a new special counsel appointed it ought to be fun to watch. Those special counsels never seem to go the way people intended them too. So when this new special counsel starts going after the only known crime committed, the unveiling of private citizens that were found during "incidental" surveillance of others.
Yup, I think the democrats are in for a very rude awakening. Funny as hell watching them dance around like they are somehow winning....... again!
Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.
While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship (RELATED: Snopes Caught Lying About Lack Of American Flags At Democratic Convention)
She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as “teahadists.” She called Bill Clinton “one of our greatest” presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham’s comparison of voting to sex because they “fear female agency.”
She once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)
Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being “at least guilty of criminal negligience” in the September 11 attacks. (The future “fact-checker” offered no evidence to support her accusation.
Her columns apparently failed to impress her readership, oftentimes failing to get more than 10-20 shares. After blogging the Inquisitr, Lacapria joined Snopes, where she regularly plays defense for her fellow liberals.
She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban.
Similarly, Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim.
After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”
Lacapria even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as “rumors.” In that “fact check” article, Lacapria argued that “Facebook Trending’s blacklisting of ‘junk topics’ was not only not a scandalous development, but to be expected following the social network’s crackdown on fake news sites.” The opinion-heavy article was mockingly titled: The Algorithm Is Gonna Get You.
Lacapria again played defense for Clinton in a fact check article when she claimed: “Outrage over an expensive Armani jacket worn by Hillary Clinton was peppered with inaccurate details.”
One of the “inaccurate details” cited by Lacapria was that, “The cost of men’s suits worn by fellow politicians didn’t appear in the article for contrast.” She also argued the speech Clinton gave while wearing the $12,495 jacket, which discussed “raising wages and reducing inequality,” wasn’t actually about income inequality.
Next up, how about we "feature" the Buzzfeed writer, Claudia Koerner, Los Angeles liberal and blogger.
Didn't give your source.....hmmmm I found it for you, in fact Snopes responded to the claims from the Daily Caller "reporter"
quote
Usually we don’t bother responding to such blather (our long-established reputation as the Internet’s oldest fact-checking site speaks for itself), but this instance provided an opportunity to deliver an informative object lesson on bad reporting (and the importance of fact-checking) too good to pass up.
In his rant, said writer (whom we’ll spare a bit of embarrassment by not referring to by name) exhibited all the same flaws that have plagued his usual “reporting” — misrepresenting source material, eliding or ignoring relevant information, selective quoting, cherry-picking, lack of context — right from the very outset:
Didn't give your source.....hmmmm I found it for you, in fact Snopes responded to the claims from the Daily Caller "reporter"
Just waiting for one of you leftists to predictably take the bait.
That "rebuttal" that you think is "authoritative" is a 2600 word OPINION piece by David Mikkelson who runs Snopes.
I get it that you lefties just LOVE to cite Snopes as an "authority", and wouldn't trouble to actually check the checkers. That would require critical thinking skills that you just don't have.
Notably, Mikkelson never once denies Lacapria's self avowed leftist politics, but demands that we simply *trust* her obj.....well, he never mentions *objectivity* either. He just quotes someone else who never mentions the word either.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-18-2017).]
Originally posted by randye: Just waiting for one of you leftists to predictably take the bait.
That "rebuttal" that you think is "authoritative" is a 2600 word OPINION piece by David Mikkelson who runs Snopes.
I get it that you lefties just LOVE to cite Snopes as an "authority", and wouldn't trouble to actually check the checkers. That would require critical thinking skills that you just don't have.
I get that you love to think your opinion is somehow an "authority" but that little randy, is simply a logical fallacy. It's amusing that you want to whine about "bloggers" and "opinions," when you spend your time whining on an Internet forum basically using it as a blog to rant about your precious little opinion.
You have not the critical thinking skills you claim, nor any authority. Take your opinion and go jump into the sea.
There is absolutely no evidence to support any of these claims.
We'll see. Ever since the dnc lost the election it's been " the Russians, the Russians". The dnc and Hillary just can't admit they screwed up. It's going to come out who leaked the emails eventually if not already. Myself I could care less who leaked them. The important thing is the dnc is unable to deny the truth of them. All they can do is scream about the illegality of the leaks.
Originally posted by dratts: We'll see. Ever since the dnc lost the election it's been " the Russians, the Russians". The dnc and Hillary just can't admit they screwed up. It's going to come out who leaked the emails eventually if not already. Myself I could care less who leaked them. The important thing is the dnc is unable to deny the truth of them. All they can do is scream about the illegality of the leaks.
Not sure which "leak" you are referring to exactly, as there were multiple. WikiLeaks is nowhere near remotely trustworthy, and it has been proven that fake content gets inserted among real content (see the all the crap around the "leaks" of mails about Macron for example). There's also a clear connection between WikiLeaks and Russian state propaganda.
Propagating conspiracy theories using the death of another human being, however, is absolutely disgusting. There has been absolutely no evidence supporting any remote aspect of it. All it does is make it harder for the actual investigators to do their real job and catch whomever did kill the man.
The investigation into Russian connections has been going on for nearly a year now, a while before the election and before several of the "leaks." The hypocrisy of the people who keep going on and on about the DNC and Hillary and e-mails is beyond reason, as well. They are fanatical. The facts are simple, though. There are now multiple investigations into Russian connections and tampering, and such investigation has been ongoing for nearly a year at this point. Records relating to multiple associates of Trump's, including Flynn and Manafort, have been subpoenaed. Comey was fired because he refused to drop the investigation, and Trump himself said so on national television. Unfortunately it still seems most of the Republicans in congress are too spineless to do anything, but their donors are starting to turn away. The White House is in utter turmoil right now.
The investigation is moving forward, no matter how much the Trumpites wish to deny any possibility of ties, while at the same time parroting on about how Russia is our friend.
Putting aside all the vitriol for a moment I'd love to know how your mind works.
Can't you see you are at the edge of being banned?
You've commented repeatedly that you are upholding all that's good and decent in the world, defending those who can't defend themselves against the right wing savages in O/T.
So, how's that going to work when you can't post anymore?
Now don't get your nose out of joint. I'd really like to know your thoughts on why you continue to exhibit such poor behavior in the face of imminent extinction.
I didn't see any mention of the Comey "memo". I put "memo" in quotes because in any other setting, they are considered meeting notes. If they were reviewed by the other members present, they would be considered meeting minutes. Meeting notes are strictly the interpretation of the meeting by the note taker. Meeting minutes are agreed upon points and subjects spoken in the meeting. A memorandum is an official document that is used for many purposes but is generally distributed to multiple people in an organization. Unless Comey distributed ALL of his meeting notes, they are not memorandums IMO. I have no idea who called Comey's meeting notes a memo. I think some reporter that wanted to make it sound more important labeled them as such.
Back to the subject. Here is a great analysis of the Comey Memos affair:
If Comey did keep notes on all of his communications, then he has to turn over his notes from Obama, Clinton and Lynch. If he did not take notes during Obama's term and only started to take notes under Trump, it proves he is a political hack. If Trump did "obstruct justice" and Comey failed to report it, Comey goes to jail.
This whole thing is likely just the left trying to make a lot of noise that sounds dangerous but has no substance to it.
If Comey did keep notes on all of his communications, then he has to turn over his notes from Obama, Clinton and Lynch. If he did not take notes during Obama's term and only started to take notes under Trump, it proves he is a political hack. If Trump did "obstruct justice" and Comey failed to report it, Comey goes to jail.
This whole thing is likely just the left trying to make a lot of noise that sounds dangerous but has no substance to it.
BINGO!
In the strictest legal sense, Comey's personal notes probably can't even be used in any court or judicial proceeding without serious challenge to admissability. As the top federal law enforcement officer he has Constitutional procedure to follow. Whatever his personal notes say, if they exist, they are simply that. His own personal notes.
Originally posted by RayOtton: Putting aside all the vitriol for a moment I'd love to know how your mind works.
Can't you see you are at the edge of being banned?
You've commented repeatedly that you are upholding all that's good and decent in the world, defending those who can't defend themselves against the right wing savages in O/T.
So, how's that going to work when you can't post anymore?
Now don't get your nose out of joint. I'd really like to know your thoughts on why you continue to exhibit such poor behavior in the face of imminent extinction.
What? You cannot put aside vitriol, as it is your base function. It is all you do on this forum.
You haven't the ability to grasp how one's mind works. Weren't you supposed to be jumping into the Bay already?
Let me know how it works out when this forum is completely gone, thanks to the vile refuse you continue to fill it with on a daily basis.
I didn't see any mention of the Comey "memo". I put "memo" in quotes because in any other setting, they are considered meeting notes. If they were reviewed by the other members present, they would be considered meeting minutes. Meeting notes are strictly the interpretation of the meeting by the note taker. Meeting minutes are agreed upon points and subjects spoken in the meeting. A memorandum is an official document that is used for many purposes but is generally distributed to multiple people in an organization. Unless Comey distributed ALL of his meeting notes, they are not memorandums IMO. I have no idea who called Comey's meeting notes a memo. I think some reporter that wanted to make it sound more important labeled them as such. .
In the Air Force it was called a "memo of record". It's simply your personal written record of a meeting or a phone call so that you don't forget details. It doesn't hold any special significance because of it's name. And context is everything. Someone else reading your MOR may have a completely different understanding of what you wrote than you intended.
What? You cannot put aside vitriol, as it is your base function. It is all you do on this forum.
You haven't the ability to grasp how one's mind works. Weren't you supposed to be jumping into the Bay already?
Let me know how it works out when this forum is completely gone, thanks to the vile refuse you continue to fill it with on a daily basis.
Ok, you didn't answer my questions but your vituperate comments do paint a pretty clear picture.
You are driven by hate.
Raving, white hot, venomous, soul searing hate.
Good luck in your next forum life, this one is soon to be over.
PS - I'm glad we can at least agree I live on a Bay, not a sea. And I did jump in today, if only briefly, to harvest a few oysters from under the dock.
Ok, you didn't answer my questions but your vituperate comments do paint a pretty clear picture.
You are driven by hate.
Raving, white hot, venomous, soul searing hate.
Good luck in your next forum life, this one is soon to be over.
PS - I'm glad we can at least agree I live on a Bay, not a sea. And I did jump in today, if only briefly, to harvest a few oysters from under the dock.
Wow you love to project. No sir, the "raving, white hot, venomous, soul searing hate" you speak of, is what elected Trump. The reactionary white nationalist right, with the help of the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, through GOP passing racist voter suppression laws in certain battleground states, and insane gerrymandering so that districts are wildly in favor of more GOP representation in these states, is what elected Trump. That is the hate you speak of.
If you think my posts here are so angry, you do not understand the true concept of anger, blinded by your own hatred for those whom disagree with you. You have no desire to understand anyone. You keep shouting down any dissent, with your hyper-partisan hatred, failing to even discuss the topics at hand, with your only recourse to talk about the opposition rather than the problems with your own end of the spectrum, or to make personal attacks.
And no, apparently you still don't know where you live. You live on a small peninsula which is between the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean; even ignoring your apparent lack of ability to comprehend English.
If you think my posts here are so angry, you do not understand the true concept of anger, blinded by your own hatred for those whom disagree with you. You have no desire to understand anyone. You keep shouting down any dissent, with your hyper-partisan hatred, failing to even discuss the topics at hand, with your only recourse to talk about the opposition rather than the problems with your own end of the spectrum, or to make personal attacks.
Read my posts.
Ridicule yes, because Rule#5.........but no shouting, no name calling.
And no hate.
Heck, I don't even hate you. Hate is an intense emotion and it clouds one's judgement.
That said, I think it's clear to everyone here that you are a complete and utter forum jerk who adds nothing to the conversation.
FWIW, it goes back to way before you ever joined in the O/T section. Need I remind you that your ratings were poor before you ever joined in here?
That's not fake news, it's a simple fact.
The sad thing is, there are times you aren't wrong, here and in Tech.
But the ******* factor is just too high.
Unfortunately, unless a miracle occurs, you are going to be parting ways with us and that is regrettable.
Ridicule yes, because Rule#5.........but no shouting, no name calling.
And no hate.
Heck, I don't even hate you. Hate is an intense emotion and it clouds one's judgement.
That said, I think it's clear to everyone here that you are a complete and utter forum jerk who adds nothing to the conversation.
FWIW, it goes back to way before you ever joined in the O/T section. Need I remind you that your ratings were poor before you ever joined in here?
That's not fake news, it's a simple fact.
The sad thing is, there are times you aren't wrong, here and in Tech.
But the ******* factor is just too high.
Unfortunately, unless a miracle occurs, you are going to be parting ways with us and that is regrettable.
You have made it clear that you are a talking head who does nothing but attack others and spew the same rhetoric as everyone else here. Your faux assertions that you are not, do not change the facts. Just go read through all your replies and posts and anyone can see the truth. But of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand, given your wanton display of unwillingness to even attempt it. You clearly do not read your own thoughts or provide any critical thinking, you hapless fool. Your words are full of your hatred, despite your refusal of it. Of course, it's clear that you are afraid of emotions, because then you wouldn't be a "real man" if you thought you could be open about them. Your words make it quite clear how you feel.
I know exactly where my "ratings" come from, and it has very little to do with my posts outside of OT. But like a newborn child, you are unable to see the truth in the world. You know nothing.
I know exactly where my "ratings" come from, and it has very little to do with my posts outside of OT. But like a newborn child, you are unable to see the truth in the world. You know nothing.
You walked in the bar with a chip on your shoulder. Your red bar has barely moved. Your red arrow is near the edge though. It is simple math. Perhaps you are not so good with numbers as you are with words? You cannot claim one thing when the truth is visual to all. Nice try though. *not really, but you are sensitive
You cannot claim one thing when the truth is visual to all. Nice try though. *not really, but you are sensitive
