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:

• The so-called Russian Dossier, the creation of Fusion GPS and former British spy Christopher Steele, is a political document — namely, opposition research, created for the Democrat National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Which was originally a document funded by members of the GOP
• Using what it knew was opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, in October of 2016, the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to install a wiretap to spy on Hillary Clinton’s opponent — the Trump campaign, specifically Carter Page. This spying would last for a year. The "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.
• It should be noted that the FISA court was set up to stop foreign terrorists. The fact that the FBI and DOJ would use this court to not only wiretap an American but to wiretap a presidential campaign belies belief. Why Obama’s FBI and DOJ used this court as opposed to a normal court is obvious. As you will see below, a normal court probably would have denied the wiretap. 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.
• Worse still, in the summer of 2016, Obama’s DOJ had already opened a counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. The fact that nothing from that months-old partisan investigation was used to obtain the Page wiretap is revealing. 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 substantiation
• According to the Nunes memo, an “essential” part of the FISA wiretap application was the Steele dossier, which again is a partisan political document created for the Clinton campaign. See above
• So essential was this partisan dossier, Andrew McCabe, the disgraced former-Deputy Director of the FBI, admitted in December that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without the dossier. See above
• Not only did the FBI knowingly use a document from a partisan campaign to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the competing campaign, the FBI knew the dossier was mostly “salacious and unverified.” We know this because disgraced former-FBI Director James Comey told us so in June of 2017. Interestingly, 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.
• According to the Nunes memo, “Steele told [former FBI official Bruce] Ohr, he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.'” 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.
• Ohr, who was part of the FBI’s anti-Trump Russian investigation, was not only friendly with Steele, Ohr’s own wife worked with Steele at Fusion GPS doing opposition research (the dossier) against Trump for the Clinton campaign. And this proves...? This is accusation by innuendo - which Brietbart is famous for.
• Despite a) knowing the dossier was opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign b) knowing the dossier was “salacious and unverified” c) knowing Steele was desperate to destroy Trump d) the breathtaking conflict of interest in having an investigator’s own wife working on the dossier, the FBI still went to the FISA court to obtain permission to spy on Hillary Clinton’s opponent. 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."
• In order to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, all of the conflicts of interest above were withheld from the FISA court — an indefensible (and possibly illegal) lie of omission. AFAIK, there is no evidence that this information was withheld. This is an assumption.
• Even worse, in order to legitimize a warrant request based on a piece of partisan opposition research they knew was “salacious and unverified,” the FBI and DOJ used a media report to bolster the findings in the phony dossier. The FBI and DOJ told the court that the media report was independent verification of the dossier. But this was not true, and, according to the Nunes memo, the FBI and DOJ knew this was not true. The truth is that the phony dossier was the source of this media report. 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.
• Although the FBI and DOJ were willing participants in pushing a “salacious and unverified” narrative against a presidential candidate (primarily through media leaks), this was all hidden from congressional investigators. To begin with, for months, while under oath, Comey said he did not know where the dossier came from — meaning from the Clinton campaign. The Wall Street Journal explains:
  
  We also know the FBI wasn’t straight with Congress, as it hid most of these facts from investigators in a briefing on the dossier in January 2017. The FBI did not tell Congress about Mr. Steele’s connection to the Clinton campaign, and the House had to issue subpoenas for Fusion bank records to discover the truth. Nor did the FBI tell investigators that it continued receiving information from Mr. Steele and Fusion even after it had terminated him. The memo says the bureau’s intermediary was Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife, incredibly, worked for Fusion.
  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.

And finally…

• Much of the “salacious and unverified” material in the dossier came from the Russians. In other words, those disgusting dossier lies about Trump’s personal behavior came from Russian operatives. So there is no question that it was the Clinton campaign, Democrats, Steele, the FBI, and DOJ who colluded with the Russians to rig a presidential election.

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.

Much the same conclusion can be drawn from the anti-climax of the Nunes Memo. There is nothing there. There is no proof in the memo that the FBI is biased against Trump, or that the surveillance powers by the FBI were abused, and no proof that the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia is fundamentally flawed. It is, like Breitbart, full of partisan spin.

[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).