Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Obamagate Redux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obamagate Redux

    Strzok’s newly discovered FBI notes deliver jolt to ‘Obamagate’ evidence

    James Comey had no business meeting with Obama White House on Flynn case, former FBI executive says.

    The belated discovery of disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok’s January 2017 notes raises troubling new questions about whether President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were coordinating efforts during their final days in office to investigate Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn — even as the FBI wanted to shut down the case.

    Investigators will need to secure testimony from Strzok, fired two years ago from the FBI, to be certain of the exact meaning and intent of his one paragraph of notes, which were made public in court on Wednesday.

    But they appear to illuminate an extraordinary high-level effort by outgoing Obama-era officials during the first weekend of January to find a way to sustain a counterintelligence investigation of Flynn in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.

    The Justice Department says the notes were written between Jan. 3-5, 2017, the very weekend the FBI agent who had investigated Flynn’s ties to Russia for five months recommended the case be closed because there was “no derogatory” evidence that he committed a crime or posed a counterintelligence threat. FBI supervisors overruled the agent's recommendation.

    Strzok’s notes appear to quote then-FBI Director James Comey as suggesting that Flynn’s intercepted calls with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak “appear legit,” bolstering other recently disclosed evidence showing the bureau saw nothing wrong with Flynn’s behavior.

    The notes also suggest Biden — who once claimed he had no knowledge of the Flynn probe — raised the issue of the Logan Act, an obscure, centuries-old law, as a possible avenue for continuing to investigate Flynn.

    And Strzok appears to quote Obama as suggesting the FBI assign “the right people” to pursue the case.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

  • #2
    RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seanD View Post
      RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA!
      CP has no shame!
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        CP has no shame!
        I used to, but Rogue stole it.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Strzok’s newly discovered FBI notes deliver jolt to ‘Obamagate’ evidence

          James Comey had no business meeting with Obama White House on Flynn case, former FBI executive says.

          The belated discovery of disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok’s January 2017 notes raises troubling new questions about whether President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were coordinating efforts during their final days in office to investigate Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn — even as the FBI wanted to shut down the case.

          Investigators will need to secure testimony from Strzok, fired two years ago from the FBI, to be certain of the exact meaning and intent of his one paragraph of notes, which were made public in court on Wednesday.

          But they appear to illuminate an extraordinary high-level effort by outgoing Obama-era officials during the first weekend of January to find a way to sustain a counterintelligence investigation of Flynn in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.

          The Justice Department says the notes were written between Jan. 3-5, 2017, the very weekend the FBI agent who had investigated Flynn’s ties to Russia for five months recommended the case be closed because there was “no derogatory” evidence that he committed a crime or posed a counterintelligence threat. FBI supervisors overruled the agent's recommendation.

          Strzok’s notes appear to quote then-FBI Director James Comey as suggesting that Flynn’s intercepted calls with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak “appear legit,” bolstering other recently disclosed evidence showing the bureau saw nothing wrong with Flynn’s behavior.

          The notes also suggest Biden — who once claimed he had no knowledge of the Flynn probe — raised the issue of the Logan Act, an obscure, centuries-old law, as a possible avenue for continuing to investigate Flynn.

          And Strzok appears to quote Obama as suggesting the FBI assign “the right people” to pursue the case.
          Source? Breitfart?
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            I used to, but Rogue stole it.
            rogues never "steal."


            We liberate.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Source? Breitfart?
              Click the hyperlinked article headline.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Source? Breitfart?
                "Just The News"

                Media Bias / Fact Check = Mostly Trustworthy

                save.jpg

                Comment


                • #9
                  I hope we don't have to watch Strozk being questioned again. He's got one of those smug faces I just want to punch.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                    I hope we don't have to watch Strozk being questioned again. He's got one of those smug faces I just want to punch.
                    Is your superpower the ability to smack folks on the interwebz?

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      Is your superpower the ability to smack folks on the interwebz?
                      In Strozk's case, I wish.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Source? Breitfart?
                        Are you too stupid to click on a hyperlink?
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                          "Just The News"

                          Media Bias / Fact Check = Mostly Trustworthy

                          [ATTACH=CONFIG]46037[/ATTACH]
                          For the record, Biased Media Fact Check is not a reliable source.

                          Source: Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?

                          The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.

                          Siewert goes on to write that Just Facts is “a deceptive site because they do use facts, but not all the facts in order to mask their right Bias.” As proof of this, she cites two articles that take issue with the Stanford Law Review paper cited by Just Facts. Neither of these articles appeared in a journal, and one of them is from a publication “written and published entirely by Harvard undergraduates.” Siewert does not even attempt to prove whether the critiques have any factual or logical value.

                          Worse still, the lone excerpt that Siewert cited from these articles does not even take issue with the facts from Stanford Law Review paper that were presented by Just Facts. Thus, she must not understand the context in which Just Facts cited the paper, or she is lying about it.

                          By Siewert’s logic, if someone cites a peer-reviewed paper, and anyone argues against it, then the person who cited the paper is “deceptive” and “masking their bias” if they don’t cite the critique—regardless of whether it has any merit or relevance. This inane standard would apply to just about every scholar.

                          https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media...-or-dishonest/

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Source: Can you trust what "Media Bias/Fact Check" says about PolitiFact?

                          Media Bias/Fact Check bills itself as "The most comprehensive media bias resource." It's run by Dave Van Zandt, making it fair to say it's run by "some guy" ("Dave studied Communications in college" is his main claim to expertise).

                          We have nothing against "some guy" possessing expertise despite a lack of qualifications, of course. One doesn't need a degree or awards (or audience) to be right about stuff. But is Van Zandt and his Media Bias/Fact Check right about PolitiFact?

                          Media Bias/Fact Check rates PolitiFact as a "Least-biased" source of information. How does MB/FC reach that conclusion? The website has a "Methodology" page describing its methods:

                          The method for (rating bias) is determined by ranking bias in four different categories. In each category the source is rated on a 0-10 scale, with 0 meaning without bias and 10 being the maximum bias(worst). These four numbers are then added up and divided by 4. This 0-10 number is then placed on the line according to their Left or Right bias.

                          This system makes PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" almost look objective by comparison. An 11-point scale? To obtain objectivity with an 11-point scale would require a very finely-grained system of objective bias measures--something that probably nobody on the planet has even dreamt of achieving.

                          It comes as no surprise that Van Zandt lacks those objective measures:

                          The categories are as follows (bold emphasis added):

                          1. Biased Wording/Headlines- Does the source use loaded words to convey emotion to sway the reader. Do headlines match the story.
                          2. Factual/Sourcing- Does the source report factually and back up claims with well sourced evidence.
                          3. Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides or do they only publish one side.
                          4. Political Affiliation: How strongly does the source endorse a particular political ideology? In other words how extreme are their views. (This can be rather subjective)

                          Likely Van Zandt regards only the fourth category as subjective. All four are subjective unless Van Zandt has kept secret additional criteria he uses to judge bias. Think about it. Take the "biased wording" category, for example. Rate the headline bias for "PolitiFact Bias" on a scale of 0-10. Do it. What objective criteria guided the decision?

                          There is nothing to go on except for one's own subjective notion of where any observed bias falls on the 0-10 scale.

                          If the scale was worth something, researchers could put the rating system in the hands of any reasonable person and obtain comparable results. Systems with robust objective markers attached to each level of the scale can achieve that. Those lacking such markers will not.

                          Based on our experience with PolitiFact, we used Van Zandt's system on PolitiFact. Please remember that our experience will not render Van Zandt's system anything other than subjective.

                          Biased Wording/Headlines: 4
                          Factual/Sourcing: 3
                          Story Choices: 4
                          Political Affiliation: 3

                          Total=14
                          Formula calls for division by 4.
                          14/4=3.5
                          3.5=Left Center Bias

                          Why is Van Zandt's rating objectively more valid than ours? Or yours?

                          ...


                          The temptation of subjective rating scales is obvious, but such scales misinform readers and probably tend to mislead their creators as well.

                          A rating scale that fails to base its ratings on quantifiable data is worthless. Van Zandt's ratings are worthless except to tell you his opinion.

                          https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/...check.html?m=1

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Source: Scam site “Media Bias Fact Check” caught cribbing its ratings from Wikipedia

                          The “Media Bias Fact Check” scam is built around the premise of convincing gullible internet users that various respected news outlets are compromised because they’re “biased” in [one] way or another. This allows its victims to believe they know something that others don’t know, and causes them to comment with links to these phony ratings in reply to articles posted from the news outlets in question. But the Media Bias Fact Check ratings often read like a fifth grader’s unfinished homework assignment or worse.

                          https://www.palmerreport.com/politic...ikipedia/2342/

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Last edited by Mountain Man; 06-27-2020, 12:38 PM.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by Cow Poke, Today, 03:46 PM
                          0 responses
                          19 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post KingsGambit  
                          Started by Ronson, Today, 01:52 PM
                          1 response
                          21 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Ronson
                          by Ronson
                           
                          Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:08 AM
                          6 responses
                          55 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post RumTumTugger  
                          Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:44 AM
                          0 responses
                          20 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                          Started by seer, Today, 07:04 AM
                          29 responses
                          184 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post oxmixmudd  
                          Working...
                          X