Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 154
Thanks Tree90Thanks

Thread: Fusion GPS must comply with subpoena

  1. #41
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14,244
    Thanks
    11772

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    I just did a broad social media search of chatter about Fusion GPS and it is, overwhelmingly, dominated by obscure, avowed pro-Trump commentators such as The Federalist and "Thomas Paine," a supposedly FBI-knowledgeable troll who has reportedly given Jim Comey specifically a lot of grief in the past. Very few other opinion shapers are even talking about it, never mind covering it. And this is what Trump's defenders in Congress are hanging their hat on?
    Countering is Trump's and the neo republican party's MO. It's like a barometer. When the heat is on them or one of their members, its time to come up with inventions to "investigate" the opposition, YET AGAIN!!

    A book comes out with Bannon statements in it, it's time to get a cease and desist order (on what's claimed to be false?.....If it is false, why worry about it or can America petition for an order to get Trump to cease and desist (his lies)?

    The author of the book is obscure about truth or fiction and intones he wants readers to compare what he's written with what they're seeing, coming from the POTUS. Any guesses on what (sane/honest) people are likely to find?

    From what I understand, Steele's "dossier" on Trump was information passed on to him from his contacts and as reported, was in raw unedited and not totally verified. The question is, how was it used, IF it was used, by the Clinton Camp? How much of the raw information was actually used by the Clinton Camp and who filtered what was or was not used.

    I believe there is some confusion by some people, perhaps hoped for, by those who depend on the exploitation of the ignorant and strictly politically partisan to try to not just distract from their own woes, but to try to equate allegations. It's one thing to try to collect dirt on opponents, it is another to make deals with officials of other nations to trade favorable influence (if one is elected) for either the dirt or things like armies of trolls/posers influencing "just enough" voters to cause a "win", as part of the "deal".
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 6th January 2018 at 08:17 PM.

  2. #42
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,051
    Thanks
    35598

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    I could care less about any of this except the collusion between members of the media and an advocacy group of any kind. I expect bad behavior from politicians. I do not expect the press to be openly trying to influence elections with false, carefully timed and propagandist triffle. It's MUCH worse than collusion with Russians, lying to committees and doing the kinds of things politicians have always done. The press is not supposed to take sides and act like the scum they are covering.
    Wow. Once again you betray an amusing lack of historical context.

  3. #43
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,051
    Thanks
    35598

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    What I care about is not subject your assessment of its correctness. It does not matter how many members of the press are colluding with politicians and advocacy groups (though I suspect it's not insignificant). It's a fundamental violation of journalistic ethics. It's my campaign. I think it's vitally important that it be confronted.
    How do you distinguish between journalism and public relations? Can you show how what you're suggesting might have happened and can you proven anything about intention?

    This investigation could reveal a money trail that connects politicians to advocacy groups to members of the press. That's a really big deal, TO ME. The Russians have been trying to corrupt elections for a hundred years. Apparently Obama didn't care to stop them and the press has decided to blame a private citizen running for office.

    Can anyone see the problem with this?
    What I see is a problem with tracking it down and punishing it. It may be a violation of ethics, but is it a crime? A tort? What remedy do you suggest that conforms to the First Amendment?

    How do you distinguish between the "legitimate" press and InfoWars? Is there a legal means to define them, or is it just in your gut? What advantage does the Legitimate Press enjoy that you would take away from them? Doesn't InfoWars enjoy First Amendment protection?

    You are posing a problem without a solution other than more savvy consumers.
    Last edited by Rasselas; 6th January 2018 at 08:23 PM.
    Thanks from Babba

  4. #44
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,051
    Thanks
    35598

    From
    in my head
    I would remind kmiller of the words of John Milton, who opposed government interference with publishing in a pamphlet titled "Aeropagitica". Milton himself had been censored and jailed over his religious politics. He wrote that only discerning readers can decide what's good from what's bad;
    Good and evill we know in the field of this World grow up together almost inseparably; and the knowledge of good is so involv'd and interwoven with the knowledge of evill, and in so many cunning resemblances hardly to be discern'd, that those confused seeds which were impos'd on Psyche as an incessant labour to cull out, and sort asunder, were not more intermixt. It was from out the rinde of one apple tasted, that the knowledge of good and evill as two twins cleaving together leapt forth into the World. And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evill, that is to say of knowing good by evill. As therefore the state of man now is; what wisdome can there be to choose, what continence to forbeare without the knowledge of evill? He that can apprehend and consider vice with all her baits and seeming pleasures, and yet abstain, and yet distinguish, and yet prefer that which is truly better, he is the true wayfaring Christian.
    Thanks from Babba

  5. #45
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,173
    Thanks
    3819

    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Remember, when the reality hits, fight the urge to mock our friends here who truly believed this Russian conspiracy.

    There was so much vested in stopping trump, we should console them when the inevitable happens.
    Just play the substitution game. Since Obama was actually responsible for stopping the Russian interference, why didn't he?

    And why has someone who was not responsible for stopping the Russian interference made the target of the investigation?

    Logic dictates that the two things may not be unrelated.
    Thanks from bmanmcfly

  6. #46
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,173
    Thanks
    3819

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Wow. Once again you betray an amusing lack of historical context.
    Would you like me to quote the NPR ethics handbook again and compare it to the "resist" inspired hyperventilating "movement" that has been the vanguard of the news the past year?

    How about the day after the Benghazi attack when WTIC AM radio reported (every hour, on the hour) that the attack was caused by an Internet video and did so without attribution or sourcing?

    These things can put in any context you like, they are still violations of journalistic ethics.

    And there are plenty of examples of the same abuses on the right.

    Do you want political and corporate and media power bound together in common cause?

    I do not.

  7. #47
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,173
    Thanks
    3819

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    How do you distinguish between journalism and public relations? Can you show how what you're suggesting might have happened and can you proven anything about intention?

    What I see is a problem with tracking it down and punishing it. It may be a violation of ethics, but is it a crime? A tort? What remedy do you suggest that conforms to the First Amendment?

    How do you distinguish between the "legitimate" press and InfoWars? Is there a legal means to define them, or is it just in your gut? What advantage does the Legitimate Press enjoy that you would take away from them? Doesn't InfoWars enjoy First Amendment protection?

    You are posing a problem without a solution other than more savvy consumers.
    This is the solution taxpayers have already helped pay for. Apply it. Honor it. Enforce it.

    NPR Ethics Handbook | How to apply our standards to our journalism.

    Any exposure of news being promoted that is not news according to these standards is welcomed by me.

  8. #48
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,173
    Thanks
    3819

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I would remind kmiller of the words of John Milton, who opposed government interference with publishing in a pamphlet titled "Aeropagitica". Milton himself had been censored and jailed over his religious politics. He wrote that only discerning readers can decide what's good from what's bad;
    I don't want government "interference." so who is going to be our champion? Who will stand up for journalistic ethics that we have already paid to be elevated? Reporting rumors without sourcing is not news. Reporting something you know to be full of falsehoods and portraying it as a possible truth is not news. Paying someone to report a dossier that has not been vetted and that has malicious intent is wrong. Leading your news broadcast with a tell all book without challenging its contents is wrong.

    http://ethics.npr.org/

    Our purpose is to pursue the truth. Diligent verification is critical. We take great care to ensure that statements of fact in our journalism are both correct and in context. In our reporting, we rigorously challenge both the claims we encounter and the assumptions we bring. We devote our resources and our skills to presenting the fullest version of the truth we can deliver, placing the highest value on information we have gathered and verified ourselves.
    er both nuance and clarity. Our goal is not to please those whoTo tell the truest story possible, it is essential that we treat those we interview and report on with scrupulous fairness, guided by a spirit of professionalism. We make every effort to gather responses from those who are the subjects of criticism, unfavorable allegations or other negative assertions in our stories.
    In all our stories, especially matters of controversy, we strive to consider the strongest arguments we can find on all sides, seeking to deliver both nuance and clarity. Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth.
    Last edited by kmiller1610; 7th January 2018 at 01:27 AM.

  9. #49
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,164
    Thanks
    48252

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    It has been known since Octtober that it was the Washington Free Beacon who hired them to do opposition research on several Republicans.



    Washington Free Beacon funded original Fusion GPS anti-Trump opposition effort

    However, after they dropped out and Hillary began paying only then was Steele hired, and it was Steele who assembled the dossier.
    First of all, Hillary may not have even known that Fusion GPS had been hired. A lawyer who worked for the DNC and the Hillary campaign hired Fusion GPS. But even if she did know, so what? Political campaigns hire people to do oppo research all the time. You people behave as though this is so unusual and nefarious or something. And Steele using contacts he developed in Russia while working for MI6 is nothing like working with the Russian government to undermine an election here.

  10. #50
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,164
    Thanks
    48252

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Just play the substitution game. Since Obama was actually responsible for stopping the Russian interference, why didn't he?

    And why has someone who was not responsible for stopping the Russian interference made the target of the investigation?

    Logic dictates that the two things may not be unrelated.
    The Republicans control EVERYTHING! Why aren't they pursuing that? Do you want to know why? Because it's stupid and they know they're the ones who did NOTHING.

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 16th October 2017, 12:55 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 13th August 2014, 11:56 AM
  3. The usual suspects refuse to comply with federal law
    By BoiseBo in forum Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 24th May 2014, 02:53 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 21st November 2011, 09:54 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16th January 2008, 12:09 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed