• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minoosh said:
Except it would signal his minions that it's OK to commit federal crimes undertaken to protect Trump, and that stonewalling will be rewarded. But that's only good as long as Trump remains in office, and quite a few must not think that's a slam-dunk.

It's the other side of witness intimidation.

Meanwhile, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Mike Pence has signed a legal document promising to pardon Trump for any federal offenses Trump may find himself charged with.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's a direct route in rewards for Trump in the highlighted ^.
 
smartcooky said:
"The most important impeachment story that most of the press continues to look away from is the fact that one of our two major political parties in this country no longer deals in facts and reality, and instead has willingly burrowed itself into a world of lies and fantasy, specifically when it comes to the issues surrounding impeachment.

In fact, some Republican officials are now actively working alongside a Kremlin disinformation campaign regarding Ukraine's role in American elections.

If more journalists openly acknowledged this crucial development regarding the GOP, the fact that Republicans aren't willing to support impeachment would no longer be treated as "news," and the press wouldn't portray Democrats as failing with their impeachment messaging. What's also completely lacking is any kind of historical context regarding how awful those impeachment poll numbers are for Trump.
Click to expand...

Interesting analysis! Especially in the context of our discussion about the press. Do you think Kos is right, and the press really is looking away from the most important story? Why would they do that? Corruption? Incompetence?
 
theprestige said:
Interesting analysis! Especially in the context of our discussion about the press. Do you think Kos is right, and the press really is looking away from the most important story? Why would they do that? Corruption? Incompetence?
Click to expand...

Media today has had it drilled into them that they have to be "fair" and have taken that to mean that they have to treat each side as if they are as equal in validity. It's not just politics either. See how the media treats the stupidity of things like Flat Earth.

It means that regardless of how much evidence there is for one side, and how crazy the other is, the Media have to treat them as equivalent or else they are accused of being biased and unfair.
 
theprestige said:
Interesting analysis! Especially in the context of our discussion about the press. Do you think Kos is right, and the press really is looking away from the most important story? Why would they do that? Corruption? Incompetence?
Click to expand...
Extreme partisanship is incompatible with the appearance of neutrality. Therefore it's problematic to present an article developing the idea that the biggest story is that Republicans are a bunch of whores getting paid to spread propaganda for money. You absolutely don't have to believe this, but my experience is that many reporters are committed to being as fair as possible. They also want to get the facts right. And if they fail, they write corrections. Do you think politicians come anywhere close to this standard?

Reporters get paid because it's their job. If they work for an openly partisan media outlet, they will write articles with a partisan slant. But if they're a major middle-of-the-road daily, network or cable news outlet, they will take pains to present "both sides." They can find people who will say that the problem is that Republicans have become irredeemable scum-suckers, but then they feel duty-bound to find someone to present the " other side." And they will find people who say that's all wrong, it's the Democrats who are irredeemable scrum-sucking whores. So you end up with a "he said, she said" story, which doesn't illuminate anything. And that's unsatisfying for both the writer and the reader.

Kos is just venting. They know very well why major news outlets are ignoring the so-called story.

I haven't actually read the piece, though. Just going by excerpts.

A critic is entitled to believe that the mainstream news media is biased, but I hope they check their own preferred outlets for signs of bias as well. I'm not naive enough to say that everyone in the MSM wants to be fair, but a lot do. It's part of their own deep idealism.

The real bias IMO is not conservative vs. liberal. It's more that the media is biased toward sensationalism, conflict and drama. They want ears, eyeballs and clicks. Like most businesses, they want metrics to assess if they are executing their business plan. I grew disenchanted with CNN's wall-to-wall Trump coverage a long time ago, but when it comes to direct quotes or excerpts from documents, it's usually OK.

There's no easy fix for that potential problem except to practice a certain amount of skepticism. Check what other outlets are saying. Get a less-filtered view from C-SPAN. Seek out sources that aren't so U.S.-centric. Try the PBS News Hour for a more in-depth treatment. Etc. A lot of people aren't going to bother, but some will.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Media today has had it drilled into them that they have to be "fair" and have taken that to mean that they have to treat each side as if they are as equal in validity. It's not just politics either. See how the media treats the stupidity of things like Flat Earth.

It means that regardless of how much evidence there is for one side, and how crazy the other is, the Media have to treat them as equivalent or else they are accused of being biased and unfair.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why they are ignoring the really big story

Once, the Republicans were the party of defending America against the Red Threat - the defenders of Democracy and Capitalism and Human Rights, the party that carried out espionage against the old adversary, Russia (in the guise of the Soviet Union), the party that fought the Cold War in order to prevent Nuclear War.

Now they are the party of collusion. It wasn't just the Trump campaign that conspired with the Russians, the whole damn party is in cahoots with those very same Russians; parroting Putin's talking points and and helping to spread his conspiracy theories.

As a side note; they are also the party of cruelty, inspired by Stephen "Heinrich" Miller whose white supremacist stance drives the abject cruelty we are seeing at the southern border. I never thought that, in my lifetime, an American government would separate thousands of children from their families, and then imprison them in cages. Its a disgrace
 
Trump Tweets

Just landed in the United Kingdom, heading to London for NATO meetings tomorrow. Prior to landing I read the Republicans Report on the Impeachment Hoax. Great job! Radical Left has NO CASE. Read the Transcripts. Shouldn’t even be allowed. Can we go to Supreme Court to stop?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Just landed in the United Kingdom, heading to London for NATO meetings tomorrow. Prior to landing I read the Republicans Report on the Impeachment Hoax. Great job! Radical Left has NO CASE. Read the Transcripts. Shouldn’t even be allowed. Can we go to Supreme Court to stop?
Click to expand...
If he's floating this as a trial balloon, I'm hoping his lawyers will pounce.
 
acbytesla said:
Ahhh!.... There it is! The koolaid has had its effect. The walking zombies of Trump supporters. Trump says "Fake news" enough times and they're mesmerized.

Everyone is lying but Trump. The press, the FBI, the CIA, the State Department.
Click to expand...

theprestige was just saying what CE meant. He didn't say whether he agrees or not.
 
phiwum said:
theprestige was just saying what CE meant. He didn't say whether he agrees or not.
Click to expand...


And he was close to it but as always it is more complicated.

I wasn't sharing an article like you said, though, I was drawing attention to the FOIA releases about Giuliani's activities and subsequently narrowed the realm of interesting information. Going further on that road, we learn what the two prosecutor generals, Shokin, the one who was fired due to quid pro quo pressure by creepy Uncle Joe (the talking points why that happened are just too dumb to repeat), and his predecessor Lutsenko, who stopped the investigations into Burisma, said about the events taking place - explicitly agreeing with each other. Followed by an interesting timeline apparently compiled by Rudy himself.

So this is not information received through any "journalist" or "pre$$titute" filter, but things you can learn about by yourselves more easily thanks to me.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Just landed in the United Kingdom, heading to London for NATO meetings tomorrow. Prior to landing I read the Republicans Report on the Impeachment Hoax. Great job! Radical Left has NO CASE. Read the Transcripts. Shouldn’t even be allowed. Can we go to Supreme Court to stop?
Click to expand...

LOL! Like Trump would have read the 123 page report! He had his lickspittles tell him what was in in it.
 
theprestige said:
Perhaps. But why would the press be desperate? And since when is neutrality incompatible with reporting the most important stories?
Click to expand...

The desire to appear neutral can be incompatible with any story where the facts really are on one side. The obvious way to convey neutrality is giving air time to "both sides", but in some issues, one side really is on the side of the facts.

An example is climate change. There are no legitimate arguments that climate change isn't happening and there is ample evidence that it is caused by man's alteration of the environment. A journalist committed to appearing neutral may be tempted to give air time to poor arguments contrary to the evidence, while the audience may not be well-informed or competent enough to recognize the weakness of such arguments. The result is the appearance of controversy where there is none.

Now, whether that applies to press coverage of impeachment is a matter of perspective. I watched MTP Daily today and, while it's not strictly speaking a news program, I thought the host (Tur) could have toned down her opinions a bit for a better presentation. My point here is not about impeachment coverage but a simple observation that the desire to appear neutral can lead to misleading reporting in some instances.
 
Childlike Empress said:
And he was close to it but as always it is more complicated.

I wasn't sharing an article like you said, though, I was drawing attention to the FOIA releases about Giuliani's activities and subsequently narrowed the realm of interesting information. Going further on that road, we learn what the two prosecutor generals, Shokin, the one who was fired due to quid pro quo pressure by creepy Uncle Joe (the talking points why that happened are just too dumb to repeat), and his predecessor Lutsenko, who stopped the investigations into Burisma, said about the events taking place - explicitly agreeing with each other. Followed by an interesting timeline apparently compiled by Rudy himself.

So this is not information received through any "journalist" or "pre$$titute" filter, but things you can learn about by yourselves more easily thanks to me.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that you were sharing an article in the recent post. You have shared articles before, and presumably those are by good and upright journalists, not "pre$$titutes".
 
Craig4 said:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/02/politics/house-republican-response-impeachment-inquiry/index.html

Wow, who'd have thought there were Trumptrash who could write?
Click to expand...

Their report reminds me of defense lawyers in court:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution's security camera video of my client pulling out his gun and shooting the deceased in the back doesn't prove, in any way, that my client actually killed the victim. Mr. Smith was still alive when taken to the hospital by ambulance but was deceased upon arrival. Who's to say the EMT's are not responsible for Mr. Smith's death? Of course the EMT's deny they caused Mr. Smith's death, but did anyone witness them actually trying to save Mr. Smith's life? NO! How dare the prosecution try to pin this on my client!
 
Stacyhs said:
Their report reminds me of defense lawyers in court:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution's security camera video of my client pulling out his gun and shooting the deceased in the back doesn't prove, in any way, that my client actually killed the victim. Mr. Smith was still alive when taken to the hospital by ambulance but was deceased upon arrival. Who's to say the EMT's are not responsible for Mr. Smith's death? Of course the EMT's deny they caused Mr. Smith's death, but did anyone witness them actually trying to save Mr. Smith's life? NO! How dare the prosecution try to pin this on my client!
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

The Republicans today. Gaslighting the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom