WWTBAM Bored

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Just two questions. Were they all WRONG? A yes or no would suffice.
Has the news conglomerate learned anything since then about reporting rumors, innuendo and gossip as fact? Again a yes or no would suffice.
And if it makes you feel any better you can include your ubiquitous swipe at me.

Were they (meaning the press) wrong? NO. Jewell was the primary suspect. That's been proven.
They did not report rumors, innuendo, and gossip as fact. They reported fact as fact. And then they continued to investigate on their own.

By your logic, the press shouldn't actually report on an arrest either because that might possibly be proven wrong as well.

The FBI was wrong, but you haven't criticized them once during your unfounded diatribe against the press.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Just two questions. Were they all WRONG? A yes or no would suffice.
Has the news conglomerate learned anything since then about reporting rumors, innuendo and gossip as fact? Again a yes or no would suffice.
And if it makes you feel any better you can include your ubiquitous swipe at me.

Were they (meaning the press) wrong? NO. Jewell was the primary suspect. That's been proven.
They did not report rumors, innuendo, and gossip as fact. They reported fact as fact. And then they continued to investigate on their own.

By your logic, the press shouldn't actually report on an arrest either because that might possibly be proven wrong as well.

The FBI was wrong, but you haven't criticized them once during your unfounded diatribe against the press.

I am criticizing all who get their unshaking opinions from the news, like you. And I said they were ALL wrong, which includes the investigating bodies who identified him as a suspect to the press based on his profile and wishful thinking as well as the press who took it from there. While this individual reprter claims she learned something from this, the press corps in general learned nothing, in my opinion. And they show it every day.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: While this individual reprter claims she learned something from this, the press corps in general learned nothing, in my opinion. And they show it every day.

Kathy Scruggs, the individual reporter in question, died in 2001. And I'm curious just what your solution is. At what point should the press publish something about a public figure like the President of the United States. Only when his office releases an official news release? If not then, when?

The real problem with Trump is that so much of what is reported about him DOES turn out to be true.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: While this individual reprter claims she learned something from this, the press corps in general learned nothing, in my opinion. And they show it every day.

Kathy Scruggs, the individual reporter in question, died in 2001. And I'm curious just what your solution is. At what point should the press publish something about a public figure like the President of the United States. Only when his office releases an official news release? If not then, when?

The real problem with Trump is that so much of what is reported about him DOES turn out to be true.

Really? I guess in your echo chamber, because thats all you hear. You won't even listen to anything else, much less the right wing noise machine

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Just two questions. Were they all WRONG? A yes or no would suffice.
Has the news conglomerate learned anything since then about reporting rumors, innuendo and gossip as fact? Again a yes or no would suffice.
And if it makes you feel any better you can include your ubiquitous swipe at me.

Were they (meaning the press) wrong? NO. Jewell was the primary suspect. That's been proven.
They did not report rumors, innuendo, and gossip as fact. They reported fact as fact. And then they continued to investigate on their own.

By your logic, the press shouldn't actually report on an arrest either because that might possibly be proven wrong as well.

The FBI was wrong, but you haven't criticized them once during your unfounded diatribe against the press.

I am criticizing all who get their unshaking opinions from the news, like you. And I said they were ALL wrong, which includes the investigating bodies who identified him as a suspect to the press based on his profile and wishful thinking as well as the press who took it from there. While this individual reprter claims she learned something from this, the press corps in general learned nothing, in my opinion. And they show it every day.

If you don't get your unshaken opinions from the news, how do you get your information first-hand? It seems you often parrot The Daily Caller.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Does it not bother you that they are doing this in secret, not allowing any republicans to even attend these 'hearings', have nobody to cross examine these 'witnesses', accord no due process, and then leak out only information that supports their predetermined outcome?

Well, Flock, today the Republicans had their big chance in public to cross-examine the witnesses who actually heard the phone call. How'd that go for you?

In a way, Trump is getting screwed by the impeachment process. If he were an ordinary criminal defendant, he might be able to make a case on appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

It sounds like we now have two witnesses who participated in the phone call who have testified under oath that the "transcript" released by the White House was inaccurate because it altered the portion of the conversation where Donny directly referred to Burisma. And the actual transcript remains inappropriately buried on the server used to house highly classified documents. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:And the actual transcript remains inappropriately buried on the server used to house highly classified documents.

But it is still there. You'd be OK with it if it were Bleachbit'ed, though, wouldn't you?

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And the actual transcript remains inappropriately buried on the server used to house highly classified documents.

But it is still there. You'd be OK with it if it were Bleachbit'ed, though, wouldn't you?

Yes, it would compare to the 18 and a half minute gap.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Does it not bother you that they are doing this in secret, not allowing any republicans to even attend these 'hearings', have nobody to cross examine these 'witnesses', accord no due process, and then leak out only information that supports their predetermined outcome?

Well, Flock, today the Republicans had their big chance in public to cross-examine the witnesses who actually heard the phone call. How'd that go for you?

In a way, Trump is getting screwed by the impeachment process. If he were an ordinary criminal defendant, he might be able to make a case on appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

The House will impeach because thry have more sems. The Senste will acquit if they even take it up at all because they have more repubs.

It's another Washington circus. That is all. The president did nothing wrong. The bidens did.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Does it not bother you that they are doing this in secret, not allowing any republicans to even attend these 'hearings', have nobody to cross examine these 'witnesses', accord no due process, and then leak out only information that supports their predetermined outcome?

Well, Flock, today the Republicans had their big chance in public to cross-examine the witnesses who actually heard the phone call. How'd that go for you?

In a way, Trump is getting screwed by the impeachment process. If he were an ordinary criminal defendant, he might be able to make a case on appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

The House will impeach because thry have more sems. The Senste will acquit if they even take it up at all because they have more repubs.

It's another Washington circus. That is all. The president did nothing wrong. The bidens did.

Abusing the power of the office to solicit a bribe is doing nothing wrong? You are so far in the tank for Donny that it would be funny, if it weren't that what remains of the Republican Party is just as far in the tank for him, and Republican politicians care more about winning the next primary than they care about doing what's right for the country. But this is why the Republican Party deserves to endure the same fate nationally that it has already suffered in California. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
Well, Flock, today the Republicans had their big chance in public to cross-examine the witnesses who actually heard the phone call. How'd that go for you?

In a way, Trump is getting screwed by the impeachment process. If he were an ordinary criminal defendant, he might be able to make a case on appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel.

The House will impeach because thry have more sems. The Senste will acquit if they even take it up at all because they have more repubs.

It's another Washington circus. That is all. The president did nothing wrong. The bidens did.

Abusing the power of the office to solicit a bribe is doing nothing wrong? You are so far in the tank for Donny that it would be funny, if it weren't that what remains of the Republican Party is just as far in the tank for him, and Republican politicians care more about winning the next primary than they care about doing what's right for the country. But this is why the Republican Party deserves to endure the same fate nationally that it has already suffered in California. --Bob

You're funny. Talk about someone in the tank.

Bob Juch wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:And the actual transcript remains inappropriately buried on the server used to house highly classified documents.

But it is still there. You'd be OK with it if it were Bleachbit'ed, though, wouldn't you?

Yes, it would compare to the 18 and a half minute gap.

So you agree that should put an end to Hillary's political career.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: The president did nothing wrong. The bidens did.

You've kept asking what Trump did wrong, even though Bob and I have explained it several times. What did Joe Biden do that was wrong, other than, perhaps not raising his son better? And while Hunter Biden's actions might be crass, he was not a political officeholder and what he did was common practice and not illegal. So, if by "wrong" you mean in someway dishonorable, then there are hundreds of others in both parties who have done the same thing. And if you mean, illegal, then I ask the same question. What did Hunter Biden do that was illegal? (Accepting a job for which you are overpaid and underqualified isn't illegal, by the way.)

Estonut wrote: So you agree that should put an end to Hillary's political career.

I'm pretty sure Hillary's political career is over in any event.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: The president did nothing wrong. The bidens did.

You've kept asking what Trump did wrong, even though Bob and I have explained it several times. What did Joe Biden do that was wrong, other than, perhaps not raising his son better? And while Hunter Biden's actions might be crass, he was not a political officeholder and what he did was common practice and not illegal. So, if by "wrong" you mean in someway dishonorable, then there are hundreds of others in both parties who have done the same thing. And if you mean, illegal, then I ask the same question. What did Hunter Biden do that was illegal? (Accepting a job for which you are overpaid and underqualified isn't illegal, by the way.)

My whole point is that they all do it, which is why very few of them get called on it. Get it?
What did Burisma get in return? Dontcha think since all dc wants to do is investigate, they could throw that one in? Or maybe Durham is looking into that.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote: So you agree that should put an end to Hillary's political career.

I'm pretty sure Hillary's political career is over in any event.

So is everyone, except her.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: My whole point is that they all do it, which is why very few of them get called on it. Get it?

They don't get called on it because the practice is not illegal. Get it?

Here's a typical Fortune 500 company, Boeing. Guess who's on their board of directors? Nikki Haley and Caroline Kennedy. The pay for the Boeing board in this article? $346,000.

https://fortune.com/2019/05/23/boeing-b ... e-experts/

There are plenty more examples like that. That was just the first one that popped up in a quick Google search. Here's a partial list of celebrity board members:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_board_director

The implication is that because Burisma is a Ukrainian company which probably isn't all that tightly regulated that they can pull off some funny business in hiring Hunter Biden. But U.S. companies, which are highly regulated and have extensive public disclosure requirements, do the same thing all the time. It's not illegal. And I wouldn't argue with you that the pay for the Board of Directors at large companies is often way too high for too little actual work and expertise. But that's life in the sort of capitalistic society you love.

Ambassador Sondland: "He [President Zelensky] had to announce the investigations, he didn’t actually have to do them."

So much for the argument that Donny actually had any interest in corruption within Ukraine's government (or anywhere else). Donny was using the power of his office to coerce Ukraine to give him a bribe. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Ambassador Sondland: "He [President Zelensky] had to announce the investigations, he didn’t actually have to do them."

So much for the argument that Donny actually had any interest in corruption within Ukraine's government (or anywhere else). Donny was using the power of his office to coerce Ukraine to give him a bribe. --Bob

Sondland is busy throwing Trump and Giuliani under the bus right now. I'm eager to hear Flock's latest defense.

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Estonut wrote:But it is still there. You'd be OK with it if it were Bleachbit'ed, though, wouldn't you?

Yes, it would compare to the 18 and a half minute gap.

So you agree that should put an end to Hillary's political career.

Hillary has nothing to do with the Ukraine mess.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Ambassador Sondland: "He [President Zelensky] had to announce the investigations, he didn’t actually have to do them."

So much for the argument that Donny actually had any interest in corruption within Ukraine's government (or anywhere else). Donny was using the power of his office to coerce Ukraine to give him a bribe. --Bob

Sondland is busy throwing Trump and Giuliani under the bus right now. I'm eager to hear Flock's latest defense.

Oh boy, is he!

Bob78164 wrote:Ambassador Sondland: "He [President Zelensky] had to announce the investigations, he didn’t actually have to do them."

This is consistent with Trump's emphasis on expectation over action. I could give a pile of examples; one is how he takes credit for the rise in the stock market that began with his election, because investors anticipated that the new administration's policies would be favorable.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You won't even listen to anything else, much less the right wing noise machine

Well, it appears as if the right wing noise machine has been thrown out of gear. The Hill announced that it is going to review and update the various columns written by John Solomon, a "reporter" who has probably been the source for half of what Flock has bought into for the last decade or so. Solomon no longer works for The Hill in any capacity, but they are going back over his previous articles. From Editor-in-Chief Bob Cusack:

As you are aware, John Solomon left The Hill earlier in the fall, but in light of recent congressional testimony and related events, we wanted to apprise you of the steps we are taking regarding John Solomon’s opinion columns which were referenced in the impeachment inquiry. Because of our dedication to accurate non-partisan reporting and standards, we are reviewing, updating, annotating with any denials of witnesses, and when appropriate, correcting any opinion pieces referenced during the ongoing congressional inquiry. As previously stated, the views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

We reiterate that we do not condone sending material out before publication. The Hill remains committed to giving voice to views across the political divide.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... n-solomon/

Good for The Hill. Bad news for Flock, who is now going to have to find some other source for his conspiracy theories.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: You won't even listen to anything else, much less the right wing noise machine

Well, it appears as if the right wing noise machine has been thrown out of gear. The Hill announced that it is going to review and update the various columns written by John Solomon, a "reporter" who has probably been the source for half of what Flock has bought into for the last decade or so. Solomon no longer works for The Hill in any capacity, but they are going back over his previous articles. From Editor-in-Chief Bob Cusack:

As you are aware, John Solomon left The Hill earlier in the fall, but in light of recent congressional testimony and related events, we wanted to apprise you of the steps we are taking regarding John Solomon’s opinion columns which were referenced in the impeachment inquiry. Because of our dedication to accurate non-partisan reporting and standards, we are reviewing, updating, annotating with any denials of witnesses, and when appropriate, correcting any opinion pieces referenced during the ongoing congressional inquiry. As previously stated, the views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

We reiterate that we do not condone sending material out before publication. The Hill remains committed to giving voice to views across the political divide.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... n-solomon/

Good for The Hill. Bad news for Flock, who is now going to have to find some other source for his conspiracy theories.

Breitbart is still there.