I think we are painting way too many in the ‘press didn’t do their job’category. A lot of the things we read, I’ve read articles pointing to all of this information being a distinct possibility. I think a better way of looking at it is the major players, seen or read by the most people, are the ones feeding the narrative for the most people. (Fox News, CNN, the short blips Facebook and twitter allow) People don’t want to read the deeper details. In that case you get ‘sarah H. says,’ while 40% of the population takes her at her word. You could certainly argue those bullet point coverages should avoid the quote. But lots of articles of in-depth coverage go into detail why the direct quote is a lie, Longform (or even normal length) articles are not something a large majority of people read. The first journalist to often go from these money-hungry major corporations are the shit nobody reads. Investigative journalism that takes time to research and hash out. I worked in the short, burst news industry and it’s a lot of shit. It fucking sucks tbh.
I never saw him as a grifter entirely, although he has tendencies. I think we have a tendency to label anyone who posts a ton as a grifter even when they do provide value. The book was a bit much.
Lol, remember all of those conflict of interest tweets that implied Mueller had a beef with Trump due to a golf club dispute. Laughable as expected.
Seth Abramson alleged that there was proof of a whole bunch of shit that appears nowhere in Mueller’s report. But of course he is claiming victory (also buy his book).
Hold his fucking feet to the fire. So he avoided perjury by just lying anyhow. Trump answered dozens of questions in writing, but many of his answers were not very informative. He said his memory failed him 34 times in about 33 paragraphs of answers. The amnesia came in different flavors. “Do not recall” — 14 times. “No recollection” — 9. “Do not remember” — 6. “No independent recollection” — 2. “Nor do I recall” — 2. “Nor do I remember” — 1. His memory was particularly fuzzy around the time of the crucial meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 between three top campaign aides and a Kremlin-linked lawyer from Moscow. “This was one of many busy months during a fast-paced campaign, as the primary season was ending and we were preparing for the general election campaign,” Trump wrote.
Honestly, fuck any report, force Donald Trump to testify in person under oath to even a very limited scope of questioning and he’ll perjure himself by question 3.
What’s the biggest thing he got wrong? Not something that isn’t included in the report, but something he got entirely wrong. Anytime I read his tweets it always came with an err of being conclusions he drew, but it was clearly not based on anything outside the public domain. Edit: he appears to have been a lot closer to the truth than the individual reporting of MSM outlets.
Nadler has said they’ll subpoena the full report. I think the order of operations does need to be impeach after reading the full text. That’s obviously best case scenario so they’ve got full situational awareness and can build the strongest case.
Can't wait for this list to go on Meet the Press Sunday, lie like fucking the pieces of shit they are, and Cuck Todd to do nothing and just take it Then badger some Dem guest about optics or some meaningless trash
I think they should also subpoena Mueller and his lawyers ASAP, and have them testify to their intentions and get them to publicly say why they made certain decisions and what it meant in the context of their perceived role versus how it should be used elsewhere. For example, get the, to admit that they intended it to be referred to congress to consider impeachment. Ask them if they would indict if he wasn’t the president. All things like that.
I hate chuck Todd. He both sides everything. Today he was actually good though. I was happy to see that on a day like today he wouldn’t both side it. He was genuinely annoyed.
I wholeheartedly agree the House needs to do this, unless there are strategic reasons were not considering.
He doesn’t report any original material. He reposts shit other people have actually reported on, draws conclusions about them that are unsupported by the facts, and then claims the media isn’t covering them. A good example of this is all of the ink he spilled on Jeff Sessions meeting with the Russians. He’s a bullshit artist who makes up for faulty logic and analysis with impenetrable volume. I don’t even know what that edit means or by what metric you’re possibly measuring that.
Ha wait so now it's good Obama "spied" on him, but deep state should've went further? I swear I wish his supporters would bludgeon each other to death in some bird box apocalypse.
Hmm he leads with the premise of taking news resources from around the world and constructing a narrative based on checking reports against each other and building a timeline of events. I think he's trying to sell his book, but I don't blame him for accumulating years worth of work and putting it in print to profit from it. Of course it's always cringe worthy to witness someone selling something outright, but whatever. I don't think your example is good one, and in the past year he was certainly ahead of major media in terms of identifying areas where nefarious activity appears to have taken place. It wouldn't be constructive or worthwhile to litigate this year, but I was just curious.
My state rep’s (Steve Womack) son was just sentenced to 9 years in prison for guns and drug charges. I’ll make sure to throw in a few good guys with guns jokes after I suggest a Trump impeachment before he hangs up on me
No he wasn’t ahead of anyone. He has no sources; he exclusively repackaged what others have reported. His “contribution” is to say that everything is fucking collusion, which the Mueller report actually does make clear isn’t substantiated to anything resembling the degree to which he claims. This is the guy who absolutely insisted not that Bernie Sanders would win the 16 primary, but that he actually was winning it. He deals in fantasies, not facts. He embellishes, monetizes other people’s work, and adds no value. The Venn diagram of people who follow him and who were on board with Avenatti “because he’s a fighter” has to be a circle.
Some Democrats are saying they'll get information from the various investigations and push for impeachment in the run-up to the election. That's a strategy, I guess. Hopefully it doesn't end with
I hear some in the media saying that the public doesn’t want impeachment. I dont even know how they can say that at this moment as to the best of my knowledge this news has not fully spread yet and been polled about. I suspect the press will keep pushing the constitutional duty to impeach line and public sentiment will lead us towards it.
Ok. You’re stating exactly what he admits to, so you’re not really making a new point about him. I’d compare him to a producer bringing disparate (news) resources together to show the broader story and narrative. I guess you shouldn’t have been expecting him to be something he never claimed to be.
This is more cynicism than I see it as a realistic strategy. Surely there are shitty, gritting Dems in Congress too, but the grass roots and newer members seem quite vocal and combative. Imagine the tea party vs establishment gop, but only if the tea party has any real values or moral compass
I’m pretty sure he doesn’t claim to be a bullshit artist, and I’m also confident he thinks all of the conclusory allegations he draws from others’ reporting is substantiated. He’s more like a historical fiction writer, making up stories about the context, intent, motivation, and substance of things he has no direct knowledge of.
So you’re saying if I asked you to write a report on watergate that you couldn’t put any coherent or reliable account together based on other people’s reporting and events you had no direct knowledge of?
I could, and so could he. I could also write a bunch of shit about the players in that scandal that is possible based upon that reporting but unsupported. And I think it would be difficult to make money off such a report, unless it was saying exactly what my audience wanted to read.
Thanks for educating me. That said, congress serves the public so the public plays a huge part in influencing them when they otherwise don’t have the will. If the voters show that it’s what they want and they will support them, it will help.
What scenario? I’m just suggesting that people ask their congress people to do their jobs regardless of the result.
sounds eerily similar to the keebler elf and his answers this and as long as turtle is head of senate, nothing will continue to come from this