The Right Side of the News

I missed Percy's post but I've seen dozens of examples of that sort of coverage being totally fake. More than dozens, many more.I just want to know how this Wash Post story is "good timing."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then you won't have any difficulty listing a half-dozen or so. It isn't. I just explained why.

The Independent

And there's plenty else that confirms it.Also, Barr or was it Durham, strongly disputes something that was leaked from the Horowitz report recently, the claim that there was good reason for the Mueller investigation in the first place. guess that will be coming out soon. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

And there's plenty else that confirms it.

---

Like what? And perhaps you can explain why the surveillance on Carter Page counts as spying on the Trump campaign when he had already left the campaign?

quote:

---

Also, Barr or was it Durham, strongly disputes something that was leaked from the Horowitz report recently, the claim that there was good reason for the Mueller investigation in the first place. guess that will be coming out soon.

---

Well, we know not to trust Barr.

Barr disagrees with a report put out by his own department that goes against trump's story, what a surprise.

And as I pointed out in my response in Message 3744, even Fox News will characterize Trump as furious or lashing out. Here's are those example Fox News articles again:

• 'Furious' Trump sounds off on whistleblower, inquiry in exclusive interview with Dan Bongino
  ​
• Trump: Impeachment probe has been 'very hard' on family:
  ​

  quote:

  ---

  Speaking in friendly territory in a state he carried in 2016 by 20 percentage points, Trump lashed out at Democratic investigators and what he called a "deranged impeachment witch hunt."

  ---

--Percy

Hi Faith. I have to say that I admire your tenacity. How is it possible to reasonably question the validity of an investigation that resulted in 37 indictments?

I don't agree that it was accurate, opinions on its accuracy are divided on political lines. Since they are, Schiff's accountability for it should be much more stringent than it is - he knew / knows that the news media would largely cover for him. As you, and someone else pointed out, his "parody" came out 2 days after Trump released the actual transcript, which made him look foolish in the eyes of all but the most intense Trump haters. It undoubtedly took Schiff longer than 2 days to dream that up, and he either didn't know about the release, or didn't care, since he knew he would be largely covered for. Yes, because Trump only attacked, in a very general way, what he (and many other Americans, obviously) felt was the incompetence of past politicians in his initial presidential-bid announcement in 2015, and he was insulted for that for many months afterward. But you have multiple mainstream news outlets on your side, that you can easily pick and choose from. Many of these have traditional, non-cable, non-premium access, unlike Fox News, or even some of talk radio. I don't think the U.S. founders would have agreed with the mainstream press being as controlled as it is by one political party, (a faction, Federalist Paper #10) It's not necessarily controlled by Democrats because they have correct beliefs, it's controlled by them because dissention / sensationalism sells. Why sure. Depending on what source is consulted, the percentage of lgbt Americans is anywhere from 3.4 to 4.5 %. In looking at the dozen or so most prominent news anchors, it's easy to see that the percentage of lgbt news anchors is much higher, probably 20 to 25%. There is even an organization for it;NLGJA: The Association of LGBTQ Journalists - WikipediaThe obviously left-leaning news media clearly sees benefits to their causes by giving preferential treatment in hiring them. I use that one word term "gay" as a quick reference to what their political views probably are, in EXACTLY the same way that the word "fundie" is used in and around the scientific community, as a quick reference to those who probably politically disagree with them. There is no difference whatsoever, except one. One term is politically correct, and the other is not. How much am I concerned about political correctness, you wonder? Ask me, please just ask me. Because you already know of their existence, you're only trying to send me down rabbit trails that you know I don't have time for. But I did forget to mention, in my previous message about another thing I noticed on World News Tonight, this past week. Pamala Karlan, a professor of law at Stanford Law School, was given probably 3 or 4 full minutes on Thursdays (I think) evening report on her testimony at one of the many Trump impeachment hearings. That's a lot of time on a half hour newscast. She was portrayed by *Muir as a politically neutral analyst, as she recited all her Trump hate. But as I later saw on Fox News, a Republican congressman was asking her; "did you contribute money to Elizabeth Warren's campaign?" To Hillary Clinton's campaign? To Barrack Obama's campaign? The answers to all three were sheepish little "yeses". World News Tonight left that part off, guess there wasn't time. Don't believe me? Too bad, I don't need to prove what I know is true. Political rallies, openly made donations to campaigns are different from closed-door bribes and corruption. Can I, or will I prove it? No, it's what I see in my political observation, just like what you see in your political observations, when you string together at least 10 vile words that you believe best describe Trump. My criticisms of ABC World News generally involve an averaging together of many of their broadcasts. If you're in continual denial of ABC's bias no matter much they double down and expose their bias, then I guess doubling down is a characteristic of the political left. Fox news is less biased than the mainstream media. I was referring only to ABC World News Tonight, an over-the-air broadcast that is the only news source for many Americans. I think it sealed his fate, he's not going to be the nominee. Which means Trump couldn't have been seeking foreign help in an upcoming election, since Biden almost assuredly won't be his opponent. He did on ABC World News Tonight. That's what I was referring to. Hmmm, guess that answers my question, you like Levin better than you like me. One final note, Trump is the 3rd president to be impeached. Andrew Johnson was a Democrat, and was Lincoln's vice president!! Definitely a different time, and things just after that war were complicated in ways we probably can't imagine today. Little doubt that a LOT of people who were indifferent, or even supported Johnson at the beginning of his presidency were really against him when he was impeached. Similarly, a lot of people who voted for Bill Clinton weren't happy with what he did with that cigar, or that he lied under oath to a Federal Grand Jury. So Trump will be the first president to be impeached who did nothing to betray, or upset most all of the people who voted for him. Not what the founders intended IMO. I've heard it said somewhere (no I can't prove it) that if the Democrat house gets by with this without getting themselves in trouble (as is likely), then there's little question that every president in the future will be impeached for something. Not what the founders intended, and not good for the country.

And the total population of Jews in America is not even 2% yet somehow manage to retain some of the highest positions of power in sports, entertainment, banking, etc. Its a case of nepotism. Is there a "gay mafia," as I've heard it called, operating in a similar nepotistic fashion? Probably to some extent but how is it different than any other form of nepotism? Everyone in Trump's inner circle is only there because of nepotism... but, hey, that's not really the same thing cuz Marc says so. Every journalist you listed are obviously card-carrying Democrats so your inclusion of the asterisk to denote homosexuals was superfluous. It seems clear that your adding was to hint at them being especially bad.While its probably true that most gay Americans vote democrat thats definitely not representative of all of them. There's a lot of gay Republicans -- the only difference being they tend not to make their sexual orientation the focal point of a conversation and you therefore wouldn't know unless they specifically mentioned it. You know, as much as it annoys the fuck out of me to hear people say that MSNBC and TYT aren't that biased when they obviously are, its equally annoying to hear conservatives say that FOX news isn't as biased as mainstream media. For one thing, FOX news IS mainstream media... its literally one of the Big 4. Doesn't get any more mainstream than that. Secondly, its every bit as biased, just in the direction you'd like it to be so it just seems like normal reporting to you.

Hmm. Now that is an interesting point.

quote:

---

Trump will be the first president to be impeached who did nothing to betray, or upset most all of the people who voted for him. Not what the founders intended IMO.

---

I’m pretty sure that the Founders did think that abuse of power was grounds for impeachment. And if the people who voted for the President approved of that abuse they would consider it grounds for grave concern for the nation. I certainly don’t think they would consider it grounds to halt impeachment.

quote:

---

I've heard it said somewhere (no I can't prove it) that if the Democrat house gets by with this without getting themselves in trouble (as is likely), then there's little question that every president in the future will be impeached for something. Not what the founders intended, and not good for the country.

---

I’ve seen it suggested that the Republicans should get revenge by abusing the impeachment power of the House - and Faith supported it. I hope that the Republican Party has not yet gone that far in their hatred of democracy. I don’t see any reason to think that the Democrats would automatically impeach a President who didn’t deserve it.

How so? He read a transcript, he parodied it. What's foolish about thta? Maybe you don't have the intellectual horsepower to produce a parody in two days, but almost everyone else does. I could do it in an hour.

Especially considering that the people who voted for Trump weren't even a plurality of voters.On the other hand, the Founders never intended for people to vote for President; the electors were to be chosen by the state legislatures who were elected by people who owned property. Bringing in the intent of the Founders is kind of weird.

On the other hand, we should always keep in mind that when a "constitutionalist" or "originalist" talks about the "intents" of the Founders, it's almost always a bunch of make-believe to avoid having to admit that their constitutional interpretations are every bit as subjective and arbitrary as everyone else's.