• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The comey memo and double standards from mainstream media[W:6]

Re: The comey memo and double standards from mainstream media

Kal'Stang said:
Reliable according to who exactly? No one can objectively judge that because no one knows who it was beyond a single reporter. I could say that about anyone. Doesn't mean that they are.
Click to expand...

The reporter who broke the story has had some pretty significant scoops, including breaking the story that Hillary Clinton had exclusively used a personal email account when she was secretary of state.

He is highly regarded by both sides, and you can rest assured he has deep, serious and trusted connections. His Comey story led to the DOJ appointing a special prosecutor.

Don't know why you're compelled to keep dismissing him so readily. He's got a significant reputation to protect, and something like this with certainty to be revealed at a later date, is not something he's about to go on a limb on and get raked through the mud.
 
Re: The comey memo and double standards from mainstream media

Kal'Stang said:
Except that I'm not a conservative. :shrug: Nor am I a liberal. I tend to look at all sides of an issue and don't care whether my conclusions aligns with the left or the right side. That's why I'm an Independent. I don't care about sides. I only care about right and wrong. Which admittedly is subjective. In this particular instance I see it as wrong that the media is choosing to report something as factual when all that they've received is hearsay. Which would make it speculation, not fact. A fact is something which has proof or evidence. Speculation is something which might be possible, but there is no proof or evidence of.

We know that Comey kept notes and memo's of his interactions. What we do not know is what those memos and notes contain. We had one person claim over a phone call that one of the memo's says X about Trump. That was it. Nothing given to corroborate. No one else backing that person up. Nothing. There are confirmations that Comey kept notes and memo's. But that would be expected of any FBI Director, or anyone in a position of authority for that matter. And none of those confirmations have once said what was in those notes/memo's.

So in the end, we have a media reporting something as fact based on one persons phone call and that is it.

Other people want to bring in other things such as Trumps habitual lying or whatever but none of that matters to this particular instance. That is just using assumptions when they attempt to tie such to whether or not the memo that says Trump tried to get Comey to stop investigating Flynn actually exists. "Well, Trump did this! So of COURSE there's a memo that says Trump did that!" That is no more a valid of an argument about whether or not there is a memo that says what is claimed than saying that the boogey man exists under your bed.

In the past when memo's were leaked to the press the press normally was at least able to confirm that the memo existed because they saw it for themselves or multiple people said that they saw it also. We don't even have that this time around. We have one person, over a phone saying something. That's it. That's like saying that "Well, I heard from a friend of a friends friend that Mr. Smith is a pedo! Stay away from him!" and portraying it as a factual statement. It's not. Its a rumor. Hearsay. Speculation. Nothing else.
Click to expand...

Hearsay is a legal not a journalistic term, and is sometimes admissible as evidence in a court case. Journalists rely regularly on hearsay. How many times have you read in a news story the words, "he said" or "according to". News stories are not about "proof" of the events or intrigues they cover. They are reports gathered in good faith by competent journalists, if done well. Sometimes they're wrong, and when they're wrong the real story usually turns up sooner or later and then it is reported. Such is the way of a free press.
 
Re: The comey memo and double standards from mainstream media

nota bene said:
I'm not at all "miffed"; I'm skeptical. Perhaps this is because I've myself worn a journo's hat. "Alleged" is a critically important word.
Click to expand...

If the story spells out the nature of how the material was received then it is implying alleged. Nowhere have I seen the main stream media try to hide how the information was received. There's just a lot of people crying about "anonymous" sources because they are trying their damndest to discredit sources reporting things they don't like. Anonymous sources are critical in high level political reporting and always have been.

I think the problem here is that people read headlines and they don't like it. Then forego the story and just bitch incessently about how the headline was written. Like that skater dude in the OP video... he was bitching about how a 144 character limit tweet didn't intricately spell out everything about the story it cited.
 
Last edited:
Re: The comey memo and double standards from mainstream media

JackA said:
Hearsay is a legal not a journalistic term, and is sometimes admissible as evidence in a court case. Journalists rely regularly on hearsay. How many times have you read in a news story the words, "he said" or "according to". News stories are not about "proof" of the events or intrigues they cover. They are reports gathered in good faith by competent journalists, if done well. Sometimes they're wrong, and when they're wrong the real story usually turns up sooner or later and then it is reported. Such is the way of a free press.
Click to expand...

Responsible journalism is about the truth.
It is reporting on facts.

I read on an unnamed source that jacka is nothing more than a forum troll on multiple forum sites.
(Example)

That is what the left wing media is doing.
How is that truthful or responsible?
 
Re: The comey memo and double standards from mainstream media

JackA said:
Hearsay is a legal not a journalistic term, and is sometimes admissible as evidence in a court case. Journalists rely regularly on hearsay. How many times have you read in a news story the words, "he said" or "according to". News stories are not about "proof" of the events or intrigues they cover. They are reports gathered in good faith by competent journalists, if done well. Sometimes they're wrong, and when they're wrong the real story usually turns up sooner or later and then it is reported. Such is the way of a free press.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Journalist report. Unless they are the story themselves, which they shouldn't be, they get their information from other people/sources. Now for some reason, the trump-army is saying this is supposed to be wrong and not how to do journalism.
 
ludin said:
Comey Admits Under Oath That Obstructions To Investigations "Never Happened" | Zero Hedge

Wow that took me 5 seconds to prove you wrong.
So you are saying Comey didn't testify. Sorry it was may not march.
Click to expand...


No. 1: zerohedge. LOLOLOL Might as well cite Infowars, low info folkers.

No. 2: This has been done to death, and the RW fever swampers keep popping it out. No. If I have to pull out the question asked and asnwered for the 100th time I will. It gets tiring. How about educating yourself. What you said "He has already testified in march under oath that no one was interfering with the
Investigation"

is
not
true.
 
Re: The comey memo and double standards from mainstream media

poweRob said:
If the story spells out the nature of how the material was received then it is implying alleged. Nowhere have I seen the main stream media try to hide how the information was received. There's just a lot of people crying about "anonymous" sources because they are trying their damndest to discredit sources reporting things they don't like. Anonymous sources are critical in high level political reporting and always have been.

I think the problem here is that people read headlines and they don't like it. Then forego the story and just bitch incessently about how the headline was written. Like that skater dude in the OP video... he was bitching about how a 144 character limit tweet didn't intricately spell out everything about the story it cited.
Click to expand...

The material wasn't received. No where has the actual memo been published.
We have part of a memo that someone else supposedly read. We have no way to verify that is is accurate.

It has nothing to do with headlines, but the fact that the story has little or no detail and we are just supposed to take t as true because they say so.

Sorry show me actual facts.
 
Paperview said:
No. 1: zerohedge. LOLOLOL Might as well cite Infowars, low info folkers.

No. 2: This has been done to death, and the RW fever swampers keep popping it out. No. If I have to pull out the question asked and asnwered for the 100th time I will. It gets tiring. How about educating yourself. What you said "He has already testified in march under oath that no one was interfering with the
Investigation"

is
not
true.
Click to expand...

So you can't refute his actual testimony it is right there in the article.

Testifying under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3rd, Comey states that he has not been pressured to close an investigation for political purposes, "not in my experience."

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something like that -- without an appropriate purpose.

I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.

It's not happened in my experience.

So you are saying that Comey himself was lying?
You realize that is perjury right?
 
Re: The comey memo and double standards from mainstream media

ludin said:
The material wasn't received. No where has the actual memo been published.
We have part of a memo that someone else supposedly read. We have no way to verify that is is accurate.

It has nothing to do with headlines, but the fact that the story has little or no detail and we are just supposed to take t as true because they say so.

Sorry show me actual facts.
Click to expand...

Information is the material I was referring to. I'm sure you'd like to be at the investigative source of it all but until that moment, you'll have to rely on journalism to report it. Or don't rely on it. But working to discredit actual journalism just because you don't like what's getting reported... that's over the line.
 
ludin said:
Comey is in a bind. He has already testified in march under oath that no one was interfering with the
Investigation. I guess he can change his testimony if he wants to perjurer himself.
Click to expand...

That is technically not quite true, the question was "Had anyone at the DOJ ask you to drop the investigation?". Of course, we never heard it asserted that the POTUS declaring publicly that "not a smidgeon of corruption" was involved (will be found?) with an ongoing investigation of the IRS using different standards and procedures for TP related groups was "pressure" in a similar vein - after all, nobody in the DOJ said that. ;)
 
Re: The comey memo and double standards from mainstream media

poweRob said:
Information is the material I was referring to. I'm sure you'd like to be at the investigative source of it all but until that moment, you'll have to rely on journalism to report it. Or don't rely on it. But working to discredit actual journalism... that's over the line.
Click to expand...

No I don't have to rely on anything. More so if it is dubious and purposely being dishonest.
We have multiple reports from actual real sources two being Comey himself and McCabe stating that no obstruction has occured.

One carry more weight than unnamed sources that have supposedly read some memo.

Yes I will discredit journalists that put either political ideology above reporting accurate news.
If they want to be a partisan hack then I will let them. It doesn't mean I can't call them out for being dishonest.
 
ludin said:
So you can't refute his actual testimony it is right there in the article.

Testifying under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3rd, Comey states that he has not been pressured to close an investigation for political purposes, "not in my experience."

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something like that -- without an appropriate purpose.

I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.

It's not happened in my experience.

So you are saying that Comey himself was lying?
You realize that is perjury right?
Click to expand...


Oh brother. Here we go again.

Comey was addressing the direct question posed to him: (there is a reason the fever swamper's don't post the question)


Q:

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): Yes. And so speaking of the independence of not just the judiciary but I'd like you to clarify the FBI's independence from the DOJ apparatus. Can the FBI conduct an investigation independent from the department of Justice. Or does the FBI have to disclose all it's (sic) investigations to the DOJ? And does it have to get the Attorney General's consent?


COMEY: Well we work with the Department of Justice, whether that's main justice or U.S. attorney's offices on all of our investigations.

And so we work with them and so in a legal sense we're not independent of the department of justice. We are spiritually, culturally pretty independent group and that's the way you would want it. But yes, we work with the Department of Justice on all of our investigations.

HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?


In addition, the specifics of being "told to stop something (by the AG or DOJ) for a political reason" -- knocks the dumb narrative further out of the water.

So for gawd sakes man. Stop it. And stop getting your info from slime sources like zerohedge.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is technically not quite true, the question was "Had anyone at the DOJ ask you to drop the investigation?". Of course, we never heard it asserted that the POTUS declaring publicly that "not a smidgeon of corruption" was involved (will be found?) with an ongoing investigation of the IRS using different standards and procedures for TP related groups was "pressure" in a similar vein - after all, nobody in the DOJ said that. ;)
Click to expand...

It seems like ANY "pressure" to stop an investigation is a "big deal" and that's "not happened."

One big key word any.
Any would mean pressure from anyone that would include the executive office as well.
 
Paperview said:
Oh brother. Here we go again.

Comey was addressing the direct question posed to him: (there is a reason the fever swamper's don't post the question)


Q:

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): Yes. And so speaking of the independence of not just the judiciary but I'd like you to clarify the FBI's independence from the DOJ apparatus. Can the FBI conduct an investigation independent from the department of Justice. Or does the FBI have to disclose all it's (sic) investigations to the DOJ? And does it have to get the Attorney General's consent?


COMEY: Well we work with the Department of Justice, whether that's main justice or U.S. attorney's offices on all of our investigations.

And so we work with them and so in a legal sense we're not independent of the department of justice. We are spiritually, culturally pretty independent group and that's the way you would want it. But yes, we work with the Department of Justice on all of our investigations.

HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?


In addition, the specifics of being "told to stop something (by the AG or DOJ) for a political reason" -- knocks the dumb narrative further out of the water.

So for gawd sakes man. Stop it. And stop getting your info from slime sources like zerohedge.
Click to expand...

I proved you wrong and you simply can't admit it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ede-fbi-investigation/?utm_term=.a20e26121d43

Yep proven wrong again.

Amazing isn't it.

Comey: it seems any [key word] pressure to stop an investigation is a big deal that has not happened.
 
Re: The comey memo and double standards from mainstream media

ludin said:
No I don't have to rely on anything. More so if it is dubious and purposely being dishonest.
Click to expand...

Pure speculation based on feelings. You don't like what's getting reported therefore you claim its dishonest.

ludin said:
We have multiple reports from actual real sources two being Comey himself and McCabe stating that no obstruction has occured.

One carry more weight than unnamed sources that have supposedly read some memo.

Yes I will discredit journalists that put either political ideology above reporting accurate news.
If they want to be a partisan hack then I will let them. It doesn't mean I can't call them out for being dishonest.
Click to expand...

When journalism uses anonymous sources they fall back hard on their reputation and if they lose their reputation, they lose their credibility... and the NYT and WaPo have an immense amount of credibility. Yes, they've screwed up before and they retracted. But their track record for journalistic integrity is unquestionable.
 
ludin said:
I proved you wrong and you simply can't admit it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ede-fbi-investigation/?utm_term=.a20e26121d43

Yep proven wrong again.

Amazing isn't it.

Comey: it seems any [key word] pressure to stop an investigation is a big deal that has not happened.
Click to expand...

You are being dishonest. McCabe was saying that the investigation goes on and cannot be impeded despite changes (comey's firing) that happened. And McCabe was referring to HIS investigating. Not Comey's.
 
ludin said:
It seems like ANY "pressure" to stop an investigation is a "big deal" and that's "not happened."

One big key word any.
Any would mean pressure from anyone that would include the executive office as well.
Click to expand...

Why do you only quote the answer given and not the question actually asked? Could it be that they do not exactly match your assertion? If I ask you "did a Russian agent ask you to do X" and you reply "no, that never happened - but if they did it would be a big deal", does that mean that a Chinese agent did not ask you to do X? ;)
 
Re: The comey memo and double standards from mainstream media

poweRob said:
Pure speculation based on feelings. You don't like what's getting reported therefore you claim its dishonest.
Click to expand...
Yep they are speculating and, hearsay and circular logic. You are finally starting to catch on maybe.
It has nothing to do with what is getting reported but how they are reporting it that is dishonest.

They are attempting to report rumor and hearsay as fact.

When journalism uses anonymous sources they fall back hard on their reputation and if they lose their reputation, they lose their credibility... and the NYT and WaPo have an immense amount of credibility. Yes, they've screwed up before and they retracted. But their track record for journalistic integrity is unquestionable.
Click to expand...

Yes they have lost their reputation a long time ago. You don't think so because they are pretty much a liberal spin machine at this point. They agree with your point of view so they are accurate.

Ol no it is highly questionable. You are just using confirmation bias to support yourself that is about as useful as anonymous sources.
 
Paperview said:
You didn't prove me wrong, crazypants.

He was asked specifically and answered directly about the AG and DOJ.

If you want to live in your zerohedge / infowars bubble, go ahead. It's your goose that gets filleted. Seems that happens with amazing regularity.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read the article I just posted McCabe even said no obstruction has been done.

So we have both Comey and McCabe saying the same thing.
I will take them over anonymous sources and unverified memos
 
Re: The comey memo and double standards from mainstream media

ludin said:
Yep they are speculating and, hearsay and circular logic. You are finally starting to catch on maybe.
It has nothing to do with what is getting reported but how they are reporting it that is dishonest.

They are attempting to report rumor and hearsay as fact.
Click to expand...

They are using their sources to report. And you don't like what they are finding. And it's getting so big that your "see no evil, hear no evil" stance isn't working anymore so you are trying to discredit those with impeccable track records. It's making you look desperate and foolish.

ludin said:
Yes they have lost their reputation a long time ago. You don't think so because they are pretty much a liberal spin machine at this point. They agree with your point of view so they are accurate.

Ol no it is highly questionable. You are just using confirmation bias to support yourself that is about as useful as anonymous sources.
Click to expand...

They simply have lost their reputation with you. You think what is credible reporting is them saying what you like to hear. I'm using their long history of credible reporting as a reference. You are using your overly sensitive feelings to guage credibility of others.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why do you only quote the answer given and not the question actually asked? Could it be that they do not exactly match your assertion? If I ask you "did a Russian agent ask you to do X" and you reply "no, that never happened - but if they did it would be a big deal", does that mean that a Chinese agent did not ask you to do X? ;)
Click to expand...

I would say show me he proof, however that assertion has never been made that a Chinese agent did anything.
In fact we have collaborating information from someone else that confirms no obstruction in general not just from a specific source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom