Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: we stand with daap-umop-bup

Topic: Some heads are gonna roll  (Read 80889 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7200
What I don't understand is why you keep bringing the FBI into a discussion (at this point) of the despicability and reprehensibility of targeting survivors of this school shooting on the premise they are politically motivated shills against the NRA and the GOP and Trump. It looks more like you are trying to cover their, the NRA, the GOP and Trump) asses in their long standing screwups in the matter of mass shootings.
:sadyes:    It looks that way to me, too. 
Do we really need two RW nutjobs in this thread? I sort of have my hands full with one.

There you go, anyone who does not agree with your politics is a RW nutjob. THAT is what is wrong with this country., and the LW media is responsible for that in large part.
"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." (Jonathan Swift)

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7201
I was more concerned when Obama sent a planeload of cash to the Iranians
... even though it was their money?

It was a blackmail/ransom payout, no matter how you wish to spin it. With the sanctions in place, it was no longer their money.
Sorry, no, it was legally their money.

Sorry, no it was not once the sanctions were in place.

And, you think it was a coincidence the hostages were released on the same day the money was secretly delivered to Iran in cash?
"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." (Jonathan Swift)

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7202
I think you have an unhealthy obsession about Trump and the "Trumpsters"
Yeah. I'm a little concerned about the people in control of the whole fucking country.

I was more concerned when Obama sent a planeload of cash to the Iranians and was weak on our borders and the US military, than I am by anything Trump is doing.
Quote
The fact is, the FBI totally dropped the ball here and needs to be held accountable.
No one said otherwise.
What's despicable is attacking the surviving kid who has the temerity to speak up.
What's despicable is suggesting that he is a plant.
Did you even bother to read what Don Jr. "liked"?

It is not inconceivable the FBI is trying to cover their ass after such a screw-up, but I agree you don't target a surviving kid.

How is your concern about the former president's actions related to this event? Did he cause this shooter to go off and kill 17 students?
Are we there yet?

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7203
What I don't understand is why you keep bringing the FBI into a discussion (at this point) of the despicability and reprehensibility of targeting survivors of this school shooting on the premise they are politically motivated shills against the NRA and the GOP and Trump. It looks more like you are trying to cover their, the NRA, the GOP and Trump) asses in their long standing screwups in the matter of mass shootings.
:sadyes:    It looks that way to me, too. 
Do we really need two RW nutjobs in this thread? I sort of have my hands full with one.

There you go, anyone who does not agree with your politics is a RW nutjob. THAT is what is wrong with this country., and the LW media is responsible for that in large part.
Either that or the RWNJ's. You know, the ones who say things like how liberals are traitors and enemies of the state. It's the media alright.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7204
I was more concerned when Obama sent a planeload of cash to the Iranians
... even though it was their money?

It was a blackmail/ransom payout, no matter how you wish to spin it. With the sanctions in place, it was no longer their money.
Sorry, no, it was legally their money.
I wonder how HH would feel about having his funds in a foreign bank frozen by that foreign bank's country because he wasn't playing ball with it? Would he feel it was no longer his money?
Are we there yet?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7205
Sorry, no, it was legally their money.
Sorry, no it was not once the sanctions were in place.
Really?
Whose money had it become?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7206
I'm not aware of any objective observer who says that the money the US was holding didn't belong to Iran. Forbes, for instance, can hardly be described as a pro-Obama source, nor even as one that leans toward the Democratic party.

Quote
The major issue between the two governments was a $400 million payment for military equipment made by the government of the Shah of Iran, prior to the 1979 uprising that topped him. The U.S. banned delivery of the jets and other weapons amid the hostage crisis, but froze the $400 million advance payment. "The Pentagon handled arms purchases from foreign countries," says Gary Sick, a former National Security Council official who served as the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. "Defense took care of the details. So the $400 million scheduled purchase was a government-to-government transaction. The U.S. government was holding the money. That's why it was so difficult to resolve."

[. . .]

[T]he U.S. negotiators convinced Iran to move the dispute from arbitration to a private settlement. The two sides reached an agreement in mid-2015, at the same time as the U.S. and Iran reached a comprehensive pact on curtailing Iran's development of nuclear weapons. The financial deal called for the U.S. to refund $1.7 billion to Tehran, consisting of the original $400 million contract for military equipment, plus $1.3 billion in interest.

[. . .]

A stronger argument is that the U.S. had to make a big payment to Iran because of a 35-year-old deal for weapons that were never received. It wasn't a matter of if, but when and how much. Washington was worried that the tribunal would impose a payment of several billion dollars, as Tehran demanded, and grabbed the opportunity to settle for the $1.7 billion as part of a overall pact at the same time Iran was benefiting from the nuclear agreement.

It's also reasonable to ask why Iran would release hostages in exchange for $400 million, when--according to the deal's defenders--it was bound to get at least that amount from the Hague anyway, and could keep the hostages to boot. Of course, it's impossible to verify if Tehran was truly convinced a bigger, though later, settlement was likely. Still, it's clear that the payout from the $400 million dispute was coming, and would happen with or without a release of hostages.


  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7207
There you go, anyone who does not agree with your politics is a RW nutjob. THAT is what is wrong with this country., and the LW media is responsible for that in large part.
You SAY you understand that 'media' is a plural word.
But you keep using it as if it's singular.
And it's not just the grammar.
You appear to be suggesting there's some sort of nefarious coordinated plan to make people who - to take just one example - think Clinton and Podesta were maybe running a child sex ring out of a DC pizzeria, are somehow "rw nut jobs".
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7208
And here's Donnie jr. touting another rw site bashing David Hogg, another one of the vocal students, because his dad is retired FBI. Insinuating that he isn't a student, or is being coached by the FBI. Lying about his dad's status by saying he is still working at Miami FBI, when he is a retired person.

https://www.mediaite.com/online/don-jr-promotes-article-from-conspiracy-site-suggesting-trump-hating-school-shooting-survivor-is-fbi-plant/

It's like a parallel to Afdave's, 7th Law, but substitute vile and despicable for pathetic and retarded.

No matter how unsurpassably vile and despicable any pronouncement by the Trumpsters may be, it seems it can always be followed by something even more vile and despicable.


I think you have an unhealthy obsession about Trump and the "Trumpsters"

The fact is, the FBI totally dropped the ball here and needs to be held accountable.
Apparently you are not aware of the purview of the FBI. It is not authorized to investigate or act on non-Federal crimes. I do believe they should have notified the local Law Enforcement, ie - the Sheriff or Police, and perhaps even ATF, whose purview is firearms. I note the local Sheriffs' office had years and years of contact with the shooter and were also given tips he might be going off, but did nothing. Essentially this is a non-argument. It wasn't the FBI's job to intervene in this matter and, for that matter, as far as I know, it still isn't. Mass shootings in a school or otherwise is not a federal crime unless the shooter uses a firearm that is prohibited. And then it's not really a major crime. Not even sure it's a felony.

There's really nothing for the FBI to be held accountable for. Yes, it would have been best if they had forwarded the tips they got to the local authorities but it's not something they are required to do. And they do get a lot of tips about a lot of things that aren't their business.

For that matter, why are you even bringing the FBI into this?

I believe most of this hoopla about the FBI not doing something is primarily intended to take the heat off the Republicans and Trump and the NRA. It's bullshit. And it appears you support it.




Now, THAT^^^ is a complete load of bullshit!

Read the FBI's own statement


FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida

On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI's Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruz's gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.

Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.

We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said:

"We are still investigating the facts. I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public. It's up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.

"We have spoken with victims and families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy. All of the men and women of the FBI are dedicated to keeping the American people safe, and are relentlessly committed to improving all that we do and how we do it."
Perhaps there are internal protocols. I don't know. Perhaps they are followed with every single tip the FBI receives. Perhaps not. I don't know.

The fact remains, the remit of the FBI is federal crime. Shooting up a school is not a federal crime. Indeed, murder is not a federal crime unless "the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the federal government also has jurisdiction. If a crime is not committed within any state, then federal jurisdiction is exclusive, for example vessels of the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Merchant Marine in international waters and U.S. military bases worldwide." As such, the most the FBI could do in this case is pass the information on to local LEOs who do have jurisdiction. Had they interceded, with the exception of actually being at the school and taking action as private citizens or by request of the LEOs, they very well could have screwed up subsequent prosecution. How do you think that would have gone over?

It's a tempest in a teapot. LEOs were also tipped and they should have acted, but didn't. Are they covering their asses? The shooter's parents were aware of the shooter's predilictions and should have acted, but didn't. Are they covering their asses?

It's a fucked up event, but singling out the FBI as the major problem is wrong and foolish. And, as I posted previously, I believe it's mostly the efforts of RWNJs, the NRA, the GOP and Trump, to discredit the FBI and divert from their own failures.

Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7209
I think you have an unhealthy obsession about Trump and the "Trumpsters"
Yeah. I'm a little concerned about the people in control of the whole fucking country.

I was more concerned when Obama sent a planeload of cash to the Iranians and was weak on our borders and the US military, than I am by anything Trump is doing.
Quote
The fact is, the FBI totally dropped the ball here and needs to be held accountable.
No one said otherwise.
What's despicable is attacking the surviving kid who has the temerity to speak up.
What's despicable is suggesting that he is a plant.
Did you even bother to read what Don Jr. "liked"?

It is not inconceivable the FBI is trying to cover their ass after such a screw-up, but I agree you don't target a surviving kid.

Yes, it is inconceivable. For one thing, they haven't even attempted to cover their ass in this matter. Remember, it was the FBI local office in Florida that noted they had received tips about the shooter. Not exactly the behavior of some agency trying to cover their ass.

Not to mention, the FBI is only authorized to investigate and act on FEDERAL CRIMES, As noted, even though it's horrific and affects the whole nation, and perhaps should be a Federal Crime, shooting up a school is not*.

What I don't understand is why you keep bringing the FBI into a discussion (at this point) of the despicability and reprehensibility of targeting survivors of this school shooting on the premise they are politically motivated shills against the NRA and the GOP and Trump. It looks more like you are trying to cover their, the NRA, the GOP and Trump) asses in their long standing screwups in the matter of mass shootings.



*unless the shooter is using an illegal firearm under Federal Regulations. Then it's the ATF's jurisdiction.

What I don't understand is why you are trying to shift the blame from the FBI, which was directly involved, to TRUMP who had nothing to do with this.
I haven't suggested Trump was directly responsible, any more than I have suggested the NRA and the GOP are directly responsible. No, none of them bought the gun and none of them encouraged the shooter. What I have suggested is the NRA and the GOP and, lately by his actions, Trump, have acted to prevent any sort of gun control. It's a fact the sort of gun used by the shooter in this matter is an assault rifle and that is the weapon of choice by mass shooters. Primarily because it's a fucking machine gun with a high rate of fire and easily swapped magazines. It's also fairly accurate. And nobody in their right mind can claim it makes a great hunting rifle or even a target practice rifle. It was designed with one purpose in mind, to kill humans. Civilians do not need to own or possess such weapons, any more than they do grenades, heavy machine guns, cannons, RPGs or nuclear weapons. Yet the NRA, backed by the GOP, have continuously resisted any efforts to ban these sort of weapons. Or to even control who can own, sell, buy or use such weapons. And, yeah, Trump has done his share by retracting Obama's efforts on background checks.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7210
What I don't understand is why you keep bringing the FBI into a discussion (at this point) of the despicability and reprehensibility of targeting survivors of this school shooting on the premise they are politically motivated shills against the NRA and the GOP and Trump. It looks more like you are trying to cover their, the NRA, the GOP and Trump) asses in their long standing screwups in the matter of mass shootings.
:sadyes:    It looks that way to me, too. 
Do we really need two RW nutjobs in this thread? I sort of have my hands full with one.

There you go, anyone who does not agree with your politics is a RW nutjob. THAT is what is wrong with this country., and the LW media is responsible for that in large part.
There you go, anyone who does not agree with your politics is a LW nutjob. THAT is what is wrong with this country., and the RWNJ media is responsible for that in large part. Indeed, they are way more outrageous than the LW.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7211
I was more concerned when Obama sent a planeload of cash to the Iranians
... even though it was their money?

It was a blackmail/ransom payout, no matter how you wish to spin it. With the sanctions in place, it was no longer their money.
Sorry, no, it was legally their money.

Sorry, no it was not once the sanctions were in place.

And, you think it was a coincidence the hostages were released on the same day the money was secretly delivered to Iran in cash?
You're wrong and the International Court was about to rule on that. The Iranians were claiming $10 billion. The court was reasonably expected to order payments around $4 billion which included the original $400 million and then interest and penalties.
Unfortunately, under the law, in this case, International Law, possession is not 9/10th.

Like I said, I doubt you'd be claiming it wasn't your money if you had funds in a foreign bank that froze your assets (note, not confiscated, which would have made it at least technically no longer yours) because you did something they didn't like.

Are we there yet?

  • nesb
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7212
Quote from: Heinz Hershold
I was more concerned when Obama sent a planeload of cash to the Iranians and was weak on our borders and the US military, than I am by anything Trump is doing.

We need strength in the face of the US military

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7213
Quote
I was more concerned when Obama sent a planeload of cash to the Iranians and was weak on our borders and the US military, than I am by anything Trump is doing.

Urgh you are even parroting that stupid semi-literate doublespeak. "Weak on borders"? Is that a normal term for you now, something you feel comfortable using in coversation?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7214
I was more concerned when Obama sent a planeload of cash to the Iranians
... even though it was their money?

It was a blackmail/ransom payout, no matter how you wish to spin it. With the sanctions in place, it was no longer their money.
Sorry, no, it was legally their money.

Sorry, no it was not once the sanctions were in place.

And, you think it was a coincidence the hostages were released on the same day the money was secretly delivered to Iran in cash?
You're wrong and the International Court was about to rule on that. The Iranians were claiming $10 billion. The court was reasonably expected to order payments around $4 billion which included the original $400 million and then interest and penalties.
Unfortunately, under the law, in this case, International Law, possession is not 9/10th.

Like I said, I doubt you'd be claiming it wasn't your money if you had funds in a foreign bank that froze your assets (note, not confiscated, which would have made it at least technically no longer yours) because you did something they didn't like.
It's a matter of the US government took money in good faith as a deposit on military equipment it was selling to Iran. Or at least the Iran that the US supported at that time. The military equipment was never delivered. There was a change of government, but the country remained the same. The deposit remained a deposit. It had nothing to do with sanctions. Those were another matter regarding Iran's nuclear program.

If you had put down a deposit on some item, say, a house or a car or something of value. Then you die before the item is delivered. Your estate still owns that money, it is still a deposit. And that is exactly where the International Court was headed. The US and Iran agreed (most likely because the IC was going to order something like around $4B to be paid and the US assured Iran it would stall and do whatever it could to not pay out anything) to a private settlement of the debt. The US gets off with a much lower bill, which not including the $400M deposit which the US had no valid claim on, was $1.3B in interest. Much less than the probable $3.6B the court was going to order and which the US would lose a great deal of face and credibility if it refused to comply. And Iran got their deposit back plus interest. Win-win. It's likely the settlement also included the prisoner exchange and agreement on the Nuclear Program/Sanctions, if not informally. Why does that foul the deal? Get what you can when you can, right? And it's not like the US had some moral high ground over Iran. We stole their money. A thief can not unilaterally decide that they did not steal something just because they don't like the victim. At least not in any court I'm aware of. And you don't pay a ransom with the kidnappers' own money. That's not how it works. Ask any kidnappers.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have no sympathies for Iran, at least not the government there. I have a lot of sympathies for the people of Iran. I have had two very close friends return there and disappear. Neither were what would be described as political, but they had been in the western world for years and probably had some evil ideas and attitudes so ... ... gone. And there's Iran's support of terrorism. But just because you're the good guy, you don't get to break the rules and just because you're a bad guy doens't mean the good guy can throw away the rules. If we want to be the leaders of the world, we have to act like leaders. Even with miscreants like the Iranian government.
Are we there yet?

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7215
Quote
I was more concerned when Obama sent a planeload of cash to the Iranians and was weak on our borders and the US military, than I am by anything Trump is doing.

Urgh you are even parroting that stupid semi-literate doublespeak. "Weak on borders"? Is that a normal term for you now, something you feel comfortable using in coversation?
That post alone was enough to put Heinz firmly into RWNJ territory,
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7216
Meanwhile, back to the topic of the thread:

The Russia Investigation Is Moving Really Freaking Fast

Note to those who need help recognizing reality from RWNJ conspiracy bullshit, the article refers to the actual special investigation, the real one that exists in real life.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • uncool
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7217
If the stuff they say ends up being true then I'll know they are good sites. If the stuff they say ends up being false, then I will know they are bad sites. Not rocket science here.
So Dave, what are your thoughts on GatewayPundit?
Dave?
I guess Dave doesn't think much of GatewayPundit.

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7218
A bit of a brouhaha about Judge Emmet Sullivan getting the Flynn case ...

On the left we have Mother Jones ...
Quote
Here's the latest conspiracy theory among the nutball right: a judge recently ordered special prosecutor Robert Mueller to produce "any exculpatory evidence" in the Michael Flynn case. J'accuse! Obviously Mueller held something back and the judge is pissed. Perhaps Flynn plans to rescind his guilty plea?

Short answer: nope. Judge Emmet Sullivan, it turns out, issues a standing order to produce exculpatory evidence for every case brought before him. When he took over the Flynn case, he accidentally issued an old version of the order:  

...

Unfortunately it didn't work. The alt-right jackwagons decided that this routine administrative filing is 🚨🚨BREAKING NEWS🚨🚨 that Flynn's guilty plea is about to be dismissed and Mueller is going to jail, or something.

We are officially living in the dumbest timeline.
/end

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/new-right-wing-conspiracy-theory-michael-flynn-about-to-go-free/

So the left thinks the "alt-right" is going bananas over a nothing burger.

But wait ... IS IT a nothing burger?

And on the (alt) right, we have one of the "nutballs" ... The Federalist ...
Quote
Friday's order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that [1]. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government's obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday's order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.

It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government's obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant's guilt or punishment "includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government's possession."

While it is impossible to know whether Sullivan modified the standing order in response to special concerns in the Flynn case, it differs from the model text he included in his 2016 article, as well as the standing order he used most recently in a criminal case from August 2017. It is significant because it indicates that, if the government did not provide Flynn material evidence during plea negotiations, Flynn has grounds to withdraw his plea.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/michael-flynns-plea-reversal-uncover-federal-corruption/

So what we have here is that the Mother Jones author failed to note an interesting subtle change in the routine Brady order between the December 2017 version and the February 2018 version. 

A subtle change which "just so happens" to be extremely relevant to the Flynn case.

Hmm ...

It appears that Mother Jones isn't exercising much "attention to detail" by overlooking this subtle change.  Oh and MJ also missed the fact that the "alt right nutballs" ARE aware that Sullivan issues this order for ALL criminal cases.
Quote
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: "Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law." A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government's corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens--an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, "were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . ."

While the December standing order represented Sullivan's normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/michael-flynns-plea-reversal-uncover-federal-corruption/

This is just one example of lack of attention to detail on the left.  I see this sort of thing all the time [2] and it's one key reason why I read "alt right nutball" articles rather than leftist articles.

The "nutball" articles are simply more detailed and more honest in my experience.
"that" being "confront the egregious government misconduct that has led to and been perpetrated by the Mueller-Weissmann 'investigation' and to right the injustices that have arisen from it."
I see this in people's posts here too - Pingu is a prime example - latest example being her complete avoidance of providing any details whatsoever on her plan for "Pingu's Island" - yet no one on Team Darwin cared about details.  They signed up for her island blindly without any details of how they would be fed.
  • Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 03:25:50 AM by Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7219
This is just one example of lack of attention to detail on the left.  I see this sort of thing all the time. I see this in people's posts here too -


:ironicat:
:ironicat: :ironicat:
:ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat:
:ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat:
:ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat: :ironicat:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7220
....
The "nutball" articles are simply more detailed and more honest in my experience.
Is finding some less detailed article on the other side of the fence for each "nutjob" article you like really useful?
What if there also exists some more detailed article on the other side of the fence for each "nutjob" article you like?
What would that prove?

That you cherry-pick your data?

I expect some would think so!


Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7221
All I did was Google "Emmet Sullivan Flynn" to see what was being written ... These two articles came up high in the results ... if therr is a "leftist" article that is more detailed, feel free to point it out to me.

Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7222
I just checked again ... that MJ article is THE ONLY leftist article appearing in the first two pages of results for that search.

So ST has illustrated my point - again - with his post because he didn't realize this detail.

  • uncool
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7223
Dave, did you notice that the MJ article didn't explicitly link to the Federalist article, and likely wasn't talking about them directly?

The Federalist isn't usually considered full "nutball", if I remembers correctly. Strongly biased to the point that it compromises their ability to fact-check even in news pieces, if I remember them right, but nowhere near, say, infowars or world net daily.

As such, it is unlikely that MJ was referencing them directly. It's more likely to have been a reference to claims people made based on the article - many of which misunderstood it. The Federalist article is somewhat restrained (although even then, it extrapolates too far with claiming that a motion to withdraw the plea is likely; such a motion would expose Flynn to risk that he likely would not want to face; that risk is why he pled guilty in the first place).

Mother Jones should have made explicit what it was referencing, by at least linking a couple instances of claims being made. Failing to do so is a common failure of journalism sites -left, right, mainstream and nutball alike.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Some heads are gonna roll
Reply #7224
Well in this case we should know pretty soon.
Either:
Flynn will withdraw his guilty plea and/or be exonerated because of this alleged malfeasance on Mueller's part.
Or he won't.

At which point we'll know whether its Mother Jones or the PlayPen (or wherever Hawkins picked up this theory) has the better grip on reality.

At that point we will be able to judge whether Mother Jones
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins