James Rosen smear, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, Benghazi. And now it looks like Flynn takedown. But the is TBD as we get more info. Oh, and that little Russian hoax, where we now have transcripts.
FBI and Justice Dept
- Thread starter kingmanite
- Start date
James Rosen smear, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, Benghazi. And now it looks like Flynn takedown. But the is TBD as we get more info. Oh, and that little Russian hoax, where we now have transcripts.
Some solid prison photos right there. The Trumpettes and the angry women in white. Depressing as an American.
Most of those are conspiracy theories. Benghazi was a tragedy , not a scandal, as Republicans found out after they wasted time and money on committee after committee? What Russia Hoax? lol My goodness. You can see why Trump pulls his little shenanigans. He gets people to believe them.
OK I actually had no idea who "James Rosen" was so I googled and discovered he was an ex-Fox Reporter who was accused by co-workers of harassment, then left and joined the even Foxier Sinclair broadcasting. Not sure how he ties into Obama, other than not liking Obama? I'm actually much better acquainted with Carl Cameron, who I remember seeing on Fox all the time whenever I watched. He has now popped up on CBS and seems to have authored quite a few offerings which tend to be saying he thinks Trump is nuts and corrupt.
Fast and Furious was basically the Obama version of Operation Wide Receiver which Bush initiated in 2006. Seems pretty clear it's not just some wacky concept that Obama materialized out of thin air, but rather had more to do with the actions of DEA /ATF folks in Phoenix and Tucson. I haven't delved too deeply, but it seems some on the far right jumped to baseless conclusions, which were basically dispelled by Horowitz's findings...
"Ann Coulter declared that the operation was run by Holder for the White House with the intention of killing American law enforcement officials for the purpose of advancing gun control:
Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for why President Obama’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns in their hands to strengthen liberals’ argument for gun control… Innocent people dying was the objective of Fast and Furious, not collateral damage."
And after the Obama administration cited executive privilege and refused to provide documents to Congress (documents later made available to Horowitz for his investigation), Michelle Malkin said Obama himself was involved:
The maneuver that they undertook yesterday just underscores something that some of us have been emphasizing since day one of this scandal over the last year and a half – and that is that Obama is at the center of it"
I read one article where even NR said that was "nonsense" as well as this link here...
https://swampland.time.com/2012/09/...port-destroys-right-wing-conspiracy-theories/
I've discussed Flynn in-depth in other threads, so no comment here. Which brings us to Benghazi, or BeNNN Ghaziii, as some like to say...
The first question is why did a single attack on a US Embassy during Obama become such an outrage, when none of the 13 attacks on US Embassies during the Bush Admin were even INVESTIGATED? Now some of the statistics regarding attacks during Bush were exaggerated and didn't fit the Benghazi profile. Snopes rates the overall comparison as mixed, but does reach this conclusion that illustrates a certain degree of hypocrisy in the ultra partisan framing of Beeenghazzzzi...
"At 65, our tally of the deaths resulting from embassy attacks during the Bush administration is one short of that provided in the Internet list (as we mentioned above, the available information on these attacks tends to be slightly inconsistent). Four of those deaths were Americans, three of whom were diplomatic personnel. One can argue that the comparison between these 13 incidents and Benghazi is strained, however, in that four U.S. personnel were killed in the Benghazi attack alone. One might further object that only attacks in which Americans were killed ought to be counted in the first place, in which case the number of pertinent attacks under George W. Bush would total three rather than thirteen.
In any case, Congress did not see fit to investigate any of those incidents."
A couple of additional points...(feel free to dispute and prove me wrong) with actual links... This press release is from Sen Leahy's website...
"Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt., and then-chairman of the State Department’s budget committee – the State Department and Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee), pushed for more embassy security funding than House Republicans were willing to provide – both before and after the Benghazi attack.
Leahy said: “House Republicans have wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan exercise. For that, and for blaming the Administration for failing to protect our diplomats, without acknowledging their own efforts to slash resources for embassy security, is pure, distilled hypocrisy.”
BEFORE BENGHAZI: After Republicans took over the House in January 2011 -- before the Benghazi attack -- they proposed deep cuts for U.S. embassy operations and State Department programs across the board, including for diplomatic and embassy facility security. The House Republican Appropriations Committee cut $1 billion from the embassy security budget proposed by the Obama Administration in the two years prior to the Benghazi attack.
- For FY12, the House State Department and Foreign Operations (SFOPS) Bill was $596 million below the Administration’s request of $3.83 billion for diplomatic and embassy facility security (including Diplomatic Security, Worldwide Security Protection and Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance). The counterpart Senate SFOPS bill was $319 million below the request."
- For FY13, the House was $434 million below the Administration’s request of $4.04 billion for these security programs. The Senate SFOPS bill was $70 million below the request.
- Thus, over these two years immediately before Benghazi, the House SFOPS bills included cuts totaling more than $1 billion for these security programs.
- Both the Senate and House SFOPS overall budget allocations (the total funds given to the Appropriations Committee with which to craft their overall priorities in the SFOPS bills) for these years were below the President’s request. In FY12 and FY13, the House chose to slash these security programs instead of other programs."
- https://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/...ers-continued-to-block-embassy-security-funds
- One last observation on Benghazi, based on my reading of the testimony given by US personnel at the trial of the man charged with "planning" the attack...I could be wrong on some of this because I'm commenting from memory and not bothering to search all the details again. So if that's the case, feel free to provide corrections and additional facts...
commandeered a plane and after paying the pilots $30,000 forced them to fly to Benghazi. They met up with Libyan officials at the airport and were delayed a couple of hours. After that, they headed to the compound to reinforce the CIA annex, which was under small arms and mortar attack...
I found that interesting since one of the charges made against Clinton was that earlier action could have prevented loss of life. Since Stevens and Sean Smith basically died of smoke inhalation during the initial attack, it's hard to claim inaction by the Admin led to their deaths.
And it's equally hard to blame Admin inaction for the other 2 deaths since Doherty,who was later killed flew in on the rescue mission from the closest possible destination, and the other CIA victim (Tyrone Woods) was also killed AFTER the rescue unit arrived to reinforce the compound. Again one of the members of the rescue unit testified at the trial that he was on the roof of the CIA annex when the shell that killed Woods exploded.
Maybe facts that were revealed during Investigations into the situation are the reason that even though they tried desperately Gowdy and his partisan witch hunt couldn't come up with any credible charge to level against Clinton. They settled for innuendo and half-truths, and judging from your post they succeeded in scoring with their target audience.
Last edited:
As the only independent bipartisan American. I see no angry women in white. They all appear to be smiling to me. What makes you think they are angry? Besides you needing to have the ability to but both sides everything.
Maybe you haven't; maybe you are lying. It doesn't matter, though. I love Fox News because it gives me a great and much-needed comic relief. I love satires.
Furthermore, if not Fox, where do you get these incredible news you base your arguments on? Breitbart News? JBS Journal(are they still around?)?
Be honest for once. Where do you get these numbers from?
Last edited:
Maybe you haven't; maybe you are lying. It doesn't matter, though. I love Fox News because it gives me a great and much-needed comic relief. I love satires.
Some of what they say is accurate, most isn’t. All is painted by a political slant. Exactly like every other major news outlet in the US
As for Rosen:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-...tice-departments-overreaching-leaks-threatens
Op WR was no where near F&F. 3x as many guns, tracing program with embedded chips vs. serial number tracking, Mexican officials were aware of Op WR, but not F&F. And, oh yeah, a BP agent and ICE agent were killed under F&F.
As for Benghazi, a major part of the scandal was the big lie Susan Rice was sent out to tell to blame it on a video.
Honestly, this is their play heading into November.
As long as they can make some combination of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and any other non-white male Democrat the boogeyman, their base will be riled up enough to get out and vote. Most of them have probably already picked out their second-hand camo jacket and assault rifle to take to the polls. They still have time to decide between their MAGA and Proud Boy hats.
And let's be clear here. These are the people that LOVE Trump, but somehow believe the federal government - of which he's the executive in charge - is out to take away their civil liberties. I have no idea how they reconcile that Trump is a big, strong competent leader, but there are people who are secretly pulling the strings and controlling things while he doesn't notice.
You said:
"Some of what they say is accurate, most isn’t. All is painted by a political slant. Exactly like every other major news outlet in the US."
I quickly browsed this thread to locate the source of your "complaint," but had trouble locating the exact quote, but I got distracted. So, here is my answer to your suspected post.
I believe I was referring to your quote equating "all news are lies" in defense of Fox News.
To start, I commend you for including "Fox News" in the lies department; I was expecting a phrase "except Fox."
I agree with you that all news have "lies" in their reports, if you include "misstatements" in the "lies" category. With the exception of Fox, though, most other news, such as CNN, NBC, etc., the "lies" are most likely from misunderstanding or misinterpretations rather than intentional lies. Yes, I do not deny that they sometimes twist facts to suit their purpose. However, the frequency is much lower than the blatant lies Fox has been spreading constantly. That is where "Fox lies" comes about; others do "lie," but many of those so-called "lies" are more of misstatement category, not necessarily blatant lies.
In defense of Fox though, the so-called "lies" Fox has been spreading may not even be lies. It is possible, quite possible, that they truly believe what they lie/lied about. However, does such interpretation serve them any better? I think not since the effect would be the same. This is nothing new, though. Hitler used it very effectively, as did Stalin, Mao, Putin, Chiang Kai Sheck, Dojo(spelling?), Kastro, and other "great men" in the 20th and 21st century. Oh, yeah, add Trump to the list, who has lied probably more frequently and more effectively than all the other "great men" I listed above. He has been effective enough to fool even fine people like you! I will give you, though, that he has not been as evil as the other gentlemen I listed above. Not yet anyway. After all, he hasn't convinced me, not yet anyway!
This gives me the reason why I rely more upon news outlets such as NPR or similar sources. Yes, they do make misstatement but not outrageous and/or blatant lies.
In conclusion, I use the word "lies" as false statements to deceive audiences for specific purposes. Fox is just doing that and has been doing that for some time! On second thought, if they truly believe those "lies" they are spreading, should that be called something totally different than "lies"? Propaganda comes to mind, but does it serve them any better?
You be the judge! And thank you for playing!
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1678/most-admired-man-woman.aspx
Year Most Admired Man In the World
2019 Barack Obama
2018 Barack Obama
2017 Barack Obama
2016 Barack Obama
2015 Barack Obama
2014 Barack Obama
2013 Barack Obama
2012 Barack Obama
2011 Barack Obama
2010 Barack Obama
2009 Barack Obama
2008 Barack Obama
Year Most Admired Man In the World
2019 Barack Obama
2018 Barack Obama
2017 Barack Obama
2016 Barack Obama
2015 Barack Obama
2014 Barack Obama
2013 Barack Obama
2012 Barack Obama
2011 Barack Obama
2010 Barack Obama
2009 Barack Obama
2008 Barack Obama
Fox News is essentially in the propoganda business there days. Along with drudge, OAN, all the radio talking heads, etc. the right has a really big problem re: having a closed feedback loop.
The pattern is simple- an obscure outlet makes a claim, without any supporting evidence. Aggregators like drudge and the blaze pick it up, and amplify it. Finally, it reaches the biggest culprit, which is Fox News. Where it is trumpeted as absolute, ironclad fact.
So, you may not even watch Fox News- but you’re still being fed the same manufactured information- or “alternate facts”, as this administration apparently calls it.
You really haven’t seen Drudge I would guess in the last 2-3 years. Matt Drudge despises Trump, and the vast majority of Trump articles that are linked are extremely anti-Trump.
You said:
"Some of what they say is accurate, most isn’t. All is painted by a political slant. Exactly like every other major news outlet in the US."
I quickly browsed this thread to locate the source of your "complaint," but had trouble locating the exact quote, but I got distracted. So, here is my answer to your suspected post.
I believe I was referring to your quote equating "all news are lies" in defense of Fox News.
To start, I commend you for including "Fox News" in the lies department; I was expecting a phrase "except Fox."
I agree with you that all news have "lies" in their reports, if you include "misstatements" in the "lies" category. With the exception of Fox, though, most other news, such as CNN, NBC, etc., the "lies" are most likely from misunderstanding or misinterpretations rather than intentional lies. Yes, I do not deny that they sometimes twist facts to suit their purpose. However, the frequency is much lower than the blatant lies Fox has been spreading constantly. That is where "Fox lies" comes about; others do "lie," but many of those so-called "lies" are more of misstatement category, not necessarily blatant lies.
In defense of Fox though, the so-called "lies" Fox has been spreading may not even be lies. It is possible, quite possible, that they truly believe what they lie/lied about. However, does such interpretation serve them any better? I think not since the effect would be the same. This is nothing new, though. Hitler used it very effectively, as did Stalin, Mao, Putin, Chiang Kai Sheck, Dojo(spelling?), Kastro, and other "great men" in the 20th and 21st century. Oh, yeah, add Trump to the list, who has lied probably more frequently and more effectively than all the other "great men" I listed above. He has been effective enough to fool even fine people like you! I will give you, though, that he has not been as evil as the other gentlemen I listed above. Not yet anyway. After all, he hasn't convinced me, not yet anyway!
This gives me the reason why I rely more upon news outlets such as NPR or similar sources. Yes, they do make misstatement but not outrageous and/or blatant lies.
In conclusion, I use the word "lies" as false statements to deceive audiences for specific purposes. Fox is just doing that and has been doing that for some time! On second thought, if they truly believe those "lies" they are spreading, should that be called something totally different than "lies"? Propaganda comes to mind, but does it serve them any better?
You be the judge! And thank you for playing!
FOX, MSNBC and CNN are nothing more than entertainment outlets feeding their fans the red meat they crave to feed hyper-partisanship and hate. Each has their apologists and defenders based on their own taste in red meat.
Yep, they are. Just like CNN and MSNBC. Each having their loyal fans and apologists.
I don't think this is really accurate, to equate people who occasionally watch MSNBC or CNN with people who watch Fox religiously. I mean I may watch a particular episode of Maddow or Don Lemon just to see what they say in the aftermath of a newsworthy day. But Hannity, Ingraham, Judge Jeanine cultists tune in religiously on a daily basis. I just don't think it's the same...
It’s not the same. But Courtsense always has to show us his but both sides routine. I don’t know a single person who sits around and watches CNN or MSNBC hour after hour. It seems like half of the old folks I know have Fox on 24/7. Literally don’t turn it off at night .
Not until January. Look how bad he has screwed this over the past two months. He has 8 more months at least.
While you can't do it now obviously, take note of what channel is on the TVs in a nursing home, both in the day rooms and in the individual rooms. I spent a lot of time in two different nursing homes a few years back. Trust me on this.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
This is dumb. Fast and Furious was unforgivable for sure. Adding Benghazi shows you’re a hack.
People watch the news 24/7?
I'm gonna call bs on that.
I would say most watch the 6:00 news of their choice.
Lol. Sending out Rice out to 5 shows to lie and blame a video is not scandalous? It's acceptable? Okey dokey!
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It’s politics, genius. I don’t think you know what corruption is.
Do you know how classified information works? Scandal would be dumping TS intel into the public domain while still trying to figure out what happened and how to respond to it.
So the Obama admin felt is was better politically to have Rice lie to the American people on 5 separate shows? Well, I feel better now knowing the lies were for political purposes. Thanks for the info.
I call my mom in Indy 1 or 2x per week. I always hear Fox in the background, and she always tries to tell me everything she's learned about the virus on Fox.
Unfortunately, you're wasting your time producing facts for these people. You can't fix stupid.
On Benghazi, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee's two-year investigation "did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people."
I don't think facts are relevant to this discussion.
With people being at home I am shocked by the number that have one of these shows on all day. I have a close relative that has MSNBC on all day, Calls it "the news". It is an addiction, if another network comes on and trump isn't being trashed in 20 seconds she gets edgy and turns msnbc back on...slumps back in the chair like a heroine addict getting a fix. FOXers are the same addict.
