5 ms·

I don't understand how someone can say this with a straight face. Whitewater was a New York Times created scandal. It was the New York Times that ran cover fo

I don't understand how someone can say this with a straight face. Whitewater was a New York Times created scandal. It was the New York Times that ran cover for the Bush administration in invading Iraq. It was the New York Times that a week before the 2016 election ran dueling stories that played up the Clinton e-mail story and simultaneously absolved Trump of any links to Russia. All of these stories got widespread media attention by the so-called left-leaning media. The Whitewater story never amounted to anything, the grounds for invading Iraq were all lies, and the Clinton e-mail story lead to nothing while Trump's ties led to a long-running investigation that led to jail time for several members of Trump's campaign. If Biden wins, then by spring, the leading story in the "left-leaning" media will be that we need to cut social spending to combat the deficit. The deficit miraculously stops being a story whenever a Republican is in the White House, and becomes a major priority whenever a Democrat is in the White House. Just because people in the media think that racism is bad doesn't make the media left-leaning.

nailer 6y ago
> simultaneously absolved Trump of any links to Russia The investigation also failed to find sufficient evidence to charge anyone in the Trump administration with collusion. At this point Russiagate is thoroughly debunked.
- croon 6y ago
  Collusion is a very specific charge. I wouldn't call "Russiagate" in any way debunked given this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_the_Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_th...
  - TMWNN 6y ago
    No American on that list got indicted of anything related to "Russiagate", but for unrelated procedural crimes discovered during the investigation. (You know the saying that everyone wittingly or unwittingly commits three crimes a day?) Several Russian agents were indicted for Russiagate-related things; Putin will turn his goons over to US custody any day now.
    - croon 6y ago
      > but for unrelated procedural crimes discovered during the investigation The "unrelated" is completely false, which invalidates your entire argument. Name an American indicted for unrelated crimes and maybe I can fill in the connection. It's mostly covered in the wiki under each of their paragraphs though.
      - TMWNN 6y ago
        >It's mostly covered in the wiki under each of their paragraphs though. You're hoping that people won't bother to read said Wiki, or get confused by the legalese. Papadopoulos: Indicted for making a false statement to FBI. Manafort and Gates: Indicted for not registering as foreign agents of Ukraine (which, you might have noticed, is sort of an enemy of Russia right now) Flynn: Indicted for making a false statement to FBI. (Forced by lack of legal fees into pleading guilty, which later caused problems when the government tried to drop charges.) Pinedo (Who? Exactly): Indicted for identity fraud. van der Zwaan: Indicted for making false statements (and not an American, anyway). Cohen: Indicted for making false statements. Stone: Indicted for making false statements and witness tampering. Then we have people like Carter Page, whose name was raked over the coals for years because a FBI lawyer intentionally altered evidence (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/fbi-ig-report-russia-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/fbi-ig-report...) showing that far from being a Russian asset, Page had for years briefed the CIA every time he met with suspicious Russians. (Got to love how the Times describes said altering evidence as a "serious error".) You want an actual Russiagate-related indictment and guilty plea? Kevin Clinesmith, said FBI lawyer, is your man.
        croon 6y ago
        Papadopoulos: For lying about this: "In subsequent days Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and Polonskaya to arrange contacts between the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Trump campaign. In late April 2016, Papadopoulos emailed an unnamed Trump campaign "Senior Policy Advisor," stating "The Russian government has an open invitation by Putin for Mr. Trump to meet him when he is ready." At about the same time, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails," which Papadopoulos then shared with Alexander Downer in a London bar days later." Manafort and Gates: If your defense is that since Ukraine is an enemy of Russia, and therefore there can't be any pro-Russian agents there, I have bridges to sell you. Flynn: Yes, he lied about meeting Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak about setting up encrypted channels to Russia. Cohen: Lying about business developments in Russia (money is always a nice motivator in crime). Stone: Had contact with Russian state hackers about the DNC hacks. Donald Jr wasn't indicted for anything, but he managed to incriminate himself all on his own volition on twitter: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/d... The most charitable interpretation of this whole thing is that the Trump campaign were too stupid to qualify as collusion (but I think they were fully aware), but were instead pawns: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate/senate-committee-concludes-russia-used-manafort-wikileaks-to-boost-trump-in-2016-idUSKCN25E1US https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate/s...
  - nailer 6y ago
    > Collusion is a very specific charge. Yes. And Russiagate was the belief that the Trump org colluded with the Russians. Which was debunked. Not that citing Wikipedia means anything, but from the main article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...: > there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.
    - shoemakersteve 6y ago
      It was not "debunked" in any way. We know 100% they colluded with Russian agents. They just couldn't prove criminal intent. As far as Trump's obstruction of justice, correct me if I'm misremembering, but I'm pretty sure the Mueller report basically said "He did it, but we couldn't come up with solid enough evidence that we would be confident we could indict a sitting president" and the last line saying something like "this absolutely does not absolve the president of wrongdoing". Basically if Trump was anyone other than the president, they would have charged him. Without 100% rock-solid evidence, the legal complexity of trying to indict him (and him potentially pardoning himself) would have likely caused a constitutional crisis, and who knows what might have happened then. It wasn't worth the risk.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        The key part of that, as you've noted, is sitting President. Citizen Trump would have been vulnerable to federal charges three different ways in 2018 if he hadn't been elected President.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - nailer 6y ago
        > We know 100% they colluded with Russian agents. The references in this thread so far say the opposite. If you have others that prove "We know 100% they colluded with Russian agents", add them.
- QuesnayJr 6y ago
  It's really not. Mueller went as far as he felt his remit allowed, and turned it over to the Justice Department, where Barr was determined not to follow up on it. Expect this to change in January.
bnlpmk 6y ago
Indeed, both parties want to exploit the people who do actual work. The champagne socialists of FAANG, the New York Times etc. want to preserve inflated academic salaries and cozy bullshit jobs, the right wants to preserve existing ownership and rent seeking. Two sides of the same coin.
apatters 6y ago
If you genuinely believe the mainstream US media doesn't lean left, have a look at the Media Bias Chart: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ The methodology is thorough and non-partisan (that's the point). Note that the triangle's apex is literally left of center.
- croon 6y ago
  Isn't the vertical alignment much more important than the horizontal? Not that it counters your point, but the left alignment at the top is very minor.
  - beaner 6y ago
    It would be more helpful if the logos were encased in circles, sized to represent the reach of the publication. This chart is part of the equation, but it says nothing about which of the publications in it have more influence.
- QuesnayJr 6y ago
  So how do you explain the many times in which the media trumpets news stories that benefit the Republicans that don't hold up? Judith Miller's reporting on the lead-up to the Iraq War, reporting on leaks from the Democrats of dubious news-worthiness (like John Podesta's risotto recipe). If you want a chart, look at this chart of the most common words associated with each candidate in 2016: https://www.businessinsider.com/gallup-candidate-word-clouds-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-emails-2016-11?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/gallup-candidate-word-clouds... That's as clear an example of media bias in favor of the Republicans as you can wish for.

nailer 6y ago

> simultaneously absolved Trump of any links to Russia The investigation also failed to find sufficient evidence to charge anyone in the Trump administration with collusion. At this point Russiagate is thoroughly debunked.

croon 6y ago
Collusion is a very specific charge. I wouldn't call "Russiagate" in any way debunked given this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_the_Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_th...
- TMWNN 6y ago
  No American on that list got indicted of anything related to "Russiagate", but for unrelated procedural crimes discovered during the investigation. (You know the saying that everyone wittingly or unwittingly commits three crimes a day?) Several Russian agents were indicted for Russiagate-related things; Putin will turn his goons over to US custody any day now.
  - croon 6y ago
    > but for unrelated procedural crimes discovered during the investigation The "unrelated" is completely false, which invalidates your entire argument. Name an American indicted for unrelated crimes and maybe I can fill in the connection. It's mostly covered in the wiki under each of their paragraphs though.
    - TMWNN 6y ago
      >It's mostly covered in the wiki under each of their paragraphs though. You're hoping that people won't bother to read said Wiki, or get confused by the legalese. Papadopoulos: Indicted for making a false statement to FBI. Manafort and Gates: Indicted for not registering as foreign agents of Ukraine (which, you might have noticed, is sort of an enemy of Russia right now) Flynn: Indicted for making a false statement to FBI. (Forced by lack of legal fees into pleading guilty, which later caused problems when the government tried to drop charges.) Pinedo (Who? Exactly): Indicted for identity fraud. van der Zwaan: Indicted for making false statements (and not an American, anyway). Cohen: Indicted for making false statements. Stone: Indicted for making false statements and witness tampering. Then we have people like Carter Page, whose name was raked over the coals for years because a FBI lawyer intentionally altered evidence (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/fbi-ig-report-russia-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/fbi-ig-report...) showing that far from being a Russian asset, Page had for years briefed the CIA every time he met with suspicious Russians. (Got to love how the Times describes said altering evidence as a "serious error".) You want an actual Russiagate-related indictment and guilty plea? Kevin Clinesmith, said FBI lawyer, is your man.
      - croon 6y ago
        Papadopoulos: For lying about this: "In subsequent days Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and Polonskaya to arrange contacts between the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Trump campaign. In late April 2016, Papadopoulos emailed an unnamed Trump campaign "Senior Policy Advisor," stating "The Russian government has an open invitation by Putin for Mr. Trump to meet him when he is ready." At about the same time, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails," which Papadopoulos then shared with Alexander Downer in a London bar days later." Manafort and Gates: If your defense is that since Ukraine is an enemy of Russia, and therefore there can't be any pro-Russian agents there, I have bridges to sell you. Flynn: Yes, he lied about meeting Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak about setting up encrypted channels to Russia. Cohen: Lying about business developments in Russia (money is always a nice motivator in crime). Stone: Had contact with Russian state hackers about the DNC hacks. Donald Jr wasn't indicted for anything, but he managed to incriminate himself all on his own volition on twitter: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email-text.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/d... The most charitable interpretation of this whole thing is that the Trump campaign were too stupid to qualify as collusion (but I think they were fully aware), but were instead pawns: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate/senate-committee-concludes-russia-used-manafort-wikileaks-to-boost-trump-in-2016-idUSKCN25E1US https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-senate/s...
- nailer 6y ago
  > Collusion is a very specific charge. Yes. And Russiagate was the belief that the Trump org colluded with the Russians. Which was debunked. Not that citing Wikipedia means anything, but from the main article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...: > there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.
  - shoemakersteve 6y ago
    It was not "debunked" in any way. We know 100% they colluded with Russian agents. They just couldn't prove criminal intent. As far as Trump's obstruction of justice, correct me if I'm misremembering, but I'm pretty sure the Mueller report basically said "He did it, but we couldn't come up with solid enough evidence that we would be confident we could indict a sitting president" and the last line saying something like "this absolutely does not absolve the president of wrongdoing". Basically if Trump was anyone other than the president, they would have charged him. Without 100% rock-solid evidence, the legal complexity of trying to indict him (and him potentially pardoning himself) would have likely caused a constitutional crisis, and who knows what might have happened then. It wasn't worth the risk.
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      The key part of that, as you've noted, is sitting President. Citizen Trump would have been vulnerable to federal charges three different ways in 2018 if he hadn't been elected President.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - nailer 6y ago
      > We know 100% they colluded with Russian agents. The references in this thread so far say the opposite. If you have others that prove "We know 100% they colluded with Russian agents", add them.
QuesnayJr 6y ago
It's really not. Mueller went as far as he felt his remit allowed, and turned it over to the Justice Department, where Barr was determined not to follow up on it. Expect this to change in January.

bnlpmk 6y ago

Indeed, both parties want to exploit the people who do actual work. The champagne socialists of FAANG, the New York Times etc. want to preserve inflated academic salaries and cozy bullshit jobs, the right wants to preserve existing ownership and rent seeking. Two sides of the same coin.

apatters 6y ago

If you genuinely believe the mainstream US media doesn't lean left, have a look at the Media Bias Chart: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ The methodology is thorough and non-partisan (that's the point). Note that the triangle's apex is literally left of center.

croon 6y ago
Isn't the vertical alignment much more important than the horizontal? Not that it counters your point, but the left alignment at the top is very minor.
- beaner 6y ago
  It would be more helpful if the logos were encased in circles, sized to represent the reach of the publication. This chart is part of the equation, but it says nothing about which of the publications in it have more influence.
QuesnayJr 6y ago
So how do you explain the many times in which the media trumpets news stories that benefit the Republicans that don't hold up? Judith Miller's reporting on the lead-up to the Iraq War, reporting on leaks from the Democrats of dubious news-worthiness (like John Podesta's risotto recipe). If you want a chart, look at this chart of the most common words associated with each candidate in 2016: https://www.businessinsider.com/gallup-candidate-word-clouds-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-emails-2016-11?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/gallup-candidate-word-clouds... That's as clear an example of media bias in favor of the Republicans as you can wish for.