4 ms·

Injecting "Trump-allied legal group" is an incredible way to taint the news story and get people to take sides. FOIA is a blessing, and does more for investiga

Injecting "Trump-allied legal group" is an incredible way to taint the news story and get people to take sides. FOIA is a blessing, and does more for investigative journalist than almost anything else, but it doesn't work when our government is allowed to illegally covers its tracks.

eynsham 2y ago
[flagged]
recursive 2y ago
Somehow it's refreshing to me that a "Trump-allied legal group" can sometimes do something that seems good to me.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  They are like diodes. Won't work when the shoe is on the other foot. But, yes.
lelandfe 2y ago
To call America First Legal "Trump-aligned" is putting it mildly, and it would be incredible not to mention it: > Stephen Miller, the former senior advisor to president Donald Trump, is the organization's founder and president. The vice president is Gene Hamilton, a Department of Justice official under Trump, and the executive director is Matthew Whitaker, the acting U.S. attorney general under Trump following Jeff Sessions's resignation. America First Legal's board of directors includes Whitaker and former chief of staff for Trump, Mark Meadows. The name itself is even derived from a Trump campaign slogan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Legal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Legal
- throwup238 2y ago
  [flagged]
- paulddraper 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - HarryHirsch 2y ago
    This is politics, one is permitted to ask for motives. It's not a search for truth, it's a quest for power.
    - paulddraper 2y ago
      This is very dangerous thinking. It's okay for government to delete emails if the Good Guys want it but not the Bad Guys want it.
      - HarryHirsch 2y ago
        Could there be a misunderstanding? Any organization, Good or Bad, has the right to request materials from the government, and anyone has the right to impugn their motives. (Someone who shouts "ad hominem" in politics has, of course, their own motives.)
        paulddraper 2y ago
        Shouting ad hominem in a lawsuit. How closely do you need to scrutinize the ACLU's motives.
    - koolba 2y ago
      > It's not a search for truth … FOIA requests are as “search for truth” as you can get. Deleting staff emails days after they depart or asking people to email your private Gmail account is impeding any and all searches for truth.
  - lelandfe 2y ago
    Ad hominem is a fallacious argument, but this is journalism, not an argument. In journalism, providing background is a good thing.
- akira2501 2y ago
  > and it would be incredible not to mention it: Does that have something to do with this lawsuit or the merits of it?
  - lelandfe 2y ago
    Of course. It's explaining who the organization is that is filing it. That's basic journalism, right? It would seem a huge oversight to not mention it.
    - mistrial9 2y ago
      a fundamental point of the US legal system is to unbind the merits of a legal proposal from the proponents of it, no?
      - lelandfe 2y ago
        Knowing who the proponents are is reasonable and unrelated to that concept.
      - alpinisme 2y ago
        That fundamental point of the legal system is not also a fundamental point of the industry of journalism, and I’m skeptical it could be
        karaterobot 2y ago
        Of course it could be, nobody is compelling publishers. The question is should it be, and the answer has traditionally been: depends, is it relevant? Which brings us back to the original question of merit. It also depends a lot on the standards of the publisher versus the expectations of the readership. Personally, I agree with your implication: I can't think of any papers today who wouldn't choose to include this information—as red meat is an important part of the modern news diet—but hey, in a world of unprejudiced readers who weighed legal matters solely on the basis of evidence, I can certainly imagine it not being brought up, and those readers still being well-informed.
cyanydeez 2y ago
[flagged]

eynsham 2y ago

[flagged]

recursive 2y ago

Somehow it's refreshing to me that a "Trump-allied legal group" can sometimes do something that seems good to me.

actionfromafar 2y ago
They are like diodes. Won't work when the shoe is on the other foot. But, yes.

lelandfe 2y ago

To call America First Legal "Trump-aligned" is putting it mildly, and it would be incredible not to mention it: > Stephen Miller, the former senior advisor to president Donald Trump, is the organization's founder and president. The vice president is Gene Hamilton, a Department of Justice official under Trump, and the executive director is Matthew Whitaker, the acting U.S. attorney general under Trump following Jeff Sessions's resignation. America First Legal's board of directors includes Whitaker and former chief of staff for Trump, Mark Meadows. The name itself is even derived from a Trump campaign slogan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Legal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Legal

throwup238 2y ago
[flagged]
paulddraper 2y ago
[flagged]
- HarryHirsch 2y ago
  This is politics, one is permitted to ask for motives. It's not a search for truth, it's a quest for power.
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    This is very dangerous thinking. It's okay for government to delete emails if the Good Guys want it but not the Bad Guys want it.
    - HarryHirsch 2y ago
      Could there be a misunderstanding? Any organization, Good or Bad, has the right to request materials from the government, and anyone has the right to impugn their motives. (Someone who shouts "ad hominem" in politics has, of course, their own motives.)
      - paulddraper 2y ago
        Shouting ad hominem in a lawsuit. How closely do you need to scrutinize the ACLU's motives.
  - koolba 2y ago
    > It's not a search for truth … FOIA requests are as “search for truth” as you can get. Deleting staff emails days after they depart or asking people to email your private Gmail account is impeding any and all searches for truth.
- lelandfe 2y ago
  Ad hominem is a fallacious argument, but this is journalism, not an argument. In journalism, providing background is a good thing.
akira2501 2y ago
> and it would be incredible not to mention it: Does that have something to do with this lawsuit or the merits of it?
- lelandfe 2y ago
  Of course. It's explaining who the organization is that is filing it. That's basic journalism, right? It would seem a huge oversight to not mention it.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    a fundamental point of the US legal system is to unbind the merits of a legal proposal from the proponents of it, no?
    - lelandfe 2y ago
      Knowing who the proponents are is reasonable and unrelated to that concept.
    - alpinisme 2y ago
      That fundamental point of the legal system is not also a fundamental point of the industry of journalism, and I’m skeptical it could be
      - karaterobot 2y ago
        Of course it could be, nobody is compelling publishers. The question is should it be, and the answer has traditionally been: depends, is it relevant? Which brings us back to the original question of merit. It also depends a lot on the standards of the publisher versus the expectations of the readership. Personally, I agree with your implication: I can't think of any papers today who wouldn't choose to include this information—as red meat is an important part of the modern news diet—but hey, in a world of unprejudiced readers who weighed legal matters solely on the basis of evidence, I can certainly imagine it not being brought up, and those readers still being well-informed.

cyanydeez 2y ago

[flagged]