LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:28 pm It’s not being discussed on national mainstream media.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:43 pm "somewhat relatedly"...

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:12 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:28 pm It’s not being discussed on national mainstream media.

I guess CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS are not national mainstream media? They're all covering it.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:27 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:12 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:28 pm It’s not being discussed on national mainstream media.

I guess CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS are not national mainstream media? They're all covering it.

If non Fox networks are covering this story, it’s maybe for ten seconds tops. Meanwhile it’s the most discussed story in America today.

Permissive bail rules are the new defund the police-like vulnerability for Dems. And unlike the Ds who distanced from defund, Dems are very reticent to call for restoring tough bail rules.

Just this week in the news...

1. Gruesome NYC murder where perpetrator released for many previous serious crimes stabbed a beautiful young professional 40x.

2. Attempted assassin against D mayoral candidate in Louisville gets off on $100K bail, crowdsourced by BLM activists.

Part of the political problem for Dems is that they're months behind in appreciating how damaging their positions at the time are. The bail issue is potent in NY state, but has legs everywhere as more cases draw scrutiny.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 1:08 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:27 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:12 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:28 pm It’s not being discussed on national mainstream media.

I guess CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS are not national mainstream media? They're all covering it.

If non Fox networks are covering this story, it’s maybe for ten seconds tops. Meanwhile it’s the most discussed story in America today.

Permissive bail rules are the new defund the police-like vulnerability for Dems. And unlike the Ds who distanced from defund, Dems are very reticent to call for restoring tough bail rules.

Just this week in the news...

1. Gruesome NYC murder where perpetrator released for many previous serious crimes stabbed a beautiful young professional 40x.

2. Attempted assassin against D mayoral candidate in Louisville gets off on $100K bail, crowdsourced by BLM activists.

Part of the political problem for Dems is that they're months behind in appreciating how damaging their positions at the time are. The bail issue is potent in NY state, but has legs everywhere as more cases draw scrutiny.

... what bullsh*t. All the major media outlets are covering the story. They just aren't covering as much as you would like. They aren't covering the made up faux news portions of the right wing pushed story.

get it to x wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 7:10 am Please don't complain about "disinformation" when most of the legacy media are activists, not journalists.

get it to x wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 7:10 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 1:08 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:27 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:12 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:28 pm It’s not being discussed on national mainstream media.

I guess CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS are not national mainstream media? They're all covering it.

If non Fox networks are covering this story, it’s maybe for ten seconds tops. Meanwhile it’s the most discussed story in America today.

Permissive bail rules are the new defund the police-like vulnerability for Dems. And unlike the Ds who distanced from defund, Dems are very reticent to call for restoring tough bail rules.

Just this week in the news...

1. Gruesome NYC murder where perpetrator released for many previous serious crimes stabbed a beautiful young professional 40x.

2. Attempted assassin against D mayoral candidate in Louisville gets off on $100K bail, crowdsourced by BLM activists.

Part of the political problem for Dems is that they're months behind in appreciating how damaging their positions at the time are. The bail issue is potent in NY state, but has legs everywhere as more cases draw scrutiny.

... what bullsh*t. All the major media outlets are covering the story. They just aren't covering as much as you would like. They aren't covering the made up faux news portions of the right wing pushed story.

It's no wonder people think there are no consequences for their actions, as long as you toe the "Party" line. They saw the FBI, DOJ, CIA and a whole bunch of appointees left over from Obama's administration pay no price for a plot to take down a candidate/President. Clinesmith even has his law license reinstated. Conversely, these same agencies are setting up false flag ops like the Whitmer kidnap plot, where the FBI had most of the manpower and all of the money. All of this to prove a point about dangerous "right wing extremists".

Look at the Las Vegas Sun report on this incident in Louisville. They tried to blame the BLM activist's attempted murder on right wingers. Only after they were pressured did they amend the article.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/las-vegas ... epublicans

FTA

"We’ve all heard this with our own ears: Trump drawing cheers at rallies by suggesting violence his opponents, GOP lawmakers and candidates trying to whip their followers into a frenzy with talk of taking up arms against so-called forms of ‘tyranny’ like mask mandates," the editorial reads.

"American leaders across the board must start speaking out, especially those in the GOP," they added. "This violent rhetoric is an uncaged monster threatening to harm not only elected officials but others who serve the public — scientists, public health officials, election workers, and many more."

Didn't Obama say "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun"?

Please don't complain about "disinformation" when most of the legacy media are activists, not journalists.

wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 7:10 amPlease don't complain about "disinformation" when most of the legacy media are activists, not journalists.

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:11 am

wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 7:10 amPlease don't complain about "disinformation" when most of the legacy media are activists, not journalists.

The type of mindset that is where those that swallow up conspiracy theories, "there are SO many QUESTIONS about XYZ election", CRT is a scourge and a brainwash by the left, election fraud is the #1 problem in America, and ANYthing that come out of Donald Trump's mouth, etc., etc., etc.


Aggrieved victims. Today's dominant "Right"...

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:18 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:43 pm "somewhat relatedly"...

Get to it x had just mentioned the no-bail 1-6 hillbillies. My post was about bail. Hence, somewhat relatedly.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:29 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:18 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:43 pm "somewhat relatedly"...

Get to it x had just mentioned the no-bail 1-6 hillbillies. My post was about bail. Hence, somewhat relatedly.

I don't see that reference from get it to X, much less in the thread you were responding to...seems very off topic. Not "somewhat" but actually quite UNrelatedly.

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:11 am

wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 7:10 amPlease don't complain about "disinformation" when most of the legacy media are activists, not journalists.

The type of mindset that is where those that swallow up conspiracy theories, "there are SO many QUESTIONS about XYZ election", CRT is a scourge and a brainwash by the left, election fraud is the #1 problem in America, and ANYthing that come out of Donald Trump's mouth, etc., etc., etc.


Aggrieved victims. Today's dominant "Right"...

get it to x wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 7:10 am

jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 1:08 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:27 pm

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:12 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:28 pm It’s not being discussed on national mainstream media.

I guess CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS are not national mainstream media? They're all covering it.

If non Fox networks are covering this story, it’s maybe for ten seconds tops. Meanwhile it’s the most discussed story in America today.

Permissive bail rules are the new defund the police-like vulnerability for Dems. And unlike the Ds who distanced from defund, Dems are very reticent to call for restoring tough bail rules.

Just this week in the news...

1. Gruesome NYC murder where perpetrator released for many previous serious crimes stabbed a beautiful young professional 40x.

2. Attempted assassin against D mayoral candidate in Louisville gets off on $100K bail, crowdsourced by BLM activists.

Part of the political problem for Dems is that they're months behind in appreciating how damaging their positions at the time are. The bail issue is potent in NY state, but has legs everywhere as more cases draw scrutiny.

... what bullsh*t. All the major media outlets are covering the story. They just aren't covering as much as you would like. They aren't covering the made up faux news portions of the right wing pushed story.

It's no wonder people think there are no consequences for their actions, as long as you toe the "Party" line. They saw the FBI, DOJ, CIA and a whole bunch of appointees left over from Obama's administration pay no price for a plot to take down a candidate/President. Clinesmith even has his law license reinstated. Conversely, these same agencies are setting up false flag ops like the Whitmer kidnap plot, where the FBI had most of the manpower and all of the money. All of this to prove a point about dangerous "right wing extremists".

Look at the Las Vegas Sun report on this incident in Louisville. They tried to blame the BLM activist's attempted murder on right wingers. Only after they were pressured did they amend the article.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/las-vegas ... epublicans

FTA

"We’ve all heard this with our own ears: Trump drawing cheers at rallies by suggesting violence his opponents, GOP lawmakers and candidates trying to whip their followers into a frenzy with talk of taking up arms against so-called forms of ‘tyranny’ like mask mandates," the editorial reads.

"American leaders across the board must start speaking out, especially those in the GOP," they added. "This violent rhetoric is an uncaged monster threatening to harm not only elected officials but others who serve the public — scientists, public health officials, election workers, and many more."

Didn't Obama say "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun"?

Please don't complain about "disinformation" when most of the legacy media are activists, not journalists.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:27 am

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:11 am

wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 7:10 amPlease don't complain about "disinformation" when most of the legacy media are activists, not journalists.

The type of mindset that is where those that swallow up conspiracy theories, "there are SO many QUESTIONS about XYZ election", CRT is a scourge and a brainwash by the left, election fraud is the #1 problem in America, and ANYthing that come out of Donald Trump's mouth, etc., etc., etc.


Aggrieved victims. Today's dominant "Right"...

Or you know, you could ask get to it if he believes those four things, which I doubt he does.

In the other hand, I’d be curious if you agree with the following poll questions recently taken of over a thousand Democrats:

1. Should the unvaccinated be imprisoned? Not imprisoned, but maybe quarantined. How 'bout a scarlet "U" tattooed on their forehead?
2. Should children of the unvaccinated be seized by the state? Nah, but see #1 above
3. Are you okay with pre-trial detention and solitary confinement of a person not accused of a violent crime? Pre-trial detention, perhaps, based on flight risk. Solitary? Why?
4. Do you think crime is an important issue in America? Of course. Maybe number 3 or 4...

On to Canada:

1. Should the state have the unilateral right without warrant to seize bank accounts of anyone who has donated to the truckers cause? No way
2. Should the state have the universal right without warrant to demand that private insurance companies suspend coverage of truckers who are in Ottawa? No way...

Please get back to us. Thanks.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:32 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:29 am

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 9:18 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 4:43 pm "somewhat relatedly"...

Get to it x had just mentioned the no-bail 1-6 hillbillies. My post was about bail. Hence, somewhat relatedly.

I don't see that reference from get it to X, much less in the thread you were responding to...seems very off topic. Not "somewhat" but actually quite UNrelatedly.

Seriously?

Here is the exact quote from get to it x right above my post:

I wonder if anyone indicted of threatening our free and fair election will be held in pre-trial detention with 20 hours of solitary a day? Couldn't happen in America, could it?

John Durham dumps a small bucket of water on the forest fire he sparked
The special counsel is just trying to find the guy that did this.

Over the course of the week, as responsible news outlets outlined the ways in which the right-wing narrative about spying on former president Donald Trump was misinformed and often unfounded, one refrain recurred.

It went something like this: Oh, so you’re saying that a court filing from special counsel John Durham, a long-standing federal official, can’t be trusted? After all, the idea that Trump was being surveilled even while he was in the White House derived from a document submitted to the court by Durham last Friday. Surely he knows better than some lowly journalist!

This was not tricky to rebut. What Durham submitted to the court was vague in its specifics, alleging that an attorney working for a law firm retained by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, Michael Sussman, had been involved with research trying to link Trump to Russia. That research led, among other things, to a meeting with a government agency (understood to be the CIA) in February 2017 and included data collected from White House networks. Those individual pieces were strung together into a claim that Clinton’s campaign spied on Trump’s White House. It’s right there in the document!

But it wasn’t, as a new filing from Durham makes clear both explicitly and implicitly.

It is not overstating things to point out that the narrative above consumed right-wing media and networks this week. Night after night, Fox News hosted guests who somberly discussed this spying on the sitting president. The idea permeated the network’s non-opinion programming as well (recognizing the blurriness of that line). As the network cut away from a Hillary Clinton speech it was airing live on Thursday, the Fox anchor declared that she was speaking even as Durham “continues the investigation into whether or not her campaign was involved in an effort to listen in to President Trump or listen in to candidate Trump.” Just a shrugging and wildly inaccurate assertion about the campaign maybe “listening in” on the sitting president, offered as an aside. A connect-the-dots puzzle showing four points from which Fox News managed to sketch out a dragon.

And then along comes Durham to ruin the fun.

His office was responding to Sussman’s response to his initial filing from last week. (I know that’s confusing to read.) Durham understandably took issue with Sussman’s suggestion that the special counsel had intentionally intended to stoke political anger.

“[D]efense counsel has presumed the Government’s bad faith and asserts that the Special Counsel’s Office intentionally sought to politicize this case, inflame media coverage, and taint the jury pool,” Durham wrote. But, he added later, “f third parties or members of the media have overstated, understated, or otherwise misinterpreted facts contained in the Government’s Motion, that does not in any way undermine the valid reasons for the Government’s inclusion of this information.”

Setting aside the question of intent, let’s focus on the point here. Durham is stating, explicitly, that members of the media may have “overstated” and “misinterpreted” facts included in his filing. This isn’t me, Washington Post guy, saying that his filing sparked an inaccurate narrative. It’s Durham saying that this (might, perhaps, maybe) happened.

It’s important to point out what immediately preceded that “if.” He’d mentioned that stuff about data from the White House being included in the Russia research because “a member of the defense team was working for the Executive Office of the President of the United States (‘EOP’) during relevant events that involved the EOP.”

To a layperson, that seems unremarkable. But, as Charlie Savage noted when writing for the New York Times, it is Durham validating reporting that indicated there was no research conducted on data collected from the Trump White House at all.

Durham’s initial filing mentioned data collected from the EOP and a February 2017 meeting in which research was discussed. This was interpreted as meaning that the data involved in the analysis included data collected during Trump’s presidency (which, of course, began in January of that year). Setting aside the limited scope of this data (there was no “listening in on”) and the authorization under which it was collected, the team at Georgia Tech that conducted the research denied that it included anything collected after 2016. And, here, Durham’s admitting that this was true.

The “member of the defense team” who was working for the executive office of the president is Michael Bosworth, who served as deputy White House counsel under Barack Obama. He was not still serving in the White House when Trump was president (perhaps obviously) but he was there “during relevant events that involved the EOP.” In other words, he was there during the period in which the relevant data collection from the EOP was occurring — meaning that the relevant data was being collected only when Obama was president!

This is just one thread of the colorful tapestry that Fox News and others on the right wove this week. For example, there’s no evidence in Durham’s filings showing that Clinton’s campaign drove this research. In fact, it seems like it was instead driven by the technology executive whose firm had collected the pertinent data and who had retained Sussman for counsel before all of this began.

But it’s an important thread to pull. Durham is saying that the media probably overstated what was included in his filing as he clarified a particular thing that the media obviously got wrong. Whether Durham meant to start a forest fire (as Sussman argues), he started one. His new filing douses at least one small part of the conflagration.

Unless, of course, you don’t trust a court filing from John Durham, a long-standing federal official.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:00 am So, do we think our right wingers will admit that Clinton wasn't spying on the Trump White House as was alleged???