DC Tom Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 8 minutes ago, GG said: It's clear they were willing cheerleaders. But I don't see anything that's illegal. Highly, highly unethical. But not illegal. A couple months ago, thete was some electronic discussion at work about participating in net neutrality protests (along the lines of "There's a demonstration tomorrow at Union Station. Who wants to go?") Two people were fired and four were strongly counseled and required to take a day of ethics training, for misuse of government equipment in organizing anti-government activities. This is much worse. They should almost certainly be fired. And I would be entirely unsurprised if they were indicted on fraud charges. 1
GaryPinC Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: That's why the body is so important to read. It doesn't match (so far) with the Summary or Conclusions. It's like three different reports. Shows me that either this report was edited after Horowitz turned it over (by DOJ/RR perhaps) - or, perhaps more likely, certain conclusions are being left for the next report. Yea, considering they basically said the bias didn't influence agency decisions that seems far too strong. They may not have uncovered any definitive facts to support it. 1
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, joesixpack said: I'm going to have to dig into anti-corruption law, but it seems to me that if a member of the federal government offers a "journalist" quid pro quo for publishing a certain story, that would rise to the level of bribery/corruption. And if so, that would be a violation of EXISTING law. Normally I'd argue that one should read beyond the headlines when making their argument; but that doesn't apply here because you didn't even read the headline correctly Quote IG REPORT: FBI AGENTS REGULARLY RECEIVED FREE HANDOUTS FROM JOURNALISTS Edited June 14, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker
GG Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 3 minutes ago, GaryPinC said: Yes, but the question becomes if people should lose their jobs. I work in research at a hospital and we have a strict ethics policy. I would easily lose my job if in this situation. That is a totally different issue, and absolutely people should lose jobs. I'm also in an industry where if I did only a fraction of what's alleged in the report, I'd be on the first elevator out. That's what's infuriating about a government that refuses to live by the rules it doles out on the public. And as to the media it's appalling that Ali Watkins still has a job. Even if she told NYT that she had a relationship with Wolfe, new revelations that he was a source of many of her stories should have sealed an immediate dismissal. Instead, they have her back? Are you kidding me?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 Just now, TakeYouToTasker said: Normally I'd argue that one should read beyond the headlines when making their argument; but that doesn't apply here because you didn't even read the headline correctly OK. Fair enough. Still, though. If I try and slip a cop who pulls me over a 20 to get out of a ticket, what would the response be?
DC Tom Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 8 minutes ago, joesixpack said: I'm going to have to dig into anti-corruption law, but it seems to me that if a member of the federal government offers a "journalist" quid pro quo for publishing a certain story, that would rise to the level of bribery/corruption. And if so, that would be a violation of EXISTING law. Not necessarily. If a government worker took tangible compensation from a reporter (anything over $25), that's illegal. But trading info? Worker might be fired, and anyone having unofficial discussions with the press likely would be, but not illegal. Courts have ruled pretty consistently it's protected by the First Amendment.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2018 Author Posted June 14, 2018 "FOR A CASE THAT DOESN'T MATTER AND IS PREDESTINED." No bias. (Remember, the DOJ rewrote this report before release. Makes me wonder what Horowitz's original report said)
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, joesixpack said: OK. Fair enough. Still, though. If I try and slip a cop who pulls me over a 20 to get out of a ticket, what would the response be? You would be guilty of bribing a police officer for trying to excuse a crime you had committed. This is not the same as that. This is journalists, or if you prefer "journalists" (a point we can agree on) trying to favorably position themselves to receive information, having committed no prior crime, and certainly not trying to avoid prosecution for crimes they had not committed. Edited June 14, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2018 Author Posted June 14, 2018 No Bias: ************************** Jordan on a tear
GaryPinC Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, GG said: That is a totally different issue, and absolutely people should lose jobs. I'm also in an industry where if I did only a fraction of what's alleged in the report, I'd be on the first elevator out. That's what's infuriating about a government that refuses to live by the rules it doles out on the public. And as to the media it's appalling that Ali Watkins still has a job. Even if she told NYT that she had a relationship with Wolfe, new revelations that he was a source of many of her stories should have sealed an immediate dismissal. Instead, they have her back? Are you kidding me? Agree totally about Watkins. One interesting sidelight here is revealing just how broken our "free" press is. Equally concerning to me as this government corruption. Part of my research involves government related work and I am technically a part time employee. They have plenty of ethical policies that would get enforced on me. Obviously some aren't held to the same standard.
K-9 Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 44 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Listen, I know it's difficult for you to understand, but our Constitution has strict prohibitions against the creation of ex-post-facto laws. It's not even in an Amendment. It's in the body of the original document. You can try people for crimes they have committed, but you cannot try them for things that were not criminal when they did them. Even if you really don't like those things. Even if they are committed by Democrats. Now, if any journalists broke actual laws, not violated ethical standards, but broke laws you can prosecute them. If they did not, you can write new laws which criminalize their behavior, assuming those laws themselves don't violate the Constitution; and you can use those new laws to prosecute future crimes should they occur. What you absolutely cannot do is invent law, wholesale out of cloth, to prosecute people for crimes that do not exist. That is tyranny, and I will not stand by and watch one form of tyranny replace another, nor will I listen to idiots advocate for such action without shaming them for it. Very well stated. And we should all take a breath amidst the frenzy of spin around the IG report and remember that we ARE a nation of laws; laws that EXIST and not laws that we merely wish were on the books. 1
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 2 minutes ago, K-9 said: Very well stated. And we should all take a breath amidst the frenzy of spin around the IG report and remember that we ARE a nation of laws; laws that EXIST and not laws that we merely wish were on the books. You mean like "collusion?" That didn't seem to be a problem when Mueller began his proceedings, now did it?
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2018 Author Posted June 14, 2018 Dem presser starting now... usual suspects at the podium. Every person speaking at the Dem presser right now is directly involved in the FISA abuse investigation. Take that for what it's worth.
K-9 Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 Just now, joesixpack said: You mean like "collusion?" That didn't seem to be a problem when Mueller began his proceedings, now did it? Collusion in and of itself is not against the law and I said that a year ago. As for when Mueller began, colluding with Russia was just one plank of the investigation.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2018 Author Posted June 14, 2018 As covered in the video series, that was not the only way to do this - but it was the way Comey justified it.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 1 minute ago, K-9 said: Collusion in and of itself is not against the law and I said that a year ago. As for when Mueller began, colluding with Russia was just one plank of the investigation. One plank? That's the entire FOUNDATION of his investigation.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 14, 2018 Author Posted June 14, 2018 His tweets have a way of being prescient (because he knows): Can already tell the conclusion and summary portions don't align with the body.
K-9 Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 Just now, joesixpack said: One plank? That's the entire FOUNDATION of his investigation. No, it isn’t as other players and other activities have come to light since. For instance, Mueller was into his work for just a couple weeks when he hired several investigators with expertise in money laundering with particular experience in Eastern European banks and schemes.
3rdnlng Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 3 hours ago, Tiberius said: And Trump begins to vomit out the lies Two of the three "No's" there are complete lies, the tired one remains to be seen The only thing "tired" is your constant partisanship.
Recommended Posts