• House intel subpoenas Trump’s personal attorney
    47 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CreeplyTuna;52292068]Dude, the concept of anonymous sources has been explained to you and others in seemly every single fucking thread about the Russia investigation. You're clogging up the commentary with people reiterating the same points over and over every time there is a new thead. The Washington Post isn't a tabloid, the source is double and triple checked.[/QUOTE] What, all I said was it must not be serious if anon aides are commenting on it instead of the yknow, the people actually investigating. Not questioning what the aide claimed, they prolly did subpoena him and they should. They've previously been very public about subpoenas and it seem that they arent anymore.(prolly because Mueller)
[QUOTE=Snapster;52292049]Even trump likes anonymous sources, since he's retweeting them. [URL]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump[/URL][/QUOTE] wtf i love anonymous sources now. [QUOTE=Jordax;52292074]I wonder if that Comey memo thing ever comes up again, seeing as it was all the rage a few weeks ago, but the subpoena date of that passed a few days ago, and it hasn't even been in the news since the subpoena date announcement. It's weird how quickly that one fell off the media's radar. Not to mention how some of those supposed leaks are directly contradicting each other at this point. [/QUOTE] The deadline was moved to June 8. The media reported this. [QUOTE=Jordax;52292074]The big news now is supposedly that Kushner was trying to establish a telephone line to Russian ambassadors after the elections were over, despite other media sources claiming, by yet more anonymous insider sources familiar with the thinking of a person loosely connected to the case that Trump totally had those lines before the elections to ask Russia to rig the vote for him? [/QUOTE] Can you link both stories? [QUOTE=Jordax;52292074]Because the Democrats lost the election purely due to Russian hacking instead of their own massive shortcomings and miscalculations [/QUOTE] Said no one ever. [QUOTE=Jordax;52292074]according to the media, who are mostly in the pocket of said Democrats.[/QUOTE] Source? [QUOTE=Jordax;52292074]No wonder that less and less Americans are trusting the media these days, every big claim gets made with no real evidence being shown other than the media's word, and it disappears out of view within a week until the next big claim without any hard evidence being shown gets cycled across media cooperation.[/QUOTE] Less Americans are trusting the media because there are is a push by interested parties to erode trust in the free press. People like Trump, and people like you, who think the only true media is that which aligns with your worldview, regardless of it's veracity. You're bitching about the news disappearing out of view but you'd be bitching more if the news kept reporting on it. What stories are you even complaining about? What does media cooperation even mean? [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52292117]Nice [URL="https://imgur.com/AWeZX1r"]freshly[/URL]-cropped [URL="http://www.sonsoflibertytees.com//patriotblog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/donald-trump-memes-17-lol-2017-05-23-16-31.jpg"]meme[/URL].[/QUOTE] Is it still an image macro if you edit it so it doesn't look like one :thinking:?
[QUOTE=Jordax;52292074]I wonder if that Comey memo thing ever comes up again, seeing as it was all the rage a few weeks ago, but the subpoena date of that passed a few days ago, and it hasn't even been in the news since the subpoena date announcement. It's weird how quickly that one fell off the media's radar. Not to mention how some of those supposed leaks are directly contradicting each other at this point.[/QUOTE] There is a testimony coming up, but It is likely he can't say much because Robert Mueller, the newly appointed special counsellor in the Russia investigation is investigating the Memo.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52291906]I will be surprised if anything comes out of this investigation.[/QUOTE] Says increasingly nervous man
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52291918]Must be serious if anonymous aides are running to the media[/QUOTE] If some anonymous person found info on some Democrat, Bernie, or Hillary, you wouldn't even piss and moan about it... IN fact, would probably bet my ass you would support it.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52292163]I didn't -snip- anything.[/QUOTE] I snipped your post instead of reposting the whole damn thing. Quoting it in full would make my post almost twice as long, vertically, just to get in that one-liner about your crappy meme crop. That's a waste of everyone's eyeballs, honestly. [QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52292163]I'm just saying that these anonymous sources aren't viable or [B]used to prosecute people, or to prove they did something.[/B] It's facts, documents, emails, texts, transcripts, recordings, witness testimony. Unless anything like that is found, or surfaces, I don't believe Trump is to be impeached. The insider report on trump saying he likes to grab pussy wasn't from an anonymous source, it was a recording. That's why it was so detrimental.[/QUOTE] Boy, it's a good thing [I]news reports[/I] aren't used as [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweets-fox-news-segments-2017-1"]grounds[/URL] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/25/donald-trump-is-making-major-policy-pronouncements-based-on-what-he-sees-on-tv/"]for[/URL] [URL="http://money.cnn.com/interactive/media/trump-tv-tweets/"]official[/URL] [URL="http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/18/media/trump-fox-friends-tweet/"]poli...cy...[/URL] Sorry, where was I? Anyway, these leaks and anonymous sources are providing the equivalent of behind-the-scenes peeks at what is going on, at least from that particular person's perspective. This is the playground of rumour, speculation, and journalistic clickbait no matter what the political conditions are. Congress is not going to try to impeach Trump based on the random rumours and leaks flying out of the various investigations before conclusions have been reached. Calm down. However, when you have active investigations, the end result of those investigations is [I]evidence[/I]. Evidence may be lacking while the investigations have not concluded, because they are not ready to reveal what they know (at risk of damaging the remaining investigation), but whatever the investigation's verdict is, it will have the evidence gathered, organized, and available (if classified) for review to the appropriate people/groups. If the evidence is that impeachable crimes have been committed (as strongly suggested by the available leaks and circumstances), it will then be Congress' responsibility to decide whether or not they will proceed with impeachment. If the investigations come up with red herrings and no solid evidence, then the evidence to impeach isn't available. Think of it as hearing/seeing rumours and gossip and back-stage instagram snapshots of a movie production, and then the movie actually comes out and you get to see the whole thing after it's gone through the production process. Some of the gossip was probably false, some of the gossip was misinformed because the person talking either misunderstood or was unaware of the full situation, and some of the gossip was absolutely correct. If the gossip coming out of a film production is that they're mistreating animals, an investigation will be launched into [I]if[/I] they have been mistreating animals. Nobody will be convicted and thrown in jail based on the gossip alone, only an investigation that turned out to conclude that, yes, animals were intentionally being hurt. All this story says is that, if the anonymous source is to be believed, the investigation has gotten closer to Trump's innermost circle. This does not mean Trump's lawyer is guilty; he may not even be suspected of guilt and is merely being interviewed/subpoena'd for information to confirm other aspects of the investigation's findings. All it means is that the investigations are continuing. Being scared of anonymous sources when they're reporting bad things about Trump makes you look like a cultist.
I don't get this hate over anonymous sources. It might seem suspicious at first glance, but you have to realize they're only anonymous to us, because they don't want to get fired. The media doesn't just get things in the mail and say 'oh, anonymous source' they have to go to the media and talk to them and say they want to be anonymous.
[QUOTE=Uber22;52292236]If some anonymous person found info on some Democrat, Bernie, or Hillary, you wouldn't even piss and moan about it... IN fact, would probably bet my ass you would support it.[/QUOTE] Better hand over that ass boyo. If someone anonymously claims something and doesnt supplement it with actual evidence, I wouldn't take it.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52292163]I didn't -snip- anything. [/QUOTE] He's not saying you snipped anything, he snipped your post because it was long and contained an image. Like a courtesy to not stretch the page further.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;52292250]Better hand over that ass boyo. If someone anonymously claims something and doesnt supplement it with actual evidence, I wouldn't take it.[/QUOTE] My ass is staying where its at because i call bullshit.
[QUOTE=Naught;52292244]I don't get this hate over anonymous sources. It might seem suspicious at first glance, but you have to realize they're only anonymous to us, because they don't want to get fired. The media doesn't just get things in the mail and say 'oh, anonymous source' they have to go to the media and talk to them and say they want to be anonymous.[/QUOTE] A lot of it comes from deliberate attempts to discredit the media and undermine free press Anonymous sources have always been a vital component of investigative journalism, [I]especially[/I] when it comes to investigative journalism of politicians, and [I][B]especially[/B][/I] corrupt politicians There's an awful lot of corrupt politicians, and there's been a push to poison people against anonymous sources for a while now, which would make it harder to blow the whistle without putting your ass on the line, which would make it easier for coverups, collusion, and general corruption to thrive without fear of being exposed And another chunk of it stems from just plain confirmation bias. People don't like to admit being at fault, and if all these anonymous sources are fake and it's just a biased witch hunt by the other team with no basis in reality then they don't have to even consider the possibility that maybe the choice they made wasn't quite as good as they thought it was
Can we not debate over anonymous sources? They're a core part of how the press is able to function and hold government accountable. Less "I don't believe this because it comes from a nameless official" and more "hey [B]if[/B] what these [B]anonymous sources[/B] say are true what the fuck"
[QUOTE=Sitkero;52292416]A lot of it comes from deliberate attempts to discredit the media and undermine free press Anonymous sources have always been a vital component of investigative journalism, [I]especially[/I] when it comes to investigative journalism of politicians, and [I][B]especially[/B][/I] corrupt politicians There's an awful lot of corrupt politicians, and there's been a push to poison people against anonymous sources for a while now, which would make it harder to blow the whistle without putting your ass on the line, which would make it easier for coverups, collusion, and general corruption to thrive without fear of being exposed And another chunk of it stems from just plain confirmation bias. People don't like to admit being at fault, and if all these anonymous sources are fake and it's just a biased witch hunt by the other team with no basis in reality then they don't have to even consider the possibility that maybe the choice they made wasn't quite as good as they thought it was[/QUOTE] Playing devil's advocate for a minute, how are you supposed to believe anonymous sources? What is to stop an outlet from simply manufacturing or embellishing a story and claiming it was delivered by an anonymous source? Whether you think it's justifiable or not, you're still taking a leap of faith and simply choosing to believe that the outlet you're reading is being truthful. It's entirely possible that it's all made up, because you have no way of vetting the information or confirming it.
[QUOTE=srobins;52293326]Playing devil's advocate for a minute, how are you supposed to believe anonymous sources? What is to stop an outlet from simply manufacturing or embellishing a story and claiming it was delivered by an anonymous source? Whether you think it's justifiable or not, you're still taking a leap of faith and simply choosing to believe that the outlet you're reading is being truthful. It's entirely possible that it's all made up, because you have no way of vetting the information or confirming it.[/QUOTE] Because these outlets have reputations they've built over decades that compel me to think they're doing factual reporting. If a tabloid cites an anonymous source that says Donald Trump is a pedophile, I'm probably not going to believe it on face value. However if a number of mainstream outlets such as WaPo or NYT report the same thing, I'll give it more credence. I find it easier to believe that mainstream news outlets are reporting on accounts that they've sourced and cross-checked, rather than the idea that they're conspiring with each other and risking their enterprises on fake stories in order to... what, gain ratings? Undermine the government? [editline]30th May 2017[/editline] It also seems too convenient that news sources which were previously known to have solid reputations for factual reporting are all of the sudden resorting to publishing lies [I]right[/I] as the new president is elected. Nobody was saying news stories about Bush or Obama were fabricated, what changed?
[QUOTE=srobins;52293326]Playing devil's advocate for a minute, how are you supposed to believe anonymous sources? What is to stop an outlet from simply manufacturing or embellishing a story and claiming it was delivered by an anonymous source? Whether you think it's justifiable or not, you're still taking a leap of faith and simply choosing to believe that the outlet you're reading is being truthful. It's entirely possible that it's all made up, because you have no way of vetting the information or confirming it.[/QUOTE] I don't trust anyone unconditionally, and I trust named sources with a reliable history of being honest over anonymous sources, but that doesn't mean I throw anonymous sources out the window. In addition to what Vman said (I trust WaPo/NYT to vet their anonymous sources more reliably than say, Fox or Salon), it helps in Trump's case that he often confirms the stories of anonymous sources days after they are reported :v:
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52291999]Because as of now, there [I]isn't[/I] any real evidence. [/QUOTE] kinda why you start an investigation and subpoena potentially incriminating documents from the campaign that would help establish both a concrete pattern of deception as well as intent. we keep seeing russians behind every door, and we keep seeing trump and his campaign and the GOP frantically nailing those doors shut with late night trips, distractions, and intraction, meanwhile Russia still acted to sabotage the US election and Trump doesn't seem the least bit concerned about it, and every state in europe now is worried.
When does Comey speak before the house intel?
June 8th.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.