The Trump Crime Family - Legal Issues

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

When one has been radicalized...

More 'Glenn Beckish' IIRC.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

The question is and always was whether your source was full of shit, Mike. John Soloman is absolutely full of shit as is the Washington 'Moonie' Times. Get ahold of yourself, dude.

I havent commented on his writing once in this thread, or any other as far as I can recall. My question was, and still is, to Finn: can he provide a source for his claim that Solomon was fired from the Hill. I get lots of noise and BS accusations from you all in multiple posts now, but still no source.

Didn't realize a simple request to source a claim would flummox you all so much.

[Chicks]

In Closing Arguments Giuliani’s Own Attorney Compares Him To ‘Flat-Earther’ Who Won’t Stop Believing In Stolen Election
https://www.mediaite.com/politics/in...olen-election/

Do we know any other Flat-Earthers hereabouts?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I havent commented on his writing once in this thread, or any other as far as I can recall. My question was, and still is, to Finn: can he provide a source for his claim that Solomon was fired from the Hill. I get lots of noise and BS accusations from you all in multiple posts now, but still no source.

Didn't realize a simple request to source a claim would flummox you all so much.

I hereby apologize for reasonably interpreting his leaving The Hill under a cloud as him having been fired for publishing bullshit that could have landed The Hill in the same kind of hot water as Fox News landed in for continuing to carry the Dominion story (which was also the likely reason that Fox chose to no longer feature Solomon on its air). As it was, it was Trump believing this discredited story and acting upon it that got him impeached. And now your buddy Comer is regurgitating the same old shit (as have you, BTW).

I also apologize for touching a nerve of yours by challenging the veracity of a discredited wingnut hack that you chose to link to. The real question is not whether Solomon was fired or simply left under a cloud for publishing discredited lies fed to him by Rudy's Russian/Ukrainian goons. The question is why you still link to a guy whose work has been so thoroughly and publicly discredited. Your guy is Sidney Powell kind of crazy.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I hereby apologize for reasonably interpreting his leaving The Hill under a cloud as him having been fired...

OK, cool. But your "reasonable interpretation" without sufficient facts has led you astray before.

Originally Posted by finnbow

I also apologize for touching a nerve of yours...

Didn't touch a nerve at all. I figured you couldn't substantiate that comment, and thought that this would be a kind of object lesson.

Originally Posted by finnbow

The real question is not whether Solomon was fired or simply left under a cloud for publishing discredited lies fed to him by Rudy's Russian/Ukrainian goons. The question is why you still link to a guy whose work has been so thoroughly and publicly discredited.

That's not really a question. It's your opinion wrapped in a question.

Here's the thing, Finnster. I quote from all sources that I consider potentially relevant. I've quoted from the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, Newsweek, etc. I rarely quote from Fox, and I quoted from Solomon maybe once. So, I apologize if I hit a nerve posting from Solomon that one time. I do try to quote from a diversity of sources because I read from a diversity of sources.

Some folks on here quote almost exclusively from left-wing sources as if those sources are akin to the word of God. These are typically opinion pieces disguised as news stories. Opinion pieces disguised as news stories are not exclusive to left-wing sources like Alternet and Raw Story, but there's no attempt by these sources to differentiate between opinion and fact. At least the Hill made the decision at some point to move Solomon's pieces to the Opinion section.

The real question is: it really seems to have hit a nerve when I posted a piece from Solomon. Where is the same righteous indignation from you when folks quote from Alternet, Raw Story and others?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

OK, cool. But your "reasonable interpretation" without sufficient facts has led you astray before...
Where is the same righteous indignation from you when folks quote from Alternet, Raw Story and others?

Facts are certainly sufficient to ascribe his work to a bad faith effort as scribe for Rudy's dirty tricks operation that relied on bullshit fed to them by Russian intelligence in an effort to harm Biden.

It is a false equivalency to compare the liberal bias of certain outlets with a "journalist" conspiring with a Russia-assisted dirty tricks operation favoring Trump, an aspiring authoritarian and Putin BFF. Leave it to you to be unable to discern the difference.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Facts are certainly sufficient to ascribe his work to a bad faith effort as scribe for Rudy's dirty tricks operation that relied on bullshit fed to them by Russian intelligence in an effort to harm Biden.

It is a false equivalency to compare the liberal bias of certain outlets with a "journalist" conspiring with a Russia-assisted dirty tricks operation favoring Trump, an aspiring authoritarian and Putin BFF. Leave it to you to be unable to discern the difference.

No, I think it's you who have lost the ability to discern. You're more likely to criticize harshly points of view you don't happen to subscribe to, dismissing those points of view as "lies" and holding your own word view up as unassailable fact. The world doesn't work that way.

Here's an EXCELLENT piece from a former NY Times editorial page editor. He was asked for his resignation because he dared publish an op-ed piece by a Republican Senator whose opinion on how to deal with some of the civil unrest during the summer of 2020 ruffled some "liberal" feathers in his own organization.

Note that I call this an EXCELLENT piece even though the author holds views the probably don't agree with my own. He does nail what has happened to the product of the NY Times, and his observations also apply to other noteworthy publications: a culture of intolerance. As the author states:

The Times’s problem has metastasized from liberal bias to illiberal bias, from an inclination to favour one side of the national debate to an impulse to shut debate down altogether.

You suggested in an earlier post that I need to do some soul-searching. I suggest you follow your own advice after reading this.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

No, I think it's you who have lost the ability to discern. You're more likely to criticize harshly points of view you don't happen to subscribe to, dismissing those points of view as "lies" and holding your own word view up as unassailable fact. The world doesn't work that way.

Here's an EXCELLENT piece from a former NY Times editorial page editor. He was asked for his resignation because he dared publish an op-ed piece by a Republican Senator whose opinion on how to deal with some of the civil unrest during the summer of 2020 ruffled some "liberal" feathers in his own organization.

Note that I call this an EXCELLENT piece even though the author holds views the probably don't agree with my own. He does nail what has happened to the product of the NY Times, and his observations also apply to other noteworthy publications: a culture of intolerance. As the author states:

The Times’s problem has metastasized from liberal bias to illiberal bias, from an inclination to favour one side of the national debate to an impulse to shut debate down altogether.

You suggested in an earlier post that I need to do some soul-searching. I suggest you follow your own advice after reading this.

I had already read it and largely agree with his take. I'm not a particularly fond of what has become of the NYTimes though the Times is still far better than any conservative news/opinion outlet (e.g., Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, Epoch Times, WashTimes, Just The News (Solomon's rag)) other than those launched by NeverTrumpers (The Bulwark, The Dispatch) disillusioned by the protofascist takeover of the GOP and their captive media.

None of this has any bearing on my criticism of you linking to an article by a dishonest and traitorous clown who participated in a Russia-assisted dirty tricks campaign. My criticism peaks further when you use an editorial decision and subsequent internal dissension at the NYT to imply it's as bad or worse than Solomon and his wingnut rag. Such self-criticism is something you'll never see conservative outlets employ. Instead, they double-down on their lies even after being exposed as flagrant liars.

What's truly ironic is that conservatives demand absolutely true, unbiased reporting with zero mistakes from mainstream outlets (that they mostly don't read anyway), while simultaneously demanding that conservative outlets comfort them with a security blanket of lies (as clearly shown by discovery in the Dominion case). Whassup with that, Mr. Fake News?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I had already read it and largely agree with his take. I'm not a particularly fond of what has become of the NYTimes though the Times is still far better than any conservative news/opinion outlet...

In your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You failed to answer my question about far left outlets like rawstory and alternet.

Originally Posted by finnbow

None of this has any bearing on my criticism of you linking to an article by a dishonest and traitorous clown...

Back to Solomon you go, without addressing my question. I quoted Solomon once, and yet rawstory and alternet have been quoted herein multiple times.

Originally Posted by finnbow

My criticism peaks further when you use an editorial decision and subsequent internal dissension at the NYT to imply it's as bad or worse than Solomon and his wingnut rag. Such self-criticism is something you'll never see conservative outlets employ. Instead, they double-down on their lies even after being exposed as flagrant liars.

Wow, if that's your take on the Economist piece, you missed the entire point. You might want to go back and read it again. Let me help with a couple of points:

1) There was no self-criticism in the Economist piece. In fact, the author was quite happy to be employed there during a time when the paper had a "liberal bias". In fact, he applauded that. It was when leftist ideology amongst employees wanted to use the editorial power of the NY Times to shout down opposing arguments that the author believes the NY Times lost its way. His actions of posting an opinion piece that was contrary to the "illiberalism" of his colleagues - and probably a lot of readers - led to Schultzberger asking for his resignation.

2) The illiberalism is on display across the country and right here in this forum. As I said in an earlier post: You're more likely to criticize harshly points of view you don't happen to subscribe to, dismissing those points of view as "lies" and holding your own word view up as unassailable fact. That behavior comports with the Economist article's definition of illiberalism: absolute intolerance of anyone or any opinion that is out of synch with your beliefs. That's not to say that such behavior doesn't also exist on the right. It just strikes me as funny and a bit hypocritical when folks on the left, including many here, decry that behavior while engaging in it themselves.

Originally Posted by finnbow

What's truly ironic is that conservatives demand absolutely true, unbiased reporting with zero mistakes from mainstream outlets (that they mostly don't read anyway), while simultaneously demanding that conservative outlets comfort them with a security blanket of lies (as clearly shown by discovery in the Dominion case). Whassup with that, Mr. Fake News?

See above. Still waiting to hear how you think left-wing sources like alternet and rawstory among others play into this.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

In your opinion, and you're entitled to it. You failed to answer my question about far left outlets like rawstory and alternet.

Back to Solomon you go, without addressing my question. I quoted Solomon once, and yet rawstory and alternet have been quoted herein multiple times.

You seem incapable of discerning the difference between an outlet's bias (existent in all humans) and outlets that deliberately conspire with foreign powers and/or criminals and fraudsters to concoct elaborate lies in support of a protofascist takeover of our government (Fox's Dominion, Seth Rich, and Georgia suitcases full of ballots stories; Rudy/Solomon's Burisma story; Jan. 6 insurrectionists were peaceful tourists, Antifa or FBI agents stories). Wingnut media depends upon you not being able to tell the difference (which in your case is certainly true). Thankfully, our courts can tell the difference as evidenced by recent penalties of ~$1 billion (and counting) for their lies.

As for you saying you only quoted Solomon once, I call bullshit. You parroted the Burisma conspiracy (for which he was the dedicated scribe and Fox mouthpiece, along with Rudy) over multiple posts ever since Rudy/Solomon concocted the story. Meanwhile, "A sitting Ukrainian lawmaker who helped Rudy Giuliani smear Joe Biden during the 2020 US presidential campaign has been jailed on suspicion of treason, Ukraine’s State Bureau of Investigation announced Tuesday, in a statement accusing him of carrying out a Russian disinformation operation."

1) There was no self-criticism in the Economist piece...

From the article: "With my Opinion colleagues, I set out to deal with this long list of needs. I restructured the department, changing everybody’s role and, using buyouts, changing people as well. It was too much, too fast; it rocked the department, and my colleagues and I made mistakes ...

I viewed the article as both self-criticism by a former executive of the organization he helped to lead in trying times and criticism of the newspaper industry in general in its reaction to market forces and the challenges of reporting on an administration that called it "the enemy of the people" and that wants to punish its perceived enemies in the media. Like it or not, pushback to such fascist threats is a natural human reaction.

The fundamental question remains how and whether news media should evaluate and report on the likelihood of our nation's descent into autocracy/protofascism under today's Trumpian GOP if such reporting risks alienating those like you who still worship at the altar of Trump and prefer being fed deliberate lies, agitprop and conspiracy theories that currently fill up the conservative media landscape.