Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

[goDel]

Is that the True Pundit thing?

 

If it is, I'll admit I read that as an amateur attempt at journalism. It might not hold to the typical journalistic standards. I'd agree with that. But it does fill a hole in current reporting, imo. When I read something like that, I hope some actual journalist will pick it up, do some added research and do a report on it.

 

What it does do though, is creating a timeline. Putting the pieces on a timeline helps creating a context to interpret the larger subject. And personally, the remarks Guiliani made back then always struck me as odd. Giggling to himself on national television he had some connections with former FBI-agents and he knew something big was going to happen. Back then, before the Abramson tweet-fests there was already talk about a mutiny in the NY FBI department, I remember. But somehow it never got the follow-up in general media, as far as I can tell. Without Abramson commenting, it already looked shady. Abramson now build a case of how shady it might be. Which I think could be useful to consider carrying some reality.

 

The fact he's now on the guy behind True Pundit's radar says something as well. If it was complete bullshit, why bother responding? It's not like he's compromised if Abramson was talking BS, right?

 

I appreciate Abramson mostly for his legal commentary. (again his comments on the Eric Prince hearing is where its at)

 

And I'm actually surprised how poorly the counter arguments hold against him in the media. See that BBC interview for example. The "best" counter arguments basically try to personally dismiss Abramson himself (paraphrase "no experience with transition, so you should shut up"). In the end he did agree the most pertinent question was who'd be indicted next. Call it speculation, but going upwards from Flynn requires little imagination of where that might lead. That's almost matter of fact speculation.

 

Sidenote: The thing that worries me is the way Eric Prince played his hearing in congress. He felt safe bullshitting congress. He must basically know he's supported by the GOP. Which is interesting seeing the recent piece on the Intercept about the US government outsourcing their intelligence activities to parties like Blackwater. Looks like he's not even worried about the prospect of the Mueller investigation. You'd almost think Trump's willing to blow-up the FBI and replace it with Blackwater before Mueller finished his investigation. And Eric is in on it. Yeah, this is def speculation. But I'm really trying to understand how someone could behave like that in a congressional hearing. And there's def a pattern of tension between the intelligence agencies and Trump, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's planning to do something like that in reality. Again though, personal speculation.

[xox]

i just cant wait to see who's gonna be the next president of the usa. who ever vote for this psychopath is a fakn moron!

but the problem is that no matter who's gonna be the next president cause this psycho's gonna leave deserts behind him on so many levels

[ignatius]

 

 

i've watched enough ancient aliens to know who she is. so hilarious. 

[Rubin Farr]

After watching enough "Republican pundits" on Fox News, which feels like I'm behind enemy lines, what fascinates me is none of these people realize they are on the wrong side of history. No one will look back fondly on a party that embraced white supremacy, anti immigrant, anti Muslim, anti Semitism, pro evangelism, pro Southerm White trash culture, blue collar lack of college education, persecuting LGBT American citizens 2 1/2 years after gay marriage was legalized. The White entitlement establishment is dying a horrible death, and fighting all the way down the ladder. Fuck them all.

[ignatius]

After watching enough "Republican pundits" on Fox News, which feels like I'm behind enemy lines, what fascinates me is none of these people realize they are on the wrong side of history. No one will look back fondly on a party that embraced white supremacy, anti immigrant, anti Muslim, anti Semitism, pro evangelism, pro Southerm White trash culture, blue collar lack of college education, persecuting LGBT American citizens 2 1/2 years after gay marriage was legalized. The White entitlement establishment is dying a horrible death, and fighting all the way down the ladder. Fuck them all.

 

 

unless trump becomes god emperor for life and everything stays this way forever. 

 

really though.. this tax plan is going to be devastating if someo of it doesn't get rolled back in 2018/2020.. so as the USA crumbles history will be less and less relevant because t's all going to be so obvious. eventually, when we upload to the matrix or whatever.... none of it will matter. 

 

lol. riiiiight.. 

 

i think this is a pretty big bump in the road for USA longevity. we've been dancing pretty close to the fire for a while now.   w/o some kind of real political spiritual philosphical awakening or some shit.. i don't know how long we plow ahead like this... environmental collapse is another piece of the puzzle as well. perhaps the water rising will solve all our problems. 

[may be rude]

the tides they are a-changin

[whosebrian]

Bizarro World

 

aka

 

htraE

[chenGOD]

 

 

 

I haven't seen too many regular journalists putting in the effort to connect the dots based on the info that's already out there.

There's a reason for that.

There's a reason for no-one connecting the dots? Sure, do tell. Please enlighten me. Apparently I'm too dumb to understand, so let me please bathe in your wisdom.

First of all, cool it pal. No one called you dumb. I doubt you are, though at the same time I'm certainly not wise. ;)

 

Journalists don't often market in speculation, they report facts. Sometimes they may take the next step in what the new facts/situations suggest, but that's a small part of they may choose to do, and many journalists don't really work in speculation at all. It's not a part of their job. Their job is to report facts, and connect dots, yes...but dots based on facts.

Knowing enough journalists, plenty of investigative journalism comes out of speculation. Not all of it ends conclusively either.

Maybe it’s a stretch to call what Abramson does “real investigative journalism”, but it’s not always far off. He doesn’t really do journalism though, I don’t think he’s out there interviewing people and digging through archives. That’s why he’s on twitter though. He’s a bright guy, but as I said before I will agree he does hype stuff too much. That’s a product of being part of the twitter game though.

[psn]

He doesn’t really do journalism though,

 

He does. And he's a professor in Journalism (and law).

 

I don’t think he’s out there interviewing people and digging through archives.

He's digging through the endless archives of everything reported publically (news, Twitter, etc) about the Trump campaign.

[chenGOD]

 

He doesn’t really do journalism though,

He does. And he's a professor in Journalism (and law).

 

I don’t think he’s out there interviewing people and digging through archives.

He's digging through the endless archives of everything reported publically (news, Twitter, etc) about the Trump campaign.

 

 

Yeah, that's not really investigative journalism, that's just staying informed. What he does on his twitter feed is much closer to op-ed writing - albeit backed up by professional knowledge (he was formerly a public prosecutor).

Also, he is an Assistant Professor of English, not journalism or law.

[psn]

Yeah, that's not really investigative journalism, that's just staying informed. What he does on his twitter feed is much closer to op-ed writing - albeit backed up by professional knowledge (he was formerly a public prosecutor).

Earlier you said he's not doing "journalism", now "investigative journalism". I'd argue he's doing investigative journalism, anyway. All of the definitions here apply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism

 

Also, he is an Assistant Professor of English, not journalism or law.

Ah, I was wrong there. He has two doctorates, though, one in law.

[YO303]

Just look at his True Pundit thread, how can you call that journalism? he is imagining motives that he has no way of knowing, he is also imagining people that nobody knows if they exist and making up their motives.

 

Is the True Pundit fake news? Yes, was the TP used by trump campaign to spread fake news? yes

 

but look at this tweet, its pure speculation, he has no way of knowing what Comey assumed or what the FBI agents did. His tweet threads are full of shit like that and again if you like conspiracy theories and want to indulge in anti-trump fantasies seth is the perfect guy for you but i want facts not speculation, give me the cold hard indisputable facts that way there is no confusion and no reason to make up motives.

 

[YO303]

I like to think i am a fair man, i follow a bunch of pro-daca accounts just to stay up to date on the latest and i see shit i dont like, they manipulate facts and sometimes straight up lie. I dont buy into "the end justifies the means", obviously i want daca to stay but why lie and manipulate, its unethical to fill people's head with deception even if the outcome is what you want.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Deer

[goDel]

Just want this to add: it's a bit odd to argue you don't like Abr. because he's full of BS and doesn't hold to basic journalistic standards, while the BBC invites him to comment (at prime time?). (only one example, obv)

 

Please realise that at that point, you're basically implying the BBC doesn't hold up to journalistic standards with their coverage. And they might as well have invited Alex Jones (=full of BS and doesn't hold to journalistic standards).

 

Or weirder, that your standards are higher than those of the editorial board of the BBC. Those must be some potentially godlike high standards you have there.

 

That doesn't sound like a strong argument and mostly looks silly. Again, no problems with people not being interested in those twitter threads.

 

O, and that piece in Slate was mostly a turd. So, if anyone wants to bring Slate into the BBC point, be my guest. I'd place the BBC higher on the journalistic standards scale than Slate. But if you think you have an interesting argument, I might listen. Might.

[bendish]

Just look at his True Pundit thread, how can you call that journalism? he is imagining motives that he has no way of knowing, he is also imagining people that nobody knows if they exist and making up their motives.

 

Is the True Pundit fake news? Yes, was the TP used by trump campaign to spread fake news? yes

 

but look at this tweet, its pure speculation, he has no way of knowing what Comey assumed or what the FBI agents did. His tweet threads are full of shit like that and again if you like conspiracy theories and want to indulge in anti-trump fantasies seth is the perfect guy for you but i want facts not speculation, give me the cold hard indisputable facts that way there is no confusion and no reason to make up motives.

 

 

i think you're focusing on an ideal version of journalism that barely exists...

basically everything is agenda driven

agree that fabrication from left leaning sources merely undermines the cause playing into the whole both sides arguments

[YO303]

I guess it comes down to this, is Seth's speculation backed up by truth and facts? i don't think so (most of the time).

 

To use the True Pundit thread as an example, there is not enough evidence for me to believe there was a anti-hilary/pro-trump FBI revolt.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Deer

[YO303]

 

 

 

i think you're focusing on an ideal version of journalism that barely exists...

basically everything is agenda driven

 

 

 

 

well that sucks doesn't it

[YO303]

Just want this to add: it's a bit odd to argue you don't like Abr. because he's full of BS and doesn't hold to basic journalistic standards, while the BBC invites him to comment (at prime time?). (only one example, obv)

 

Please realise that at that point, you're basically implying the BBC doesn't hold up to journalistic standards with their coverage. And they might as well have invited Alex Jones (=full of BS and doesn't hold to journalistic standards).

 

Or weirder, that your standards are higher than those of the editorial board of the BBC. Those must be some potentially godlike high standards you have there.

 

That doesn't sound like a strong argument and mostly looks silly. Again, no problems with people not being interested in those twitter threads.

 

 

This might sound a bit arrogant but i don't care what BBC's standards are, my standards are to prove X you need hard evidence and Seth doesn't provide hard evidence (most of the time/sometimes)

 

Back to the True Pundit stuff, was the evidence presented by seth hard enough to convince you that there was a anti-hilary/pro-trump fbi revolt beyond reasonable doubt? 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Deer

[goDel]

I guess it comes down to this, is Seth's speculation backed up by truth and facts? i don't think so (most of the time).

 

To use the True Pundit thread as an example, there is not enough evidence for me to believe there was a anti-hilary/pro-trump FBI revolt.

 

As Chen also argued, the thing about Abramson is that he does tend to create a dramatised version based on the info/knowledge he has.

 

The way I look at tweet #52 is that those 3 actions are probably standard actions in those circumstances. Standard procedure. Nothing too speculative and possibly even matter of fact. What Abr. does do, is putting those as "assumptions" into Comeys head. I agree with you that is beyond something a normal journalist would or should do. But I see it as story telling around events that were taking place.

 

About the evidence of an anti-hillary/pro-trump revolt: although not covered in the TP thread, he points to an Huffpo article he wrote (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/was-rudy-giuliani-at-the-center-of-an-fbi-trump-campaign_us_585ad14ce4b014e7c72ed993) 

 

Also, 

[YO303]

The way i read the guiliani video is that he is trying to manipulate the pro-law enforcement crowd into thinking law enforcement is pro-trump, could be wrong tho (im sure there were current/former fbi agents that were pro-trump they are humans after all but i see no hard evidence of the revolt seth and guiliani are talking about)

 

About Seth's dramatization and narrative building/story telling, how is that appealing? thats manipulation, no?

i dont like to be manipulated, i have no reason to trust Seth, how can i be sure the narrative he is telling me is truthful and not informed by his own anti-trump bias

Edited December 11, 2017 by Deer

[goDel]

we'll could go endlessly back and forth without any outcome. 

 

i do think his current tweet speaks volumes in a number of ways:

- he tends to be ahead of regular media (couple of weeks)

- he tends to be on point

 

 

it's fine if you don't like his threads or trust him. it's a free country. lets leave it at that please.

[goDel]

 

 

 

Back to the True Pundit stuff, was the evidence presented by seth hard enough to convince you that there was a anti-hilary/pro-trump fbi revolt beyond reasonable doubt? 

 

 

My read is there was a conscious effort of people to push the story that there was a revolt (reason: influence Comey to take action on Clinton emails right before the election. which he did, obv!). I believe that was *fake* for the most part. Just a story. Although it might have been ex-agents pulling some strings to push it (True Pundit connections). But revolt is probably too broad a term.

 

If it was actually true the NY department was consciously stalling its actions wrt the investigation of the mails found on Weiners laptop, I'd argue that'd count as a revolt of sorts. But because this is about days or weeks, it'd be hard to prove intent. Or rather, easy to disprove. You need only one person being sick around that time and the entire department might already be covered with an excuse of why it took so long.

 

Not sure why you read Giuliani as pushing the story the FBI was pro-Trump. He literally used the word revolution himself. And remember, even though you might read it that way. Or the entire country might have read it that way, for that matter. If true, the only persons read that would have mattered at that point in time was Comeys.

 

So, if you want to read Giuliani, you might want to consider he's there to send a message to Comey first and foremost. And not the general audience. The general audience was only supposed to be outraged. And the FBI being pro-Trump narrative would really not be relevant.

 

In general, the general audience is mostly there to be outraged. The bigger the outrage, the higher the odds people in government are looking at Comey and the more likely Comey has to act. 

 

(yes, this is how politics works. people are considered mostly uninformed sheep who are supposed to be outraged at will! and obviously, politicians play a large role on what's being covered in the media. worse, it's their job to push stories to achieve certain goals. that's why they're elected.)

[chenGOD]

 

Yeah, that's not really investigative journalism, that's just staying informed. What he does on his twitter feed is much closer to op-ed writing - albeit backed up by professional knowledge (he was formerly a public prosecutor).

Earlier you said he's not doing "journalism", now "investigative journalism". I'd argue he's doing investigative journalism, anyway. All of the definitions here apply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism

 

Also, he is an Assistant Professor of English, not journalism or law.

Ah, I was wrong there. He has two doctorates, though, one in law.

Look at the “tools used” list of bullets. He really doesn’t use any of those methods. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming he’s a total fraud like others. I’m saying what he does is more akin to writing opinion pieces that are well informed by staying up-to-date and his professional background as a public defender.

Why I think he doesn’t do journalism/investigative journalism as well is that he does tend to over dramatize things. Again, that’s part of the nature of the twitter game.

[auxien]

I’m saying what he does is more akin to writing opinion pieces that are well informed by staying up-to-date and his professional background as a public defender.

Why I think he doesn’t do journalism/investigative journalism as well is that he does tend to over dramatize things. Again, that’s part of the nature of the twitter game.

I agree with this 100%

[goDel]

Posting a couple of LOLs. (Moving away from twitter)

 

First, Jared Kushner on his Israeli/Palestinian conflict adventures. Probably me, but I rolled of my chair laughing at the 3 mins mark. Also a rare occasion to see and hear him open his mouth and produce verbal language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxSQEpRn8ZI

Almost endearing. And to me, comes across as surprisingly sincere as well. (ergo: the trump government might be like a huge hackathon)

 

And this interview at Fox is equally amusing, imo. Again, rolling off the chair toward the end :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En8sAYHrKEU