In politics, narrative matters. It is what makes up debates, campaigns, party platforms. A good narrative can get you elected.

But narrative, on it's own, is only a story, an opinion, a position. It is essentially hearsay without credible documentation, forensic or expert witnesses to back it up. And it is only one sided.

In law, you need those things to win in court. And you need to be able to withstand cross examination from the opposing side. The legal system is designed to vet two sides to a story and, in doing so it has a higher standard for establishing a case. Bringing a case to court requires evidence. Evidence points to the truth of events independent of opinion.

Fox news, a one-sided, narrative creating right wing organization, would never win in court, which is why they settled out of court. Their standard is not really any higher than hearsay.

Because Fox news and other right wing political organizations have focused entirely on creating, perpetuating and promoting narratives, they don't do well in court. So, they then believe that the legal system is corrupt. IOWs, they are upset that the legal system has a higher standard than their narrative and they want a legal system put in place that simply believes their narrative.

I suggest that, as long as FOX news is the major force behind these efforts, right wing groups will forever be frustrated. There are other right wing organizations that have been far more successful inside our legal system. I won't mention names but they have played a big part in determining the makeup of our supreme court. And they don't spend much time on public narratives.

As much as I dislike them, at least they understand the difference between politics and law. Folks like bearhunter really don't, apparently.

You believe in the Russian collusion narrative, yes?

Goldener Bar said:

---

You believe in the Russian collusion narrative, yes?

---

I believe that the people in Trump's campaign lied about Russian involvement, got successfully prosecuted for it anyway and pardoned by Trump. I also believe that Barr killed a document showing Mueller had discovered Russian involvement in the campaign. This was discovered during the Mar L'Ago investigation.
Those are the facts.

BTW, I am specifically talking about Manafort, Flynn and Stone et. al.

Those are undisputed facts, not a narrative. Again, you confuse legal with politic. These folks were legally prosecuted. That's not politics or narrative. That is law.

heartofthebear said:

---

In politics, narrative matters. It is what makes up debates, campaigns, party platforms. A good narrative can get you elected.

But narrative, on it's own, is only a story, an opinion, a position. It is essentially hearsay without credible documentation, forensic or expert witnesses to back it up. And it is only one sided.

In law, you need those things to win in court. And you need to be able to withstand cross examination from the opposing side. The legal system is designed to vet two sides to a story and, in doing so it has a higher standard for establishing a case. Bringing a case to court requires evidence. Evidence points to the truth of events independent of opinion.

Fox news, a one-sided, narrative creating right wing organization, would never win in court, which is why they settled out of court. Their standard is not really any higher than hearsay.

Because Fox news and other right wing political organizations have focused entirely on creating, perpetuating and promoting narratives, they don't do well in court. So, they then believe that the legal system is corrupt. IOWs, they are upset that the legal system has a higher standard than their narrative and they want a legal system put in place that simply believes their narrative.

I suggest that, as long as FOX news is the major force behind these efforts, right wing groups will forever be frustrated. There are other right wing organizations that have been far more successful inside our legal system. I won't mention names but they have played a big part in determining the makeup of our supreme court. And they don't spend much time on public narratives.

As much as I dislike them, at least they understand the difference between politics and law. Folks like bearhunter really don't, apparently.

---

The irony of this post is that it is liberal media sources who are stroking the courts are corrupt, particularly SCOTUS, on what are for the most part, benefits received by conservative justices, generally some time ago. These media sources for the most part are also unwilling to report similar conduct by liberal justices. There was presumably the hope that this would cause a ground swell of political narrative that would force resignations; however, that there does not seem to be the momentum for that, and Senate hearings which quickly became a nothing burger for various reasons.

There are those on the progressive sides that will continue to stick their heads in the sand that organizations like the ACLU, now have become partisan left wing bodies, who seek to change the composition of the courts through open political actions and narratives, including election financial support, and in the shadows, through lobbying and fundraising. All this is as far as I know is perfectly legal, whether by right wing or left wing organizations. Of course, legality is often a question for the courts, and in the case of SCOTUS, the members of SCOTUS themselves, as was made abundantly clear in the nascent Senate hearings that flopped by both the conservative and liberal justices acting in unison.

Think of all the January 6 convicted and incarcerated seditionists that are sitting in USP cells scratching their filthy nards because they couldn't tell the difference between tRump's Allegation World, the Right Wing media's definitions of the terms facts, the law, evidence and proof vs the rules that govern Reality World (which includes the judicial system).

Even tRump will be befuddled when the plaintiff he sexually abused secures a sheriff's execution sale order and they put some of his possessions and real estate on the auction block to satisfy her judgment.

*And yes, all sophisticates in the intelligence community know that tRump is an asset of the House of Saud and the Russians.

Imagine Biden doing this. MAGAts would be having conniption fits.

wifeisafurd said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

In politics, narrative matters. It is what makes up debates, campaigns, party platforms. A good narrative can get you elected.

But narrative, on it's own, is only a story, an opinion, a position. It is essentially hearsay without credible documentation, forensic or expert witnesses to back it up. And it is only one sided.

In law, you need those things to win in court. And you need to be able to withstand cross examination from the opposing side. The legal system is designed to vet two sides to a story and, in doing so it has a higher standard for establishing a case. Bringing a case to court requires evidence. Evidence points to the truth of events independent of opinion.

Fox news, a one-sided, narrative creating right wing organization, would never win in court, which is why they settled out of court. Their standard is not really any higher than hearsay.

Because Fox news and other right wing political organizations have focused entirely on creating, perpetuating and promoting narratives, they don't do well in court. So, they then believe that the legal system is corrupt. IOWs, they are upset that the legal system has a higher standard than their narrative and they want a legal system put in place that simply believes their narrative.

I suggest that, as long as FOX news is the major force behind these efforts, right wing groups will forever be frustrated. There are other right wing organizations that have been far more successful inside our legal system. I won't mention names but they have played a big part in determining the makeup of our supreme court. And they don't spend much time on public narratives.

As much as I dislike them, at least they understand the difference between politics and law. Folks like bearhunter really don't, apparently.

---

The irony of this post is that it is liberal media sources who are stroking the courts are corrupt, particularly SCOTUS, on what are for the most part, benefits received but conservative justices, generally some time ago. These media sources for the most part are also unwilling to report similar conduct by liberal justices. There was presumably the hope that this would cause a ground swell of political narrative that would force resignations; however, that there does not seem to be the momentum for that, and Senate hearings which quickly became a notging burger for various reasons.

There are those on the progressive sides that will continue to stick their heads in the sand that organizations like the ACLU, now have become partisan left wing bodies, who seek to change the composition of the courts through open political actions and narratives, including election financial support, and in the shadows, through lobbying and fundraising. All this is as far as I know is perfectly legal, whether by right wing or left wing organizations. Of course, legality, is often a question for the courts, and in the case of SCOTUS, the members of SCOTUS themselves, as was made abundantly clear in the nascent Senate hearings that flopped by both the conservative and liberal justices acting in unison.

---

In response to the bolded, it's pretty clear we've reached the point where unaccountable public "servants" recognize they are above the law and act accordingly. The idea that Nixon resigned after being caught red-handed is quaint and would never happen in 2023. If Biden was guilty of everything the GOP has accused him of, he would still not be prosecutable and would not resign.

This is true for conservative and liberal SCOTUS judges alike.

The disappointing narrative I've seen is from educated people making claims that they know aren't true - like that Trump was exonerated by the Mueller report because Mueller didn't recommend charges. Mueller could not recommend charges.

If Mueller had determined with ironclad evidence that Trump committed impeachable offenses, he still would not have recommended charges. Yet people misuse his report (which details numerous instances of obstruction of justice) to baselessly claim that Trump didn't collude with Russia (which the report doesn't say) or that Trump did nothing wrong (which the report doesn't say). If anything, the report can be used to assert that Mueller was unable to verify one way or another whether Trump's campaign colluded with Russia because Mueller was hampered in his efforts gathering by numerous instances of obstruction.

We see this narrative-driven approach with the Durham report where we have people simultaneously claiming that the report exonerates Trump (it doesn't), that it implicates Biden/Obama/Hillary/FBI/DOJ with crimes (it doesn't) AND that Durham's failure to find a single crime he could successfully charge anyone with in relation to the Russia collusion investigation is actually evidence that Durham is corrupt and that the swamp is there to protect Biden. Of course it's a ludicrous narrative but so much of Trumpism is ludicrous.

Trump has been extremely successful in lowering the bar for public service and abasing our body politic. Just like with all of the PED use in baseball at the turn of the century, the choice is to join them (like Barry Bonds) or to fail. Until something changes, we will all be the worse off for it, even if the deplorables will achieve more success than they otherwise would have through their shenanigans.

wifeisafurd said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

In politics, narrative matters. It is what makes up debates, campaigns, party platforms. A good narrative can get you elected.

But narrative, on it's own, is only a story, an opinion, a position. It is essentially hearsay without credible documentation, forensic or expert witnesses to back it up. And it is only one sided.

In law, you need those things to win in court. And you need to be able to withstand cross examination from the opposing side. The legal system is designed to vet two sides to a story and, in doing so it has a higher standard for establishing a case. Bringing a case to court requires evidence. Evidence points to the truth of events independent of opinion.

Fox news, a one-sided, narrative creating right wing organization, would never win in court, which is why they settled out of court. Their standard is not really any higher than hearsay.

Because Fox news and other right wing political organizations have focused entirely on creating, perpetuating and promoting narratives, they don't do well in court. So, they then believe that the legal system is corrupt. IOWs, they are upset that the legal system has a higher standard than their narrative and they want a legal system put in place that simply believes their narrative.

I suggest that, as long as FOX news is the major force behind these efforts, right wing groups will forever be frustrated. There are other right wing organizations that have been far more successful inside our legal system. I won't mention names but they have played a big part in determining the makeup of our supreme court. And they don't spend much time on public narratives.

As much as I dislike them, at least they understand the difference between politics and law. Folks like bearhunter really don't, apparently.

---

The irony of this post is that it is liberal media sources who are stroking the courts are corrupt, particularly SCOTUS, on what are for the most part, benefits received but conservative justices, generally some time ago. These media sources for the most part are also unwilling to report similar conduct by liberal justices. There was presumably the hope that this would cause a ground swell of political narrative that would force resignations; however, that there does not seem to be the momentum for that, and Senate hearings which quickly became a notging burger for various reasons.

There are those on the progressive sides that will continue to stick their heads in the sand that organizations like the ACLU, now have become partisan left wing bodies, who seek to change the composition of the courts through open political actions and narratives, including election financial support, and in the shadows, through lobbying and fundraising. All this is as far as I know is perfectly legal, whether by right wing or left wing organizations. Of course, legality, is often a question for the courts, and in the case of SCOTUS, the members of SCOTUS themselves, as was made abundantly clear in the nascent Senate hearings that flopped by both the conservative and liberal justices acting in unison.

---

I don't disagree with this other than that there is no liberal media. There is a DNC media, AKA MSNBC but that is not liberal. If you want to view left media, you'll have to view Democracy Now, The Young Turks or KPFA radio, all of whom do a fairly good job of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democratic party. A good example of the difference between the left and the Democrats is to study the political history of Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nadar.

I would be in favor of any policy or political changes that round up both major parties.

But, to put my post in context, the point wasn't about hypocrisy but about confusion. Clearly it is the right that confuses politics with law and feels that political opinions trump (no pun intended) actual legally arguable facts. usually, whenever a Democrat is caught doing illegal or unethical things, the party drops them like a hot potato. They do not continue with narrative once it has gone legal. That was the point of my post. If you want to start a thread on hypocrisy in the Democratic party, I would be happy to participate.

One thing I'll say out front is that the Democrats have routinely tried to portray themselves as more concerned with justice than the right, but the Democrats have wholesale signed on to illegal and murderous operations oversees against innocent countries or people and they have routinely signed onto taking away our rights (AKA the patriot act). This is why I am no longer a Democrat. I actually believe in justice.

*With props to Woody Allen

*I think Pirate Boy has an exercise yard broom handling in his near future.

bearister said:

---

*With props to Woody Allen

*I think Pirate Boy has an exercise yard broom handling in his near future.

---

Actually he got the patch after shooting himself in the eye with handgun he dropped on the floor.
Talk about kharma

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

In politics, narrative matters. It is what makes up debates, campaigns, party platforms. A good narrative can get you elected.

But narrative, on it's own, is only a story, an opinion, a position. It is essentially hearsay without credible documentation, forensic or expert witnesses to back it up. And it is only one sided.

In law, you need those things to win in court. And you need to be able to withstand cross examination from the opposing side. The legal system is designed to vet two sides to a story and, in doing so it has a higher standard for establishing a case. Bringing a case to court requires evidence. Evidence points to the truth of events independent of opinion.

Fox news, a one-sided, narrative creating right wing organization, would never win in court, which is why they settled out of court. Their standard is not really any higher than hearsay.

Because Fox news and other right wing political organizations have focused entirely on creating, perpetuating and promoting narratives, they don't do well in court. So, they then believe that the legal system is corrupt. IOWs, they are upset that the legal system has a higher standard than their narrative and they want a legal system put in place that simply believes their narrative.

I suggest that, as long as FOX news is the major force behind these efforts, right wing groups will forever be frustrated. There are other right wing organizations that have been far more successful inside our legal system. I won't mention names but they have played a big part in determining the makeup of our supreme court. And they don't spend much time on public narratives.

As much as I dislike them, at least they understand the difference between politics and law. Folks like bearhunter really don't, apparently.

---

The irony of this post is that it is liberal media sources who are stroking the courts are corrupt, particularly SCOTUS, on what are for the most part, benefits received but conservative justices, generally some time ago. These media sources for the most part are also unwilling to report similar conduct by liberal justices. There was presumably the hope that this would cause a ground swell of political narrative that would force resignations; however, that there does not seem to be the momentum for that, and Senate hearings which quickly became a notging burger for various reasons.

There are those on the progressive sides that will continue to stick their heads in the sand that organizations like the ACLU, now have become partisan left wing bodies, who seek to change the composition of the courts through open political actions and narratives, including election financial support, and in the shadows, through lobbying and fundraising. All this is as far as I know is perfectly legal, whether by right wing or left wing organizations. Of course, legality, is often a question for the courts, and in the case of SCOTUS, the members of SCOTUS themselves, as was made abundantly clear in the nascent Senate hearings that flopped by both the conservative and liberal justices acting in unison.

---

In response to the bolded, it's pretty clear we've reached the point where unaccountable public "servants" recognize they are above the law and act accordingly. The idea that Nixon resigned after being caught red-handed is quaint and would never happen in 2023. If Biden was guilty of everything the GOP has accused him of, he would still not be prosecutable and would not resign.

This is true for conservative and liberal SCOTUS judges alike.

The disappointing narrative I've seen is from educated people making claims that they know aren't true - like that Trump was exonerated by the Mueller report because Mueller didn't recommend charges. Mueller could not recommend charges.

If Mueller had determined with ironclad evidence that Trump committed impeachable offenses, he still would not have recommended charges. Yet people misuse his report (which details numerous instances of obstruction of justice) to baselessly claim that Trump didn't collude with Russia (which the report doesn't say) or that Trump did nothing wrong (which the report doesn't say). If anything, the report can be used to assert that Mueller was unable to verify one way or another whether Trump's campaign colluded with Russia because Mueller was hampered in his efforts gathering by numerous instances of obstruction.

We see this narrative-driven approach with the Durham report where we have people simultaneously claiming that the report exonerates Trump (it doesn't), that it implicates Biden/Obama/Hillary/FBI/DOJ with crimes (it doesn't) AND that Durham's failure to find a single crime he could successfully charge anyone with in relation to the Russia collusion investigation is actually evidence that Durham is corrupt and that the swamp is there to protect Biden. Of course it's a ludicrous narrative but so much of Trumpism is ludicrous.

Trump has been extremely successful in lowering the bar for public service and abasing our body politic. Just like with all of the PED use in baseball at the turn of the century, the choice is to join them (like Barry Bonds) or to fail. Until something changes, we will all be the worse off for it, even if the deplorables will achieve more success than they otherwise would have through their shenanigans.

---

That is quite a jump from the OP saying conservatives are saying the courts are corrupt, to my suggesting the OP get his head out of the sand and look at where the recent allegations about the courts being corrupt comes from and politics behind it, to your strange sedge-way discussion about the Mueller and Durham reports.

I'm not sure what Berarhunter said, but arguments based on questionable facts, are usually not a great way to attack someone, and the commentary about the courts in the OP seemed ludicrous (to use a pet word), in view of recent events. You are free to have you battle on what you think the Mueller and Durham reports stand for with Bearhunrter as you see fit.


You seem to be convinced that the hearing on SCOTUS ethics represent a lowering of standards perpetrated by bogey man Trump, as opposed to the current efforts by the Democratic-led Senate to force the court to abide by an ethics code is "selective outrage" to destroy a conservative court. The major items mentioned were events occurring over a decade ago and previously reported on many years ago. What's more, until there is some basic change, the press will continue to treat the court in just the way it treats the other branches of government. That said, at least the other branches have rules that they agree they are supposed to abide by, without exception, where SCOTUS gets to make its own rules and has done so for many years, way before Trump.

But you know, the other branches of the government make laws where they get to take all sorts of money from the public, and have done so for many years now. Thomas gets chump change, while the politicians somehow accede to huge net worths, despite receiving public service salaries, even way before Trump first ran for political office. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

heartofthebear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

In politics, narrative matters. It is what makes up debates, campaigns, party platforms. A good narrative can get you elected.

But narrative, on it's own, is only a story, an opinion, a position. It is essentially hearsay without credible documentation, forensic or expert witnesses to back it up. And it is only one sided.

In law, you need those things to win in court. And you need to be able to withstand cross examination from the opposing side. The legal system is designed to vet two sides to a story and, in doing so it has a higher standard for establishing a case. Bringing a case to court requires evidence. Evidence points to the truth of events independent of opinion.

Fox news, a one-sided, narrative creating right wing organization, would never win in court, which is why they settled out of court. Their standard is not really any higher than hearsay.

Because Fox news and other right wing political organizations have focused entirely on creating, perpetuating and promoting narratives, they don't do well in court. So, they then believe that the legal system is corrupt. IOWs, they are upset that the legal system has a higher standard than their narrative and they want a legal system put in place that simply believes their narrative.

I suggest that, as long as FOX news is the major force behind these efforts, right wing groups will forever be frustrated. There are other right wing organizations that have been far more successful inside our legal system. I won't mention names but they have played a big part in determining the makeup of our supreme court. And they don't spend much time on public narratives.

As much as I dislike them, at least they understand the difference between politics and law. Folks like bearhunter really don't, apparently.

---

The irony of this post is that it is liberal media sources who are stroking the courts are corrupt, particularly SCOTUS, on what are for the most part, benefits received but conservative justices, generally some time ago. These media sources for the most part are also unwilling to report similar conduct by liberal justices. There was presumably the hope that this would cause a ground swell of political narrative that would force resignations; however, that there does not seem to be the momentum for that, and Senate hearings which quickly became a notging burger for various reasons.

There are those on the progressive sides that will continue to stick their heads in the sand that organizations like the ACLU, now have become partisan left wing bodies, who seek to change the composition of the courts through open political actions and narratives, including election financial support, and in the shadows, through lobbying and fundraising. All this is as far as I know is perfectly legal, whether by right wing or left wing organizations. Of course, legality, is often a question for the courts, and in the case of SCOTUS, the members of SCOTUS themselves, as was made abundantly clear in the nascent Senate hearings that flopped by both the conservative and liberal justices acting in unison.

---

I don't disagree with this other than that there is no liberal media. There is a DNC media, AKA MSNBC but that is not liberal. If you want to view left media, you'll have to view Democracy Now, The Young Turks or KPFA radio, all of whom do a fairly good job of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democratic party.

---

I respectfully disagree with you on the there is no liberal media (or progressive to make others happy). There are distinct favorites on the left and right. You may think Fox has a bias when it delvers the news in a way you don't approve, but they are tame compared to Briebart, TheBlaze and a lot of other sources, which candidly, I don't know the names of. Then on the left wing is Axios, Daily Beast, Slate, Vox, Mother Jones (some of these are now out of business), and on and on. Every left winger has a site these days until their capital runs out. They state facts in internet articles in ways that MSNBC or the NYT (which I assume you view as DNC media) would find offensive. Are you not reading the crap that is posted here all the time from Axios, and then reposted, because well, no-one on the internet has the time for their own analysis?

And should you have any thought process that you are delivered unaltered facts, just read how the NYT and WSJ state the facts in covering the same matter. They supposedly represent are finest journalism. It reminds me of a line from a Dire Straights song: "two men say they are Jesus, one of them must be wrong."

MSNBC reports facts after first feeding them through a Progressive blender. Fox News just makes sh@it up…..as evidenced by the fact they just ate a $700B+ sh@it sandwich……and Ma and Pa Kettle lap it up faster than Jim Bakker's Covid elixir.

wifeisafurd said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

In politics, narrative matters. It is what makes up debates, campaigns, party platforms. A good narrative can get you elected.

But narrative, on it's own, is only a story, an opinion, a position. It is essentially hearsay without credible documentation, forensic or expert witnesses to back it up. And it is only one sided.

In law, you need those things to win in court. And you need to be able to withstand cross examination from the opposing side. The legal system is designed to vet two sides to a story and, in doing so it has a higher standard for establishing a case. Bringing a case to court requires evidence. Evidence points to the truth of events independent of opinion.

Fox news, a one-sided, narrative creating right wing organization, would never win in court, which is why they settled out of court. Their standard is not really any higher than hearsay.

Because Fox news and other right wing political organizations have focused entirely on creating, perpetuating and promoting narratives, they don't do well in court. So, they then believe that the legal system is corrupt. IOWs, they are upset that the legal system has a higher standard than their narrative and they want a legal system put in place that simply believes their narrative.

I suggest that, as long as FOX news is the major force behind these efforts, right wing groups will forever be frustrated. There are other right wing organizations that have been far more successful inside our legal system. I won't mention names but they have played a big part in determining the makeup of our supreme court. And they don't spend much time on public narratives.

As much as I dislike them, at least they understand the difference between politics and law. Folks like bearhunter really don't, apparently.

---

The irony of this post is that it is liberal media sources who are stroking the courts are corrupt, particularly SCOTUS, on what are for the most part, benefits received but conservative justices, generally some time ago. These media sources for the most part are also unwilling to report similar conduct by liberal justices. There was presumably the hope that this would cause a ground swell of political narrative that would force resignations; however, that there does not seem to be the momentum for that, and Senate hearings which quickly became a notging burger for various reasons.

There are those on the progressive sides that will continue to stick their heads in the sand that organizations like the ACLU, now have become partisan left wing bodies, who seek to change the composition of the courts through open political actions and narratives, including election financial support, and in the shadows, through lobbying and fundraising. All this is as far as I know is perfectly legal, whether by right wing or left wing organizations. Of course, legality, is often a question for the courts, and in the case of SCOTUS, the members of SCOTUS themselves, as was made abundantly clear in the nascent Senate hearings that flopped by both the conservative and liberal justices acting in unison.

---

I don't disagree with this other than that there is no liberal media. There is a DNC media, AKA MSNBC but that is not liberal. If you want to view left media, you'll have to view Democracy Now, The Young Turks or KPFA radio, all of whom do a fairly good job of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democratic party.

---

I respectfully disagree with you on the there is no liberal media (or progressive to make others happy). There are distinct favorites on the left and right. You may think Fox has a bias when it delvers the news in a way you don't approve, but they are tame compared to Briebart, TheBlaze and a lot of other sources, which candidly, I don't know the names of. Then on the left wing is Axios, Daily Beast, Slate, Vox, Mother Jones (some of these are now out of business), and on and on. Every left winger has a site these days until their capital runs out. They state facts in internet articles in ways that MSNBC or the NYT (which I assume you view as DNC media) would find offensive. Are you not reading the crap that is posted here all the time from Axios, and then reposted, because well, no-one on the internet has the time for their own analysis?

And should you have any thought process that you are delivered unaltered facts, just read how the NYT and WSJ state the facts in covering the same matter. They supposedly represent are finest journalism. It reminds me of a line from a Dire Straights song: "two men say they are Jesus, one of them must be wrong."

---

I don't think establishing what is left and what is right goes very far in determining what is accurate. Theoretically, the right wing could be more accurate so why would it matter that they are right. Some folks assume that presenting both sides is more accurate, but not if one side is correct and the other isn't. Other folks feel that more moderate views are more accurate, but not if there really was a conspiracy or aliens really do exist. There is a website that tracks hundreds of media sources from all kinds of platforms and rates them on accuracy and bias. I will try to locate it for you. But Democracy Now, although rated as liberal bias is also rated as factually accurate. MSNBC, FOX and CNN are not rated as well.

Suit yourself on what you want to follow, but, when you say liberal media say the courts are corrupt, who are you referring to? If you mean that media are following the issues involving Clarence Thomas, do you think that is a politically motivated story or a story that most Americans would want to know about or both?

heartofthebear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

In politics, narrative matters. It is what makes up debates, campaigns, party platforms. A good narrative can get you elected.

But narrative, on it's own, is only a story, an opinion, a position. It is essentially hearsay without credible documentation, forensic or expert witnesses to back it up. And it is only one sided.

In law, you need those things to win in court. And you need to be able to withstand cross examination from the opposing side. The legal system is designed to vet two sides to a story and, in doing so it has a higher standard for establishing a case. Bringing a case to court requires evidence. Evidence points to the truth of events independent of opinion.

Fox news, a one-sided, narrative creating right wing organization, would never win in court, which is why they settled out of court. Their standard is not really any higher than hearsay.

Because Fox news and other right wing political organizations have focused entirely on creating, perpetuating and promoting narratives, they don't do well in court. So, they then believe that the legal system is corrupt. IOWs, they are upset that the legal system has a higher standard than their narrative and they want a legal system put in place that simply believes their narrative.

I suggest that, as long as FOX news is the major force behind these efforts, right wing groups will forever be frustrated. There are other right wing organizations that have been far more successful inside our legal system. I won't mention names but they have played a big part in determining the makeup of our supreme court. And they don't spend much time on public narratives.

As much as I dislike them, at least they understand the difference between politics and law. Folks like bearhunter really don't, apparently.

---

The irony of this post is that it is liberal media sources who are stroking the courts are corrupt, particularly SCOTUS, on what are for the most part, benefits received but conservative justices, generally some time ago. These media sources for the most part are also unwilling to report similar conduct by liberal justices. There was presumably the hope that this would cause a ground swell of political narrative that would force resignations; however, that there does not seem to be the momentum for that, and Senate hearings which quickly became a notging burger for various reasons.

There are those on the progressive sides that will continue to stick their heads in the sand that organizations like the ACLU, now have become partisan left wing bodies, who seek to change the composition of the courts through open political actions and narratives, including election financial support, and in the shadows, through lobbying and fundraising. All this is as far as I know is perfectly legal, whether by right wing or left wing organizations. Of course, legality, is often a question for the courts, and in the case of SCOTUS, the members of SCOTUS themselves, as was made abundantly clear in the nascent Senate hearings that flopped by both the conservative and liberal justices acting in unison.

---

I don't disagree with this other than that there is no liberal media. There is a DNC media, AKA MSNBC but that is not liberal. If you want to view left media, you'll have to view Democracy Now, The Young Turks or KPFA radio, all of whom do a fairly good job of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democratic party.

---

I respectfully disagree with you on the there is no liberal media (or progressive to make others happy). There are distinct favorites on the left and right. You may think Fox has a bias when it delvers the news in a way you don't approve, but they are tame compared to Briebart, TheBlaze and a lot of other sources, which candidly, I don't know the names of. Then on the left wing is Axios, Daily Beast, Slate, Vox, Mother Jones (some of these are now out of business), and on and on. Every left winger has a site these days until their capital runs out. They state facts in internet articles in ways that MSNBC or the NYT (which I assume you view as DNC media) would find offensive. Are you not reading the crap that is posted here all the time from Axios, and then reposted, because well, no-one on the internet has the time for their own analysis?

And should you have any thought process that you are delivered unaltered facts, just read how the NYT and WSJ state the facts in covering the same matter. They supposedly represent are finest journalism. It reminds me of a line from a Dire Straights song: "two men say they are Jesus, one of them must be wrong."

---

I don't think establishing what is left and what is right goes very far in determining what is accurate. Theoretically, the right wing could be more accurate so why would it matter that they are right. Some folks assume that presenting both sides is more accurate, but not if one side is correct and the other isn't. Other folks feel that more moderate views are more accurate, but not if there really was a conspiracy or aliens really do exist. There is a website that tracks hundreds of media sources from all kinds of platforms and rates them on accuracy and bias. I will try to locate it for you. But Democracy Now, although rated as liberal bias is also rated as factually accurate. MSNBC, FOX and CNN are not rated as well.

Suit yourself on what you want to follow, but, when you say liberal media say the courts are corrupt, who are you referring to? If you mean that media are following the issues involving Clarence Thomas, do you think that is a politically motivated story or a story that most Americans would want to know about or both?

---

SCOTUS issues are newsworthy IMO. Just because of my legal background I found most to articles to be inaccurate, to the standpoint they did not even know what rules of ethics applied to SCOTUS, and repeated verbatim incorrect language that some disclosure law applied. That this was done by sources known for their political biases made people suspect, and indeed that suspicion came out at the Senate hearings.

What is accurate in journalism is probably in the eye of the beholder and has been for a long time. The term "yellow journalism" came well before Trump, MSNBC or Fox News. Most people these days listen to news sources based on their political views. One virtue you get out of a Cal education is to question what you are told. I think you need to review any news from a sources with a critical understanding of the source's biases, rather than retweet everything you read on Axios for example (which is common on this board, and not aimed at you). People who think they know what the truth is and rate others have their own perspectives and biases as well. When I read something in the WSJ I know I'm getting a more corporate American perspective. When I read the NYT, I know I'm getting a more elitist liberal perspective. That doesn't mean I don't read these newspapers.

bearister said:

---

MSNBC reports facts after first feeding them through a Progressive blender. Fox News just makes sh@it up…..as evidenced by the fact they just ate a $700B+ sh@it sandwich……and Ma and Pa Kettle lap it up faster than Jim Bakker's Covid elixir.

---

Or they could get journalistic prizes and promotions if they engage in serial plagiarism and frequent fabrications

at the New York Times:

heartofthebear said:

---

Goldener Bar said:

---

You believe in the Russian collusion narrative, yes?

---

I believe that the people in Trump's campaign lied about Russian involvement, got successfully prosecuted for it anyway and pardoned by Trump. I also believe that Barr killed a document showing Mueller had discovered Russian involvement in the campaign. This was discovered during the Mar L'Ago investigation.
Those are the facts.

BTW, I am specifically talking about Manafort, Flynn and Stone et. al.

Those are undisputed facts, not a narrative. Again, you confuse legal with politic. These folks were legally prosecuted. That's not politics or narrative. That is law.

---

For a person talking about undisputed facts, you seem woefully uninformed about the crimes those people were convicted of.

Manafort was convicted of tax and bank fraud. Flynn's case was dropped specifically because he had not had any inappropriate contact with the Russians, and Stone was convicted of lying to Congress and threatening a witness. None of it had anything to do with colluding with the Russian government however.

The Mar A Lago raid hasn't resulted in anything as of yet.

The Justice Department and later the Treasury Department tried to assert that Konstantin Kilimnik was a Russian government agent when in fact he was a source for the State Department.

Dean Baquet, the chief editor even admitted in a New York Times town hall that they had blown it in their Russiagate coverage that the Times had been caught flat-footed when Mueller didn't indict Trump.

Quote:

---

The closest Baquet came to identifying a moment when the paper had misjudged current events was when he described it as being "a little tiny bit flat-footed" after the Mueller investigation ended. "Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, 'Holy ****, Bob Mueller is not going to do it,'" Baquet said. "And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons.

---

Obvious reasons was an understatement. All the stuff they had been fed by the Justice Department ended up being dead wrong. There are articles out there that cover all of that in great detail.

Even people that point to the Inspector General's Report as some sort of vindication of the Russian collusion narrative ignore that his report was mixed at best

Quote:

---

At the same time, Mr. Horowitz's report was scathing about other aspects of the sprawling inquiry, documenting serious and systematic problems with the F.B.I.'s handling of applications to win court orders to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser. Mr. Horowitz said investigators appeared to overstate the strength of their applications, and he separately referred one low-ranking F.B.I. lawyer for possible prosecution for altering a related document.

By puncturing conspiracy theories promoted by Mr. Trump and his allies, yet sharply criticizing law enforcement actions that have not been the subject of public debate, Mr. Horowitz's mixed findings offered a basis for both critics and allies of Mr. Trump to claim vindication. The report by an independent official presented a definitive accounting of the F.B.I.'s actions in the early stages of the Russia investigation.

---

You will see Russiagate conspiracy theorists talk about over 100 Russian contacts and "How can you explain those?". Well, at the time of the campaign, Trump was trying to get Putin to be an investor in Trump Tower Moscow. Putin never showed any interest. Then unexpectedly, Trump ended up winning the election, which prevented him from pursuing the Moscow project any further because the President is not allowed to accept gifts from a foreign government official.

If somebody robs a bank, they are a criminal and a bank robber. However, if someone down the block murders somebody, that doesn't make the bank robber the murderer by association. Trump is a con man who surrounds himself with shady people. It's not surprising that if you investigate people surrounding Trump that you will dig up dirt on them and Mueller did. However, the dirt he dug up did not establish that there was any sort of collusion with the Russian government.

There's no convincing Russiagate conspiracy theorists of this fact, even with the numerous articles that have been written, even with the Durham Report, and even with disclosures from the Twitter Files showing that all of this was B.S. and a Hillary Clinton campaign smear operation. They want it to be true and so in their minds it always will be even though it's never be proven and never will be. You can talk about the many Republican fishing expeditions that never end up resulting in any convictions through the court system and that's fine, but you can't do that and then ignore the lack of collusion convictions just because that's the narrative you liked.

Goldener Bar said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Goldener Bar said:

---

You believe in the Russian collusion narrative, yes?

---

I believe that the people in Trump's campaign lied about Russian involvement, got successfully prosecuted for it anyway and pardoned by Trump. I also believe that Barr killed a document showing Mueller had discovered Russian involvement in the campaign. This was discovered during the Mar L'Ago investigation.
Those are the facts.

BTW, I am specifically talking about Manafort, Flynn and Stone et. al.

Those are undisputed facts, not a narrative. Again, you confuse legal with politic. These folks were legally prosecuted. That's not politics or narrative. That is law.

---

For a person talking about undisputed facts, you seem woefully uninformed about the crimes those people were convicted of.

Manafort was convicted of tax and bank fraud. Flynn's case was dropped specifically because he had not had any inappropriate contact with the Russians, and Stone was convicted of lying to Congress and threatening a witness. None of it had anything to do with colluding with the Russian government however.

The Mar A Lago raid hasn't resulted in anything as of yet.

The Justice Department and later the Treasury Department tried to assert that Konstantin Kilimnik was a Russian government agent when in fact he was a source for the State Department.

Dean Baquet, the chief editor even admitted in a New York Times town hall that they had blown it in their Russiagate coverage that the Times had been caught flat-footed when Mueller didn't indict Trump.

Quote:

---

The closest Baquet came to identifying a moment when the paper had misjudged current events was when he described it as being "a little tiny bit flat-footed" after the Mueller investigation ended. "Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, 'Holy ****, Bob Mueller is not going to do it,'" Baquet said. "And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons.

---

Obvious reasons was an understatement. All the stuff they had been fed by the Justice Department ended up being dead wrong. There are articles out there that cover all of that in great detail.

Even people that point to the Inspector General's Report as some sort of vindication of the Russian collusion narrative ignore that his report was mixed at best

Quote:

---

At the same time, Mr. Horowitz's report was scathing about other aspects of the sprawling inquiry, documenting serious and systematic problems with the F.B.I.'s handling of applications to win court orders to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser. Mr. Horowitz said investigators appeared to overstate the strength of their applications, and he separately referred one low-ranking F.B.I. lawyer for possible prosecution for altering a related document.

By puncturing conspiracy theories promoted by Mr. Trump and his allies, yet sharply criticizing law enforcement actions that have not been the subject of public debate, Mr. Horowitz's mixed findings offered a basis for both critics and allies of Mr. Trump to claim vindication. The report by an independent official presented a definitive accounting of the F.B.I.'s actions in the early stages of the Russia investigation.

---

You will see Russiagate conspiracy theorists talk about over 100 Russian contacts and "How can you explain those?". Well, at the time of the campaign, Trump was trying to get Putin to be an investor in Trump Tower Moscow. Putin never showed any interest. Then unexpectedly, Trump ended up winning the election, which prevented him from pursuing the Moscow project any further because the President is not allowed to accept gifts from a foreign government official.

If somebody robs a bank, they are a criminal and a bank robber. However, if someone down the block murders somebody, that doesn't make the bank robber the murderer by association. Trump is a con man who surrounds himself with shady people. It's not surprising that if you investigate people surrounding Trump that you will dig up dirt on them and Mueller did. However, the dirt he dug up did not establish that there was any sort of collusion with the Russian government.

There's no convincing Russiagate conspiracy theorists of this fact, even with the numerous articles that have been written, even with the Durham Report, and even with disclosures from the Twitter Files showing that all of this was B.S. and a Hillary Clinton campaign smear operation. They want it to be true and so in their minds it always will be even though it's never be proven and never will be. You can talk about the many Republican fishing expeditions that never end up resulting in any convictions through the court system and that's fine, but you can't do that and then ignore the lack of collusion convictions just because that's the narrative you liked.

---

I appreciate your corrections. I don't really have a dog in this fight. Trump is being adequately prosecuted as are FOX and many right wing extremists. I don't need to engage in debate or narrative as I trust the legal process will result in jail time even if he didn't collude with Russia. My main motivation is to confront bearhunter on his relentless dependency on narratives constructed by questionable sources.

If part of my efforts results in couter-narratives that are incorrect on my part, I am happy to be corrected. But it doesn't really change the fact that bearhunter is a troll.

I will try to get back to you with sources for my comments but in the meantime, what are your sources?

heartofthebear said:

---

Goldener Bar said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Goldener Bar said:

---

You believe in the Russian collusion narrative, yes?

---

I believe that the people in Trump's campaign lied about Russian involvement, got successfully prosecuted for it anyway and pardoned by Trump. I also believe that Barr killed a document showing Mueller had discovered Russian involvement in the campaign. This was discovered during the Mar L'Ago investigation.
Those are the facts.

BTW, I am specifically talking about Manafort, Flynn and Stone et. al.

Those are undisputed facts, not a narrative. Again, you confuse legal with politic. These folks were legally prosecuted. That's not politics or narrative. That is law.

---

For a person talking about undisputed facts, you seem woefully uninformed about the crimes those people were convicted of.

Manafort was convicted of tax and bank fraud. Flynn's case was dropped specifically because he had not had any inappropriate contact with the Russians, and Stone was convicted of lying to Congress and threatening a witness. None of it had anything to do with colluding with the Russian government however.

The Mar A Lago raid hasn't resulted in anything as of yet.

The Justice Department and later the Treasury Department tried to assert that Konstantin Kilimnik was a Russian government agent when in fact he was a source for the State Department.

Dean Baquet, the chief editor even admitted in a New York Times town hall that they had blown it in their Russiagate coverage that the Times had been caught flat-footed when Mueller didn't indict Trump.

Quote:

---

The closest Baquet came to identifying a moment when the paper had misjudged current events was when he described it as being "a little tiny bit flat-footed" after the Mueller investigation ended. "Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, 'Holy ****, Bob Mueller is not going to do it,'" Baquet said. "And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons.

---

Obvious reasons was an understatement. All the stuff they had been fed by the Justice Department ended up being dead wrong. There are articles out there that cover all of that in great detail.

Even people that point to the Inspector General's Report as some sort of vindication of the Russian collusion narrative ignore that his report was mixed at best

Quote:

---

At the same time, Mr. Horowitz's report was scathing about other aspects of the sprawling inquiry, documenting serious and systematic problems with the F.B.I.'s handling of applications to win court orders to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser. Mr. Horowitz said investigators appeared to overstate the strength of their applications, and he separately referred one low-ranking F.B.I. lawyer for possible prosecution for altering a related document.

By puncturing conspiracy theories promoted by Mr. Trump and his allies, yet sharply criticizing law enforcement actions that have not been the subject of public debate, Mr. Horowitz's mixed findings offered a basis for both critics and allies of Mr. Trump to claim vindication. The report by an independent official presented a definitive accounting of the F.B.I.'s actions in the early stages of the Russia investigation.

---

You will see Russiagate conspiracy theorists talk about over 100 Russian contacts and "How can you explain those?". Well, at the time of the campaign, Trump was trying to get Putin to be an investor in Trump Tower Moscow. Putin never showed any interest. Then unexpectedly, Trump ended up winning the election, which prevented him from pursuing the Moscow project any further because the President is not allowed to accept gifts from a foreign government official.

If somebody robs a bank, they are a criminal and a bank robber. However, if someone down the block murders somebody, that doesn't make the bank robber the murderer by association. Trump is a con man who surrounds himself with shady people. It's not surprising that if you investigate people surrounding Trump that you will dig up dirt on them and Mueller did. However, the dirt he dug up did not establish that there was any sort of collusion with the Russian government.

There's no convincing Russiagate conspiracy theorists of this fact, even with the numerous articles that have been written, even with the Durham Report, and even with disclosures from the Twitter Files showing that all of this was B.S. and a Hillary Clinton campaign smear operation. They want it to be true and so in their minds it always will be even though it's never be proven and never will be. You can talk about the many Republican fishing expeditions that never end up resulting in any convictions through the court system and that's fine, but you can't do that and then ignore the lack of collusion convictions just because that's the narrative you liked.

---

I appreciate your corrections. I don't really have a dog in this fight. Trump is being adequately prosecuted as are FOX and many right wing extremists. I don't need to engage in debate or narrative as I trust the legal process will result in jail time even if he didn't collude with Russia. My main motivation is to confront bearhunter on his relentless dependency on narratives constructed by questionable sources.

If part of my efforts results in couter-narratives that are incorrect on my part, I am happy to be corrected. But it doesn't really change the fact that bearhunter is a troll.

I will try to get back to you with sources for my comments but in the meantime, what are your sources?

---

There are hyperlinks in my post

Goldener Bar said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Goldener Bar said:

---

You believe in the Russian collusion narrative, yes?

---

I believe that the people in Trump's campaign lied about Russian involvement, got successfully prosecuted for it anyway and pardoned by Trump. I also believe that Barr killed a document showing Mueller had discovered Russian involvement in the campaign. This was discovered during the Mar L'Ago investigation.
Those are the facts.

BTW, I am specifically talking about Manafort, Flynn and Stone et. al.

Those are undisputed facts, not a narrative. Again, you confuse legal with politic. These folks were legally prosecuted. That's not politics or narrative. That is law.

---

For a person talking about undisputed facts, you seem woefully uninformed about the crimes those people were convicted of.

Manafort was convicted of tax and bank fraud. Flynn's case was dropped specifically because he had not had any inappropriate contact with the Russians, and Stone was convicted of lying to Congress and threatening a witness. None of it had anything to do with colluding with the Russian government however.

The Mar A Lago raid hasn't resulted in anything as of yet.

The Justice Department and later the Treasury Department tried to assert that Konstantin Kilimnik was a Russian government agent when in fact he was a source for the State Department.

Dean Baquet, the chief editor even admitted in a New York Times town hall that they had blown it in their Russiagate coverage that the Times had been caught flat-footed when Mueller didn't indict Trump.

Quote:

---

The closest Baquet came to identifying a moment when the paper had misjudged current events was when he described it as being "a little tiny bit flat-footed" after the Mueller investigation ended. "Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, 'Holy ****, Bob Mueller is not going to do it,'" Baquet said. "And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons.

---

Obvious reasons was an understatement. All the stuff they had been fed by the Justice Department ended up being dead wrong. There are articles out there that cover all of that in great detail.

Even people that point to the Inspector General's Report as some sort of vindication of the Russian collusion narrative ignore that his report was mixed at best

Quote:

---

At the same time, Mr. Horowitz's report was scathing about other aspects of the sprawling inquiry, documenting serious and systematic problems with the F.B.I.'s handling of applications to win court orders to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser. Mr. Horowitz said investigators appeared to overstate the strength of their applications, and he separately referred one low-ranking F.B.I. lawyer for possible prosecution for altering a related document.

By puncturing conspiracy theories promoted by Mr. Trump and his allies, yet sharply criticizing law enforcement actions that have not been the subject of public debate, Mr. Horowitz's mixed findings offered a basis for both critics and allies of Mr. Trump to claim vindication. The report by an independent official presented a definitive accounting of the F.B.I.'s actions in the early stages of the Russia investigation.

---

You will see Russiagate conspiracy theorists talk about over 100 Russian contacts and "How can you explain those?". Well, at the time of the campaign, Trump was trying to get Putin to be an investor in Trump Tower Moscow. Putin never showed any interest. Then unexpectedly, Trump ended up winning the election, which prevented him from pursuing the Moscow project any further because the President is not allowed to accept gifts from a foreign government official.

If somebody robs a bank, they are a criminal and a bank robber. However, if someone down the block murders somebody, that doesn't make the bank robber the murderer by association. Trump is a con man who surrounds himself with shady people. It's not surprising that if you investigate people surrounding Trump that you will dig up dirt on them and Mueller did. However, the dirt he dug up did not establish that there was any sort of collusion with the Russian government.

There's no convincing Russiagate conspiracy theorists of this fact, even with the numerous articles that have been written, even with the Durham Report, and even with disclosures from the Twitter Files showing that all of this was B.S. and a Hillary Clinton campaign smear operation. They want it to be true and so in their minds it always will be even though it's never be proven and never will be. You can talk about the many Republican fishing expeditions that never end up resulting in any convictions through the court system and that's fine, but you can't do that and then ignore the lack of collusion convictions just because that's the narrative you liked.

---

Kilimnik is a tied to Russian intelligence and Manafort was giving him Trump polling data. John Solomon's breathless innuendo doesn't change that.