DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[BigRedBuster]

Good, low-biased news sources: Reuters (a personal favorite), the AP, Gallup, World News Network, PolitifFact, USA Today, all of whom I check for news & info. I use Snopes to fact-check, and I frequently look at headlines from about twenty papers across the country on Twitter, both liberal & conservative, to keep up with what folks are saying. I also have, recently, been looking at Fox News' front page to see why people here are saying the things they're saying. That's proved pretty educational.

 

I have the JournalStar, World Herald, CNN & the BBC bookmarked on my computers, although CNN as a leading news source has faded and I mostly use them out of familiarity.

 

The trick isn't to find an unbiased news source. News outlets are businesses and are subject to bias related to their bottom line. The trick is to get a variety of news and use common sense and fact-checking to sift through the BS.

 

 

 

EDIT - another trick is to not BS yourself. Know yourself, know your biases, and understand when you're being too attracted to sources that fit your biases. That's something way easier said than done, and I'm not pretending I successfully do that. I try.

 

 

Good post. I do much of the same thing. I also follow Vox (admittedly a fairly liberal site) but I'm very selective in articles I read. They actually have some good articles that are backed up by secondary links with information. I ignore their articles that clearly have a bias. I'm close to dropping them because their feed is so annoying on twitter.

 

Other sites I follow on twitter are The Intercpept, AP, Reuters, NPR, 538, New York Times (admittedly to see what Trump is always pissed off about), OZY.

 

I watch CNN, ABC or CBS in the morning for about an hour while I get ready for work. That' pretty much is the extent of watching national news on TV. If something big is happening, I might put on AC360 to see what is being reported in the evening.

 

I'm always open to other outlets but, I feel this gives me a pretty good centralized scope to at least get a good idea of what is going on. Like Knapp, I will then try my best to fact check certain things with other sites. If I click on a link and it takes me to a site I'm not familiar with, I look at the other info on the sites such as advertisements or other articles. If it's filled with "Obama's has illegitimate baby with the sister of an ISIS leader".....(or something similar from the other side) ....I pretty much know the site is total BS.

 

Another thing that sends up LOUD alarms is when an outlet spends time telling me how great they are and how horrible (liberal or conservative) the other outlet is.

 

I used to be a Fox News junky. I would literally sit down in the evening and consume every load of crap they spewed. Then, something happened and I caught them in a total load of BS. I then started really paying attention with a very skeptical mind and spreading my wings to learn more than just what they were spewing. Sorry, I've found that they can not be trusted. It is very clear what their agenda is and it's centered around making everyone believe all other outlets are these liberal bastions of sickness.

 

What frustrates me nowadays with Americans is that too many people people search out outlets that confirm their beliefs instead of challenges them. The internet and cable TV has made it way too easy to sit in a cocoon and get drilled with more and more crap that takes their beliefs into la la land and demonizes the other side to a point they are filled with hate for them.

[TGHusker]

Mr Conservative himself, Norm Chomsky, says the democrats are fighting the wrong fight with the Russian election issue - even hypocritical as highlighted in bold below.

He actually makes sense also about the Russian sensitivity about their boarder - comparing it to the US/Mexico boarder.

 

Oh, - you are right, Mr Chomsky is far from being a conservative and - that link below is from a liberal website . I agree with Norm, (yes hell just froze over ) we should be improving relationships with

Russia but not with a Office Depot 'reset button' but finding common ground and working on resolving the ISIS issue and Iran issues where both countries have an interest. Of course, Assad's actions of using

chemical weapons on civilians just made Syria that much more difficult.

 

Edit: Personally since they have started the investigation- let's get them over with as soon as possible but be as thorough as possible. We can't have this hanging around for a long time. So, I'm ok wt them completing

the review of the issues. If they find out that illegal action occurred, then do the needful. If not, then get on to governing.

 

 

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/4/chomsky_half_the_world_is_laughing

 

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for the hour, Noam Chomsky, world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His latest book is Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth & Power. Juan?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Noam Chomsky, I’d like to ask you about something that’s been in the news a lot lately. Obviously, all the cable channels, that’s all they talk about these days, is the whole situation of Russia’s supposed intervention in American elections. For a country that’s intervened in so many governments and so many elections around the world, that’s kind of a strange topic. But I know you’ve referred to this as a joke. Could you give us your view on what’s happening and why there’s so much emphasis on this particular issue?

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s a pretty remarkable fact that—first of all, it is a joke. Half the world is cracking up in laughter. The United States doesn’t just interfere in elections. It overthrows governments it doesn’t like, institutes military dictatorships. Simply in the case of Russia alone—it’s the least of it—the U.S. government, under Clinton, intervened quite blatantly and openly, then tried to conceal it, to get their man Yeltsin in, in all sorts of ways. So, this, as I say, it’s considered—it’s turning the United States, again, into a laughingstock in the world.

So why are the Democrats focusing on this? In fact, why are they focusing so much attention on the one element of Trump’s programs which is fairly reasonable, the one ray of light in this gloom: trying to reduce tensions with Russia? That’s—the tensions on the Russian border are extremely serious. They could escalate to a major terminal war. Efforts to try to reduce them should be welcomed. Just a couple of days ago, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, came out and said he just can’t believe that so much attention is being paid to apparent efforts by the incoming administration to establish connections with Russia. He said, "Sure, that’s just what they ought to be doing."

So, meanwhile, this one topic is the primary locus of concern and critique, while, meanwhile, the policies are proceeding step by step, which are extremely destructive and harmful. So, you know, yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election. That’s not a major issue. Maybe the people in the Trump campaign were talking to the Russians. Well, OK, not a major point, certainly less than is being done constantly. And it is a kind of a paradox, I think, that the one issue that seems to inflame the Democratic opposition is the one thing that has some justification and reasonable aspects to it.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, of course, because the Democrats feel that that’s the reason, somehow, that they lost the election. Interesting that James Comey this week said he is investigating Trump campaign collusion with Russia, when it was Comey himself who could have—might well have been partly responsible for Hillary Clinton’s defeat, when he said that he was investigating her, while, we now have learned, at the same time he was investigating Donald Trump, but never actually said that.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, you can understand why the Democratic Party managers want to try to find some blame for the fact—for the way they utterly mishandled the election and blew a perfect opportunity to win, handed it over to the opposition. But that’s hardly a justification for allowing the Trump policies to slide by quietly, many of them not only harmful to the population, but extremely destructive, like the climate change policies, and meanwhile focus on one thing that could become a step forward, if it was adjusted to move towards serious efforts to reduce growing and dangerous tensions right on the Russian border, where they could blow up. NATO maneuvers are taking place hundreds of yards from the Russian border. The Russian jet planes are buzzing American planes. This—something could get out of hand very easily. Both sides, meanwhile, are building up their military forces, adding—the U.S. is—one thing that the Russians are very much concerned about is the so-called anti-ballistic missile installation that the U.S. is establishing near the Russian border, allegedly to protect Europe from nonexistent Iranian missiles. Nobody seriously believes that. This is understood to be a first strike threat. These are serious issues. People like William Perry, who has a distinguished career and is a nuclear strategist and is no alarmist at all, is saying that we’re back to the—this is one of the worst moments of the Cold War, if not worse. That’s really serious. And efforts to try to calm that down would be very welcome. And we should bear in mind it’s the Russian border. It’s not the Mexican border. There’s no Warsaw Pact maneuvers going on in Mexico. And that’s a border that the Russians are quite reasonably sensitive about. They’ve practically been destroyed several times the last century right through that region

Edited April 6, 2017 by TGHusker

[TGHusker]

Good, low-biased news sources: Reuters (a personal favorite), the AP, Gallup, World News Network, PolitifFact, USA Today, all of whom I check for news & info. I use Snopes to fact-check, and I frequently look at headlines from about twenty papers across the country on Twitter, both liberal & conservative, to keep up with what folks are saying. I also have, recently, been looking at Fox News' front page to see why people here are saying the things they're saying. That's proved pretty educational.

 

I have the JournalStar, World Herald, CNN & the BBC bookmarked on my computers, although CNN as a leading news source has faded and I mostly use them out of familiarity.

 

The trick isn't to find an unbiased news source. News outlets are businesses and are subject to bias related to their bottom line. The trick is to get a variety of news and use common sense and fact-checking to sift through the BS.

 

 

 

EDIT - another trick is to not BS yourself. Know yourself, know your biases, and understand when you're being too attracted to sources that fit your biases. That's something way easier said than done, and I'm not pretending I successfully do that. I try.

Good post Knapp. I like the balance. I wish I had that much time to check them all out. You note the BBC - sometimes you can get news from them that isn't easily found with our major networks. I like your last statement in bold. You have reminded me several times to ck my bias - I appreciate that. It is easy out of convenience to settle into the 2-4 sources (for me due to time constraints - when I get home at night I rarely turn on the TV or get on the computer)

[knapplc]

we should be improving relationships with Russia

 

 

Why? They are our staunchest enemy, and they have shown zero interest in having a peaceful relationship with America. They do not desire American security or prosperity, nor do they want to see America benefit from its position in the world in any way.

 

Putin is a hardliner, a throwback to the worst days of the Cold War, and has actively meddled in American politics. So what if America has meddled - two wrongs don't make a right, and WE ARE AMERICANS.

 

This Trump-esque line is stupid. It is anti-American, anti-American interests, and is the worst kind of cozening an enemy. I find it disgusting.

[knapplc]

I like the balance. I wish I had that much time to check them all out. You note the BBC - sometimes you can get news from them that isn't easily found with our major networks. I like your last statement in bold. You have reminded me several times to ck my bias - I appreciate that. It is easy out of convenience to settle into the 2-4 sources (for me due to time constraints - when I get home at night I rarely turn on the TV or get on the computer)

All evidence to the contrary, of course.

[GM_Tood]

[knapplc]

Where are the hypocrite police in this forum? While we're seeing headlines all over conservative media about Susan Rice and the unmasking of American citizens, where is the conservative outrage over this?

Twitter sues US government to protect Trump critic’s privacy

Twitter received a summons on March 14 from a Customs and Border Protection agent ordering the social media company to produce records related to an account known as @ALT_USCIS. Like other such accounts, its handle refers to the agency to which the user may be connected — in this case, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is housed under Homeland Security.

Though Customs and Border Patrol traditionally does not have jurisdiction outside U.S. border crossings, except for investigating the import of goods, the agency told Twitter the “production of the indicated records is required in connection with an investigation or inquiry to ascertain the correctness of entries, to determine the liability for duties taxes, fines, penalties or forfeitures, and/or to ensure compliance with the laws or regulations administered by” the agency and another Homeland Security branch, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court on Thursday afternoon.

It was not clear from the filings what investigation the agency was performing or how the Twitter account could be related to U.S. imports.

“The purpose of this request appears to be, and the effect of Twitter’s complying with it likely would be, to enable or help to enable (Customs and Border Patrol agents) to pierce the anonymity of the person or persons who established and use the @ALT_USCIS account,” Twitter wrote. “Permitting CBP to pierce the pseydonym of the @ALT_USCIS account would have a grave chilling effect on the speech of that account in particular and on the many other ‘alternative agency’ accounts that have been created to voice dissent to government policies.”

 

[Moiraine]

I posted this in Trump's America before seeing you'd done it already.

[knapplc]

I posted it in here because we were talking about unmasking in this thread.

[knapplc]

Here's a pretty decent explanation of the unmasking that outed Trump's buddies.

courtesy of user "SultanObama" on Reddit:

I'm getting really tired with this "Susan Rice is a traitor for doing her job" bullsh#t as a distraction. Look, I know it sucks that your boy Donny had some friends unmasked because they were doing shady sh#t, but idk, maybe they shouldn't have been doing the shady sh#t?

EDIT:
Look, Bannon, Stevie, I know you are upset about being kicked off the NSC. I know you have a lot of free time now that Republicans are destroying government on their own without you. But please, review some facts before you sh*tpost about Rice in this thread. Let me walk through some facts for you.

Let's start with the National Security Adviser (NSAr from here on out to distinguish from the N.S.A.). The NSAr cannot unmask American entities. It does not have that power. The NSAr has clearance to view unmasked data, but it cannot unmask data. The NSAr can request that data be unmaksed, but the relevant agencies are under no obligation to consider or act on that request. However, this is common. Heck, Flynn probably asked a few times for unmasking of some data. Data may look like this when masked:

[AMERICAN ONE]: Hello. I found out that I can do that thing for you.
Russian spy/Terrorist/Mobster/whatever: Good. When can we meet next?
[AMERICAN ONE]: As soon as [AMERICAN TWO] is ready

This is a silly example, but scenarios like this exist where the NSAr might want to know who is talking to those possibly dangerous groups. If the Americans work in sectors where they have access to explosives or important intelligence, maybe that is worth knowing. So the NSAr will often request the unmasking of data. Request.

So as you can see, the NSAr wouldn't know beforehand who those Americans were. The NSAr cannot possibly look for data about Trump and then unmask it because there is no "Trump associates" in the data, just AMERICAN ONE, AMERICAN FIVE, etc. If the NSAr just blatantly asked agencies to give them all the unmasked data they have on Trump...sure? But that would have been denied and sent red flags up the chain.

Furthermore, just because an American is picked up in the data doesn't mean that American was wiretapped or "under surveillance." If the other end of the conversation was monitored then obvious the American would be picked up. This is when masking is introduced. So just because Trump associates have data attached to them doesn't mean they or Trump were under surveillance.

So what happened? Rice viewed some data that we know nothing about, decided that she needed to know who the Americans were because of context, then discovered they were associates of Trump. Shocking scandal. Nothing was leaked. Obama didn't use that information for anything. Rice didn't personally spy on anyone. This is all bullsh#t.

[Danny Bateman]

 

Where are the hypocrite police in this forum? While we're seeing headlines all over conservative media about Susan Rice and the unmasking of American citizens, where is the conservative outrage over this?

 

 

Twitter sues US government to protect Trump critic’s privacy

 

Twitter received a summons on March 14 from a Customs and Border Protection agent ordering the social media company to produce records related to an account known as @ALT_USCIS. Like other such accounts, its handle refers to the agency to which the user may be connected — in this case, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is housed under Homeland Security.

 

Though Customs and Border Patrol traditionally does not have jurisdiction outside U.S. border crossings, except for investigating the import of goods, the agency told Twitter the “production of the indicated records is required in connection with an investigation or inquiry to ascertain the correctness of entries, to determine the liability for duties taxes, fines, penalties or forfeitures, and/or to ensure compliance with the laws or regulations administered by” the agency and another Homeland Security branch, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court on Thursday afternoon.

 

It was not clear from the filings what investigation the agency was performing or how the Twitter account could be related to U.S. imports.

 

“The purpose of this request appears to be, and the effect of Twitter’s complying with it likely would be, to enable or help to enable (Customs and Border Patrol agents) to pierce the anonymity of the person or persons who established and use the @ALT_USCIS account,” Twitter wrote. “Permitting CBP to pierce the pseydonym of the @ALT_USCIS account would have a grave chilling effect on the speech of that account in particular and on the many other ‘alternative agency’ accounts that have been created to voice dissent to government policies.”

 

 

 

Good for Twitter.

 

Crap like this is exactly why we SHOULDN'T normalize Trump. They don't even know that the account owner works for CIS. But there sure as heck willing to breach their privacy because they won't tolerate dissent and they want to smother it.

 

A healthy democracy allows and encourages dissent. We should be a nation of competing ideas. They make us better. Trying to crack down on dissent is something I would expect in Russia or North Korea.

[zoogs]

^Hopefully, nobody here who has even casually followed that story needed this commentary to realize that unmask requests were made without knowing who the identity-redacted Americans in question were.

 

If you didn't, either evaluate your own reading comprehension or reconsider the sincerity of those reading sources and tweets you've been hang onto for this.

[Apathy]

[commando]

[Moiraine]

https://twitter.com/kylekulinski/status/850158676975419392

 

 

Ignoring the content for a sec - why do you post things like this instead of just posting your opinion? Your opinion matters more to us than some random on Twitter none of us have ever heard of.