titan said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

---

What is this about?Notice that the link implies that FOX is bowing out for the time being and just plans to `break news', not investigate it,while they try to buy Sky News, and they don't want to `stir up' the waters going against Democrats. "No original investigations." Taken literally that would make it just part of the mouthpiece network.

---

I have been out of the country for the last few weeks and also hadn't watched Fox News much this summer anyway but I had it on for about 30 minutes this week and I had to double check it wasn't CNN. It was the same anti Trump story lines. I couldn't believe it. I think they are trying to slip some of this stuff in without anybody noticing.

Has anybody else noticed this?

Cepe said:

---

titan said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

---

What is this about?Notice that the link implies that FOX is bowing out for the time being and just plans to `break news', not investigate it,while they try to buy Sky News, and they don't want to `stir up' the waters going against Democrats. "No original investigations." Taken literally that would make it just part of the mouthpiece network.

---

I have been out of the country for the last few weeks and also hadn't watched Fox News much this summer anyway but I had it on for about 30 minutes this week and I had to double check it wasn't CNN. It was the same anti Trump story lines. I couldn't believe it. I think they are trying to slip some of this stuff in without anybody noticing.

Has anybody else noticed this?

---

Fox News has never been "pro-Trump." They are just less anti-Trump. The pundits at night like Hannity are pro-Trump, but that's commentary.

Unlike CNN who runs 90% anti-Trump stories, Fox only does it roughly 50% of the time.

Cepe said:

---

titan said:

---

Prognightmare said:

---

---

What is this about?Notice that the link implies that FOX is bowing out for the time being and just plans to `break news', not investigate it,while they try to buy Sky News, and they don't want to `stir up' the waters going against Democrats. "No original investigations." Taken literally that would make it just part of the mouthpiece network.

---

I have been out of the country for the last few weeks and also hadn't watched Fox News much this summer anyway but I had it on for about 30 minutes this week and I had to double check it wasn't CNN. It was the same anti Trump story lines. I couldn't believe it. I think they are trying to slip some of this stuff in without anybody noticing.

Has anybody else noticed this?

---

Did it seem a change from before though (see Rapier's note) ? If it seems to have changed, then this may be true. It is a FACT that they are trying to buy Sky News, so the motive assigned is known to be true. So is the response (to spike original stories to avoid rustling feathers) also true? This could matter a great deal.

Napolitano has been off of the rails for several months now. He's also getting his facts wrong and his legal analysis suffers greatly as a result. He was just on with Hemmer a few moments ago and completely botched the Cohen tape matter. He saw civil fraud as a possibility and maybe a campaign finance violation (which is not criminal as he pointed out.)

But his assessment of the civil fraud was based on mistaken "facts," namely that the conversation took place simultaneously with AMI (parent company of the National Enquirer and other magazines) purchasing the exclusive rights to the story of McDougal. That is incorrect.

AMI purchased the exclusive rights from McDougal for $150,000 in August, 2016. The Trump/Cohen conversation was a month later in September. But the contract with McDougal also contained side agreements for further publication in its other magazines such as Modern Fitness, for which McDougal had previously been a cover girl. It was to be an on-going relationship with a continuing revenue stream. When the latter didn't occur, she got pissed and sued AMI to have the contract declared void for fraud in the inducement.

The legal transaction Trump and Cohen discussed was possibly setting up a company to purchase the exclusive rights to that one story from AMI. Perfectly legal. Publication rights are frequently sold and resold. But the bottom line here is that the proposed legal transaction never came to fruition. AMI retained the rights and was the party that she sued, not some Trump owned company.

Anytime Napolitano or Jarrett are brought on for "legal analysis" it's high comedy

BMX Bandit said:

---

Anytime Napolitano or Jarrett are brought on for "legal analysis" it's high comedy

---

At this point, Jarrett is more reliable than Napolitano. I use to give Nap a little more credence because of his ties to Trump and his legal team. But he just gets the facts too wrong, like he's watching CNN instead of Fox.

Why is Rosenstein still dragging his feet over documents subpoenaed by the House? Rosenstein was USA in Maryland before Trump nominated him to be DAG in 2017. It would seem he has no dog in this fight as he wasn't even at Main Justice in 2016.

Marina Butina appearing today her lawyers are asking for her devices back, as well as a copy of the Senate Intel committee's transcript of her testimony. Govt is seeking a protective order on discovery citing ongoing investigations.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Marina Butina appearing today her lawyers are asking for her devices back, as well as a copy of the Senate Intel committee's transcript of her testimony. Govt is seeking a protective order on discovery citing ongoing investigations.

---

This is Jesse Liu's office (DC USA) and not Mueller, correct?

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Marina Butina appearing today her lawyers are asking for her devices back, as well as a copy of the Senate Intel committee's transcript of her testimony. Govt is seeking a protective order on discovery citing ongoing investigations.

---

This is Jesse Liu's office (DC USA) and not Mueller, correct?

---

Correct

Judge Tanya Chutkin told defense "You don't have a right to specific pieces of info to rebut media reports." Gov't will submit a new protective order on discovery on Aug. 8. Defense will have until the 15th to object.

aggiehawg said:

---

Why is Rosenstein still dragging his feet over documents subpoenaed by the House? Rosenstein was USA in Maryland before Trump nominated him to be DAG in 2017. It would seem he has no dog in this fight as he wasn't even at Main Justice in 2016.

---

from another thread, it appears that the FBI is purposely releasing different dated versions of documents to different groups in the congress / senate so that they can figure out where the leaks are coming from.

Robert Driscoll said he demanded evidence to back up a prosecutors' declaration in earlier court documents that Maria Butina had offered sex for a job.

"We have no idea what the government's talking about," he said. "We don't believe it's true."

Driscoll said he not only wants the government to back up its salacious claim, he wants it to return Butina's computers, mobile phone and other materials seized by FBI investigators.

Thomas Saunders of the Justice Department, however, argued that Driscoll was asking for "free rein" with evidence in the case, and wanted Judge Tanya Chutkan to establish boundaries to protect other work that's still underway.

"Our concerns are about protecting the integrity of ongoing investigations not just in this case but others," Saunders said.

Prosecutors did say they're ready to turn over about 1.5 million documents, with more to come in a few weeks, once they agree on a protective order to govern how Butina and her attorney can use the information.

Another point of dispute centered on public comments made about the case Saunders pointed to interviews that Driscoll has given, including with NPR, that he said undercut the seriousness of the charges against Butina.

This is a much more serious charge than simply not filing paperwork under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Saunders said

"The defendant's being charged with acting as a foreign agent and conspiring to do the same this is not a mere FARA violation," he said.

Driscoll discounted the idea that he had underplayed Butina's case and said that the government, with its lascivious claims, needed to be checked in the court of public opinion.

"The appearances I've done are an eye dropper in the tsunami of negative press that's already convicted her," he said.

Judge Tanya Chutkan declined to impose a gag order for now but she did not rule out the idea.

Judge Messittee in Maryland has once again denied POTUS effort to get a lawsuit dismissed that accuses him of violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4618084/7-25-18-DC-v-Trump-Opinion.pdf

Here's the original Complaint

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.391534/gov.uscourts.mdd.391534.1.0_1.pdf

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Anytime Napolitano or Jarrett are brought on for "legal analysis" it's high comedy

---

At this point, Jarrett is more reliable than Napolitano. I use to give Nap a little more credence because of his ties to Trump and his legal team. But he just gets the facts too wrong, like he's watching CNN instead of Fox.

---

Hawg,

Do you realize what you said? He may literally be using that source if that notice above is true about ending original stories!

An interesting issue that came up, the fact that Butina testified before Senate Intel for hours. Prosecutor said they don't have the transcript. Defense says testimony could help her (they don't have the transcript either) and that Senate Intel said they'd release to gov at gov request. Not clear if the gov will ask for it or if Senate Intel will give it to the defense. Whether the court can do anything raises complicated constitutional questions, prosecutor said today. Judge said the parties should look into it and let her know if she needs to step in

They had to demonstrate some form of independent corroboration even if they had to distort reality.

dreyOO said:

---

This thread has shown me investigative journalism is not dead afterall. Instead, it's just been redistributed to those individuals willing to actually dig rather than follow corporate objectives.

I hope the little independent journos find a way to monetize their efforts and keep doing it.

---

The big media sources have forfeited the role of research and investigation, which is costly and manpower intensive, and have become purely marketing/advertising/advocacy businesses. They have a handful of remaining legitimate investigatory news agencies that still employ investigative journalists that they all commonly source to, plus they use search engines to scour the internet for links to local stories or blogs or independent small scale publications or social media to identify stories and then and a bunch of editors create links or write up summaries and create bombastic headlines.

They are almost tabloids in a way.

The real investigation is independent and local and individual, and unpaid. I get a feeling that law enforcement agencies are started by to feel some pressure too as the public can access much more data and with so many more people looking at it, things are spotted that a much smaller number of law enforcement persons may miss. Lots of chaff in the wheat, but the sheer number of people looking now can pay off.

Mr Transparency

Three short video clips (show thread) of Attkisson's testimony before a House subcommittee yesterday. Obama's FBI illegally spied on her via her computer via special software, even planting classified documents on her computer. Interesting.

It's all Mike Pompeo could to not to get up and slap the piss out of about 8 members of congress. Corker needs to hurry up and move on. Pompeo lit a fire under Mendez, I thought he was going to call him out for being under felony indictment if Mendez took another step.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

dreyOO said:

---

This thread has shown me investigative journalism is not dead afterall. Instead, it's just been redistributed to those individuals willing to actually dig rather than follow corporate objectives.

I hope the little independent journos find a way to monetize their efforts and keep doing it.

---

The big media sources have forfeited the role of research and investigation, which is costly and manpower intensive, and have become purely marketing/advertising/advocacy businesses. They have a handful of remaining legitimate investigatory news agencies that still employ investigative journalists that they all commonly source to, plus they use search engines to scour the internet for links to local stories or blogs or independent small scale publications or social media to identify stories and then and a bunch of editors create links or write up summaries and create bombastic headlines.

They are almost tabloids in a way.

The real investigation is independent and local and individual, and unpaid. I get a feeling that law enforcement agencies are started by to feel some pressure too as the public can access much more data and with so many more people looking at it, things are spotted that a much smaller number of law enforcement persons may miss. Lots of chaff in the wheat, but the sheer number of people looking now can pay off.

---

MouthBQ98,

Pretty persuasive and incisive post. Especially since a similar phenomena can be discerned in the history field. "The real investigation is independent and local and individual" and yes, often unpaid when you count up front at the start. Sometimes it then sells, but the up front costs are born on basically a loss, at best a break-even. Those investigative journalists must also kind of love what they are doing to be taking so much on themselves up front. There is no guarantee they will get to be heard, yet they are doing the necessary sleuthing.

Board question:

Has anyone bought this book, if so how is it? If not, are you planning to? I've heard a ton of great reviews on it, so I'm planning to order it. Any thoughts?

I feel like that book would be this thread in print version.

Prognightmare said:

---

Board question:

Has anyone bought this book, if so how is it? If not, are you planning to? I've heard a ton of great reviews on it, so I'm planning to order it. Any thoughts?

---

Yes so far so good, well written

Thank you, I just ordered it.

leakypipes said:

---

I feel like that book would be this thread in print version.

---

Jarrett is an Ag? j/k.

TexAgs--we know stuff.

My concern with reading that book is that Hannity will keep interrupting every 30 seconds to make his opinion heard.

I got it on audiobook yesterday and got through about 7 hours of the 8.5 total. It's pretty good. Jarrett doesnt really reveal too much that close followers dont already know but he does provide a lot of legal perspective. Also it will really piss you off to be reminded of all the shenanigans.

Thanks bud!