T’S HAPPENING! Barr Expands Probe to Inter-Agency Effort: Durham Working With CIA Chief Haspel, DNI

[TigerGrowls]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...n-surveillance-activities-related-to-spygate/

IT’S HAPPENING! Barr Expands Probe to Inter-Agency Effort: Durham Working With CIA Chief Haspel, DNI Coats and FBI Boss Wray on Spygate Probe

by Cristina Laila May 14, 2019 283 Comments

Attorney General Bill Barr’s investigation into Spygate is much broader than previously known.


The media was stunned Monday after it was revealed Bill Barr appointed top special prosecutor John Durham to investigate the origins of the Russia probe.

John Durham, a US Attorney in Connecticut was nominated by Trump in 2017 and has a history of investigating wrongdoing among national security officials.


According to a new report by DOJ reporter for CNN Laura Jarrett, Barr is working closely with CIA Director Gina Haspel, Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats and FBI Director Christopher Wray on surveillance issues related to Trump’s 2016 campaign.

This suggests a broader inter-agency effort is underway.



This new development should not surprise anyone who has been closely following Russiagate/Spygate (Obamagate) because we know that all hands were on deck to spy on Trump’s 2016 campaign.

CIA Chief John Brennan, DNI Chief James Clapper and FBI Director James Comey were all involved in promoting the phony, Hillary-funded dossier and passed it around the various intel agencies.



Hillary’s phony dossier even ended up in the IC report, contrary to statements made by Clapper under oath.

Laura Jarrett also reported that the US Attorney tapped by Barr to investigate Spygate, John Durham, will be working with Barr on a “360 degree review of the situation.”

So what exactly is John Huber, the special prosecutor tapped by former AG Sessions doing?

Jarrett reported that Huber has “been in a holding pattern as the DOJ IG completes review of the situation surrounding Carter Page surveillance warrant – his work on Clinton wrapping soon.”

This is why the Democrat-media complex is viciously attacking Bill Barr — they no longer have control over the Justice Department because unlike Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr is about the rule of law.

 

[Casa_del_Tigre]

Republicans expecting this to lead to something are the same big government republicans that thought Hillary was going down. They are close cousins with the big government liberals that assumed trump was going down.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Republicans expecting this to lead to something are the same big government republicans that thought Hillary was going down. They are close cousins with the big government liberals that assumed trump was going down.

We will see. I am predicting some go down on this one. I would no longer say Hillary is out of the woods at this point either. We know what the new AG said and we now know multiple US prosecutors are assigned and working on all this. I would say there are probably already a bunch of sealed indictments ready to go.

 

[TigerGrowls]

We will see. I am predicting some go down on this one. I would no longer say Hillary is out of the woods at this point either. We know what the new AG said and we now know multiple US prosecutors are assigned and working on all this. I would say there are probably already a bunch of sealed indictments ready to go.

I hate it for the country honestly, but the truth needs to come out either way. We had to sit through 2 years of Trump being probed by a special counsel when nothing come of it. We know what Trump and the conservative opinion shows on FOX have said happened, so lets see if it did. Heads will roll if even half of it is true.

 

[Casa_del_Tigre]

We will see. I am predicting some go down on this one. I would no longer say Hillary is out of the woods at this point either. We know what the new AG said and we now know multiple US prosecutors are assigned and working on all this. I would say there are probably already a bunch of sealed indictments ready to go.

It’s the same issue that we always deal with. You can’t bust a politician for doing something illegal when both parties do the same. Republicans and Democrats divide the population while they both work together to push massive federal expansion and corruption.

Executive orders under Obama - republicans hated them, democrats loved them. Executive orders under Trump - republicans love them, democrats hate them. See the trend?

Bush and obama had nearly identical financial policies with the only difference is Obama being more conservative than Bush as he stayed in office. Bush getting more liberal the longer in office. If you identify as a republican or a democrat you support federal government expansion.

 

[hopefultiger13]

AND don't forget the source. Big surprise: Mediacheck for accuracy.

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE


A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Nationalism, Some Fake NewsCountry: USAWorld Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

The Gateway Pundit is an extreme right news and opinion website that is not afraid of conspiracy theories and the occasional publication of falsehoods (see analysis). The website was founded by Jim Hoft in 2004 to “speak the truth” and to “expose the wickedness of the left.”

According to their about page “The Gateway Pundit is one of the top political websites. It is consistently ranked as one of the top political blogs in the nation. TGP has been cited by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, The Drudge Report, The Blaze, Mark Levin, FOX Nation and by several international news organizations.”

Funded by / Ownership

The Gateway Pundit is owned by Jim Hoft and funded primarily through online advertising.

Analysis / Bias

In review, The Gateway Pundit demonstrates extreme right wing bias in story selection that always favors the right and denigrates the left. There is significant use of loaded emotional language in headlines such as this: President Trump RIPS INTO Peter Strzok After He’s Fired – Calls For Hillary ‘Sham Investigation’ to be ‘Properly Redone’. The Gateway Pundit is also fiercely dedicated to the promotion of Donald Trump. TGP always sources their information, but sometimes utilizes questionable sources such as Breitbart and Mike Cernovich, who both a have terrible track records with fact checkers.

The Gateway Pundit has published numerous false or conspiracy stories such as Hillary Clinton having a seizure, identifying an innocent person in the Las Vegas mass shooting and again identifying the wrong person after the motor vehicle homicide at the White Supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Further, TGP claimed the “FBI received tips well in advance of the Florida school shooting and decided, for whatever reason, not to act.” Finally, based on publishing false information, TGP has faced lawsuits for defamation and damages to innocent individuals.

A factual search reveals several failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers. Here are a select few.

• Anti-Trump Protesters Bused Into Austin, Chicago – FALSE
• Did a Woman Say the Washington Post Offered Her $1,000 to Accuse Roy Moore of Sexual Abuse? – FALSE
• ‘Spooked’ Clinton Campaign Manager Deleted Tweets – FALSE
• Fake news posts blame Puerto Rico’s truck drivers for refusing to ship relief supplies – PANTS ON FIRE

Overall, we rate The Gateway Pundit Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and numerous instances of publishing false (fake) news.

 

[orangelvis]

AND don't forget the source. Big surprise: Mediacheck for accuracy.

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE


A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Nationalism, Some Fake NewsCountry: USAWorld Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

The Gateway Pundit is an extreme right news and opinion website that is not afraid of conspiracy theories and the occasional publication of falsehoods (see analysis). The website was founded by Jim Hoft in 2004 to “speak the truth” and to “expose the wickedness of the left.”

According to their about page “The Gateway Pundit is one of the top political websites. It is consistently ranked as one of the top political blogs in the nation. TGP has been cited by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, The Drudge Report, The Blaze, Mark Levin, FOX Nation and by several international news organizations.”

Funded by / Ownership

The Gateway Pundit is owned by Jim Hoft and funded primarily through online advertising.

Analysis / Bias

In review, The Gateway Pundit demonstrates extreme right wing bias in story selection that always favors the right and denigrates the left. There is significant use of loaded emotional language in headlines such as this: President Trump RIPS INTO Peter Strzok After He’s Fired – Calls For Hillary ‘Sham Investigation’ to be ‘Properly Redone’. The Gateway Pundit is also fiercely dedicated to the promotion of Donald Trump. TGP always sources their information, but sometimes utilizes questionable sources such as Breitbart and Mike Cernovich, who both a have terrible track records with fact checkers.

The Gateway Pundit has published numerous false or conspiracy stories such as Hillary Clinton having a seizure, identifying an innocent person in the Las Vegas mass shooting and again identifying the wrong person after the motor vehicle homicide at the White Supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Further, TGP claimed the “FBI received tips well in advance of the Florida school shooting and decided, for whatever reason, not to act.” Finally, based on publishing false information, TGP has faced lawsuits for defamation and damages to innocent individuals.

A factual search reveals several failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers. Here are a select few.

• Anti-Trump Protesters Bused Into Austin, Chicago – FALSE
• Did a Woman Say the Washington Post Offered Her $1,000 to Accuse Roy Moore of Sexual Abuse? – FALSE
• ‘Spooked’ Clinton Campaign Manager Deleted Tweets – FALSE
• Fake news posts blame Puerto Rico’s truck drivers for refusing to ship relief supplies – PANTS ON FIRE

Overall, we rate The Gateway Pundit Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and numerous instances of publishing false (fake) news.

You keep posting this. Who are the "we" that is doing the the rating? What is their bias?
As I've said many times in various threads here in the RT, even when the facts slap some people in the face, they still will follow msm fake news.

 

[hopefultiger13]

AP... associated press.

 

[TigerGrowls]

AND don't forget the source. Big surprise: Mediacheck for accuracy.

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE


A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Nationalism, Some Fake NewsCountry: USAWorld Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

The Gateway Pundit is an extreme right news and opinion website that is not afraid of conspiracy theories and the occasional publication of falsehoods (see analysis). The website was founded by Jim Hoft in 2004 to “speak the truth” and to “expose the wickedness of the left.”

According to their about page “The Gateway Pundit is one of the top political websites. It is consistently ranked as one of the top political blogs in the nation. TGP has been cited by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, The Drudge Report, The Blaze, Mark Levin, FOX Nation and by several international news organizations.”

Funded by / Ownership

The Gateway Pundit is owned by Jim Hoft and funded primarily through online advertising.

Analysis / Bias

In review, The Gateway Pundit demonstrates extreme right wing bias in story selection that always favors the right and denigrates the left. There is significant use of loaded emotional language in headlines such as this: President Trump RIPS INTO Peter Strzok After He’s Fired – Calls For Hillary ‘Sham Investigation’ to be ‘Properly Redone’. The Gateway Pundit is also fiercely dedicated to the promotion of Donald Trump. TGP always sources their information, but sometimes utilizes questionable sources such as Breitbart and Mike Cernovich, who both a have terrible track records with fact checkers.

The Gateway Pundit has published numerous false or conspiracy stories such as Hillary Clinton having a seizure, identifying an innocent person in the Las Vegas mass shooting and again identifying the wrong person after the motor vehicle homicide at the White Supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Further, TGP claimed the “FBI received tips well in advance of the Florida school shooting and decided, for whatever reason, not to act.” Finally, based on publishing false information, TGP has faced lawsuits for defamation and damages to innocent individuals.

A factual search reveals several failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers. Here are a select few.

• Anti-Trump Protesters Bused Into Austin, Chicago – FALSE
• Did a Woman Say the Washington Post Offered Her $1,000 to Accuse Roy Moore of Sexual Abuse? – FALSE
• ‘Spooked’ Clinton Campaign Manager Deleted Tweets – FALSE
• Fake news posts blame Puerto Rico’s truck drivers for refusing to ship relief supplies – PANTS ON FIRE

Overall, we rate The Gateway Pundit Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and numerous instances of publishing false (fake) news.

The gateway pundit has been right on a lot of this and reporting it much earlier than the MSM. This media rating stuff you come out with is frankly lame. We know the MSM is FAKE NEWS!! owned and controlled mainly by around 6 corporations I think. A lot of these smaller websites are the best way to get real news unfortunately. This story is legitimate and multiple people will go to jail over this....mark it down. Btw,,,,Fox News is not beyond reproach either. They have opinion personalites from 8pm to 11pm and other than then, they spew a lot of crap too.

 

[hopefultiger13]

No, it's not lame, your source is crap. Hell, a broken clock is right twice a day, but I wouldn't use it to tell time. MSNBC and CNN are both questionable sources. In this you are correct. Here's the bias on CNN:
---------------------------------------------
Home » CNN

CNN


Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.

Share:
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmailTumblrRedditLinkedInFlipboardGoogle BookmarksShare562

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on story selection that often favors the left. We rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits. However, CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting.

Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: MIXEDCountry: USAWorld Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

The Cable News Network (CNN) is an American basic cable, satellite television channel and website. It was founded in 1980 by American media proprietor Ted Turner as a 24-hour cable news channel; however, by April 2016, a CNN executive officially described the channel as “no longer a TV news network” and instead as “a 24-hour global multi-platform network.” CNN has multiple international stations covering all regions of the world. CNN has been inaccurately criticized as being fake news by President Trump and many of his supporters.

Funded by / Ownership


CNN is owned by the Turner Broadcasting System (AT&T – Time Warner). The television stations and website is funded through cable subscriptions and an advertising model.

Analysis / Bias

CNN has a left bias in story selection that often favors the left while being critical of the right. For example, during the 2016 Presidential Election Pew Research concluded that the majority of CNN stories covering President Donald Trump were negative. While less dramatic, Pew also determined that more stories were negative toward Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

CNN typically utilizes loaded emotional words in sensational headlines such as this: Trump pounces on Justice Department report findings. CNN usually sources its news properly through credible reporters/journalists and through hyperlinking to credible media sources. However, CNN has failed numerous fact checks from Politifact. It should be noted that these fact checks were almost exclusively from guests on their numerous talk shows and not from the reporting of actual news, which tends to be factual. Further, CNN has retracted published stories that have been deemed as lacking evidence. Finally, CNN has published misleading information regarding GMO’s that utilize loaded fear based headlines such as this: FDA allows genetically engineered ‘Frankenfish’ salmon to be imported to US. CNN has also utilized known purveyors of pseudoscience as experts on discussion panels such as the Food Babe.

Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on story selection that often favors the left. We rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits. However, CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting.

----------------------------------------------------

That's why I don't use CNN as a reliable source. But just because CNN is not good doesn't make your source any better (which seems to be your argument). As mentioned in the fact checker, your site regularly puts out information that is not accurate and regularly links to sources that are not reliable (and actual examples of the crap are given) . So when you come on here and try to post this drivel as facts, I'm going to point out your sources are crap. Just as you would if I ever sited Rachel Maddow.

 

[orangelvis]

What I've learned here is that even when the perpetrators are being led away in handcuffs, there will be people who won't believe it because of who is reporting it.

 

[LakeMurrayTiger]

No, it's not lame, your source is crap. Hell, a broken clock is right twice a day, but I wouldn't use it to tell time. MSNBC and CNN are both questionable sources. In this you are correct. Here's the bias on CNN:
---------------------------------------------
Home » CNN

CNN


Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.

Share:
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmailTumblrRedditLinkedInFlipboardGoogle BookmarksShare562

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on story selection that often favors the left. We rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits. However, CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting.

Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: MIXEDCountry: USAWorld Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

The Cable News Network (CNN) is an American basic cable, satellite television channel and website. It was founded in 1980 by American media proprietor Ted Turner as a 24-hour cable news channel; however, by April 2016, a CNN executive officially described the channel as “no longer a TV news network” and instead as “a 24-hour global multi-platform network.” CNN has multiple international stations covering all regions of the world. CNN has been inaccurately criticized as being fake news by President Trump and many of his supporters.

Funded by / Ownership


CNN is owned by the Turner Broadcasting System (AT&T – Time Warner). The television stations and website is funded through cable subscriptions and an advertising model.

Analysis / Bias

CNN has a left bias in story selection that often favors the left while being critical of the right. For example, during the 2016 Presidential Election Pew Research concluded that the majority of CNN stories covering President Donald Trump were negative. While less dramatic, Pew also determined that more stories were negative toward Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

CNN typically utilizes loaded emotional words in sensational headlines such as this: Trump pounces on Justice Department report findings. CNN usually sources its news properly through credible reporters/journalists and through hyperlinking to credible media sources. However, CNN has failed numerous fact checks from Politifact. It should be noted that these fact checks were almost exclusively from guests on their numerous talk shows and not from the reporting of actual news, which tends to be factual. Further, CNN has retracted published stories that have been deemed as lacking evidence. Finally, CNN has published misleading information regarding GMO’s that utilize loaded fear based headlines such as this: FDA allows genetically engineered ‘Frankenfish’ salmon to be imported to US. CNN has also utilized known purveyors of pseudoscience as experts on discussion panels such as the Food Babe.

Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on story selection that often favors the left. We rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits. However, CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting.

----------------------------------------------------

That's why I don't use CNN as a reliable source. But just because CNN is not good doesn't make your source any better (which seems to be your argument). As mentioned in the fact checker, your site regularly puts out information that is not accurate and regularly links to sources that are not reliable (and actual examples of the crap are given) . So when you come on here and try to post this drivel as facts, I'm going to point out your sources are crap. Just as you would if I ever sited Rachel Maddow.

If internet fact checkers said it then I guess it's settled. Thanks.

 

[TigerGrowls]

No, it's not lame, your source is crap. Hell, a broken clock is right twice a day, but I wouldn't use it to tell time. MSNBC and CNN are both questionable sources. In this you are correct. Here's the bias on CNN:
---------------------------------------------
Home » CNN

CNN


Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.

Share:
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmailTumblrRedditLinkedInFlipboardGoogle BookmarksShare562

LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on story selection that often favors the left. We rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits. However, CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting.

Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: MIXEDCountry: USAWorld Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

The Cable News Network (CNN) is an American basic cable, satellite television channel and website. It was founded in 1980 by American media proprietor Ted Turner as a 24-hour cable news channel; however, by April 2016, a CNN executive officially described the channel as “no longer a TV news network” and instead as “a 24-hour global multi-platform network.” CNN has multiple international stations covering all regions of the world. CNN has been inaccurately criticized as being fake news by President Trump and many of his supporters.

Funded by / Ownership


CNN is owned by the Turner Broadcasting System (AT&T – Time Warner). The television stations and website is funded through cable subscriptions and an advertising model.

Analysis / Bias

CNN has a left bias in story selection that often favors the left while being critical of the right. For example, during the 2016 Presidential Election Pew Research concluded that the majority of CNN stories covering President Donald Trump were negative. While less dramatic, Pew also determined that more stories were negative toward Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

CNN typically utilizes loaded emotional words in sensational headlines such as this: Trump pounces on Justice Department report findings. CNN usually sources its news properly through credible reporters/journalists and through hyperlinking to credible media sources. However, CNN has failed numerous fact checks from Politifact. It should be noted that these fact checks were almost exclusively from guests on their numerous talk shows and not from the reporting of actual news, which tends to be factual. Further, CNN has retracted published stories that have been deemed as lacking evidence. Finally, CNN has published misleading information regarding GMO’s that utilize loaded fear based headlines such as this: FDA allows genetically engineered ‘Frankenfish’ salmon to be imported to US. CNN has also utilized known purveyors of pseudoscience as experts on discussion panels such as the Food Babe.

Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on story selection that often favors the left. We rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits. However, CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting.

----------------------------------------------------

That's why I don't use CNN as a reliable source. But just because CNN is not good doesn't make your source any better (which seems to be your argument). As mentioned in the fact checker, your site regularly puts out information that is not accurate and regularly links to sources that are not reliable (and actual examples of the crap are given) . So when you come on here and try to post this drivel as facts, I'm going to point out your sources are crap. Just as you would if I ever sited Rachel Maddow.

Ok...based on wherever you are getting this info, what are your reliable sources of information?

 

[hopefultiger13]

OK, Sources are generally considered to fall into 3 categories. Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary. Any of these may or may not be correct, but as a general rule Primary > secondary > tertiary. For instance if you say vaccination rates for measles in SC is 97.3%. If you source the CDC website, that is a primary source. The CDC is tasked with collecting this information and one can assume that they have the best numbers and the expertise to read them correctly. If you sited an article on FoxNews (which in turn sited the CDC), this is a secondary source. If you site a source with more than one hop from a primary source, that's a tertiary source. The further away from a primary source, the greater the chance for error. So primary sources tend to be more reliable than tertiary ones.

There is also the matter of expertise in the area, which is a HUGE deal. For instance, I could advertise myself as the foremost rocket engine designer in the world. You could interview me and quote me as saying that water and air pressure driven rockets are far better than hydrogen/oxygen driven engines... providing more lift per the weight of the fuel. This is a primary source. But a bogus one as I have no expertise in rocket building. On the other hand if you interviewed a NASA employee that had spent 20 years designing and building rocket engines, the above quote would carry quite a bit of weight. So again, expertise is extremely important in a source.

Finally there is the element of bias... probably the trickiest one of all. As a general rule, when folks start quoting stats at you, they are trying to persuade you. As Mark Twain put it... There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's pretty easy to pick up statistics that say what you want them to say. Here's a real example for you. My county in Idaho experience a 200% increase in cases of AIDS in just the last 3 months. My God!! Someone start handing out condoms and clean needles right? Well, there was only one reported case and now there are 3. The other two are a married couple that just moved here. Unfortunately, most of our news media these days have a bias (either left or right) and use information to further their agenda. When you have a couple of leaps from a primary data source through a couple of biased news stories, you can drift FAR from the truth. So when Hannity or Madow start quoting stats... I realize that they are by definition picked to support their opinion. If those stats proved something different, they would never be mentioned.

Another example (and this is a pretty extreme case). I just saw a town hall meeting where the local police were talking aganist legalizing Pot in Idaho. They sited perfectly correct numbers by saying that Colorado had legalized Pot and they have the highest rate of use among teens in the Nation. That is a fact. How could anyone possibly want to legalize it in Idaho? A really good point. BUT, would it change your opinion if you knew that Colorado had the highest rate of teen use BEFORE they legalized pot and that rate had not changed AT ALL since legalization? That fundamentally changes the argument, no?

Finally, one more example to finish off. Coca-Cola recently funded a study into obesity and the effects of Soda on said obesity. They did not find any link between soft drinks and obesity. Do you believe that study? Unsurprisingly, the study was rejected as not worth the paper it was written on. Personally, I'm not really able to see if the study was wrong or not. For all I know, the study could have used the best methods and the most qualified experts and reached a conclusion that was absolutely correct. But the fact that the study was conducted by a company with an obvious stake in the results taints any findings (legit or not).

So there you are. A very brief brief on reliable sources. I listen to a variety of news outlets, both from the left and from the right. Honestly, most of the time you'd not know that it was the same news day. Fox and Cnn don't cover the same things and definitely focus on different aspects/priorities when they do. For instance several months ago, Trump had a press briefing highlighting how well the economy was doing. He made several statements that were not true and took credit for something he had nothing to do with. FoxNews focused on how well the economy was doing while Cnn focused on the false statements. Which is real? Well, both are. In this case, I'd side with Fox in that the important part was how well the economy is doing rather than the misinformation Trump provided. But there are other times when the President has said things that are just flat out untrue and Fox doesn't even mention it.

As a moderate, I take a centrist view. While I think Trump as a person is a piece of crap, I do support maybe half of his agenda. So as a general rule, I don't believe a word that Donald Trump says, or FoxNews, or Cnn, or MSN unless I can look them up elsewhere (primary source). That is often difficult to do. In these cases, I generally resort to the AP (Associated Press). They are ALWAYS behind the times with their stories b/c they take the time to source them correctly. As for Hannity/Madow types, that's a straight up clown show on both sides.

 

[TigerGrowls]

OK, Sources are generally considered to fall into 3 categories. Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary. Any of these may or may not be correct, but as a general rule Primary > secondary > tertiary. For instance if you say vaccination rates for measles in SC is 97.3%. If you source the CDC website, that is a primary source. The CDC is tasked with collecting this information and one can assume that they have the best numbers and the expertise to read them correctly. If you sited an article on FoxNews (which in turn sited the CDC), this is a secondary source. If you site a source with more than one hop from a primary source, that's a tertiary source. The further away from a primary source, the greater the chance for error. So primary sources tend to be more reliable than tertiary ones.

There is also the matter of expertise in the area, which is a HUGE deal. For instance, I could advertise myself as the foremost rocket engine designer in the world. You could interview me and quote me as saying that water and air pressure driven rockets are far better than hydrogen/oxygen driven engines... providing more lift per the weight of the fuel. This is a primary source. But a bogus one as I have no expertise in rocket building. On the other hand if you interviewed a NASA employee that had spent 20 years designing and building rocket engines, the above quote would carry quite a bit of weight. So again, expertise is extremely important in a source.

Finally there is the element of bias... probably the trickiest one of all. As a general rule, when folks start quoting stats at you, they are trying to persuade you. As Mark Twain put it... There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. It's pretty easy to pick up statistics that say what you want them to say. Here's a real example for you. My county in Idaho experience a 200% increase in cases of AIDS in just the last 3 months. My God!! Someone start handing out condoms and clean needles right? Well, there was only one reported case and now there are 3. The other two are a married couple that just moved here. Unfortunately, most of our news media these days have a bias (either left or right) and use information to further their agenda. When you have a couple of leaps from a primary data source through a couple of biased news stories, you can drift FAR from the truth. So when Hannity or Madow start quoting stats... I realize that they are by definition picked to support their opinion. If those stats proved something different, they would never be mentioned.

Another example (and this is a pretty extreme case). I just saw a town hall meeting where the local police were talking aganist legalizing Pot in Idaho. They sited perfectly correct numbers by saying that Colorado had legalized Pot and they have the highest rate of use among teens in the Nation. That is a fact. How could anyone possibly want to legalize it in Idaho? A really good point. BUT, would it change your opinion if you knew that Colorado had the highest rate of teen use BEFORE they legalized pot and that rate had not changed AT ALL since legalization? That fundamentally changes the argument, no?

Finally, one more example to finish off. Coca-Cola recently funded a study into obesity and the effects of Soda on said obesity. They did not find any link between soft drinks and obesity. Do you believe that study? Unsurprisingly, the study was rejected as not worth the paper it was written on. Personally, I'm not really able to see if the study was wrong or not. For all I know, the study could have used the best methods and the most qualified experts and reached a conclusion that was absolutely correct. But the fact that the study was conducted by a company with an obvious stake in the results taints any findings (legit or not).

So there you are. A very brief brief on reliable sources. I listen to a variety of news outlets, both from the left and from the right. Honestly, most of the time you'd not know that it was the same news day. Fox and Cnn don't cover the same things and definitely focus on different aspects/priorities when they do. For instance several months ago, Trump had a press briefing highlighting how well the economy was doing. He made several statements that were not true and took credit for something he had nothing to do with. FoxNews focused on how well the economy was doing while Cnn focused on the false statements. Which is real? Well, both are. In this case, I'd side with Fox in that the important part was how well the economy is doing rather than the misinformation Trump provided. But there are other times when the President has said things that are just flat out untrue and Fox doesn't even mention it.

As a moderate, I take a centrist view. While I think Trump as a person is a piece of crap, I do support maybe half of his agenda. So as a general rule, I don't believe a word that Donald Trump says, or FoxNews, or Cnn, or MSN unless I can look them up elsewhere (primary source). That is often difficult to do. In these cases, I generally resort to the AP (Associated Press). They are ALWAYS behind the times with their stories b/c they take the time to source them correctly. As for Hannity/Madow types, that's a straight up clown show on both sides.

Ok. Good stuff related to receiving news from parties that have a vested interest in promoting a certain agenda. That's where life in America is now and we have to live with it and discern the information through our own prisms. I think 90% of people by the age of 25 have developed their own life view and look for information that supports their viewpoints rather than delving into information that contradicts their viewpoints.

Related to you calling Hannity and Maddow clown shows, I disagree. There is a core right and wrong on most things and I will always believe that. Having a strong opinionated view to one side or the other does not automatically make one wrong. It comes down to discernment and that's why with our free country and regular elections that we have such a strong battle with each side trying to gain the majority of public support.

I obviously think Hannity is a great American and he has been right for 2 years on the Russia scam and Maddow and her creep buds have been wrong. That is a fact and its going to swing harder in the direction of Hannity being right as this moves along. To me this is quite simply communism fighting to take over America. The deep state globalist establishment has all but taken over the the country and Trump and freedom loving Americans not brain washed have a taken a last stand. Trump is the greatest threat ever against the globalist world state being built and that is why he has been attacked on a level never seen.

Trump is not a perfect human being and he does not need to be. He is the man for the job. He is getting it done for America. It always would have taken a bare knuck brawler with the right plan to win this battle. Trump is the man and he is getting it done. God Bless America!

 

[orangelvis]

All anyone has to do is read the transcripts of the sworn testimony from the likes of McCabe, Comey Clapper, Brennan, etc to know these people are rats . Rep. Doug Collins just released Loretta Lynch's transcript today. She and Comey directly contradict each other.