Where is the investigation?
-
Can we just agree to soft boycott Fox, CNN, and ESPN and post stuff from sources that aren’t spin straight off the tap? I’d like to dig into this, but I deliberately avoid watching these garbage channels. Don’t want to walk into a story and get hammered with immediate bias.
-
Here’s where I started.
So the idea is that the democrats hired the Awan family to do IT work, and other democratic offices fired them, except Wasserman Schultz who kept them on payroll. They stole data from the democrats? Can we confirm what data? Where’s the source for this? They ended up getting arrested for equipment and bank fraud, and now a conservative group The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) is calling for an ethics probe as to why Schultz kept them on payroll?
What are the facts here that would warrant an investigation?
I was kind of hoping we’d never have to deal with Wasserman Schultz again. If she did something legitimately criminal I’d love to see her locked up.
-
The FBI notified the congressmen employing Imran Awan and family that he was under investigation related to a number of charges including fraud and more importantly unauthorized and massive off loading of information from the House servers; he was banned from accessing the House IT system since February of this year. All the congressmen immediately stopped using him and his family except for Wasserman Schultz; there is no way he could have done any work without access to the House IT system and the only way he could have done it is remotely using her login and password; keep in mind that as head of the DNC she had access to all e-mails that were hacked, allegedly by the Russians. Why she did this has no logical and/or legal explanation and she is in a world of trouble.
The Awan character is so crooked that he stole money from his own father who changed his name so he would not be linked to him. One f his brothers also has a criminal record and yet the 3 of them collected over $4M over several years.
Now, it looks like the individual in charge of investigating Awan is none other than Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s brother…can you say conflict if interest? Lots of background and widely verified information in this link.
This is really a huge deal and there will be a big fallout when all is said and done.
-
So, I guess there is an investigation. Go figure.
-
I guess you can say I’m just a little fed up with those they say the just are looking at the evidence.
Let’s be real here with one another. I think we’ve earned enough trust between us.
Everything and all things that come up about Trump is the final nail in the coffin. Yet must of the info is really just trivial.
Yet let me ask you one question? One KU fan to another. If Trump had done what Hillary did with the hidden server and emails? He would be impeached tomorrow, and criminal charges would be filed.
Would you agree?
And this is why I and so many other Americans don’t put stock in the main media sources anymore. This topic I just posted is a big deal, and yet only Fox is willing to talk about.
Now why is that?
-
There is a lot of so called dirt flying around about Trump and Russia. Yet what about Hillary and Russia?
-
@DoubleDD For all of your concern about Hillary, and your unhappiness about main stream media, here are some things to consider:
Hillary’s private email server: story broken by New York Times
Hillary’s foundation/access to SofState: story broken by Wash Post
“Friends of Bill”/Haiti scandal: story broken by ABC News
Has Breitbart ever broken a single story about the Russian interference invthe election, or about all the contacts admin members have had despite denying them? Has Fox ever discovered anything unfavorable to Trump?
If Hillary did anything illegal, it is done now that she is no longer in any office. In contrast, the investigations by the Republican-led congress and by Mueller into the Russian/Trump mess involve people still in positions of influence. If anything corrupt is going on, that is a bigger and more immediate threat deserving far more attention than HRC.
-
And the plot thickens. Yet you won’t hear this in the media. Yet if this was Trump O-----------M--------------G.
-
The Daily Caller. The Daily Caller is an American news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C… It was founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Can we find a less compromised source?
-
Nothing like a little confirmation bias to really drill stories into people’s brains.
Instead of avoiding MSM, I personally like to read the same story from three different sources. Read the Fox News or NYP, then read CNN or LA Times, and finally read something that I find more moderate like the WaPo or NYT.
Anything included in all 3 stories is fact. Any quotes used in only the Left or Right articles are basically nonsense. And any quote used by all three articles will have truth to it, and then you can take the unbiased truths from it and form your own opinion on a subject.
Otherwise, you are probably just having some form of confirmation bias.
-
That’s kind of the point. Most media outlets don’t/won’t to talk about this.
I would be glad to link a CNN or MSNBC article/video to appease your sense of what good Media journalism is. Yet they are to busy with trying to cast Trump as a racist.
BTW whatever happened to the Russian collision with Trump? Never seem to hear anything about that anymore?
-
@approxinfinity Daily Caller: fashion police attack on Trump’s kid. Classy.
-
@DoubleDD I’m not interested in CNN either. Just something more credible than Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel’s baby. No doubt it’s harder to hunt around. And I completely agree, it’s effort that most don’t have the time to do. But how can you take anything as fact without confirmation from verifiable sources?
-
Here is a good summary of the coverage to date; pretty easy to verify.
-
@JayHawkFanToo is there no source on this that isn’t deeply conservative?
-
In this case, what difference does the publication make? I simply posted a story with a summary of how much or how little coverage the various publication have given to the issue. Pretty easy to verify, just go to the various publications sites and see if the info is correct. Hard to cite liberal publication when they just ignore the issue and will not write anything about it, wouldn’t you agree?
-
@JayHawkFanToo I’m not looking for liberal publications talking about the stories, looking for neutral ones. Not having much luck myself but I had time to dig around a little and found some of this reported by NY Times and read a couple other conservative sources.
The gist is, as I see it, the Awans are bad people, Wasserman Schultz overpaid them and people think that they “must have something on someone”. And they’re being investigated by the FBI right? It seems like this is the proper channel to handle it.
I agree that CNN and MSNBC seem to have neglected the story, though I don’t watch them. Is it possible that the lack of coverage for the greater spectrum of news outlets is because there aren’t any ongoing facts surfacing, even ancillary to the story, that can be reported?
I think what’s frustrating to people aligned to the left is that this story seems to be thrown around as a counterpoint to Trump’s Russia collusion investigation and it really is a different investigation. Are both parties dirty? Absolutely.
What’s the possible scope here? DWS is dirty and gets exposed. Awans stole emails and leaked them.
-
I think my big gist is? Well that the MSM had no problem with reporting on anonymous leaks and reports without properly vetting them. As most of the issues seem to be filling out/sending in proper paper work. And if anybody knows dealing with the Government can be quite a headache.
Lets be fair here? The MSM pretty much characterized Trump as guilty before any of the true facts came in. In my opinion they didn’t even properly vet the leaks and info they had uncovered/received. If it was bad for Trump it went on the air.
I do think this Debbie story is legit and should be reported on. I’m reserving a guilty verdict until I can see more evidence on the issue. Yet this is the second story in less than a year where we have the Dem party or someone connected to the Dem party destroying hard drives and phones. I’m sorry you don’t do this unless you have something to hide. You just don’t
Bottom line if some of these flimsy facts turn out true. They would be a threat to national security and on the same level as the so called Trump/Russian collusion. The fact the MSM doesn’t even give an update on the issue? Only confirms my thoughts that the MSM isn’t fair and has deep ties to the Dem party.
-
@DoubleDD OK! Let’s find middle ground here. I think there’s enough on the table on this one where we can compromise… I agree DWS is likely dirty and or stupid and or in politics for the wrong reasons. I’ll withhold judgement like you but I think we probably see completely eye to eye on her. What I ask is that you recognize that she is not all Democrats. She’s DWS. I also agree that CNN and MSNBC underreported the story, but it seems there haven’t been new things coming to light so I say that in the past tense, with full anticipation that they will underreport again should new things come to light! What I ask is that you stop talking about MSM bias, recognizing that Fox News is MSM, and instead refer to specific networks and their bias, even if it means typing a few more characters. This gets rid of the conspiracy element of it and calls out specific deficiencies in specific networks.
When new facts come to light on DWS and Awans I’m counting on you, @jayhawkfantoo and the rest of the board to keep me aware and on top of it!
Can we agree here buddy? :handshake_tone2:
-
When I was a kid. When I watched the news it was a given that it was a fact. You accepted it and moved on. That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Why is that?
I agree on the Debbie story. I really do. Not enough evidence to claim a guilty verdict.
However, looking at the MSM I do have to peacefully disagree. Yes Fox news is right leaning. Yet after watching all the MSM has to offer. Fox does both. It bashes Trump and defends him. Just going from experience here. I’m not so sure the others are doing the same. In fact I feel they are pushing an agenda instead of just reporting the news. I would agree that Fox has it’s fair share of biased talking heads. Sean Hannity? Tucker Carlson? Yet the MSM deciding who should be president and who shouldn’t be. Scares the hell out of me, and is quite disrespectful to the American voter.
Think about this. With the MSM we went from Russian collusion, to racist, and now Trump is mentally unstable. When does it end? Why do they keeping changing the narrative when the previous one doesn’t stick? I also understand that some like yourself don’t agree with Trump’s policies. That’s cool. There is an argument/conversation to be had on that.
However Trump won regardless if you think the electoral process isn’t a fair way to elect a president. He won a system that has been in place for some time. Not his fault.
I find it humorous and intriguing that some would slam our government process and our two party system because Trump is the president. Especially seeing how the Reps own the House, Senate, and the Presidency. Yet they can’t get nothing done because of 8 Dem Senators. A voting process put in place long ago.
I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful to you or any other. Just was trying to point out the unfair MSM reporting of Trump and the Debbie story. Just for the record Fox did indeed report on the Debbie story.
-
@DoubleDD Until you agree that Fox News is MSM and deeply biased, we are going to have a hard time finding middleground, I’m afraid. They are in the business of selling biased stories. There’s no way around it. Say what you will about CNN and MSNBC, I’m not trying to defend them. I think you’re skirting around the point here… You ever watch Clean House with Niecy Nash? You gotta let the clutter go man. Who wants a clean house?!
-
LOL. Fair enough. Yet you claim give me unbiased reporting from unbiased sites. OK So what sites are these? Who are these unbiased journalists? You quote the New York Times, as I do also. Yet a strong case can be made the not only the New York Times and most newspapers are indeed left leaning. You’re not giving me much room to operate with here. If I’m right that the Media is left leaning? What materials can I use?
If my claim that most media outlets are left leaning? How can I prove you’re wrong? How can I make me case? Plus you said you don’t watch Fox and other Major Media outlets? so how would you know?
-
Just for the record love ya. Keep firing away.
-
@DoubleDD I’ve been listening to podcasts for my daily news. Here’s my daily line up:
-
-
Sorry, I had to hop on computer to upload it, couldnt upload from phone. Try to refresh?
-
Excellent. Yeah, tbh, podcasts from close to middle-of-the-road sources may be the most honest news out there. Feels like theres a higher level of integrity.
-
Have you watchef FoxNews lately? Remember the slogan…this is not you father’s Olsmobile? Well, Fox news is not what it used to be a few years ago when Ruper Murcdock and Roget Ailes ran the network. Now, his son James Murdock, Chief Executive of 21st Century Fox, the parent company of Fox News is running the show and he has a very liberal tilt and is no friend of Trump. Ailes is gone as are several of the more conservative commentators including O’Reilly. Megan Kelly made herself a name by attacking Trump, have you heard Shepard Smith? He is constantly attacking Trump an he is not the only one. Chris Wallace is a liberal leaning commentator and constantly criticizes Trump on his Sunday show and his guest always include known liberal public figures.
In short, when you quote Fox News you are no longer quoting a conservative or right wing source but at best, a middle of the road one.
-
@JayHawkFanToo bashing Trump doesn’t make them left leaning. I’m no Trump fan, but I’m also on the Conservative side of the spectrum.
And tv and web are also different. If you watch rather than read, you won’t see the difference. In When you compare fox articles to Other media, you see the bias.
-
My point was that FOX is no longer the ultra conservative, right wing media it used to be portrayed to be. Of course, compared to the other ultra liberal, left wing MSM, it is still conservative but in my opinion, it is now middle of the road and with the new leadership at the top…moving left and definitely not pro-Trump. Citing Fox News as pro Trump is a miss-characterization.
While some specific commentary shows such as Hannity or O’Reilly have or used to have a conservative tilt, the news programs were fairly balanced.
A few years ago, a fairly liberal friend of mine took a position in KC and while searching for an apartment he stayed with me for several weeks. He used to complain about Fox News bias and I asked…how often do you watch Fox News? and his answer was…I don’t because they are too biased. I said, why don’t you watch Fox News for one week and then we will talk. At the end of the week he said he was very surprised at how balanced it was and how on every segment they had there was always one guest from the right and one from the left, something that other news networks seldom do.
Again, most people that comment about Fox News don’t really watch it and just parrot the cliche that it is right wing source; it really is not.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I have watched a bit a couple months ago in a hotel (Tucker Carlson made me want to claw my face off) and at doctor’s offices over the years (made my maladies seem more trivial after force watching Fox). I have watched clips of various broadcasts and OReilly clips over the years and I despise the guy. He is a self absorbed windbag who can’t tell a falafel from a loofah. While I havent subjected myself of late, I don’t think my feelings toward fox are without any exposure.
-
@approxinfinity Fortunately, all my doctors have us inundated with HGTV.
#fakedesignshows rather than #fakefoxnews
-
@JayHawkFanToo I dont think I can watch it for a week, but tell me the most balanced fair program and I’ll watch it one time and report back?
-
Brett Baier is pretty good. As I mentioned in my post, Fox has moved to the center and some analyst such as Shepard Smith would be at home at CNN or MSNBC with his constant attacks on Trump; he is now the managing editor of Fox News Channel’s Breaking News Division.
Like I said, now that James Murdoch is in charge, the station is getting rid if all the conservative hosts and moving to the left; right now I would consider it a middle of the road.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Yea I haven’t watched lately (my parents have their TV set on Foxnews 24/7 for the past 15 years of my life), only read. So again, the TV network very well could be much less biased than the Website.
-
There is no doubt that Fox News is right leaning. Yet in my experience when watching others there seems to be an agenda. Too many of the interviews are moved with trying to prove a point instead of just interviewing someone for their views, and letting the viewers decide for themselves. As I said Fox is right leaning. However they’re not rude for the MOST PART to opposing views. Also they do make a point to bring in opposing views to their watching viewers.
I do try to watch all sides of the issues. Agree with me or disagree, yet I feel slighted when watching media outlets like CNN and MSNBC. I walk away too many times from their talking heads feeling like I’m not entitled to have an opinion. In fact when watching these outlets I feel that I’m labeled from a plethora of disgusting and backwards thinking groups. I’m labeled a racist, sexist, homophobe, neocon, nationalist, and so many others just because I might have a different point of view.
I’m not saying Fox news is perfect. Yet in my research they will at least allow you to have your voice. Maybe that’s why they have been the #1 News outlet for like ever.
