I would love to be even the least bit optimistic about this, but I can't see anyway that there will be enough of a public outcry for there to be a conviction. Because, even if say 60% of all Americans believe he should be impeached, I would guess it will never get below 75% of Republicans against impeachment. It is at 90% now. Getting 20 Republican senators to vote against 75%+ of their base is not happening. I doubt in the end there will be more than 2, and there probably won't be any (even Romney) if there is no chance of actually conviction.

I have been trying to figure this out since I read the story.

It wasn't possible to charge him with both?

Let's add some more legal light on one of the chief defenses that Republicans are throwing out. The Whistle blower report says from the very beginning that he was not a witness to most of the things he was reporting, but he received information from many sources. Republicans are making a big deal of this being hearsay, therefore it useless.


Please correct me if I am wrong. Hearsay is usually not admissible in court, and for good reason. "Joe said Jonny said" is not very reliable. But that doesn't mean you can't use hearsay to direct an investigation. The point being here, the whistle blower report directed the Inspector General to whom he needs to talk to to collaborate the report. That is completely legal, and the way every investigator would use hearsay information.


In other words, the fact that this was hearsay does not invalidate anything proven to be true in the report.

Hearsay was plenty enough with Linda Tripp.

This is 100% correct. "Hearsay" is currently a GOP talking point. (Since they stopped cc'ing the Dems on these, we are having to guess them from their actions).

Hearsay is generally not admitted as evidence in a criminal trial.

It is used constantly, however

(1) At bail hearings
(2) To support arrests
(3) To direct police investigations
(4) At parole revocation hearings
(5) To explain the actions of officers and others who are testifying

I have many clients who are sitting in cages as I type this whose confinement was based primarily or solely on hearsay.

This may or may not play well for the GOP politically. But, legally, it makes about as much sense as claiming that nothing the President has said or done should be used against him because he never got Miranda warnings. Which is to say it makes no sense.

I think there's a tipping point where everything will collapse quickly and the GOP will try to salvage the 2020 election as best they can. I don't know whether or not we'll get to that tipping point, but I think it's possible.

dola

I think, politically, the hearsay argument goes nowhere because there is other corroborating evidence. Plenty of the hearsay has already been shown to be true based on other evidence.

If you mean the President and his personal lawyer constantly admitting the conduct over and over, then, yeah, I guess you could say that there is "other evidence." :D

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...9a0_story.html


Riiiiiggghhhtttt

It's hearsay and we didn't do it and we did it and it was spectacular.

The Sunday shows have been amazing. All od them, even Fox, has eaten the presidents defenders for lunch. All they can do is harp on the whistleblower and hearsay, but can't deny a single fact.

I sincerely and honestly wonder whether, if you gave Trump an unlabled map, he's be able to find Ukraine.

Trump loyalists are working hard defend Trump. It isn’t going well. - Vox

I was wondering that too. If they can ever get him on the stand they should make him read aloud as much as possible and force him to do basic math and geography on the spot.

I get that there may not be a good strategy here, but they are going hard on the 30-40% of voters that won't abandon them, and while that may put enough pressure on enough senators to stave off removal, I'm not sure anyone's done the math for 2020.

I thought whomever wanted to talk about Benghazi on the internet should have had to do a captcha type thing and identify its general location on the map.

All this impeachment talk is getting to him:


Like every American, I deserve to meet my accuser, especially when this accuser, the so-called “Whistleblower,” represented a perfect conversation with a foreign leader in a totally inaccurate and fraudulent way. Then Schiff made up what I actually said by lying to Congress......



His lies were made in perhaps the most blatant and sinister manner ever seen in the great Chamber. He wrote down and read terrible things, then said it was from the mouth of the President of the United States. I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason.....



....In addition, I want to meet not only my accuser, who presented SECOND & THIRD HAND INFORMATION, but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the “Whistleblower.” Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!

This probably isn't the right thread but I thought this was interesting:

Ex-French President Jacques Chirac was 'bribed' by Saddam Hussein: report

Just what is a "perfect conversation"... was there love in the air? could he feel they were really connecting on a personal level? maybe notes were passed...

People who kiss his butt first then give him everything he demanded?

Is there any where I can get unbiased political news & commentary?

Fox News. Fair and Balanced.

Heuy Lewis?

Simple answer: No.

I worked in the news media for seven years. I studied and wrote on this subject in college.

Not only is it impossible to have unbiased political news and commentary in this climate, it's impossible because of human nature. Writing a news article requires hundreds of value judgments - from the wording of the title, to who you interview, to the order of sentences, etc. - and with that many judgment calls, it is impossible to be unbiased in writing an article. When you factor in editors and the groupthink that infects newsrooms ... objective, unbiased news coverage is utterly impossible.

Now, it is possible to have journalistic integrity and attempt to be fair and balanced ...

But I got out of the industry precisely because such integrity was considered a dinosaur value, and the biggest force and 400-pound gorilla in journalism - the Associated Press - was deliberately trying to stamp it out. Few placed even TRY anymore.

No, you cannot get unbiased news. You can, however, get news from a deliberate blend of diverging viewpoints. For example, I read both FoxNews.com and CNN.com every morning. Yes, it turns my stomach to read such irresponsible, propagandic garbage (from BOTH camps), but at least it gives me a better picture of what's going on than had I read (or, God forbid, WATCHED) either of them alone.

I agree. Every decision requires some editorial judgment.

If I have a platform of some sort, and I decide to write about [subject X], then I have made the decision NOT to write about other newsworthy things, which is itself a pretty significant editorial decision. No matter how "balanced" my story is, its very existence has already revealed some strong biases.

I also agree with looking for balance. I would differ from rev a bit in that I would not try to find balance by looking for just Left/Right news, but instead trying to find people who's writing you really like and trust and go with that. They will (ideally) shift being left or right based on what reality does under them.

For instance, I really really like Susan Hennessy for NatSec stuff. She's a pretty conservative leaner (as a lot of people in that world are), but right now, she would be seen as leftist because she is so anti Trump and his enablers.

When/if the Dems get in charge again, I imagine that she will go back to being seen as a right-wing writer, but her stuff will be just as good.

Reuters is ridiculously balanced and gives no special attention to one side or the other, and has great coverage of international affairs with equal importance to domestic.

dola


Speaking of Reuters, and of world affairs.

China has quietly doubled troop levels in Hong Kong, envoys say

This is trump's foreign policy of isolation. It used to be that the leader of the free world was the voice of freedom and democracy around the world. Now, it's not even addressed, and not worth even a mention from either side.

I will concede that Reuters is far more balanced than CNN or FOX or NYT or WaPo or MSNBC or NBC/ABC/CBS or ... several others. And I could probably recommend a few others I would consider as being less egregiously biased than their peers.

But I would not agree that it's "ridiculously balanced," and I would still argue deliberate diversity of your news sources is still the best way to get the most complete picture.

This is exactly why my wife never actually went into journalism, despite running her college paper and getting a journalism degree.

The Associated Press was trying to stamp out integrity? Can you elaborate on this?

Sure. The AP style guide is the industry standard on what is considered proper language and usage in journalism. Because most news sources get many of their stories from the AP, they conform ALL their stories to the AP style guide, so that grammar, punctuation, spellings, words to describe various controversies, etc., are all uniform across the news source.

In other words - and this is a strong statement, but not an exaggeration - the Associated Press controls the language the news media uses.

Reporters can be disciplined (and/or fired) for using fair and accurate language, if that language conflicts with the AP style guide.

And unfortunately, the AP is blatantly and decidedly one-way politically biased.

Easiest example to point to is the abortion debate. Controversial. The language is fought over. Naturally, we have long referred to the two sides as "pro-choice" and "pro-life." And frankly, those terms are fairly accurate, as one side is fighting pro women having legal choice in the matter and the other is fighting pro the life of the unborn child. Yet the AP style guide has banned the use of both of those terms. Instead, the only allowed terms are "pro-abortion rights" or "anti-abortion rights." In other words, one group is pro-rights and the other is "anti" rights. I work in public relations now. The AP's required language isn't just slanting the language, it's tipping the whole table over and throwing it to one side. Even hard-core, leftist reporters I've talked to about this just shake their heads and say, "I know, right?" It's a case of AP wielding their influence and, frankly, power, over journalism to deliberately influence the national debate.

That's one of the more egregious examples. I could find others, but I've been out of journalism for a few years, and my AP style guide is out of date.

Gonna give you the big shurg on this one.

Your own personal biases are decidedly balanced by your religious preferences. In your example, those initial choice of pro choice and pro life were chosen by Religious and Conservative leadership. They are decidedly biased, as the definition of using life in an argument is leading. A generic group using only those words is lead, because who could be against life? And what kind of choice is against life? It's also unclear, because the same verbiage could be used in an euthanasia discussion.

Changing the terms to pro or anti abortion is much better technically. It isn't leading, and doesn't predispose a reader to one way or the other, and is clear regarding the object if the discussion.

These are the goals in data collection, science and should be the goals in journalism outside of opinion. I would disagree that the AP is decidedly biased and would go out if my way to say that their choices in this matter were correct from a technical perspective as well as achieving the goal of removing bias from the topic at hand.

So today has been:

*Threats of civil war and violence if removed from office
*Admitting the white house is ignoring the whistle blower protection act and actively trying to find out who he is
*Suggestion that the House Chairman should be arrested for treason.
*the first member of congress to endorse Trump resigns pending a plea deal to admit to insider trading.

who is the one resigning?


also house intel committee subpoenas Rudy.

I don't believe "pro-choice" was chosen by religious leadership, but by legal abortion advocates (if I'm wrong on that, then you'd be right about not using that term).

By the way, I would argue the most opinion-neutral terms would be "advocate of legalized abortion" and "opponent of legalized abortion." That would be the correct call by AP. But not what they chose.

As soon as you call abortion a "right," you've already sided with on side of the debate, which the AP has clearly done. I mean, imagine if the AP had decided the OTHER way: "pro-fetal rights" and "anti-fetal rights." Or even more so, "pro-unborn baby rights" and "anti-unborn baby rights." Is the bias not obvious in those cases? Just as obvious in this "anti-abortion rights" label.

Regardless, in the field of journalism, ethics dictate you allow a subject to define themselves; you don't override their definition with your own opinion (which the AP has done in this case). For example, as a journalist, I night refer to the KKK as a "white supremecist" group (if they would describe themselves as such), but as soon as I call them a "hate" group, I have injected my own opinion. Doesn't matter if my opinion is right, I injected it. Similarly, a journalist shouldn't refer to the Muslim Brotherhood as a "terrorist" group, but merely an "Islamist" group. Or call some gay organization a "pro-anal sex" group. Jeez! Can you imagine? As a journalist, I shouldn't be renaming groups according to my own judgment of the right or wrong of their cause, but allow a group to define itself. And no "pro-life" or "anti legal abortion" group EVER referred defined themselves as being "against abortion rights."

And a reporter definitely shouldn't be using blatantly biased, half-truth labels.

Imagine if AP decided to draft a rule, "In second reference, distinguish the Democrat Party as the "God-rejecting" party, because of the decision at the national DNC meeting to remove "God" from the Party platform." Doesn't matter if "God-rejecting" is technically correct or not, to insert that blatantly biased half-truth would be irresponsible journalism designed to deliberately make the Dems sound bad.

Similarly, referring to opponents of legalized abortion as "anti-rights" groups is a blatantly biased, half-truth deliberately designed to make opponents of legalized abortion sound bad.

found the answer-Chris Collins


https://www.thedailybeast.com/rep-ch...-trading-case/

But isn't that just how the Supreme Court ruled in the majority decision? They called it a right.

The Supreme Court's words hardly ended the controversy. It rages on. And as a journalist, I have the responsibility to allow respective parties to speak for themselves, not say, "Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you, so you're wrong, and now I get to call you the 'wrong party' every time I mention you."

To be a fair journalist, I should refer to parties according to their position, using words that don't pass judgment on that position. To speak in black and white, not color people with a brush of my own judgment. The AP in this case (and others), however, decided EVERY mention of certain parties should be painted and with which brush to paint. That's the inherent bias and undermining of journalistic integrity.

So you are saying it is inaccurate to report on how the Supreme Court ruled? You obviously do not agree with the ruling, but that is explicitly what the ruling states. Unless the ruling it overturned, it is indeed a right in this country based on the majority decision. You can argue that it shouldn't be the case, but that doesn't change that it is the current state. You are the one who put "right" in quotes as if that is a made up or inaccurate status, when that is clearly not the case.

You orange-haired shitweasel, if they made shit up and gave it to the whistleblower, it a) isn't illegal and b) isn't spying.

YOU CANNOT HAVE THIS BOTH WAYS, YOU FELLATER OF A FLEA-INFESTED CAMEL.

If you want to accuse someone of spying, that is a tacit admission that the information disseminated is, in fact, accurate. Oh, maybe you can argue that context matters, that the information is accurate but that it lacks context in some way.

But it is functionally impossible for someone to both be passing false information to hurt you politically AND have stolen that false information from you via espionage.

No, that's just it! In context, I did not mean to suggest it's inaccurate. I'm saying the ethics of journalism extend beyond just what's accurate. Otherwise, reporters can just say whatever they want, as long as they believe it's true. But that just makes them a columnist, not a fair and unbiased reporter.

Take the example: Say the Supreme Court rules that tobacco companies knowingly cover up cancer risks (I seem to remember that actually happened). And let's say it's absolutely true and accurate. But a reporter is held to a higher standard. He should not refer to tobacco companies as "carcinogen merchants" or "sellers of cancer sticks," even though that's EXACTLY what they are. Why? Because it introduces an inherent bias against the subject and prejudices the reader against the subject's position.

Which is EXACTLY what the AP did in the abortion case, calling one side "pro-rights" and the other "anti-rights." Accurate? Sure. Fair journalism, no.

Even this thread gets sidetracked on how truthful the media is as Trump continues to spew total bullshit. But again, these come from the AP, so are their fact checks biased?

___

As a former journalist, personally I think revrew is a little overwrought on the evils of rhe AP Style Guide. I think the language choices certainly have a subtle influence, bht in the kong run, I think tney fall well short of being determinative toward whatever the AP's bias is.

I conpletely agree that it is pretty much impossible to root out bias in journalism. The best you can hope for is that the reporter, editor and publisher are all committed to attempting to being unbiased, applying as best as possible fair and rational reporting of sourced and verifiable facts. That leaves their unconscious biases, but at least you're not being intentionally steered one way or another.

You can easily say the same when it comes to the terms Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. Unless the AP is comfortable wading into the discussion of when life actually begins it shouldn't use the term Pro-Life either.

The fact that he's threatened a whistle-blower multiple times should be grounds for impeachment. If we can't hold the President to a higher standard than that then we don't deserve a functional government.

Trump retweeting Breitbart and acting like they have legitimacy is insanity.

It's not unbiased news, but I like AllSides. It's a website that categorizes the major news outlets into left, center, and right, and organizes the hot news stories of the day (almost always political) so that you can see what media on the left is saying about it, media on the right, etc.



I'm as left as you can be, but I think it's important to look at all sides (no pun intended) of an issue before coming to your own conclusions, and Allsides.com seems like a good tool to help me do that.

It's probably also worth mentioning here that apparently Barr has been traveling the world trying to get dirt to discredit his own agencies and our country's intelligence agency.

And was doing so while also summarizing the Mueller report.

This. I think revrew's opinion provides too much moral equivalence to groups that would be seen as immoral to most people, i.e. Nazi's and Nazi opposition would have to be presented as morally neutral.