monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

layman wrote:

You tell me, Walt, you're the commie.

I have no idea - you didn't source your quote, that's why I asked.
(And I'm a member of the (German) Social-Democratic Party, not a "commie".)

President Trump and first lady Melania Trump will host a Super Bowl watch party at the Trump International Golf Club in Palm Beach, Fla. on Sunday.

The party will be held before the First Family travels back to Washington, D.C., according to a schedule released by the White House.

Former President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama hosted a Super Bowl party in the White House Residence's Treaty Room in 2016.

Trump has maintained a friendly relationship with one of this year's teams, the New England Patriots.

The president is friends with the team's owner Robert Kraft, as well as star quarterback Tom Brady.

He has also exchanged letters with coach Bill Belichick.

For weeks, allies of President Trump ratcheted up pressure to “release the memo.” The impact, according to supporters, would be monumental: It would shake the F.B.I. “to its core” (Representative Jeff Duncan of South Carolina) or it would reveal abuses “100 times bigger” than what incited the American Revolution (Sebastian Gorka, a former White House official).

The memo from House Republicans, led by Representative Devin Nunes, fell well short of the hype. Its main argument is that when the Justice Department sought a warrant to wiretap the former Trump adviser Carter Page, it did not reveal that Christopher Steele — the author of a controversial opposition-research dossier — was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign through a law firm.

This is actually a fairly common — and rarely effective — argument made by defendants who seek to suppress evidence obtained by a warrant.

Nothing in the Nunes memo rules out the possibility that considerable evidence beyond the Steele dossier helped the court reach that conclusion.

The central allegation of the Nunes memo is that the government committed a fraud when it obtained an order to conduct surveillance of Carter Page, a member of President Trump’s foreign policy team during the campaign. The memo claims that “[t]he ‘dossier’ compiled by Christopher Steele . . . formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application,” but that the government failed to disclose “the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts.” If not for this misrepresentation to the court, the story goes, there never would have been a Russia investigation.

This claim is deliberately misleading and deeply wrong on the law.

Rowan Scarborough's article published Sunday in the Washington Times is a perfect illustration of a culture of misogyny and victim blaming, which has perpetuated the ongoing epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the United States Military. In addition to being inaccurate, the arguments put forth by Scarborough serve to advance a reprehensible and thinly veiled attack on women who serve in the military.

In his article, Scarborough openly suggests that women are undermining the effectiveness of our forces by sexually baiting male service members and then crying rape when it goes farther than they anticipated. Scarborough quotes a retired Army officer and analyst at the Family Research Council, who argues "some women invite problems which lead men on and then result in advances that women can't turn off. Too often, such female culpability leads to allegations of sexual contact, assault, and then the women feign innocence."

We all know your position on the Democratic Party, Roy.

It's not going to happen.

And even if the party were outlawed, you'd still have millions and millions of former Democrats hanging around posing a possible source of political infection to the remaining parties. So I think you really need to forget about the outlawing the party and start a campaign to eliminate actual Democrats. It's the only way you'll be able to achieve a final solution to the vexing problem of political freedom.

I've noticed that some people like to post articles which uphold their viewpoint and then cleverly neglect to provide a citation because then everyone would immediately see that the sources are biased and lack credibility. This story's from the execrable Unification Church-owned Washington Times — I'd be embarrassed to cite it as a source too. Hell, I'd be embarrassed to even post it in the first place.

Walter, forgive me for going ad hominem but here's a example of this reporter's limitations and bias:

Quote:

Rowan Scarborough's article published Sunday in the Washington Times is a perfect illustration of a culture of misogyny and victim blaming, which has perpetuated the ongoing epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the United States Military. In addition to being inaccurate, the arguments put forth by Scarborough serve to advance a reprehensible and thinly veiled attack on women who serve in the military.

In his article, Scarborough openly suggests that women are undermining the effectiveness of our forces by sexually baiting male service members and then crying rape when it goes farther than they anticipated. Scarborough quotes a retired Army officer and analyst at the Family Research Council, who argues "some women invite problems which lead men on and then result in advances that women can't turn off. Too often, such female culpability leads to allegations of sexual contact, assault, and then the women feign innocence."

Huffington

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with defendants' rights to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement. The court held that where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.

In the dossier, he stated without reservation that an “extensive conspiracy between Trump’s campaign team and the Kremlin” existed.

"Alternative sanctions of a perjury prosecution, administrative discipline, contempt, or a civil suit are not likely to fill the gap...self-scrutiny is a lofty ideal, but its exaltation reaches new heights if we expect a District Attorney to prosecute himself or his associates for well meaning violations of the search and seizure clause during a raid the District Attorney or his associates have ordered."

Would you be embarrassed to cite something truthful and factual if it came from MSNBC?

Quote:

Would you be embarrassed to cite something truthful and factual if it came from MSNBC?

I'd be pretty circumspect if I were trying to use it in a debate with a conservative. Even if it were factual it sort of sets off an alarm that the NYT or WP might not.

If you'd be embarrassed to cite the Washington Times, aren't you also embarrassed to cite the Huffington Post?

"Conservatives" (i.e., reasonable people) don't reflexively and invariably resort to cheap-ass ad homs when they want to challenge a claim...

I'd be pretty circumspect if I were trying to use it in a debate with a conservative. Even if it were factual it sort of sets off an alarm that the NYT or WP might not.

here's a example of this reporter's limitations and bias:

Huffpo wrote:

Rowan Scarborough's article published Sunday in the Washington Times is a perfect illustration of a culture of misogyny and victim shaming....

If I had more time I'd have tried to find Scarborough's original article and use that instead.

How about trying, just for once, to actually address the TRUTH of an article, even if you don't like the facts it contains, eh?

“I think that there is probably some credibility to the content,” Richard Dearlove [ex-head MI6] of told the BBC’s “Newsnight” program on Tuesday.

Quote:

How about trying, just for once, to actually address the TRUTH of an article, even if you don't like the facts it contains, eh?

A common rhetorical technique is to claim that one's interpretation of an event or statement must be "true" if some verifiable facts are included in the argument. A person can assemble a lot of facts which are true and still come to a conclusion which is ambiguous, prejudiced, or false.

It's up to the Mueller team, not Steele — or Scarborough — to sort out what's credible and what isn't.

It was up to the FBI, at the time the warrant was being sought, NOT to commit fraud on the court. Ya don't go tryin to present supposed "fact" to a court when ya know it's coming from a paid liar with one goal in mind (besides bilkin Hillary Clinton out of $160,00--with promises of more coming from the FBI its own damn self--I mean). And ya sho nuff don't try to "beef up" the lies by sayin he wasn't the source of a slanderous article by Isikoff and by leaking confidential information to ensure the fake story gets published.