09-17-2019, 10:57 PM
(09-17-2019, 03:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You responded to claims that the FBI failed to contact any of the names provided to them by asking why the House Judiciary Committee hasn't had an investigation. That absolutely absolutely is deflecting.
No, it's pointing out a fact. The FBI has vetted Kavanaugh several times, he has been investigated. The House hasn't done one. These are facts.
Quote:Every single news source has reported that the NYT updated their report to include that information. If you were looking for someone who was going to use that omission as a launching point for how bad the media is, then yea all of your sources will be conservative. When you post an oped that uses a false narrative and glosses over what the article they're ranting about was actually about, the source becomes incredibly relevant as it is about opinion not facts.
The article's tone irrelevant. I didn't seek out an inflammatory source, I googled Kavanaugh's NYT story error and all the options were conservative sites. I suppose I could have used Fox, but I'm sure you'd have complained about that. In any event I only quoted the fact based section of the article as that was the entire point of my post.
Quote:You aren't. The first thing you posted on this was a extremely partisan oped that only focused on the new 4 sentence allegation and completely ignored the rest of the report. Your follow ups focused on that false narrative again until someone mentioned the FBI investigation to you.
No, I pointed out the NYT's made a basic, and significant, error in journalism. This was either done intentionally or due to incompetence, neither is a good thing. Again the oped was irrelevant to my point, the facts it pointed out where.
Quote:The whole point of the report is to question if the investigation was adequate and whether or not the practices of the FBI need to be scrutinized. Dismissing this by saying the FBI thought it was appropriate is nonsensical. Should nothing be scrutinized if the party that is facing scrutiny says they think they acted appropriately? I think ignoring 25 sources, even when they reach out to you, is troublesome.
We don't know that they ignored it. They could have had information that made questioning these other people superfluous. We don't know.
Quote:That came from Nadler not me. Also, Trump has absolutely been their primary focus.
I'm sure. Can they not have a secondary or tertiary focus? Can they only deal with one issue at a time?
Quote:If you read the article you wouldn't characterize it as a key piece, nor would you have posted that oped that did. This isn't meant to be condescension. Did you actually read it prior to posting the oped?
Absolutely. I read that a Clinton confidant reiterated a previous accusation against Kavanaugh. Once the victim of said event was revealed to have no recollection of it I gave the accusation minimal credence. I will say that burying someone on page one and correcting the story on page twelve isn't exactly fair journalism. Out of curiosity did you see the same book contains information about Ford's friend being threatened to corroborate her story?
