The Evidence Coming Out Of The Flynn Case Makes Mueller Look Worse And Worse

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes, text messages were erased.

No, I don’t believe the whitewashing of the incident.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: jrod
The Federalist is your source?

Really?

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

Extreme right and a questionable source:

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence...

They failed the fact check.

Which media do you believe then?

I read them all and decide.

I know I can count on very few reporters to be perfect. I also know there are some who just spin, spin, spin. After listening to it several times it become repetitive nonsense as if it were a bad movie about a psych class called brain washing 101. If i let one side spin me and do not get the balance, I sound like the leftist trolls. I just call em as I see them like my stance on the Bush, Clinton and Obama deep state CIA tactics.

We in western society have rogue gov's that regularly violate our Constitutional laws and our fundamental rights. We can vote them out if they could be stopped from gaming the elections that CLEARLY happens in the US.

That is what I do.

However when a source that is known to present false information, propaganda, and is extremely his(right or left) is used, I am instantly skeptical.

I have found no trusted sources that back up this article. The Federalist Papers is a media site that often uses rabble rousing stories that seem to push division to its readers. Furthermore I would not be surprised that they get many of their stories from the Russian troll mill.

What is disturbing is that so many blindly believe anything pro-Trump, anti liberal that they publish without doing their own fact checking.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Xcathdra

Really, really good article, and it spelled things out in a way that de-clouded some of what I though that I knew.

In know! Right? That article is just the perfect mix of confirmation bias and BS. Mmmmm, it's good not to have to think too much.

a reply to: jrod

Neat story.

Now, do you have the understanding of the legal system and procedure for federal investigations to actually cite falsehoods in the OP's link, or are you just hear to spread fear about the source because that's all that you have?

Even broken clocks are right twice a day...so, either cite actual issues with the claims in the story, or go back to your playground of logical fallacies (this one being the Genetic Fallacy).

ETA:

originally posted by: jrod

However when a source that is known to present false information, propaganda, and is extremely his(right or left) is used, I am instantly skeptical.

You aren't being skeptical, you're being logically fallacious by instantly dismissing the article because of the source's inherent bias (as ranked by a questionable source...just sayin').

I have found no trusted sources that back up this article. The Federalist Papers is a media site that often uses rabble rousing stories that seem to push division to its readers. Furthermore I would not be surprised that they get many of their stories from the Russian troll mill.

Now you're trying to fear monger by bringing in the scary Russians...

Do you truly not see what you're doing here? Do you really think that you're being logical in the comments that you're making about this story?

Here's a news flash for you--some of us are professionals in the federal judicial and law-enforcement profession, and we have a better understanding of the information included in this article than random people who can't even see the silliness of their claims against the story (who don't even refute anything said, just refute the source because it's apparent that they have no understanding of anything contained within).

What is disturbing is that so many blindly believe anything pro-Trump, anti liberal that they publish without doing their own fact checking.

You are accusing people of doing exactly what you're doing--you are blindly dismissing the article because of the source instead of the information contained within. You have not done any fact-checking on the actual information (which, BTW, I don't believe for a second that you've actually read and clicked on all of the links in the article), you just want to bitch about the source.

Blindly doing anything is wrong, but just because those of us (including the OP) who are in the profession or have a professional understanding of what this story is getting correct differ in comment than what you think should be said about Trump or Mueller or the special counsel does not mean that we are blindly believing anything.

It would instead seem like you need a mirror while making your accusations.

originally posted by: Extorris

In know! Right? That article is just the perfect mix of confirmation bias and BS. Mmmmm, it's good not to have to think too much.

Confirmation bias isn't a bad thing when the information and facts are correct, you silly goose.

You and "jrod" should team up with your comments--your logic is the same.

Bored at work again?

xoxo

a reply to: Grambler

I'm sorry I didnt realize these were your own videos.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I said instantly skeptical of a questionable source, not dismissed immediately...but you like to put words in ones mouth if it makes you look better.

I did my own fact checking and nothing supports this article.

In my opinion this thread belongs in the HOAX bin.

a reply to: neutronflux

Wheres the rule that says I have to copy the data. I gave a web address for those interested.

a reply to: jrod

Then you lack the knowledge and understanding to opine on this subject matter.

I didn't say that you said that you immediately dismiss questionable sources as policy, I said that you are being dismissive of this story simply because of the source. Re-read things so that you don't respond in a way that just tries to make you look better

Skepticism is good--irrational hatred of sources because of bias is bad.

Funny thing is, I've done my own fact-checking, and I also am immersed in the profession, and your conclusion is asinine that "nothing supports this article."

Your entire argument is a paralogism, and probably gets by a lot of people--some of us know better, though.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I am right about Russian trolls trying to sow social discord. This has come to light recently even though many of us suspected this for quite some time.

www.motherjones.com...

Russian internet trolls helped expand the reach of conservative media outlets as part of a Kremlin campaign to influence US politics and sow social discord, according to a new report commissioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

a reply to: Grambler

Any text between them on what ever phones would have been transferred to the .gov system at least once a week. I think that is the rule now.
This is dumb.... the texts are not gone.
And you know what.... you guys were making a lot more of them then they actually said...., insurance policies and deep state planning like a silly spy novel. Its all so stupid.

a reply to: jrod

That is an understood reality, just like many other countries do the same thing, and we do it to other countries.

What you did, though, try to plant the seed of doubt by invoking the scary Russian Trolls without any evidence that any of the stories are proven to be sourced from said Russian Trolls--and you're still implying that the information in the story is inaccurate in part or on the whole. You're wrong.

Be careful posting Mother Jones links...you wouldn't want someone to get all logically fallacious and dismiss your point because that's an extremely left-wing biased source, right?

Turnabout is fair play?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes, there are always back-ups of government correspondence. We have a 20-year retention rule on emails in the federal government, as well as an intra-office messaging system that gets backed up. I also have a Samsung phone issued by the govt that has two levels of password security and is also backed up.

The point isn't really that the communications are completely gone forever, it's the fact that there are procedures in place during investigations that make tampering with evidence a criminal offense--those phones should never have been processed for a new user while there was an active investigation, back-ups or not.

a reply to: jrod

You talk about bias sources and then link motherjones?

Wtf is the world coming to..

a reply to: samuelsson
Mother Jones is left bias, however they are good on reporting facts. The federalist is extreme right with poor reporting of facts.

The story I linked can been be verified by other sources.

Now we can put a number to trolls here, over 60 that's bad.
For one the text have been recovered and it was due to system failure. You sheeples attempt to make Mueller look bad since he's taking Trump Mafia down has been an absolute failure. You're spreading nothing more but white nationalist propaganda at this point which isn't surprising seeing as this is a far right forum which Google says itself
You all fail
Mueller will continue to expose Trump's crimes Merry Christmas

Captain America

originally posted by: sooth
The Mueller probe is the living embodiment of a Youtube conspiracy video.

Meh, more like "The Mueller probe is the living embodiment of ATS"

a reply to: Sillyolme

Is the below a false narrative

www.politifact.com...

The inspector general was unable to recover text messages Strzok and Page may have sent using iPhones they were given when they joined Mueller’s team. But a special counsel official who reviewed Strzok’s iPhone before it was reset found it contained no substantive messages.

Break

The watchdog’s findings suggest the most likely reason the texts weren’t captured had to do with technical flaws in the FBI’s data-collection process, not deliberate wrongdoing.

The whitewashing of convenient “flaws”?

You said all text messages are captured?

a reply to: Sillyolme

*shrugs* we also have rules about not transferring classified emails to a private server also, that didn't stop anything.