• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most conservatives don't understand purpose of journalism, says founder of website on media bias

Bias doesn't mean something is wrong.

It just means it's biased, and you have to check it's facts, logic, and conclusions to see if they're wrong.

Like, if I see an article from a right biased source, I have to check it's facts, logic, and conclusion to see if they're flawed, and in what way.

I should do the same for a left biased source, but I probably don't do so enough.

The problem is that if I spent the time necessary to confirm the facts, logic, and conclusions of every article I read, I'd have no time to do anything else.

Bias in the news media is always wrong. I'm talking about the straight news not opinion shows like Hannity and Maddow. If you've ever listened to the hourly news on NPR you know what I mean.
 
Bias in the news media is always wrong. I'm talking about the straight news not opinion shows like Hannity and Maddow. If you've ever listened to the hourly news on NPR you know what I mean.
What I'm trying to say is that bias doesn't make the facts wrong.
 
What I'm trying to say is that bias doesn't make the facts wrong.

That's good. What I'm saying is that bias in the media where one candidate gets 95% negative stories is kind of unfair. As seen against Trump and Bush and in his day Reagan.
 
Bias in the news media is always wrong. I'm talking about the straight news not opinion shows like Hannity and Maddow. If you've ever listened to the hourly news on NPR you know what I mean.

You saying NPR is biased only proves your bias.
They and. BBC are the most credible news sources out there.
I know trump and his cult do not like it when facts are reported...
 
You saying NPR is biased only proves your bias.
They and. BBC are the most credible news sources out there.
I know trump and his cult do not like it when facts are reported...

Lol! Even NPR's lighthearted so-called comedy shows spend most of their time lambasting Trump and Republicans. I say fund the police and defund NPR.
 
Sorry. I don't know who fed you this line of bullshit (You didn't provide a link), but Federal indictments can only be brought by Grand Juries. Any conclusions Mueller wanted to make in his confidential report to the Attorney General is not an indictment.


According to the DOJ it was. Both Barr and Mueller said that Mueller was prohibited from concluding that the president committed a crime. Whether that was actually true in your eyes is irrelevant if they believed it was true.
 
According to the DOJ it was. Both Barr and Mueller said that Mueller was prohibited from concluding that the president committed a crime. Whether that was actually true in your eyes is irrelevant if they believed it was true.
No idea where you are getting this from ({best guess is your loon media) but neither of them have ever said there was any limit on what Mueller could conclude in his report.

Barr act expressly said Mueller could have reached a conclusion in his report.

Barr told CBS in a clip posted to Twitter on Thursday, "The opinion says you cannot indict a president while he's in office. But (Mueller) could've reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity."


And was actually surprised he didn't

 
No idea where you are getting this from ({best guess is your loon media) but neither of them have ever said there was any limit on what Mueller could conclude in his report.

Barr act expressly said Mueller could have reached a conclusion in his report.




And was actually surprised he didn't


Mueller said otherwise. And you already know where I'm getting it from. I provided you several links. Care to comment on them?
 
Mueller said otherwise.

Nope. Never.

And you already know where I'm getting it from. I provided you several links. Care to comment on them?
Sure. Fatman Nadler asked him that exact question. Directly. Unequivocally. And Mueller said he could have, but that he could not indict.


NADLER:
Now, is it correct that if you concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER:
Can you repeat the question, sir?

NADLER:
Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER:
Well, I would say you could -- the statement would be to -- that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president -- excuse me -- cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.
 
Nope. Never.


Sure. Fatman Nadler asked him that exact question. Directly. Unequivocally. And Mueller said he could have, but that he could not indict.


NADLER:
Now, is it correct that if you concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER:
Can you repeat the question, sir?

NADLER:
Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER:
Well, I would say you could -- the statement would be to -- that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president -- excuse me -- cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.

??? Did you even read the above transcript? He said he could not conclude that the president had committed a crime, because he could not indict a sitting president. Do you read the above as Mueller saying that he could have concluded that Trump committed a crime? That is interesting. I read it as him saying he could NOT have concluded that Trump committed a crime in an official document or under oath, because that would be a State indictment, which is unconstitutional. That's why he said it would be unconstitutional.

Why do you think Mueller couldn't simply have responded "That is not correct?" Why do you think he was being mealy-mouthed and trying to avoid giving a conclusion one way or another? Why do you think Nadler asked that question if the answer was "no?" Don't you think he already knew the answer was "yes?"

Mueller was constitutionally prohibited from concluding the president was guilty of a crime. The DOJ cannot make this determination. Only the House of Representatives can make this determination. The purpose of the Mueller investigation was to investigate and share evidence and let the House determine if a crime had been committed. The House determined that a crime was indeed committed and impeached President Donald Trump. The Senate declined to remove him for this crime.

 
??? Did you even read the above transcript? He said he could not conclude that the president had committed a crime, because he could not indict a sitting president. Do you read the above as Mueller saying that he could have concluded that Trump committed a crime?

That is exaactly what he said and exactly what Barr said. Their langauge could not have been more clear.
That is interesting. I read it as him saying he could NOT have concluded that Trump committed a crime in an official document or under oath, because that would be a State indictment, which is unconstitutional.
DO ever read anything I post you? I'm i just wasting my time here? We've been through that. Nothing Muller could have ever said in his report would be an indictment. Federal law requires the indictment comes from a grand jury.

That's why he said it would be unconstitutional. Why do you think Mueller couldn't simply have responded "That is not correct?" Why do you think he was being mealy-mouthed and trying to avoid giving a conclusion one way or another? Why do you think Nadler asked that question if the answer was "no?" Don't you think he already knew the answer was "yes?"

Mueller was constitutionally prohibited from concluding the president was guilty of a crime. The DOJ cannot make this determination. Only the House of Representatives can make this determination. The purpose of the Mueller investigation was to investigate and share evidence and let the House determine if a crime had been committed. The House determined that a crime was indeed committed and impeached President Donald Trump. The Senate declined to remove him for this crime.

Sorry. the House expressly refused to include any count of Obstruction from the Mueller report even though your media was begging them to do it. Why? Because they knew the facts showed he wasn't guilty of obstruction

I really can't help you any more. Mueller said it explicitly. Barr said it explicitly. He could have concluded in his report that facts show that the President committed obstruction.
 
quote
Most conservatives don't understand purpose of journalism, says founder of website on media bias

Over the last decade, however, Sheffield — who founded NewsBusters with his brother Greg and worked there until 2014 — has come to believe that he was part of a problem, not a solution, and is now working to correct that error.

The problem, as he describes it, is that most conservatives think the purpose of journalism is to wage partisan political warfare, ……..

Wow. That's some detachment from reality. Transference I believe the psychologist call it.
 
??? Did you even read the above transcript? He said he could not conclude that the president had committed a crime, because he could not indict a sitting president. Do you read the above as Mueller saying that he could have concluded that Trump committed a crime? That is interesting. I read it as him saying he could NOT have concluded that Trump committed a crime in an official document or under oath, because that would be a State indictment, which is unconstitutional.

What absurdities you people go to. Muellar was tasked with making a report. A report isn't an indictment. Clintons impeachment the special council spelled out the violations of law.
 
What absurdities you people go to. Muellar was tasked with making a report. A report isn't an indictment. Clintons impeachment the special council spelled out the violations of law.

Interesting that you bring up the Clinton investigation, because Clinton did the same thing Trump did to a far lesser extent in terms of obstruction of justice. Both men attempted to interfere in the investigation. Clinton did so with an alibi. Trump didn't bother with an alibi. The difference being, that the DOJ during the Clinton administration was not the corrupt partisan body is it under Trump, and the Attorney General did not actively interfere in the investigation by concluding that the word "indictment" in the OLC opinion applied to any statement in an official investigation that could be interpreted as the president having committed a crime.

“A President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...says-its-up-to-congress-to-indict-a-president

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/i-worked-ken-starr-and-i-signed-doj-letter/588907/

It is either you who are the victim of gaslighting, or you are actively trying to rewrite history in such a way to cast doubt on reality as we all watched it, and are yourself guilty of using gaslighting to advance a dishonest agenda.
 
“A President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that, too, is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”.

Silly. A report to Congress isn't a charging of a crime. Ken Starr didn't charge Clinton with Perjury but his report to Congress clearly spelled out their finding that Clinton had committed perjury. Just as Muellars report could of.
 
Silly. A report to Congress isn't a charging of a crime. Ken Starr didn't charge Clinton with Perjury but his report to Congress clearly spelled out their finding that Clinton had committed perjury. Just as Muellars report could of.

Mueller's report did to the extent possible with Donald Trump's obstruction. But he was legally and constitutionally barred from concluding that Donald Trump committed a crime. All he could conclude was that Donald Trump could not be exonerated from soliciting election interference from a foreign power nor from obstruction of justice, and show the evidence he had for this conclusion.
 
Wow. That's some detachment from reality. Transference I believe the psychologist call it.
No, its a Conservative who is telling the truths of what he has learned from/about Conservatives.
 
That's good. What I'm saying is that bias in the media where one candidate gets 95% negative stories is kind of unfair. As seen against Trump and Bush and in his day Reagan.
One candidates yearns for any attention and stops at nothing to get it. History has shown Trump is a petulant child.
 
Nope. Never.


Sure. Fatman Nadler asked him that exact question. Directly. Unequivocally. And Mueller said he could have, but that he could not indict.


NADLER:
Now, is it correct that if you concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER:
Can you repeat the question, sir?

NADLER:
Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER:
Well, I would say you could -- the statement would be to -- that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president -- excuse me -- cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.
Link?
 
I think I clicked on NBC's site but any one with a transcript of his testimony before the House Judiciary Commitee
 
I think I clicked on NBC's site but any one with a transcript of his testimony before the House Judiciary Commitee
The OLC memo about not charging a sitting President is solely their decision, indicting a sitting President is not unConstitutional
 
One candidates yearns for any attention and stops at nothing to get it. History has shown Trump is a petulant child.

Petulant children can be surprisingly adept at times. A la Winston Churchill and Albert Einstein. Trump mentioned both of them many times in his memoirs.
 
Petulant children can be surprisingly adept at times. A la Winston Churchill and Albert Einstein. Trump mentioned both of them many times in his memoirs.
Of course a trust fund reality tv star would mention them, he yearns to be respected.
 
Of course a trust fund reality tv star would mention them, he yearns to be respected.

Donald owned the Emmy's in TV his days. Trust fund baby made good? Have you seen that hottie mother of his youngest son he has on his arm at public events? Grrooooowll!
 
The OLC memo about not charging a sitting President is solely their decision, indicting a sitting President is not unConstitutional
I agree it's a bit tortured, but from a policy point of view, I agree with it 100%
 
Back
Top Bottom