NYT shows more than bias, mis-represents facts.

Anything and Everything political, express your view, but play nice
Post Reply
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11595
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

NYT shows more than bias, mis-represents facts.

Post by Mister Moose »

I was looking for more info on the recent court order for Clinton to testify yet again on her email scandal. I saw this article from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/po ... mails.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Only six weeks ago, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey Jr., declined to recommend prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, saying that while her actions had been careless, they did not amount to a crime.
The FBI Director Comey never said that her actions did not amount to a crime. What Comey said was
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
The FBI said there was no clear evidence. That is a long way from declaring no crime was committed. In addition, being extremely careless with classified information is a crime. There is evidence to support that, but the FBI declined to press charges. Comey went on to say
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.... In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
Declining to prosecute does not make you innocent. The FBI declined to prosecute due to the lack of precedent, not the presence of HRC's innocence. I find this reasoning to be a little troubling, as being the first to commit a certain type of crime somehow grants you amnesty?

In any event, characterizing the FBI's comments as "not amounting to a crime" is willful manipulation of the facts by the New York Times. This leads to a characterization of the whole email scandal as "HRC did nothing wrong" where it should be "HRC did something illegal, but the justice system declined to prosecute". The FBI never said "No crime was committed", and the New York Times printed that the FBI did. The NYT should know this, as their own article contained the complete transcript of Comey's remarks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/tr ... mails.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People vote on the basis of how the media present the facts. People assume that respected institutions like the New York Times is a reliable source. When that trust in our news reporting is violated, the integrity of the election is threatened. As an isolated occurrence, the effect is negligible, but when it is a repetitive condition, our voting decision suffers.

I recently read a comment on how Bill Clinton was impeached for "getting a blowjob in the Whitehouse", and how we as Americans shouldn't be concerned with any public official's sex life. I agree, I don't care about either Clinton's sex life. However, WJC was impeached not for the blowjob, not because it was in the Oval Office, and not because it was with Lewinsky. WJC was impeached because he lied about having sex while under oath in a sexual harassment case. It was the perjury, not the sex. It was the sexual harassment in the case at hand, not the sex with Lewinsky. The media's willingness to portray it as "Clinton was impeached for getting some on the side", and the public's perception of that still lives on to this day. And people vote on that perception.

Oh, well. At this point, what difference does it make?
Image
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

Re: NYT shows more than bias, mis-represents facts.

Post by madhatter »

Mister Moose wrote:I was looking for more info on the recent court order for Clinton to testify yet again on her email scandal. I saw this article from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/po ... mails.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Only six weeks ago, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey Jr., declined to recommend prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, saying that while her actions had been careless, they did not amount to a crime.
The FBI Director Comey never said that her actions did not amount to a crime. What Comey said was
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
The FBI said there was no clear evidence. That is a long way from declaring no crime was committed. In addition, being extremely careless with classified information is a crime. There is evidence to support that, but the FBI declined to press charges. Comey went on to say
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.... In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
Declining to prosecute does not make you innocent. The FBI declined to prosecute due to the lack of precedent, not the presence of HRC's innocence. I find this reasoning to be a little troubling, as being the first to commit a certain type of crime somehow grants you amnesty?

In any event, characterizing the FBI's comments as "not amounting to a crime" is willful manipulation of the facts by the New York Times. This leads to a characterization of the whole email scandal as "HRC did nothing wrong" where it should be "HRC did something illegal, but the justice system declined to prosecute". The FBI never said "No crime was committed", and the New York Times printed that the FBI did. The NYT should know this, as their own article contained the complete transcript of Comey's remarks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/tr ... mails.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People vote on the basis of how the media present the facts. People assume that respected institutions like the New York Times is a reliable source. When that trust in our news reporting is violated, the integrity of the election is threatened. As an isolated occurrence, the effect is negligible, but when it is a repetitive condition, our voting decision suffers.

I recently read a comment on how Bill Clinton was impeached for "getting a blowjob in the Whitehouse", and how we as Americans shouldn't be concerned with any public official's sex life. I agree, I don't care about either Clinton's sex life. However, WJC was impeached not for the blowjob, not because it was in the Oval Office, and not because it was with Lewinsky. WJC was impeached because he lied about having sex while under oath in a sexual harassment case. It was the perjury, not the sex. It was the sexual harassment in the case at hand, not the sex with Lewinsky. The media's willingness to portray it as "Clinton was impeached for getting some on the side", and the public's perception of that still lives on to this day. And people vote on that perception.

Oh, well. At this point, what difference does it make?
GHWBush and the self check register is another perfect example of media bias, where the narrative trumped reality...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Guy in Shorts
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
Posts: 3754
Joined: Mar 29th, '12, 18:27
Location: KMP Island

Re: NYT shows more than bias, mis-represents facts.

Post by Guy in Shorts »

AP article clipped from the Rutland Herald - This is what happens to the little people when they break the rules regarding classified info and try to hide their conduct. Same rules applied to me as a 22 year old Machinist's mate on my sub back in 1981.
HARTFORD, Conn. — A Vermont sailor in the Navy was sentenced Friday to a year in prison for taking photos of classified areas inside a nuclear attack submarine while it was in port in Connecticut.

Kristian Saucier, of Arlington, appeared in federal court in Bridgeport, where a judge also ordered him to serve six months of home confinement with electronic monitoring during a three-year period of supervised release after the prison time. He pleaded guilty in May to unauthorized detention of defense information and had faced five to six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines.

Saucier admitted to taking six photos of classified areas inside the USS Alexandria in 2009 when it was in Groton. At the time he was a 22-year-old Machinist’s mate on the submarine. The photos showed the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment, prosecutors said.

Saucier took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy, his lawyers said. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorized recipient.

“It was a foolish mistake by a very young man,” his lawyer, Greg Rinckey, said after the sentencing. “It’s a very sad case because Kristian Saucier is a fine young man. We don’t believe this was really his true character.”

Saucier is expected to receive an “other than honorable” discharge from the Navy next month, Rinckey said. He is to report to prison on Oct. 12.

Saucier did not speak during Friday’s court proceeding.

Federal prosecutors said the FBI and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service were never able to determine if the photos had been distributed to unauthorized people because Saucier destroyed key evidence including his laptop computer, a camera and a memory card after an interview with the FBI in 2012.

Prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill to send Saucier to prison for five years, saying his conduct put national security at risk.

The investigation began in 2012 when a waste station supervisor in Hampton, Connecticut, found Saucier’s cellphone with the submarine photos on top of a pile of demolition trash and showed it to his friend, who was a retired Navy chief and brought the phone to the NCIS, according to court documents.

Saucier, who grew up in Cape Coral, Florida, had asked U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill to sentence him to probation. In court filings, he compared his case to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state. The FBI declined to charge Clinton for her handling of classified information while using the server.

Saucier’s lawyers also said two other Alexandria crew members were caught taking photos in the same locations as Saucier, but were not prosecuted — only disciplined by the Navy.
Hillary wants a four year home confinement sentence in the White House for her behavior. Looks like the voters may give her what she wants not what she deserves.
If my words did glow with the gold of sunshine.
Dr. NO
Signature Poster
Posts: 21422
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 05:52
Location: In the Baah!

Re: NYT shows more than bias, mis-represents facts.

Post by Dr. NO »

WTF is in a seaman's brain to think that taking pictures of classified areas of a sub is OK? I worked on Minuteman 1 and MM III. I could take some pics inside a training silo, even gave my mom and brothers a tour, BUT, to post on line or even take the pics on a sub? Just stupid. Using the Hilary option sounds good, but obviously didn't work with the judge. One year for espionage is small. The other than honorable discharge will follow him for life.
MUST STOP POSTING ! MUST STOP POSTING !

Shut up and Ski!

Why's Everybody Always Pickin on Me?
freeski
Post Office
Posts: 4699
Joined: Feb 13th, '13, 19:55
Location: Concord, N.H.
Contact:

Re: NYT shows more than bias, mis-represents facts.

Post by freeski »

Dr. NO wrote:WTF is in a seaman's brain to think that taking pictures of classified areas of a sub is OK? I worked on Minuteman 1 and MM III. I could take some pics inside a training silo, even gave my mom and brothers a tour, BUT, to post on line or even take the pics on a sub? Just stupid. Using the Hilary option sounds good, but obviously didn't work with the judge. One year for espionage is small. The other than honorable discharge will follow him for life.
Stupid defense by his lawyers.
I Belong A Long Way From Here.
Post Reply