Most of that hype was around her new book.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
FBI Finds New Documents That Were Not There
- Thread starter esmith
- Start date
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Nope. Not at all. You shouldn't trust stories from any site, especially far-right or far-left sources, without confirming them with outside sources. Just common sense. I'm not asking for any far-left sites, just sites that aren't known to be far-right, conservative sites.
Judicial Watch is just as bad as the Daily Caller. Are the only sources you trust far-right (borderline extremist) news sites?
Not only is the not-finding then the subsequent finding of the 30 emails a big nothing-burger, what could these email exchanges between third parties possibly add to anything? The emailers weren't there; they could only have second- or third-hand information about the meeting. There is no investigation on this meeting, and there is no reason to investigate, as nothing illegal occurred by Clinton and Lynch meeting on the tarmac. The article quotes one email saying, “FBI is asking for guidance”--which is probably the closest thing to something bombshell-like found in the 30 emails.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I think that is why this is only appearing in far-right, super-conservative outlets. Whenever that is the case, 9 times out of 10, it is just another example of "fake news".
esmith
Veteran Member
Maybe if we wait until we find out what's in them would be the smart thing to do. However, I do realize that there are those that jump to conclusions without supporting facts.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Isn't that what you are doing? You are taking the word of the Daily Caller without confirming it with any source that isn't extreme right, correct?
I just read this highly speculative editorial piece (source) this morning. You can judge for yourself if it's relevant to the timing and content of this latest Hillary distraction:
During the course of the 2016 election, we all learned two things the hard way: Julian Assange and WikiLeaks were conspiring with the Russian government and the Donald Trump campaign to rig the election in Trump’s favor by leaking false or misleading information about Hillary Clinton, and the leaks from WikiLeaks were always timed to distract from one of Trump’s erupting scandals. Assange just unwittingly tipped off on Sunday night that another of those major Trump scandals is about to erupt.
Assange tweeted out a long series of alphanumeric characters, almost certainly a password for unlocking some sort of file that WikiLeaks is about to release. Most of Assange’s other tweets this weekend have been deranged fictional rants about Clinton, so whatever he’s about to leak, it’s probably yet another set of doctored documents pretending to expose a Clinton scandal. Why now? There’s only one reason WikiLeaks ever pulls this crap.
At this point, WikiLeaks and the Kremlin would only bother conspiring to whip up an imaginary new Hillary Clinton scandal if the forthcoming bombshell about Donald Trump is something that also makes Russia look bad – so we know this is about the Trump Russia scandal. When you combine this with Trump’s own deranged Sunday morning rant about the “failing New York Times” on Sunday before he went dark for the rest of the day, it suggests that Trump knows the Times is about to leak the Trump-Russia bombshell. So when will it happen?
Trump knows these things are coming because newspapers ask his White House for comment shortly before releasing them. Julian Assange seems to be betting on the bombshell arriving in the next few days, though he doesn’t seem to know precisely when, which is why he’s dragging out his stunt by releasing cryptic pieces to his propaganda puzzle. But these two men are predictable to the point of being stupid about it. They’ve just tipped off that one of the biggest Trump-Russia bombshells to date is about to arrive.
esmith
Veteran Member
No, the Daily Caller nor any other source of the story have said what the documents are about, only that there are documents. But I guess if you are died-in-the-wool anti-Trump person you will not believe anything that you find offensive against the Hillary, or any sources that are fixated on the negatives of this Presidency.
That is definitely interesting. I guess we will see what we will see.
It's hard not to conclude that JW already gave us the closest thing to a bombshell: "FBI is asking for guidance." If JW had anything more than that, there's no reason that they would withhold it, keep it to themselves. JW always want their cases tried in the court of public opinion.
I know of no reason to assume that JW has said anything false. After all, if there is anything of any relevance in the emails, it will brought out in their suit.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Speculative, for sure. But, it does make sense. We'll see, I guess, in the next couple of days whether a new Trump "bombshell" is dropped on us.
I still don't understand the Assange/Trump love affair, though. I would think they would hate each other.
I assumed that it is just hatred toward Clinton, which Trump just happens to reap the benefit of. But who knows? I don't think there's good reason to believe the Assange is a very mentally stable person.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
No. It has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or the fact that Trump is not an effective President. I don't trust any stories that come from a single source or only extreme-right sources. Same goes for far-left sources. I never trust stories until they've been confirmed by sources that don't share the same bias. If you fail to do this, you are very susceptable to "fake news". It comes from both sides, for sure. There are fake or exaggerated or speculative stories coming from the extreme-right and the extreme-left. That is why I stay away from sites like the Daily Caller and sources like Rachel Maddow. They both make their bias extremely obvious.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
He is a known traitor and criminal.
By the Way, Judicial Watch has initiated several quite admirable lawsuits and gotten a good deal of important information released--more than I had realized before just now looking it up.
For instance (all from Judicial Watch - Wikipedia ):
[. . .]
The Benghazi memo is also important. There is no reason to keep such information from the public.
For instance (all from Judicial Watch - Wikipedia ):
In July 2003 Judicial Watch joined the environmental organization Sierra Club in suing the George W. Bush administration for access to minutes of Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force.[7] Judicial Watch was involved in a similar legal dispute with Vice President Dick Cheney in 2002 when the group filed a shareholder lawsuit against Halliburton. The lawsuit, which accused Halliburton of accounting fraud, alleged that "when Mr. Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton, he and other directors inflated revenue reports, boosting Halliburton's share price." [8] As reported by the Wall Street Journal the court filing claims the oil-field-services concern overstated revenue by a total of $445 million from 1999 through the end of 2001.[9]
In 2006, Judicial Watch sued the Secret Service to force the release of logs detailing convicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House. This resulted in the release of a number of documents.[citation needed]
In 2006, Judicial Watch sued the Secret Service to force the release of logs detailing convicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House. This resulted in the release of a number of documents.[citation needed]
[. . .]
Commerce Department trade mission scandal
In 1995, Judicial Watch, Inc. filed an action in the District Court under the FOIA, seeking information from the Department of Commerce (DOC) regarding DOC's selection of participants for foreign trade missions. In May 1995, following a search in response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests, DOC produced approximately 28,000 pages of nonexempt information and withheld about 1,000 documents as exempt. Disputes arose between the parties over the adequacy of DOC's search, and Judicial Watch charged that some DOC officials had destroyed or removed responsive documents. In December 1998, following discovery, the District Court granted partial summary judgment to Judicial Watch and ordered DOC to perform a new search.[10] During the investigation, Nolanda B. Hill, a business partner of Commerce Secretary Ron Browntestified that Brown had told her that first lady Hillary Clinton was the driving force behind the efforts to raise as much money as possible for President Clinton's reelection and the DNC. And further that, "...companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department." [11]
In 2006, Judicial Watch was awarded nearly $900,000 in attorney's fees and costs from the lawsuit related to the Clinton fundraising scandals.[12] The judge noted in his ruling that Judicial Watch's efforts prompted two congressional committees and the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to investigate, and that the Commerce Department thereafter its policy for selecting trade mission participants.[13]
White House visitor logs
August 10, 2009 Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to the US Secret Service asking for the following: "All official visitor logs and/or other records concerning visits made to the White House from January 20, 2009 to present."[14] In August 2011, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the agency to process the group's data request.[15] The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia partially affirmed the decision, holding that the Secret Service did not have to produce records of visitors to the president's office.[15]
A similar Judicial Watch FOIA request forced the George W. Bush White House to release visitor logs in 2006.[16]
Operation Neptune Spear
Osama bin Laden, leader of the terror group al-Qaeda, was killed in Pakistan on May 1, 2011 in a joint operation by the United States Navy SEALs and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This operation was code-named Operation Neptune Spear.[17] On May 2, 2011 Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with the Department of Defense and the CIA for photographs and videos of bin Laden taken during or after the operation.[18]
The Federal Government failed to produce any records within the required 20-day time period. In order to force compliance, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DOD and CIA on June 8, 2011. On January 31, 2014, after legal wrangling, the Pentagon was forced to release Operation Neptune Spear documents to Judicial Watch. One obtained email had the subject line OPSEC Guidance / Neptune Spear and is proof that days after the original FOIA request U.S. Special Operations Commander, Admiral William McRaven ordered his subordinates to immediately destroy any Osama bin Laden photos they may have had.[19]
Kennedy assassination records
Judicial Watch filed a series of FOIA requests in fall 2012 with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) after press outlets reported that the JFK Library was in possession of more than 60 boxes of records from Robert F. Kennedy's tenure as the U.S. Attorney General. Judicial Watch subsequently filed a FOIA request with NARA on December 5, 2012, on behalf of author/historian Max Holland seeking access to "Documents from the Robert F. Kennedy Papers Attorney General's Confidential File which have been identified by the JFK Assassination Records Review Board as assassination records."[20] The government failed to produce the requested documents and on February 12, 2013, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the NARA.[21]
In 1995, Judicial Watch, Inc. filed an action in the District Court under the FOIA, seeking information from the Department of Commerce (DOC) regarding DOC's selection of participants for foreign trade missions. In May 1995, following a search in response to Judicial Watch's FOIA requests, DOC produced approximately 28,000 pages of nonexempt information and withheld about 1,000 documents as exempt. Disputes arose between the parties over the adequacy of DOC's search, and Judicial Watch charged that some DOC officials had destroyed or removed responsive documents. In December 1998, following discovery, the District Court granted partial summary judgment to Judicial Watch and ordered DOC to perform a new search.[10] During the investigation, Nolanda B. Hill, a business partner of Commerce Secretary Ron Browntestified that Brown had told her that first lady Hillary Clinton was the driving force behind the efforts to raise as much money as possible for President Clinton's reelection and the DNC. And further that, "...companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department." [11]
In 2006, Judicial Watch was awarded nearly $900,000 in attorney's fees and costs from the lawsuit related to the Clinton fundraising scandals.[12] The judge noted in his ruling that Judicial Watch's efforts prompted two congressional committees and the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to investigate, and that the Commerce Department thereafter its policy for selecting trade mission participants.[13]
White House visitor logs
August 10, 2009 Judicial Watch sent a FOIA request to the US Secret Service asking for the following: "All official visitor logs and/or other records concerning visits made to the White House from January 20, 2009 to present."[14] In August 2011, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the agency to process the group's data request.[15] The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia partially affirmed the decision, holding that the Secret Service did not have to produce records of visitors to the president's office.[15]
A similar Judicial Watch FOIA request forced the George W. Bush White House to release visitor logs in 2006.[16]
Operation Neptune Spear
Osama bin Laden, leader of the terror group al-Qaeda, was killed in Pakistan on May 1, 2011 in a joint operation by the United States Navy SEALs and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This operation was code-named Operation Neptune Spear.[17] On May 2, 2011 Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with the Department of Defense and the CIA for photographs and videos of bin Laden taken during or after the operation.[18]
The Federal Government failed to produce any records within the required 20-day time period. In order to force compliance, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the DOD and CIA on June 8, 2011. On January 31, 2014, after legal wrangling, the Pentagon was forced to release Operation Neptune Spear documents to Judicial Watch. One obtained email had the subject line OPSEC Guidance / Neptune Spear and is proof that days after the original FOIA request U.S. Special Operations Commander, Admiral William McRaven ordered his subordinates to immediately destroy any Osama bin Laden photos they may have had.[19]
Kennedy assassination records
Judicial Watch filed a series of FOIA requests in fall 2012 with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) after press outlets reported that the JFK Library was in possession of more than 60 boxes of records from Robert F. Kennedy's tenure as the U.S. Attorney General. Judicial Watch subsequently filed a FOIA request with NARA on December 5, 2012, on behalf of author/historian Max Holland seeking access to "Documents from the Robert F. Kennedy Papers Attorney General's Confidential File which have been identified by the JFK Assassination Records Review Board as assassination records."[20] The government failed to produce the requested documents and on February 12, 2013, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the NARA.[21]
The Benghazi memo is also important. There is no reason to keep such information from the public.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Nevertheless, they have a reputations of being extremely biased. They are rated as "extreme right".
What is a "biased" lawsuit or FOIA request? Who "rated" JW?
I support getting government information out to the public.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Judicial Watch - Media Bias/Fact Check this is one example
So no one "rated" JW as "extreme right". Right?
Other than the online poll, that dot-com website you linked to cited a Politifact "scorecard" that is based on a total of 2 online articles. No other articles are mentioned, and none of JW's actual work is mentioned. How is that a "rating"?
The Snopes "fact check" refers to a single article at JW's website. Not a single statement in the JW article is shown or claimed to be false.
And, again, there is no mention of JW's actual work.
What problem do you have with the cases and FOIA requests I noted above? How do you "rate" those on a left/right scale?