FBI Finds New Documents That Were Not There

[tytlyf]

You mean you can't find any mention of this on media stories that favor the Democrats and especially the Clinton's don't you.
I can find numerous sources; however they probably don't meet your standards. How about Judaical Watch themselves
FBI Finds 30 Pages of Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Meeting Documents – Wants Six Weeks to Turn Over Docs - Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch is a GOP elitist think tank. They aren't credible. Aren't you supposed to hate the establishment or something?
The propaganda in your OP story got you. Remember, propaganda is emotional. GOP media left you with the impression of "You see, the FBI is hiding documents on this corrupt tarmac meeting! The FBI wanted to hide information about the tarmac meeting! See, this is proof Hillary Clinton colluded and was corrupt!!"

Some people are just gullible.

 

[Nous]

They aren't credible.

Prove it.

 

[leibowde84]

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?

I have no problem with the FOIA requests. I am merely stating that I wouldn't take JW's word for anything. I would have to confirm anything they claim with other sources.

 

[tytlyf]

Prove it.

Judicial Watch is a GOP elitist think tank. Non-profit, crooked organization if you like anything establishment.

Tom Fitton isn't even a lawyer. Do you know the Groundswell group?

Groundswell group - Wikipedia

In July 2013, Fitton was identified as a key member of Groundswell, a secretive coalition of right wing activists and journalists attempting to make radical political change behind the scenes, whose members met in the offices of Judicial Watch.[9] As head of Judicial Watch, Fitton has launched a federal lawsuit against the Obama administration on behalf of Dr. Larry Kawa and his orthodontics practice.[10] The case has been dismissed by federal district court and is under appeal in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/the-real-story-of-judicial-watch/
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/10/02/meet-judicial-watch-a-driving-force-behind-the/205941

 

[DavidFirth]

Prove it.

I love it when someone says that!

 

[Nous]

I have no problem with the FOIA requests. I am merely stating that I wouldn't take JW's word for anything. I would have to confirm anything they claim with other sources.

So you don't dispute that that "rating" stuff is hogwash.

JW is not a media corporation. It has a website with occasional articles. The organization's purpose is obviously to acquire and provide to the public information on issues that the government has not disseminated to the public.

So what have you discovered in your efforts to confirm JW's claims? Have you ever found any statement that is false?

 

[Nous]

I love it when someone says that!

I only say it when I know that the person can't prove his/her claims.

 

[Nous]

Judicial Watch is a GOP elitist think tank. Non-profit, crooked organization if you like anything establishment.

Tom Fitton isn't even a lawyer. Do you know the Groundswell group?

Groundswell group - Wikipedia



http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/the-real-story-of-judicial-watch/
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/10/02/meet-judicial-watch-a-driving-force-behind-the/205941

So you are unable to cite a single fact by which to deduce that JW is "not credible". Right?

 

[leibowde84]

So you don't dispute that that "rating" stuff is hogwash.

It isn't hogwash at all. There were over a thousand votes that went into that rating. And, other media fact checkers have the same opinion about JW. See, I don't just take one site's word for anything. I checked to see whether JW had a conservative bias on other sites to make sure media bias was accurate. It seems apparent that JW has a conservative bias. Every fact check site gives them a very low confidence rating. Doesn't mean they don't have good stories. Just means I won't believe any claims they make unless I can confirm them with other sources.

JW is not a media corporation. It has a website with occasional articles. The organization's purpose is obviously to acquire and provide to the public information on issues that the government has not disseminated to the public.

Here is a good description of what they do:
Judicial Watch is an American conservative non-partisan[1] watchdog group that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate alleged misconduct by government officials.[2] Founded in 1994, it has sued the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Most of its lawsuits have been dismissed.[2] As of October 2016 it was the plaintiff in more than 20 ongoing lawsuits involving Hillary Clinton.[2]

So what have you discovered in your efforts to confirm JW's claims? Have you ever found any statement that is false?

I think it is a clear example of far-right news outlets trying to make a mountain over a molehill. Only sites with a conservative bias are covering this story. Usually that means it is just "fake news"; a story that doesn't really matter at all, but could, to those who hate Clinton, provide them comfort in their position.

Sure, maybe the FBI made a mistake. But, I see nothing in these documents that show any criminal wrongdoing. Beyond that, why does it even matter.?

What do you think about it? What do you see in the documents that lead you to believe they are important now?

 

[Falvlun]

How can you be "conservative, non-partisan"?

Anyway, my two cents is that it appears that JW primarily looks to FOIA democrats or liberal stuff, so their interests are biased, but at the end of the day, how can you complain about FOIA requests or argue with the info obtained thereof?

 

[leibowde84]

How can you be "conservative, non-partisan"?

Anyway, my two cents is that it appears that JW primarily looks to FOIA democrats or liberal stuff, so their interests are biased, but at the end of the day, how can you complain about FOIA requests or argue with the info obtained thereof?

It seems like they are just throwing these requests at a wall and seeing what sticks. Over 90% of their suits have been dismissed.

 

[tytlyf]

So you are unable to cite a single fact by which to deduce that JW is "not credible". Right?

I just showed you why. I wouldn't trust the republican establishment elitists if I were you. There's a lot of these organizations that work for the establishment. They aren't doing what they're doing for the fun of it.

Conspiracy theories, announcing lawsuits so the audience is duped into believing there is criminal activity, etc. JW is an organization used by the elitists to go after democrats. They don't go after republicans.

Most of these organizations aren't credible, there is an agenda behind what they're doing.

 

[Nous]

So you are unable to cite a single fact by which to deduce that JW is "not credible". Right?

I just showed you why.

If you are able to cite any fact by which to deduce that JW is "not credible," then do so:

P1: [. . .]
P2: [. . .]
C: Therefore, JW is not credible.

Fill in the blanks.

 

[Falvlun]

It seems like they are just throwing these requests at a wall and seeing what sticks. Over 90% of their suits have been dismissed.

I could see that being annoying and problematic. Basically, keep digging til you find something. But then again, if claims are backed up by documents they've FOIA'd, that's hard to argue with.

As for OP, though, while it's true that initially the FBI had no documents and now they found some, until we see what's in them, there's really nothing scandalous here.

 

[Nous]

It isn't hogwash at all. There were over a thousand votes that went into that rating.

What are you talking about? Prove it.

Who voted a thousand times? What was being voted on?

Again, the 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"? And 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.

Here is a good description of what they do:
Judicial Watch is an American conservative non-partisan[1] watchdog group that files Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to investigate alleged misconduct by government officials.[2] Founded in 1994, it has sued the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Most of its lawsuits have been dismissed.[2] As of October 2016 it was the plaintiff in more than 20 ongoing lawsuits involving Hillary Clinton.[2]

Just as I said: JW is not a media corporation. The organization's purpose is to acquire and provide to the public government information on important issues that has not been released to the public. And as the Wikipedia article demonstrates, JW does so without partisanship.

So what have you discovered in your efforts to confirm JW's claims? Have you ever found any statement that is false?

I think it is a clear example of far-right news outlets trying to make a mountain over a molehill. Only sites with a conservative bias are covering this story. Usually that means it is just "fake news"; a story that doesn't really matter at all, but could, to those who hate Clinton, provide them comfort in their position.

I will ask my question again: So what have you discovered in your efforts to confirm JW's claims? Have you ever found any statement that is false?

Why don't you try answering it this time rather than avoiding it?

And as you just demonstrated with your (unattributed) quote, JW is not a "news outlet".

 

[Nous]

How can you be "conservative, non-partisan"?

I wondered the same.

Anyway, my two cents is that it appears that JW primarily looks to FOIA democrats or liberal stuff, so their interests are biased, but at the end of the day, how can you complain about FOIA requests or argue with the info obtained thereof?

What is the "bias" in the following FOIA requests and suits:

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 ):

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]​

[. . .]

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]​

The Benghazi memo is also important. There is no reason to keep such information from the public.

?

 

[tytlyf]

If you are able to cite any fact by which to deduce that JW is "not credible," then do so:

P1: [. . .]
P2: [. . .]
C: Therefore, JW is not credible.

Fill in the blanks.

Judicial Watch says ISIS operating a camp in Mexico--near El Paso
Judicial Watch says Department of Justice unit organized protests against George Zimmerman
Judicial Watch - Media Bias/Fact Check
judicial watch Archives | Snopes.com
Judicial Watch's file

 

[leibowde84]

I could see that being annoying and problematic. Basically, keep digging til you find something. But then again, if claims are backed up by documents they've FOIA'd, that's hard to argue with.

As for OP, though, while it's true that initially the FBI had no documents and now they found some, until we see what's in them, there's really nothing scandalous here.

Exactly. Well-put. Until there is something found in those documents, they aren't really worth talking about.

 

[leibowde84]

What are you talking about? Prove it.

Who voted a thousand times? What was being voted on?

Again, the 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"? And 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.

Maybe I linked to the wrong article. My bad. Here is the article I have been referring to this whole time:
Judicial Watch - Media Bias/Fact Check
Here is the poll:

 

[leibowde84]

If you are able to cite any fact by which to deduce that JW is "not credible," then do so:

P1: [. . .]
P2: [. . .]
C: Therefore, JW is not credible.

Fill in the blanks.

@tytlyf put it pretty well:

Judicial Watch says ISIS operating a camp in Mexico--near El Paso
Judicial Watch says Department of Justice unit organized protests against George Zimmerman
Judicial Watch - Media Bias/Fact Check
judicial watch Archives | Snopes.com
Judicial Watch's file