Emailgate - Uh Oh. None Dare Call it Conspiracy?

[laughing dog]

The new must-see situation comedy. Every Wednesday at 8pm, 7 central. Only on Fox!

Other than your tone of "me hate Dismal and Foxnews reporting facts me no like" - do you have a point that might be mistaken for serious or informed?

For someone who takes Fox news as serious or informed, that is a real laugher.

 

[maxparrish]

Facts? An unsourced story from Fox News? :laughing-smiley-014

So, your argument is: "Me hate FOX NEWS" for using off the record sources and publishing of exclusives just like other non-Fox journalists do?

You have no basis to reject journalists Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne's often exclusive stories - other than your habitual contempt of anything reported by FOX news. No one else in the popular press, nor the subjects of her story, are doubting or objecting to the accuracy of her work on email-gate - unlike the apocryphal internet partisan living in his parents basement banging away with his Fox hating sneers and snorts.

Because of your manifest ignorance of the story author(s), here's a few excerpts from lead author Herridge's official bio:

Catherine Herridge is a graduate of Harvard and the Columbia School of Journalism. Catherine Herridge is the award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. (She started her career working for ABC in London)....

Herridge and the network's team of investigative journalists traveled across the United States and to Yemen to complete an eighteen-month investigation into al-Awlaki, who was linked to three of the 9/11 hijackers, the Fort Hood attack, the attempted bombing on Christmas Day 2009, the failed attack on Times Square in May 2010, and the cargo printer bomb plot in October 2010. "The Washington Post" described the resulting documentary as "an explosive hour."

Additionally, Herridge covered Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate campaign in 2000. She was also a New York-based correspondent for the Fox Broadcasting Network newsmagazine "Fox Files" where she led investigations into Medicare fraud, prescription drug abuse and child prostitution. Her work on Fox Files was recognized with the Bronze World Medal from the New York Festivals, honoring excellence in communications media.

Herridge's recent book published by Crown, "The Next Wave: On the Hunt for al Qaeda's American Recruits," exposes the new face of terrorism and predicts the source of future threats in the Middle East and North Africa.

She has also made appearances on C-SPAN, as feature speaker or panelist in her area of expertise.

http://www.c-span.org/person/?catherineherridge

So unless you have evidence of falsification in her stories on Email-gate, they are the facts as we know them - like it or not.

And clearly you really hate those facts.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, do these emails contain direct evidence of her ordering her terrorist groupies in Benghazi to murder the US Ambassador for the sake of furthering the cause of evil? If not, why is the FBI sitting on this information instead of releasing it?

We clearly need a GOP Congressional Committee to look into this matter.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I can't imagine that 100+ agents are actually necessary to identify the classification of a number of emails.

Not if they're actually classified.

When we take pics in the lab, one guy has the responsibility to sort through them and see if there's anything on the proscribed list shown in any of the pics.

It's fairly easy to make such lists. If there's 2000 suspect emails, 100 FBI agents get, what, 20 emails to check? MAYBE have two agents check each email as a backup? That's not even a day's work. Maybe one day to read 20 emails and write up a report of the contents after lunch. Even if the issue is retroactive classification, most of the emails are going to be stupid shit that's obviously not classified and would only even be reviewed for the purpose of being dramatic.

The whole investigation would be completed in one day per thousand emails considered.

This is a passion play. The 100+ agents are being used as boogeymen.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So, your argument is: "Me hate FOX NEWS" for using off the record sources and publishing of exclusives just like other non-Fox journalists do?

You have no basis to reject journalists Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne's often exclusive stories - other than your habitual contempt of anything reported by FOX news. No one else in the popular press, nor the subjects of her story, are doubting or objecting to the accuracy of her work on email-gate - unlike the apocryphal internet partisan living in his parents basement banging away with his Fox hating sneers and snorts.

Because of your manifest ignorance of the story author(s), here's a few excerpts from lead author Herridge's official bio:

Catherine Herridge is a graduate of Harvard and the Columbia School of Journalism. Catherine Herridge is the award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. (She started her career working for ABC in London)....

Herridge and the network's team of investigative journalists traveled across the United States and to Yemen to complete an eighteen-month investigation into al-Awlaki, who was linked to three of the 9/11 hijackers, the Fort Hood attack, the attempted bombing on Christmas Day 2009, the failed attack on Times Square in May 2010, and the cargo printer bomb plot in October 2010. "The Washington Post" described the resulting documentary as "an explosive hour."

Additionally, Herridge covered Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate campaign in 2000. She was also a New York-based correspondent for the Fox Broadcasting Network newsmagazine "Fox Files" where she led investigations into Medicare fraud, prescription drug abuse and child prostitution. Her work on Fox Files was recognized with the Bronze World Medal from the New York Festivals, honoring excellence in communications media.

Herridge's recent book published by Crown, "The Next Wave: On the Hunt for al Qaeda's American Recruits," exposes the new face of terrorism and predicts the source of future threats in the Middle East and North Africa.

She has also made appearances on C-SPAN, as feature speaker or panelist in her area of expertise.

http://www.c-span.org/person/?catherineherridge

So unless you have evidence of falsification in her stories on Email-gate, they are the facts as we know them - like it or not.

And clearly you really hate those facts.

She works for Fox News. She's paid $900k a year to scare the scare the crap out of gullible TV viewers. Why should she be given credibility? Secondly, why are talking points classified?

 

[dismal]

I can't imagine that 100+ agents are actually necessary to identify the classification of a number of emails.

Not if they're actually classified.

When we take pics in the lab, one guy has the responsibility to sort through them and see if there's anything on the proscribed list shown in any of the pics.

It's fairly easy to make such lists. If there's 2000 suspect emails, 100 FBI agents get, what, 20 emails to check? MAYBE have two agents check each email as a backup? That's not even a day's work. Maybe one day to read 20 emails and write up a report of the contents after lunch. Even if the issue is retroactive classification, most of the emails are going to be stupid shit that's obviously not classified and would only even be reviewed for the purpose of being dramatic.

The whole investigation would be completed in one day per thousand emails considered.

This is a passion play. The 100+ agents are being used as boogeymen.

As I already mentioned, I do not believe the FBI is not involved in determining which emails are classified at all. The emails are being reviewed by State and the Intelligence community and, when found to contain confidential info, redacted before they are released.

If you don't think this is a difficult thing to do you must be among those that believe the administration is slow playing the release of the emails as this particular process has now been going on for months, even with judges orders to pick up the pace.

The role for the FBI would be to investigate how all that confidential information got there, and perhaps to recover the 30,000 deleted emails and investigate those.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sticking with the furries I take it?

Says the guy with the squirrel.

Oh murr~ rapey S&M porn you say? *looks up some erotic Bernie fanfiction*

If the guy has some delicious smut, that's an extra point in his favor!

Seriously, if Hillary Clinton goes to jail over this, the republicans lose even more than if she doesn't. At least Hillary is corporatist and likely to support bullshit trade deals, from a conservative perspective. But Bernie will bend over conservative and corporatist interests and make them squeal into their ball gags.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, your argument is: "Me hate FOX NEWS" for using off the record sources and publishing of exclusives just like other non-Fox journalists do?

You have no basis to reject journalists Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne's often exclusive stories - other than your habitual contempt of anything reported by FOX news. No one else in the popular press, nor the subjects of her story, are doubting or objecting to the accuracy of her work on email-gate - unlike the apocryphal internet partisan living in his parents basement banging away with his Fox hating sneers and snorts.

Because of your manifest ignorance of the story author(s), here's a few excerpts from lead author Herridge's official bio:



She has also made appearances on C-SPAN, as feature speaker or panelist in her area of expertise.

http://www.c-span.org/person/?catherineherridge

So unless you have evidence of falsification in her stories on Email-gate, they are the facts as we know them - like it or not.

And clearly you really hate those facts.

She works for Fox News. She's paid $900k a year to scare the scare the crap out of gullible TV viewers. Why should she be given credibility? Secondly, why are talking points classified?

I find it interesting, from over the years, the positions of conservatives at this board these days. The ones the seem to have an IV for the Flavoraid verses the actual political conservatives.

 

[ksen]

i thought conservatives viewed harvard as one of those evil lefty schools that don't produce anything of worth?

 

[ImGod]

Ask Bradley Manning or George Petraeus if the government takes the handling, storage, and dissemination of it's classified information seriously or not. Even if the person claims they didn't do anything wrong.

 

[maxparrish]

So, your argument is: "Me hate FOX NEWS" for using off the record sources and publishing of exclusives just like other non-Fox journalists do?

You have no basis to reject journalists Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne's often exclusive stories - other than your habitual contempt of anything reported by FOX news. No one else in the popular press, nor the subjects of her story, are doubting or objecting to the accuracy of her work on email-gate - unlike the apocryphal internet partisan living in his parents basement banging away with his Fox hating sneers and snorts.

Because of your manifest ignorance of the story author(s), here's a few excerpts from lead author Herridge's official bio:



She has also made appearances on C-SPAN, as feature speaker or panelist in her area of expertise.

http://www.c-span.org/person/?catherineherridge

So unless you have evidence of falsification in her stories on Email-gate, they are the facts as we know them - like it or not.

And clearly you really hate those facts.

She works for Fox News. She's paid $900k a year to scare the scare the crap out of gullible TV viewers. Why should she be given credibility? Secondly, why are talking points classified?

In other words, like Ziprhead,

"You have no basis to reject journalists Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne's often exclusive stories - other than your habitual contempt of anything reported by FOX news. No one else in the popular press, nor the subjects of her story, are doubting or objecting to the accuracy of her work on email-gate - unlike the apocryphal internet partisan living in his parents basement banging away with his Fox hating sneers and snorts."

On the other hand, if one wishes to who was actually paid to "scare the crap" for major networks and the print media:

Jayson Blair, former journalist for The New York Times
Rick Bragg, former journalist for The New York Times
Michael Firk Timesnkel, former reporter for New York Times

Janet Cooke, former journalist for The Washington Post
Ben Domenech, former blogger for The Washington Post

Sabrina Erdely, former reporter for Rolling Stone

Michael Gartner, former president of NBC News
Lilia Luciano, former NBC News correspondent
Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News anchor

Lara Logan, 60 Minutes reporter
Mary Mapes, former 60 Minutes producer
Dan Rather, former CBS Evening News anchor and 60 Minutes II contributor

Christopher Newton, former Washington, D.C. bureau reporter for the Associated Press

My...my.

 

[dismal]

For those who are chanting the mantra that only Fox News is reporting on the FBI investigation I bring you this:

FBI steps up interviews in Clinton email probe
Questions focus on whether State officials improperly sent classified material.

Even as Hillary Clinton tries to put questions about her private email server behind her, the FBI has stepped up inquiries into the security of the former secretary of state's home-made email system and how aides communicated over email, POLITICO has learned.

The FBI’s recent moves suggest that its inquiry could have evolved from the preliminary fact-finding stage that the agency launches when it receives a credible referral, according to former FBI and Justice Department officials interviewed by POLITICO.

“This sounds to me like it’s more than a preliminary inquiry; it sounds like a full-blown investigation,” said Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the FBI. “When you have this amount of resources going into it …. I think it’s at the investigative level.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-probe-215630

 

[maxparrish]

For those who are chanting the mantra that only Fox News is reporting on the FBI investigation I bring you this:

FBI steps up interviews in Clinton email probe
Questions focus on whether State officials improperly sent classified material.

Even as Hillary Clinton tries to put questions about her private email server behind her, the FBI has stepped up inquiries into the security of the former secretary of state's home-made email system and how aides communicated over email, POLITICO has learned.

The FBI’s recent moves suggest that its inquiry could have evolved from the preliminary fact-finding stage that the agency launches when it receives a credible referral, according to former FBI and Justice Department officials interviewed by POLITICO.

“This sounds to me like it’s more than a preliminary inquiry; it sounds like a full-blown investigation,” said Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the FBI. “When you have this amount of resources going into it …. I think it’s at the investigative level.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-probe-215630

Dear Dismal,

Impossible. We loath FoxNews because anyone who echos FoxNews is a liar because...well...we loath them. And if FoxNews is echoing anyone else then they are using lies, which makes them all liars. Here is our evidence:

Where is the politico disclaimer that they are not a paid Murdoch shill to frighten the public, just like we all know Foxnews is? How do we know they are not? How do we really know anything about the truth?

Everyone knows that if so-called facts are reported that please conservatives, they must be lies. Until you can prove that anyone who agrees with Foxnews is not a part of the same vast right-wing conspiracy, we needn't believe you.

Sincerely,

The Daffy Dullard Squad
123 Pancake Ave.
Nitwitville, Shangrila

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Politico sucks donkey balls.

 

[arkirk]

Why the fuck would anyone want to look at this nonsense for the thousandth time?

It is partisan distraction from a group of Republicans that are an embarrassment, nothing else.

Benghazi!

It looks like you found the font size button. Why do you persist in this bullshit? I dislike Hillary as much as you do but I am not going to pile on her for something that she either did not do or know how to stop. Hillary Clinton is a corporatist and neo-liberal like you. You ought to be loving her!

 

[arkirk]

For those who are chanting the mantra that only Fox News is reporting on the FBI investigation I bring you this:



http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-probe-215630

Dear Dismal,

Impossible. We loath FoxNews because anyone who echos FoxNews is a liar because...well...we loath them. And if FoxNews is echoing anyone else then they are using lies, which makes them all liars. Here is our evidence:

Where is the politico disclaimer that they are not a paid Murdoch shill to frighten the public, just like we all know Foxnews is? How do we know they are not? How do we really know anything about the truth?

Everyone knows that if so-called facts are reported that please conservatives, they must be lies. Until you can prove that anyone who agrees with Foxnews is not a part of the same vast right-wing conspiracy, we needn't believe you.

Sincerely,

The Daffy Dullard Squad
123 Pancake Ave.
Nitwitville, Shangrila

Is this your true identity? Or are you just trying to outfox Fox?

Seriously, I have taken Fox News off my channel selector. It is just too trashy to watch.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Benghazi!

It looks like you found the font size button. Why do you persist in this bullshit? I dislike Hillary as much as you do but I am not going to pile on her for something that she either did not do or know how to stop. Hillary Clinton is a corporatist and neo-liberal like you. You ought to be loving her!

Ya, you say that, but it's noticable that as soon as he mentioned Benghazi, you managed to find a way to try and change the conversation to another subject.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Benghazi!

It looks like you found the font size button. Why do you persist in this bullshit? I dislike Hillary as much as you do but I am not going to pile on her for something that she either did not do or know how to stop. Hillary Clinton is a corporatist and neo-liberal like you. You ought to be loving her!

Apparently my post went right past you. That was a jab at the Republicans!

 

[Harry Bosch]

Benghazi!

It looks like you found the font size button. Why do you persist in this bullshit? I dislike Hillary as much as you do but I am not going to pile on her for something that she either did not do or know how to stop. Hillary Clinton is a corporatist and neo-liberal like you. You ought to be loving her!

Buddy: do you not understand sarcasm?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It looks like you found the font size button. Why do you persist in this bullshit? I dislike Hillary as much as you do but I am not going to pile on her for something that she either did not do or know how to stop. Hillary Clinton is a corporatist and neo-liberal like you. You ought to be loving her!

Buddy: do you not understand sarcasm?

Since I'm nowhere near his far left position he assumes I must be far right.