By Edward Klein October 3, 2015 | 7:35pm | Washington Post One of the Clintons’ oldest and most trusted legal advisers has urged Hillary to hire a criminal defense attorney to represent her in case she’s indicted for mishandling classified documents on her private email server and for lying under oath. The adviser, who has been a Clinton confidant for more than 30 years, laid out his concerns about Hillary’s legal exposure in a wide-ranging interview. “This email thing is spiraling out of control,” he said. “To paraphrase John Dean of Watergate fame, it’s a cancer on her candidacy. Hillary Clinton’s legal adviser warns her: Time to lawyer up | New York Post
New York Post, not Washington Post. That can make a difference. "The adviser" isn't named. The story is totally unsourced. The NY Post has, on that page, an advertisement for the article's author's anti-Hillary book. The article is cited in several other sources, but no one seems to be stepping forward as "the adviser." Even if the adviser was named and had credibility, it would not be an unusual opinion. As it stands, it is less than nothing about what is obviously (and now openly admitted to be) a political smear job. I'll change my opinion once she's indicted, just like all those other times....oh, wait, never mind.
The Watergate source (Mark Felt) wasn't named for over 30 years, and Richard Nixon was never indicted. I have the feeling that you're not so cavalier about Watergate and Nixon.
…the 'Legal Noose Is Tightening' Judge Nap: Hillary Is Angry Because the 'Legal Noose Is Tightening' | Fox News Insider As Rich has previously admitted that Hillary’s issues are her own doings… Hillary’s judgment capacity would be generally considered as VERY questionable. At minimum, reckless… I project she’ll be forced out of the race as an indictment is likely imminent. The pretext of health issues are also being floated as well…
Fox News Insider is not my preferred source for unbiased information, but I suppose it would explain why Biden is hemming and hawing rather than simply saying "no" at this late date. He may be waiting for clarity whether Clinton can stay in the race, planning only to enter if he can instantly pick up her establishment supporters. (But that's just speculation; it's not like I called him up and asked him.)
Just curious Steve … what news source/s do you view as acceptably neutral? Personally, I’ve been watching One America News (OAN) more often One America News Network | Your Nation. Your News. Re Fox News Insider—as you’re already aware … Judge Andrew Napolitano (FNC Senior Judicial Analyst) is a well-known libertarian. :smokin:
You may laugh, but I've actually found that Voice of America is often surprisingly fair. But generally, once stories are reported on by a number of different sources, I sort of triangulate, although I realize that's more of an art than a science. I typically read BBC News (decent on a lot of issues, hopelessly biased on anything involving guns), the Washington Post (has gotten better in the last decade), The Intercept (hardly unbiased, but focusing on important issues others often disregard), and Dominica News Online (which won't interest anyone else here). In the car I'll listen to everything from Pacifica (e.g., Amy Goodman, with whom I often disagree but still respect), to NPR (alternates between decent and disappointingly corporate), to the right wing talk radio echo chamber. As far as education media, I read InsideHigherEd in the morning and University World News when they send me an update, but no longer bother with the Chronicle other than an occasional article about educational technology. I have full access to the Chronicle through Cumberlands, so it's not a paywall thing, it's just that the comments are all from sanctimonious moonbats, which just gets old. IHE's content is better anyway. Like most people, though, most often the news source I read is probably whatever is linked to from Reddit or Facebook friends, but at least that means a unintentional variety. News aggregators for the win. Oh, and whatever Kizmet links to. I'll check it out. Sure, and good for him, of course, but I'm big enough to admit that doesn't make him unbiased. :smile:
Whether or not a source is 'neutral' isn't that relevant, as long as you make distinctions between assertions and assessments. Assertions are purported facts. Assessments are meanings made of those purported facts. If a source's assertions hold up, it really doesn't matter what it's political bent is. But....if you want to hear the assessment of those facts, you'll likely need to select your choice wisely. The Republicans lie a lot. Their main source for "news," Fox News, lies a lot, too. Republicans decry the 'mainstream' or 'liberal' media without ever...EVER...daring to challenge the assertions being made. Because they can't. Disagree all you want about the assessments being made. In other words, parties will disagree regarding what the facts mean. But when you resort to making up your own facts, well, you then must resort to living in a bubble.
I actually channel surf /tune in to several media networks in addition to One America News (OAN): E.g., FNC (Fox), and FBN (Fox Business: Varney & Co. and Lou Dodds). Surprisingly maybe to some … MSNBC (I really like Morning Joe (Joe Scarborough /Mika Brzezinski)), CNN, CNBC, BBC News, CSPAN, Bloomberg TV, and believe it or not, I enjoy The Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC); although I hardly ever agree with her political standpoints; nonetheless IMO, she’s a very bright individual, well prepared, and educational to listen to. My newspaper /journal readings include the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Bloomberg Business, and integrate both ends of the political spectrum via The Washington Times and The Washington Post.
Nowadays I would say that reading The Washington Times and The Washington Post means getting the right end and the center rather than both ends. The Washington Post isn't exactly the Guardian, at least not anymore.
I agree with you that The Washington Post has moved toward a more centrist balance in its reporting /opinion positioning and/or possibly I’ve moderated mine. You do make a better, more current comparison than I did Steve (Right /Center vs. right/left). But as you know, there was the time that there was a definite difference (right/left or left/right) between the two newspaper reporting positions… :smile:
They can, and they do. The problem is that it's only reported on Fox News and conservative talk radio & websites, while the rest of the mainstream media is, for all intents and purposes, the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party. Have you forgotten how NBC doctored the audio tape of George Zimmerman in an attempt to inject racism into the Trayvon Martin incident? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72zJvVQWutA That "assertion" was pretty easy to refute, don't you think? I highly recommend this book to anyone who doesn't believe that the media coverage in the US is so lopsided, it would capsize if it were a ship; http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/1621573117/ref=la_B001IGUPNM_1_1/175-5407246-7692109?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1444242801&sr=1-1
