Discussion:
Brokaw: I Haven't Run Into Anyone Who Thinks Comey Was Doing a Good Job
(too old to reply)
AlleyCat
2017-05-16 21:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.

Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"

I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
--
STILL can't understand why liberal Democrats are so in love with Muslims.
Muslims are against abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex, they kill
homosexuals BY LAW and they treat women as slaves and chattel. Their old
men rape little boys and get away with it... oh, and they HATE you. Am I
leaving anything else out that you just LOVE about them?
Alan Baker
2017-05-16 21:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
NoBody
2017-05-17 09:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
m***@gmail.com
2017-05-17 11:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Shit Stain Baker is incapable.

All the little POS does is lie and make up facts.

Why? For the attention IT so desperately needs.

If IT were dead, the world would be a better place.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-17 19:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
They're perfectly acceptable.
NoBody
2017-05-18 10:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 17 May 2017 12:28:19 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
They're perfectly acceptable.
Only to someone who can't think or question. An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-18 16:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 17 May 2017 12:28:19 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
They're perfectly acceptable.
Only to someone who can't think or question. An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
No, your sophomoric dismissal of anonymous sources is stupid.
Schuman
2017-05-18 18:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
No, your sophomoric dismissal of anonymous sources is stupid.
Your pedantic insistence that unnamed deep state sources are credible
renders you no more than a running dog for the leftards.
Siri Cruise
2017-05-18 23:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Schuman
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
No, your sophomoric dismissal of anonymous sources is stupid.
Your pedantic insistence that unnamed deep state sources are credible
renders you no more than a running dog for the leftards.
If Meuller finds any crime, witnesses will be identified to the court before any
trial. Those witnesses will be subject to cross-examination to test their
credibility.

Isn't strange that assholes whining about the Constitution have so little trust
in its promise of due process and an independent judiciary.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Schuman
2017-05-18 23:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Schuman
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
No, your sophomoric dismissal of anonymous sources is stupid.
Your pedantic insistence that unnamed deep state sources are credible
renders you no more than a running dog for the leftards.
If Meuller finds any crime, witnesses will be identified to the court before any
trial. Those witnesses will be subject to cross-examination to test their
credibility.
_yawn_
Post by Siri Cruise
Isn't strange that assholes whining about the Constitution have so little trust
in its promise of due process and an independent judiciary.
So stop your whining, and rumor-mongering.
PIBB
2017-05-21 13:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Schuman
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
No, your sophomoric dismissal of anonymous sources is stupid.
Your pedantic insistence that unnamed deep state sources are
credible renders you no more than a running dog for the
leftards.
I'm looking for a deep state of mind in Donald Trump but I can't
find his mind. :-)
andy memory
2017-05-21 15:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by PIBB
Post by Schuman
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
No, your sophomoric dismissal of anonymous sources is stupid.
Your pedantic insistence that unnamed deep state sources are
credible renders you no more than a running dog for the
leftards.
I'm looking for a deep state of mind in Donald Trump but I can't
find his mind. :-)
You're trolling like all the leftards, but when it comes to "mind" you
arrive empty and leave with only derision.
NoBody
2017-05-19 10:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 18 May 2017 09:56:54 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 17 May 2017 12:28:19 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
They're perfectly acceptable.
Only to someone who can't think or question. An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
No, your sophomoric dismissal of anonymous sources is stupid.
Love how you'll accept ZERO evidence (except the media saying they
have some somewhere) as proof of guilt.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-19 15:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 09:56:54 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 17 May 2017 12:28:19 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
They're perfectly acceptable.
Only to someone who can't think or question. An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
No, your sophomoric dismissal of anonymous sources is stupid.
Love how you'll accept ZERO evidence (except the media saying they
have some somewhere) as proof of guilt.
There is evidence. Trump's bullying of Comey to get the investigation
of Flynn dropped is evidence. Trump's knowledge that Flynn had
discussed sanctions with the Russians at the time Trump appointed Flynn
as national security counsel is evidence. Trump's firing of Comey and
admitting that it was over the "Russia thing" is evidence.

Let's get back to the earlier point: your sophomoric dismissal of
anonymous sources is stupid. It's especially stupid when time and
again, Trump blurts out confirmation of what they have said to the press.
Schuman
2017-05-19 16:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
There is evidence. Trump's bullying
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Preston Hamblin
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Preston Hamblin
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
NoBody
2017-05-20 13:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:33:31 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 09:56:54 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 17 May 2017 12:28:19 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
They're perfectly acceptable.
Only to someone who can't think or question. An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
No, your sophomoric dismissal of anonymous sources is stupid.
Love how you'll accept ZERO evidence (except the media saying they
have some somewhere) as proof of guilt.
There is evidence. Trump's bullying of Comey to get the investigation
of Flynn dropped is evidence.
So then why did Comey testify he was unaware of any pressure to stop
investigations? You will accept a "source" but not the words of the
person himself.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-20 19:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:33:31 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 09:56:54 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 17 May 2017 12:28:19 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
They're perfectly acceptable.
Only to someone who can't think or question. An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
No, your sophomoric dismissal of anonymous sources is stupid.
Love how you'll accept ZERO evidence (except the media saying they
have some somewhere) as proof of guilt.
There is evidence. Trump's bullying of Comey to get the investigation
of Flynn dropped is evidence.
So then why did Comey testify he was unaware of any pressure to stop
investigations?
We get to evaluate what we think Trump was up to. We don't have to go
with how Comey claims he felt about it.
andy memory
2017-05-20 19:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
We don't have to go with how Comey claims he felt about it.
Stop socking up, tRudy:

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
AlleyCat
2017-05-20 19:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:25 -0700, Preston Hamblin says...
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
So then why did Comey testify he was unaware of any pressure to stop
investigations?
We get to evaluate what we think Trump was up to. We don't have to go
with how Comey claims he felt about it.
There's no "feeling" in the statement UNDER OATH, that he was unaware of
any pressure to stop investigations.

Typical winger... can't even believe what comes out of people's mouths,
because YOU believe the Counterfeit News Network (CNN) over the person who
SAID something contrary to their agenda(s).

Sad, that you're so easily brainwashed into believing a news organization
over the person who said, UNDER OATH, that there was NO pressure to stop
the investigation.

That basement air is rotting your lieberal brain.
--
STILL can't understand why liberal Democrats are so in love with Muslims.
Muslims are against abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex, they kill
homosexuals BY LAW and they treat women as slaves and chattel. Their old
men rape little boys and get away with it... oh, and they HATE you. Am I
leaving anything else out that you just LOVE about them?
NoBody
2017-05-21 14:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:25 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:33:31 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 09:56:54 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 17 May 2017 12:28:19 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
They're perfectly acceptable.
Only to someone who can't think or question. An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
No, your sophomoric dismissal of anonymous sources is stupid.
Love how you'll accept ZERO evidence (except the media saying they
have some somewhere) as proof of guilt.
There is evidence. Trump's bullying of Comey to get the investigation
of Flynn dropped is evidence.
So then why did Comey testify he was unaware of any pressure to stop
investigations?
We get to evaluate what we think Trump was up to. We don't have to go
with how Comey claims he felt about it.
Oh good grief. Now you accept "sources" over a direct, documentable
statement. You truly live in an alternate reality.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-21 18:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:25 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:33:31 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 09:56:54 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 17 May 2017 12:28:19 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
They're perfectly acceptable.
Only to someone who can't think or question. An unnamed source is
equalivalent to "we made it all up" when then is never any
corraborating evidence.
No, your sophomoric dismissal of anonymous sources is stupid.
Love how you'll accept ZERO evidence (except the media saying they
have some somewhere) as proof of guilt.
There is evidence. Trump's bullying of Comey to get the investigation
of Flynn dropped is evidence.
So then why did Comey testify he was unaware of any pressure to stop
investigations?
We get to evaluate what we think Trump was up to. We don't have to go
with how Comey claims he felt about it.
Oh good grief. Now you accept "sources" over a direct, documentable
statement.
Comey was NOT talking about Trump when he said that. Comey is
responding SPECIFICALLY to a question whether someone at the Department
of Justice or the Attorney General had ever asked him to halt an
investigation. The question was unambiguous.

Now, with respect to Trump, "sources" <snicker> say that Comey believes
Trump WAS trying to influence him:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/james-comey-trump-influence/
http://www.businessinsider.com/james-comey-trump-russia-influence-fbi-2017-5
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/334363-comey-to-testify-trump-tried-to-influence-him-report

Let's make a bet: when Comey testifies to Congress, he WILL say that he
interprets Trump's request to "let this go" as an attempt to influence
the investigation. There will be no inconsistency between that and his
prior testimony to Congress.
andy memory
2017-05-21 19:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Here's some data on YOU little man Ball:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Alan Baker
2017-05-17 22:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.

And now the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to appoint a special
counsel to lead the investigation into Russia's interference in the US
elections and its ties to the Trump campaign:

<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html>
AlleyCat
2017-05-18 00:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 17 May 2017 15:36:07 -0700, Alan Baker says...
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
Sorry, but you're the one making the claim you know for certain he
WAS being investigated.

Prove it.
--
STILL can't understand why liberal Democrats are so in love with Muslims.
Muslims are against abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex, they kill
homosexuals BY LAW and they treat women as slaves and chattel. Their old
men rape little boys and get away with it... oh, and they HATE you. Am I
leaving anything else out that you just LOVE about them?
Alan Baker
2017-05-18 00:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
On Wed, 17 May 2017 15:36:07 -0700, Alan Baker says...
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
Sorry, but you're the one making the claim you know for certain he
WAS being investigated.
No, actually.

The initial claim was yours.

:-)
Post by AlleyCat
Prove it.
Buzz Forward
2017-05-18 01:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
On Wed, 17 May 2017 15:36:07 -0700, Alan Baker says...
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
Sorry, but you're the one making the claim you know for certain he
WAS being investigated.
Nope - he never said that.
Alan Baker
2017-05-18 01:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Buzz Forward
Post by AlleyCat
On Wed, 17 May 2017 15:36:07 -0700, Alan Baker says...
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
Sorry, but you're the one making the claim you know for certain he
WAS being investigated.
Nope - he never said that.
Thanks for the confirmation.

;-)
Buzz Forward
2017-05-18 01:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Buzz Forward
Post by AlleyCat
On Wed, 17 May 2017 15:36:07 -0700, Alan Baker says...
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
Sorry, but you're the one making the claim you know for certain he
WAS being investigated.
Nope - he never said that.
Thanks for the confirmation.
I went back to the beginning of the thread. You never said what they
claimed you said. The hysteric shrieked:

I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.

To which you answered:

How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!

And that's when the hysteric's ally went off:

Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated.

But you never *claimed* he was being investigated.
NoBody
2017-05-18 10:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
I didn't make that claim. Follow the thread moron.
Post by Alan Baker
And now the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to appoint a special
counsel to lead the investigation into Russia's interference in the US
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html>
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
couldn't have fallen into his plan better if you'd tried.
Siri Cruise
2017-05-18 11:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
Except the FBI doesn't use unnamed sources. You're confusing the press with the
FBI. The FBI also closes cases without crime or evidence. I don't mind waiting
days, weeks, months, or years for Mueller to finish his work. Why are you
terrified to let the investigation play itself out?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
andy memory
2017-05-18 16:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
Except the FBI doesn't use unnamed sources.
Of course they do.

They have sources.

The sources are not named.

Ergo - unnamed sources.

HTH
Post by Siri Cruise
You're confusing the press with the
FBI.
That's your chimera.
Post by Siri Cruise
The FBI also closes cases without crime or evidence.
So?
Post by Siri Cruise
I don't mind waiting
days, weeks, months, or years for Mueller to finish his work.
Of course not - years of obstruction prevent draining the swamp - that's
your end game.
Post by Siri Cruise
Why are you
terrified to let the investigation play itself out?
Why aren't you terrified of the collateral economic damage years of
conspiracy mongering will engender?

Do you want to see America fail?
RW Maroon
2017-05-18 17:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
Except the FBI doesn't use unnamed sources. You're confusing the press with the
FBI. The FBI also closes cases without crime or evidence. I don't mind waiting
days, weeks, months, or years for Mueller to finish his work. Why are you
terrified to let the investigation play itself out?
Of course they use "unnamed" sources. Just because they know the name
doesn't mean they always release the name publicly. In a great many
criminal cases, anonymous sources are key to bringing some criminals down.

Or do you think "witness protection" is just a TV meme?
--
A Canyon is just a big hole.
Schuman
2017-05-18 17:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RW Maroon
In a great many
criminal cases, anonymous sources are key to bringing some criminals down.
Or do you think "witness protection" is just a TV meme?
Do you think character assassination is a valid game to play on the nation?
Siri Cruise
2017-05-18 23:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Schuman
Post by RW Maroon
In a great many
criminal cases, anonymous sources are key to bringing some criminals down.
Or do you think "witness protection" is just a TV meme?
Do you think character assassination is a valid game to play on the nation?
Sure. Bring the popcorn.




So where was Obama born?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Schuman
2017-05-18 23:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Schuman
Post by RW Maroon
In a great many
criminal cases, anonymous sources are key to bringing some criminals down.
Or do you think "witness protection" is just a TV meme?
Do you think character assassination is a valid game to play on the nation?
Sure. Bring the popcorn.
Spoken like a true traitor to the nation.
Post by Siri Cruise
So where was Obama born?
Hawaii, iirc.

The real father is CPUSA's Frank Marshall Davis.
Rudy Canoza
2017-05-18 19:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RW Maroon
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
Except the FBI doesn't use unnamed sources. You're confusing the press with the
FBI. The FBI also closes cases without crime or evidence. I don't mind waiting
days, weeks, months, or years for Mueller to finish his work. Why are you
terrified to let the investigation play itself out?
Of course they use "unnamed" sources. Just because they know the name
doesn't mean they always release the name publicly. In a great many
criminal cases, anonymous sources are key to bringing some criminals down.
You fucking idiot: the sources are not "unnamed" *to* the FBI; they
don't publicly release the names, but they know them.
Schuman
2017-05-18 19:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
You fucking idiot: the sources are
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Rudy Canoza
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Rudy Canoza
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Siri Cruise
2017-05-18 23:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RW Maroon
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
Except the FBI doesn't use unnamed sources. You're confusing the press with the
FBI. The FBI also closes cases without crime or evidence. I don't mind waiting
days, weeks, months, or years for Mueller to finish his work. Why are you
terrified to let the investigation play itself out?
Of course they use "unnamed" sources. Just because they know the name
doesn't mean they always release the name publicly. In a great many
They know the name, so it's not unnamed. The FBI is not the press and not
responsible for identifying witnesses to the public. When a case is prosecuted,
the prosecutor will reveal those witnesses who will testify.
Post by RW Maroon
criminal cases, anonymous sources are key to bringing some criminals down.
The key is witnesses who testify and explain compelling evidence. They are
identified to the defendant to allow competent cross-examination.
Post by RW Maroon
Or do you think "witness protection" is just a TV meme?
They have to be protected because they were named in a court.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
andy memory
2017-05-18 23:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by RW Maroon
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
Except the FBI doesn't use unnamed sources. You're confusing the press with the
FBI. The FBI also closes cases without crime or evidence. I don't mind waiting
days, weeks, months, or years for Mueller to finish his work. Why are you
terrified to let the investigation play itself out?
Of course they use "unnamed" sources. Just because they know the name
doesn't mean they always release the name publicly. In a great many
They know the name, so it's not unnamed.
To the rest of us it is.
Post by Siri Cruise
The FBI is not the press and not
responsible for identifying witnesses to the public.
Wrong.

They are accountable to Congress.

Comey failed that duty as well.
Post by Siri Cruise
When a case is prosecuted,
the prosecutor will reveal those witnesses who will testify.
Post by RW Maroon
criminal cases, anonymous sources are key to bringing some criminals down.
The key is witnesses who testify and explain compelling evidence. They are
identified to the defendant to allow competent cross-examination.
Thank you Perry Mason.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by RW Maroon
Or do you think "witness protection" is just a TV meme?
They have to be protected because they were named in a court.
Who protects Susan Rice from her lies and testifying?
Siri Cruise
2017-05-19 03:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by andy memory
Post by Siri Cruise
They know the name, so it's not unnamed.
To the rest of us it is.
The FBI isn't asking for your approval. They shouldn't release names or reports
unless it goes to trial.
Post by andy memory
Post by Siri Cruise
The FBI is not the press and not
responsible for identifying witnesses to the public.
Wrong.
They are accountable to Congress.
Congress isn't the press either.
Post by andy memory
Comey failed that duty as well.
Post hoc rationalisation.
Post by andy memory
Thank you Perry Mason.
Pay attention in school.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
andy memory
2017-05-19 03:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by andy memory
Post by Siri Cruise
They know the name, so it's not unnamed.
To the rest of us it is.
The FBI isn't asking for your approval.
Or answering to the CIC or AG.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by andy memory
Post by Siri Cruise
The FBI is not the press and not
responsible for identifying witnesses to the public.
Wrong.
They are accountable to Congress.
Congress isn't the press either.
A trenchant awakening for you I am certain.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by andy memory
Comey failed that duty as well.
Post hoc rationalisation.
Latin posturing renders no defense of failures documented.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by andy memory
Thank you Perry Mason.
Pay attention in school.
TV was never my "school".

I can see it had a broader impact on your life though.
NoBody
2017-05-19 10:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:28:32 -0000 (UTC), RW Maroon
Post by RW Maroon
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
Except the FBI doesn't use unnamed sources. You're confusing the press with the
FBI. The FBI also closes cases without crime or evidence. I don't mind waiting
days, weeks, months, or years for Mueller to finish his work. Why are you
terrified to let the investigation play itself out?
Of course they use "unnamed" sources. Just because they know the name
doesn't mean they always release the name publicly. In a great many
criminal cases, anonymous sources are key to bringing some criminals down.
Really? care to cite some of those anonymous sources used to convict
a person in a criminal trial. Right to confront ones accuser mean
anything to you?
Post by RW Maroon
Or do you think "witness protection" is just a TV meme?
Why are you attempting to confuse two seperate issues? The press has
nothing to do with a trail (unless you are admitting the press has
already tried and convicted Trump).
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-19 15:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:28:32 -0000 (UTC), RW Maroon
Post by RW Maroon
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
Except the FBI doesn't use unnamed sources. You're confusing the press with the
FBI. The FBI also closes cases without crime or evidence. I don't mind waiting
days, weeks, months, or years for Mueller to finish his work. Why are you
terrified to let the investigation play itself out?
Of course they use "unnamed" sources. Just because they know the name
doesn't mean they always release the name publicly. In a great many
criminal cases, anonymous sources are key to bringing some criminals down.
Really? care to cite some of those anonymous sources used to convict
a person in a criminal trial.
That's not what he said. Prosecutors and investigators build cases
using information from people whose names they don't divulge. Witnesses
at trial obviously have to be known to the defendant, but other people
who legally provide information to the prosecution, but who don't
testify, need not be identified.
Schuman
2017-05-19 16:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
care to cite some of those anonymous sources
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by NoBody
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by NoBody
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
NoBody
2017-05-20 13:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:02:28 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:28:32 -0000 (UTC), RW Maroon
Post by RW Maroon
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
Except the FBI doesn't use unnamed sources. You're confusing the press with the
FBI. The FBI also closes cases without crime or evidence. I don't mind waiting
days, weeks, months, or years for Mueller to finish his work. Why are you
terrified to let the investigation play itself out?
Of course they use "unnamed" sources. Just because they know the name
doesn't mean they always release the name publicly. In a great many
criminal cases, anonymous sources are key to bringing some criminals down.
Really? care to cite some of those anonymous sources used to convict
a person in a criminal trial.
That's not what he said. Prosecutors and investigators build cases
using information from people whose names they don't divulge. Witnesses
at trial obviously have to be known to the defendant, but other people
who legally provide information to the prosecution, but who don't
testify, need not be identified.
If one is a "key source", they would need to be identified at trial.
Still waiting on that citation. You libs will do anything to avoid
admitting you're wrong about anything.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-20 19:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:02:28 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:28:32 -0000 (UTC), RW Maroon
Post by RW Maroon
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
Except the FBI doesn't use unnamed sources. You're confusing the press with the
FBI. The FBI also closes cases without crime or evidence. I don't mind waiting
days, weeks, months, or years for Mueller to finish his work. Why are you
terrified to let the investigation play itself out?
Of course they use "unnamed" sources. Just because they know the name
doesn't mean they always release the name publicly. In a great many
criminal cases, anonymous sources are key to bringing some criminals down.
Really? care to cite some of those anonymous sources used to convict
a person in a criminal trial.
That's not what he said. Prosecutors and investigators build cases
using information from people whose names they don't divulge. Witnesses
at trial obviously have to be known to the defendant, but other people
who legally provide information to the prosecution, but who don't
testify, need not be identified.
If one is a "key source", they would need to be identified at trial.
Only if the material they present is introduced as evidence, or if the
source is going to testify.

Suppose I see someone committing what I reasonably think to be a crime,
and I get a very good description of the person and of the car he uses
to get away, including the license plate. I now communicate this to the
police using an anonymous tipster service the police operate: a web
page, a phone number, whatever. Based on the information I provide, the
police search for and find the person, and they are successfully able to
find other evidence sufficient to charge the person with the crime I
reported, and he is brought to trial. I am a *source* of information
that led to the successful arrest, charging and prosecution of the
person, but I do not need to be identified.

Anyway, this is all a wild goose chase having nothing to do with your
phony, disingenuous objection to unnamed sources in news reporting. The
use of such sources is legitimate, and it in no way impugns the
truthfulness of what the tell reporters. Your objection to it is phony
- you just don't like what is reported, that's all.
andy memory
2017-05-20 19:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Your objection to it is phony - you just don't like what is reported,
that's all.
Stop socking up, tRudy:

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
NoBody
2017-05-19 10:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
Except the FBI doesn't use unnamed sources. You're confusing the press with the
FBI. The FBI also closes cases without crime or evidence. I don't mind waiting
days, weeks, months, or years for Mueller to finish his work. Why are you
terrified to let the investigation play itself out?
Where have I said that FBI shouldn't investigate? I'm talking about
the endless undocumented attacks against Trump in the media. He's
already been tried and convicted by our "unbiased" press.
andy memory
2017-05-18 16:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
I didn't make that claim. Follow the thread moron.
Post by Alan Baker
And now the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to appoint a special
counsel to lead the investigation into Russia's interference in the US
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html>
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources". Putin is laughing at us. You guys
couldn't have fallen into his plan better if you'd tried.
Which in some bizarro universe tangentially makes Putin guilty of
manipulating our media, politics, reality TV etc.

Self fulfilling prophecies are so damned trite, no?
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-18 17:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
I didn't make that claim. Follow the thread moron.
Post by Alan Baker
And now the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to appoint a special
counsel to lead the investigation into Russia's interference in the US
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html>
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources".
You don't know anything about what evidence there is, or how much more
will be ferreted out.
Schuman
2017-05-18 18:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources".
You don't know anything about what evidence there is, or how much more
will be ferreted out.
You mean ginned up and amplified by a cartoon-grade lamestream deep
state media.

Yes.
Siri Cruise
2017-05-18 23:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Schuman
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources".
You don't know anything about what evidence there is, or how much more
will be ferreted out.
You mean ginned up and amplified by a cartoon-grade lamestream deep
state media.
Yes.
I'm sure Robert Meuller appreciates your character assassination.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Schuman
2017-05-18 23:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Schuman
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources".
You don't know anything about what evidence there is, or how much more
will be ferreted out.
You mean ginned up and amplified by a cartoon-grade lamestream deep
state media.
Yes.
I'm sure Robert Meuller appreciates your character assassination.
When did he join the lamestream deep state media?

Citation?
NoBody
2017-05-19 10:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 18 May 2017 10:02:51 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
I didn't make that claim. Follow the thread moron.
Post by Alan Baker
And now the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to appoint a special
counsel to lead the investigation into Russia's interference in the US
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html>
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources".
You don't know anything about what evidence there is, or how much more
will be ferreted out.
Pretty much what I just said...
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-19 15:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 10:02:51 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
I didn't make that claim. Follow the thread moron.
Post by Alan Baker
And now the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to appoint a special
counsel to lead the investigation into Russia's interference in the US
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html>
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources".
You don't know anything about what evidence there is, or how much more
will be ferreted out.
Pretty much what I just said...
No, you said there is "zero evidence". Sources aren't evidence. What
they reveal can be.
Schuman
2017-05-19 16:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Sources aren't evidence.
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Preston Hamblin
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Preston Hamblin
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
NoBody
2017-05-20 13:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:03:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 10:02:51 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
I didn't make that claim. Follow the thread moron.
Post by Alan Baker
And now the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to appoint a special
counsel to lead the investigation into Russia's interference in the US
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html>
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources".
You don't know anything about what evidence there is, or how much more
will be ferreted out.
Pretty much what I just said...
No, you said there is "zero evidence". Sources aren't evidence. What
they reveal can be.
If "sources" don't reveal concrete evidence that we can see, they are
figments of your imagination. Show us any of the "evidence" that
people keep saying they have, you know like the memo someone at the
NYT claim was read to them but they don't have it. That's another
fine example of how pathetic you loons are.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-20 19:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:03:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 10:02:51 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
I didn't make that claim. Follow the thread moron.
Post by Alan Baker
And now the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to appoint a special
counsel to lead the investigation into Russia's interference in the US
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html>
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources".
You don't know anything about what evidence there is, or how much more
will be ferreted out.
Pretty much what I just said...
No, you said there is "zero evidence". Sources aren't evidence. What
they reveal can be.
If "sources" don't reveal concrete evidence that we can see, they are
figments of your imagination.
No, they're not.

Your phony, disingenuous smokescreen of an objection to unnamed sources
is dismissed.
andy memory
2017-05-20 19:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Your phony, disingenuous smokescreen
Stop socking up, tRudy:

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Preston Hamblin
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Preston Hamblin
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
AlleyCat
2017-05-20 19:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:26 -0700, Preston Hamblin says...
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
If "sources" don't reveal concrete evidence that we can see, they are
figments of your imagination.
No, they're not.
Your phony, disingenuous smokescreen of an objection to unnamed sources
is dismissed.
When these "unnamed sources" always turn out to be LESS than nothing, like
the "collusion" between Trump and Russia, we have every reason to object.

Not ONE shred of evidence has emerged. You're just so fucking butt-hurt
that you lost, you have to cling to your guns and bibles (words & CNN).
--
STILL can't understand why liberal Democrats are so in love with Muslims.
Muslims are against abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex, they kill
homosexuals BY LAW and they treat women as slaves and chattel. Their old
men rape little boys and get away with it... oh, and they HATE you. Am I
leaving anything else out that you just LOVE about them?
NoBody
2017-05-21 14:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:26 -0700, Preston Hamblin says...
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
If "sources" don't reveal concrete evidence that we can see, they are
figments of your imagination.
No, they're not.
Your phony, disingenuous smokescreen of an objection to unnamed sources
is dismissed.
When these "unnamed sources" always turn out to be LESS than nothing, like
the "collusion" between Trump and Russia, we have every reason to object.
Just once, I'd love to see the libs admit when their "source" turns
out to be full of garbage. Any correction is buried while the damage
has already been done.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-21 18:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:26 -0700, Preston Hamblin says...
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
If "sources" don't reveal concrete evidence that we can see, they are
figments of your imagination.
No, they're not.
Your phony, disingenuous smokescreen of an objection to unnamed sources
is dismissed.
When these "unnamed sources" always turn out to be LESS than nothing, like
the "collusion" between Trump and Russia, we have every reason to object.
Just once, I'd love to see the libs admit when their "source" turns
out to be full of garbage.
Just once, I'd like you to point out an instance where that was the
case. You can't - it hasn't been.

"libs" is not a word. Write like a civil adult, if you can.
andy memory
2017-05-21 19:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
"libs" is not a word.
Here's some data on YOU little man Ball:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Preston Hamblin
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Preston Hamblin
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
NoBody
2017-05-22 10:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 21 May 2017 11:27:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:26 -0700, Preston Hamblin says...
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
If "sources" don't reveal concrete evidence that we can see, they are
figments of your imagination.
No, they're not.
Your phony, disingenuous smokescreen of an objection to unnamed sources
is dismissed.
When these "unnamed sources" always turn out to be LESS than nothing, like
the "collusion" between Trump and Russia, we have every reason to object.
Just once, I'd love to see the libs admit when their "source" turns
out to be full of garbage.
Just once, I'd like you to point out an instance where that was the
case. You can't - it hasn't been.
Labelling Trump's EO to pause refugees temporarilly as a "Muslim ban"
is an outright lie since Muslims from other countries would have been
allowed in. I expect you to spin away now.
Post by Preston Hamblin
"libs" is not a word. Write like a civil adult, if you can.
"Libs" is short for liberals and there is nothing uncivil about it. I
suggest you acquire a thicker skin as I'm very mild compared to the
vast majority of posters around here. But nice try to divert and
start attacking me personally!
M.I.Wakefield
2017-05-22 13:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Labelling Trump's EO to pause refugees temporarilly as a "Muslim ban" is
an outright lie since Muslims from other countries would have been allowed
in. I expect you to spin away now.
If only Trump and various surrogates hadn't called it a "Muslim ban".
andy memory
2017-05-22 19:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by NoBody
Labelling Trump's EO to pause refugees temporarilly as a "Muslim ban"
is an outright lie since Muslims from other countries would have been
allowed in. I expect you to spin away now.
If only Trump and various surrogates hadn't called it a "Muslim ban".
Truth in labeling - same reason he took us OUT of the TPP.

Btw - fuck you and die a horrible death, you asshole!
NoBody
2017-05-23 11:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Labelling Trump's EO to pause refugees temporarilly as a "Muslim ban" is
an outright lie since Muslims from other countries would have been allowed
in. I expect you to spin away now.
If only Trump and various surrogates hadn't called it a "Muslim ban".
How can you call something that doesn't ban Muslims a "Muslim ban"?
Siri Cruise
2017-05-23 12:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Labelling Trump's EO to pause refugees temporarilly as a "Muslim ban" is
an outright lie since Muslims from other countries would have been allowed
in. I expect you to spin away now.
If only Trump and various surrogates hadn't called it a "Muslim ban".
How can you call something that doesn't ban Muslims a "Muslim ban"?
Does it still have exceptions for christians?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
M.I.Wakefield
2017-05-23 13:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Labelling Trump's EO to pause refugees temporarilly as a "Muslim ban" is
an outright lie since Muslims from other countries would have been allowed
in. I expect you to spin away now.
If only Trump and various surrogates hadn't called it a "Muslim ban".
How can you call something that doesn't ban Muslims a "Muslim ban"?
Trump did. Giuliani did. Spicer did. Ask them.
andy memory
2017-05-23 14:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Labelling Trump's EO to pause refugees temporarilly as a "Muslim ban" is
an outright lie since Muslims from other countries would have been allowed
in. I expect you to spin away now.
If only Trump and various surrogates hadn't called it a "Muslim ban".
How can you call something that doesn't ban Muslims a "Muslim ban"?
Because he thinks that the 7 nations OBUMMER first flagged are akin to
ALL Muzzies.

Morons cannot reason.

Preston Hamblin
2017-05-22 15:03:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Sun, 21 May 2017 11:27:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:26 -0700, Preston Hamblin says...
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
If "sources" don't reveal concrete evidence that we can see, they are
figments of your imagination.
No, they're not.
Your phony, disingenuous smokescreen of an objection to unnamed sources
is dismissed.
When these "unnamed sources" always turn out to be LESS than nothing, like
the "collusion" between Trump and Russia, we have every reason to object.
Just once, I'd love to see the libs admit when their "source" turns
out to be full of garbage.
Just once, I'd like you to point out an instance where that was the
case. You can't - it hasn't been.
Labelling Trump's EO to pause refugees temporarilly as a "Muslim ban"
is an outright lie since Muslims from other countries would have been
allowed in.
It was enacted in fulfillment of his campaign pledge to ban Muslims from
entering. Rudy Giuliani, who crafted it for Trump, said that Trump
instructed him to come up with a Muslim ban but to make it "look legal".
It was a Muslim ban in spirit.

There was no lie.
Post by NoBody
Post by Preston Hamblin
"libs" is not a word. Write like a civil adult, if you can.
"Libs" is short for liberals and there is nothing uncivil about it.
It's a stupid angry unsophisticated right-wingnut non-word.
andy memory
2017-05-22 19:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
It's a stupid angry unsophisticated right-wingnut non-word.
Fuck you little man Ball - you ARE a fictional character!

Here's some data on YOU little man Ball:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Preston Hamblin
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Preston Hamblin
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
NoBody
2017-05-23 11:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 22 May 2017 08:03:54 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Sun, 21 May 2017 11:27:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:26 -0700, Preston Hamblin says...
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
If "sources" don't reveal concrete evidence that we can see, they are
figments of your imagination.
No, they're not.
Your phony, disingenuous smokescreen of an objection to unnamed sources
is dismissed.
When these "unnamed sources" always turn out to be LESS than nothing, like
the "collusion" between Trump and Russia, we have every reason to object.
Just once, I'd love to see the libs admit when their "source" turns
out to be full of garbage.
Just once, I'd like you to point out an instance where that was the
case. You can't - it hasn't been.
Labelling Trump's EO to pause refugees temporarilly as a "Muslim ban"
is an outright lie since Muslims from other countries would have been
allowed in.
It was enacted in fulfillment of his campaign pledge to ban Muslims from
entering. Rudy Giuliani, who crafted it for Trump, said that Trump
instructed him to come up with a Muslim ban but to make it "look legal".
It was a Muslim ban in spirit.
Since it didn't ban Muslims, not much "spirit" there...
Post by Preston Hamblin
There was no lie.
It wasn't a Muslim ban...duh!
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-21 17:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:26 -0700, Preston Hamblin says...
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
If "sources" don't reveal concrete evidence that we can see, they are
figments of your imagination.
No, they're not.
Your phony, disingenuous smokescreen of an objection to unnamed sources
is dismissed.
When these "unnamed sources" always turn out to be LESS than nothing,
That hasn't happened a single time.
andy memory
2017-05-21 17:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by AlleyCat
When these "unnamed sources" always turn out to be LESS than nothing,
That hasn't happened a single time.
Liar.

https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/anonywatch-when-unnamed-sources-are-flat-wrong/?_r=0


nonyWatch: When Unnamed Sources Are Flat Wrong
By Margaret Sullivan June 17, 2014 3:42 pm June 17, 2014 3:42 pm

In a blistering column this week, the Reuters media critic Jack Shafer
takes The Times to task for using a particular kind of anonymous source
— the kind who turn out to be wrong.

In two recent cases, he writes, The Times was left “at the corner of
Mortified and Peeved.”

I’ve been writing about the overuse of anonymous sources for months in
this space, as part of my AnonyWatch project.

My view isn’t black and white: I recognize that there are stories —
especially those on the national security beat — in which using
confidential sources is important. And I acknowledge that some of the
most important stories in the past several decades would have been
impossible without their use. But, in my view, they are allowed too
often and for reasons that don’t clear the bar of acceptability, which
should be set very high.

I talked with the business editor, Dean Murphy, on Tuesday about one of
the cases mentioned above: A story that originally said that Phil
Mickelson, the famous golfer, was being investigated for insider trading
related to Clorox. (The article, which had a number of other components,
appeared on the front page and was displayed prominently on the home page.)

About a week later, a correction was added — and a new article
acknowledged the error: The Times had “overstated the scope” of the
investigation. “While investigators are looking at his trading in some
stocks, Clorox is not among them.” (Other news organizations, Mr. Murphy
noted, got it wrong, too.)

The new article, even in debunking the first, also relied on anonymous
sources, something noted by many of the outraged readers who wrote to me
about this.

Mr. Murphy said the second article could not be viewed as a true
“corrective story,” in Times parlance, since most of the elements of the
first article were correct. And the second article, he told me, advanced
the overall information about the investigation. “We used it as a
reporting moment,” he said, not just a corrective.

The original story’s sourcing was not taken lightly, he said. He was
aware of who the sources were and that “they were trusted people that we
had no reason to doubt — but they got it wrong.” And, he said, the
authors of the story, “are two of my best diggers,” with reputations for
caution and accuracy.

He added that the alternative to using these sources is not to inform
readers of important news. “That’s the nature of law enforcement
stories,” he said. “Is that good? No. But it’s a reality.”

I asked Mr. Murphy whether any lesson could be drawn from what happened
in this case. He said it served as a reminder of the care needed when
anonymous sources are used.

“This tells us that we need to take it seriously every time,” he said.
“Our default mode is not to allow anonymous sources. The readers are
right to hold our feet to the fire on this, but the same readers are
also served by the information that we provide with stories that are
sometimes necessarily sourced this way.”

I’ll take that a step further. Anyone who reads The Times on a careful
daily basis can see that anonymous sources are everywhere — not just in
sensitive stories from Washington and Wall Street.

I’ve said this before: Editors need to raise the bar for letting them
into stories, and rigorously enforce the existing in-house rules that
say that anonymous sources should be used rarely and only as a last resort.

When sources are nameless, they are also unaccountable. There is no
price for them to pay when they get it wrong. But readers — and The
Times’s credibility — do suffer. And in some cases, so do the
reputations of those The Times is writing about. No “walk-back story”
can fix any of that.


http://ethics.npr.org/tag/anonymity/

Anonymous sourcing
Fairness
Guideline
Don’t let sources offer anonymous opinions of others. #

Unidentified sources should rarely be heard at all and should never be
heard attacking or praising others in our reports (with the possible
rare exceptions of whistleblowers and individuals making allegations of
sexual assault; see the longer discussion of anonymous sources in the
section on transparency). While we recognize that some valuable
information can only be obtained off the record, it is unfair to air a
source’s opinion on a subject of coverage when the source’s identity and
motives are shielded from scrutiny. And of course, we do not include
anonymous attacks posted on the Web in our reports.
Guideline
Our word is binding. #

As an ethical matter, we would not want to reveal the identity of an
anonymous source unless that person has consented to the disclosure.
That’s why we take the granting of anonymity seriously.

Keep in mind that the legal protection provided to journalists to keep
source identities, outtakes, or other confidential information secret is
not 100% secure. Courts can compel journalists to testify or reveal
information even when confidentiality has been promised, and refusal to
reveal the information can result in jail time or fines.
First-Post
2017-05-21 18:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by andy memory
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by AlleyCat
When these "unnamed sources" always turn out to be LESS than nothing,
That hasn't happened a single time.
Liar.
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/anonywatch-when-unnamed-sources-are-flat-wrong/?_r=0
nonyWatch: When Unnamed Sources Are Flat Wrong
By Margaret Sullivan June 17, 2014 3:42 pm June 17, 2014 3:42 pm
In a blistering column this week, the Reuters media critic Jack Shafer
takes The Times to task for using a particular kind of anonymous source
— the kind who turn out to be wrong.
In two recent cases, he writes, The Times was left “at the corner of
Mortified and Peeved.”
I’ve been writing about the overuse of anonymous sources for months in
this space, as part of my AnonyWatch project.
My view isn’t black and white: I recognize that there are stories —
especially those on the national security beat — in which using
confidential sources is important. And I acknowledge that some of the
most important stories in the past several decades would have been
impossible without their use. But, in my view, they are allowed too
often and for reasons that don’t clear the bar of acceptability, which
should be set very high.
I talked with the business editor, Dean Murphy, on Tuesday about one of
the cases mentioned above: A story that originally said that Phil
Mickelson, the famous golfer, was being investigated for insider trading
related to Clorox. (The article, which had a number of other components,
appeared on the front page and was displayed prominently on the home page.)
About a week later, a correction was added — and a new article
acknowledged the error: The Times had “overstated the scope” of the
investigation. “While investigators are looking at his trading in some
stocks, Clorox is not among them.” (Other news organizations, Mr. Murphy
noted, got it wrong, too.)
The new article, even in debunking the first, also relied on anonymous
sources, something noted by many of the outraged readers who wrote to me
about this.
Mr. Murphy said the second article could not be viewed as a true
“corrective story,” in Times parlance, since most of the elements of the
first article were correct. And the second article, he told me, advanced
the overall information about the investigation. “We used it as a
reporting moment,” he said, not just a corrective.
The original story’s sourcing was not taken lightly, he said. He was
aware of who the sources were and that “they were trusted people that we
had no reason to doubt — but they got it wrong.” And, he said, the
authors of the story, “are two of my best diggers,” with reputations for
caution and accuracy.
He added that the alternative to using these sources is not to inform
readers of important news. “That’s the nature of law enforcement
stories,” he said. “Is that good? No. But it’s a reality.”
I asked Mr. Murphy whether any lesson could be drawn from what happened
in this case. He said it served as a reminder of the care needed when
anonymous sources are used.
“This tells us that we need to take it seriously every time,” he said.
“Our default mode is not to allow anonymous sources. The readers are
right to hold our feet to the fire on this, but the same readers are
also served by the information that we provide with stories that are
sometimes necessarily sourced this way.”
I’ll take that a step further. Anyone who reads The Times on a careful
daily basis can see that anonymous sources are everywhere — not just in
sensitive stories from Washington and Wall Street.
I’ve said this before: Editors need to raise the bar for letting them
into stories, and rigorously enforce the existing in-house rules that
say that anonymous sources should be used rarely and only as a last resort.
When sources are nameless, they are also unaccountable. There is no
price for them to pay when they get it wrong. But readers — and The
Times’s credibility — do suffer. And in some cases, so do the
reputations of those The Times is writing about. No “walk-back story”
can fix any of that.
http://ethics.npr.org/tag/anonymity/
Anonymous sourcing
Fairness
Guideline
Don’t let sources offer anonymous opinions of others. #
Unidentified sources should rarely be heard at all and should never be
heard attacking or praising others in our reports (with the possible
rare exceptions of whistleblowers and individuals making allegations of
sexual assault; see the longer discussion of anonymous sources in the
section on transparency). While we recognize that some valuable
information can only be obtained off the record, it is unfair to air a
source’s opinion on a subject of coverage when the source’s identity and
motives are shielded from scrutiny. And of course, we do not include
anonymous attacks posted on the Web in our reports.
Guideline
Our word is binding. #
As an ethical matter, we would not want to reveal the identity of an
anonymous source unless that person has consented to the disclosure.
That’s why we take the granting of anonymity seriously.
Keep in mind that the legal protection provided to journalists to keep
source identities, outtakes, or other confidential information secret is
not 100% secure. Courts can compel journalists to testify or reveal
information even when confidentiality has been promised, and refusal to
reveal the information can result in jail time or fines.
Indeed, there is no legal exclusion for any reporter to withhold any
such anonymous sources from the law.
There is no constitutional right for the press to protect any source
if that source is involved in anything illegal.

The press has no more right to aid or abet a criminal than any other
citizen.
andy memory
2017-05-21 19:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by First-Post
Post by andy memory
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by AlleyCat
When these "unnamed sources" always turn out to be LESS than nothing,
That hasn't happened a single time.
Liar.
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/anonywatch-when-unnamed-sources-are-flat-wrong/?_r=0
nonyWatch: When Unnamed Sources Are Flat Wrong
By Margaret Sullivan June 17, 2014 3:42 pm June 17, 2014 3:42 pm
In a blistering column this week, the Reuters media critic Jack Shafer
takes The Times to task for using a particular kind of anonymous source
— the kind who turn out to be wrong.
In two recent cases, he writes, The Times was left “at the corner of
Mortified and Peeved.”
I’ve been writing about the overuse of anonymous sources for months in
this space, as part of my AnonyWatch project.
My view isn’t black and white: I recognize that there are stories —
especially those on the national security beat — in which using
confidential sources is important. And I acknowledge that some of the
most important stories in the past several decades would have been
impossible without their use. But, in my view, they are allowed too
often and for reasons that don’t clear the bar of acceptability, which
should be set very high.
I talked with the business editor, Dean Murphy, on Tuesday about one of
the cases mentioned above: A story that originally said that Phil
Mickelson, the famous golfer, was being investigated for insider trading
related to Clorox. (The article, which had a number of other components,
appeared on the front page and was displayed prominently on the home page.)
About a week later, a correction was added — and a new article
acknowledged the error: The Times had “overstated the scope” of the
investigation. “While investigators are looking at his trading in some
stocks, Clorox is not among them.” (Other news organizations, Mr. Murphy
noted, got it wrong, too.)
The new article, even in debunking the first, also relied on anonymous
sources, something noted by many of the outraged readers who wrote to me
about this.
Mr. Murphy said the second article could not be viewed as a true
“corrective story,” in Times parlance, since most of the elements of the
first article were correct. And the second article, he told me, advanced
the overall information about the investigation. “We used it as a
reporting moment,” he said, not just a corrective.
The original story’s sourcing was not taken lightly, he said. He was
aware of who the sources were and that “they were trusted people that we
had no reason to doubt — but they got it wrong.” And, he said, the
authors of the story, “are two of my best diggers,” with reputations for
caution and accuracy.
He added that the alternative to using these sources is not to inform
readers of important news. “That’s the nature of law enforcement
stories,” he said. “Is that good? No. But it’s a reality.”
I asked Mr. Murphy whether any lesson could be drawn from what happened
in this case. He said it served as a reminder of the care needed when
anonymous sources are used.
“This tells us that we need to take it seriously every time,” he said.
“Our default mode is not to allow anonymous sources. The readers are
right to hold our feet to the fire on this, but the same readers are
also served by the information that we provide with stories that are
sometimes necessarily sourced this way.”
I’ll take that a step further. Anyone who reads The Times on a careful
daily basis can see that anonymous sources are everywhere — not just in
sensitive stories from Washington and Wall Street.
I’ve said this before: Editors need to raise the bar for letting them
into stories, and rigorously enforce the existing in-house rules that
say that anonymous sources should be used rarely and only as a last resort.
When sources are nameless, they are also unaccountable. There is no
price for them to pay when they get it wrong. But readers — and The
Times’s credibility — do suffer. And in some cases, so do the
reputations of those The Times is writing about. No “walk-back story”
can fix any of that.
http://ethics.npr.org/tag/anonymity/
Anonymous sourcing
Fairness
Guideline
Don’t let sources offer anonymous opinions of others. #
Unidentified sources should rarely be heard at all and should never be
heard attacking or praising others in our reports (with the possible
rare exceptions of whistleblowers and individuals making allegations of
sexual assault; see the longer discussion of anonymous sources in the
section on transparency). While we recognize that some valuable
information can only be obtained off the record, it is unfair to air a
source’s opinion on a subject of coverage when the source’s identity and
motives are shielded from scrutiny. And of course, we do not include
anonymous attacks posted on the Web in our reports.
Guideline
Our word is binding. #
As an ethical matter, we would not want to reveal the identity of an
anonymous source unless that person has consented to the disclosure.
That’s why we take the granting of anonymity seriously.
Keep in mind that the legal protection provided to journalists to keep
source identities, outtakes, or other confidential information secret is
not 100% secure. Courts can compel journalists to testify or reveal
information even when confidentiality has been promised, and refusal to
reveal the information can result in jail time or fines.
Indeed, there is no legal exclusion for any reporter to withhold any
such anonymous sources from the law.
There is no constitutional right for the press to protect any source
if that source is involved in anything illegal.
The press has no more right to aid or abet a criminal than any other
citizen.
Your choice of words couldn't be more apt.
Greg Carr
2017-05-21 19:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Some reporters go to jail rather than reveal their sources by a judge. They are usu. freed after a couple of months even if they stay silent.
andy memory
2017-05-21 20:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Carr
Some reporters go to jail rather than reveal their sources by a judge. They are usu. freed after a couple of months even if they stay silent.
The Judith Miller case.
NoBody
2017-05-21 14:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:26 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:03:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 10:02:51 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
I didn't make that claim. Follow the thread moron.
Post by Alan Baker
And now the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to appoint a special
counsel to lead the investigation into Russia's interference in the US
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html>
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources".
You don't know anything about what evidence there is, or how much more
will be ferreted out.
Pretty much what I just said...
No, you said there is "zero evidence". Sources aren't evidence. What
they reveal can be.
If "sources" don't reveal concrete evidence that we can see, they are
figments of your imagination.
No, they're not.
Your phony, disingenuous smokescreen of an objection to unnamed sources
is dismissed.
What's disingenuous here is your unquestioning acceptance of claims
that have no supporting evidence, merely because they fit what you
believe to be true.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-21 18:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:26 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:03:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 10:02:51 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
I didn't make that claim. Follow the thread moron.
Post by Alan Baker
And now the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to appoint a special
counsel to lead the investigation into Russia's interference in the US
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html>
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources".
You don't know anything about what evidence there is, or how much more
will be ferreted out.
Pretty much what I just said...
No, you said there is "zero evidence". Sources aren't evidence. What
they reveal can be.
If "sources" don't reveal concrete evidence that we can see, they are
figments of your imagination.
No, they're not.
Your phony, disingenuous smokescreen of an objection to unnamed sources
is dismissed.
What's disingenuous here is your unquestioning acceptance of claims
that have no supporting evidence, merely because they fit what you
believe to be true.
It's not unquestioning at all. I evaluate what's stated, and if it's
plausible and consistent with what is already known, then I assume it to
be true. You could take a lot of wind out of the sails of the
mainstream media if you could show, just once, that any of these stories
that have been attributed to unnamed sources was false. But you can't.
Not one of them has been persuasively refuted, and you know it. So
instead, you cavil about method. You're completely transparent.

Say! Wasn't I saying something about broken records a couple of days ago?
andy memory
2017-05-21 19:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Say! Wasn't I saying something about broken records a couple of days ago?
Here's some data on YOU little man Ball:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Preston Hamblin
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Preston Hamblin
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
NoBody
2017-05-22 11:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 21 May 2017 11:27:04 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:26 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:03:18 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 10:02:51 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Sorry, but you're the ones making the claim you know for certain he
wasn't being investigated.
I didn't make that claim. Follow the thread moron.
Post by Alan Baker
And now the Republicans and Democrats have agreed to appoint a special
counsel to lead the investigation into Russia's interference in the US
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-investigation.html>
Isn't that grand? We'll investigate something that has zero evidence
except for unnamed "sources".
You don't know anything about what evidence there is, or how much more
will be ferreted out.
Pretty much what I just said...
No, you said there is "zero evidence". Sources aren't evidence. What
they reveal can be.
If "sources" don't reveal concrete evidence that we can see, they are
figments of your imagination.
No, they're not.
Your phony, disingenuous smokescreen of an objection to unnamed sources
is dismissed.
What's disingenuous here is your unquestioning acceptance of claims
that have no supporting evidence, merely because they fit what you
believe to be true.
It's not unquestioning at all. I evaluate what's stated, and if it's
plausible and consistent with what is already known,
Known for other "sources". It's ridiculous that after all the
allegations, we've not found a single, concrete FACT.
RW Maroon
2017-05-18 17:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Fucking moron. Why do you think there is a special counsel now? His
campaign was being investigated even before he was elected. Or do you think
the fact that 17 intelligence agencies said that Russians interfered with
the election happened spontaneously?
--
A Canyon is just a big hole.
Schuman
2017-05-18 17:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RW Maroon
Post by NoBody
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Fucking moron. Why do you think there is a special counsel now?
Learn to parse the difference between "was" and "is" - hint it's a
verbal tense discontinuity.

HTH, you deep state running dog lackey.
NoBody
2017-05-19 10:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:28:31 -0000 (UTC), RW Maroon
Post by RW Maroon
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Fucking moron. Why do you think there is a special counsel now?
Because you stupid libs keep whining and crying and rioting? I notice
you failed to provide evidence he was being investigated before the
election.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-19 15:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:28:31 -0000 (UTC), RW Maroon
Post by RW Maroon
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Fucking moron. Why do you think there is a special counsel now?
Because you stupid libs keep whining and crying and rioting?
No - because there was an ongoing investigation into the "Russia thing",
and Trump compromised it.
NoBody
2017-05-20 13:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:34:30 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:28:31 -0000 (UTC), RW Maroon
Post by RW Maroon
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Fucking moron. Why do you think there is a special counsel now?
Because you stupid libs keep whining and crying and rioting?
No - because there was an ongoing investigation into the "Russia thing",
and Trump compromised it.
Again, provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated at that
time. And again, "sources say" is not an acceptable level of proof.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-20 19:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:34:30 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:28:31 -0000 (UTC), RW Maroon
Post by RW Maroon
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Fucking moron. Why do you think there is a special counsel now?
Because you stupid libs keep whining and crying and rioting?
No - because there was an ongoing investigation into the "Russia thing",
and Trump compromised it.
Again, provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated at that
time.
There is an investigation about the "Russia thing" and Trump's campaign.
Trump's name is involved. The campaign was to get Trump elected.
Necessarily, the investigation into Trump's campaign is an investigation
of Trump. We don't need "evidence", which you - a disingenuous
politically motivated shill - would reject anyway. We only need a
couple of key facts and logic.

Trump's campaign is being investigated, which means Trump is being
investigated by direct and necessary implication. Deal with it.
andy memory
2017-05-20 19:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
Deal with it.
Stop socking up, tRudy:

11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Preston Hamblin
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Preston Hamblin
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
NoBody
2017-05-21 14:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:26 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:34:30 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:28:31 -0000 (UTC), RW Maroon
Post by RW Maroon
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Fucking moron. Why do you think there is a special counsel now?
Because you stupid libs keep whining and crying and rioting?
No - because there was an ongoing investigation into the "Russia thing",
and Trump compromised it.
Again, provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated at that
time.
There is an investigation about the "Russia thing" and Trump's campaign.
Trump's name is involved. The campaign was to get Trump elected.
Necessarily, the investigation into Trump's campaign is an investigation
of Trump. We don't need "evidence", which you - a disingenuous
politically motivated shill - would reject anyway. We only need a
couple of key facts and logic.
Trump's campaign is being investigated, which means Trump is being
investigated by direct and necessary implication. Deal with it.
In other words, you made the whole thing up and this is your way of
admitting it.
Preston Hamblin
2017-05-21 18:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by NoBody
On Sat, 20 May 2017 12:17:26 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 19 May 2017 08:34:30 -0700, Preston Hamblin
Post by Preston Hamblin
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 18 May 2017 17:28:31 -0000 (UTC), RW Maroon
Post by RW Maroon
Post by NoBody
Post by Alan Baker
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
How do you KNOW Trump wasn't being investigated: not what Trump has
said, surely!
Provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated. Please note
that unnamed "sources" are not an acceptable response.
Fucking moron. Why do you think there is a special counsel now?
Because you stupid libs keep whining and crying and rioting?
No - because there was an ongoing investigation into the "Russia thing",
and Trump compromised it.
Again, provide your evidence that he *was* being investigated at that
time.
There is an investigation about the "Russia thing" and Trump's campaign.
Trump's name is involved. The campaign was to get Trump elected.
Necessarily, the investigation into Trump's campaign is an investigation
of Trump. We don't need "evidence", which you - a disingenuous
politically motivated shill - would reject anyway. We only need a
couple of key facts and logic.
Trump's campaign is being investigated, which means Trump is being
investigated by direct and necessary implication. Deal with it.
In other words, you made the whole thing up and this is your way of
admitting it.
"In other words" - one of your favorite tired Usenet tropes. You use a
lot of those. They're puerile.

No, I didn't make up anything. Out of absolute logical necessity, Trump
is being investigated.
andy memory
2017-05-21 19:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Preston Hamblin
No, I didn't make up anything.
Here's some data on YOU little man Ball:


11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.

[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152

Here's his reply:

From: "Sessions, William" <***@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program

-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims

I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?

Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]

Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731

Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
Post by Preston Hamblin
and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
Post by Preston Hamblin
You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Rudy Canoza
2017-05-16 22:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened.
That *is exactly* what happened. Trump said so himself.

Also on May 11, 2017: Trump tells NBC’s Lester Holt that he had
already decided to fire Comey before his meeting with Sessions and
Rosenstein: “Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire
Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it. And in fact, when I
decided to do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia
thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story….”

http://billmoyers.com/story/timeline-comey-firing/
RW Maroon
2017-05-18 17:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 16 May 2017 08:10:08 -0400, FPP says...
"I haven't run into anybody yet who thinks that Jim Comey was doing
a good job as the FBI director, beginning last summer," Brokaw said.
I noticed he didn't say he ran into anybody who thought Comey should be
fired for his Russia investigation
Because that's not what happened. Only in the warped minds of liberals
Comey got fired for the FBI investigation of Russian hacking.
Trump wasn't being investigated, Moron. Funny, how you wanted Comey fired
for the FBI investigating Shrillary, but when Trump did it, you screech,
"HE CAN'T FIRE COMEY!!"
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
Logically speaking, why else would he be fired? The public called for his
firing in January. He waited until Comey was thick into his Trump-Russia
investigation. No matter how you cut it, it's still smells like a bad fart.
--
A Canyon is just a big hole.
Schuman
2017-05-18 18:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RW Maroon
Post by AlleyCat
I repeat... Trump wasn't being investigated... it was Russian hacking.
Logically speaking, why else would he be fired?
Years and years of THIS:

https://news.grabien.com/story-10-major-fbi-scandals-comeys-watch

ews just broke that President Trump is dismissing the director of the
FBI, James Comey.

Comey will inevitably be remembered for the controversial role he played
in the 2016 presidential election, where his agency conducted
surveillance of the Trump campaign as well as investigated the Clinton
camp for mishandling classified materials, giving both sides arguments
for how the FBI ultimately swayed the vote.

But even before the 2016 campaign, the FBI endured a number of
humiliations under Comey's tenure. Most damning were revelations that
the FBI was generally aware of almost every terrorist who successfully
struck America over the last eight years.

Here are 10 of Comey's biggest embarrassments at the FBI:

1. After Dylann Roof killed nine South Carolina parishioners in cold
blood, James Comey admitted that an error in their background check
system allowed Roof to legally buy his gun. "We are all sick this
happened," Comey said of the massive screw-up.

2. Shortly after the NSA scandal exploded in 2013, the FBI was exposed
conducting its own data mining on innocent Americans; the agency,
Bloomberg reported, retains that material for decades (even if no
wrongdoing is found). This is particularly ironic since Comey largely
launched his political career by aligning himself with Sen. Schumer
during the Bush Administration, making himself known as an opponent of a
controversial surveillance program.

3. From 2013-2014, the FBI authorized informants to break the law more
than 11,000 times, a steep increase from the years prior; these
allowances, which the FBI calls "otherwise illegal activity," is part of
a controversial program that has been accused of resulting in the
accidental death of many informants (amongst other unanticipated
consequences).

4. Comey made an embarrassing gaffe during a speech at the Holocaust
Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. in 2015, when he suggested Poland
was an "accomplice" to Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. The comments
angered America's allies in Poland, whose foreign ministry summoned the
U.S. ambassador for reprimanding. The ambassador, Stephen Mull, later
apologized on Comey's behalf.

5. When the FBI demanded Apple create a "backdoor" that would allow law
enforcement agencies to unlock the cell phones of various suspects, the
company refused, sparking a battle between the feds and America's
biggest tech company. What makes this incident indicative of Comey's
questionable management of the agency is that a) The FBI jumped the gun,
as they were indeed ultimately able to crack the San Bernardino
terrorist's phone, and b) Almost every other major national security
figure sided with Apple (from former CIA Director General Petraeus to
former CIA Director James Woolsey to former director of the NSA, General
Michael Hayden), warning that such a "crack" would inevitably wind up in
the wrong hands.

6. In 2015, the FBI conducted a controversial raid on a Texas political
meeting, finger printing, photographing, and seizing phones from
attendees (some in the group believe in restoring Texas as an
independent constitutional republic).

7. During its investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of
classified material, the FBI made an unusual deal in which Clinton aides
were both given immunity and allowed to destroy their laptops.

8. Before Comey's tenure, the FBI came under attack for not taking
seriously enough the threat from terror suspects they interviewed. The
FBI interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev but let him go; Russia sent the Obama
Administration a second warning, but the FBI opted against investigating
him again. Earlier, the FBI had possession of emails sent by Nidal Hasan
saying he wanted to kill his fellow soldiers to protect the Taliban --
but didn't intervene, leading many critics to argue the tragedy that
resulted in the death of 31 Americans at Fort Hood could have been
prevented. After Comey took over, the sae unfortunate trend continued.
The father of the radical Islamist who detonated a backpack bomb in New
York City in 2016 alerted the FBI to his son's radicalization. The FBI,
however, cleared Ahmad Khan Rahami after a brief interview.

9. The FBI also investigated the terrorist who killed 49 people and
wounded 53 more at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Fla. Despite a more
than 10-month investigation of Omar Mateen -- during which Mateen
admitting lying to agents -- the FBI opted against pressing further and
closed its case.

10. CBS recently reported that when two terrorists sought to kill
Americans attending the "Draw Muhammad" event in Garland, Texas, the FBI
not only had an understanding an attack was coming, but actually had an
undercover agent traveling with the Islamists, Elton Simpson and Nadir
Soofi. The FBI has refused to comment on why the agent on the scene did
not intervene during the attack.
Post by RW Maroon
The public called for his firing in January.
They did?

Citation for that?
Post by RW Maroon
He waited until Comey was thick into his Trump-Russia
investigation.
You mean the deep state purge of Trump, ok.
Post by RW Maroon
No matter how you cut it, it's still smells like a bad fart.
You surely do, asshat.
Siri Cruise
2017-05-18 23:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Maybe it's just me but post hoc rationalisations of past actions are not all
that compelling.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Schuman
2017-05-18 23:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Maybe it's just me but post hoc rationalisations of past actions are not all
that compelling.
https://news.grabien.com/story-10-major-fbi-scandals-comeys-watch

ews just broke that President Trump is dismissing the director of the
FBI, James Comey.

Comey will inevitably be remembered for the controversial role he played
in the 2016 presidential election, where his agency conducted
surveillance of the Trump campaign as well as investigated the Clinton
camp for mishandling classified materials, giving both sides arguments
for how the FBI ultimately swayed the vote.

But even before the 2016 campaign, the FBI endured a number of
humiliations under Comey's tenure. Most damning were revelations that
the FBI was generally aware of almost every terrorist who successfully
struck America over the last eight years.

Here are 10 of Comey's biggest embarrassments at the FBI:

1. After Dylann Roof killed nine South Carolina parishioners in cold
blood, James Comey admitted that an error in their background check
system allowed Roof to legally buy his gun. "We are all sick this
happened," Comey said of the massive screw-up.

2. Shortly after the NSA scandal exploded in 2013, the FBI was exposed
conducting its own data mining on innocent Americans; the agency,
Bloomberg reported, retains that material for decades (even if no
wrongdoing is found). This is particularly ironic since Comey largely
launched his political career by aligning himself with Sen. Schumer
during the Bush Administration, making himself known as an opponent of a
controversial surveillance program.

3. From 2013-2014, the FBI authorized informants to break the law more
than 11,000 times, a steep increase from the years prior; these
allowances, which the FBI calls "otherwise illegal activity," is part of
a controversial program that has been accused of resulting in the
accidental death of many informants (amongst other unanticipated
consequences).

4. Comey made an embarrassing gaffe during a speech at the Holocaust
Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. in 2015, when he suggested Poland
was an "accomplice" to Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. The comments
angered America's allies in Poland, whose foreign ministry summoned the
U.S. ambassador for reprimanding. The ambassador, Stephen Mull, later
apologized on Comey's behalf.

5. When the FBI demanded Apple create a "backdoor" that would allow law
enforcement agencies to unlock the cell phones of various suspects, the
company refused, sparking a battle between the feds and America's
biggest tech company. What makes this incident indicative of Comey's
questionable management of the agency is that a) The FBI jumped the gun,
as they were indeed ultimately able to crack the San Bernardino
terrorist's phone, and b) Almost every other major national security
figure sided with Apple (from former CIA Director General Petraeus to
former CIA Director James Woolsey to former director of the NSA, General
Michael Hayden), warning that such a "crack" would inevitably wind up in
the wrong hands.

6. In 2015, the FBI conducted a controversial raid on a Texas political
meeting, finger printing, photographing, and seizing phones from
attendees (some in the group believe in restoring Texas as an
independent constitutional republic).

7. During its investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of
classified material, the FBI made an unusual deal in which Clinton aides
were both given immunity and allowed to destroy their laptops.

8. Before Comey's tenure, the FBI came under attack for not taking
seriously enough the threat from terror suspects they interviewed. The
FBI interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev but let him go; Russia sent the Obama
Administration a second warning, but the FBI opted against investigating
him again. Earlier, the FBI had possession of emails sent by Nidal Hasan
saying he wanted to kill his fellow soldiers to protect the Taliban --
but didn't intervene, leading many critics to argue the tragedy that
resulted in the death of 31 Americans at Fort Hood could have been
prevented. After Comey took over, the sae unfortunate trend continued.
The father of the radical Islamist who detonated a backpack bomb in New
York City in 2016 alerted the FBI to his son's radicalization. The FBI,
however, cleared Ahmad Khan Rahami after a brief interview.

9. The FBI also investigated the terrorist who killed 49 people and
wounded 53 more at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Fla. Despite a more
than 10-month investigation of Omar Mateen -- during which Mateen
admitting lying to agents -- the FBI opted against pressing further and
closed its case.

10. CBS recently reported that when two terrorists sought to kill
Americans attending the "Draw Muhammad" event in Garland, Texas, the FBI
not only had an understanding an attack was coming, but actually had an
undercover agent traveling with the Islamists, Elton Simpson and Nadir
Soofi. The FBI has refused to comment on why the agent on the scene did
not intervene during the attack.
Post by Siri Cruise
The public called for his firing in January.
They did?

Citation for that?
Post by Siri Cruise
crickets<
Siri Cruise
2017-05-19 03:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Schuman
Post by Siri Cruise
Maybe it's just me but post hoc rationalisations of past actions are not all
that compelling.
https://news.grabien.com/story-10-major-fbi-scandals-comeys-watch
Look up post hoc, sunshine.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
Free the Amos Yee one.
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha.
Schuman
2017-05-19 03:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Schuman
Post by Siri Cruise
Maybe it's just me but post hoc rationalisations of past actions are not all
that compelling.
https://news.grabien.com/story-10-major-fbi-scandals-comeys-watch
Look up post hoc, sunshine.
Look at years of scandals:


1. After Dylann Roof killed nine South Carolina parishioners in cold
blood, James Comey admitted that an error in their background check
system allowed Roof to legally buy his gun. "We are all sick this
happened," Comey said of the massive screw-up.

2. Shortly after the NSA scandal exploded in 2013, the FBI was exposed
conducting its own data mining on innocent Americans; the agency,
Bloomberg reported, retains that material for decades (even if no
wrongdoing is found). This is particularly ironic since Comey largely
launched his political career by aligning himself with Sen. Schumer
during the Bush Administration, making himself known as an opponent of a
controversial surveillance program.

3. From 2013-2014, the FBI authorized informants to break the law more
than 11,000 times, a steep increase from the years prior; these
allowances, which the FBI calls "otherwise illegal activity," is part of
a controversial program that has been accused of resulting in the
accidental death of many informants (amongst other unanticipated
consequences).

4. Comey made an embarrassing gaffe during a speech at the Holocaust
Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. in 2015, when he suggested Poland
was an "accomplice" to Nazi Germany during the Holocaust. The comments
angered America's allies in Poland, whose foreign ministry summoned the
U.S. ambassador for reprimanding. The ambassador, Stephen Mull, later
apologized on Comey's behalf.

5. When the FBI demanded Apple create a "backdoor" that would allow law
enforcement agencies to unlock the cell phones of various suspects, the
company refused, sparking a battle between the feds and America's
biggest tech company. What makes this incident indicative of Comey's
questionable management of the agency is that a) The FBI jumped the gun,
as they were indeed ultimately able to crack the San Bernardino
terrorist's phone, and b) Almost every other major national security
figure sided with Apple (from former CIA Director General Petraeus to
former CIA Director James Woolsey to former director of the NSA, General
Michael Hayden), warning that such a "crack" would inevitably wind up in
the wrong hands.

6. In 2015, the FBI conducted a controversial raid on a Texas political
meeting, finger printing, photographing, and seizing phones from
attendees (some in the group believe in restoring Texas as an
independent constitutional republic).

7. During its investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of
classified material, the FBI made an unusual deal in which Clinton aides
were both given immunity and allowed to destroy their laptops.

8. Before Comey's tenure, the FBI came under attack for not taking
seriously enough the threat from terror suspects they interviewed. The
FBI interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev but let him go; Russia sent the Obama
Administration a second warning, but the FBI opted against investigating
him again. Earlier, the FBI had possession of emails sent by Nidal Hasan
saying he wanted to kill his fellow soldiers to protect the Taliban --
but didn't intervene, leading many critics to argue the tragedy that
resulted in the death of 31 Americans at Fort Hood could have been
prevented. After Comey took over, the sae unfortunate trend continued.
The father of the radical Islamist who detonated a backpack bomb in New
York City in 2016 alerted the FBI to his son's radicalization. The FBI,
however, cleared Ahmad Khan Rahami after a brief interview.

9. The FBI also investigated the terrorist who killed 49 people and
wounded 53 more at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Fla. Despite a more
than 10-month investigation of Omar Mateen -- during which Mateen
admitting lying to agents -- the FBI opted against pressing further and
closed its case.

10. CBS recently reported that when two terrorists sought to kill
Americans attending the "Draw Muhammad" event in Garland, Texas, the FBI
not only had an understanding an attack was coming, but actually had an
undercover agent traveling with the Islamists, Elton Simpson and Nadir
Soofi. The FBI has refused to comment on why the agent on the scene did
not intervene during the attack.
Post by Siri Cruise
The public called for his firing in January.
They did?

Citation for that?
Post by Siri Cruise
crickets<
Loading...