Obama Justice Department Now Referring Reporters to Media Matters for Information on

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2004
70,230
10,864
2,040
OMgawd

SNIP:

Apr 21, 2012 01:07 AM EST


Late Friday afternoon, Free Beacon reporter CJ Ciaramella requested a comment from the Justice Department about my new book Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Coverup. This was the response he received.

response at site couldn't bring it over here.

That's right folks. Media Matters, the far Left website funded by George Soros, is now serving as a mouth piece for the United States Department of Justice. Not only did DOJ refer Ciaramella to Media Matters for information about Operation Fast and Furious, but didn't even refer him to material that had anything to do with his original question about the FBI covering up the existence of a third weapon found at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Ciaramella writes:


The Department of Justice is using the liberal “watchdog” group Media Matters for America to deflect questions about the Fast and Furious scandal, including those regarding a gun that might have been used in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

A new book raises questions as to whether the FBI hid the existence of a weapon recovered at the scene of murdered U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Conservative commentator and author Katie Pavlich lays out evidence she says points to a FBI cover-up to protect a confidential informant in her recently released book, Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-up,

In response to an inquiry from the Free Beacon, a Justice Department spokeswoman said in an email that she “was told to direct your questions to the FBI, and also to provide you with a link to this story: http://mediamatters.org/research/201204190011”

The link was to a story at the George Soros-funded Media Matters for America supposedly refuting many of Pavlich’s claims. Media Matters is a partisan organization whose founder, David Brock, is also running a pro-Obama super PAC.

For more than a year now, Americans have been stonewalled, ignored and disrespected in our quests for information about the Obama administration's lethal Operation Fast and Furious. The fact that the Obama Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, is now sending reporters to the far Left, George Soros funded, Media Matters for factual information about one of the bloodiest scandals in U.S. history, is no surprise and totally predictable. This is just an extension of the Obama administration's shameless coverup and refusal to tell the truth about Fast and Furious. The claims made by Media Matters match up nearly exactly with claims made by Justice Department officials in their defense against involvement in Fast and Furious.

read it all here with comments

Obama Justice Department Now Referring Reporters to Media Matters for Information on Fast and Furious - Katie Pavlich
 
Last edited:
You seem to have left out the part where the DOJ person said "I was told to direct your questions to the FBI, and also to provide you with a link to this story..."

It's odd that they'd point out a story on Media Matters, but they were not referring questions to Media Matters. They were referring them to the FBI, and added the Media Matters story after the fact.

Much ado about nothing.
 
You seem to have left out the part where the DOJ person said "I was told to direct your questions to the FBI, and also to provide you with a link to this story..."

It's odd that they'd point out a story on Media Matters, but they were not referring questions to Media Matters. They were referring them to the FBI, and added the Media Matters story after the fact.

Much ado about nothing.

well I could of posted the whole article I guess but thought that was against the rules..
I guess I will next time to satisfy you
 
You seem to have left out the part where the DOJ person said "I was told to direct your questions to the FBI, and also to provide you with a link to this story..."

It's odd that they'd point out a story on Media Matters, but they were not referring questions to Media Matters. They were referring them to the FBI, and added the Media Matters story after the fact.

Much ado about nothing.

well I could of posted the whole article I guess but thought that was against the rules..
I guess I will next time to satisfy you

don't be a douche. You need not post the whole article, but you 'could' have posted the 2 line DOJ reply you were whining about... you know, the one that essentially makes the premise of your thread a lie?
 
You seem to have left out the part where the DOJ person said "I was told to direct your questions to the FBI, and also to provide you with a link to this story..."

It's odd that they'd point out a story on Media Matters, but they were not referring questions to Media Matters. They were referring them to the FBI, and added the Media Matters story after the fact.

Much ado about nothing.

well I could of posted the whole article I guess but thought that was against the rules..
I guess I will next time to satisfy you

Conservative analyzes, gotta accept that.
 
You seem to have left out the part where the DOJ person said "I was told to direct your questions to the FBI, and also to provide you with a link to this story..."

It's odd that they'd point out a story on Media Matters, but they were not referring questions to Media Matters. They were referring them to the FBI, and added the Media Matters story after the fact.

Much ado about nothing.

well I could of posted the whole article I guess but thought that was against the rules..
I guess I will next time to satisfy you

don't be a douche. You need not post the whole article, but you 'could' have posted the 2 line DOJ reply you were whining about... you know, the one that essentially makes the premise of your thread a lie?

really, a lie?
 
well I could of posted the whole article I guess but thought that was against the rules..
I guess I will next time to satisfy you

don't be a douche. You need not post the whole article, but you 'could' have posted the 2 line DOJ reply you were whining about... you know, the one that essentially makes the premise of your thread a lie?

really, a lie?

pretty much, Steph.

They said...
I was told to direct your questions to the FBI, and also to provide you with a link to this story...
They referred questions to the FBI, then provided a link after that referral.

Had they said this...
I was told to direct your questions to Media Matters (here is a link to a story), and also to the FBI...
then you'd have a point.

You don't. Sorry.
 
You seem to have left out the part where the DOJ person said "I was told to direct your questions to the FBI, and also to provide you with a link to this story..."

It's odd that they'd point out a story on Media Matters, but they were not referring questions to Media Matters. They were referring them to the FBI, and added the Media Matters story after the fact.

Much ado about nothing.

well I could of posted the whole article I guess but thought that was against the rules..
I guess I will next time to satisfy you

Conservative analyzes, gotta accept that.

I call them like I see them, right or left. I've called out just as many right haters as left haters, as my posting history will show.

I dislike Obama and what he has done and continues to try to do to this country as much as the next conservative... but I'm not going to lie, or accept lies, in order to bolster my position. Sorry.
 
well I could of posted the whole article I guess but thought that was against the rules..
I guess I will next time to satisfy you

Conservative analyzes, gotta accept that.

I call them like I see them, right or left. I've called out just as many right haters as left haters, as my posting history will show.

I dislike Obama and what he has done and continues to try to do to this country as much as the next conservative... but I'm not going to lie, or accept lies, in order to bolster my position. Sorry.
I've noticed.
 
don't be a douche. You need not post the whole article, but you 'could' have posted the 2 line DOJ reply you were whining about... you know, the one that essentially makes the premise of your thread a lie?

really, a lie?

pretty much, Steph.

They said...
I was told to direct your questions to the FBI, and also to provide you with a link to this story...
They referred questions to the FBI, then provided a link after that referral.

Had they said this...
I was told to direct your questions to Media Matters (here is a link to a story), and also to the FBI...
then you'd have a point.

You don't. Sorry.

why in the hell would they be directing anyone to mediamatters after they said get with the FBI?
 
really, a lie?

pretty much, Steph.

They said...

They referred questions to the FBI, then provided a link after that referral.

Had they said this...
I was told to direct your questions to Media Matters (here is a link to a story), and also to the FBI...
then you'd have a point.

You don't. Sorry.

why in the hell would they be directing anyone to mediamatters after they said get with the FBI?

If you look, I 'did' say that was odd. However, it was not the primary source of information or answers they were suggesting. That was the FBI. The MM article was an afterthought.

This also assumes of course, that that part of the email was legitimate.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, like the whole 'eating dog' thing did.
 
If you look, I 'did' say that was odd. However, it was not the primary source of information or answers they were suggesting. That was the FBI. The MM article was an afterthought.

This also assumes of course, that that part of the email was legitimate.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, like the whole 'eating dog' thing did.

steffie loves nursing her fauxrage....
 
If you look, I 'did' say that was odd. However, it was not the primary source of information or answers they were suggesting. That was the FBI. The MM article was an afterthought.

This also assumes of course, that that part of the email was legitimate.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, like the whole 'eating dog' thing did.

steffie loves nursing her fauxrage....

would that be like Gingrich spending 40,000 Jilly, you know that fauxrage
 
If you look, I 'did' say that was odd. However, it was not the primary source of information or answers they were suggesting. That was the FBI. The MM article was an afterthought.

This also assumes of course, that that part of the email was legitimate.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, like the whole 'eating dog' thing did.

steffie loves nursing her fauxrage....

lol... you of all people know I call out both sides... it's a love-hate-love thing ;)
 

Forum List

Back
Top