90/10 Is Fake News

[Cassandro]

There's still a large difference between reporting being biased or prejudiced and it being fake.

"There's still...reporting...being fake." Is this paraphrasing of your comment false or merely biased?

That's not a paraphrase.

It was an example of fake paraphrasing (as often used by the MSM).

 

[Cassandro]

"Agenda driven news

CNN in return calls Trump on all his bullshit. I admits that they focus on negative stories very often but I don’t see them twisting facts or omitting information.

Then you are not practicing critical evaluation. I can identify multiple examples of distortion and omission in every broadcast. For example, almost every segment on semi-automatic weapons is accompanied by video of a fully automatic weapon (i.e., machine gun) being fired. Open your eyes and ears.

 

[Cassandro]

'Agenda driven' seems like a perfectly reasonable label to use.

"Agenda driven" news is an oxymoron.

 

[Slade3200]

"Agenda driven news

CNN in return calls Trump on all his bullshit. I admits that they focus on negative stories very often but I don’t see them twisting facts or omitting information.

Then you are not practicing critical evaluation. I can identify multiple examples of distortion and omission in every broadcast. For example, almost every segment on semi-automatic weapons is accompanied by video of a fully automatic weapon (i.e., machine gun) being fired. Open your eyes and ears.

I’m glad it is so easy for you. would you please point out a few examples from one of today’s programs on CNN?

 

[Cassandro]

I’m glad it is so easy for you. would you please point out a few examples from one of today’s programs on CNN?

Is there a particular program you would like me to review? I can also do NBC Nightly News if you prefer.

 

[Cassandro]

10:07 AM ET: Carrie Cordero, CNN Legal Analyst, disputes whether a sitting President can be indicted because it isn't "settled Supreme Court precedent." That statement deliberately omits at least 20 years of legal precedent (e.g., Bill Clinton) that a sitting President can't be indicted while in office. Just because a particular issue has not been brought to (and accepted by) the Supreme Court does not mean it is not settled law.*

*The NY Times and Washington Post may write word mincing propaganda pieces about this issue, but the Constitution clearly specifies impeachment as the process for removing a President from office. Or do they honestly believe that a President could perform his duties while incarcerated?

 

[Cassandro]

10:10. Garret Graff disputes Giuliani's opinion because Meuller "led people in combat in Viet Nam." Also praises the FBI for being so "scrupulously" nonpolitical before the 2016 election, ignoring subsequent firings, demotions and resignations by top officials.

 

[Cassandro]

How's that for only 10 minutes?

 

[Montrovant]

10:07 AM ET: Carrie Cordero, CNN Legal Analyst, disputes whether a sitting President can be indicted because it isn't "settled Supreme Court precedent." That statement deliberately omits at least 20 years of legal precedent (e.g., Bill Clinton) that a sitting President can't be indicted while in office. Just because a particular issue has not been brought to (and accepted by) the Supreme Court does not mean it is not settled law.*

*The NY Times and Washington Post may write word mincing propaganda pieces about this issue, but the Constitution clearly specifies impeachment as the process for removing a President from office. Or do they honestly believe that a President could perform his duties while incarcerated?

Actually, this has been a question since long before Trump was elected. For example, this is from 1997: https://scholarship.law.georgetown....com/&httpsredir=1&article=2573&context=facpub

Here's one from during the 2016 campaign which actually brings up the possibility of Clinton being indicted if she were to win the election: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...if-hillary-clinton-is-indicted-or-steps-down/

Here's another from 96: CAN A PRESIDENT IN OFFICE BE INDICTED, PROSECUTED?

I don't think the question of whether a president can be indicted is entirely settled, although I think presidents operate as though it is.

 

[Slade3200]

I’m glad it is so easy for you. would you please point out a few examples from one of today’s programs on CNN?

Is there a particular program you would like me to review? I can also do NBC Nightly News if you prefer.

Sure, how about you do New Day with Cuomo. They are on for 3 hours every morning so you have plenty of material. Go ahead and show me some fake news from that show from this week

 

[Cassandro]

Sure, how about you do New Day with Cuomo. They are on for 3 hours every morning so you have plenty of material. Go ahead and show me some fake news from that show from this week

LOL 3-6 AM PDT. I will record & comment.

P.S. Did you read the examples I posted earlier today?

 

[Slade3200]

10:07 AM ET: Carrie Cordero, CNN Legal Analyst, disputes whether a sitting President can be indicted because it isn't "settled Supreme Court precedent." That statement deliberately omits at least 20 years of legal precedent (e.g., Bill Clinton) that a sitting President can't be indicted while in office. Just because a particular issue has not been brought to (and accepted by) the Supreme Court does not mean it is not settled law.*

*The NY Times and Washington Post may write word mincing propaganda pieces about this issue, but the Constitution clearly specifies impeachment as the process for removing a President from office. Or do they honestly believe that a President could perform his duties while incarcerated?

I don’t see how this is fake news... it is a legal and procedural debate. I do agree that if the president breaks the law the process would be impeachment and then indictment.

 

[Cassandro]

Actually, this has been a question since long before Trump was elected. For example, this is from 1997: https://scholarship.law.georgetown....com/&httpsredir=1&article=2573&context=facpub

Here's one from during the 2016 campaign which actually brings up the possibility of Clinton being indicted if she were to win the election: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...if-hillary-clinton-is-indicted-or-steps-down/

Here's another from 96: CAN A PRESIDENT IN OFFICE BE INDICTED, PROSECUTED?

I don't think the question of whether a president can be indicted is entirely settled, although I think presidents operate as though it is.

1. A law school article.

2. This is posited on Hillary being indicted BEFORE she became President.

3. This issue was settled in 1998 when Bill Clinton was impeached (rather than indicted), in accordance with the specific provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Slade3200]

10:10. Garret Graff disputes Giuliani's opinion because Meuller "led people in combat in Viet Nam." Also praises the FBI for being so "scrupulously" nonpolitical before the 2016 election, ignoring subsequent firings, demotions and resignations by top officials.

Still not understanding your point. The pundits and opinion interview debates are always going to have contrasting statements and many incorrect facts, but those are different than reporting the news. I would agree that there is way too much opinion in cable news but I guess that’s what pays the bills. I don’t think this makes it Fake News either but I guess you could call it that if you want. Would have to give that same label to Hannity, Rush, Levin and the like

 

[Slade3200]

Sure, how about you do New Day with Cuomo. They are on for 3 hours every morning so you have plenty of material. Go ahead and show me some fake news from that show from this week

LOL 3-6 AM PDT. I will record & comment.

P.S. Did you read the examples I posted earlier today?

I missed them but just went back and commented. Thanks for providing examples. Nice to actually debate substance and not just play insult games.

 

[Cassandro]

I don’t see how this is fake news... it is a legal and procedural debate. I do agree that if the president breaks the law the process would be impeachment and then indictment.

If the President was impeached (and convicted in the Senate), he would no longer be President.

 

[Montrovant]

Actually, this has been a question since long before Trump was elected. For example, this is from 1997: https://scholarship.law.georgetown....com/&httpsredir=1&article=2573&context=facpub

Here's one from during the 2016 campaign which actually brings up the possibility of Clinton being indicted if she were to win the election: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...if-hillary-clinton-is-indicted-or-steps-down/

Here's another from 96: CAN A PRESIDENT IN OFFICE BE INDICTED, PROSECUTED?

I don't think the question of whether a president can be indicted is entirely settled, although I think presidents operate as though it is.

1. A law school article.

2. This is posited on Hillary being indicted BEFORE she became President.

3. This issue was settled in 1998 when Bill Clinton was impeached (rather than indicted), in accordance with the specific provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

1. OK, a law school article...your point?

2. The article talks about the possibilities of Clinton being indicted at various hypothetical times, including after winning the presidency.

3. How does a president being impeached settle the issue of whether a president can be indicted? Clinton was not the first president impeached by the House.

 

[Cassandro]

How does a president being impeached settle the issue of whether a president can be indicted?

The Constitution specifies impeachment as the remedy for crimes committed by a sitting President, just as it specifies the Electoral College as the procedure for electing one. Indicting a sitting President is no more authorized by the Constitution than is electing a President by popular vote.

 

[Montrovant]

How does a president being impeached settle the issue of whether a president can be indicted?

The Constitution specifies impeachment as the remedy for crimes committed by a sitting President, just as it specifies the Electoral College as the procedure for electing one. Indicting a sitting President is no more authorized by the Constitution than is electing a President by popular vote.

Where does the Constitution specify that? The Constitution spells out how impeachment occurs, but not that it is the only remedy for any crimes committed by a president.

I can certainly see an argument that Article 1 Section 3 is saying that indictments must wait, but it isn't specific about it; it only says that impeachment can only be used to remove the president from office and that the president so removed can be indicted, not that the president must be impeached before any indictment can occur.

Further, Article 2 section 4 specifies that removal from office through impeachment is for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Does that mean a president is above the law when it comes to any other crimes?

Impeachment Clauses

 

[Cassandro]

Further, Article 2 section 4 specifies that removal from office through impeachment is for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Does that mean a president is above the law when it comes to any other crimes?

Like what, traffic tickets?

P.S. President Nixon was named as an UNINDICTED co-conspirator for precisely this reason. President Ford then pardoned Nixon because he was no longer protected from indictment.