This was mentioned in another thread. I started a new topic because IMO this is important stand alone. It represents something bigger.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...RKI?ocid=socialshare

Trump calls for CBS to lose broadcasting rights over Harris interview
Story by Patrick Svitek, Amy B Wang • 18h • 3 min read

They need to release the full transcript.

They did alter. I watched both versions personally.

Query:

Is the real threat Trump or media bias and unfettered election fraud?

Does what 60 minutes did constitute election interference and (or) rise to the level of a felony?

https://www.nycourts.gov/judge...alLaw/175/175.10.pdf

First, it’s damn neigh impossible to deny the editing was done for any reason but to help Kamala’s election chances.
Second, was the pay for the editor(s) reported as a campaign contribution?
Third, did an illegal agreement (or a legal agreement) to hide the the true purpose of the editing (election interference) rise to the level of RICO?
And so on….

This, of course, is tongue-in-cheek. I doubt Bragg is inclined to investigate the gander as he did the goose.

Sooner or later we have to face the reality of the camel’s nose under the tent. We need free speech of course. It is the right that allows us to recognize and value the following Bill of Rights. That said, should we, as a country, allow abuses thereof. Personally, I believe criminal prosecution isn’t the answer (Prosecutors sux as truth police.) Still, should we consider a proof burden and easier available sanction than NYT vs. Sullivan?

The internet (and even T.V.) is pretty new. Our society is still struggling with how to live with it. Do we just grin and bear the abuses and wait for us to mature into a society sophisticated enough to cull misinformation, or do we enable stopgap measures that are shot-sighted to empower political agendas? Media and internet hosts make billions and escape most civil liability claiming they are just conduits of others claims. Should the escape liability when they actually get caught manipulating instead of reporting?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
This was mentioned in another thread. I started a new topic because IMO this is important stand alone. It represents something bigger.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...RKI?ocid=socialshare

Trump calls for CBS to lose broadcasting rights over Harris interview
Story by Patrick Svitek, Amy B Wang • 18h • 3 min read

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Query:

Is the real threat Trump or media bias and unfettered election fraud?

Does what 60 minutes did constitute election interference and (or) rise to the level of a felony?

https://www.nycourts.gov/judge...alLaw/175/175.10.pdf

First, it’s damn neigh impossible to deny the editing was done for any reason but to help Kamala’s election chances.
Second, was the pay for the editor(s) reported as a campaign contribution?
Third, did an illegal agreement (or a legal agreement) to hide the the true purpose of the editing (election interference) rise to the level of RICO?
And so on….

This, of course, is tongue-in-cheek. I doubt Bragg is inclined to investigate the gander as he did the goose.

Sooner or later we have to face the reality of the camel’s nose under the tent. We need free speech of course. It is the right that allows us to recognize and value the following Bill of Rights. That said, should we, as a country, allow abuses thereof. Personally, I believe criminal prosecution isn’t the answer (nor loss of licensure) but, should we consider a proof burden easier available sanction than NYT vs. Sullivan?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
This was mentioned in another thread. I started a new topic because IMO this is important stand alone. It represents something bigger.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...RKI?ocid=socialshare

Trump calls for CBS to lose broadcasting rights over Harris interview
Story by Patrick Svitek, Amy B Wang • 18h • 3 min read

Editing a video interview is a felony?

trump's insanity and stupidity is contagious. It is spreading to his cult members.

Getting someone to sign a non-disclosure agreement is a felony?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Query:

Is the real threat Trump or media bias and unfettered election fraud?

Does what 60 minutes did constitute election interference and (or) rise to the level of a felony?

https://www.nycourts.gov/judge...alLaw/175/175.10.pdf

First, it’s damn neigh impossible to deny the editing was done for any reason but to help Kamala’s election chances.
Second, was the pay for the editor(s) reported as a campaign contribution?
Third, did an illegal agreement (or a legal agreement) to hide the the true purpose of the editing (election interference) rise to the level of RICO?
And so on….

This, of course, is tongue-in-cheek. I doubt Bragg is inclined to investigate the gander as he did the goose.

Sooner or later we have to face the reality of the camel’s nose under the tent. We need free speech of course. It is the right that allows us to recognize and value the following Bill of Rights. That said, should we, as a country, allow abuses thereof. Personally, I believe criminal prosecution isn’t the answer (nor loss of licensure) but, should we consider a proof burden easier available than money sanctions than NYT vs. Sullivan?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
This was mentioned in another thread. I started a new topic because IMO this is important stand alone. It represents something bigger.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...RKI?ocid=socialshare

Trump calls for CBS to lose broadcasting rights over Harris interview
Story by Patrick Svitek, Amy B Wang • 18h • 3 min read

Editing a video interview is a felony? (… to influence an election and not reporting it as a campaign contribution) under Braggs’ theories, it would seem so.)

trump's insanity and stupidity is contagious. It is spreading to his cult members.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Getting someone to sign a non-disclosure agreement is a felony?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Query:

Is the real threat Trump or media bias and unfettered election fraud?

Does what 60 minutes did constitute election interference and (or) rise to the level of a felony?

https://www.nycourts.gov/judge...alLaw/175/175.10.pdf

First, it’s damn neigh impossible to deny the editing was done for any reason but to help Kamala’s election chances.
Second, was the pay for the editor(s) reported as a campaign contribution?
Third, did an illegal agreement (or a legal agreement) to hide the the true purpose of the editing (election interference) rise to the level of RICO?
And so on….

This, of course, is tongue-in-cheek. I doubt Bragg is inclined to investigate the gander as he did the goose.

Sooner or later we have to face the reality of the camel’s nose under the tent. We need free speech of course. It is the right that allows us to recognize and value the following Bill of Rights. That said, should we, as a country, allow abuses thereof. Personally, I believe criminal prosecution isn’t the answer (nor loss of licensure) but, should we consider a proof burden easier available than money sanctions than NYT vs. Sullivan?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
This was mentioned in another thread. I started a new topic because IMO this is important stand alone. It represents something bigger.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...RKI?ocid=socialshare

Trump calls for CBS to lose broadcasting rights over Harris interview
Story by Patrick Svitek, Amy B Wang • 18h • 3 min read

Editing a video interview is a felony? (… to influence an election and not reporting it as a campaign contribution) under Braggs’ theories, it would seem so.)

trump's insanity and stupidity is contagious. It is spreading to his cult members.

It just amazes me that you will sit there and listen to trump tell one outrageous lie after another and think nothing of it....but, when a news editor edits a video interview (which, BTW, happens in literally every single interview done for television) you start talking about jailing the press.

trump has made all of you insane.

[quote]It just amazes me that you will sit there and listen to trump tell one outrageous lie after another and think nothing of it.../quote]


It amazes me that Judge, Lane, Ann, and others post/shove their beliefs and theories here, again and again, and have them crammed, never win an argument, yet never learn a thing, never acknowledge their fallacy, never change their minds, always find new BS to buy into.

If 60 minutes edited the interview to make VP Harris look better to the electorate, then that is not journalism, its campaigning, and doing so under the rubric of being an independent journalist.

The mainstream media has taken sides.

That is not journalism.

In my mind, that should cost them the additional protections provided for journalists with regards to libel/slander. Just like Fox and that idiot who lost to the school shooting victims.

I have no issues with free speech, but 60 minutes has been caught playing games with the facts before.

If anyone wants to see a prime example of TDS, read this thread.

It starts of with a disclaimer that it is (the crime part, anyway) tongue-in-cheek and I explicitly said that jailing folks for 1st Amendment speech wasn’t the answer to dishonesty in reporting.
Then, all of the sudden it’s claimed I’m seeking to jail the press.

BTW, if any who will vote for Harris don’t have TDS, can you admit that CBS was dishonest in editing to make Kamala’s train wreck more palatable to those watching to discover her foibles and merits?

It amazes me that ne’er a anti-Trumper condemns CBS for its attempt to manipulate its listeners to believe agenda-driven pseudo journalism… as anti-trumpers so complain about Fox.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
If anyone wants to see a prime example of TDS, read this thread.

It starts of with a disclaimer that it is (the crime part, anyway) tongue-in-cheek and I explicitly said that jailing folks for 1st Amendment speech wasn’t the answer to dishonesty in reporting.
Then, all of the sudden it’s claimed I’m seeking to jail the press.

BTW, if any who will vote for Harris don’t have TDS, can you admit that CBS was dishonest in editing to make Kamala’s train wreck more palatable to those watching to discover her foibles and merits?

It amazes me that ne’er a anti-Trumper condemns CBS for its attempt to manipulate its listeners to believe agenda-driven pseudo journalism… as anti-trumpers so complain about Fox.

But Elon Musk censoring content on Twitter that is negative for Trump is no doubt just fine with you.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
If 60 minutes edited the interview to make VP Harris look better to the electorate, then that is not journalism, its campaigning, and doing so under the rubric of being an independent journalist.

The mainstream media has taken sides.

That is not journalism.

In my mind, that should cost them the additional protections provided for journalists with regards to libel/slander. Just like Fox and that idiot who lost to the school shooting victims.

I have no issues with free speech, but 60 minutes has been caught playing games with the facts before.

Ridiculous. I've watched both versions. Explain what the big deal is?

trumptards grasping at straws like little crybabies. You watch and parrot right-wing media constantly that edits its content for political reasons and nary a word is spoken. Now, suddenly, CBS should be stripped of its broadcast rights and criminally prosecuted because they edited and interview. Absurd.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
If anyone wants to see a prime example of TDS, read this thread.

It starts of with a disclaimer that it is (the crime part, anyway) tongue-in-cheek and I explicitly said that jailing folks for 1st Amendment speech wasn’t the answer to dishonesty in reporting.
Then, all of the sudden it’s claimed I’m seeking to jail the press.

BTW, if any who will vote for Harris don’t have TDS, can you admit that CBS was dishonest in editing to make Kamala’s train wreck more palatable to those watching to discover her foibles and merits?

It amazes me that ne’er a anti-Trumper condemns CBS for its attempt to manipulate its listeners to believe agenda-driven pseudo journalism… as anti-trumpers so complain about Fox.

FOX News is nothing but agenda-driven pseudo journalism in its entirety. I missed your complaints about that.

And, by the way.....if she is such a terrible speaker, how is it that she mopped the floor with your idiot in their debate? And, why is your idiot scared to debate again? Ought to be a walk in the park.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
They need to release the full transcript.

They did alter. I watched both versions personally.

The full transcript was released. I posted it in the other thread.

You have really lost all political morality. It tracks with the broadcasted interview.

I watched Jan 6 personally.

Remind me of when CBS paid $767,000,000 to a company for blatant lies, I seem to have forgotten when that was.

The gasoline tank explosion thing?

Not north of $700 million, but times were different then.

ETA.

I misremembered. It was NBC news that did that.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

trump has made all of you insane.

Seems to me you and a few others here fall into that category also.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The gasoline tank explosion thing?

Not north of $700 million, but times were different then.

ETA.

I misremembered. It was NBC news that did that.

You had to go back 32 years to find an example? Holy shit. Challenge someone to find an example of other recent lies by of the republican propaganda networks. I’ll bet no one has to go back 32 years.

FWIW- I will say that NBC deserved to lose that suit so long ago. See the difference between trumptards and non-trumptards?

quote:

Originally posted by Gundog 64:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

trump has made all of you insane.

Seems to me you and a few others here fall into that category also.

I would have to disagree with Mike. Anyone who is a diehard trump fan has always been a dumbass. Trump had just convinced people that it’s ok to be a dumbass/crybaby/eternal victim. Just look at allegedly intelligent men whining that “there were irregularities” in the 2020 election.

Didn't NewsMax just settle with Smartmatic for an undisclosed, presumably substantial, amount?

More recently didn’t CNN settle with those Christian kids that were labeled as attacking this poor minority guy?

The reason I mentioned the gas tank thing was i misremembered it as being 60 minutes.

quote:

BTW, if any who will vote for Harris don’t have TDS, can you admit that CBS was dishonest in editing to make Kamala’s train wreck more palatable to those watching to discover her foibles and merits?

What material change did CBS make to her answer?

How did it make her look better?

They did not make any material change.

Here is a transcription

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/ne...-minutes-transcript/


Some are just repeating Trump, Fox, Twitter verse lies.

This explains this dishonest dig and pony show by the Trumpers very well.

https://apnews.com/article/kam...7eee7a090ece76d925c#

I know the AP is not Twitter, Truth Social, Fox, or that other that other one has been paid Pitt over 8 figure for Trump’s lies.

If there was no material change, how can anyone claim CBS tried to help Harris?

Looks like just another Republican whine about being victims again.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
If there was no material change, how can anyone claim CBS tried to help Harris?

Looks like just another Republican whine about being victims again.

When the show is on the other foot, "material change " wasn't a consideration

Didn't stop the "Russia Russia Russia" claims, though, did it?

Does anyone have the verbatim text of Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin?

e

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
Does anyone have the verbatim text of Tucker Carlsons interview with Putin?

i know, i know, search engines make everything so hard -
here's the amazingly complex google search i used, as it might guide you for future searches, as the arcana of a carefully crafted search requires AT LEAST 10 seconds of experience on the web or a smartphone

here's the crazy search request
tucker carlson interview with putin transcript

see how intricate and demanding that was, to finely craft the perfect search?

and here's an OBSCURE result

https://www.rev.com/blog/trans...mir-putin-transcript


but, hey, it's just me, perhaps it's too difficult for some -- roland seems to suffer from the same affliction, there might be a support group -- hmm, quick search .. found two groups
"are you NEW?"
and
"so, today is your first day on the internet"

oh, wait.. one more, but a little more obscure
"have you been living under a rock, in a cave"


oh, wait, i could use YOUR help ... can you find the exact transcript of the cbs "interview" as happened, rather than as edited? that, strangely enough, seems to have never been published ...

weird .. it's almost like, well, i am hesitant to say it, media collusion

It's not uncommon for a broadcaster to edit down an interview where they need to fit it into a shorter time slot. Pretty much every clip you see on the evening news is a snip or series of snips of a longer interview.

That said why doesn't CBS just release the full unedited thing. Whatever she said it cannot be as bad as her opponents drivel.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
And, by the way.....if she is such a terrible speaker, how is it that she mopped the floor with your idiot in their debate?
And, why is your idiot scared to debate again? Ought to be a walk in the park.

I suspect that both candidates are trying to avoid a "...what is Aleppo..." moment.

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:

quote:

Originally posted by Gundog 64:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

trump has made all of you insane.

Seems to me you and a few others here fall into that category also.

I would have to disagree with Mike. Anyone who is a diehard trump fan has always been a dumbass. Trump had just convinced people that it’s ok to be a dumbass/crybaby/eternal victim. Just look at allegedly intelligent men whining that “there were irregularities” in the 2020 election.

LDO,
I always enjoy your endless stream of insults, you can't seem to post much without them.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
If there was no material change, how can anyone claim CBS tried to help Harris?

Looks like just another Republican whine about being victims again.

When the show is on the other foot, "material change " wasn't a consideration

Didn't stop the "Russia Russia Russia" claims, though, did it?

Don't be foolish and disingenuous. You well know that Russia's helping Trump in the 2016 election has nothing to do with this thread. But I understand: you just don't have anything material to say.

If you don't understand "material," go look it up. Immaterial changes are done all the time by networks in editing interviews.

I find you an unpleasant and mean little person. You seem to think you can build yourself up by putting others down. Constantly. You aren't content unless you have multiple fights going on at any given time.

In fact, you act like a troll on a website you're supposed to help moderate.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
They need to release the full transcript.

They did alter. I watched both versions personally.

The full transcript was released. I posted it in the other thread.

You have really lost all political morality. It tracks with the broadcasted interview.

I watched Jan 6 personally.

That is not the unedited version.

Real journalist are still waiting to see it.

quote:

You well know that Russia's helping Trump in the 2016 election has nothing to do with this thread.

This is a good example of actually what Jeff was pointing out.

The sum of what we know about 2016 reveals the Russia narrative of 2016 as nothing more than left-wing propaganda. Yet, you continue to rely on it and repeat it as “known” truth.

Yes or no ---

Did a Russian hacker hack the DNC and other democrats?

Was the stolen info given to wiki leaks?

Was Trump and Team given security briefings about Russian interference and asked to report any attempts to connect, and they didn't comply?

Did wiki leaks dole it out strategically?

Did Trump know what was coming next, through Rodger Stone or others?

Did Flynn have Russian connection, and try to cut a clandestine deal for Trump?

Did Manafort have Russian connections?

Was there a Trump Tower meeting with Russians?

Did Trump invite Russians to hack Hillary, which they tried the next day?

Do you know the difference in collusion and coordination and conspiracy? The implications are different legally.

Do you know that the Mueller report didn't exonerate Trump? Neither did the Durham report.

Did Trump say, while at adjacent podiums with Putin that he trusted the word of Putin more than his own intelligence agencies?

Did Trump have business connections in Russia while running and while in office and lied about it?

Did Trump praise Putin and still does?

And so forth.

In your dreams, you spin and whitewash.

All that is a good example of denying the truth in the first place, then when the evidence mounted you and others mfg spin to support the denial. Its SOP and getting old, transparent and sick.

Think of all the TP money spent on trying to get to the truth, then all the TP money spent to spin it. Who is seeking the truth and who is always spinning it? The answer to that question will reveal who is the cause of the effect - division.

Clue = the irony of Truth Social is that it's a venue for lies and a magnificent liar.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
If there was no material change, how can anyone claim CBS tried to help Harris?

Looks like just another Republican whine about being victims again.

When the show is on the other foot, "material change " wasn't a consideration

Didn't stop the "Russia Russia Russia" claims, though, did it?

Don't be foolish and disingenuous. You well know that Russia's helping Trump in the 2016 election has nothing to do with this thread. But I understand: you just don't have anything material to say.

If you don't understand "material," go look it up. Immaterial changes are done all the time by networks in editing interviews.

I find you an unpleasant and mean little person. You seem to think you can build yourself up by putting others down. Constantly. You aren't content unless you have multiple fights going on at any given time.

In fact, you act like a troll on a website you're supposed to help moderate.

Ah, honey, show me in my 23 word post, where i put anyone down? Heck roland, one our very first exchanges you expressed the same thoughts, Though, today, after exchanging so many meaning posts together I find myself 100 times more crushed today by your disdain as I was then.. oh, it's still 0, but it's 100 times zero

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
They need to release the full transcript.

They did alter. I watched both versions personally.

The full transcript was released. I posted it in the other thread.

You have really lost all political morality. It tracks with the broadcasted interview.

I watched Jan 6 personally.

That is not the unedited version.

Real journalist are still waiting to see it.

This the real transcription. You know it, so you are not stupid.

You are just a lier and will use any grange source to cover yourself.

You are a base person.

I said it once. I’ll say it now. Gay people are not abominations. You are.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

You well know that Russia's helping Trump in the 2016 election has nothing to do with this thread.

This is a good example of actually what Jeff was pointing out.

The sum of what we know about 2016 reveals the Russia narrative of 2016 as nothing more than left-wing propaganda. Yet, you continue to rely on it and repeat it as “known” truth.

Did you read the Mueller report? Left-wing propaganda? Not hardly.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

You well know that Russia's helping Trump in the 2016 election has nothing to do with this thread.

This is a good example of actually what Jeff was pointing out.

The sum of what we know about 2016 reveals the Russia narrative of 2016 as nothing more than left-wing propaganda. Yet, you continue to rely on it and repeat it as “known” truth.

So the Republican Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was pushing "left-wing" propaganda?

quote:

The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee submitted the first part of its five-volume report in July 2019 in which it concluded that the January 2017 Intelligence Community assessment alleging Russian interference was "coherent and well-constructed". The first volume also concluded that the assessment was "proper", learning from analysts that there was "no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions". The final and fifth volume, which was the result of three years of investigations, was released on August 18, 2020,[6] ending one of the United States "highest-profile congressional inquiries."[7][8] The Committee report found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Donald Trump, which included assistance from some of Trump's own advisers.[7]

Link

You really have lost the plot. And you are a lousy liar.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
They need to release the full transcript.

They did alter. I watched both versions personally.

The full transcript was released. I posted it in the other thread.

You have really lost all political morality. It tracks with the broadcasted interview.

I watched Jan 6 personally.

That is not the unedited version.

Real journalist are still waiting to see it.

This the real transcription. You know it, so you are not stupid.

You are just a lier and will use any grange source to cover yourself.

You are a base person.

I said it once. I’ll say it now. Gay people are not abominations. You are.

Alas, believe what you want. But it is NOT the full unedited transcript. Even Catherine Herridge has reported so.