OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 21,136
- Points
- 1,260
Let me guess - he’s going to rename Christmas
Trump administration 2024-2028
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 11,147
- Points
- 1,040
You don't know they "ran for cover". Why not take a charitable view and concede Moskowitz's version - he was busy? Why is it so tiresomely customary to characterize conservatives/Republicans as having discreditable motives for not submitting to the games media journalists are well-known to play (eg. creative video editing of interviews; offering very short time-to-deadline for responses in order to provide an excuse for ignoring that which could not reasonably be provided)? Some of Schellenberger's views may be flaky, but flaky isn't dishonest.
Why is it not equally possible to take an uncharitable view the other way? Context: during COVID, people played politics. One of the prominent political duels was NY vs FL (ie. how the Cuomo and DeSantis administrations were dealing with COVID). Democrats and Democrat supporters tended to look for reasons to praise Cuomo and denigrate DeSantis. On balance of probability, common sense suggests institutions heavily controlled by Democrat supporters might make up weak reasons to hack away at DeSantis.
Now Weiss is in a similar position. Democrat supporters make up excuses to hack away at her. Why should their claims be more acceptable than hers? If all she does is delay - either gets what she wants from the WH or accepts that nothing is forthcoming - and proves her position, would a reasonable person believe her or them the next time something happens?
The actual point is that Moskowitz cast grave if not fatal doubt on the main angle of her story shortly before it was due to air. The reporters are making allegations. They already had one stated set of contrary facts from someone in an authoritative position to know. I submit it was their duty to find evidence to dismiss those facts, if any existed.
No-one should hide behind "Republican shills objected...par for the course". "Denial is evidence of guilt" was one of the stupidest things to emerge from identity politics. WTF - if non-anonymous assertions by people at the centre of responsibility are dismissable, there's nothing a journalist can't "prove". That's "make up your own evidence" territory.
"I have allegations."
"Here is what actually happened."
"You might reasonably be expected to deny it, so your denial is meaningless. I am inferring from appearances. My allegations stand."
It is not a mere ad hominem attack; it is crucially relevant. A journalist, like a witness, is anchored on credibility. An incident of discreditable conduct removes credibility.
- Reaction score
- 7,438
- Points
- 1,360
I've also read somewhere that you can copy & paste some of the files to get around the redactions. Someone must have been in a hurry ....
Meanwhile, while POTUS47 continues to forge ahead in "restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship," some goodies new management in Washington doesn't want out there have been slipping out (for a bit, anyway) ....
Pulled '60 Minutes' segment surfaces on web with Canadian broadcaster's branding
A segment of the American news program "60 Minutes," pulled by CBS News prior to its U.S. airing, began circulating online Monday with the branding of Canadian broadcaster Global TV.
60 Minutes episode on brutal El Salvador prison, pulled from air by CBS, appears online
Segment that Bari Weiss had removed provides in-depth look at the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo prison
www.theguardian.com
- Reaction score
- 11,147
- Points
- 1,040
It turns out that proper redaction is time-consuming and maybe a little bit difficult.
Didn't get everything out on time - scandalous.
Might have over-redacted - scandalous.
Withdrew some released stuff for (review? do the reasons even matter to critics?) - scandalous.
Incompetent redactions - scandalous.
Only the fourth one is truly scandalous (potential release of some of that which was to be protected). But the sum of all this suggests there is no counterfactual practical scenario in which all of the necessary, and only the necessary, redactions could be made on time and securely in accordance with the legislation. So what we have is what we always have - news cycle after news cycle of excuses for manufactured outrage. Scandals, all the way down. Kobayashi Maru as usual.
Didn't get everything out on time - scandalous.
Might have over-redacted - scandalous.
Withdrew some released stuff for (review? do the reasons even matter to critics?) - scandalous.
Incompetent redactions - scandalous.
Only the fourth one is truly scandalous (potential release of some of that which was to be protected). But the sum of all this suggests there is no counterfactual practical scenario in which all of the necessary, and only the necessary, redactions could be made on time and securely in accordance with the legislation. So what we have is what we always have - news cycle after news cycle of excuses for manufactured outrage. Scandals, all the way down. Kobayashi Maru as usual.
- Reaction score
- 11,147
- Points
- 1,040
A bit more.
Axios on the brouhaha, including the text of Weiss's memo.
Again the "didn't provide an interview" game was played.
"Two sources familiar with the situation said the administration did provide comment from different departments in response to inquiries from "60 Minutes" journalists, but that their comments were not included in the draft of the segment first shown to Weiss on Thursday afternoon."
Axios on the brouhaha, including the text of Weiss's memo.
Again the "didn't provide an interview" game was played.
"Two sources familiar with the situation said the administration did provide comment from different departments in response to inquiries from "60 Minutes" journalists, but that their comments were not included in the draft of the segment first shown to Weiss on Thursday afternoon."
They did all the time consuming parts. Drawing the black boxes and noting the statutory grounds to redact them is the part that takes a long time. Applying the redactions is a mouse click. The biggest part of my job for much of the last couple years has been building and disclosing document sets for criminal prosecutions, so this has been my bread and butter. Going to all the work to draw the black boxes and then leaving the text selectable and copyable is absolutely bush league.
They did a halfassed job of the redactions and even then still botched what they actually did.
- Reaction score
- 11,147
- Points
- 1,040
Yes, hence "scandalous" (any revelation of anything which should not have been revealed).
The rest is manufactured.
- Reaction score
- 16,652
- Points
- 1,160
Print the document, redact physically by blanking, felt pen, cutting, scan remaining bits and upload.I don't know about the police field but in the law one, two and a bit decades ago the search for a software solution that would really, really redact an electronic document permanently was a major issue. At the time there were several solutions that did redaction but could still be compromised.
I would have thought that by this time that there would be a foolproof tool and that DoJ would have it widely deployed.
No, you just use the super simple functionality built into Acrobat Pro that cleanly and reliably does a proper job of this. Guarantee DOJ already has teams of e-discovery pros who do this all day every day for a wide range of civil and criminal litigation. I really can’t wrap my head around how they were this inept.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,472
- Points
- 1,260
Maybe half-assed. Maybe someone knew what they were doing and wanted the truth discovered.
Mills Bomb
Member
- Reaction score
- 237
- Points
- 580
Here is part of the 60 Minutes report the Trump Administration did not want you to see. Bari Weiss, whom I used to have a lot of respect for, had the report pulled at the last minute because the Administration refused to comment, despite the opportunity given to do so. If this is a new editorial standard, then subjects of embarrassing news stories can just refuse to comment, vetoing the publication of embarrassing stories.
Anyways, the story in question was posted on the Global Canada app before it too was deleted. Here is a part of that story, which is horrific.
BREAKING: Here’s the 60 Minutes Segment Trump and CBS News Executives Don’t Want You to See
Hours before it was set to air last night, CBS News executives pulled the segment, but Canada’s Global TV app received it prior to broadcast.www.thereset.news
There are some limited sources to learn more about CECOT and discover what happens there, when I first heard about there was a fair bit of content put on youtube from international sources, including many who actually got in there and got tours and some, in my opinion, staged interviews with inmates.
It may not be a death camp (As far as we know, the inmates aren't executed) but it's a place where people are essentially permanently disposed of, in many cases without fair trial. It doesn't seem like many people have ever gotten out. The cruel nature of this place is immediately obvious.
I think this is a big wrong side of history moment, when the truth comes out and becomes widespread, I expect it's going to be ugly.
- Reaction score
- 38,126
- Points
- 1,210
But consistent.
- Reaction score
- 7,438
- Points
- 1,360
And let's not forget Hungary being maybe ... less than fully & enthusiastically on board fighting USSR 2.0.
- Reaction score
- 26,733
- Points
- 1,360
Potentially up until the upcoming election if it results in a less Russia-friendly government.
- Reaction score
- 11,147
- Points
- 1,040
And people who don't know Weiss's themes might also be on the wrong side. Weiss is typically strong on civil liberties.
"We need to do a better job of explaining the legal rationale by which the administration detained and deported these 252 Venezuelans to CECOT. It's not as simple as Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act and being able to deport them immediately. And that isn't the administration's argument. The admin has argued in court that detainees are due "judicial review"—and we should explain this, with a voice arguing that Trump is exceeding his authority under the relevant statute, and another arguing that he's operating within the bounds of his authority. There's a genuine debate here. If we cut down Kristi Noem analysis we'd have the time."
One way of setting a frame to interpret that is that she's trying to give the administration room to make excuses.
Another way is that she's trying to give the administration no room to hide - if they make their best case and it doesn't pass public and legal muster, they're cooked. If they do make a case, it should (will, given the way their ramblings are treated now) prompt pushback from activists and scholars and civil libertarians in general which could lead to reform.
- Reaction score
- 1,518
- Points
- 1,160
SCOTUS hands big loss to POTUS ruling he did not have the authority to Federalize the National Guard to enforce laws in Illinois.
www.documentcloud.org
25A443 Order
www.documentcloud.org
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,172
- Points
- 1,040
Since the topic is being discussed, you can easily find and watch it for yourselves now.
Pulled ‘60 Minutes’ segment airs in Canada, spreads online
In fact in the spirit of giving, here you go.
Pulled 60 Minutes segment on CECOT : CBS : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
This is a screen recording of a 60 Minutes segment about the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) prison in El Salvador, which was intended to be...
archive.org
- Reaction score
- 11,147
- Points
- 1,040
Impossible. Must be fake news. SCOTUS is in POTUS's pocket and the US is minutes away from becoming authoritarian/fascist.
- Reaction score
- 3,399
- Points
- 1,040
They aren’t far off. The separation of powers is the only thing preventing it currently.
They are doing the same thing my company does with my union. Have so many grievances filed (in this case court cases) that by time it’s heard the damages have long been done.