inappropriately sharing student files with media= leaking the curriculum
Let's recall that Republicans have a very long history of falsifying reports and evidence of election fraud that Trump has escalated into a reckless cult of fake news after the last election.
As a democrat in a county that hasn't voted for a democratic president since 1924, Zheng has no motivation to break election laws-
Zheng says he was fired at 7:40 Thursday night- after voting had completed for the day.
What makes you think he wasn't being partisan and the GOP people were?
What rational basis do you have for the person with witnesses against them being innocent?
You went into great lengths but never actually responded to that.
-->@oromagiinappropriately sharing student files with media= leaking the curriculumYou clearly are ignorant of the law. Student files are personal records. Curriculums are public documents.Don't use loaded language and then pretend it isn't loaded. Only propagandists and hacks do that.
Let's recall that Republicans have a very long history of falsifying reports and evidence of election fraud that Trump has escalated into a reckless cult of fake news after the last election.Go ham.
-->@oromagiAs a democrat in a county that hasn't voted for a democratic president since 1924, Zheng has no motivation to break election laws-Yes he does. Significantly moreso than a safe red district would. You don't cheat where you'll already win. You cheat where you'll lose.
What reason would republicans have to cheat in a safe red district? It is safe red lmao.
We agree that your source is an ex-teacher from Indianapolis who was fired last year for leaking documents for polticial attention and therefore not a real reporter of facts or an unbiased source for your claims. I have no idea what the law has to do with this obvious fact discrediting your source.
Why risk criminal behavior if there's not possible benefit?
Why do keep asking questions I have already answered?
Zheng says he was fired at 7:40 Thursday night- after voting had completed for the day.He can say whatever he wants. That doesn't mean he isn't lying. We already have witnesses. Let's let the witnesses speak.
I'd like to remind you of the Kavanaugh trial where specific bullshit details were used to frame Kavanaugh of a crime he never committed and wasn't even there at the scene. Liars use details to appear honest.
08.04.22FBI DIRECTOR CONFIRMS AGENCY SENT TIPS FROM KAVANAUGH TIP LINE TO TRUMP WHITE HOUSE WITHOUT INVESTIGATION
Trump White House also determined which witnesses the FBI should interview. 4,500 tips to FBI went uninvestigated.
Washington, DC – In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) today received confirmation from FBI Director Christopher Wray that the FBI sent tips that the agency had collected about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Trump White House without investigation. The tips were collected through the FBI’s existing tip line as part of a supplemental background investigation after allegations of sexual misconduct emerged during Justice Kavanaugh’s 2018 confirmation process. Wray also confirmed that the Trump White House directed which witnesses the FBI was permitted to interview.
“You reviewed them for purposes of separating from tip line traffic but did not further investigate the ones that related to Kavanaugh, correct?” Whitehouse asked in reference to the more than 4,500 tips collected by the FBI.
Director Wray responded, “Correct.”
When asked by Whitehouse whether the FBI took direction from the Trump White House as to whom the FBI could question, Wray responded that the agency did take direction from the White House since it was the requesting entity.
Following the exchange, Whitehouse posted to Twitter, “Here’s a thought: nothing prevented Trump White House from using FBI tip line information to direct FBI investigation away from percipient or corroborating witnesses.”
For years since Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Whitehouse has doggedly sought answers from the FBI about its treatment of information submitted through the tip line. The FBI has provided delayed and incomplete information in response to the Senator’s oversight inquiries. In today’s hearing,Whitehouse pledged to submit a report to the Judiciary Committee outlining the FBI’s handling of the tip line. The FBI’s process for such investigations remains highly relevant because the Senate relies on the results of the FBI’s investigations to carry out its advice and consent duties for nominations.
Watch the full questioning here.
Whitehouse initially questioned Director Wray about the inadequate supplemental background investigation in a Judiciary Committee hearing in July 2019.Whitehouse noted that the only conduit for information potentially relevant to the allegations was the tip line, the product of which was apparently never pursued by the Bureau. During that hearing, Wray echoed Republican claims that the FBI conducted the investigation “by the book,” while asserting that supplemental background investigations are less rigorous than criminal and counterintelligence investigations.
The following month, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) and Whitehouse wrote to Wray asking for a complete picture of how the FBI handled the supplemental background investigation of Kavanaugh. They asked why the FBI failed to contact witnesses whose names were provided to the FBI as possessing “highly relevant” information; how involved the Trump White House was in narrowing the scope of the investigation; whether the FBI had used a tip line in previous background investigations to manage incoming allegations and information regarding a nominee; and more.
Nearly two years later and after repeated follow-up requests, the FBI finally responded to the Senators’ questions. The June 2021 letter from the FBI Office of Congressional Affairs revealed new information on the Kavanaugh investigation, including that the tip line received “over 4,500 tips, including phone calls and electronic submissions.” By the FBI’s own account, it merely “provided all relevant tips” to Trump’s Office of White House Counsel, the very office that had constrained and directed the limited investigation.
Last summer, Whitehouse and a number of colleagues wrote to Director Wray requesting additional information on the FBI’s supplemental background investigation of Justice Kavanaugh.
“If the FBI was not authorized to or did not follow up on any of the tips that it received from the tip line, it is difficult to understand the point of having a tip line at all,” the Senators wrote at the time.
Earlier this year, Whitehouse and his colleagues wrote again to Director Wray, Attorney General Garland, and the White House Counsel’s Office requesting answers to the Senators’ remaining outstanding questions, and providing an overview of what the Senators have learned to date. The Senators have not yet received any responses.
-->@oromagiWe agree that your source is an ex-teacher from Indianapolis who was fired last year for leaking documents for polticial attention and therefore not a real reporter of facts or an unbiased source for your claims. I have no idea what the law has to do with this obvious fact discrediting your source.I don't agree with that at all. He was a whistleblower who bravely exposed a conspiracy to lie to the general public and teach children racist and derogatory beliefs about their fellow Americans.He was fired for uncovering a conspiracy. He was not fired "for political attention."I suppose you think James Comey is a hack as well, since he leaked documents about Trump to the press.If you think this whistleblower who uncovered a conspiracy to defraud the American people is a hack then you should believe the same thing about James Comey.
->@oromagiWhy risk criminal behavior if there's not possible benefit?You'll have to ask Zheng.
Why do keep asking questions I have already answered?Because you didn't answer them. You engaged in loaded language and assailed the GOP with a cherry-picked opinion of events.
To assert, without evidence, that the GOP engaged in a conspiracy to commit election interference makes you a conspiracy theorist.
admit that Kimmett has political skin in the game and is not a nonpartisan oberver/reporter of facts here, ortell another lie.
-->@oromagiadmit that Kimmett has political skin in the game and is not a nonpartisan oberver/reporter of facts here, ortell another lie.Ah, yes. Framing the question to suit your end goals using an irrelevant either/or fallacy. Another classic propaganda technique used to steer conversations against the real issues and toward the propagandist's aims.Kimmit was a brave whistleblower who uncovered a conspiracy to brainwash children with racist propaganda and lie to their parents about it. This is admirable, courageous, and patriotic behavior. Anyone who fights racism and uncovers conspiracies to manipulate children is good people.In this article, He posted the DNC, GOP, and Zheng's statements, demonstrating first-rate reporting ability and skill. Posting sources from all sides of the issue is the pinnacle of balanced reporting. To assert this brave whistleblower who presented a balanced coverage of events is a "hack" is to assert that good journalistic ethics do not matter to news reporting. Do you believe there should be no ethics in journalism?Moreover, to assert, without evidence, that the GOP is engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the election is uncalled for, hypocritical, and demonstratively predatory language.There is no reason to assert that Zheng is innocent and the GOP guilty when the Democrats are in the midst of losing the House and possibly the Senate, giving the DNC clear motive to engage in ballot rigging and other efforts to defraud the 2022 election.
- You are just repeating yourself and obviously dissembling.
- No honest person would fail to admit that Kimmett is not an objective observer here.
- I already demonstrated that Kimmett failed to report that Sheller is both top GOP and the Election administrator who fired Zheng. No honest report would fail to disclose that conflict of interest and there is zero possibillity that Kimmett was not aware of that conflict of interest.
- The objective, conservative Indianapolis Star did report the essential conflict that the GOP and KImmett covered up.
- I do not assert that Zheng is innocent. You are the only one deceptively asserting facts that you do not know to be true here.
- The GOP's guilt in manufacturing election fake news is manifest, whatever the truth turn out to be here.
A Democrat poll worker, James Zheng, was ejected from a Carmel, Indiana, polling location Thursday evening following complaints of electioneering and election interference, election administrator Beth Sheller told Chalkboard Review. Sheller said that voters and volunteers who identified this individual directly interfered with the voting process.Zheng was accused by local voters of telling black voters “…not to vote for the racist candidates outside” indicating a group of pro-parent candidates (beyond the electioneering boundary) running for school board in the Carmel-Clay school district, Sheller said. Two of the voters complained about this act of electioneering to the pro-parent school board volunteer Rhonda Kuchik outside, who told Chalkboard Review she then reported this to the local inspector.According to a press release by the Hamilton County GOP and confirmed by the election administrator, James was told by the inspector not to return Friday or Monday to the early voting center set up at Mercy Road in Carmel. In a later November 6 statement released on social media, Zheng denied these allegations.
I tend to believe Zheng because he is willing to name names and give specifics and because he went to the press first and filed a complaint with the state first.
Trump has escalated into a reckless cult of fake news after the last electionMy definition of fake news would be any source of news that cherry picks stories and/or talks about stories with presuppositions using their own world view, any source that has any bias as opposed to just spouting dry facts without manipulating photos or using sound bites without full context. I would also consider a source fake news if they only touch the surface of a news story and don't do a deep dive as it risks people not understanding what they are reporting fully. Any source that has ever used a clock bait title I would throw in this bag. Any source that runs stories manipulating scientific fact like "study proves eggs are healthy" when it was a study that showed people who generally eat eggs are less likely to get diabetes for example.
My definition of fake news would be any source of news that cherry picks stories and/or talks about stories with presuppositions using their own world view,
For a lot of people, politics began in 2016 and ended with Trump losing in 2020.
- Then we agree that Kimmett is not a preferable source for getting the truth of the matter in question.
Do we also agree that Zheng is innocent of these charges until any evidence is made public?
Can we also agree that an election referee in charge of of the conduct of all poll workers should not also retain an office within the leadership of one particular political party with a stake in that election , even if just for the sake of maintaining the appearance of objectivity and whether or not there's any actual evidence of corrupt malfeasance at play.
My definition of fake news would be any source of news that cherry picks stories and/or talks about stories with presuppositions using their own world view, any source that has any bias as opposed to just spouting dry facts without manipulating photos or using sound bites without full context.
This pretty much describes all news reported by human beings
One day I hope to start a news company that randomly picks articles to write using a random number generator and then have them just dryly state the facts in an unbiased way. Maybe give full context to things.
