Who is Bruce Ohr?

[CowboyX]

Excellent piece by Maddow on Bruce Ohr.

The article about El Feo she mentions.

I'm sorry there's no transcript for the Maddow piece.

I'll be going through the Fox tall tales in this thread.


"One attorney familiar with Ohr's relationship with the FBI, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was nothing unseemly about the FBI receiving information from Steele, even after he ended his formal source relationship. The bureau takes information about potential crime from figures as unsavory as gang members and mobsters, the lawyer said. By contrast, Steele, a longtime partner of the U.S. intelligence community, was a credible source, even if he had a falling-out with the bureau."https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...a-probe-797864

[PGA2]

Excellent piece by Maddow on Bruce Ohr.

The article about El Feo she mentions.

I'm sorry there's no transcript for the Maddow piece.

I'll be going through the Fox tall tales in this thread.


"One attorney familiar with Ohr's relationship with the FBI, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was nothing unseemly about the FBI receiving information from Steele, even after he ended his formal source relationship. The bureau takes information about potential crime from figures as unsavory as gang members and mobsters, the lawyer said. By contrast, Steele, a longtime partner of the U.S. intelligence community, was a credible source, even if he had a falling-out with the bureau."https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...a-probe-797864

Excellent? As if the source is RELIABLE - Rachel Maddow and NSNBC??? (Gag) IMO.

[CowboyX]

Excellent? As if the source is RELIABLE - Rachel Maddow and NSNBC??? (Gag) IMO.

Anything specific she said that you have a problem with?

[PGA2]

Anything specific she said that you have a problem with?

It's what she always says. She constantly puts him down in all he does. First, it was with the election results, then him not filing his tax returns, even though it was shown he paid about 38 million in taxes, then it was her criticism of him meeting with Kim Jong-un, then the Russian collusion narrative, then Stormy Daniels, then her negative reporting of his policies and lack of focus on any positives at all. Her bias towards Trump is huge.

Conservatives have long felt that MSNBC has a heavily liberal bias. Those suspicions have only been confirmed under the Trump administration...
MSNBC has a roster of hyper-partisan cable personalities whose job it is to trash talk Trump and Republicans incessantly. F

igures like Joy Reid, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow spend most of their time on air smugly lecturing about Trump and Republicans and peddling stories about their alleged misdeeds.
Media watchdog sites like the Media Research Center regularly report that the overwhelming majority of MSNBC’s coverage is skewed towards the left.
Most of the network’s coverage of the Trump presidency has been negative, and has focused on scandals, chief among them Russia, rather than bread-and-butter policy issues.

As one of the major elite networks of the mainstream media, it’s hardly surprising that MSNBC propagates elite, liberal opinion masquerading as fair reporting.
https://www.patriotpollalerts.com/poll-is-msnbc-propaganda/

Having looked into the Nazi propaganda machine I see something similar with the American media, to a large extent. Media and the educational system are two ways Hitler used to influence the German people.

I actually have a favorites page with all kinds of bookmarks to links demonstrating the leftist liberal media agenda (and its insanity).

Peter

[CowboyX]

It's what she always says. She constantly puts him down in all he does. First, it was with the election results, then him not filing his tax returns, even though it was shown he paid about 38 million in taxes, then it was her criticism of him meeting with Kim Jong-un, then the Russian collusion narrative, then Stormy Daniels, then her negative reporting of his policies and lack of focus on any positives at all. Her bias towards Trump is huge.

Those are some nice sweeping generalities and you might have the making of a thread there. But this thread is about Bruce Ohr. You have anything specific in the reporting that was presented? Or anything else? I posted Hannity as well.

The transcript of the Maddow show is coming. I'll post it when I get it.

[PGA2]

Those are some nice sweeping generalities and you might have the making of a thread there. But this thread is about Bruce Ohr. You have anything specific in the reporting that was presented? Or anything else? I posted Hannity as well.

You asked about Rachel Maddow...

Anything specific she said that you have a problem with?.

The transcript of the Maddow show is coming. I'll post it when I get it.

I think that Bruce Ohr is in big trouble. Gregg Jarrett listed three laws he broke on Hannity tonight.
Jarrett, @ 5:23 into the segment, said that Bruce Ohr has implicated the lead attorney (Andrew Wiseman) in Robert Muller's special council team in which this attorney was in on framing Donald Trump.
Jarrett list the three crimes @ 8:36 on the segment that Ohr omitted in his filings that his wife was getting paid by Fusion GPS, for composing the fake dosier that he was peddling, so, that is 1) filing a false government report, 2) also falling under the bribery and gratuity statue, 3) fraud.

http://www.foxnews.com/person/j/gregg-jarrett.html
Then click on "Judicial Watch: No FISA hearings on Carter Page warrants" to listen.

Peter

---------- Post added at 01:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 AM ----------

My bias against the green river killer is huge. Same goes for my bias against Adolf Hitler. But that doesn't mean if I critique them that I'm wrong.

The "argument" you are making is an ad hominem. A logical fallacy.

Bias does not indicate whether someone's claim is true or not. It may be reason for you to be suspicious, but it does nothing to actually counter the content of someone's case or argument.

I listed several examples of her bias that I did not want to take the time to document. I would have to look up old video files and note the exact time she said what, but I could do that if I wanted to waste a few hours.

Bias: Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.


Bias, by definition, indicates that a person's claim is UNFAIR. I see many, including Maddow, fabricating a crime to linch the President. It's what Tucker Carlson calls "groupthink." If this is the case then it is not good journalism that avoids presenting the facts but replaces them with innuendo. IMO, they built the whole case on insinuations and assertions and a phony dosier paid for by the Clinton campaign. I'm just waiting to see how many Democrats are behind what I see is a major conspiracy to take down an elected president on what I see as false charges and artificial Russian collusion.

I think the truth will surface UNLESS the Democrats take control of the House in November, then they will do what I think they are good at - lie and cover up the truth. That is just my own opinion. Take it for what it is worth (I'm not even an American).

Peter

[mican333]

Bias: Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.


Bias, by definition, indicates that a person's claim is UNFAIR. I see many, including Maddow, fabricating a crime to linch the President. It's what Tucker Carlson calls "groupthink."

But I assume that if one is trying to take a fair and honest look at whether someone is biased, they should not be obtaining the evidence from a different biased source. An yet, you seem to be Fox News Pundits like Hannity and Tucker Carlson, who are indeed biased, as the basis of your arguments.

Can you back up your claims with non-biased sources?

[PGA2]

Bias: Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Bias, by definition, indicates that a person's claim is UNFAIR. I see many, including Maddow, fabricating a crime to linch the President. It's what Tucker Carlson calls "groupthink."

But I assume that if one is trying to take a fair and honest look at whether someone is biased, they should not be obtaining the evidence from a different biased source. An yet, you seem to be Fox News Pundits like Hannity and Tucker Carlson, who are indeed biased, as the basis of your arguments.

Can you back up your claims with non-biased sources?

Why, just because I use Hannity or the Fox News pundits, do you immediately discredit them?

Where do you go for your news - CNN?

Every source is biased to some degree. I understand that. I just believe the level of bias by the mainstream news organizations is major - they have an agenda to show this president up because he has exposed many news stories they propogate as false. I see many stories as innuendo and assertations.

I use all kinds of Conservative news sources because I am a conservative, although I am not an American. My feelings are that as America goes, so goes the rest of the world.

I see many outlets, such as CNN, NSNBC, as shifting to a leftist agenda and I see the danger of your country going down that road. Big government, IMO, is not a good thing, as witnessed by most countries that have gone down that path. Suppression of freedom of speech is one of the casualities, such as what is more evident in China under Xi, in North Korea under Kim Jong-un, or Iran by the ruling party, or in Russia, or in other countries with leftist agendas.

Education is another tool used to suppress the opposition (groupthink). Anyone in your country that has a higher education is influenced by a leftist agenda. Then there is Hollywood that is a major media influence around the world and promotes liberal ideas and a liberal mindset.

"In 1990, according to survey data by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA, 42 percent of professors identified as "liberal" or "far-left." By 2014, that number had jumped to 60 percent."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.845e6da10592

Along with the Age or Reason, the Enlightenment, and Darwinism there was a paradigm shift from a God based thinking to everything explained by humanism and humans as the answer.

These are just some of the ways in which YOUR thinking has been influenced.
YOU are not neutral in your thinking. Neither am I. The question is who is closer to the truth.

***

Why do you think, from all we know, that Muller is not looking at Hilary Clinton?

What do we know, so far, as to how the investigation into Trump started?
I see it beginning with the Steele Dosier.

What do we know of Steele?
We know he was no longer employed by the FBI.
We know he was employed by Fusion GPS to conduct research on Trump.
We know he did not like Trump.
We know his findings were sifted through Bruce and Nellie Ohr to the DOJ.

What do we know of the FISA warrants?
They were used to target an American citizen - Donald Trump.

What do we know of the DOJ and FBI?
They are stonewalling the Republican's requests for documents. When Congress does receive the documents they are heavily redacted.

What do we know about the leaders of the investigation?
Many have been exposed in the Congressional hearings as having lied.

What do we know of mainstreaqm media outlets?
Most spend the majority of their time reporting negatives, not the positives of the Trump agenda.

Marketwatch -

"Blatant bias against Republican Donald Trump may sound the death knell for the mainstream news media, writes Darrell Delamaide."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bl...dia-2016-11-03

The Hill -

"Quick review: The broadcast evening news programs on ABC, NBC and CBS covered allegations against Trump by several women who claim he sexually assaulted them for more than 23 minutes combined on Thursday night.
But revelations in the WikiLeaks email dump of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta — which included derogatory comments by senior campaign officials about Catholics, Latinos and the NAACP, sympathy for Wall Street, advocation for open borders and blatant examples of media collusion with said campaign — got a whole 1 minute and 7 seconds combined.
Ratio of negative coverage of Trump vs. Clinton: 23:1."

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ide-it-anymore

IS THAT BIAS?

We know from the Washington Times that during the 2016 electon the media wanted Clinton as president by a 10:1 ratio. From the same article, it was reported the media was serving its own purposes.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-blatant-bias/

The list goes on and on. It is just touching the edges of my grievances.

Peter

[CowboyX]

What do we know of Steele?
We know he was no longer employed by the FBI.
We know he was employed by Fusion GPS to conduct research on Trump.
We know he did not like Trump.
We know his findings were sifted through Bruce and Nellie Ohr to the DOJ.

So?

(I'd much prefer this be in the Steele Dossier thread)

---------- Post added at 07:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 PM ----------

What do we know of the FISA warrants?
They were used to target an American citizen - Donald Trump.

What do we know of the DOJ and FBI?
They are stonewalling the Republican's requests for documents. When Congress does receive the documents they are heavily redacted.

Again, so?

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------

What do we know about the leaders of the investigation?
Many have been exposed in the Congressional hearings as having lied.

Support please.

[mican333]

Why, just because I use Hannity or the Fox News pundits, do you immediately discredit them?

Why not? You automatically discredit Rachel Maddow due to her bias. I'm not arguing that she's not biased, btw. I'm saying that if one is going to argue that people with clear biases are not credible sources, one needs to be consistent and not present biased sources for their arguments.

I mean are you arguing that biased sources are not credible in general or are you arguing that biased sources are not credible unless they share your bias?

Where do you go for your news - CNN?

NPR. Which is not nearly as biased as Fox or MSNBC.

Every source is biased to some degree. I understand that. I just believe the level of bias by the mainstream news organizations is major - they have an agenda to show this president up because he has exposed many news stories they propogate as false. I see many stories as innuendo and assertations.

But as far as I can tell, you are getting that viewpoint from extremely biased right-wing media. And obviously from an extremely right-wing view, anything that does not skew to the right has a relatively leftist bias.

But here's the thing. Even with a level of bias, some news outlets are much more credible than others. Even with some bias, one can still do their best to report objective facts without intentional spin. In those situations, the bias is not so much in whether the facts are correct and stated neutrally but what stories are reported and how much time is spent on one story compared to another. So I agree that NO bias is pretty much impossible.

But you can clearly identify which sources have a clear bias and a big part of that is whether they state that they have a bias (self-identify as right-wing/conservative or left-wing/liberal) and whether their news stories editorialize. And I get the feeling that most of your sources the forward the narrative that the media is engaged in some kind of left-wing conspiracy fits that description exactly.

NPR, on the other hand, does not do that. So while I would not say that NPR is completely free of bias, it is much, much more credible than Fox or "Patriot" sites which has a clear agenda.

I see many outlets, such as CNN, NSNBC, as shifting to a leftist agenda and I see the danger of your country going down that road. Big government, IMO, is not a good thing, as witnessed by most countries that have gone down that path. Suppression of freedom of speech is one of the casualities, such as what is more evident in China under Xi, in North Korea under Kim Jong-un, or Iran by the ruling party, or in Russia, or in other countries with leftist agendas.

THOSE are leftists countries? Putin is a leftist? You do realize that Russia DID help Trump in the election, right? Putin even directly stated that he wanted Trump to win. You can question if Russia's help made much of a difference in the election. You can question whether Trump had anything to do with the interference (although it is established that Don Jr. did meet with Russias with the intent of getting dirt on Hillary). But Russias DID interfere with the 2016 election to help Trump. That is the consensus of the US intelligence community and if you don't understand that or doubt that because of the news sources you use, then you are indeed being misinformed by your chosen media sources.

These are just some of the ways in which YOUR thinking has been influenced.
YOU are not neutral in your thinking. Neither am I. The question is who is closer to the truth.

Since I listen to NPR and you listen to Fox, I almost certainly use a superior source of attaining accurate information.

There's even a study that support this.

"A poll by Farleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed.

People were asked questions about news habits and current events in a statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents recently. Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed. In fact, FDU poll results showed they were even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapo.../#1f79db434fd8

And there have been studies on the accuracy and bias of news outlets and Fox is rated low for accuracy and high for bias. NPR was rated quite good for both.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...art-2018-02-28

While it is true that no news outlet is perfect, "not perfect" does not mean that they are all the same. Some are indeed worse than others.

[Sigfried]

It's what she always says. She constantly puts him down in all he does. First, it was with the election results, then him not filing his tax returns, even though it was shown he paid about 38 million in taxes, then it was her criticism of him meeting with Kim Jong-un, then the Russian collusion narrative, then Stormy Daniels, then her negative reporting of his policies and lack of focus on any positives at all. Her bias towards Trump is huge.

My bias against the green river killer is huge. Same goes for my bias against Adolf Hitler. But that doesn't mean if I critique them that I'm wrong.

The "argument" you are making is an ad hominem. A logical fallacy.

Bias does not indicate whether someone's claim is true or not. It may be reason for you to be suspicious, but it does nothing to actually counter the content of someone's case or argument.

[MindTrap028]

But I assume that if one is trying to take a fair and honest look at whether someone is biased, they should not be obtaining the evidence from a different biased source. An yet, you seem to be Fox News Pundits like Hannity and Tucker Carlson, who are indeed biased, as the basis of your arguments.

Can you back up your claims with non-biased sources?

I think other biased sources can be very educational and put into perspective other biases sources.
I mean, if group A has only the positive reported and Group B has only the negative reported about them from one source,
then another sources does the same but opposite. Then you would then have all the positives and negatives of both groups, but only by hearing and entertaining both sources.
This is sort of the basis for any debate. You don't get two neutral people to debate a topic. You find the most proponents advocates of both (IE biased).
The problem with "media" bias, is that they are not supposed to be biased to begin with. Which makes them bad at their jobs.

That makes it challenging for us as good citizens to get the whole picture, and not be subconscious manipulated by the media coverage. Or worse to fall prey to their propaganda by falsely believing that they are reputably unbiased sources.

[evensaul]

Excellent piece by Maddow on Bruce Ohr.

Can you explain how Ohr's previous prosecutorial successes would make him incapable of partisan bias? If there is evidence or even suspicion that he used his position for political purposes, shouldn't that be investigated by Congress?

"One attorney familiar with Ohr's relationship with the FBI, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was nothing unseemly about the FBI receiving information from Steele...

Why should anyone believe this anonymous source, who may also be acting with political bias?

...even after he ended his formal source relationship. The bureau takes information about potential crime from figures as unsavory as gang members and mobsters, the lawyer said. By contrast, Steele, a longtime partner of the U.S. intelligence community, was a credible source, even if he had a falling-out with the bureau."https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...a-probe-797864

The left continues to conflate "source" with "investigator". Steele was not a source, as he was not a witness to any of the events he investigated. His credibility, therefore, is irrelevant to any assessment of whether the information he provided was true.

[CowboyX]

Can you explain how Ohr's previous prosecutorial successes would make him incapable of partisan bias?

I suppose it shows he's not a political hack. He has a long dedication to the law and law enforcement.

---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 PM ----------

If there is evidence or even suspicion that he used his position for political purposes, shouldn't that be investigated by Congress?

Sure, isn't that what they are doing? He just testified, no?

[evensaul]

I suppose it shows he's not a political hack. He has a long dedication to the law and law enforcement.

No, it shows he has been good at the prosecutor part of his job. It says nothing about whether he is a non-partisan.

Sure, isn't that what they are doing? He just testified, no?

You disagree with the whole point of Maddow's little monologue, then. You know, the one you linked to and called an "Excellent piece"? She was arguing that Ohr should not be hauled before Congress for questioning! So, what did you think the main point of her piece was, exactly?

[CowboyX]

Why should anyone believe this anonymous source, who may also be acting with political bias?

“Although the FBI continues to assess Source #1’s reporting is reliable,” the bureau states in the January renewal, “the FBI has suspended its relationship with Source #1 because of this disclosure.”

---------- Post added at 11:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:53 PM ----------

The left continues to conflate "source" with "investigator". Steele was not a source, as he was not a witness to any of the events he investigated. His credibility, therefore, is irrelevant to any assessment of whether the information he provided was true.

Although all of the evidence suggests otherwise (including sworn law enforcement officers), then good, that only helps Mr. Steele's case.

---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 PM ----------

No, it shows he has been good at the prosecutor part of his job. It says nothing about whether he is a non-partisan.

If he were a political hack he'd be non-partisan?

---------- Post added September 3rd, 2018 at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was September 2nd, 2018 at 11:59 PM ----------

You disagree with the whole point of Maddow's little monologue, then. You know, the one you linked to and called an "Excellent piece"? She was arguing that Ohr should not be hauled before Congress for questioning! So, what did you think the main point of her piece was, exactly?

Was there evidence in Maddow's piece that he should be hauled before congress? You posted a hypothetical, not me.

[evensaul]

“Although the FBI continues to assess Source #1’s reporting is reliable,”

Yes, that is where the FBI misrepresented Steele as a source, in a dishonest statement to continue FISA warrants.

---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 PM ----------

Was there evidence in Maddow's piece that he should be hauled before congress? You posted a hypothetical, not me.

I think you're completely lost here, Cowboy. That's what happens when you scan new articles, editorials and leftist videos searching for something you can link to and post as "excellent" or "great" without actually understanding the content.

[CowboyX]

Yes, that is where the FBI misrepresented Steele as a source, in a dishonest statement to continue FISA warrants.[COLOR="Silver"]

But, as you can see,that isn't what happened. They explained quite nicely.

I imagine you have some type of support for the legalese there. Does it apply here? or is it just semanitics? Were the judges somehow confused?

[evensaul]

But, as you can see,that isn't what happened. They explained quite nicely.

Well, kudos to you, Cowboy!

I believe I must retract my claim.

[CowboyX]

I think you're completely lost here, Cowboy. That's what happens when you scan new articles, editorials and leftist videos searching for something you can link to and post as "excellent" or "great" without actually understanding the content.

Probably. I was waiting for the transcript to really go into it.

I can agree that someone should have to testify and then also ridicule them for doing it when it turns out nothing.