PBS Newshour sounding board 4 GOP Disinformation in report on GOP-Comey anti-Clinton campaign speech

[Bill USA]

PBS Newshour , July 7, ever eager to score points with the fascists party, had a 'report' on the Interrrogation of FBI Dir. James Comey. They included Trey Gowdy's question and Comey's answer re classified material in Clionton's emails...


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/did-clinton-get-off-easy-house-committee-grills-fbis-comey/

REP. TREY GOWDY (R), South Carolina: Secretary Clinton said, “I didn’t e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material.” Was that true?

JAMES COMEY: There was classified material e-mailed.

[font size="3"]
... but my, my, they left out the question from Rep Cartwright about the LACK of a Classified Header - whicch is REQUIRED on any document which contains Classified Information...

[font size="2"]
(note this is from the transcript of the proceedings of a House subcommittee hearing and as such is in the public record and not subject to copyright protections)[/font]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?


JAMES COMEY: No. [...]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?

JAMES COMEY: Correct.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

I wish Cartwright had asked Comey: "So when you said, 'There was classified material e-mailed', without the headers on those emails declaring the presence of classified material, what was your basis for saying that? .. or to put it another way,

........ when you said, 'There was classified material e-mailed'.... Mr. Comey, WAS THAT TRUE?"



[font size="+1"]Always nice to see PBS doing its best to ingratiate itself with the GOP by helping spread their Big Lies.[/font]

Gee, I wonder why the public is so confused about so many things going on in Washington???

[/font]

[LAS14]

1. What's the best way to give feedback to The Newshour about this?

[Bill USA]

2. 1) would be to put a comment on their web-site under this report, use the url in OP

20 another way is to comment on it on discussion sites on the web - you can copy and paste any or all of OP if you wish. All media programmers, content developers, personalities, directors, producers of shows Google the names of their shows, their on air personalities, etc., to see how people are reacting to what they are doing.

Some web-media type at PBS Newshour has probably already swept up this thread and may present this - along with other articles, comments, tweets about the PBS Newshour/ their report ("Did Clinton get off easy? House committee grills FBI’s Comey?&quot to the producers of the show and of the article. OF course, they will be finding reactions by Repugnants and Repugnant Suckers too.


I usually do both.

{BTW I got that portion of the transcript with Cartwright's very illuminating question from the Daily KOS...http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/7/1546038/-Comey-tanks-key-GOP-talking-point-admits-classified-materials-were-not-properly-marked

.. also, if commenting on an internet forum on any program be sure to use program title and perhaps the article title and perhaps on air personalities (if tv or internet show) or author of article. Any info that will help them find your comment via Google.}

I like to comment on their site, and on a discussion forum, like DU and LET them know, because often the comment about their program/article on an internet forum will draw more readers and should give your comment more 'weight' and consideration by those you are commenting on.

[Jitter65]

4. On their website or their Twitter account and FB page if we can. I think we need to e-bomb them

with facts.

[LAS14]

3. 2 days later - Brooks and Shields' comments were inexcusable!!!

What has happened when smart people that I usually respect call someone who didn't see a (c) in the body of an e-mail a "liar??"

[Bill USA]

5. YES!! I left a "few" critical comments about their helping propagate GOP Propaganda on their site.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-and-brooks-on-dallas-police-murders-trumps-republican-problem/

Well, PBS News hour, I'm sure you did well by the GOP in spinelessly chanting the GOP demonization of Clinton as "untrustworthy" - with 'special' recognition of Shields who has apparently gone totally senile and simpering limp wristed joining in the chant. The GOP should certainly be pleased that you repeated their propaganda AS IF IT WERE ACTUAL FACT.

In this disgusting performance of discussing a "news" item you left out the obvious.

James Comey said their investigation looked only at the facts. -- and then Comey went on to speculate and editorialize - NOT BASED ON FACTS BUT ON HIS OWN INFERENCES. Comey sounded like he was campaigning for a position in a future Republican Cabinet.

Steven Rosenfeld writes about Comey's abuse of power on Alternet:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FBI Director James Comey Breaks Federal Prosecutor Rules by Smearing but Not Indicting Clinton Over Emails

Prosecutorial excess and abuse of power.

"almost nobody is questioning is whether the FBI director crossed the line, abusing his discretion and his power, by smearing Clinton in the press and interfering in a political campaign. The Department of Justice’s manual for federal prosecutors bars them from making statements about people who aren’t indicted.

“It goes beyond discretion,” said an ex-Connecticut public defender. “It’s completely improper when there’s not going to be a trial.”

The Department of Justice’s voluminous U.S. Attorneys Manual has sections restricting press comments when there’s no indictment in all but the most exceptional cases, barring prosecutors from interfering in political campaigns. It states that prosecutors should not name unindicted defendants, and even cites federal court rulings chastising prosecutors for doing exactly that.

Comey, a Republican appointed as FBI director by President Obama, CROSSED ALL THREE OF THOSE LINES. Very few commentators noted that Comey shouldn’t have said anything at all, and how unusual it was that he did. One exception was Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of the Lawfare blog and a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution."

~~

“It’s like a perp walk, but this is worse, because they’re saying we will not arrest them,” Williams said. “To hold a press conference where he [Comey] makes comments on the behavior of the person who will not be indicted? That’s not appropriate. I don’t recall ever seeing that by a FBI director. It harkens back to J. Edgar Hoover’s days.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------