- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Wa State AG Warns Journalists Investigating Somali Daycares is Potential Hate Crime Charge
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:16 pm to thebigmuffaletta
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:16 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:I had to look-up what that even is. Had no idea that MSNBC had changed its name.
MS NOW
So, no affirmative statement. Just her analysis as to "why" the faces might be redacted.
Candidly, I think her "analysis" was retarded. She compares these redactions to the unredacted photos of Trump with public figures (Maxwell, Epstein, etc), and concludes that the committee must have concluded that the six women were Epstein Minors. That conclusion is NOT warranted, and the idea that they were protecting the identities of private persons makes MUCH more sense.
1
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:16 pm to Timeoday
First time that WA AG charges someone with a hate crime for that he needs to be arrested by the DOJ and held in Gitmo.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:17 pm to Jbird
quote:
They did it for effect.
They also ran with, for the better part of a day, that Trump’s DOJ was involved in a coverup and deleting pictures of Trump from the Epstein files release when in fact they were removed because a court asked that they be reviewed.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:17 pm to CleverUserName
quote:Usually something that one acquires through years of careful work, supervised by competent editors.
What is "actual journalistic credentials"
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
These people are failing in both, which is why the question "are they even journalists?" has entered the chat.
For first Amendment purposes there is no such thing as an official journalist. The amateur blogger has equal footing with the entrenched institutionalized journalism structure.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:20 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
She’s clearly telling her audience she believes the photo shows Trump with Epstein victims. It doesn’t get anymore affirmative than that.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:21 pm to Jbird
quote:AGAIN, my recollection is that it was the COMMITTEE that did the redaction, not the press.
You fricking kidding me? They did it for effect.
And it is correct that this photo has been in the public domain for a long time. MANY outlets quickly published the unredacted photo specifically to counter the incorrect inference that the six ladies were Epstein Minors.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:21 pm to Smeg
quote:
I've had just about enough of this bullshite
Whatever will we do, except for complain on the internet?
Unfortunately, that's all we're able to do. That's all we're allowed to do. And now they're trying to take that away, too.
We can vote, but it doesn't matter because we don't control who counts the vote. We can write our Congressmen, but they still make their decisions based upon which special interests group pays them the most. We could run for office ourselves but none of us "commoners" (even our O-T ballers) have enough funding to outclass the swamper money of Establishment-chosen candidates and incumbents.
We will do nothing, except for watch our rights further infringed upon while our "representation" continues to sell us down the river and erode the base foundations of American freedom and liberty.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:21 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Usually something that one acquires through years of careful work, supervised by competent editors.
Like Dan Rather?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:21 pm to thebigmuffaletta
Correct but relentless alter wants to play games
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:22 pm to CleverUserName
quote:Ask the Committee.
So why would they need their identity protected?
I didn't do the redaction.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:23 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
MANY outlets quickly published the unredacted photo specifically to counter the incorrect inference that the six ladies were Epstein Minors.
No, they were forced to do after the NY Post published the unredacted and very publicly available photo.
BTW, that’s the same NY Post that broke the Hunter Biden laptop story that your beloved “credentialed journalists” claimed was fake and Russian propaganda.
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:23 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
The press ran with it in association with the DEMs that released.
They did it for effect.
Those credentialed assholes you revere.
They did it for effect.
Those credentialed assholes you revere.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:23 pm to CleverUserName
quote:I don't recall that. But I don't spend as much time as you, obsessing over Dem stupidity.
The Dem representatives were actually calling them Epstein victims.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:24 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Lol fricking alter.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:24 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Usually something that one acquires through years of careful work, supervised by competent editors.
Like Jake Tapper calling the J6th pipe bomber a "white man"?
And the claims of Biden's competence?
And the competent editor's work on the edited Kamala video?
And the Affordable Care Act claims vs reality?
And the coverage of the YouTube guys guilt in causing the Benghazi fiasco?
Like that?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:26 pm to Timeoday
Just like January 6 was ‘Insurrection’.
A showdown is inevitable.
A showdown is inevitable.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:27 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Ask the Committee. I didn't do the redaction.
Why not the media?? They are doing 20 hours of research. They are the competent ones. Right?
You saying the media just takes the committees word for it? Being a mouthpiece for them?
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:27 pm to thebigmuffaletta
quote:Do you read and understand the English language? Was Cajun French your first language as a child?
She’s clearly telling her audience she believes the photo shows Trump with Epstein victims. It doesn’t get anymore affirmative than that.
quote:She is speculating as to the motives of the COMMITTEE in redacting those faces.
One thing that stands out to me is the people whose faces are not redacted, as compared with images where we can see that the women have faces that are redacted or blurred out.
That suggests to me that either the estate and/or the Committee believe that some of these women are either minors and/or survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Because there are other images — for example, including an image with Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Bill Clinton and an unidentified couple, where both the man and the other woman’s faces are fully visible. That means that they know who that person is, in all likelihood, and that person is not someone they believe to be a survivor.
On the other hand, then we see that picture with President Trump and those six women. That’s not to say President Trump is complicit in any wrongdoing, but it may be that he was photographed with people that they believe to have been trafficked or abused by Jeffrey Epstein and Glenn Maxwell.
Did you even bother to read the article that you linked?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:29 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Speculation!
Ffs they did it on purpose.
Ffs they did it on purpose.
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News