DescentBB

DOJ head is going to edit history to make the ignorant masses even more ignorant:

Lynch: "Partial Transcript" Of Orlando 911 Calls Will Have References To Islamic Terrorism Removed.

Yup, she has to protect us poor schleps from what the real world is about. Gotta protect the president's perfect record of keeping terrorist attacks intact. You'd think she was try to build us all a safe room we can hide in

Context needed.

And once again "Get Back" Loretta is forced to reverse herself. Do these idiots ever think before they take really stupid actions?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/20/fb ... -call.html

Context needed. That article doesn't answer any questions.

vision wrote:Context needed. That article doesn't answer any questions.

http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2016 ... orney.html

vision wrote:Context needed. That article doesn't answer any questions.

What question are you asking?

woodchip wrote:What question are you asking?

Never mind, I did some research and found out this is a non-story. Just more of the outrage machine. It's the FBI policy to omit information related to an investigation. The fact that information was leaked before hand does not change policy. Now that it is known there is no legitimate connection between the shooter and ISIS this information can be released "officially" rather than "speculatively."

Also keep in mind that Republican lawmakers were the first to propose laws to restricting the release of 911 emergency calls for the purpose of diminishing sensationalism. A federal law was submitted in 2009 but it did not pass and only a few state laws are enacted across the country, mostly by Republican lawmakers. I guess it's ironic that Republicans want to sensationalize this story and pressure the FBI to go against their policy. How convenient.

at this point, any sense of irony from those lying sacks of crap has been lost. They simply make stuff up and toss it out. Sort of like Woody and the Trump shooter. Makes up the political slant on a NON CITIZEN(guy was British), then when confronted on the truth, makes up ANOTHER blatant lie about the politics of the Orlando shooter. After a while, it becomes a matter of ZERO integrity, not merely irony.

callmeslick wrote:at this point, any sense of irony from those lying sacks of crap has been lost. They simply make stuff up and toss it out. Sort of like Woody and the Trump shooter.

Made up eh?

Friend of Mateen

We talked about the presidential election and debated our views of the candidates that were running – he liked Hillary Clinton and I liked Bernie Sanders.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/21/fri ... y-clinton/

callmeslick wrote:Makes up the political slant on a NON CITIZEN(guy was British), then when confronted on the truth, makes up ANOTHER blatant lie about the politics of the Orlando shooter. After a while, it becomes a matter of ZERO integrity, not merely irony.

Just how did you confront me with truth?

I merely pointed to the article you linked. How did you get the British guy as a Democrat, or the Orlando shooter. That was the assertion you made, that Democrats produced assasins or some such drivel.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:What question are you asking?

Never mind, I did some research and found out this is a non-story. Just more of the outrage machine. It's the FBI policy to omit information related to an investigation. The fact that information was leaked before hand does not change policy. Now that it is known there is no legitimate connection between the shooter and ISIS this information can be released "officially" rather than "speculatively."

Also keep in mind that Republican lawmakers were the first to propose laws to restricting the release of 911 emergency calls for the purpose of diminishing sensationalism. A federal law was submitted in 2009 but it did not pass and only a few state laws are enacted across the country, mostly by Republican lawmakers. I guess it's ironic that Republicans want to sensationalize this story and pressure the FBI to go against their policy. How convenient.

I heard about this on the radio earlier today -- was browsing through some of the stations I can get through my phone and just out of curiosity, i checked out some american AM talk that billed themselves as "intelligent". Massive bias notwithstanding, their argument was that they forced the DOJ to reveal all the "redacted" information. I don't think I've heard anything that funny in a while.

The coverup, or in this case the redaction, is always worse than just showing everyone the truth. Funny how politicians never learn that particular lesson and keep getting tripped up by it.

because, as was pointed out, everyone involved was just following a standard set of protocols.

Yea, the devil is in the details of exactly what was redacted, and whether it needed to be according to those protocols.

Notice how slick wants you to focus on protocol. This was not protocol as there was nothing implicating someone else. If there were, then I would expect that info to be redacted to not tip off the other party. Going PC had nothing to do with keeping ingo hidden. I'm surprised Lynch didn't have the report changed to paint Mateen as a white christian homophobe.

once again, Woody resorts to just making stuff up and assuming we're all too stupid to read up. There are distinct protocols in place for DOJ to release information that can be used for propaganda purposes, and those guidelines were set after concerns had been voiced by Congress. Once it was determined that the shooter had no likely overseas contact involved with the planning or execution of this act, they could remove the redaction.

Right, that was why Lynch was forced to reverse her decision.

and, it was why the FBI made the original decision(which did not likely even involve Lynch whatsoever)

The word "likely" in your statement shoots your premise in the foot.

Still arguing about a non-story?

No, talking about a major news story with headlines and everything.

perhaps in the right-wing press. Not too much about it on any real media, at this point. The cycle has passed, along with the faux outrage.

Didn't know USA Today was right wing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /86130520/

from your own link, on the byline:

11:44 p.m. EDT June 20, 2016



today is June 23. Serious question, woody, do you ever look at stuff closely before posting? Sort of defeats the purpose of a snarky comeback to have it obvious that your 'proof' proves my exact point. The cycle for this non-story and bogus outrage passed a few days ago, immediately after the material was released.