It appears so. Maybe dems are not the totally corrupt free, angels that libs around seem to think they are? Yates through Comey under the bus saying he went rogue interviewing Michael Flynn without her consent. Then saying she would not have approved the Carter Page FISA knowing what she knows now. So the whole Russia hoax would not have happened. She seems to think that she was played. It’s getting ugly libs. And will certainly get uglier. Thoughts?
From what I saw, Senate Republicans were hell bent trying to trip up Yates and make a narrative to help out Trump. And she did not play into their hands. They tried to get her to say that there were plots. She shut them down. This was not a exercise in trying to find out the truth about Flynn. It was a circus act to re-live history and make Trump look good. And so far, it didn’t work.
Its sort of funny looking at the Fox headline and the CNN headline.
Fox Headline: “Yates: Comey went ‘rogue’ with Flynn interview”
CNN headline: “Yates defends FBI investigation into Flynn, calls Barr move to drop charges ‘highly irregular’”
To be fair to each, they each cover the subject within the article that the other one used as the headline. Its just that they each choose different topics to make the main focus of the article.
That’s how much bias is: Its not lying, its just making sure that the news is what you want it to be.
But there was no omission. They each included what made up the others headline, but just as a smaller part within their articles. Fox covered how Yates said Flynn should have been prosecuted for lying, CNN covered how Comey should not have gone out on his own with the Flynn investigation without coordinating with the DOJ. CNN also covered the part where Yates said she would not have signed off on the FISA warrant if she had known of the “errors”.
Nothing was omitted, but the emphasis of what was important was different in each.
In journalism that is known as “burying the lead”.
It’s a bait and switch, you give that which you don’t want made an issue a mere mention and then bury it in other issues, essentially a lie of omission.
It’s no different than we usually see on the alphabets where maybe the dem reaction to something gets 30 seconds or more and you get a republican being quoted with something like “it was stupid”.
Many years ago while serving a stars and stripes reporter asked me a question about exchange rates and how they affected our lives, a particular move had recently been made to devalue the dollar in that country by our own gov’t.
What I didn’t know was the “reporter” had a clear agenda.
I gave a detailed response about how it was impacting US Service member serving in the country.
All that appeared in the article was, “It was a stupid move”.
Did I say that? Yes, but she favored the devaluation because she thought it would improve the economy in country and she didn’t give a damn how it affected us.
The next quote was about 3 solid paragraphs of someone supporting her take on the issue.
It was a lie of omission by intent as her whole purpose was to promote what had been done because of her own bias.
