Liberal Forum

Misty » 18 Jan 2018 5:35 pm » wrote:

Huey » 18 Jan 2018 5:14 pm » wrote:

Termin8tor » 18 Jan 2018 5:09 pm » wrote:I cited Conservapedia, a sound source, yet you ignored that, too in favor of 20 year old information.
Obviously you'll lie no matter what the facts are.
Scarborough has sold out. He's a hack. That's why he's on MS-LSD, duuuh!

Funny that Misty is laughing at newsbusters when she uses sources like buzzfeed.
Has not been a good start to the evening. First she tries to deny that she isn’t LittleMissMarxist then loses out on the Scarborough debate.

1. I didn't deny anything. I asked if you had any proof that I have a sok.
Post the quote where I denied it.

2. How exactly did I lose the Scarborough debate?
He calls himself a Conservative, and I think it's his right to define himself, not yours or Clem's.

3. I don't even read Buzzfeed, unless I am linked to it through another source, but while it may be left leaning, it is not a wingnut site like Newsbusters.

For the most part, Buzzfeed is factual and very well sourced. If not for a few minor blemishes Buzzfeed would be listed as High for factual reporting. Overall, Buzzfeed is a left leaning source that is almost always accurate in reporting.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/buzzfeed/

Newbusters claims to expose liberal bias much like its parent website MRC, however this site is also very right wing biased like MRC and perhaps even less factual. Newsbusters uses extensive loaded words and always covers just one side of the story. That side always benefits conservatives and is against liberals.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsbusters/

Misty » 29 Nov 2017 12:32 pm » wrote:

roadkill » 29 Nov 2017 12:21 pm » wrote:

Misty » 29 Nov 2017 12:17 pm » wrote:More than ever now that James O'Keefe (Project Veritas) has proven that they do their homework before they publish a story.

How about the editorial page making claims and assertions about the Russian investigation without evidence.

PV got spiked this time...but they have exposed sources like the WaPo, NYT, etc. many times and you ignore that part.

Ya see Misty...I can acknowledge what PV did this time...but you can't acknowledge the same about what the WaPo, NYT, etc. have been caught doing.

That makes me more honest than you are.

The editorial page is not the same as the hard news division.
If PV is so wonderful and honest, then why are they being sued so much?
And why is James O'Keefe trying to get his insurance company to pay out the legal settlements for him?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stevenperlberg ... ce-company

And why does PV call itself a charity?

http://observer.com/2017/11/giving-tues ... es-okeefe/

Misty » 27 Nov 2017 6:38 pm » wrote:O'Keefe wants his insurance company to cover his illegal activities.

James O’Keefe Is Fighting His Insurance Company

The conservative activist filmmaker is battling insurance company Gemini after it refused to back Project Veritas on lawsuits filed by targets of his undercover videos.

For months, lawsuits have piled up against James O’Keefe, the conservative filmmaker and provocateur, from various targets of his signature undercover videos.

But O’Keefe and his video site Project Veritas have taken some legal action of their own recently — against the insurance company that they claim violated a contractual obligation to pay for mushrooming legal bills.

Now Project Veritas is engaged in a battle with the company it hoped would protect it, a dispute that lays bare the stark challenges faced by O’Keefe for the kind of controversial, litigation-prone hidden camera stings that have made him both a scourge and a conservative media darling.

In September, O’Keefe and his associates at Project Veritas sued Gemini Insurance Company for “wrongful denial to defend and indemnify” Project Veritas over three lawsuits.

The company alleged that Gemini was in breach of contract for not footing the bill for the lawsuits, which included a defamation allegation from the president of a Kansas teachers union.

Last month, O’Keefe and his fellow plaintiffs at Project Veritas dismissed the lawsuit, which executive director Russell Verney told BuzzFeed News was mistakenly filed.

The insurance policy requires the dispute to be settled under arbitration, Verney said, and Project Veritas has entered into that process.

A spokesperson for W.R. Berkley Corporation, which owns Gemini, declined to comment, saying that the company had a policy to not comment on litigation or the status of its client relationships.

Arbitration documents obtained by BuzzFeed News show that Gemini is fighting Project Veritas on its claims.

According to documents, the disagreement now hinges on coverage for four different lawsuits.

In February, Project Veritas said it reached out to Gemini over a lawsuit from a former employee of textbook company Pearson Education who was fired after being caught on camera in a Project Veritas video taking on the Common Core curriculum, a topic criticized frequently by conservative media.

Project Veritas claims that Gemini initially provided a defense, but later denied it coverage.

This summer, Project Veritas unsuccessfully sought to enact its insurance policy when Steve Wentz, the Kansas teachers union president, alleged in a lawsuit that a video that appeared to show him suggesting he has threatened students with physical violence was "creatively edited… to make him appear violent and dangerous."

An attorney for Wentz said that the recording was taken without Wentz’s authorization.

Florida, where the video was taken, has a two-party consent law that requires both parties involved in a conversation to agree to be recorded.

Project Veritas also said it was denied coverage from Gemini regarding a lawsuit over an undercover video sting against Democratic operatives that occurred in the run-up before the 2016 election.

That suit alleged that an associate to O’Keefe won an internship at a firm called Democracy Partners under false pretenses and worked undercover.

Project Veritas notified its insurer in September about a fourth lawsuit, brought by a woman in North Carolina featured in O’Keefe’s videos who is suing for defamation.

According to the arbitration complaint, Project Veritas and its operatives incurred more than $160,000 in legal fees without Gemini’s assistance.

The complaint said that Gemini’s contract insured Project Veritas for $1,000,000 on each claim and in total, with a deductible of $25,000 for each claim.

The insurer had told Project Veritas that the claims did not fall within the policy, according to the complaint.

Gemini countered that Project Veritas had misrepresented itself in its insurance application: specifically, Gemini said that Project Veritas reported that it had obtained consent from people appearing in its videos.

In the complaint, Project Veritas denies misrepresenting itself, saying that the group “disclosed on the application that the nature of its investigations was ‘undercover’ video recordings, using ‘mini-cams’ and ‘hidden cameras.’”

Gemini also claims that the policy covers work done for hire — and the lawsuits therefore are outside of the policy.

Project Veritas disputes that characterization, adding that its work is for the public and that the policy should cover that.

Like most businesses, media companies rely on insurance to help protect from legal liability, but the degree to which that covers fallout over what media organizations publish has been tested in the past.

The former Gawker Media, for instance, sparred in court with its insurer over the site’s bills in its war with Hulk Hogan.

The professional wrestler would end up, somewhat famously in media circles, dropping a claim of emotional stress that could have triggered the policy.

That led to early rumors that a behind-the-scenes financier — later revealed to be Silicon Valley billionaire and Gawker enemy Peter Thiel — was funding the case in order to topple the gossip site.

Verney has similar suspicions that the lawsuits against Project Veritas, which he called frivolous, were linked together in “some effort to tie us up in litigation and legal expenses.”

That argument is a familiar trope for students of Project Veritas, whose videos typically allege to unearth conspiracies about Democrats and the mainstream media.

O’Keefe has cast himself as a First Amendment crusader, and his activist group, Project Veritas Action Fund, is suing over a Massachusetts eavesdropping law that prevents his style of undercover work.

But O’Keefe’s career is also marked by instances of dubious editing and lawsuits.

He first came to prominence in 2009 thanks to undercover videos that led to the downfall of liberal organizer ACORN; in 2013, O’Keefe settled a lawsuit brought by a former ACORN employee for $100,000.

In 2010, he pleaded guilty to entering a federal building under false pretenses and was sentenced to three years of probation over his involvement in a botched incident at then-Senator Mary Landrieu’s office.

In September, a circuit court judge in September restricted Project Veritas from publishing information obtained in an apparent undercover intern sting operation into the Michigan chapter of the American Federation of Teachers.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/steven ... ce-company

Misty » 08 Nov 2017 8:28 pm » wrote:

roadkill » 05 Nov 2017 3:15 pm » wrote:Seth Rich Murder
"A new forensics report says that Rich was killed by a professional hit man."

Seth Rich did not turn the DNC emails over to WikiLeaks/Russia.

He Solved The DNC Hack. Now He's Telling His Story For The First Time.

One late morning in May 2016, the leaders of the Democratic National Committee huddled around a packed conference table and stared at Robert Johnston.

The former Marine Corps captain gave his briefing with unemotional military precision, but what he said was so unnerving that a high-level DNC official curled up in a ball on her conference room chair as if watching a horror movie.

At 30, Johnston was already an accomplished digital detective who had just left the military’s elite Cyber Command, where he had helped stanch a Russian hack on the US military’s top leadership.

Now, working for a private cybersecurity company, he had to brief the DNC — while it was in the middle of a white-knuckle presidential campaign — about what he’d found in the organization’s computer networks.

Their reaction was “pure shock,” Johnston recalled. “It was their worst day.”

Although the broad outlines of the DNC hack are now well-known, its details have remained mysterious, sparking sharp and persistent questions.

How did the DNC miss the hack?

Why did a private security consultant, rather than the FBI, examine its servers?

And how did the DNC find Johnston’s firm, CrowdStrike, in the first place?

Johnston’s account — told here for the first time, and substantiated in interviews with 15 sources at the FBI, the DNC, and the Defense Department — resolves some of those questions while adding new information about the hack itself.

Read the full story here: https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/h ... .ehqZWAQVv