You remember what is was like under Biden? They'd have to actually look for stories to write. Sometime you wouldn't hear about the president for like two weeks. Trump writes stores for them every single day and pretends to be annoyed by it yet every single day he is in the news.
Towards the end of his first term, I heard a comedian say that if Trump didn't get voted back in, she'd have to actually start writing her own material, because the trump administration back then was such a joke.
Sadly, the current administration is evil and, for their own purposes, competent.
Comedians saying that "Trump is funny" is partially why we got into this mess. I never found him funny. I used to like Whitney Cummings but then all of a sudden she started talking about Tim Waltz being a pedo because he brought students on a trip to China, like that's educational. Also we already had literal flight logs of Trump on the Lolita express and he was literally using it to fly around… All of these comedians coming out in force to protect pedophiles while accusing everyone else of their crimes. Mental insanity. Maria Bamford is the greatest comedian of that generation anyway, I really like Kyle Kinane as well. They don't bother with podcasts.
all these publications aren't even journalism they're basically conglomerate owned services for ceo's and shit that serve as mouthpieces to try to steer narratives. bots post and upvote pieces to get them on track to front-page on reddit, despite the headline verbiage triggering many of us.
they all moved in absolute lockstep when luigi's mansion allegedly deleted that healthcare ceo and everyone on reddit was like "tf is up with these headlines". we are pretty much living out state-owned media world we see in russia, but instead of state-owned it's technodipshit owned...which i guess might as well mean state-owned at this point. we've got all search engines promoting these dumb outlets. reddit has done checks notes literally nothing because they stand to make a lot of money on horseshit activity.
the guardian had at one point some semblance of objective journalism, and has sort of really started trying to cash in on opinion pieces to garner viewership. the incentive structure is all fucked. real quality journalism is mostly cooked. orgs like npr are important as fuck and need everyone's support.
Government faces setback after judge said it likely violated Comey ally’s protections from unreasonable searches
But note the word "likely" in there - it isn't officially "illegally obtained" until a final ruling says it is, which hasn't happened yet. It is undeniably "key", though, so I don't have a huge problem with putting that in the headline.
Same basic idea with the use of “alleged” or using “shooter” instead of “mass murderer.”
When reporters talk about courtroom stuff, they have to be precise in their language. For example:
Is OJ Simpson a murderer? You and I can see, even from the trial, he was the killer. He was even found “legally liable” for their murder in the following civil case. But no. He is not a murderer. That’s because a murderer (in a legal sense…which also means a don’t-sue-us-for-libel-sense) is someone who has been convicted in a court of law for the crime of murder.
So, circling back to OP, you’re right. They can’t say it was illegally obtained, because that has not been determined, and it can still occur for it to be declared legal (not MUCH chance, but still >0%).
And if there’s one image pretty much every working (real) journalist has burned into their brain from college, it’s “Dewey Defeats Truman.”
Over the last 10 years of insanity, I've started doing a very simple bad headline test, and this one absolutely fails it:
Read every headline like you know nothing at all about the story. Not any previous foundational stories, nothing related, basically like you just woke up from a coma. As if this was the first time you're reading anything at all about this particular news story. Then compare the headline to reality. If the headline, as this one is, is markedly off from the reality of the situation, if it's framed in a way that gives the opposite impression of what happened, it fails.
Because people on read headlines in the social media era. Editors know that as well as you or I do, yet they write headlines like this nonetheless. There are very uninformed folks out there, and those uninformed folks may run across headlines like this, that seems to presuppose that they're much more up on a story than they are, and those uninformed folks vote. if every sliver of news they do encounter is in the form of sanewashing headlines, the they're gonna have a very warped view of what's actually happening, and if that warp view becomes entrenched, then they're primed for some MAGA goon to launch into a "lying liberal!" spiel the moment someone tries to correct the headline.
How is this off from reality? The headline does not imply there that the judge is doing something unlawful, biased, or outrageous in any way. There's all kinds of rules on how evidence is handled, and what is admissible, and this is just a judge clearly enforcing those rules. But for some reason you think the headline suggests the judge is doing something wrong? I don't see that. Explaining why it was blocked is too long to fit into a headline, and no, adding "illegal" is not appropriate for a reputable publication because the judge himself is using much more careful language than that.
It's the Guardian, there's no conspiracy to make the Trump administration look good. They're just stating the facts.
I feel it's off from reality because if you know absolutely nothing at all about the story (as many only reading the headline will), then it reads as if the judge is doing something they shouldn't, because it makes no attempt (even if they won't say illegal) to contextualize why the judge is doing the right thing and not screwing them over. Don't think like you, read it like you just woke up from a coma and know nothing at all about the story. That's what I'm talking about.
I'm not worried whether or not folks in the know or people who read the articles can correctly parse the headline, I'm worried about the many who won't read the article and are not up to speed in order to fill in the headline blanks. Those people vote too. Imo, headlines in the social media era need to be ignorant-to-what-is-happening-proof, not technically correct if you study up on things.
Can confirm: I haven't heard much about this case, and forgot most of what little I did hear, and wondered if the judge was biased. With Trump being the opposition in the headline, I was more inclined to believe there was a good reason for it, but that I wondered at all means the headline isn't clear enough. And Trump fans are going to confidently assume what was just a fleeting thought for me.
But for some reason you think the headline suggests the judge is doing something wrong?
The headline omits that the evidence was unlawfully obtained. It is framed as "judge does something (good? bad? depends on your politics!)" whereas it should be "judge rules on DoJ's malfeasance."
I should point out that people have practical reasons for only reading headlines. Yes, abbreviating stuff to get it into a click bait title is part of it. But another part is that news is primarily distributed through news aggregators and most reputable new sites have paywalls attached to them. It is not realistic for people to be making accounts with and paying for 20 different news sites just so they can click all the articles an aggregator throws at them.
This doesn't absolve the companies of making misleading headlines but it should absolve readers of not reading the articles because in most cases reputable news agencies are actively hostile to having their content distributed through aggregators.
Because they must be complicit or they lose access to news makers. That's their bread and butter. When they lose access, they lose the very point of having jobs.
Between 2017 and 2020, as the government investigated Comey, it obtained multiple warrants allowing them to search an image of Richman’s computer. Neither Richman nor Comey were charged with a crime as part of that investigation, which closed in 2021. Even though the investigation was over, the government appears to have retained all of the information it obtained from Richman, not just what was responsive to the warrant, William Fitzpatrick, a magistrate judge overseeing the Comey case, wrote in a searing opinion in November.
As they conducted a new investigation into Comey this year, the government did not appear to obtain a new warrant to go through the materials it obtained from Richman, Fitzpatrick wrote. Instead, it conducted a warrantless search of the information earlier this year, allowing the government to potentially see materials protected by attorney-client privilege.
So the gathering of the evidence was, possibly, illegal and beyond the scope of the warrant, and they wanted to look at it again without obtaining a warrant.
Interesting way to phrase that in the headline.
The gathering of the evidence was probably fine under the warrant, whether that evidence would have been allowed under attorney client privilege is very much in doubt, and an impartial third party would have probably been needed to see what could and couldn't be used. Now that's when they originally did it, none of that applies now. At this point, it's probably all inadmissible.
TLDR - Prosecutors are claiming that Richman was doing illegal shit while working at the FBI under the direction of Comey. The problem is that in the timeline the prosecution presented, Richman had already retired from the FBI, and was employed as Comey's personal advisor.
Not only were they trying to claim that Richman was employed by the FBI when he demonstrably wasn't, the communications that the prosecution were combing through were privileged.
Bar isn't an acronym. It's name is a reference to a physical railing or partition in a courtroom that separated the litigators / judge from the hoi polloi.
BTW, statute of limitation for whatever they want to catch Comey on expired this year. Technically there's an extension because of the court's decision to drop the charges. The question will be something like "if the prosecutor wasn't a valid US attorney, did the charges even count for the extension?"
Welcome to the American dream! The dream of people who vote for a dictator who controls the media and financial system, while ensuring them its all the fault of fake news media and democrats.
Why do media obfuscate the truth to a point where it means nothing?
Because the owners of Big Media are sucking Trump's dick.
His tiny dick.
His tiny orange dick
His pathetically tiny orange dick
His pathetically tiny orange crusty dick
His pathetically tiny orange crusty mushroom-shaped dick
Do they dip his nuts in marinara sauce for a taste of home?
It’s to cover up the taste that would otherwise be there
Dry aged fremunda?
Must be hard work. Have sympathy for the media! /s
Thats why they need to suck so hard, if they let go for even a second, they fall off
You remember what is was like under Biden? They'd have to actually look for stories to write. Sometime you wouldn't hear about the president for like two weeks. Trump writes stores for them every single day and pretends to be annoyed by it yet every single day he is in the news.
Towards the end of his first term, I heard a comedian say that if Trump didn't get voted back in, she'd have to actually start writing her own material, because the trump administration back then was such a joke.
Sadly, the current administration is evil and, for their own purposes, competent.
Comedians saying that "Trump is funny" is partially why we got into this mess. I never found him funny. I used to like Whitney Cummings but then all of a sudden she started talking about Tim Waltz being a pedo because he brought students on a trip to China, like that's educational. Also we already had literal flight logs of Trump on the Lolita express and he was literally using it to fly around… All of these comedians coming out in force to protect pedophiles while accusing everyone else of their crimes. Mental insanity. Maria Bamford is the greatest comedian of that generation anyway, I really like Kyle Kinane as well. They don't bother with podcasts.
yup, and that's why the media fought for Trump to win
Thats why their breath smells!
all these publications aren't even journalism they're basically conglomerate owned services for ceo's and shit that serve as mouthpieces to try to steer narratives. bots post and upvote pieces to get them on track to front-page on reddit, despite the headline verbiage triggering many of us.
they all moved in absolute lockstep when luigi's mansion allegedly deleted that healthcare ceo and everyone on reddit was like "tf is up with these headlines". we are pretty much living out state-owned media world we see in russia, but instead of state-owned it's technodipshit owned...which i guess might as well mean state-owned at this point. we've got all search engines promoting these dumb outlets. reddit has done checks notes literally nothing because they stand to make a lot of money on horseshit activity.
the guardian had at one point some semblance of objective journalism, and has sort of really started trying to cash in on opinion pieces to garner viewership. the incentive structure is all fucked. real quality journalism is mostly cooked. orgs like npr are important as fuck and need everyone's support.
Looking into how many just regurgitate right wing think tank articles as cheap content sickens me too.
Clicks. Outrage gets clicks. Curiosity gets clicks. Agreement gets clicks. Boring facts get less clicks.
Because most of the media companies are owned by right wing oligarchs
The Guardian isn’t, though, which makes this clickbait trash more annoying
And that's exactly what the subhead says:
But note the word "likely" in there - it isn't officially "illegally obtained" until a final ruling says it is, which hasn't happened yet. It is undeniably "key", though, so I don't have a huge problem with putting that in the headline.
Same basic idea with the use of “alleged” or using “shooter” instead of “mass murderer.”
When reporters talk about courtroom stuff, they have to be precise in their language. For example:
Is OJ Simpson a murderer? You and I can see, even from the trial, he was the killer. He was even found “legally liable” for their murder in the following civil case. But no. He is not a murderer. That’s because a murderer (in a legal sense…which also means a don’t-sue-us-for-libel-sense) is someone who has been convicted in a court of law for the crime of murder.
So, circling back to OP, you’re right. They can’t say it was illegally obtained, because that has not been determined, and it can still occur for it to be declared legal (not MUCH chance, but still >0%).
And if there’s one image pretty much every working (real) journalist has burned into their brain from college, it’s “Dewey Defeats Truman.”
Because billionaires are the human form of malignant tumors.
Over the last 10 years of insanity, I've started doing a very simple bad headline test, and this one absolutely fails it:
Read every headline like you know nothing at all about the story. Not any previous foundational stories, nothing related, basically like you just woke up from a coma. As if this was the first time you're reading anything at all about this particular news story. Then compare the headline to reality. If the headline, as this one is, is markedly off from the reality of the situation, if it's framed in a way that gives the opposite impression of what happened, it fails.
Because people on read headlines in the social media era. Editors know that as well as you or I do, yet they write headlines like this nonetheless. There are very uninformed folks out there, and those uninformed folks may run across headlines like this, that seems to presuppose that they're much more up on a story than they are, and those uninformed folks vote. if every sliver of news they do encounter is in the form of sanewashing headlines, the they're gonna have a very warped view of what's actually happening, and if that warp view becomes entrenched, then they're primed for some MAGA goon to launch into a "lying liberal!" spiel the moment someone tries to correct the headline.
It's truly pernicious shit
How is this off from reality? The headline does not imply there that the judge is doing something unlawful, biased, or outrageous in any way. There's all kinds of rules on how evidence is handled, and what is admissible, and this is just a judge clearly enforcing those rules. But for some reason you think the headline suggests the judge is doing something wrong? I don't see that. Explaining why it was blocked is too long to fit into a headline, and no, adding "illegal" is not appropriate for a reputable publication because the judge himself is using much more careful language than that.
It's the Guardian, there's no conspiracy to make the Trump administration look good. They're just stating the facts.
I feel it's off from reality because if you know absolutely nothing at all about the story (as many only reading the headline will), then it reads as if the judge is doing something they shouldn't, because it makes no attempt (even if they won't say illegal) to contextualize why the judge is doing the right thing and not screwing them over. Don't think like you, read it like you just woke up from a coma and know nothing at all about the story. That's what I'm talking about.
I'm not worried whether or not folks in the know or people who read the articles can correctly parse the headline, I'm worried about the many who won't read the article and are not up to speed in order to fill in the headline blanks. Those people vote too. Imo, headlines in the social media era need to be ignorant-to-what-is-happening-proof, not technically correct if you study up on things.
Can confirm: I haven't heard much about this case, and forgot most of what little I did hear, and wondered if the judge was biased. With Trump being the opposition in the headline, I was more inclined to believe there was a good reason for it, but that I wondered at all means the headline isn't clear enough. And Trump fans are going to confidently assume what was just a fleeting thought for me.
The headline omits that the evidence was unlawfully obtained. It is framed as "judge does something (good? bad? depends on your politics!)" whereas it should be "judge rules on DoJ's malfeasance."
I should point out that people have practical reasons for only reading headlines. Yes, abbreviating stuff to get it into a click bait title is part of it. But another part is that news is primarily distributed through news aggregators and most reputable new sites have paywalls attached to them. It is not realistic for people to be making accounts with and paying for 20 different news sites just so they can click all the articles an aggregator throws at them.
This doesn't absolve the companies of making misleading headlines but it should absolve readers of not reading the articles because in most cases reputable news agencies are actively hostile to having their content distributed through aggregators.
Because they must be complicit or they lose access to news makers. That's their bread and butter. When they lose access, they lose the very point of having jobs.
The Jack Andersons of the world are long gone.
Probably because morons don't understand that the truth isn't determined by their personal opinion.
The media wants this.
I thought the case was dismissed?
At least the Guardian reported something
So the gathering of the evidence was, possibly, illegal and beyond the scope of the warrant, and they wanted to look at it again without obtaining a warrant. Interesting way to phrase that in the headline.
The gathering of the evidence was probably fine under the warrant, whether that evidence would have been allowed under attorney client privilege is very much in doubt, and an impartial third party would have probably been needed to see what could and couldn't be used. Now that's when they originally did it, none of that applies now. At this point, it's probably all inadmissible.
it's a step beyond that.
TLDR - Prosecutors are claiming that Richman was doing illegal shit while working at the FBI under the direction of Comey. The problem is that in the timeline the prosecution presented, Richman had already retired from the FBI, and was employed as Comey's personal advisor.
Not only were they trying to claim that Richman was employed by the FBI when he demonstrably wasn't, the communications that the prosecution were combing through were privileged.
It's a hilarious shit show.
Yes, I'm aware. The case itself is a joke and being done just so Trump can get the initial headlines, though it keeps backfiring.
Shame that the BAR association doesn't have the balls to start stripping these morons of their licenses.
Remember there is no national bar association quite - it’s per state mainly with some others thrown in
Bar isn't an acronym. It's name is a reference to a physical railing or partition in a courtroom that separated the litigators / judge from the hoi polloi.
A choose to believe there's a sapient but cowardly Browning Automatic Rifle
To add to that afterwards they were supposed to have destroyed all the evidence, but they didn’t.
they can't get a warrant because the crime needed to access that data legally was way above the scope of what he's being charged for.
it worked in the original investigation because there was a law that permitted it based on that specific type of crime.
BTW, statute of limitation for whatever they want to catch Comey on expired this year. Technically there's an extension because of the court's decision to drop the charges. The question will be something like "if the prosecutor wasn't a valid US attorney, did the charges even count for the extension?"
We all know the correct answer but it will be interesting to see how they argue it.
With how I competent the lawyers under Trump's employ tend to he it will probably be laughably bad.
The next grand jury presentation will be "We may not have evidence but you should just charge him anyway."
The movie idiocracy comes to mind, "Your honor just look at him, his shit is all fucked up, he must be guilty. I rest my case."
We find the defendant… quilty.
All of them have already been that way
The main problem with all this is that this was likely the desired outcome by the prosecution.
You have no case.
Get "evidence" that you know will get thrown out.
Have the media run with headlines that the judge is blocking "Key" evidence.
Blame "liberal" justices for protecting 'Crooked Comey'.
MAGA then believes Comey is guilty and therefore Trump was right but the "Corrupt Liberal Judges" are obstructing the case.
Case gets thrown out, but you always knew it would since he didn't actually do anything and you had no real evidence.
MAGA remains angry with liberals and in love with Trump.
Possibly MAGA targets the judge or Comey for a little 'extra-judicial punishment'.
Trump Wins.
I’m a simple man. I see “Judge Blocks Trump” I upvote.
“Evidence” is doing a lot of work here
wait there is evidence?
I thought the statute of limitations had already expired.
“Key evidence” is always missing with maga anyway
Welcome to the American dream! The dream of people who vote for a dictator who controls the media and financial system, while ensuring them its all the fault of fake news media and democrats.
Cries in Supreme Court.