Report: Sessions Out as Attorney General

[tigermud]

he does have a partisan leaning. I don't know if he proclaims any party affiliation but I'd describe him as a conservative libertarian. He does work for Infowars which I find odd because I've never seen him pumping any bizarre conspiracy theories. Although, I don't follow him on Infowars - I just watch his commentary videos on Youtube so I may be missing his batshit crazy side if he has one. He's pretty funny, generally aggressive calling out liberals (and some conservatives) and usually has some interesting perspectives.

the only person that is bat shit crazy at infowars is the gay frog, everybody else there is fairly sane. PJW is pretty popular in Europe. Big Tech is censoring him every chance they get as well.

 

[tigermud]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RrSfMiAErc

 

[tigermud]

He is pretty funny though and speaks truth.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTzgGr9lYAY

 

[Spartanmack]

the only person that is bat shit crazy at infowars is the guy frog, everybody else there is fairly sane. PJW is pretty popular in Europe. Big Tech is censoring him every chance they get as well.

I follow PJW's youtube channel because I find him entertaining and interesting. I'm not an infowars follower but from what little I have seen of Alex Jones, the guy is pretty far out there. That doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with everything he says, I just don't listen to any of it. Even if I'm right, that the guy is bat shit crazy or even close to it, I think it's massively hypocritical and bad policy for those companies to ban him from their platforms.

 

[tigermud]

I follow PJW's youtube channel because I find him entertaining and interesting. I'm not an infowars follower but from what little I have seen of Alex Jones, the guy is pretty far out there. That doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with everything he says, I just don't listen to any of it. Even if I'm right, that the guy is bat shit crazy or even close to it, I think it's massively hypocritical and bad policy for those companies to ban him from their platforms.

Well I see Twitter finally got around to banning some antifa fks at least but yes all in all big tech no longer supports free speech they have sold out to the chicoms and they'll eventually move to china or put themselves out of business after they ban everyone.

 

[Spartanmack]

This is a couple days old but i just saw it. At the 4:39 mark, PJW talks about Vice talking to forensic experts (not named, maybe in their article) that caused them to change their story. Then he mentions Hany Farid who studies digital forensics at Cal Berkely and quote him as saying he doesn't think the video was doctored...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RrSfMiAErc&feature=em-uploademail

 

[Gulo Blue]

This is a couple days old but i just saw it. At the 4:39 mark, PJW talks about Vice talking to forensic experts (not named, maybe in their article) that caused them to change their story. Then he mentions Hany Farid who studies digital forensics at Cal Berkely and quote him as saying he doesn't think the video was doctored...

I saw a statement by Farid, but it was qualified, saying he saw the video, but had not analyzed it.

 

[Spartanmack]

I saw a statement by Farid, but it was qualified, saying he saw the video, but had not analyzed it.

You sure about that because here's a quote from him from an email he sent to Motherboard “From my review of the various videos of the press conference, I believe that the video tweeted by the Press Secretary is misleading but I don’t see unambiguous evidence that it has been doctored. A combination of a reduction in the quality of the video, a slowing-down of the video, and the particular vantage point of the CSPAN video gives the appearance that there was more contact between the reporter and the intern than there probably was. In particular, if you look at original, higher-quality videos from other vantage points you can more clearly see that while there was some contact between the reporter and intern, he did not strike her as his hand comes down.” Sounds to me like he analyzed it.

Also from that same Motherboard article...
Jeff Smith, the associate director of the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado, Denver, came to a similar conclusion. Smith said "There are duplicate frames at the moment of contact; 2 additional frames for no apparent reason but one could surmise that it could give the false impression of a split second more contact then there actually was," Smith wrote. "Otherwise, the video is not slowed down and doesn’t appear to be altered on the pixel level as many people in the twitter-verse are claiming. These many accusations also come as a result of the heavy compression and interlacing of the video."


https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...-jim-acosta-was-doctored-forensic-expert-says

Zooming in and slowing down is something done by virtually every media outlet for one story or another. Hell, if that was doctoring, then literally every replay shown in any sporting event is doctored.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You sure about that

OK, I will post a link to what I saw and not just make you take my word for what I saw and how it should be interpreted.


https://www.technologyreview.com/th...te-house-digital-fakery-is-eroding-the-truth/

It?s possible that this was an artifact of turning the clip into a jittery animated GIF, says Hany Farid, a world-renowned expert on digital forensics and a professor at Dartmouth. ?A combination of a reduction in the quality of the video, a slowing down of the video, and the particular vantage point of the CSPAN video gives the appearance that there was more contact between the reporter and the intern than there probably was,? he adds. Farid has looked at the clip, but he has not analyzed it in detail.

 

[Michchamp]

it's sad that a "world-renowed expert on digital forensics" is spending his time on dumb shit like Paul Watson videos.

 

[Spartanmack]

it's sad that a "world-renowed expert on digital forensics" is spending his time on dumb shit like Paul Watson videos.

it is, but that's your team's fault, not Paul Joseph Watson's. They're the ones who without doing ANY fact checking went out with the story about the doctored video.

 

[sggatecl]

U.S. judge temporarily restores White House press pass to CNN's Acosta

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday temporarily restored White House press credentials to CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, which were revoked after a contentious press conference with President Donald Trump, saying there should be a due process in place for limiting a journalist’s access to the White House.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, who is hearing CNN’s lawsuit challenging the revocation, ordered the White House to restore Acosta’s press pass while the case is pending.

“Let’s go back to work,” Acosta said to reporters after the hearing.

CNN said in a statement it “looked forward to a full resolution in the coming days” and thanked “all who have supported not just CNN, but a free, strong and independent American press.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Kelly, a Trump appointee, did not address the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and the press, but instead focused on a due process provision of the U.S. Constitution that provides for fair treatment through a judicial or administrative process.

“Whatever process occurred within the government is still so shrouded in mystery that the government at oral argument could not tell me who made the initial decision to revoke Mr. Acosta’s press pass,” Kelly said in his verbal ruling.

 

[Michchamp]

Interesting.

But that article is written by Reuters, and doesn't feature a youtube video of a wild-eyed guy in his basement shouting into a webcam, nor does it mention chemtrails, the Illuminati, the link between vaccinations and autism, or the government using lasers to set wildfires in California, so how do we know it can be trusted?

 

[sggatecl]

Interesting.

But that article is written by Reuters, and doesn't feature a youtube video of a wild-eyed guy in his basement shouting into a webcam, nor does it mention chemtrails, the Illuminati, the link between vaccinations and autism, or the government using lasers to set wildfires in California, so how do we know it can be trusted?

Ya got me.

Hopefully this ups my street cred.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Interesting.

But that article is written by Reuters, and doesn't feature a youtube video of a wild-eyed guy in his basement shouting into a webcam, nor does it mention chemtrails, the Illuminati, the link between vaccinations and autism, or the government using lasers to set wildfires in California, so how do we know it can be trusted?

post 393

 

[Spartanmack]

Interesting.

But that article is written by Reuters, and doesn't feature a youtube video of a wild-eyed guy in his basement shouting into a webcam, nor does it mention chemtrails, the Illuminati, the link between vaccinations and autism, or the government using lasers to set wildfires in California, so how do we know it can be trusted?

you forgot to mention the guy is soft and pudgy - you were referring to yourself here, right?