Alito too

[NYShoreGuy]

Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court

In the years after the undisclosed trip to Alaska, Republican megadonor Paul Singer’s hedge fund has repeatedly had business before the Supreme Court. Alito has never recused himself.

www.propublica.org

 

[SPK145]

Alito's response:

Opinion | Justice Samuel Alito: ProPublica Misleads Its Readers

The publication levels false charges about Supreme Court recusal, financial disclosures and a 2008 fishing trip.

www.wsj.com

 

[Merge]

The line about saving money by flying on a private Jet for free as an excuse is probably the dumbest thing Alito has ever written.

 

[HALL85]

Is ProPublica digging into all travel of nine justices or just conservative ones?

 

[SHUSA]

Is ProPublica digging into all travel of nine justices or just conservative ones?

does that matter? again thats your only thought? a totally non partisan regurgitated response

Dem prez and dem gov with outstanding response to a massive transit disaster but this board seems to be quiet on that

 

[HALL85]

does that matter? again thats your only thought? a totally non partisan regurgitated response

Dem prez and dem gov with outstanding response to a massive transit disaster but this board seems to be quiet on that

It does because it comes across as a hit piece. Once again, you fail to grasp the simplest of points.

 

[NYShoreGuy]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/alito-barrett-supreme-court-ethics-travel/index.html

 

[Merge]

It does because it comes across as a hit piece.

I doubt they find anything as egregious as Thomas, but as they are investigating and something comes up should they not report anything about it because the Justice was appointed by a republican until they have something to report on someone appointed by a democrat?

 

[HALL85]

View embedded media

I doubt they find anything as egregious as Thomas, but as they are investigating and something comes up should they not report anything about it because the Justice was appointed by a republican until they have something to report on someone appointed by a democrat?

Wouldn’t it be more of an objective piece if they investigated all nine and reported after that was completed? It certainly would come across as more credible.

 

[Merge]

Wouldn’t it be more of an objective piece if they investigated all nine and reported after that was completed? It certainly would come across as more credible.

You don't know that they haven't investigated the others. You just assume they haven't because they reported on what they found so far, but no reporter is ever going to write a story on not finding something.

There is no issue what what they have reported so far. They found something and reported on it which is how reporting works.

 

[HALL85]

You don't know that they haven't investigated the others.

You just assume they haven't because they reported on what they found so far, but no reporter is ever going to write a story on not finding something.

Because it removes the suspicion of being a hit piece if you found nothing with the other justices. That’s pretty obvious.

There is no issue what what they have reported so far. They found something and reported on it which is how reporting works.

 

[Merge]

Because it removes the suspicion of being a hit piece if you found nothing with the other justices. That’s pretty obvious.

If there is evidence of liberal justices doing the same and they're not reporting it, I'd imagine conservative outlets are trying to find it and ProPublica risks their reputation by ignoring it.

There is nothing to suggest they aren't looking at all of them at this point.

 

[HALL85]

If there is evidence of liberal justices doing the same and they're not reporting it, I'd imagine conservative outlets are trying to find it and ProPublica risks their reputation by ignoring it.

There is nothing to suggest they aren't looking at all of them at this point.

You keep missing the point. By only reporting on conservative judges, it gives the impression that it's a hit piece because they are not reporting on all of the justices travel.

Is that the way journalism is supposed to work in your view? Conservative outlets research liberals and Liberal outlets only research conservatives? That's the problem with the MSM today...lack of trust and less credibility because of that...aka hit pieces.

 

[Merge]

You keep missing the point. By only reporting on conservative judges, it gives the impression that it's a hit piece because they are not reporting on all of the justices travel.

So they can't report on conservative judges if they don't have any evidence that liberal justices did the same? That just doesn't make sense.

Of course they aren't going to state for a fact that liberal justices haven't just like they haven't stated that the other conservative justices haven't. They can only report on the facts they have, and for now it's good that the information is out there so the public is aware.

Is that the way journalism is supposed to work in your view? Conservative outlets research liberals and Liberal outlets only research conservatives?

Of course not, and there is no evidence to suggest that happened here... But IF it did, they are putting their reputation at risk and conservative media would be ready to expose them for it.

 

[HALL85]

So they can't report on conservative judges if they don't have any evidence that liberal justices did the same? That just doesn't make sense.

They can do whatever they want, but it comes across as a slanted hit piece which is my point (that you continue to ignore).

Of course they aren't going to state for a fact that liberal justices haven't just like they haven't stated that the other conservative justices haven't. They can only report on the facts they have, and for now it's good that the information is out there so the public is aware.

The facts they have chosen to research and report on.

Of course not, and there is no evidence to suggest that happened here... But IF it did, they are putting their reputation at risk and conservative media would be ready to expose them for it.

What reputation? ProPublica is acknowledged to be left leaning.

 

[knowknow456]

One man's hit piece is another man's investigative journalism. The facts are the most important thing.

 

[Merge]

They can do whatever they want, but it comes across as a slanted hit piece which is my point (that you continue to ignore).

You’re just framing this with the assumption that they didn’t investigate anyone else which you have no idea if that’s true or not, and you’ll view anything as a hit piece unless they state that everyone else is innocent of this behavior which no journalist would do.

You think they should have received information against Alito, investigated it, asked him for comments before reporting on it and then contributed to hold it until they also had something to report on a liberal justice. No journalist in history has done that, nor should they. It’s either a story or it’s not and I’m glad this information is out in the public. We only implement proper oversight rules when we understand the risks.

 

[HALL85]

They can do whatever they want, but it comes across as a slanted hit piece which is my point (that you continue to ignore).

The facts they have chosen to research and report on.

What reputation?

You’re just framing this with the assumption that they didn’t investigate anyone else which you have no idea if that’s true or not, and you’ll view anything as a hit piece unless they state that everyone else is innocent of this behavior which no journalist would do.

If they investigated others and found nothing it would have made the stories about Alito and Thomas more compelling.

You think they should have received information against Alito, investigated it, asked him for comments before reporting on it and then contributed to hold it until they also had something to report on a liberal justice.

I never suggested that. Another attempt to deflect the point I made.

No journalist in history has done that, nor should they. It’s either a story or it’s not and I’m glad this information is out in the public. We only implement proper oversight rules when we understand the risks.

 

[SHUSA]

Because it removes the suspicion of being a hit piece if you found nothing with the other justices. That’s pretty obvious.

are republican outlets just sitting on their thumb not trying to do the same? they must be morons then.

or maybe not every justice is a criminal? you seem to wamt to find the hardest solution instead of the easiest

 

[HALL85]

are republican outlets just sitting on their thumb not trying to do the same? they must be morons then.

or maybe not every justice is a criminal? you seem to wamt to find the hardest solution instead of the easiest

Still clueless….

 

[Merge]

If they investigated others and found nothing it would have made the stories about Alito and Thomas more compelling.

That's not how journalism works. You don't cite what you don't have, you write about what you do have. You don't hold stories until you have evidence no one else did the same thing.

I guess the reporters should have just sat on his Harvey Weinstein story until he had evidence about every other studio head first. Such a hit piece that was…

 

[HALL85]

That's not how journalism works. You don't cite what you don't have, you write about what you do have. You don't hold stories until you have evidence no one else did the same thing.

You know how journalism works? lol
They had an angle…they played it.

I guess the reporters should have just sat on his Harvey Weinstein story until he had evidence about every other studio head first. Such a hit piece that was…

That could be the dumbest analogy of all time.

 

[Merge]

You know how journalism works? lol
They had an angle…they played it.

They had a story, they wrote it.
You wanted them to sit on it, which is silly.

 

[HALL85]

They had a story, they wrote it.
You wanted them to sit on it, which is silly.

Keep deflecting and twisting words. I never said that.