(04-29-2013 05:32 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  The other day rep. Gowdy Jr. said that there will be more hearings and that they could well contain explosive revelations.

This story piggybacks on that note. In an interview with WMAL, a former U.S. Attorney alleged that the State Department is actively blocking lawyers from representing the Benghazi whistleblowers by denying them access to classified information, something they must have at a minimum to be able to discuss the case with their clients.

Watch the video at the link.

http://www.therightscoop.com/report-state-dept-blocking-lawyers-from-representing-benghazi-whistleblowers/

For a situation that our resident libs claim is no big deal (so what if 4 died), the State Department is working awfully hard to try and keep the whistleblowers from talking.

The former U.S. Attorney says it would not be a surprise if this ended up in a Constitutional showdown, which the administration will lose.

Pass the popcorn. This could get very interesting.

(04-29-2013 06:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  The public isn't losing sleep on Benghazi. The GOP is throwing precious political resources at something only its base cares about.

(04-29-2013 06:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  The public isn't losing sleep on Benghazi. The GOP is throwing precious political resources at something only its base cares about.

(04-29-2013 06:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  The public isn't losing sleep on Benghazi. The GOP is throwing precious political resources at something only its base cares about.

(04-29-2013 06:55 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 06:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  The public isn't losing sleep on Benghazi. The GOP is throwing precious political resources at something only its base cares about.

Because the press did a fantastic job of paying very little attention to it, including abetting Obama as he lied in a nationally televised debate about it.

The State Department is stonewalling the investigation. If it's not big deal, why block efforts to investigate it?

(04-29-2013 07:22 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 06:55 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 06:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  The public isn't losing sleep on Benghazi. The GOP is throwing precious political resources at something only its base cares about.

Because the press did a fantastic job of paying very little attention to it, including abetting Obama as he lied in a nationally televised debate about it.

The State Department is stonewalling the investigation. If it's not big deal, why block efforts to investigate it?

It had its time on the front page and it would remain on the front page if people kept clicking links to articles about it. The news cycle moved on.

(04-29-2013 07:24 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 07:22 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 06:55 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 06:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  The public isn't losing sleep on Benghazi. The GOP is throwing precious political resources at something only its base cares about.

Because the press did a fantastic job of paying very little attention to it, including abetting Obama as he lied in a nationally televised debate about it.

The State Department is stonewalling the investigation. If it's not big deal, why block efforts to investigate it?

It had its time on the front page and it would remain on the front page if people kept clicking links to articles about it. The news cycle moved on.

So the news cycle is now what dictates what should and should not be investigated by Congress?

(04-29-2013 07:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Media is partly a business and partly an effort to shape public opinion. Fox has proved that offering a different point of view from everyone else can be profitable. Otherwise, news competition is basically trying to find a more attention-getting way to tell the same story from the same point of view. There's not enough diversity of viewpoints among news writers, editors, and broadcasters to judge whether a story which doesn't fit their prejudices is in fact newsworthy. "A story which paints Obama in a bad light is not newsworthy because nobody wants to see Obama painted in a bad light," is how they think--and it's groupthink.

If media really were dominated by the profit motive, you'd see more diversity of opinion in attempts to carve out market niches.

(04-29-2013 07:54 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 07:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Media is partly a business and partly an effort to shape public opinion. Fox has proved that offering a different point of view from everyone else can be profitable. Otherwise, news competition is basically trying to find a more attention-getting way to tell the same story from the same point of view. There's not enough diversity of viewpoints among news writers, editors, and broadcasters to judge whether a story which doesn't fit their prejudices is in fact newsworthy. "A story which paints Obama in a bad light is not newsworthy because nobody wants to see Obama painted in a bad light," is how they think--and it's groupthink.
If media really were dominated by the profit motive, you'd see more diversity of opinion in attempts to carve out market niches.

As much as we hear about the death of newspapers, do you think they'd pass on a story if it sold more papers?

Quote:Because the press did a fantastic job of paying very little attention to it, including abetting Obama as he lied in a nationally televised debate about it.