Can we also admit that obstruction and lying the the FBI are crimes precisely BECAUSE their intent and effect is to prevent the truth from ever being discovered?? It's utterly amazing how many people on the right side of the aisle have all of a sudden come to the conclusion that lying to authorities in an ongoing criminal investigation is somehow akin to shoplifting a candy bar. I'm sure they'd all take the exact same stance if it was the underlings of an inner-city drug lord engaging in the same tactics to protect their boss.
It's utterly amazing how many people on the right side of the aisle have all of a sudden come to the conclusion that lying to authorities in an ongoing criminal investigation is somehow akin to shoplifting a candy bar.
In the Republican way of doing things, doesn't that mean they get their children taken away?
It's utterly amazing how many people on the right side of the aisle have all of a sudden come to the conclusion that lying to authorities in an ongoing criminal investigation is somehow akin to shoplifting a candy bar.
In the Republican way of doing things, doesn't that mean they get their children taken away?
Based on the severity of the crime, everyone who gets a speeding ticket or jaywalks should have their children immediately removed from their custody and shipped to random detention centers scattered across the country, with no proper documentation to find them. Let's try it and see what happens. I give it about 4 or 5 days before there are riots in the streets.
Also, getting this in before insurance fraud is also declared "no big deal":
I think if you repeatedly break the same type of contracts in the same way--refusing to pay contractors for labor--then it should be obvious beyond any reasonable doubt that each you intended, well in advance, to break every such contract after the first one. At that point, there is no other explanation than that the refusal to pay contractors was an intentional policy; not a string of incredibly precise coincidences.
I think if you repeatedly break the same type of contracts in the same way--refusing to pay contractors for labor--then it should be obvious beyond any reasonable doubt that each you intended, well in advance, to break every such contract after the first one. At that point, there is no other explanation than that the refusal to pay contractors was an intentional policy; not a string of incredibly precise coincidences.
It's pretty well established at this point what Trump would do. He would get contracted work done on his buildings. He would then likely make some bullshit claim it wasn't done to his satisfaction. He would then withhold payment and dare the contractor to take him to court. Since Trump knows he has infinite legal resources to fight the little guy, he knows (in all likelihood) the contractor will settle with him for pennies on the dollar simply because a legal fight with Trump would be even MORE costly. And I honestly ask, what the hell is more offensive in a society that seems to worship hard work and merit more than a guy who not only REFUSES to pay for services he had done, but uses it as a core of his business practice?? If you've ever been stiffed out of a paycheck, you realize how heinous this is.
It has been reported in the media the last week that some of Trump's advisers are saying that his #1 rational for winning reelection at this point is to avoid indictment when he leaves office. That is seeming exceedingly plausible right now. Even Chris Christie has said that the investigations in the SDNY should be sending chills up their backs at the White House.
Tulsi Gabbard is my spirit animal. That's all I have to say for today.
I dunno when this slavish bootlicking in the service of powerful mega media corporations with no moral or factual credibility started, but Tulsi is having none of it unlike the rest of her contemporaries.
Since i'm registered as a democrat still, I know where my vote is going.
Although i've been hearing a lot about Andrew Yang the past couple of days, and I like a lot of what i've heard from him so far. But I don't think he understands the current social climate and it's drawbacks as well as Tulsi.
I can't read the article, since my Washington Post limit is up, but I have to assume the quote about buying guns is from a conservative interviewed for the piece who seems to believe he needs to own guns to ostensibly KILL Democrats if things don't go his way politically. So, of course, it must be the fault of "both sides" that he is prepared to murder his fellow citizens, or the media for not pretending these people don't exist. Got it. For my part, I'm perfectly fine being informed there are people out there who think I shouldn't exist because of my political beliefs.
That's the thing about "witness tampering" - it does not generally cover stuff like contacting a witness and requesting that they not testify, or that they testify a certain way.* It usually means something like making concrete threat or bribes; in some places, it is limited to threats of actual violence.
How the hell is that NOT witness tampering? Witnesses are to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
ANYTHING that would make the witness not testify or testify differently should be, by definition, tampering. With a witness.
So after the Democratic said thanks but no thanks for having Fox host one of their debates, Trump decided to threaten them (and the rest of the country) by not having any televised debates on any network BUT Fox.
I am still in the camp that if he feels like he is going to lose the election, he’ll just cancel the thing and name himself President for 2020 on emergency grounds saying there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it.
The Democrats letting FOX host a debate would be like a gazelle going out of it's way to get as close as possible to a cheetah. If you're gonna commit suicide, try pills, it's easier. FOX, in this day and age, hosting a Democratic debate. Get the f**k out of here with that nonsense. It's full-fledged State TV. The former head of the network is Trump's communications director. FOX and the White House aren't even distinguishable. They have a 100% symbiotic relationship. And we didn't need Jane Mayer's piece 2 days ago to prove it, but it's a nice break-down all the same.
The new yorker just did a piece exposing the incestuous relationship between trump and fox and a bunch of fox entertainment news personalities including Bill Shine are in the White House.
Fox News IS fake news. The fakest. Tremendously fake.
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
At least there are two real Americans in government, Ilhan Omar and Tulsi Gabbard. While Trump is the side show, these two Heros are going after the real beasts. Too bad they will probably be made to bend the knee or lose their jobs due to inadequate campaign contributions.
Yeah FOX is such a terrible network in comparison to all the other shameless propagandists, they may do something terrible like leak debate questions to a favored candidate, something no Serious Liberal News Network would ever do, heaven forbid. And if they did it wouldn't hurt their credibility any.
In other news, Andrew Yang has a really good take on the whole issue of college and student loans. He seems to have practical ways to cut costs while also acknowledging 4 year college degrees shouldn't be the End All Be All of perceived social success.
It seems likely at this point he's going to end up on the debate stage and I sincerely hope they give him time to articulate his views because he is very good on many things.
I think Tulsi is principled, rather than partisan. She believes what she believes regardless of how others around her including her political allies are going to take it, that much seems obvious. That strength of character is something I respect, for one. I also happen to agree with her views on foreign policy, and her skepticism of powerful institutions. One thing I can't abide though is that she once defended the U.S torture practices, I know she had a change of heart on her previous views on these things in general and discussed it at length, but i'd just like to affirm that she disavows this because that's a dealbreaker to me.
@WarChiefZeke Someone posted a couple studies earlier in this thread, where the accuracy of different news outlets was ranked. Fox News was the absolute worst of the bunch, going beyond bias and peddling staright up misinformation. A lot of the other nationwide networks were a lot closer togather, being somewhat comparable, but they all did worse than local news stations, with printed journalism being the most accurate.
There was literally evidence presented in the New Yorker less than 3 days ago that Roger Ailes personally informed Trump about what Megan Kelly was going to ask him at one of the debates.
And yes, there is a VAST difference. FOX News was formed explicitly, from it's inception, to be GOP TV. You don't have to take my word for it. Roger Ailes (when he was alive) would have told you the exact same thing. More than anything, it was formed to have a propoganda arm in place to avoid another Watergate. Mission accomplished. Lamenting our poisoned political culture and not leading off with AM radio and FOX News is like talking about the Black Death without mentioning rats.
There was literally evidence presented in the New Yorker less than 3 days ago that Roger Ailes personally informed Trump about what Megan Kelly was going to ask him at one of the debates.
And yes, there is a VAST difference. FOX News was formed explicitly, from it's inception, to be GOP TV. You don't have to take my word for it. Roger Ailes (when he was alive) would have told you the exact same thing. More than anything, it was formed to have a propoganda arm in place to avoid another Watergate. Mission accomplished. Lamenting our poisoned political culture and not leading off with AM radio and FOX News is like talking about the Black Death without mentioning rats.
"Fox, however, may have given Trump a little help. A pair of Fox insiders and a source close to Trump believe that Ailes informed the Trump campaign about Kelly’s question. Two of those sources say that they know of the tipoff from a purported eyewitness. In addition, a former Trump campaign aide says that a Fox contact gave him advance notice of a different debate question, which asked the candidates whether they would support the Republican nominee, regardless of who won. The former aide says that the heads-up was passed on to Trump, who was the only candidate who said that he wouldn’t automatically support the Party’s nominee—a position that burnished his image as an outsider.
These claims are hard to evaluate: Ailes is dead, and they conflict with substantial reporting suggesting that the rift between Trump and Fox was bitter. A former campaign aide is adamant that Trump was genuinely surprised and infuriated by Kelly’s question. A Fox spokesperson strongly denied the allegations, and declined requests for interviews with employees involved in the debate."
According to unnamed sources with no proof yet again, my eyes are rolling into the back of my head. We have the literal emails for Brazille. But we can always trust the Totally Objective Media to level the playing field with unevidenced accusations from unnamed sources...again.
Let them come forward in person and make the accusation, and provide proof or this supposed eyewitness if they can, so we can evaluate the truth of the claim, otherwise, they have about as much credibility as my personal blog.
And people wonder why I constantly state the news has an agenda.
There was literally evidence presented in the New Yorker less than 3 days ago that Roger Ailes personally informed Trump about what Megan Kelly was going to ask him at one of the debates.
And yes, there is a VAST difference. FOX News was formed explicitly, from it's inception, to be GOP TV. You don't have to take my word for it. Roger Ailes (when he was alive) would have told you the exact same thing. More than anything, it was formed to have a propoganda arm in place to avoid another Watergate. Mission accomplished. Lamenting our poisoned political culture and not leading off with AM radio and FOX News is like talking about the Black Death without mentioning rats.
"Fox, however, may have given Trump a little help. A pair of Fox insiders and a source close to Trump believe that Ailes informed the Trump campaign about Kelly’s question. Two of those sources say that they know of the tipoff from a purported eyewitness. In addition, a former Trump campaign aide says that a Fox contact gave him advance notice of a different debate question, which asked the candidates whether they would support the Republican nominee, regardless of who won. The former aide says that the heads-up was passed on to Trump, who was the only candidate who said that he wouldn’t automatically support the Party’s nominee—a position that burnished his image as an outsider.
These claims are hard to evaluate: Ailes is dead, and they conflict with substantial reporting suggesting that the rift between Trump and Fox was bitter. A former campaign aide is adamant that Trump was genuinely surprised and infuriated by Kelly’s question. A Fox spokesperson strongly denied the allegations, and declined requests for interviews with employees involved in the debate."
According to unnamed sources with no proof yet again, my eyes are rolling into the back of my head. We have the literal emails for Brazille. But we can always trust the Totally Objective Media to level the playing field with unevidenced accusations from unnamed sources...again.
Let them come forward in person and make the accusation, and provide proof or this supposed eyewitness if they can, so we can evaluate the truth of the claim, otherwise, they have about as much credibility as my personal blog.
And people wonder why I constantly state the news has an agenda.
Yeah, hell, if a fact-check site like Snopes decides they agree with your take (which they probably will), maybe you can even quote one of them two days in a row despite their inherent, pervasive liberal bias.
I also don't know where the hell anyone gets the idea that CNN is some kind of liberal oasis. It's horrible. Have you seen how many right-wing pundits they have on panels?? They just hired Jeff Session's former aide to not just be a pundit, but COORDINATE their 2020 political coverage.
There was literally evidence presented in the New Yorker less than 3 days ago that Roger Ailes personally informed Trump about what Megan Kelly was going to ask him at one of the debates.
And yes, there is a VAST difference. FOX News was formed explicitly, from it's inception, to be GOP TV. You don't have to take my word for it. Roger Ailes (when he was alive) would have told you the exact same thing. More than anything, it was formed to have a propoganda arm in place to avoid another Watergate. Mission accomplished. Lamenting our poisoned political culture and not leading off with AM radio and FOX News is like talking about the Black Death without mentioning rats.
"Fox, however, may have given Trump a little help. A pair of Fox insiders and a source close to Trump believe that Ailes informed the Trump campaign about Kelly’s question. Two of those sources say that they know of the tipoff from a purported eyewitness. In addition, a former Trump campaign aide says that a Fox contact gave him advance notice of a different debate question, which asked the candidates whether they would support the Republican nominee, regardless of who won. The former aide says that the heads-up was passed on to Trump, who was the only candidate who said that he wouldn’t automatically support the Party’s nominee—a position that burnished his image as an outsider.
These claims are hard to evaluate: Ailes is dead, and they conflict with substantial reporting suggesting that the rift between Trump and Fox was bitter. A former campaign aide is adamant that Trump was genuinely surprised and infuriated by Kelly’s question. A Fox spokesperson strongly denied the allegations, and declined requests for interviews with employees involved in the debate."
According to unnamed sources with no proof yet again, my eyes are rolling into the back of my head. We have the literal emails for Brazille. But we can always trust the Totally Objective Media to level the playing field with unevidenced accusations from unnamed sources...again.
Let them come forward in person and make the accusation, and provide proof or this supposed eyewitness if they can, so we can evaluate the truth of the claim, otherwise, they have about as much credibility as my personal blog.
And people wonder why I constantly state the news has an agenda.
@WarChiefZeke do you really think the media should only ever report if they use publicly named sources? That would be a big shift in the way journalism has traditionally been done. The chance of getting a Fox employee publicly to contradict both their employer and the US President seems limited - I can't really see that happening until someone is ready to leave their job and retire to write their memoirs ...
As for the news having an agenda, of course that's true - and that was pretty inevitable once the requirement to observe political balance was abolished. However, there's a big difference between choosing stories which suit your agenda (which I agree happens) and reporting known untruths. I asked you a while ago whether you could point to any stories run by the liberal media even a short time after they were known to be untrue. Are you able to do that? On the other side is anyone able to meet that test for Fox News? Given the research that @ThacoBell referred to, I suspect that would be an easier challenge .
What else: tornadoes in a red state kill 23, Trump orders "A-plus" relief service from FEMA. Wildfires in a blue state kill twice as many people, Trump castigates people for not raking their forests. (??)
This is thr kind of rinky-dink banana-republic BS the GOP stands for: the political opposition = enemy of the state, to be singled out for second-class treatment if not outright persecution.
It's pathetic. I tell you, the GOP is dead. Short-term opportunists aren't worried about the lasting black mark these four (?) years will leave on the party. Sensible Republicans should jump ship and start something new. If they really believe moderate Republican policy positions reflect the views of the average American, then a new party that seizes the political center should be a success. It will take time, of course; it would mean Democrats in power for ~12 years. But the Dems are going to be in power for 8 years anyway, so it's not that big a difference. And the current GOP advantages in the Senate, in drawn House districts, and in the judiciary can easily hold liberal fever dreams in check.
This is the time to do it. If the party follows Trump down the drain, it will be so much worse...
It is so blantantly obvious Trump views people who didn't vote for him as unimportant or deficient as Americans. Why would you ever need to tell FEMA to give A+ treatment to a specifc state?? Obviously EVERY disaster should receive A+ treatment. Instead he totally abandoned Puerto Rico in favor of more money to Texas, and started castigating California about forest management, despite the fires having NOTHING to do with forest management and being on federal land. And he threatened to pull disaster funding while I was PERSONALLY, at my job, trying to help people who had had their entire town burn down. If you want to know why liberals have so-called "Trump derangement syndrome", I'd advise you to start with the fact that if you didn't vote for him he views you (and frankly, entire STATES) as the enemy. I've never seen anything remotely like it.
The entire fulcrum of the Trump Presidency has, does, and will always turn on very little else but a policy of being as vindictive as possible to liberals. The modern conservative movement views liberal tears in the same way as Elizabeth Bathory viewed virgin blood.
Nixon hid his enemies list. This follows the pattern of everything else we know about this Administration. None of their corruption or abuse of power is ever even bothered to be covered up or done in secret. The message is "yeah, we are giving out ambassadorships as part of the price of a Mar-a-lago membership, and we are absolutely going to target journalists at the border. Who is going to stop us??". The brazeness is part of the danger. If they felt any shame whatsoever, these people would at least cover their tracks. But that isn't ever the case. They fully expect everyone to just put up with it and take it for absolute granted no matter what is revealed, they will never, ever be held accountable. Are they right?? Signs point toward yes at this point. This country isn't really capable of dealing this.
There was literally evidence presented in the New Yorker less than 3 days ago that Roger Ailes personally informed Trump about what Megan Kelly was going to ask him at one of the debates.
And yes, there is a VAST difference. FOX News was formed explicitly, from it's inception, to be GOP TV. You don't have to take my word for it. Roger Ailes (when he was alive) would have told you the exact same thing. More than anything, it was formed to have a propoganda arm in place to avoid another Watergate. Mission accomplished. Lamenting our poisoned political culture and not leading off with AM radio and FOX News is like talking about the Black Death without mentioning rats.
"Fox, however, may have given Trump a little help. A pair of Fox insiders and a source close to Trump believe that Ailes informed the Trump campaign about Kelly’s question. Two of those sources say that they know of the tipoff from a purported eyewitness. In addition, a former Trump campaign aide says that a Fox contact gave him advance notice of a different debate question, which asked the candidates whether they would support the Republican nominee, regardless of who won. The former aide says that the heads-up was passed on to Trump, who was the only candidate who said that he wouldn’t automatically support the Party’s nominee—a position that burnished his image as an outsider.
These claims are hard to evaluate: Ailes is dead, and they conflict with substantial reporting suggesting that the rift between Trump and Fox was bitter. A former campaign aide is adamant that Trump was genuinely surprised and infuriated by Kelly’s question. A Fox spokesperson strongly denied the allegations, and declined requests for interviews with employees involved in the debate."
According to unnamed sources with no proof yet again, my eyes are rolling into the back of my head. We have the literal emails for Brazille. But we can always trust the Totally Objective Media to level the playing field with unevidenced accusations from unnamed sources...again.
Let them come forward in person and make the accusation, and provide proof or this supposed eyewitness if they can, so we can evaluate the truth of the claim, otherwise, they have about as much credibility as my personal blog.
And people wonder why I constantly state the news has an agenda.
Imagine if this standard was practiced during Watergate.
And how do we have the literal emails of Brazille? Oh that's right they were obtained illegally and made public by a foreign government.
I think if news agencies went out of their way to break the law to obtain stories, their ethics would be much more shot than using unnamed sources, which is done to protect those people from retribution.
Comments
In the Republican way of doing things, doesn't that mean they get their children taken away?
Based on the severity of the crime, everyone who gets a speeding ticket or jaywalks should have their children immediately removed from their custody and shipped to random detention centers scattered across the country, with no proper documentation to find them. Let's try it and see what happens. I give it about 4 or 5 days before there are riots in the streets.
Also, getting this in before insurance fraud is also declared "no big deal":
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/ny-regulators-probing-trump-organization-s-insurance-practices-n979751
It's pretty well established at this point what Trump would do. He would get contracted work done on his buildings. He would then likely make some bullshit claim it wasn't done to his satisfaction. He would then withhold payment and dare the contractor to take him to court. Since Trump knows he has infinite legal resources to fight the little guy, he knows (in all likelihood) the contractor will settle with him for pennies on the dollar simply because a legal fight with Trump would be even MORE costly. And I honestly ask, what the hell is more offensive in a society that seems to worship hard work and merit more than a guy who not only REFUSES to pay for services he had done, but uses it as a core of his business practice?? If you've ever been stiffed out of a paycheck, you realize how heinous this is.
It has been reported in the media the last week that some of Trump's advisers are saying that his #1 rational for winning reelection at this point is to avoid indictment when he leaves office. That is seeming exceedingly plausible right now. Even Chris Christie has said that the investigations in the SDNY should be sending chills up their backs at the White House.
I dunno when this slavish bootlicking in the service of powerful mega media corporations with no moral or factual credibility started, but Tulsi is having none of it unlike the rest of her contemporaries.
Since i'm registered as a democrat still, I know where my vote is going.
Although i've been hearing a lot about Andrew Yang the past couple of days, and I like a lot of what i've heard from him so far. But I don't think he understands the current social climate and it's drawbacks as well as Tulsi.
By Katia Dmitrieva
6 March 2019, 15:30 EET
Updated on 6 March 2019, 17:27 EET
Goods deficits with China, Mexico, EU widen to records
Trump has said big deficit is sign of poor trade policies
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-06/u-s-trade-gap-surged-to-621-billion-in-2018-highest-in-decade
I wonder if trump voters are tired of winning.
The depths this goes to are bottomless. The President's current lawyer trying to get his former lawyer to continue to lie for him.
I have a distinct feeling @subtledoctor is involved in some way in the legal system. Would love a comment on this.
How the hell is that NOT witness tampering? Witnesses are to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
ANYTHING that would make the witness not testify or testify differently should be, by definition, tampering. With a witness.
I am still in the camp that if he feels like he is going to lose the election, he’ll just cancel the thing and name himself President for 2020 on emergency grounds saying there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it.
Fox News IS fake news. The fakest. Tremendously fake.
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
At least there are two real Americans in government, Ilhan Omar and Tulsi Gabbard. While Trump is the side show, these two Heros are going after the real beasts. Too bad they will probably be made to bend the knee or lose their jobs due to inadequate campaign contributions.
It seems likely at this point he's going to end up on the debate stage and I sincerely hope they give him time to articulate his views because he is very good on many things.
And yes, there is a VAST difference. FOX News was formed explicitly, from it's inception, to be GOP TV. You don't have to take my word for it. Roger Ailes (when he was alive) would have told you the exact same thing. More than anything, it was formed to have a propoganda arm in place to avoid another Watergate. Mission accomplished. Lamenting our poisoned political culture and not leading off with AM radio and FOX News is like talking about the Black Death without mentioning rats.
"Fox, however, may have given Trump a little help. A pair of Fox insiders and a source close to Trump believe that Ailes informed the Trump campaign about Kelly’s question. Two of those sources say that they know of the tipoff from a purported eyewitness. In addition, a former Trump campaign aide says that a Fox contact gave him advance notice of a different debate question, which asked the candidates whether they would support the Republican nominee, regardless of who won. The former aide says that the heads-up was passed on to Trump, who was the only candidate who said that he wouldn’t automatically support the Party’s nominee—a position that burnished his image as an outsider.
These claims are hard to evaluate: Ailes is dead, and they conflict with substantial reporting suggesting that the rift between Trump and Fox was bitter. A former campaign aide is adamant that Trump was genuinely surprised and infuriated by Kelly’s question. A Fox spokesperson strongly denied the allegations, and declined requests for interviews with employees involved in the debate."
According to unnamed sources with no proof yet again, my eyes are rolling into the back of my head. We have the literal emails for Brazille. But we can always trust the Totally Objective Media to level the playing field with unevidenced accusations from unnamed sources...again.
Let them come forward in person and make the accusation, and provide proof or this supposed eyewitness if they can, so we can evaluate the truth of the claim, otherwise, they have about as much credibility as my personal blog.
And people wonder why I constantly state the news has an agenda.
Yeah, hell, if a fact-check site like Snopes decides they agree with your take (which they probably will), maybe you can even quote one of them two days in a row despite their inherent, pervasive liberal bias.
I also don't know where the hell anyone gets the idea that CNN is some kind of liberal oasis. It's horrible. Have you seen how many right-wing pundits they have on panels?? They just hired Jeff Session's former aide to not just be a pundit, but COORDINATE their 2020 political coverage.
@WarChiefZeke do you really think the media should only ever report if they use publicly named sources? That would be a big shift in the way journalism has traditionally been done. The chance of getting a Fox employee publicly to contradict both their employer and the US President seems limited - I can't really see that happening until someone is ready to leave their job and retire to write their memoirs ...
As for the news having an agenda, of course that's true - and that was pretty inevitable once the requirement to observe political balance was abolished. However, there's a big difference between choosing stories which suit your agenda (which I agree happens) and reporting known untruths. I asked you a while ago whether you could point to any stories run by the liberal media even a short time after they were known to be untrue. Are you able to do that? On the other side is anyone able to meet that test for Fox News? Given the research that @ThacoBell referred to, I suspect that would be an easier challenge
It is so blantantly obvious Trump views people who didn't vote for him as unimportant or deficient as Americans. Why would you ever need to tell FEMA to give A+ treatment to a specifc state?? Obviously EVERY disaster should receive A+ treatment. Instead he totally abandoned Puerto Rico in favor of more money to Texas, and started castigating California about forest management, despite the fires having NOTHING to do with forest management and being on federal land. And he threatened to pull disaster funding while I was PERSONALLY, at my job, trying to help people who had had their entire town burn down. If you want to know why liberals have so-called "Trump derangement syndrome", I'd advise you to start with the fact that if you didn't vote for him he views you (and frankly, entire STATES) as the enemy. I've never seen anything remotely like it.
The entire fulcrum of the Trump Presidency has, does, and will always turn on very little else but a policy of being as vindictive as possible to liberals. The modern conservative movement views liberal tears in the same way as Elizabeth Bathory viewed virgin blood.
Imagine if this standard was practiced during Watergate.
And how do we have the literal emails of Brazille? Oh that's right they were obtained illegally and made public by a foreign government.
I think if news agencies went out of their way to break the law to obtain stories, their ethics would be much more shot than using unnamed sources, which is done to protect those people from retribution.