Even The Wolf likely can't clean up Harvey Weinstein's pending troubles

Note also the line I had added to the post above yours - "Sometimes they have very accurate intelligence but are unable to confirm it, or the reliability of the source is low, and true or not it cannot be verified."

 

Seems like analysis that lands in the "grey zone" - not being able to verify, not being able to disprove. Which means it wouldn't hold up to most journalistic standards. Which is why Buzzfeed was fine with it.

 

I don't remember. I just vaguely remembered someone saying that they should have put higher that the information came from Cernovich.

 

Oh for goodness sakes of course he is.

 

Wow.

That's pretty bad.

@old_tony?

 

Has the woman in the lead had breast augmentation? Because, if so, all bets are off.

 

CBS has fired Rose.

 

I had thrown these tweets up in the Trump thread.

 

Ah, it was Charles P. Pierce!

Totally slipped my mind.

Thx.

 

FYI, what you quoted wasn't some sort of verbatim FBI/DOJ response to Congress, but Byron York quoting his own story from the Washington Examiner. The same Byron York who is the author of "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy."

Accepting that the FBI and DOJ were unable to to verify or corroborate the dossier's "substantive allegations" also means accepting York's judgment as to what constitutes "substantive."

From what I've read, the consensus of serious-minded folks is that the FBI has independently verified some of the dossier, but not all of it. I'm not aware that they've even tried hard to verify all of it; it's not their job to chase down every claim, but only those they consider important enough to expend resources.

So for York to state in his tweet that the dossier "doesn't check out" is, at best, a partial truth. Some of it has checked out; some of it hasn't. Just like when Trump repeatedly states that the dossier has been "discredited" it is, at best, a partial truth. It would also be misleading to state plainly that the dossier has been verified or checks out, since it only does in part.

Within the story you linked, York says this:

"The news appears to contradict recent statements from some top Democrats. 'A lot of it has turned out to be true,' Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence panel, told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday."

However the "news" that York refers to is four paragraphs of his own analysis, and it doesn't, in fact, directly contradict Schiff's statement that "A lot of it has turned out to be true." At most, York should be quibbling with Schiff's definition of "A lot," which would be fair enough as far as it goes. But of course he goes much further in his Tweet, stating plainly that the dossier "doesn't check out," period. And now you have cited his story as some sort of unbiased presentation of "the FBI & DOJ response to Congress," which it is not.

 

I didn't work at a big firm and likely never will, so I can't speak from first-hand experience. But my understanding is that sexual harassment is as much a part of the culture in large law firms as it is in any industry where you have powerful men with inflated egos running things and a steady supply of attractive 20-something women trying to break in.

My sister walked away from a Vault 100 firm with an extremely large severance package after she filed a sexual harassment complaint against her managing partner of four years. HR didn't do anything with it, and six months later she was one of many associates being laid off when the firm needed to downsize quickly. The result was a textbook retaliation claim for her, and she was able to use it to negotiate much more favorable terms for her departure. But it never should have happened in the first place.

 

It’s possible. I’m curious to ask my former female colleagues.