AMD releases its new chip for data centers and says Google and Twitter are customers. Yahoo Finance's Akiko Fujita and Dan Howley discuss.
Planck: This article is not bad if one is looking for a recitation of the House Democratic talking points, and the material they believe supports their accusations. This cannot be what they teach in journalism school, it used to be something people studied. Then again, if journalism schools teach how to skew stories in favor of the Democratic Party's agenda, it would explain a lot -- it would explain why the Media has consistently distorted this entire impeachment attack. In the article, one paragraph is devoted entirely to repeating the Democratic accusations as if they were fact. Located near the very beginning, it starts with "The inquiry is centered on the president’s efforts ..." and goes on to describe as if the claims were truth, asserting exactly what Schiff and Pelosi put forth, but can't prove. This is not bad journalism, it is not journalism at all -- it is becoming seamlessly a part of the Democratic political apparatus. The author here, David Knowles, admits to this assimilation insofar as the entire article clearly states its purpose: It is an attempt to undermine the responses to the Democratic attacks. Good defense requires a good offense -- so here Knowles is assaulting the rebuttals. Perhaps the largest defect in the Democratic case is its lack of evidence. As a substitute, they cite speculation based on hearsay -- second and third-hand accounts of conversations people who were not in a decision making capacity, had or things they may have said. So Knowles asserts that the recent Holmes testimony (the low level staffer) has hurt that assertion. Why? Because he eavesdropped on a phone call another guy, who had testified (Sondland) where he claims to have heard the President ask about "investigations". Beyond being embarrassing that the Democrats are stooping so low as to have to rely on an eavesdropped phone call, it does not provide any real information -- Sondland, the guy actually on the phone call, had already testified about what Trump said. We also already knew he was interested in "investigations". Also, Sondland had testified that Trump said "I want no quid pro quo from Ukraine." No mention of that here. Even in the section with the heading "No Quid Pro Quo" -- how's that Davie for a flat D minus in Journalism 101? So even though the eavesdropping is suspect in itself, even if you believe he did not aggrandize his importance (a very big "if"), it tells us nothing new. It just shows desperation on the part of the Democrats (and Knowles as their, well, lackey). The article goes a long way to try and bolster the Democrats failing case, and now testimony has ended, it is all they've got. This is the extent of their evidence and it has badly come up short. Knowles' warping of the truth is easy to see, but going point-by-point is likely not worth even the minimal effort it would take cure the rather primitive falsifications. One crudity that stands out is the mangling of Fiona Hill's testimony. She was innocuous, did not hurt or help either side. She did make one very important and memorable statement: “These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes." Even though she directed that toward her utterly misinformed understanding of the accusations leveled against individual Ukrainians and Russian security services and whether they tried to influence U.S. elections, it is certainly the most accurate description now in the record describing this entire proceeding. The fictions purveyed by Schiff and cohorts are doing harm, and while they never rise above petty partisan politics in substance, they do rise to the level of harm in degrading the Congress and the Constitution. Pelosi, also inadvertently stumbled into an appropriate description: This impeachment assault is a "sad tragedy”.