Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.
Your giving her too much credit with journalist
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
For example: Challenging Clinton with tough questions? But how? She wasn't talking directly to the press for over 9 months! And you, and the rest of the clintonites, we're in full support. Some Of you would label it at smart! Remember? She's still not doing it- unless it's for a quick comment about her debate performance.
Neither is Trump. It's politics.
What makes it worse for Trump is that he was yammering on and on about how many days Clinton avoided press conferences....now he has shut them down.
Post edited by Gern Blansten on
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.
Your giving her too much credit with journalist
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
For example: Challenging Clinton with tough questions? But how? She wasn't talking directly to the press for over 9 months! And you, and the rest of the clintonites, we're in full support. Some Of you would label it at smart! Remember? She's still not doing it- unless it's for a quick comment about her debate performance.
Neither is Trump. It's politics.
Is that your response? Point the finger at Trump? How about take some accountability, like the rest of us, for your actions?
Time to put on your Big boy pants. Stop with the excuses and own up to it. You said it was good strategy and that she doesn't need to talk to the press. Look at all the shit that's being dropped- she could have cleared the record a long time ago, but instead she let it all come down on her hard! And the crazy shit is that you just called it bullshit a few seconds ago. Now it's back to pointing figures at Trump. Wow.
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.
Your giving her too much credit with journalist
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
For example: Challenging Clinton with tough questions? But how? She wasn't talking directly to the press for over 9 months! And you, and the rest of the clintonites, we're in full support. Some Of you would label it at smart! Remember? She's still not doing it- unless it's for a quick comment about her debate performance.
Neither is Trump. It's politics.
What makes it worse for Trump is that he was yammering on and on about how many days Clinton avoided press conferences....now he has shut them down.
WHAT ABOUT SEAN HANNITY? Has anyone called Sean Hannity and asked him?
Oh yeah, he was on O'Reilly last night. They KILLED it.
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.
Your giving her too much credit with journalist
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
For example: Challenging Clinton with tough questions? But how? She wasn't talking directly to the press for over 9 months! And you, and the rest of the clintonites, we're in full support. Some Of you would label it at smart! Remember? She's still not doing it- unless it's for a quick comment about her debate performance.
Neither is Trump. It's politics.
Is that your response? Point the finger at Trump? How about take some accountability, like the rest of us, for your actions?
Time to put on your Big boy pants. Stop with the excuses and own up to it. You said it was good strategy and that she doesn't need to talk to the press. Look at all the shit that's being dropped- she could have cleared the record a long time ago, but instead she let it all come down on her hard! And the crazy shit is that you just called it bullshit a few seconds ago. Now it's back to pointing figures at Trump. Wow.
In your bubble it's "coming down on her hard"....in mine it's not. In mine it isn't an issue at all.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.
Your giving her too much credit with journalist
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
For example: Challenging Clinton with tough questions? But how? She wasn't talking directly to the press for over 9 months! And you, and the rest of the clintonites, we're in full support. Some Of you would label it at smart! Remember? She's still not doing it- unless it's for a quick comment about her debate performance.
Neither is Trump. It's politics.
What makes it worse for Trump is that he was yammering on and on about how many days Clinton avoided press conferences....now he has shut them down.
WHAT ABOUT SEAN HANNITY? Has anyone called Sean Hannity and asked him?
Oh yeah, he was on O'Reilly last night. They KILLED it.
You mean Trump's homie? The guy that knows the truth about Trump's claim that he wasn't for the war? Or am I getting him and the other clown Beck confused... These guys all look alike and act alike- hard to remember.
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.
Your giving her too much credit with journalist
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
if they want to have an editorial comment or a Jerry Springer-like "final thought", fine, but to pepper your commentary with adjectives that can sway the opinion of your viewers one way or the other is not good reporting practices, in my opinion.
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.
Your giving her too much credit with journalist
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
For example: Challenging Clinton with tough questions? But how? She wasn't talking directly to the press for over 9 months! And you, and the rest of the clintonites, we're in full support. Some Of you would label it at smart! Remember? She's still not doing it- unless it's for a quick comment about her debate performance.
Neither is Trump. It's politics.
What makes it worse for Trump is that he was yammering on and on about how many days Clinton avoided press conferences....now he has shut them down.
WHAT ABOUT SEAN HANNITY? Has anyone called Sean Hannity and asked him?
Oh yeah, he was on O'Reilly last night. They KILLED it.
You mean Trump's homie? The guy that knows the truth about Trump's claim that he wasn't for the war? Or am I getting him and the other clown Beck confused... These guys all look alike and act alike- hard to remember.
Yes, he is that clown.... the ultimate hack.
Hey - you asked a question about West's comments above. I answered but would love to hear your response. I'm not looking for a row, rather a real conversation about his comments.
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.
Your giving her too much credit with journalist
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
Interesting point about media being shut out by politicians. Lets summarize.
Legislators shut out competition, 3rd parties outsiders, opposing views Legislators shut out voters, closed primaries, strict state to state voting laws, gerrymandering Legislators shut out the press
Clinton: “The situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air…I, when I was secretary of state, I advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones.”
Hillary has supported no-fly zones from Day 1 despite the fact that–by her own admission– the policy would result in massive civilian casualties. See podesta emails! Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford. “Right now… for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia.”
“I do support the effort to investigate for crimes, war crimes committed by the Syrians and the Russians and try to hold them accountable.”
Putin and Assad are trying to reestablish the central governments control over the country to establish security. What Hillary is proposing is that the Syrian and Russians (who were invited by Assad) be prosecuted for fulfilling the sworn duty of every elected leader while –at the same time– the countries (like the US) that have (by their own admission) armed, trained and financed foreign invaders that have torn the country to shreds and killed more than 400,000 civilians, be let off Scott-free.
Clinton: “The situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air…I, when I was secretary of state, I advocated and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones.”
Hillary has supported no-fly zones from Day 1 despite the fact that–by her own admission– the policy would result in massive civilian casualties. See podesta emails! Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford. “Right now… for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia.”
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.
Your giving her too much credit with journalist
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
For example: Challenging Clinton with tough questions? But how? She wasn't talking directly to the press for over 9 months! And you, and the rest of the clintonites, we're in full support. Some Of you would label it at smart! Remember? She's still not doing it- unless it's for a quick comment about her debate performance.
Neither is Trump. It's politics.
What makes it worse for Trump is that he was yammering on and on about how many days Clinton avoided press conferences....now he has shut them down.
WHAT ABOUT SEAN HANNITY? Has anyone called Sean Hannity and asked him?
Oh yeah, he was on O'Reilly last night. They KILLED it.
You mean Trump's homie? The guy that knows the truth about Trump's claim that he wasn't for the war? Or am I getting him and the other clown Beck confused... These guys all look alike and act alike- hard to remember.
Yes, he is that clown.... the ultimate hack.
Hey - you asked a question about West's comments above. I answered but would love to hear your response. I'm not looking for a row, rather a real conversation about his comments.
I would really like to hear your thoughts on the email leaks thread. If you have some time join the convo. There's some good laughs and serious shit going down over there.
As far as brother West's message- I can't really give a solid opinion on it which was why I asked for thoughts on it. Also, I wanted to see the responses by other genuine progressives- Do we share the same sentiment? I trust West and believe him to be an honest human being with good intentions. I've heard him debate issues, I've heard several of his speeches, and I've seen him speak several times on shows. My judgement tells me he's a good guy. But I don't know enough about some of his statements to get into a serious convo regarding them. I have my biased opinion on issues like Honduras where I perceive it's more of the US meddling with foreign affairs in order to get an advantage. We've seen it happen throughout history. When he stated possibly going to war with Russia I could totally see that. Clinton is a war hawk and her aggressive talk about Russia is alarming- she made an aggressive comment during the last debate. The media spinning the news in her favor will make things look like a legit threat. His comment on Brother Bernie Sanders … "he was the standard-bearer for truth and justice" - Absolutely agree with that comment, and you know it. Sanders has proven to be a good man and those email leaks show that he was double crossed. Clinton is not a progressive, as I think you've acknowledged as well. More of a centrist, something you have self proclaimed as well. I too see myself as more of a centrist, and don;t agree with most whacky liberals. I'm a progressive at heart and on a lot of issues, but I will always support the truth and "right over wrong" all day. Most of the comments mentioned by West are things that have been kicked up and down this thread. Sorry if that wasn't the convo you were looking for. We'll have to grab a beer and some tacos sometime and I'll pick your brain. (not in a silence of the lambs type of way) haha
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.
Your giving her too much credit with journalist
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
For example: Challenging Clinton with tough questions? But how? She wasn't talking directly to the press for over 9 months! And you, and the rest of the clintonites, we're in full support. Some Of you would label it at smart! Remember? She's still not doing it- unless it's for a quick comment about her debate performance.
Neither is Trump. It's politics.
What makes it worse for Trump is that he was yammering on and on about how many days Clinton avoided press conferences....now he has shut them down.
WHAT ABOUT SEAN HANNITY? Has anyone called Sean Hannity and asked him?
Oh yeah, he was on O'Reilly last night. They KILLED it.
You mean Trump's homie? The guy that knows the truth about Trump's claim that he wasn't for the war? Or am I getting him and the other clown Beck confused... These guys all look alike and act alike- hard to remember.
Yes, he is that clown.... the ultimate hack.
Hey - you asked a question about West's comments above. I answered but would love to hear your response. I'm not looking for a row, rather a real conversation about his comments.
I would really like to hear your thoughts on the email leaks thread. If you have some time join the convo. There's some good laughs and serious shit going down over there.
As far as brother West's message- I can't really give a solid opinion on it which was why I asked for thoughts on it. Also, I wanted to see the responses by other genuine progressives- Do we share the same sentiment? I trust West and believe him to be an honest human being with good intentions. I've heard him debate issues, I've heard several of his speeches, and I've seen him speak several times on shows. My judgement tells me he's a good guy. But I don't know enough about some of his statements to get into a serious convo regarding them. I have my biased opinion on issues like Honduras where I perceive it's more of the US meddling with foreign affairs in order to get an advantage. We've seen it happen throughout history. When he stated possibly going to war with Russia I could totally see that. Clinton is a war hawk and her aggressive talk about Russia is alarming- she made an aggressive comment during the last debate. The media spinning the news in her favor will make things look like a legit threat. His comment on Brother Bernie Sanders … "he was the standard-bearer for truth and justice" - Absolutely agree with that comment, and you know it. Sanders has proven to be a good man and those email leaks show that he was double crossed. Clinton is not a progressive, as I think you've acknowledged as well. More of a centrist, something you have self proclaimed as well. I too see myself as more of a centrist, and don;t agree with most whacky liberals. I'm a progressive at heart and on a lot of issues, but I will always support the truth and "right over wrong" all day. Most of the comments mentioned by West are things that have been kicked up and down this thread. Sorry if that wasn't the convo you were looking for. We'll have to grab a beer and some tacos sometime and I'll pick your brain. (not in a silence of the lambs type of way) haha
I'd be down with that.. I usually make 5+ shows each tour so I'm always around.
West is a good guy, even if I disagree with him. I think he is holding Clinton to a standard that I don't think he held Sanders to (like the Crime Bill for example). Re: Russia, I think Clinton is absolutely posturing and I agree with it. There's a foreign policy saying that you are "strong in public and absolutely brutal in private". Putin hates Clinton. There is no doubt about that. He blames her and our ambassador for the strong protests against Russia in the Ukraine and for really tough statements made after he re-took power. But our disagreements don't come close to armed conflict. But you can't cozy up to a KGB colonel and she doesn't.
Regarding the emails. They are disappointing I would say. But nothing in there surprises me. I won't defend them but I wouldn't call them disqualifying, particularly compared to the alternative. I'm also not sure if there is anything in there from Clinton herself that are damming, but I might be wrong.
Clinton is a progressive on social issues. She's a centrist on economic issues. That pretty much embodies me. It's also pretty damn close to Obama too.
“I do think the use of special forces, which we’re using, the use of enablers and trainers in Iraq, which has had some positive effects, are very much in our interests, and so I do support what is happening.”
Hilliary deems as positive: 400,000 people are dead, 7 million more are ether internally displaced or refugees
Similar to the positive effects that from Arkansas Bill's Iran Iraq sanctions!
“I do think the use of special forces, which we’re using, the use of enablers and trainers in Iraq, which has had some positive effects, are very much in our interests, and so I do support what is happening.”
Hilliary deems as positive: 400,000 people are dead, 7 million more are ether internally displaced or refugees
Similar to the positive effects that from Arkansas Bill's Iran Iraq sanctions!
“I would also consider arming the Kurds. The Kurds have been our best partners in Syria, as well as Iraq. And I know there’s a lot of concern about that in some circles, but I think they should have the equipment they need so that Kurdish and Arab fighters on the ground are the principal way that we take Raqqa after pushing ISIS out of Iraq.”
Obama is arming the Kurds already, but the Kurds have no interest in seizing Raqqa because it is not part of their traditional homeland and because it doesn’t help them achieve the contiguous landmass they seek for their own state. Besides, arming the Kurds just pisses off Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan who provides a critical airstrip at Incirlik from which the US carries out most of its airstrikes on enemy targets in Syria. In other words, Clinton doesn’t know what the heck she’s talking about. Or she knows exactly what she taking about after all she was sec of state. Alittle war profiteering never hurt the protected class!
“I would also consider arming the Kurds. The Kurds have been our best partners in Syria, as well as Iraq. And I know there’s a lot of concern about that in some circles, but I think they should have the equipment they need so that Kurdish and Arab fighters on the ground are the principal way that we take Raqqa after pushing ISIS out of Iraq.”
Obama is arming the Kurds already, but the Kurds have no interest in seizing Raqqa because it is not part of their traditional homeland and because it doesn’t help them achieve the contiguous landmass they seek for their own state. Besides, arming the Kurds just pisses off Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan who provides a critical airstrip at Incirlik from which the US carries out most of its airstrikes on enemy targets in Syria. In other words, Clinton doesn’t know what the heck she’s talking about. Or she knows exactly what she taking about after all she was sec of state. Alittle war profiteering never hurt the protected class!
She knows exactly what she is talking about and the Kurd argument is a head fake. Arming them seems to be a panacea on both sides (I mean for cons and libs that think, not Trump) for a situation in which there are no good options. But standing at a debate with Trump skulking around doesn't allow one to be blatantly transparent and say "we're kind of fucked on this one because all choices have terrible downsides". So she brings up something that's hard to argue with. The reality is that we don't have a good set of options that I can think of. None of us work in think tanks and have the same intelligence, so my guess is our analysts have some ideas, but not to be shared openly or in two minute bursts.
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.
Your giving her too much credit with journalist
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
For example: Challenging Clinton with tough questions? But how? She wasn't talking directly to the press for over 9 months! And you, and the rest of the clintonites, we're in full support. Some Of you would label it at smart! Remember? She's still not doing it- unless it's for a quick comment about her debate performance.
Neither is Trump. It's politics.
What makes it worse for Trump is that he was yammering on and on about how many days Clinton avoided press conferences....now he has shut them down.
WHAT ABOUT SEAN HANNITY? Has anyone called Sean Hannity and asked him?
Oh yeah, he was on O'Reilly last night. They KILLED it.
You mean Trump's homie? The guy that knows the truth about Trump's claim that he wasn't for the war? Or am I getting him and the other clown Beck confused... These guys all look alike and act alike- hard to remember.
Yes, he is that clown.... the ultimate hack.
Hey - you asked a question about West's comments above. I answered but would love to hear your response. I'm not looking for a row, rather a real conversation about his comments.
I would really like to hear your thoughts on the email leaks thread. If you have some time join the convo. There's some good laughs and serious shit going down over there.
As far as brother West's message- I can't really give a solid opinion on it which was why I asked for thoughts on it. Also, I wanted to see the responses by other genuine progressives- Do we share the same sentiment? I trust West and believe him to be an honest human being with good intentions. I've heard him debate issues, I've heard several of his speeches, and I've seen him speak several times on shows. My judgement tells me he's a good guy. But I don't know enough about some of his statements to get into a serious convo regarding them. I have my biased opinion on issues like Honduras where I perceive it's more of the US meddling with foreign affairs in order to get an advantage. We've seen it happen throughout history. When he stated possibly going to war with Russia I could totally see that. Clinton is a war hawk and her aggressive talk about Russia is alarming- she made an aggressive comment during the last debate. The media spinning the news in her favor will make things look like a legit threat. His comment on Brother Bernie Sanders … "he was the standard-bearer for truth and justice" - Absolutely agree with that comment, and you know it. Sanders has proven to be a good man and those email leaks show that he was double crossed. Clinton is not a progressive, as I think you've acknowledged as well. More of a centrist, something you have self proclaimed as well. I too see myself as more of a centrist, and don;t agree with most whacky liberals. I'm a progressive at heart and on a lot of issues, but I will always support the truth and "right over wrong" all day. Most of the comments mentioned by West are things that have been kicked up and down this thread. Sorry if that wasn't the convo you were looking for. We'll have to grab a beer and some tacos sometime and I'll pick your brain. (not in a silence of the lambs type of way) haha
I'd be down with that.. I usually make 5+ shows each tour so I'm always around.
West is a good guy, even if I disagree with him. I think he is holding Clinton to a standard that I don't think he held Sanders to (like the Crime Bill for example). Re: Russia, I think Clinton is absolutely posturing and I agree with it. There's a foreign policy saying that you are "strong in public and absolutely brutal in private". Putin hates Clinton. There is no doubt about that. He blames her and our ambassador for the strong protests against Russia in the Ukraine and for really tough statements made after he re-took power. But our disagreements don't come close to armed conflict. But you can't cozy up to a KGB colonel and she doesn't.
Regarding the emails. They are disappointing I would say. But nothing in there surprises me. I won't defend them but I wouldn't call them disqualifying, particularly compared to the alternative. I'm also not sure if there is anything in there from Clinton herself that are damming, but I might be wrong.
Clinton is a progressive on social issues. She's a centrist on economic issues. That pretty much embodies me. It's also pretty damn close to Obama too.
Well said. Plenty of substance and plenty to digest.
We'll have to get JC and unsung involved for a great conversation. I'll sit back and enjoy the discussion. Now all we need is a damn tour.
Given what is learned from the emails leaked I can understand why people refer to cnn as Clinton news network.
I was watching Brooke Baldwin yesterday on my lunch, and I was a little turned off by how obviously partisan she is. when she was talking about the Trump Tapes, she referred to the comments as "his disgusting comments". Journalists should report the facts, not use adjectives to comment on them personally.
Your giving her too much credit with journalist
I suppose. I don't watch much TV so I don't know much about her. But anyone holding a chair on a major news network (and it not being a person's own show with obvious biases), you should carry yourself as non-partisan. Just my opinion.
The non partisans probably don't get chairs at major news networks. I don't watch any tv, it's insulting.
it's just so much different than in canada. I've never heard Peter Mansbridge say anything partisan ever.
I don't see how finding comments about sexual assault disgusting is partisan? Do only liberals find those comments disgusting?
maybe partisan was the wrong word to use. although, if clinton said something like that and fox news called it "disgusting comments", it could be contstrued as partisan. All I'm saying is she should remain impartial. just report the facts, don't use personal comments when reporting what happened.
I don't know.. I hear you when it comes to discussing tax policy, choice, Russia policy or something like that. But Trump has broken through the floor of 'normalcy' with his comments on immigrants, Judge Curiel, Alyssa Machado, his retweeting of that racist anti-black meme, and so much more. It deserves condemnation to avoid normalizing the language and behavior.
I just think it's the job of the news to report the incident, not comment on it.
To a certain point, as I said. Once you cross those bounds, which Trump has exploded through, they have an obligation to speak out. In my opinion, we are in this position today, partly... because the media did not denounce his appalling behavior earlier. Country first. Period.
Agreed....the media should be knowledgeable about the subjects being discussed and they should challenge statements made by politicians in order to get to the truth.
Chuck Todd said a year or so ago something to the effect of "if I challenge someone they won't be on my show again"....that's bullshit. They need to be visible and the media need to hold them accountable. Both sides.
For example: Challenging Clinton with tough questions? But how? She wasn't talking directly to the press for over 9 months! And you, and the rest of the clintonites, we're in full support. Some Of you would label it at smart! Remember? She's still not doing it- unless it's for a quick comment about her debate performance.
Neither is Trump. It's politics.
What makes it worse for Trump is that he was yammering on and on about how many days Clinton avoided press conferences....now he has shut them down.
WHAT ABOUT SEAN HANNITY? Has anyone called Sean Hannity and asked him?
Oh yeah, he was on O'Reilly last night. They KILLED it.
You mean Trump's homie? The guy that knows the truth about Trump's claim that he wasn't for the war? Or am I getting him and the other clown Beck confused... These guys all look alike and act alike- hard to remember.
Yes, he is that clown.... the ultimate hack.
Hey - you asked a question about West's comments above. I answered but would love to hear your response. I'm not looking for a row, rather a real conversation about his comments.
I would really like to hear your thoughts on the email leaks thread. If you have some time join the convo. There's some good laughs and serious shit going down over there.
As far as brother West's message- I can't really give a solid opinion on it which was why I asked for thoughts on it. Also, I wanted to see the responses by other genuine progressives- Do we share the same sentiment? I trust West and believe him to be an honest human being with good intentions. I've heard him debate issues, I've heard several of his speeches, and I've seen him speak several times on shows. My judgement tells me he's a good guy. But I don't know enough about some of his statements to get into a serious convo regarding them. I have my biased opinion on issues like Honduras where I perceive it's more of the US meddling with foreign affairs in order to get an advantage. We've seen it happen throughout history. When he stated possibly going to war with Russia I could totally see that. Clinton is a war hawk and her aggressive talk about Russia is alarming- she made an aggressive comment during the last debate. The media spinning the news in her favor will make things look like a legit threat. His comment on Brother Bernie Sanders … "he was the standard-bearer for truth and justice" - Absolutely agree with that comment, and you know it. Sanders has proven to be a good man and those email leaks show that he was double crossed. Clinton is not a progressive, as I think you've acknowledged as well. More of a centrist, something you have self proclaimed as well. I too see myself as more of a centrist, and don;t agree with most whacky liberals. I'm a progressive at heart and on a lot of issues, but I will always support the truth and "right over wrong" all day. Most of the comments mentioned by West are things that have been kicked up and down this thread. Sorry if that wasn't the convo you were looking for. We'll have to grab a beer and some tacos sometime and I'll pick your brain. (not in a silence of the lambs type of way) haha
I'd be down with that.. I usually make 5+ shows each tour so I'm always around.
West is a good guy, even if I disagree with him. I think he is holding Clinton to a standard that I don't think he held Sanders to (like the Crime Bill for example). Re: Russia, I think Clinton is absolutely posturing and I agree with it. There's a foreign policy saying that you are "strong in public and absolutely brutal in private". Putin hates Clinton. There is no doubt about that. He blames her and our ambassador for the strong protests against Russia in the Ukraine and for really tough statements made after he re-took power. But our disagreements don't come close to armed conflict. But you can't cozy up to a KGB colonel and she doesn't.
Regarding the emails. They are disappointing I would say. But nothing in there surprises me. I won't defend them but I wouldn't call them disqualifying, particularly compared to the alternative. I'm also not sure if there is anything in there from Clinton herself that are damming, but I might be wrong.
Clinton is a progressive on social issues. She's a centrist on economic issues. That pretty much embodies me. It's also pretty damn close to Obama too.
Well said. Plenty of substance and plenty to digest.
We'll have to get JC and unsung involved for a great conversation. I'll sit back and enjoy the discussion. Now all we need is a damn tour.
Back to the serious talk
I did 8 shows this last one... my wife will kill me if they tour again before next fall...
Hilliary refers to Aleppo rebels as freedom fighters. Nusra the main faction is just another name for isis, trying to establish a Sunni only state. The step down moderate rebels mour zinki backed by the us behead a 12 year old and film it to prove it's US loyalty.
Hilliary refers to Aleppo rebels as freedom fighters. Nusra the main faction is just another name for isis, trying to establish a Sunni only state. The step down moderate rebels mour zinki backed by the us behead a 12 year old and film it to prove it's US loyalty.
US backed freedom fighting moderates!
It's complicated. We hate the Assad regime. He is corrupt, tied to Russia, gases his own people, etc. There are true rebels fighting the regime. But there are also ISIS fighters coming in. Worse, if al-Assad falls, it will create teh power vacuum that will lead to an ISIS state. That's why this issue is so complex and difficult. If someone here as a practical solution, I'm open to hearing it.
Hilliary refers to Aleppo rebels as freedom fighters. Nusra the main faction is just another name for isis, trying to establish a Sunni only state. The step down moderate rebels mour zinki backed by the us behead a 12 year old and film it to prove it's US loyalty.
US backed freedom fighting moderates!
It's complicated. We hate the Assad regime. He is corrupt, tied to Russia, gases his own people, etc. There are true rebels fighting the regime. But there are also ISIS fighters coming in. Worse, if al-Assad falls, it will create teh power vacuum that will lead to an ISIS state. That's why this issue is so complex and difficult. If someone here as a practical solution, I'm open to hearing it.
I'll say this with respect to a complex issue such as this. Break it down into 4 parts. 1 what we know 2 what we don't know 3 what we could do 4 what we shouldnt do Start with what we know and what we shouldn't do and go from there. I'm sure we will disagree on the what we shouldn't do but did anyway.
Hilliary refers to Aleppo rebels as freedom fighters. Nusra the main faction is just another name for isis, trying to establish a Sunni only state. The step down moderate rebels mour zinki backed by the us behead a 12 year old and film it to prove it's US loyalty.
US backed freedom fighting moderates!
It's complicated. We hate the Assad regime. He is corrupt, tied to Russia, gases his own people, etc. There are true rebels fighting the regime. But there are also ISIS fighters coming in. Worse, if al-Assad falls, it will create teh power vacuum that will lead to an ISIS state. That's why this issue is so complex and difficult. If someone here as a practical solution, I'm open to hearing it.
I'll say this with respect to a complex issue such as this. Break it down into 4 parts. 1 what we know 2 what we don't know 3 what we could do 4 what we shouldnt do Start with what we know and what we shouldn't do and go from there. I'm sure we will disagree on the what we shouldn't do but did anyway.
I assume this isn't a question for us to answer, rather how you would attempt to address the issue were you an analyst, etc., right?
But this is why I am typically not overly zealous in criticisms of any administration regarding foreign policy decisions. They are always extremely complex and fraught with risk. It's easy to look back and say, well that was a terrible idea to support the Arab Spring or do this, or that, but it was entirely rational at the time. The exception is Iraq of course. That mess was entirely self-created on our part.
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider By Malia Zimmerman, Adam Housley Published October 12, 2016 FoxNews.com Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”
“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”
Andrew Napolitano, former judge and senior judicial analyst for Fox News Channel, said many law enforcement agents involved with the Clinton email investigation have similar beliefs.
^^ Wow. Non-attributed source backed by Andrew Napolitano, who is a super douche. yawn...Somehow I don't think this will be the lead on ABC news tonight.
For me, the part that stands out, and what I figure may have some or everything to do with charges not being laid, is that the material was deemed classified retroactively. When it was actually emailed it was not marked confidential. Would that not make all the difference in the world?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider By Malia Zimmerman, Adam Housley Published October 12, 2016 FoxNews.com Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”
“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”
Andrew Napolitano, former judge and senior judicial analyst for Fox News Channel, said many law enforcement agents involved with the Clinton email investigation have similar beliefs.
"the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com"
Comments
What makes it worse for Trump is that he was yammering on and on about how many days Clinton avoided press conferences....now he has shut them down.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Time to put on your Big boy pants. Stop with the excuses and own up to it. You said it was good strategy and that she doesn't need to talk to the press. Look at all the shit that's being dropped- she could have cleared the record a long time ago, but instead she let it all come down on her hard! And the crazy shit is that you just called it bullshit a few seconds ago. Now it's back to pointing figures at Trump. Wow.
Oh yeah, he was on O'Reilly last night. They KILLED it.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
You mean Trump's homie? The guy that knows the truth about Trump's claim that he wasn't for the war? Or am I getting him and the other clown Beck confused... These guys all look alike and act alike- hard to remember.
www.headstonesband.com
Hey - you asked a question about West's comments above. I answered but would love to hear your response. I'm not looking for a row, rather a real conversation about his comments.
Legislators shut out competition, 3rd parties outsiders, opposing views
Legislators shut out voters, closed primaries, strict state to state voting laws, gerrymandering
Legislators shut out the press
Hillary has supported no-fly zones from Day 1 despite the fact that–by her own admission– the policy would result in massive civilian casualties. See podesta emails! Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford. “Right now… for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia.”
Putin and Assad are trying to reestablish the central governments control over the country to establish security. What Hillary is proposing is that the Syrian and Russians (who were invited by Assad) be prosecuted for fulfilling the sworn duty of every elected leader while –at the same time– the countries (like the US) that have (by their own admission) armed, trained and financed foreign invaders that have torn the country to shreds and killed more than 400,000 civilians, be let off Scott-free.
I would really like to hear your thoughts on the email leaks thread. If you have some time join the convo. There's some good laughs and serious shit going down over there.
As far as brother West's message- I can't really give a solid opinion on it which was why I asked for thoughts on it. Also, I wanted to see the responses by other genuine progressives- Do we share the same sentiment?
I trust West and believe him to be an honest human being with good intentions. I've heard him debate issues, I've heard several of his speeches, and I've seen him speak several times on shows. My judgement tells me he's a good guy. But I don't know enough about some of his statements to get into a serious convo regarding them. I have my biased opinion on issues like Honduras where I perceive it's more of the US meddling with foreign affairs in order to get an advantage. We've seen it happen throughout history.
When he stated possibly going to war with Russia I could totally see that. Clinton is a war hawk and her aggressive talk about Russia is alarming- she made an aggressive comment during the last debate. The media spinning the news in her favor will make things look like a legit threat.
His comment on Brother Bernie Sanders … "he was the standard-bearer for truth and justice" - Absolutely agree with that comment, and you know it. Sanders has proven to be a good man and those email leaks show that he was double crossed. Clinton is not a progressive, as I think you've acknowledged as well. More of a centrist, something you have self proclaimed as well. I too see myself as more of a centrist, and don;t agree with most whacky liberals. I'm a progressive at heart and on a lot of issues, but I will always support the truth and "right over wrong" all day.
Most of the comments mentioned by West are things that have been kicked up and down this thread. Sorry if that wasn't the convo you were looking for. We'll have to grab a beer and some tacos sometime and I'll pick your brain.
haha
West is a good guy, even if I disagree with him. I think he is holding Clinton to a standard that I don't think he held Sanders to (like the Crime Bill for example). Re: Russia, I think Clinton is absolutely posturing and I agree with it. There's a foreign policy saying that you are "strong in public and absolutely brutal in private". Putin hates Clinton. There is no doubt about that. He blames her and our ambassador for the strong protests against Russia in the Ukraine and for really tough statements made after he re-took power. But our disagreements don't come close to armed conflict. But you can't cozy up to a KGB colonel and she doesn't.
Regarding the emails. They are disappointing I would say. But nothing in there surprises me. I won't defend them but I wouldn't call them disqualifying, particularly compared to the alternative. I'm also not sure if there is anything in there from Clinton herself that are damming, but I might be wrong.
Clinton is a progressive on social issues. She's a centrist on economic issues. That pretty much embodies me. It's also pretty damn close to Obama too.
Hilliary deems as positive:
400,000 people are dead,
7 million more are ether internally displaced or refugees
Similar to the positive effects that from Arkansas Bill's Iran Iraq sanctions!
Hilliary deems as positive:
400,000 people are dead,
7 million more are ether internally displaced or refugees
Similar to the positive effects that from Arkansas Bill's Iran Iraq sanctions!
Jillary wants another trophy head for her future presidential library, a scalp she can hang next to Gadhafi’s.
We came we saw he died...hahahaha
Obama is arming the Kurds already, but the Kurds have no interest in seizing Raqqa because it is not part of their traditional homeland and because it doesn’t help them achieve the contiguous landmass they seek for their own state. Besides, arming the Kurds just pisses off Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan who provides a critical airstrip at Incirlik from which the US carries out most of its airstrikes on enemy targets in Syria. In other words, Clinton doesn’t know what the heck she’s talking about. Or she knows exactly what she taking about after all she was sec of state. Alittle war profiteering never hurt the protected class!
We'll have to get JC and unsung involved for a great conversation. I'll sit back and enjoy the discussion. Now all we need is a damn tour.
Back to the serious talk
US backed freedom fighting moderates!
1 what we know
2 what we don't know
3 what we could do
4 what we shouldnt do
Start with what we know and what we shouldn't do and go from there. I'm sure we will disagree on the what we shouldn't do but did anyway.
But this is why I am typically not overly zealous in criticisms of any administration regarding foreign policy decisions. They are always extremely complex and fraught with risk. It's easy to look back and say, well that was a terrible idea to support the Arab Spring or do this, or that, but it was entirely rational at the time. The exception is Iraq of course. That mess was entirely self-created on our part.
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider
By Malia Zimmerman, Adam Housley Published October 12, 2016 FoxNews.com
Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”
“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”
Andrew Napolitano, former judge and senior judicial analyst for Fox News Channel, said many law enforcement agents involved with the Clinton email investigation have similar beliefs.
GEE, I BELIEVE IT NOW!!!
www.headstonesband.com