NYT Attack on Trump Gets Outed as a Misrepresentation and Spin

[Blackjack200]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/p...s-hillary-clinton-coverage-public-editor.html

Let me guess though, that doesn't count.

Just to be clear, The Times relied on unnamed sources to falsely state that Clinton was the subject of a request for a criminal inquiry into her email practices. In this case, the Times used a named source, who complained about the story, then confirmed the facts were correct, but said she didn't like the way it was framed.

Now, which of those two seems more unfair?

 

[werepossum]

Isn't the right the bastion of judgment? I remember Bill Clinton got impeached for having sex with an adult.

I have no doubt that you remember that. It is not however what happened.

Meanwhile the Clinton Foundation gives $2,000,000 to a for-profit company partially owned by the "Energizer"....yet the New York Times could give a shit. But hey...Trump offered a girl a swimsuit to wear at a pool party...what a fucking scumbag!

http://nypost.com/2016/05/13/clinton-charity-arranged-2m-pledge-to-company-owned-by-bills-friend/

Clinton charity arranged $2M pledge to firm owned by Bill’s ‘friend’

No way I'd pay two million dollars to hit that.

Oh, wait - it's two million dollars OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY to hit that. Now I see the light. lol

The Religious Right is saying that about this twice divorced casino boss who has frequently boasted about his many adulterous escapades.

It is amusing that the Pubbies are nominating perhaps the only man more openly lecherous and adulterous than Bill, whereas the Dems are nominating the Ice Queen.

 

[Vic]

Looking for that citation?

A citation for what? This very thread? Or are you just acknowledging that Trump's reputation for immorality is so great that no one should consider him to be a moral person?

 

[werepossum]

No, sorry, it's really not. If you're wondering why Bill Clinton seems to get a pass, you can start with that absolute joke of an impeachment. A process that was blatantly political and destroyed the credibility of the GOP when it comes to Clinton. The American people simply do not want to hear it anymore, and you can thank yourselves.

Go back and research the Sunday shows and the polls when it first broke, if they are still available. ALL the talking heads, including the Dems, were saying that if the allegations were true then Clinton was gone in a week. Same with the polls. What happened was that Dick Morris led a very successful campaign to redefine acceptable behavior. Screwing the help remained a jailable offense for the underlings, but near-miraculously became "private behavior" for Bill. That, coupled with Hillary standing by him and the Republicans being, well, Republicans, allowed a much weakened Bill Clinton to stay in office until that scandal became old news and the next came along.

As far as Clinton being removed, a lot of people (myself included) believed that while his behavior warranted impeachment, it did not warrant removal from office.

 

[Vic]

It is amusing that the Pubbies are nominating perhaps the only man more openly lecherous and adulterous than Bill, whereas the Dems are nominating the Ice Queen.

Exactly. Although what I'm amused by is that the Pubs can't understand why their usual sexual innuendo attacks won't stick anymore now that Trump is carrying their banner. I mean.. duh.

 

[werepossum]

Do you think that was a valid use of governmental powers? Or maybe, just maybe an overreach from an overzealous hastert, who turns out to be a SICK FUCKING PEDOPHILE.

This tree-hugger understands they reasons for the impeachment proceedings, on it's surface it was to show that even the president cannot lie under oath, about anything. Which, on the surface, is a very, very good rule to follow.
However, the amount of money and effort put into it was utterly ridiculous, and let's be honest, it was a lie about an extra-marital affair, not covert arms sales or propping up some despot financially. It was about a blowjob and lying about getting that blowjob.

That is an amusing conversation to imagine.

Hutchinson: We have uncovered evidence that the President has conducted a long-running affair with an intern.

Hastert: I don't see anything particularly -

Hutchinson: A female intern.

Hastert: THAT SICK BASTARD!

 

[werepossum]

Exactly. Although what I'm amused by is that the Pubs can't understand why their usual sexual innuendo attacks won't stick anymore now that Trump is carrying their banner. I mean.. duh.

Especially third party. Hard to get any traction against Hillary for Bill's affairs while supporting Trump. Either fidelity, morality and honor mean something, or they do not. And if they do, then certainly that must first apply to the candidate before touching on the enabling spouse.

 

[Vic]

Go back and research the Sunday shows and the polls when it first broke, if they are still available. ALL the talking heads, including the Dems, were saying that if the allegations were true then Clinton was gone in a week. Same with the polls. What happened was that Dick Morris led a very successful campaign to redefine acceptable behavior. Screwing the help remained a jailable offense for the underlings, but near-miraculously became "private behavior" for Bill. That, coupled with Hillary standing by him and the Republicans being, well, Republicans, allowed a much weakened Bill Clinton to stay in office until that scandal became old news and the next came along.

As far as Clinton being removed, a lot of people (myself included) believed that while his behavior warranted impeachment, it did not warrant removal from office.

As I recall, the perjury itself was the result of a legal 'gotcha' that Starr put in the rules outlining the deposition.
As for any redefinition of acceptable behavior, Slick Willy was far from the first President to engage in such behavior in the White House. Impeachment IMO should be reserved for crimes involving actual abuse of office, and not just to get some Pennsylvania Ave action in the headlines. Just my opinion.

 

[buckshot24]

A citation for what? This very thread? Or are you just acknowledging that Trump's reputation for immorality is so great that no one should consider him to be a moral person?

You said....

The Religious Right is saying that about this twice divorced casino boss who has frequently boasted about his many adulterous escapades.

Are you taking this back?

 

[Subyman]

You said....

Are you taking this back?

The religious right is rallying around Trump, so this means either they don't care about a moral candidate anymore or that they think Trump is a moral person. Either way, they have no standing to demean Hillary, or Bill, anymore for moral reasons.

 

[werepossum]

As I recall, the perjury itself was the result of a legal 'gotcha' that Starr put in the rules outlining the deposition.
As for any redefinition of acceptable behavior, Slick Willy was far from the first President to engage in such behavior in the White House. Impeachment IMO should be reserved for crimes involving actual abuse of office, and not just to get some Pennsylvania Ave action in the headlines. Just my opinion.

Clinton had the same ability to plead the Fifth as the rest of us. He simply assumed that there was no evidence he could not lie his way around. He was wrong.

The religious right is rallying around Trump, so this means either they don't care about a moral candidate anymore or that they think Trump is a moral person. Either way, they have no standing to demean Hillary, or Bill, anymore for moral reasons.

Or they think Hillary is even worse and they are holding their noses with both hands.

 

[buckshot24]

The religious right is rallying around Trump, so this means either they don't care about a moral candidate anymore or that they think Trump is a moral person. Either way, they have no standing to demean Hillary, or Bill, anymore for moral reasons.

Did the religious right champion him as a moral hero, yes or no?

 

[soundforbjt]

Did the religious right champion him as a moral hero, yes or no?

No but they consider themselves judges of morality.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No but they consider themselves judges of morality.

The projection is strong with you.

 

[Vic]

The projection is strong with you.

Yes, he's totally projecting that they call themselves the Moral Majority.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The projection is strong with you.

Pat Robertson says that you're wrong.

 

[UberNeuman]

Omigod why must they pick on John Miller this way!!!

 

[Subyman]

Did the religious right champion him as a moral hero, yes or no?

If pledging your support to someone is championing them, then yes. Especially when your platform is morality. Not that hard to make the connection.

 

[trenchfoot]

Just thought I'd throw this in to add some fuel to the fire:

http://great-liberal-insights.org/+Believable/familyvaluesparty.html

 

[michal1980]

Oh my god, a newspaper has assigned a lot of reporters to look into someone who will be a major party nominee for president! SCANDAL.

How many reporters do you think have been assigned to research Hillary over the years? What do you think the implications are of this number of reporters and what do you think the Post's motivations are here?

Be as specific as you can be so that we can avoid 'who, me?'s in the future.

only [basically] after winning the republican nomination . hmmm. Seems like until that point they didn't care to much to bring him down.

 

[Bowfinger]

only [basically] after winning the republican nomination . hmmm. Seems like until that point they didn't care to much to bring him down.

I was laughing with one of my sons about this latest dumb post of yours (he used to be active here, though isn't now). He said, "That's multiple levels of stupid wrapped into one succinct little package." It so perfectly captures you that I had to share.

 

[Jhhnn]

only [basically] after winning the republican nomination . hmmm. Seems like until that point they didn't care to much to bring him down.

Context is everything, isn't it?

Celebrities have license to be outrageous jerks. Sometimes that's why they're entertaining at all. It's certainly part of the Trump persona. I mean, what else about him has entertained America all these years?

It's good to understand that we have the opportunity to elect an outrageous jerk as leader of the Free World, isn't it? Or should we pass on that?

 

[buckshot24]

If pledging your support to someone is championing them, then yes. Especially when your platform is morality. Not that hard to make the connection.

I'm a part of the religious right. I don't support him because he is a great moral man. You don't get to tell us why or how we support the people we support.

 

[buckshot24]

I was laughing with one of my sons about this latest dumb post of yours (he used to be active here, though isn't now). He said, "That's multiple levels of stupid wrapped into one succinct little package." It so perfectly captures you that I had to share.

Glad to see you're spreading your hatred to your offspring. Need to keep the family business alive when you're gone.

 

[buckshot24]

Omigod why must they pick on John Miller this way!!!

John Miller is hilarious.