Trump

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Anybody remember the media diving into this?

Yeah, me neither.

Trump / Russia is relevant and disturbing.
Kennedy might have even done worse.
Both can be true.

[CBB_Fan]

You allowed the media to continue their "love affair" with Obama, and not spending any media time on his scandals digging up wrong doing (we haven't even mentioned possible deals with Clinton on the tarmac, etc.), where you think it is fine that they spend 90% of their time on Trump's indiscretions and rarely mention positive reforms or discuss the immigration debate (and other issues) in a fair way showing both sides to the story.

Since CNN is the big boogeyman of the "mainstream" media, let's see what they did for Obama's scandals.

Fast and Furious:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/americas/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-facts/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/politics/obama-administration-turns-over-fast-and-furious-documents/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/us/fast-furious-qa/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/22/politics/btn-fast-and-furious/index.html

IRS targeting conservatives:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/politics/irs-scandal-fast-facts/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/lois-lerner-no-charges-doj-tea-party/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/politics/irs-conservative-targeting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/politics/lois-lerner-irs-missing-emails-watchdog/index.html

Iran "ransom:"

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/politics/iran-400-million-kerry-rejects-ransom/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/iran-cash-payments-congress-hearing/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/us-iran-prisoners-400-million-leverage/index.html

Green energy backing:

http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/03/obama-no-regrets-over-solyndra/

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/22/news/economy/obama-energy-bankruptcies/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-green-energy/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/03/news/economy/green-stimulus/index.html

VA mishandling:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politics/va-inspector-general-report/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/obama.veterans/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/10/us/obama-veterans/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/politics/va-waste/index.html

Is that really a love affair? And this wasn't exactly exhaustive, these were 10 second Google searches.

The better question is: "Why do stories on Trump sell, while stories on Obama didn't?" CNN will blow up any story that gets them ratings, covering it wall to wall for weeks at a time no matter its relevance or truth. And the answers to that question are rather simple.

1. Trump is usually directly involved with the scandal
2. Trump's stories build on each other (Russia 1.0 > Russia 2.0 vs unrelated stories about Iran and the IRS)
3. Trump himself works to sensationalize and draw attention to stories about him (wittingly or not) through tweeting and name-dropping
4. The content of the stories is more sensationalist to begin with

[WstateU]

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Per Jake Tapper @ CNN, responding to Trump saying that "most politicians" would have attended such a meeting:

Trump's FBI director nominee testified that anyone who receives such a solicitation believed to be from an adversarial government should call the FBI.

[Play Angry]

But for conservatives in Congress to avoid a conservative agenda would be a terrible idea. Policies are either good, so-so, or bad, regardless of what Trump chooses to say about them.

This term has been a fascinating case study of willingness to circle the wagons around personality vs. ideology. Liberals haven't been faced with a similar dilemma (where they have a sitting President whose ideological alignment with their voters' prior policy preferences is hit or miss) in a very long time.

Conservatives rightly lauded Trump's nomination of Gorsuch. Most of them, however, remain silent and uncritical during the discussion of the health care bill (disaster from both a conservative and liberal perspective IMO), tariffs (Howard Dean, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt would be incredibly proud) and similar policy actions. It seems that dissent or criticism of policy in conflict with their ideology is wrongly viewed as "support" for the liberal or Democrat agenda rather than advocating for actions more aligned with that voter's policy preferences.

Seems we should support the good stuff, speak out against the bad stuff, regardless of its source and regardless of whether most on the "other side" do the same. Easier said than done, I suppose, but it's pretty rare these days.

[wufan]

Per Jake Tapper @ CNN, responding to Trump saying that "most politicians" would have attended such a meeting:

Trump's FBI director nominee testified that anyone who receives such a solicitation believed to be from an adversarial government should call the FBI.

Why would one call the FBI? Why not the CIA?

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Why would one call the FBI? Why not the CIA?

You might as well be asking McDonald's CEO for directions to the nearest Wendy's

[wufan]

Could you please list his high crimes? At this time, I doubt he can be prosecuted for breaking the law.

If Clinton couldn't be impeached for Sexual harassment (a case that was not prosecutable but he would have been fired from any other job), I don't see how this rises above that. Nixon would have been impeached, but he resigned. Nixon also was pardoned but he could have gone to jail. Lots of scandals by Presidents that were never prosecuted.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not criminal. Check this website for anice rundown: http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

When I stated it was an impeachable offense, I meant that it was impeachment hearing worthy. Prior to finding guilt, substantially more is needed in my opinion, but it could be there.

Federalist Paper #65 as noted in the linked website, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

Give me a universal ethic, and this can work. If the ethic is not universal, it's a political tactic to stymie your opponent.

[wufan]

You might as well be asking McDonald's CEO for directions to the nearest Wendy's

I don't know jurisdiction law at all, but dealings with an alleged foreign representative seems very CIA to me.

[CBB_Fan]

I will note that the source for the Ted Kennedy story is the KGB. The story is that Kennedy sent a letter to Yuri Andropov apologizing for Reagan and it comes from a memo by Viktor Chebrikov, the head of the KGB at the time. Chebrikov also mentioned Senator J. Tunney (D-CA).

The only problem is that there is no evidence such a letter was ever sent. The story first appears in 1992 in a news report of Times of London. J. Tunney directly denied Chebrikov's memo, and Reagan's disarmament negotiator Max Kampelman said that "I learned that the senator never acted or received information without informing the appropriate United States agency of official."

The idea that it is some sort of proven fact is a "Big Lie" ("Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."). Rush Limbaugh brought it up in 2015 in response to 47 Republican Senators writing a letter to Iran, and he brought it back again about a week ago.

I would highly question the idea that we should simply accept a memo by the KGB as true, over the denials of both Kennedy/Tunney and Reagan officials and with no corroborating evidence.

[wufan]

I will note that the source for the Ted Kennedy story is the KGB. The story is that Kennedy sent a letter to Yuri Andropov apologizing for Reagan and it comes from a memo by Viktor Chebrikov, the head of the KGB at the time. Chebrikov also mentioned Senator J. Tunney (D-CA).

The only problem is that there is no evidence such a letter was ever sent. The story first appears in 1992 in a news report of Times of London. J. Tunney directly denied Chebrikov's memo, and Reagan's disarmament negotiator Max Kampelman said that "I learned that the senator never acted or received information without informing the appropriate United States agency of official."

The idea that it is some sort of proven fact is a "Big Lie" ("Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."). Rush Limbaugh brought it up in 2015 in response to 47 Republican Senators writing a letter to Iran, and he brought it back again about a week ago.

I would highly question the idea that we should simply accept a memo by the KGB as true, over the denials of both Kennedy/Tunney and Reagan officials and with no corroborating evidence.

Those Russians are sneaky!

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I don't know jurisdiction law at all, but dealings with an alleged foreign representative seems very CIA to me.

Let me rephrase. Wendy's has the best food, just don't ask the CEO of McDonald's too admit that.

(The FBI director said "call the FBI")

[pinstripers]

Let me rephrase. Wendy's has the best food, just don't ask the CEO of McDonald's too admit that.

Scotch and Sirloin tacks on another 50 cents if you want sour cream with your baked potato.

[pinstripers]

Scotch and Sirloin tacks on another 50 cents if you want sour cream with your baked potato.

I just wanted to tell somebody.

[shockmonster]

Since CNN is the big boogeyman of the "mainstream" media, let's see what they did for Obama's scandals.

Fast and Furious:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/americas/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-facts/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/politics/obama-administration-turns-over-fast-and-furious-documents/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/19/us/fast-furious-qa/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/22/politics/btn-fast-and-furious/index.html

IRS targeting conservatives:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/18/politics/irs-scandal-fast-facts/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/lois-lerner-no-charges-doj-tea-party/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/politics/irs-conservative-targeting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/politics/lois-lerner-irs-missing-emails-watchdog/index.html

Iran "ransom:"

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/politics/iran-400-million-kerry-rejects-ransom/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/iran-cash-payments-congress-hearing/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/us-iran-prisoners-400-million-leverage/index.html

Green energy backing:

http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/03/obama-no-regrets-over-solyndra/

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/22/news/economy/obama-energy-bankruptcies/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-green-energy/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/03/news/economy/green-stimulus/index.html

VA mishandling:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politics/va-inspector-general-report/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/obama.veterans/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/10/us/obama-veterans/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/22/politics/va-waste/index.html

Is that really a love affair? And this wasn't exactly exhaustive, these were 10 second Google searches.

The better question is: "Why do stories on Trump sell, while stories on Obama didn't?" CNN will blow up any story that gets them ratings, covering it wall to wall for weeks at a time no matter its relevance or truth. And the answers to that question are rather simple.

1. Trump is usually directly involved with the scandal
2. Trump's stories build on each other (Russia 1.0 > Russia 2.0 vs unrelated stories about Iran and the IRS)
3. Trump himself works to sensationalize and draw attention to stories about him (wittingly or not) through tweeting and name-dropping
4. The content of the stories is more sensationalist to begin with

Harvard did a study on the negative coverage of Trump. Harvard is hardly a conservative bastion (quite the opposite). I couldn't find any similar studies about Obama's coverage. Just because you find some stories (over an 8 year Presidential period) misses the point and high lights your highly partisan nature. While I don't like it when Trump acts like a bore, and I criticize him, almost all democrats (you included), refuse to acknowledge that Obama (although crafty about it) lied a lot. The media largely ignored it too, and here is a story that outlines the slanted coverage. They don't even try to be balanced anymore than the democrats in Congress.

For the youngsters out there, once upon a time, CNN was pretty much down the middle. The fledgling network covered news — real news, not fake news — and worked hard to be on site wherever news was happening. When something happened, that was the place to go.

But those days are long gone. Watch any 10 minutes of CNN, and now you’ll see nothing more than a nonstop — and often vicious — diatribe against President Trump.

Under the lead of former NBC head Jeff Zucker, CNN has become a far-left network that harangues the right and praises the left, almost nonstop. “News” is secondary. Now it’s all about pushing an agenda and toeing the line for the liberal overlords.


Case in point: Harvard released a study last week that analyzed The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and the main newscasts on CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Mr. Trump’s first 100 days. No shocker here: 80 percent was negative, just 20 percent positive.