Harvey Weinstein: Another Good Liberal...

[Tassman]

Must really suck being exposed as a first class hypocrite that could not have cared less about freedom of the press when for the past 8 years one of the saints of the left was actually diligently working to actively suppress it as compared to Trump who at this point has done little more than called it "fake news"

[One Bad Pig]

You couldn't get any more nakedly partisan if you stripped buck naked at the opening ceremony of the Olympics on international TV.

[Darth Executor]

Given the relative lack of attention they've attracted, and the gigantic target on Trump's back, I'd say there appears to be precious little substance to the allegations. On the one hand, it would not seem to be all that far out of character for Trump to have done something like what's been accused. On the other hand, false accusations are not especially rare, they all suspiciously popped up at the same (critical) moment, and people can become convinced that a lie they tell themselves is the truth. I think I'll take a wait and see approach to this, and not proclaim him innocent or guilty until there's some sort of proof proffered.

I haven't looked at all 16 but the ones I did look at were almost certainly liars. based on that i feel pretty comfortable dismissing all of them given that all but the worst one came out at once and are tied to Gloria Allred, a notorious liar and fraudster.

[Tassman]

You couldn't get any more nakedly partisan if you stripped buck naked at the opening ceremony of the Olympics on international TV.

[Cow Poke]

The investigations don't matter. You faithless lot have already made up your minds. You WILL not be swayed by the facts!

[rogue06]

I don't think I ever mentioned Clinton. I was pointing out how all of a sudden you have become very concerned about freedom of the press when Trump has done little more than grouse about all of the "fake news" as compared to the previous eight years when even the rabidly anti-Trump New York Times described the Obamessiah as being as bad as Nixon at trying to actively suppress it.

Guess I need to re-post this yet again

Liberals for the most part ignored how poorly Obama treated the press and the press itself largely smiled and masochistically took what he handed out because he was the Obamessiah and most of it was directed toward conservatives.

Source: WHY IT'LL BE HARD FOR TRUMP TO SURPASS OBAMA'S RECORD OF CHILLING PRESS FREEDOM

Many in the mainstream media are reacting with righteous indignation over comments from a senior Trump adviser suggesting the administration views the traditional media as an opponent. But if we're to take these apostles of press freedom seriously, they should first explain why the Trump Administration is worse than the Obama Administration.

After all, the Obama Administration literally tried imprisoning an uncooperative journalist, monitored journalists' every digital move, and "hammered" at least one challenging reporter with IRS audits.

Let's rewind the tape.

The Obama Administration began with lofty promises of being "the most transparent administration in history." Instead it ended up setting a record, by the Associated Press's count, for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests.

As the administration's popularity began tumbling early into its first year, the Obama White House declared war on Fox News. The White House director of communications, Anita Dunn, warned they would henceforth treat Fox News "like an opponentthe administration sought to deny Fox News' participation in executive branch news-making events -- which only failed after other networks admirably refused to participate if Fox News were excluded.

As you'll see in the montage above, President Obama blamed Fox News and talk radio for virtually every problem his administration encountered, warning in his waning days that these "domestic propagandists" were far more damaging to America than any interference from hostile powers like Russia.

When Fox News's State Department correspondent, James Rosen, reported accurate information about North Korea leaked by a member of the Obama State Department, Eric Holder ordered his movements to be tracked, his phone records seized, and went "judge shoppingthe Washington Post wrotethe Freedom of the Press Foundation reported. After the Supreme Court rejected Risen's appeal of an earlier order mandating he testify about the source of information he reported, Risen faced jail time.

After an outcry, Holder finally backed down.

The Associated Press experienced similar surveillance. For two months, the Department of Justice tracked 20 AP reporters' calls, ostensibly over their reporting into a Libyan terrorist's failed plot. Why was reporting on a failed plot so threatening? The AP said it was because the administration wanted to announce the news itself.

Obama himself was notorious for granting interviews with journalists whom he knew would treat him gently -- like Steve Kroft. When Obama accidentally exposed himself to a mildly challenging interview with a local reporter in Saint Louis, that reporter was later "hammered" with IRS audits.

With the Obama Administration, the message to the media was always clear: Report negatively about us, and we'll use the powers at our disposal to make you suffer consequences.

If those journalists currently complaining about the Trump Administration found no such fault with the Obama Administration, perhaps it's because they were all too willing to toe the line.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Now imagine if Trump started tracking a bunch of reporters phone calls, not because they were publishing classified information, but merely because they had published a story that Trump wanted to be the first to release. Or sicced the IRS after reporters who asked tough questions. The howls of outrage would be heard far and wide and those would be the lead stories for days on end as scowling left-wing pundits and politicians would be calling for impeachment.

And here are two pieces from the New York Times

Source: If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama

labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Only Nixon Harmed a Free Press More

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[*Both stories continues at the above links*]

We already know that Russia tried to actively collude with members of the campaign, e,g, the Trump Jr/Kushner meeting with the Russian attorney in Trump Tower. The question is just how successful were the Russians in obtaining it.

Something else that the left has revealed an amazing level of hypocrisy concerning.

Now I get to mention Hillary

Source: FLASHBACK: HOW THE MEDIA WENT HYSTERICAL OVER DON JR.�S WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT RUSSIAN DIRT ON HILLARY

CNN's Bakari Sellers said Democrats ought to make a bigger deal over Trump Jr.'s meeting, as "what he did was a threat to our democracy and borderline treason."

Attorney and former White House ethics czar, Richard Painter, became a fixture on the TV circuit, where he said the meeting could constitute treason.

"The facts reported in The New York Times article come very close if not is crossing the line with respect to treason if those facts are true," Painter said on MSNBC.

The former Watergate prosecutor, Nick Ackerman, likewise became a cable TV fixture, where he at one point said Trump Jr.'s meeting was "outright treason."

Stephen Colbert summed up the hopes of many when he concluded that Trump Jr. was "going to jail."

Will these same personalities level the same accusations against Clinton and the DNC?



Source

© Copyright Original Source

And hand waving it away as no big deal after screeching about treason when it involved Donald Jr.^[1] is exactly what the left is doing. The same people who were all fired up about this being evidence of a connection between Trump and Russia are now dismissing the revelations about the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paying for information from the Russians is no big deal and shouldn't be a focus when the shoe is on the other foot.

I believe it was Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) who while on MSNBC's Morning Joe, tried to shrug it off as being nothing more than "a distraction from the things we need to be doing."

Also on MSNBC, on the Rachel Maddow Showfake dossier you have already lost all credibility.

On Fox News' The Story Zac Petkanas a vetran Democrat strategist and former senior advisor for the DNC continued with the it's nothing more than a distraction and smear narrative saying "There's a lot of hay being made out of this and I think the reason is very clear. This is an attempt to discredit to undermine the FBI."

On CNN, on their program New Day, co-host Chris Cuomo repeatedly characterized the Clinton/Russia issue as being nothing more than an "obvious distraction." CNN political analyst David Gregory agreed proclaiming it is merely "a distraction on the part of, you know, in most cases, allies of the President."

Former Clinton national press secretary Brian Fallon, after admitting that Hillary likely knew about the funding simply dismissed it while on CNN Newsroom saying "I think it's important to remember that, A, opposition research happens all the time in campaigns."

After playing the clip of Fallon on ABC's World News Tonight Chief Investigative Correspondent for ABC News Brian Ross added that "the Democrats did nothing wrong" and "I think it's important to remember that opposition research happens all the time in campaigns." Riiiiight. If it's no big deal then please explain why ABC dedicated 60% of their evening news broadcast to covering it when Donald Trump Jr. did it.

Likewise, on their morning show Good Morning America they devoted 10 minutes to covering the story about Trump Jr. but only a few seconds to the new revelation -- and that was at the end of another story.

Similarly on CBS Evening News, a CBS consultant Alex Conant, casually dismissed the revelation declaring to the network's correspondent Jeff Pegues "Every competent campaign does research on their opponent. You want to know your opponents' vulnerabilities. I think hiring foreign spies is a very aggressive tactic, and that's not normal, but it is normal to do opposition research."

CBS spent 70% of its total airtime -- nearly 13 minutes -- discussing it when Trump Jr. did it because it's what every campaign does.

And it should be noted that there is one very important difference in what Hillary and the DNC did as compared to what Donald Trump Jr. did. Something that none of the MSM media outlets mentioned as they sought to dismiss it as being nothing more than a distraction. They violated campaign finance laws by failing to disclose payments for the phony dossier on Donald Trump. As the Washington Times observed; "By law, campaign and party committees must disclose the reason money is spent and its recipient."













1. And he wasn't seeking to fabricate a bunch of stuff in order to start a federal investigation.

[CMD]

"Blah blah blah, Obama this, Obama that. Who cares! It's all old news. Obama's not the President anymore, Trump is, so if it's not about him, it's a distraction!"

It's the "old news" tactic in action. Liberals ignored/excused/downplayed Obama's nonsense as much as possible until finally the storm had passed and now they can just hand-wave it all away as old, irrelevant news that doesn't matter anymore whenever it's brought up.

[shunyadragon]

Given the relative lack of attention they've attracted, and the gigantic target on Trump's back, I'd say there appears to be precious little substance to the allegations. On the one hand, it would not seem to be all that far out of character for Trump to have done something like what's been accused. On the other hand, false accusations are not especially rare, they all suspiciously popped up at the same (critical) moment, and people can become convinced that a lie they tell themselves is the truth. I think I'll take a wait and see approach to this, and not proclaim him innocent or guilty until there's some sort of proof proffered.

I do not see any outside testimony or smoking gun substance beyond the allegations of those that accuse Trump nor those that accuse Weinstein. In both cases the accusers are extremely reputable, excellent character, and reliable women, and as far as I am concerned there is no reason to doubt their testimony. Few if none of the associates of Trump nor Weinstein could testify specifically to the allegations as witnesses, but in both cases they were known for their reputation. It was Trump caught bragging about his behavior on tape.

[One Bad Pig]

I do not see any outside testimony or smoking gun substance beyond the allegations of those that accuse Trump nor those that accuse Weinstein. In both cases the accusers are extremely reputable, excellent character, and reliable women, and as far as I am concerned there is no reason to doubt their testimony. Few if none of the associates of Trump nor Weinstein could testify specifically to the allegations as witnesses, but in both cases they were known for their reputation. It was Trump caught bragging about his behavior on tape.

Thanks for your opinion. Given your generally nebulous acquaintance with accurate representations of what you read elsewhere, .

[rogue06]

"Blah blah blah, Obama this, Obama that. Who cares! It's all old news. Obama's not the President anymore, Trump is, so if it's not about him, it's a distraction!"

It's the "old news" tactic in action. Liberals ignored/excused/downplayed Obama's nonsense as much as possible until finally the storm had passed and now they can just hand-wave it all away as old, irrelevant news that doesn't matter anymore whenever it's brought up.

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for your opinion. Given your generally nebulous acquaintance with accurate representations of what you read elsewhere, .

Basically a dodge, and not a coherent response,

[Cow Poke]

Basically a dodge, and not a coherent response,

And not a complete sentence.

[Darth Executor]

Basically a dodge, and not a coherent response,

One of the accused in Trump's case had her cousin outright say she was lying because she felt spurned when he declined to visit her restaurant. Another DATED Trump afterwards. A third was basically outed as a paid actress and part of a neocon scam by some leftist rag (I think it was Salon). How is that "extremely reputable, excellent character, and reliable women"? I doubt you actually looked into a single accusation.

[Tassman]

I don't think I ever mentioned Clinton. I was pointing out how all of a sudden you have become very concerned about freedom of the press when Trump has done little more than grouse about all of the "fake news" as compared to the previous eight years when even the rabidly anti-Trump New York Times described the Obamessiah as being as bad as Nixon at trying to actively suppress it.

Guess I need to re-post this yet again

And here are two pieces from the New York Times

Source: If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama

labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Only Nixon Harmed a Free Press More

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[*Both stories continues at the above links*]


Something else that the left has revealed an amazing level of hypocrisy concerning.

Now I get to mention Hillary

Source: FLASHBACK: HOW THE MEDIA WENT HYSTERICAL OVER DON JR.�S WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT RUSSIAN DIRT ON HILLARY

CNN's Bakari Sellers said Democrats ought to make a bigger deal over Trump Jr.'s meeting, as "what he did was a threat to our democracy and borderline treason."

Attorney and former White House ethics czar, Richard Painter, became a fixture on the TV circuit, where he said the meeting could constitute treason.

"The facts reported in The New York Times article come very close if not is crossing the line with respect to treason if those facts are true," Painter said on MSNBC.

The former Watergate prosecutor, Nick Ackerman, likewise became a cable TV fixture, where he at one point said Trump Jr.'s meeting was "outright treason."

Stephen Colbert summed up the hopes of many when he concluded that Trump Jr. was "going to jail."

Will these same personalities level the same accusations against Clinton and the DNC?



Source

© Copyright Original Source

And hand waving it away as no big deal after screeching about treason when it involved Donald Jr.^[1] is exactly what the left is doing. The same people who were all fired up about this being evidence of a connection between Trump and Russia are now dismissing the revelations about the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paying for information from the Russians is no big deal and shouldn't be a focus when the shoe is on the other foot.

I believe it was Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) who while on MSNBC's Morning Joe, tried to shrug it off as being nothing more than "a distraction from the things we need to be doing."

Also on MSNBC, on the Rachel Maddow Showfake dossier you have already lost all credibility.

On Fox News' The Story Zac Petkanas a vetran Democrat strategist and former senior advisor for the DNC continued with the it's nothing more than a distraction and smear narrative saying "There's a lot of hay being made out of this and I think the reason is very clear. This is an attempt to discredit to undermine the FBI."

On CNN, on their program New Day, co-host Chris Cuomo repeatedly characterized the Clinton/Russia issue as being nothing more than an "obvious distraction." CNN political analyst David Gregory agreed proclaiming it is merely "a distraction on the part of, you know, in most cases, allies of the President."

Former Clinton national press secretary Brian Fallon, after admitting that Hillary likely knew about the funding simply dismissed it while on CNN Newsroom saying "I think it's important to remember that, A, opposition research happens all the time in campaigns."

After playing the clip of Fallon on ABC's World News Tonight Chief Investigative Correspondent for ABC News Brian Ross added that "the Democrats did nothing wrong" and "I think it's important to remember that opposition research happens all the time in campaigns." Riiiiight. If it's no big deal then please explain why ABC dedicated 60% of their evening news broadcast to covering it when Donald Trump Jr. did it.

Likewise, on their morning show Good Morning America they devoted 10 minutes to covering the story about Trump Jr. but only a few seconds to the new revelation -- and that was at the end of another story.

Similarly on CBS Evening News, a CBS consultant Alex Conant, casually dismissed the revelation declaring to the network's correspondent Jeff Pegues "Every competent campaign does research on their opponent. You want to know your opponents' vulnerabilities. I think hiring foreign spies is a very aggressive tactic, and that's not normal, but it is normal to do opposition research."

CBS spent 70% of its total airtime -- nearly 13 minutes -- discussing it when Trump Jr. did it because it's what every campaign does.

And it should be noted that there is one very important difference in what Hillary and the DNC did as compared to what Donald Trump Jr. did. Something that none of the MSM media outlets mentioned as they sought to dismiss it as being nothing more than a distraction. They violated campaign finance laws by failing to disclose payments for the phony dossier on Donald Trump. As the Washington Times observed; "By law, campaign and party committees must disclose the reason money is spent and its recipient."













1. And he wasn't seeking to fabricate a bunch of stuff in order to start a federal investigation.

[shunyadragon]

And not a complete sentence.

The anal grammarian strikes again.

Still no response.