quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Sorry to tell you this Sanity, but the left has no shame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Sorry to tell you this Sanity, but the left has no shame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Not quite the comeuppance that he deserves, but it is something

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Not quite the comeuppance that he deserves, but it is something

Quite the polar opposite to what would have happened had this been Brit Hume, donating money to Koch Brother charities.

The knuckle-dragging wing of the democraps would have been screaming for his job, post haste!



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/05/14/donation-disclosure-issue-snowballing-for-abc-news-stephanopoulos/

Meh? Mountain or molehill?

quote:

Donation disclosure issue snowballing for ABC News, Stephanopoulos..

803 Comments
Mentioned in this story and want to comment? Learn more
Please Sign In to Comment


candela17
5:26 PM MST [Edited]
George will continue to cover the 2016 race so he can exert his "unbiased" support of Hillary....

5:27 PM MST [Edited]
There's simply no accountability for anyone in government, which apparently now includes the MSM.


Vinny Lumps
5:22 PM MST
George is not guilty of a crime literally, but of journalistic dishonesty. It will be argued that Schwietzer takes money from the Kochs. Yes, but he doesn't conceal the fact, or that he worked for Bush 2. And he has a respectable record of work. It's easy to imagine that George was making donations to a "charity" in order to get back into the good graces of the Clintons again, from whom he had to distance himself to launch his journalistic career.

Whether Hillary is legally guilty of something we cannot know for sure unless the legal authorities investigate. If it were anyone else, the prima facie evidence--the patterns--would be enough to justify an investigation. And people like George are obviously actively trying to discourage an official investigation. "No proof." Right, that's why you need an investigation. Schweitzer makes the point expressly that he doesn't have the proof--just incredibly suspicious patterns. George takes the opposite approach, and tries to make it look as if Schwietzer is claiming proof, but then can't deliver the goods, so we can all go home. I think that's pretty deceitful.


nawlinsron
5:21 PM MST
The naive mind believes that a $500,000 speech ends with a simple thank you.
At George's level, the same applies to a $25K donation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

a link that wont break the page

In the absence of a material conflict, is there some symbolic conflict? It is hard to imagine what. The Clinton Foundation has taken on nefarious connotations owing to conflict-of-interest problems that don’t implicate Stephanopoulos. But it is, after all, a charity. It used to have non-partisan overtones.In the heat of the 2012 election, Mitt Romney spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative. News Corporation Foundation and Donald Trump, for goodness sake, donated to it.

Stephanopoulos’s defense — that he just wanted to donate to the Foundation’s work on AIDS prevention and deforestation — seems 100 percent persuasive. He is the victim of the ethical taint of the Clintons’ poorly handled business dealings, combined with an underlying right-wing suspicion of the liberal media, but what his critics have yet to produce is a coherent case against him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

a link that wont break the page

In the absence of a material conflict, is there some symbolic conflict? It is hard to imagine what. The Clinton Foundation has taken on nefarious connotations owing to conflict-of-interest problems that don’t implicate Stephanopoulos. But it is, after all, a charity. It used to have non-partisan overtones.In the heat of the 2012 election, Mitt Romney spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative. News Corporation Foundation and Donald Trump, for goodness sake, donated to it.

Stephanopoulos’s defense — that he just wanted to donate to the Foundation’s work on AIDS prevention and deforestation — seems 100 percent persuasive. He is the victim of the ethical taint of the Clintons’ poorly handled business dealings, combined with an underlying right-wing suspicion of the liberal media, but what his critics have yet to produce is a coherent case against him.

No, agreed, and a couple of conservatives have questioned mountain or molehill on here. God forbid a bloviating person I know had to maybe concede a point. But, the last news article may have been more on point. stephanopoulous was pretty pointed in questioning Schweizer about his prior connections. That may have made this a sauce for both gooses and ganders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Devoid of journalistic integrity

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Has Fox News mentioned on air that their parent company's foundation has contributed to the Clinton Foundation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Has Fox News mentioned on air that their parent company's foundation has contributed to the Clinton Foundation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The degree to which YOU JUST DON'T GIVE A SHIT (about facts, policies, analysis, and information) is just startling at times. But, I am stupid for being startled, because your posting is as remarkably consistent as is substantively empty.