I Got #47Traitors And Bitch Obama Is One Of Them

Update: Petition to have GOP senators jailed for sending letter to Iran draws more than 140,000 signatures. The totalitarian Obama Left has nothing but coercion and threats against free speech to offer.

————————————————–

The last sentence of our last article said it all. If you are on a hunt for traitors, the White House of Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett is a good place to start.

A good place to start if you are on a traitor hunt is Obama policies. Obama policies appear to be designed to provide sufficient time and sufficient cover for Jarrett’s country of descent to acquire nuclear weapons and missiles equipped with nuclear weapons sufficient to destroy Israel and achieve hegemony over the Middle East.

Recently, 47 Republican senators concerned about Obama’s treacherous policies on Iran sent a letter to Iran. These Republican senators are rationally concerned about Barack Obama’s attempts to circumvent congress and the constitutional requirement that congress approve all treaties between this nation and foreign powers.

This letter has led to charges on Twitter and some of the nation’s Big Media publications that the 47 Republicans exercising their rights and prerogatives are #47Traitors. Even Hillary yesterday threw some red meat to the ravenous dogs of Big Media with an ill-advised condemnation of the 47 courageous and correct Republican letter writing senators.

Immediately after Republicans won the 2014 congressional elections (and state, local, elections too) we asked for only one thing from the newly empowered Republicans:

The Republican soon-to-be-majority in the U.S. Senate along with their fortified army in the House of Representatives must make it their top priority to defeat this Barack Obama fifth column move to assure that Iran acquire nuclear weapons.



Republicans in the House and Senate should move to defund any and all activities in the State Department, White House, Pentagon, in any and all agencies that plot to negotiate with Iran in any way without notification to the American Congress and approval by the Congress.

Barack Obama would threaten to veto, then veto, any such law passed by Congress. But we believe that even prominent Obama Dimocrats such as Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Robert Menendez would bolster Republicans and vote to override an Obama veto. Robert Menendez seeks to stop the threat to American security of a nuclear Iran:

Well we know what has been done to Senator Menendez by treacherous Barack Obama:

Vindictive Charges Against Menendez Stink Of Chicago Politics

Politics: Sen. Bob Menendez has wallowed in New Jersey’s Democratic political swamp for years. So it’s peculiar for the Justice Department to ready corruption charges right after he dissents with Obama’s policies.

Just who do these people think they are fooling?

As word leaked of coming corruption charges against Menendez — supposedly for using his Senate office to advance the business interests of a Democratic donor in exchange for gifts — the mind turns to the same sort of allegations against Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, New York Democrats Charles Rangel and Charles Schumer, and the husband of House Democratic Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

None of those political animals is facing charges, nor do they have any fear of it.

Why? Because, it seems, they toe the party line. [snip]

The one Democrat who dared stand up to President Obama on his atrocious cave-in deal with Iran, as well as his no-preconditions diplomatic relations with Cuba and his abuse of Israel, suddenly faces corruption charges.

Washington insiders say that the plan against Menendez is to get him removed as the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where, knowing foreign policy, he has had no choice but to oppose the president’s policies that run counter to U.S. interests — even as the president fantasizes about getting another Nobel Peace prize or a Nixon-In-China place in history.

Muscling a critic like this smacks of Stalin-style show trials, where offenders suddenly fall from favor to become nonpersons. It smacks of Argentina’s Medici-politics of silencing its president’s prosecutor.

And going after Menendez is little more than dirty Chicago-style politics that’s so obvious to everyone it stinks.

Menendez is finding out that Obama’s initials are not “B.O.” for nothing. Obama stinks. Obama policies stink. So we applaud those who stand up forthrightly to oppose stinky Obama’s treacherous policies.

The writer and leader of the 47 courageous senators, Iraq War veteran Tom Cotton, wrote about the letter in USAToday today:

The critical role of Congress in the adoption of international agreements was clearly laid out by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution. And it’s a principle upon which Democrats and Republicans have largely agreed.

In fact, then-Sen. Joe Biden once reflected on this very topic, writing that “the president and the Senate are partners in the process by which the United States enters into, and adheres to, international obligations.

It’s not often I agree with former senator and now Vice President Biden, but his words here are clear. The Senate must approve any deal President Obama negotiates with Iran by a two-thirds majority vote.

Anything less will not be considered a binding agreement when President Obama’s term expires in two years. This is true of any agreement, but in particular with the nuclear deal President Obama intends to strike with Iran.

Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the Obama administration has so far completely bypassed Congress in its negotiations with Iran.

The administration cares little about what will win congressional approval — only complete nuclear disarmament — and more about just reaching some sort of deal.

Regrettably, it appears the deal President Obama is negotiating with Iran will not be a good one. In fact, if reports are correct, it will be a bad one that will ultimately allow Iran to continue its nuclear program and ultimately develop a nuclear weapon.

That is why this week, I, along with 46 of my fellow senators, wrote Iranian leaders to inform them of the role Congress plays in approving their agreement. Our goal is simple: to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Barack Obama wants to circumvent the Constitution. These Republican senators want to obey the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Today, these Republican senators might have won.

Today Secretary of State John Kerry, freshly botoxed, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What John Kerry said is perplexing at best:

Even John Kerry says the Iran deal is not legally binding

Credit Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) for raising the issue. Without a letter reminding the White House, Congress and the American people that a deal must be approved by the Senate in order to be binding, we might never have learned from Secretary of State John Kerry that “we are not negotiating a legally binding plan.” Oh, really? [snip]

What then do the Iranians think they are getting? No wonder the White House threw a fit. Cotton, as he did in an op-ed today, is reminding everyone of a simple fact: The deal goes away when Obama leaves office. [snip]

This has several ramifications. First, it becomes the main issue for the 2016 campaign. Every candidate will have to signal whether they will walk away from any deal. George W. Bush walked away from the nonbinding deal with North Korea, and the next president can do the same with regard to a faulty Iran deal. Do Democrats want to run defending an Iran deal with a 1- year sunset? Good grief. Not even Bill Clinton could do that. Over 80 percent of Americans oppose just such a deal.

Second, the Iranians cannot be sure they are getting more than a couple of years of sanctions relief; that may be all they want and enough to break the back of sanctions in Europe and elsewhere. But without Congress — just like Cotton said — they don’t get rid of sanctions.

Third, Congress should rethink its strategy. If it wants to leave the bulk of sanctions in place, it need do nothing more. If it wants to increase sanctions, as the Menendez-Kirk legislation envisions, lawmakers need to make certain they have enough votes to override a veto. And as for an up-or-down vote, Congress can certainly deliver a sense-of-Congress resolution — which is not subject to a veto — but it can simply hang tight, see what happens in 2016 and refuse to abandon sanctions.

This is a pretty huge deal and should cause some serious rethinking about what the administration is doing. If all it can promise is, in effect, disruption of the sanctions regime during the lame-duck president’s remaining time in office, his conduct may undercut future presidents’ leverage. Is this just about getting a piece of paper as a legacy and leaving others to deal with the mess? It sure looks that way.

Obama wants a trip to Iran to sign an agreement. Valerie Jarrett can’t wait to visit home.

[edited: Kerry testimony video at link http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=69016&siteSection=washingtonexaminer&videoId=28706898

The Botox must have Kerry befuddled. Kerry thinks that an “executive-to-executive agreement” somehow will lift sanctions on Iran even though only Congress can lift the Iran sanctions. Here’s Kerry under the influence of Botox:

“When it says that Congress could actually modify the terms of an agreement at any time is flat wrong. You don’t have the right to modify an agreement reached executive to executive between leaders of a country,” Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which does not include Senator Tom Cotton, the Republican from Arkansas who wrote the letter.

Kerry thinks Obama is a Mullah able to rule a free people via diktat. Uh, no. The Botox is intoxicating Kerry into thinking he is a pretty cheerleader in High School able to do as he pleases:

The Obama administration won’t submit any deal limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions to Congress for approval because it won’t be legally binding, Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday.

“We’ve been clear from the beginning we’re not negotiating a legally binding plan. We’re negotiating a plan that will have a capacity for enforcement,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. [snip]

As he spoke, committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who did not sign the letter but is a sponsor of legislation to require approval of any deal, cut him off.

Corker later noted that as a senator, Kerry had demanded congressional approval of a proposed agreement with Iraq on the status of U.S. troops there.

Corker popped Kerry a good one. Tom Cotton’s Twitter response to Kerry‘s crackpot tale? “Important question: if deal with Iran is not legally binding, then what’s to keep Iran from breaking said deal and developing a bomb?

Bibi Netanyahu was right.

Share

52 thoughts on “I Got #47Traitors And Bitch Obama Is One Of Them

  1. Obama used to play the song “I got 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one” in 2008 as an attack on Hillary. We know who the treacherous bitch-boy is.

  2. Horseface neighs, “You don’t have the right to modify an agreement reached executive to executive between leaders of a country,”

    —–

    Someone should remind Mr. Ed that this isn’t a kingdom, where the ruler is ordained by God to rule as he pleases, while us surfs just carry his water.

    Pretty soon the peasants of America are going to huff and puff and blow his effin’ House down!!!!

  3. “I got 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one”


    My first time with that singer and song.

    Let’s see if I have the themes covered:

    White people, cops, and political leaders are all out to kill blacks. Check.

    Black women are tools to be used and degraded. Check.

    Jail, drugs, guns and being shot to death in the end are the black man’s only life. Check.

    Obama loves and sings this song. Check.

  4. It’s time that the House impeach Obama for high crimes and he be tried by the Senate. Would the Senate need 60 yeas to remove Obola from office or will a simple majority do? Of course with Boner and McConnel as Obola’s lapdogs, the chances of the GOP standing up to the diktator are laughable at best.

  5. Emails! A real email/document scandal:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415212/suspicious-fires-twice-destroyed-key-sharpton-records-jillian-kay-melchior

    Suspicious Fires Twice Destroyed Key Sharpton Records

    As Al Sharpton ran for mayor of New York City in 1997 and for president in 2003, fires at his offices reportedly destroyed critical financial records, and he subsequently failed to comply with tax and campaign filing requirements. The first fire began in the early hours of April 10, 1997, in a hair-and-nail salon one floor below Sharpton’s campaign headquarters at 70 West 125th Street. From the start, investigators deemed the fire “suspicious” because of “a heavy volume of fire on arrival” and because many of the doors remained unlocked after hours, according to the New York Fire Department’s fire-and-incident report. As the fire crept upward into Sharpton’s headquarters, it destroyed nearly everything, including computers, files, and campaign records, the Reverend’s spokesperson at the time told Newsday, adding that “we have lost our entire Manhattan operation.” But a source knowledgeable about the investigation tells National Review Online that Sharpton’s office was mostly empty, and that the damage was not extensive. [snip]

    The 1997 fire occurred five days before Tax Day and, the New York Post reported, “just after Sharpton announced that he would open his financial records.” After the fire, Sharpton said he would seek an extension because crucial financial records had been destroyed. It’s unclear whether that extension was granted. In July 1997, Sharpton also missed the deadline to file his personal financial-disclosure forms with the New York City Conflict of Interests Board, violating a legal requirement and risking a fine of up to $10,000. He said the destruction of records in the fire had prevented him from filing. When Sharpton finally filed a year later, in July 1998 — months after the November 4, 1997 elections — he paid a $100 late fee. [snip]

    During the campaign, Sharpton criticized his opponents for having a “penthouse mentality,” calling one a “limousine liberal.” But while his competitors had voluntarily released their income-tax returns to the media, Sharpton had not even filed his yet, much less publicly disclosed them, Newsday noted. He finally filed his tax returns on August 15, publicly offering only estimates of his earnings that year, which he said were between $50,000 and $60,000. A New York Daily News report a few weeks later alleged that Sharpton owed $100,000 in overdue federal and state taxes and fines, reportedly prompting him to finally release his tax records. A federal tax lien assessed in 2005 also estimated that Sharpton’s nonprofit, National Action Network, owed more than $15,000 for 1997. In early September 1997, the New York City Campaign Finance Board cited Sharpton for accepting political contributions in excess of the limits established in the Campaign Finance Act, the New York Daily News reported. Six years later, on January 23, 2003 — one day after Sharpton filed paperwork to create a presidential exploratory committee — another fire caused heavy damage at National Action Network, located at 1941 Madison Avenue. [snip]

    The battalion chief who responded to the fire initially coded it as suspicious. On the fire-and-incident report, the cause of fire is designated as “NFA [Not Fully Ascertained] — Heat from electrical equipment (Extension Cords).” But by the evening of January 24, the chief fire marshal told the New York Times that “both an eyewitness account and a physical examination by fire marshals point to the cause as accidental.” Nevertheless, significant oddities surrounded both the fire and the investigation, and the story of the key eyewitness had some holes that were apparently never addressed. James Kelty, a supervising fire marshal who responded to the 2003 fire, tells NRO he was unexpectedly relieved from the fire investigation. “I was on the fire, and then I wasn’t on the fire; I was on the fire scene, and then I was no longer at the fire scene,” he says, adding that it was unusual. When NRO told him that the investigative report was only six pages long and accompanied by 38 photographs, Kelty said: “Big fires and fires involving prominent people are generally much more exhaustive. Thirty-eight photos are a drop in the bucket, especially given Sharpton’s notoriety and given the fact that he was running for U.S. president.” [snip]

    Though the chief fire marshal later told reporters the investigators had ruled out arson, suspicions still abounded in the neighborhood, according to news accounts. “The fact that a day after [Sharpton] announces he’s running for president his place burns down?” one National Action Network member told the New York Times. “I don’t buy it. They couldn’t sell me on that.” “It was accidentally on purpose,” the New York Times quoted another neighbor saying, adding that his comments “echo[ed] the sentiments of nearly every person interviewed near the burned-out headquarters of the National Action Network.” [snip]

    The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) filed two complaints with the FEC, helping trigger an investigation into Sharpton’s presidential campaign. The FEC later found that both National Action Network and other entities had illegally paid for travel expenses incurred by Sharpton’s campaign, in part because “Sharpton 2004 kept poor records of its activities and expenditures.” The FEC’s conciliation agreement says that $65,000 in campaign expenses charged to Sharpton’s personal credit card came from unknown sources. It also says an additional $209,677 in unreported in-kind contributions came from Sharpton’s for-profit entity Rev. Al’s Productions. (In 2004, Sharpton told the New York Times that Rev. Al’s Productions was a subsidiary of another one of his entities, Rev. Al’s Communications.) Rev. Al’s Productions, as well as another company called Sharpton Media Group, were “two unincorporated wholly owned, sole proprietorships founded by Sharpton” that “serves as vehicles for Sharpton’s entrepreneurial activities and has no staff, maintains no overhead, and pays all of their profits to Sharpton in the form of dividends, which he claims as income in his personal tax filings,” according to the conciliation agreement. So who was paying Rev. Al’s Communications money that eventually ended up at the campaign? That’s unclear, because Sharpton’s lawyer Michael Hardy said that the fire had destroyed honorarium records for the company. The National Legal and Policy Center suggested in its complaint to the FEC that some of the money may have come from two affluent Sharpton campaign supporters, La-Van Hawkins and his wife, Wendy. [snip]

    Though the FEC did not address this issue in its conciliation agreement, the NLPC also claimed that Hawkins Food Group had given Sharpton a $25,000 consulting fee before the fire. And in 2008, La-Van Hawkins told the New York Post from a South Dakota federal prison, where he’d been sent for attempted bribery, that he had given both a $25,000 annual consulting fee to Sharpton and “over $1 million” to National Action Network. “There was nothing disclosed by the Sharpton campaign to describe the type of ‘consulting’ Sharpton may have provided Mr. Hawkins’ company in return for the $25,000 payment,” the NLPC wrote. “Perhaps the contract and supporting documents were lost in the fire. . . . The payment by an individual who subsequently became a major donor and then some to Sharpton’s campaign is all the more questionable given the statement by the Sharpton campaign that records for some of his ‘consulting’ work were destroyed in a fire which also destroyed other records about honoraria and income earned by Sharpton.” New York State eventually dissolved Rev. Al’s Communications in 2009 for failure to pay taxes. From its 1999 founding to 2002, the for-profit entity either failed to file or failed to pay taxes, and by January 2003, the company had managed to run up more than $226,000 in tax debt, according to federal liens. In 2002, the year before the fire, New York had also dissolved Sharpton’s other company, Raw Talent, for tax problems; it owed $589,453 in federal taxes and $4,834 in state taxes, according to a 2007 lien and New York tax warrants. Meanwhile, Delaware dissolved Sharpton Media Group in 2007 for failure to file tax records, though the entity remains active in New York despite state corporate law. National Action Network’s annual tax filings show Sharpton Media Group had loaned the nonprofit tens of thousands of dollars. As Sharpton ran for president, he submitted several FEC filings late. One of them, filed in July 2003, revealed that the IRS had opened a federal tax audit into Sharpton, examining his finances throughout the 1990s, according to a July 12, 2003, New York Times report. It was not the first time Sharpton had been under scrutiny; in 1990, he was acquitted of 67 counts, including larceny and fraud. Three years later, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor after failing to file state income taxes, with the state dropping two felony charges in exchange, the New York Times reported. The IRS investigation lasted for years, and Sharpton continued to cite the fires in connection with it, according to a New York Daily News report. The paper noted that “Sharpton and [National Action Network] owe several million dollars in back taxes, but Sharpton attributed the problem to a fire at his Harlem headquarters that destroyed many records.” By 2008, the IRS dropped its criminal probe, reaching a settlement with Sharpton and his entities of “between $2 million and $9 million,” the New York Daily News reported. Based on the NLPC complaints, the FEC eventually reached two conciliation agreements with Sharpton. It fined him $5,500 for failing to file his statements of candidacy on time, and an additional $208,000 for violating campaign-finance laws by “failing to file complete and accurate reports disclosing all of the Committee’s receipts and expenditures” and “knowingly accepting excessive and prohibited in-kind contributions.” It also fined National Action Network and Sharpton $77,000 for making prohibited contributions to his campaign. The FEC’s latter conciliation agreement notes that it “does not establish or mean that any of the violations were knowing and willful.” [snip]

    It was always suspicious — it was always suspicious, to this day,” says Carl Redding, the former Sharpton staffer who has publicly criticized him. He adds: “All I could do was just go by whatever the police reports would say. . . . It always seemed like it just died out. There was never any serious questions raised about what happened” in both fires.

  6. WTH Hillary, she makes the wrong comments on the #47, better she be quiet, everything she states is obamalyte and a disaster.

  7. So the Associated Press has filed a suit to search Hillary’s underwear drawer!

    The Associated Press filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

    The legal action comes after repeated requests filed under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have gone unfulfilled. They include one request AP made five years ago and others pending since the summer of 2013.

    The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, comes a day after Clinton broke her silence about her use of a private email account while secretary of state. The FOIA requests and lawsuit seek materials related to her public and private calendars, correspondence involving longtime aides likely to play key roles in her expected campaign for president, and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices.

    “After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, The Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time,” said Karen Kaiser, AP’s general counsel.

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150311/us–clinton-ap_lawsuit-e9df444db5.html

  8. …with O’s taunting of Congress saying he doesn’t need them and has a pen and a phone and will do everything he can through Executive Order without them…just what did he expect from Congress…a co-equal branch of our government…

    he doesn’t respect them and they don’t respect him…you reap what you sow…

    turn around is fair play…and now they are going around the self appointed king

    did he think that after overwhelmingly winning the recent elections that they, the winners, would just sit down and shut up…

    **************************************

    btw…in the media…no one seems to show any respect for Hillary…she has been declared fair game to call her anything…and make up anything they want about her…

    mysogyny rears its ugly head early in the game…

  9. Hey AP, why didn’t you file a lawsuit against Obama for any of his scrubbed history and BC?

    It wasn’t advantageous to you?

  10. S

    mysogyny rears its ugly head early in the game…

    ——-
    Yes, Hillary is a constant, moving target except for 18 million of us, minus the few at Big Pink that have written her off.

  11. freespirit

    March 11, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    **************************************

    free, coming here calms my nerves…

  12. Early each morning, across America, the media gathers to decide which stories they will push for the day.

    The media has followed the TMZ model and the first thing on their list is, ‘How can we degrade, humiliate, discredit and scare Hillary Clinton from running for President in 2016?”

    If there is nothing of substance to go after they start throwing out rumors they have heard. If the rumors are not current, they go with them anyway.

    Hillary sells papers, Hillary brings traffic to their websites and cable tv shows.

    They are already cranking up the polls after the email squirrel and hope to show that she has taken a nose dive in popularity.

    Welcome to the primaries!

  13. Admin: you are the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  14. Okay, Gowdy just lost his credibility in my book…he wants to see Hillary’s undies too…

    —-
    [snip]

    Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., head of the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, said in a statement that without access to it, “there is no way for the State Department to know it has acquired all documents that should be made public.”

    He said he sees “no choice” but for Clinton to turn over the server “to a neutral, detached third-party arbiter who can determine which documents should be public and which should remain private.”

    Fuck you Trey!

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/11/lawmakers-seek-access-to-clintons-private-server-dubious-press-conference/

  15. Shadow – saw that. Guess Trey has figured out being accountable, honest is not the path to money.
    Anyone else having videos here seemingly turning on at will?

    This announcement brings back nice memories of Hillary and 2008:

    City officials say they are prepared for St. Patrick’s revelry
    City, county and state police – on foot, horseback, bicycle, and some undercover – will be out in droves Saturday to ensure safety at Pittsburgh’s St. Patrick’s Day events. Events include the parade, a celebration in Market Square and nearly all=day revelry along East Carson Street in the South Side….
    http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/7942754-74/parade-begin-public#axzz3U6nMJCSf

    2008 HRC marched P-burgh, then Scranton. With Ed Rendell. Same day.

  16. Suppose this Logan Act violation goes to the Supreme Court. How would the court decide?

    Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy: the speech and debate clause in the Constitution affords full immunity to Congress when they act within the scope of their authority, which includes the ratification of treaties by the senate etc.

    Breyer, Ginzberg, Kagen and the wise but deranged Latina: the constitution is what we say it is, they are Republicans, fry’em and throw them in with the general prison population. (The NYT can be heard in the background loudly applauding, as all eyes turn to wimp street)

    Roberts, well, ah . . . er . . . I can see both sides of the argument . . . god damnit Obama stop squeezing my testicles, okay, okay, okay, send them to jail. (Note: in a more reflective moment, Roberts records in his memoir How To Survive a Hurricane With Only One testicle, it was a tough call, our jails are over crowded, but their sin of opposing Obama was unforgivable in my judgement, and heaven knows this was not an easy decision).

  17. Shadowfax
    March 11, 2015 at 3:48 pm
    Okay, Gowdy just lost his credibility in my book
    —–
    I warned you about him.

    When he gave us that cockamayme excuse for supporting Boeher for speaker, that removed all doubt.

  18. its my opinion that they are going after obama using Hillary’s emails as the tool.
    somewhere there are directives for her from him over the bengazi and other fiascos.

    I still think that her family was threatened and she is under some kind of pressure to act as she has.

    this is not the Hillary that I knew in early 2008.
    ever since that meeting with zero she has backed down time after time.

    as I said my opinion take it for what its worth…

  19. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hillary-crisis-hollywood-democrats-see-780450

    Hillary in Crisis: Hollywood Democrats See Elizabeth Warren as Plan B

    As questions mount about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account while serving as secretary of state, some Hollywood Democrats are beginning to think the unthinkable: If not her, then whom?

    Norman Lear, the reigning elder among Hollywood progressives, sums up a common fallback position. If Clinton, 67, declines to run for president in 2016, he’ll back lightning rod Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose industry supporters are numerous and passionate. “Women only,” Lear tells THR. “I think Elizabeth would make a great president.”

    Warren, 65, a former Harvard Law professor, has said she will not seek the Democratic nomination, but MoveOn.org has been organizing “Run Warren Run” gatherings on L.A.’s Westside. Among the movement’s supporters are Mark Ruffalo, Edward Norton, Susan Sarandon, Matt Bomer and Darren Aronofsky. Other potential candidates being debated at industry functions are New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and even former Maryland Gov. and Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley.

    The new questions about Clinton’s viability come in what has become a season of discontent for industry Democrats. Many in Hollywood privately have expressed dissatisfaction with President Obama. The more conservative power brokers are disappointed with his handling of threats to Israel, capped off by his recent clash with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran’s nuclear program. Hollywood’s more liberal contingent feels that many of Obama’s policies on national security and his relationship with Wall Street have offered no improvement from predecessor George W. Bush.

    Fair or not, Clinton is viewed by both camps as too similar to Obama and entrenched in an ineffective system. Her national poll numbers were dropping even before the email scandal, and her handling of the issue — on March 10 she said she thought “using one device would be simpler” — has been heavily scrutinized. In Hollywood, the response to her potential candidacy has been tepid at best. One A-list producer and fan of President Bill Clinton tells THR he won’t back Hillary because she is “more of the same,” but he stops short of considering a GOP candidate, of which there are plenty.

  20. Yea Wbb, I have been suspicious about Trey even before that.

    I had little hope that his Benghazi kangaroo court would bring any truth about what part the ‘Commander in Chief’ had over what happened and if he told the military to go in and save the people in our embassy.

    Trey is now a partner in taking down Hillary at any cost, maybe he always was in that MO and just sounded like Obama might have some part in it.

    Yes, also Bonar for speaker, I also thought he was a lost cause.

  21. Sirmrks, “I still think that her family was threatened and she is under some kind of pressure to act as she has.”

    We don’t know if your assertion or suspicions are accurate or not. But we’ve heard about this Menendez indictment which was leaked almost at the same time as the NYT published the Hillary email story on the same day as the Netanyahu speech on Iran.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bob-menendez-responds-federal-investigation-115944.html?hp=b1_l1

    Yet even as he has emerged at the center of a growing scandal, Menendez has found some unlikely support from Republicans. A number of conservatives, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, have questioned whether the case has been motivated by Menendez’s high-profile role pushing back on the administration’s Iran and Cuba policies. Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker said he and Menendez have had multiple conversations over the committee’s agenda, suggesting the Democrat is carrying on with his business as if he’s not in legal jeopardy.

    “I have had two conversations with him in the last 24 hours — all of which were about policy issues that we need to deal with,” the Tennessee Republican said.

    Asked Tuesday if he would continue his outspoken criticism of the administration’s foreign policies, Menendez said: “I am going to be supportive when they do something positive, and when I don’t agree, I am going to be a critic.”

  22. sirmrks
    March 11, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    its my opinion that they are going after obama using Hillary’s emails as the tool.

    ———
    I think that going after the person that can become the next President for 4-8 years is their priority. Sure, if they could find a link to Obama that would kill two birds with one stone in their book and help them take over the WH in their eyes.

    With all the corruption that Obama has pulled in over 6.5 years, the GOP has done little to nothing to stop Obama. Like Wbb said, voting in Bonar again shows that they are worthless.

    As far as threatening the Clinton’s with something, I am sure Obama did. I have no idea if it’s as simple as threatening to pin them as racists or if it was a serious threat of someone being harmed. Remember all those gay men that were murdered in Obama’s church?

    To me it is obvious that Obama threatened them, it was apparent when Bill Clinton had to be pulled in, kicking and screaming to campaign for him, and Hillary quit working for him after her first term.

    We all know the Obama’s and their inner circle will stop at nothing to get what they want.

  23. Notice the shot at Corker (R-Tn). He is a media whore and a donor shill. He has no interest in serving the American People. Like a mackerel in the moonlight: he shines but he stinks. He is a new addition to the whore house that is congress.

    ———————-

    On Monday, 47 United States Senators sent an open letter to the Iranian regime warning that any deal cut by President Obama could be revoked by Congress.

    “The next president,” the letter stated, “could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

    This sent the Obama administration and its media allies into a tizzy of rage. After all, it is one thing for the president of the United States to send secret love letters to the ayatollahs; it is quite another for GOP members of the Senate to warn the Iranians that they will not abide by a bad deal.

    Vice President Joe Biden said that the Republican letter was “beneath the dignity of an institution I revere,” adding, “In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country – much less a longtime foreign adversary – that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them.” Josh Earnest of the White House said that the letter was “a continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy and advance our national security interests around the globe.”

    The New York Daily News headlined its front page “traitors.”

    Jon Lovett, former White House speechwriter and current failed TV sitcom writer, tweeted, “SHAME is the best medicine for these 47 Republicans. And they shall have it!” Other Democrats in the media said that Republicans were pushing war as an alternative to peace.

    This is sheer nonsense. It was the Obama administration that suggested no deal was better than a bad deal. But given the false dichotomy between any deal and war, that suggestion was obviously a ruse.

    Nonetheless, several Republicans declined to sign. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), ever one to solicit the love of the mainstream media, said he wouldn’t sign onto the letter because “it was probably not something that was going to be helpful in that effort, for me to be involved in it.” Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) also declined to sign on, as did Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who said that the letter was not “necessary.” Others who did not sign included Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Dan Coats (R-IN), Thad Cochran (R-MS), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

    Democrats have said that the letter may violate the Logan Act, which states:

    Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    Legally speaking, charges under the Logan Act would be unwarranted. The Logan Act has never actually been used for prosecution, nor has its Constitutionality been seriously reviewed in two hundred years.

    And if Republicans supposedly violated the Logan Act, so did these Democrats:

    Senators John Sparkman (D-AL) and George McGovern (D-SD). The two Senators visited Cuba and met with government actors there in 1975. They said that they did not act on behalf of the United States, so the State Department ignored their activity.

    Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy. According to a memo finally released in 1991 from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

    On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

    What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan’s anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984. Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to “arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. “Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews…Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,” the letter explained. The memo concluded:

    Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

    House Speaker Jim Wright (D-TX). In 1984, 10 Democrats sent a letter to Daniel Ortega Saavedra, the head of the military dictatorship in Nicaragua, praising Saavedra for “taking steps to open up the political process in your country.” House Speaker Jim Wright signed the letter.

    In 1987, Wright worked out a deal to bring Ortega to the United States to visit with lawmakers. As The New York Times reported:

    There were times when the White House seemed left out of the peace process, uninformed, irritated. ”We don’t have any idea what’s going on,” an Administration official said Thursday. And there was a bizarre atmosphere to the motion and commotion: the leftist Mr. Ortega, one of President Reagan’s arch enemies, heads a Government that the Administration has been trying to overthrow by helping to finance a war that has killed thousands of Nicaraguans on both sides. Yet he was freely moving around Washington, visiting Mr. Wright in his Capitol Hill office, arguing his case in Congress and at heavily covered televised news conferences. He criticized President Reagan; he recalled that the United States, whose troops intervened in Nicaragua several times between 1909 and 1933, had supported the Somoza family dictatorship which lasted for 43 years until the Sandinistas overthrew it in 1979.

    Ortega then sat next to Wright as he presented a “detailed cease-fire proposal.” The New York Times said, “Mr. Ortega seemed delighted to turn to Mr. Wright.”

    Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn’t alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators “brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels…That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow.” Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government:

    We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It’s beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don’t want to talk to them.

    Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein’s regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party’s later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.” McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime “due process” and “take the Iraqis on their face value.” Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government:

    The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we–the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that’s what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern–that and looking at the humanitarian situation.

    Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News’ Chris Wallace, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two “discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.” Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, ‘There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy – even if it’s being led by the opposition.”

    The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that “the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement.”

    One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, “then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy.” Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush’s surge in Iraq as “a tragic mistake” and vowing, “I will do everything in my power to stop it.” As Tom Cotton said this morning, “If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate.”

  24. Lear tells THR. “I think Elizabeth would make a great president.”
    ——-
    Q-1: what, if anything, do you know about “Elizabeth”?

    Q-2: what, if anything, do you know about the office of president?

    The presidency is not a sitcom.

    Lear is known in Hollywood as an idiot savant.

    The idiot comes out when he discusses politics.

    He is beyond clueless.

  25. What will happen here is Obama will negotiate a sweetheart agreement with Iran, Congress will refuse to ratify it, big media will call them racists, antediluvians (before the great flood), and warmongers, whereupon Obama will commence implementation, Corker will preen before the cameras and do nothing. Obama will give Iran the cover they need to build the bomb. Israel will attack, Obama will declare war on Israel, and nobody will say boo. This is the kind of dysfunctionality we have come to expect. The cure? A third party.

  26. I was so sad today to think about what has happened to my wonderful country since the Bushwacking looting and plundering followed by the Obamacrat looting and plundering. They have brought the sweatshop back to America with their greed. Not so much in fact, but in the clothes we wear and the electronics we use. All just so much crap.

    I just have to wonder what would happen if Americans exercised the boycott, practicing austerity with respect to all the crap not made in this country. Even just for a month.

    We need to tax the shit out of the greedy, stinkin’ sweatshop scum who did this to our country and put the likes of Obola in the position to do the harm he has. Stinkin’ Islamic Moron.

  27. “Credit Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) for raising the issue. Without a letter reminding the White House, Congress and the American people that a deal must be approved by the Senate in order to be binding,”
    ****
    Tom Cotton has been in the Senate about two months; looks as if he is going to be the “Honey Badger” Senator, fearless and doesn’t give a sh*t who he pisses off.

  28. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0311/Does-Obama-have-a-private-e-mail-account-Why-White-House-won-t-say

    Despite the Obama administration’s best efforts to distance itself from the controversy over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail practices at the State Department, e-mail-gate may be spilling over into another important office: the White House.

    Questions are now coming about President Obama’s e-mail practices, and whether he uses a private e-mail account, as did Mrs. Clinton, who held a press conference Tuesday denying claims she did anything improper in using her own private e-mail server and address for government business.

    The White House won’t say whether the president, who famously won a battle to keep his Blackberry while in office, uses a private e-mail address, citing security concerns.

    “We have made clear that part of the security precautions we take around that e-mail account is not talking about it much publicly,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said, according to reports.

    Asked when he had learned of the former secretary of State’s e-mail arrangement, Obama told CBS on Sunday, “The same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.”

    But Obama e-mailed Clinton, the likely Democratic frontrunner for 2016, several times at her personal e-mail address, suggesting he knew she used an address different from the government-sanctioned one.

    In fact, according to reporting by Politico, revelations that Clinton used a personal e-mail account for government business first surfaced in August, as the State Department prepared to respond to a request from the House Select Committee investigating the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

    “Department officials noticed that some of the 15,000 pages of documents included a personal email address for Clinton, and State and White House officials conferred on how to handle the revelation, which they expected the committee to notice.”

    It turns out the committee didn’t notice, and Clinton’s team – and the State Department and White House – decided to stay mum.

    Six months later, after the revelations came to light, the president, however, has maintained that he did not realize that Clinton was using an independent, “home-brewed” e-mail server.

    “[H]e was not aware of the details of how that e-mail address and that server had been set up, or how Secretary Clinton and her team were planning to comply with the Federal Records Act,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told a briefing at the White House on Monday.

    As Clinton continues to feel the heat over her e-mail practices, the White House is working overtime to distance itself from the controversy, shifting responsibility to Clinton’s team and State Department officials, while insisting Obama’s e-mails are in line with federal record laws.

    The 1950 Presidential and Federal Records Act wasn’t updated until November 2014, after Clinton had stepped down from the State Department, as both Clinton and her supporters have noted. “The law expanded the definition of ‘federal records’ to specifically include electronic communications. The law also clarified the responsibilities of federal government officials when they use nongovernment email systems, which includes copying an official record or forwarding a complete copy of the e-mail within 20 days of transmission,” notes The Washington Post in a timeline of events.

    Still, as Politico reports, the flap has put the White House in the uncomfortable position of defending the expected presidential candidate, while distancing the president from the mess.

  29. S, O thinks he doesn’t need congress because HIS constitution which apparently makes the legislative branch unnecessary if there is a total psychopath in the WH who happens to have in his possession a pen and a phone.

    That contingent of 140,000 traitors who want to have those who wrote the letter to Iran arrested may think they have made some grand gesture, but they need to rethink. First of all, it’s not that difficult in a country this size to find 140,000 dumb ass latte libs. That’s not a particularly impressive number (consider the 18 million votes Hillary had in 2008). Secondly, 350,000 people signed an online petition to bring back the host of BBC’s Top Gear, who apparently was removed from the show for verbally attacking a producer. A petition with 350,000 signatures for a TV host makes 140,000 signatures from Obama ass kissers look like chump change – or just 140,000 chumps.

  30. Admin, please shut Horseface up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I come home, log onto the blog, ‘BING’ goes a bell. Then Mr. Ed neighs into a hoof stomping diatribe.

    I am yelling at my computer, “What the Hell!”…and scramble around on the thread to find out why an ugly horse is blathering on without my effin’ permission.

    (Obama wants a trip to Iran to sign an agreement. Valerie Jarrett can’t wait to visit home. )

    I keep my sound off at work so I didn’t realize this until I was on my home computer.

    Please, please Admin….thank you in advance.

  31. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/192308#.VQDs944UWJp

    Likud Surges to 26 in New Poll
    Herzog-Livni receive 21, and the Jewish Home is third with 13. Yachad doesn’t pass the threshold.

    If elections were held today, Likud would be the largest party with 26 seats, according to a Geocartography poll sponsored by i24 News. This is markedly higher than the 21-23 MKs predicted for Likud in recent polls.

    The Herzog-Livni camp would receive 21 seats, according to the poll, and Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home would be third with 13.

    Yesh Atid and the United Arab Party follow with 12 each, and Moshe Kahlon’s Kulanu has eight MKs, as do the haredi UTJ and Shas parties.

    Yisrael Beytenu has 7 MKs, Meretz receives 5 and Eli Yishai’s Yachad does not pass the threshold at all.

  32. Still, as Politico reports, the flap has put the White House in the uncomfortable position of defending the expected presidential candidate, while distancing the president from the mess.
    _________

    Well, good. Let him distance his ass all the way to freakin’ China, the toxic POS. He’s kryptonite to our Super Woman.

  33. Yes, indeed. Please, please stop John Kerry from assaulting our ears every time we come to Big Pink. Thanks, Administrator.

  34. Plus, when in the hell has he “defended” Hillary. Every freakin’ ostensibly positive statement has a dart embedded in it. He doesn’t know how to defend anyone. He just back stabs his fellow Americans and acquiesces to our enemies. No defense from Obama? No worries.

  35. They got that right. Hillary is a “symbol of intelligence, strength, power, and tenacity”. She ain’t no stinkin’ Barbie Doll. That tall, skinny perpetually unemployed bimbo Barbie, whose only goal is to get Ken in her pink Jeep or her Pink House, where she can wow him with her hair and wardrobe. I detest Barbie and that pansy-ass Ken, as well.

    __________________

    ‘I see Hillary as an anti-Barbie’: action-figure creators play politics

    A Brooklyn company is bidding to create a Hillary Clinton action figure that makes the politician a ‘symbol of intelligence, strength, power and tenacity’

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/11/hillary-clinton-action-figure-2016-campaign

  36. Admin: are you sure you got your addition right? I see 48 traitors. Lest we forget Messiah Obama.

    47 Republicans who are traitors to Obama

    + 1 Obama who is a traitor to the country

    _______________________

    48 Traitors

  37. admin
    March 11, 2015 at 10:04 pm
    ——

    1. This is what the Times of Israel said this morning (Pro Obama)—affiliated with NYT

    a. with a week remaining until elections, Netanyahu still preferred prime minister at 49%, compared to Herzog’s 36 percent

    b. but poll gives Zionist Union four-seat advantage over Likud (bullshit: likud has 26 seats and zu has only 21)

    2. This is what NYT is stretching the truth and working with Obama (Pro Obama)

    a. Herzog Emerging as Credible Challenge to Netanyahu in Israeli Race

    b. Q: how “credible” can he be if he is 13 points down with a week to go?

    3. This is what the Israel National News is saying (Objective)

    a. If elections were held today, Likud would be the largest party with 26 seats, according to a Geocartography poll sponsored by i24 News. This is markedly higher than the 21-23 MKs predicted for Likud in recent polls.

    The Herzog-Livni camp would receive 21 seats, according to the poll, and Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home would be third with 13.

    Read more: Poll gives Zionist Union four-seat advantage over Likud | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-gives-zionist-union-four-seat-advantage-over-likud/#ixzz3U8U1nsxH
    Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook

    The NYT is working with Obama to unseat Bibi and install Hertzog who is a bot

    I read the Israel Times this morning and they gave a com

  38. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_03/beware_the_narrative054579.php

    http://theweek.com/articles/543620

    The media already bungled Hillary’s ’emailgate’

    PaulWaldman

    Hillary Clinton found herself in a familiar place on Tuesday: amid a gaggle of excited reporters eagerly shouting questions at her about a matter they thought was of the highest importance and she thought was absurdly trivial. If this is the first Clinton controversy of the 2016 campaign, it has a meta quality about it: since no one knows if there’s anything problematic (let alone incriminating) of substance in her emails themselves, we’re left talking about how we talk about it.

    At this early stage, that can be an important conversation to have. I’ve written some very critical things about Clinton, both in the past and with regard to this issue; most particularly, on Monday I wrote this piece arguing that she owes her liberal supporters a campaign worthy of all she and her husband asked of them over the years. And since the presidential race is just beginning, this is a good opportunity for the reporters who will be covering her to do some reflection as well, about where they and their colleagues went wrong in the past and how they can serve their audiences better in the next year and a half.

    You can’t understand Hillary Clinton’s perspective without understanding what happened in the 1990s, and the media transformation that was going on while Bill Clinton was president. From the first moments of that presidency, Clinton’s opponents were convinced he was corrupt to the core. They assumed that if they mounted enough investigations and tossed around enough charges, something would stick and Clinton would be brought down. If you think the endless Benghazi investigations are ridiculous, you should have been around then; if Bill Clinton wore the same tie two days in a row, Republicans would hold a week’s worth of hearings to investigate what he was covering up.

    The media atmosphere in which this all occurred was profoundly different than it had been just a few years before. Conservative talk radio came into its own in the 1990s, providing Republicans both an outlet for their most outrageous charges and a goad to produce more of them. (When they won control of Congress in 1994, Republicans literally made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of their freshman class). Fox News debuted in 1996, in time for the impeachment crisis of 1998. The previously leisurely news cycle accelerated rapidly, and nothing fed it like scandal.

    While the Clintons bear responsibility for getting many of those scandals going with questionable decision-making or behavior, it’s also true that the mainstream media made huge mistakes during that period by treating every Republican charge, no matter how ludicrous, as though it was worthy of a full-scale investigation splashed across the front page. Again and again, they reacted to the most thinly justified accusations as though the next Watergate or Iran-Contra was at hand, and when it turned out that there was no corruption or illegality to be found, they simply moved on to the next faux-scandal, presented no less breathlessly.

    That past — and journalists’ failures to reckon with it — are still affecting coverage today. When this email story broke, how many journalists said it was important because it “plays into a narrative” of Hillary Clinton as scandal-tainted? I must have heard it a dozen times just in the past week.

    Here’s a tip for my fellow scribes and opinionators: If you find yourself justifying blanket coverage of an issue because it “plays into a narrative,” stop right there. That’s a way of saying that you can’t come up with an actual, substantive reason this is important or newsworthy, just that it bears some superficial but probably meaningless similarity to something that happened at some point in the past. It’s the updated version of “out there” — during the Clinton years, reporters would say they had no choice but to devote attention to some scurrilous charge, whether there was evidence for it or not, because someone had made the charge and therefore it was “out there.”

    “Narratives,” furthermore, aren’t delivered from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets. They’re created and maintained by journalists making decisions about what’s important and how different issues should be understood. If you’re going to tell us that a new issue “plays into a narrative,” you ought to be able to say why there’s something essentially true or significant about that narrative.

    To be clear, I’m not saying reporters shouldn’t aggressively investigate Hillary Clinton, when it comes to her tenure at the State Department, her time in the Senate, her activities as a private citizen, or anything else. They absolutely should, just as they should look into all candidates — that’s their job. She wants to be president, and the public needs to know as much as possible about who she is and what she would do if she gets to sit in the Oval Office.

    But as they do that, they should exercise their considered news judgment, just as they do every day on every other topic. They should apply similar standards to all the candidates; if it’s important that Clinton used a private email account while at State, then it must be equally important that other candidates have used private emails for work, and they should be subject to as much scrutiny as she is. When a new revelation or accusation emerges, the questions reporters should ask themselves include: Is there evidence for this? What’s the context in which it took place? How does it bear on the presidency? How can I present it to my audience in a way that makes them smarter and better informed?

    Any reporter could come up with a dozen others. But “Does this play into a narrative?” ought to be the last question they ask. As I wrote about Hillary Clinton, there are ways in which she owes her supporters better than what they’ve gotten from her in the past. But that’s only half the story. The news media owes their readers, listeners, and viewers better than what they got, too.

  39. I just watched that tape admin posted. Kerry owned Corker. This is like Ryan. Biden owned Ryan. What does it say about a RINO who gets bested by kerry? The same thing it says about a RINO who gets bested by Biden. The operative word is pathetic.

    Corker . . what a mushball . . . he lets Kerry go on for over 5 minutes—do you think Cruz would let Mr. Ed pontificate at such length–and THEN he throws his fellow Republicans under the bus by slipping in the comment edgewise I did not sign the letter (I did not have the balls) . . . and he says he is . . . what . . . oh my god . . . “disappointed” . . . that Kerry has gone back on his word. Corker plays the press–just like Breitbart says, but he is a fucking loser when it comes to showing character—he’s a feckless wimp, and he has no strategy. Hell even Obama’s minions know that and they talk about it—they say the Republicans are always on the defensive and have no strategic plan. That is obvious to the American People who call them the stupid party—these are their erstwhile supporters–their opponents regard them as laughable. McConnell–a weak leader—appoints Corker—an even weaker suck, because he knows, and we know Corker has no balls.

  40. S
    March 11, 2015 at 11:35 pm
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_03/beware_the_narrative054579.php

    http://theweek.com/articles/543620

    The media already bungled Hillary’s ‘emailgate’

    PaulWaldman
    ——–

    I do not know this guy from Adam.

    But his thinking is sound.

    And because it is sound

    It is destined to fall on deaf ears.

    The seductive pull of celebrity

    And the centrifugal forces of group think

    Auger against moderation, journalism and service to the nation.

    Big media is a loser.

    For them, there can be no redemption

  41. Jesus Christ, I laugh at myself now for thinking that the truth would prevail

    Every year on this blog I used to post the ethical rules of journalism which were posted one Christmas 20 years ago.

    This man–the paramour of Karen Elliot House—was the editor in chief of WSJ

    He saw the problem, the reaping of the whirlwind that was gathering force and momentum

    He offered those who might listen that coup d eil (inner eye Napoleon talked about) to see through it all to the truth.

    It did no fucking good.

    Brian Willams, bless his heart, pulled down 10 million per year, lying

    Matt Laeur makes 20 million according to a dear friend of mine—for doing what exactly

    That is the current state of big media

    There is no point in talking about the ideal state

    Are there more Sharyl Attkissions out there?

    Or just a bunch of careerists who will do whatever it takes to get ahead?

    Echo answereth not.

    Why is this important—why obsess over it

    Because an honest objective media is the bedrock of civilization, and the guarantor of democracy.

    I shall not scruple to say that the current crop our journalists from Brokaw on down

    Have sold their soul for a mess of pottage.

  42. FERGUSON!

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/police-officer-shot-protests-ferguson-reports-article-1.2146530

    Two police officers shot at protests in Ferguson: reports

    Shot were fired at a protest outside the police department of Ferguson, Mo. early Thursday morning, and two officers were shot, according to reports from people on the scene.

    The protests broke out following the resignation of Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson earlier on Wednesday. Dozens of people posted tweets and videos from the protests.

    Around 1:20, social media feeds from the protest started filling with posts of five or six shots fired and two officers getting hit.

    “Two police officers have been shot in #Ferguson,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Christine Byers tweeted.

    Witnesses said one of the officers was shot in the face, Post-Dispatch reporter Susan Weich tweeted.

  43. You are in good hands with Marie Harf (rhymes with barf).

    Too clever by the halves?

    Or just plain stupid?

    Compared to what?

    Compared to Skull and Bones alum John Kerry.

    The agreement does not have to be approved because . . .

    Because it is non-binding, so sayeth this Harvard sage.

    Of course, if it is non binding on us

    Then it is equally not binding on Iran

    So they can proceed with plans to build a bomb

    And be welcomed by the unthinking elites.

    You see what is happening here don’t you?

    Obama is going for a second Nobel Prize.

    The worst diplomatic blunder of the century.

    Can you believe wasting all this time

    Negotiating a non binding agreement

    Kind of like moot court

  44. Years ago, Roger Fisher and William Ury–also from Haraaaad, wrote a book on negotiations called “Getting to Yes.”

    Kerry, when he is not plying the treacherous off the Grand Banks in his 28 foot yacht

    Is publishing a new book recounting his experiences as the nation’s chief diplomat.

    The Introduction will be written by his friend Brian Williams.

    The name of his book?

    “How to Negotiate A Non Binding Agreement.”

    (Not to be confused with illusory agreements)

  45. I don’t know whether Kerry is a loon or an albatross.

    That is a question for the ages.

    Or maybe an ornithologist.

Comments are closed.