• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George Stephanopoulos is Hillary's Lap Dog

tres borrachos said:
I enjoy laughing at Mika. I miss her when she's not on.

I couldn't stomach CBS if we're talking about the show that Norah O'Donnell anchors. That is one incredibly moronic woman.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the one, and I can't agree on O'Donnell. I like that threesome.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes, that's the one, and I can't agree on O'Donnell. I like that threesome.
Click to expand...

I never liked her, but when she went embarrassingly off the rails a few years ago and said that Newt Gingrich made a racist comment about Obama playing basketball, and ended up getting laughed at by her fellow MSNBC Liberals on air, I really couldn't stand her.
 
Jack Hays said:
You don't think Sam Stein qualifies?

[h=3]Sam Stein - Huffington Post[/h]www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/


The Huffington Post


Sam Stein is the Senior Politics Editor at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity.
Click to expand...

Why did the video end while Sam was speaking? The very last frame on the video his mouth was wide open. Also the video MJ showed of George's interview of Schweitzer was highly edited, it showed only George's questions, but not Schweitzer's answers. The cuts are clearly seen in the video.

That interview is what was needed for an author making specious claims against a presidential candidate.
 
pbrauer said:
Why did the video end while Sam was speaking? The very last frame on the video his mouth was wide open. Also the video MJ showed of George's interview of Schweitzer was highly edited, it showed only George's questions, but not Schweitzer's answers. The cuts are clearly seen in the video.

That interview is what was needed for an author making specious claims against a presidential candidate.
Click to expand...

If the claims were specious then I would have expected to see a refutation by now.
 
Jack Hays said:
Little Georgie conducted a very tough interview with the author of Clinton Cash without revealing his donation.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that and a worst it makes him look like a hypocrite (and even that's a bit of a stretch), but other than the issue of optics, i.e., "how do you not disclose the fact that you've contributed to the very Foundation that's under scrutiny by the very author of the book you're mercilessly drilling?", what other improprieties did Little George commit?

Once again: IT'S A CHARITY, NOT A PAC/SuperPAC!!!

Show where Stephanopoulos received special favors for his contributions OR that he's treated anyone else whose name isn't Hillary R. Clinton unfairly during his political interviews or political reporting since Foundation-Gate began and you just might make a believer out of me. Until then, there's nothing worth having a 6 page debate over here.
 
More on why I say this donation issue is more like an "optic-al" illusion than a scandal.

Stephanopoulos regrets Clinton donations | TheHill

“Those donations were a matter of public record, but I should have made additional disclosures on air when we covered the Foundation,” he said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

“And I now believe that directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake,” said Stephanopoulos, who served as an aide to former President Clinton before leaving the White House for a successful TV career.

“Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to prevent even the appearance of a conflict,” he added.
Click to expand...

I get that perception is reality to some people, but there really isn't anything to see here. A mistake in judgment perhaps in not making the donations known beforehand, but that's all this amounts to.
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
And Eugene Robinson is a conservative? Katty Kay?

Al Hunt talked. I didn't watch the clip. I watched the entire show this morning. They spent at least 45 minutes of the entire show talking about this issue this morning.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct. I saw it too. And I have to say there didn't seem to be even a token defense of Stephy.
 
Objective Voice said:
Yes, I understand that and a worst it makes him look like a hypocrite (and even that's a bit of a stretch), but other than the issue of optics, i.e., "how do you not disclose the fact that you've contributed to the very Foundation that's under scrutiny by the very author of the book you're mercilessly drilling?", what other improprieties did Little George commit?

Once again: IT'S A CHARITY, NOT A PAC/SuperPAC!!!

Show where Stephanopoulos received special favors for his contributions OR that he's treated anyone else whose name isn't Hillary R. Clinton unfairly during his political interviews or political reporting since Foundation-Gate began and you just might make a believer out of me. Until then, there's nothing worth having a 6 page debate over here.
Click to expand...

Every interview he has conducted with everyone not named Clinton is tainted.
 
Jack Hays said:
Every interview he has conducted with everyone not named Clinton is tainted.
Click to expand...

Good work on this JH.
award_star_gold_2.png
Now Georgie Boy knows what Johnny Nash meant by, I Can See Clearly Now.
icon_cyclops_ani.gif


Now they need to make sure he doesn't handle any Republican Debates. ;)
 
MMC said:
Good work on this JH.
award_star_gold_2.png
Now Georgie Boy knows what Johnny Nash meant by, I Can See Clearly Now.
icon_cyclops_ani.gif


Now they need to make sure he doesn't handle any Republican Debates. ;)
Click to expand...

He won't. That's already been done. I don't think Georgie will be anywhere near the general election debates either. ABC News has to realize that opportunity has just vanished.
 
Objective Voice said:
Yes, I understand that and a worst it makes him look like a hypocrite (and even that's a bit of a stretch), but other than the issue of optics, i.e., "how do you not disclose the fact that you've contributed to the very Foundation that's under scrutiny by the very author of the book you're mercilessly drilling?", what other improprieties did Little George commit?

Once again: IT'S A CHARITY, NOT A PAC/SuperPAC!!!
Click to expand...

:lol: I suppose that would depend on what your definition of "it's" is. :) Not many Charities spend 90% of their income on overhead.

Show where Stephanopoulos received special favors for his contributions
Click to expand...

He seems to have done it in anticipation:

George Stephanopoulos: People who donate generously to the Clinton Foundation do so because they hope that doing so will lead to something in the future. For George? :shrug: His donations started at the same time that Hillary cycled out of the Obama administration to start standing up her campaign. If he cared about AIDs, his concern seems to have suddenly onset at that time. Maybe for him what he was hoping "it would lead to" was greater access to Her Inevitableness when she was a candidate, maybe it was hope of another position in another Clinton Administration down the road.

This is of a piece with everything else we've learned about the Clinton Foundation - it's simply the domestic side of Morocco and Algeria donating when trying to get favorable treatment from the State Department, or major companies donating when they wanted the US Government to grease the skids for their business deals.
 
cpwill said:
:lol: I suppose that would depend on what your definition of "it's" is. :) Not many Charities spend 90% of their income on overhead.



He seems to have done it in anticipation:

George Stephanopoulos: People who donate generously to the Clinton Foundation do so because they hope that doing so will lead to something in the future. For George? :shrug: His donations started at the same time that Hillary cycled out of the Obama administration to start standing up her campaign. If he cared about AIDs, his concern seems to have suddenly onset at that time. Maybe for him what he was hoping "it would lead to" was greater access to Her Inevitableness when she was a candidate, maybe it was hope of another position in another Clinton Administration down the road.

This is of a piece with everything else we've learned about the Clinton Foundation - it's simply the domestic side of Morocco and Algeria donating when trying to get favorable treatment from the State Department, or major companies donating when they wanted the US Government to grease the skids for their business deals.
Click to expand...

Can you explain Newmax founder's, Christopher Ruddy, support of the Clinton Foundation?

I have been involved with the foundation for over seven years now. During that time, I have always found it nonpartisan. I have never felt the whiff of politics from either its staff or any of its activities.

I recall attending my first Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) event and meeting Jack Kemp there. As you may remember, Kemp had run against Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential race as the vice presidential candidate. At that meeting, Kemp had nothing but praise for what Bill Clinton was doing.

So what was the former president doing?

Rather than simply "cashing in," the young former president wanted to devote a substantial amount of his time and energy to making the world a better place, improving the lives of poor people and, at the same time, demonstrating in a real way that Americans cared.

Remember also the context of the time. America was globally criticized during its war on terror, especially after the invasion of Iraq. Few nations joined the "coalition of the willing." Our nation was losing its stature as leader of the free world.

It was Bill Clinton, using the platform of his foundation, who became the de facto goodwill ambassador of the United States.

I know for a fact that then-President Bush was deeply appreciative of Bill Clinton's help during this period. Let’s not forget that it was George W. Bush who had so much confidence in Bill Clinton that he asked him to co-chair with his dad, Bush 41, both the Tsunami and Katrina relief efforts. (Later, Obama personally asked Bill Clinton to co-chair the Haiti relief effort.)

Compare for a second how Bill Clinton has continued to serve America's best interests abroad with former President Jimmy Carter, who has not always done so.

What about all that foundation money? Well, let’s peel the onion on the accusations.

One of the things I liked about the Clinton Foundation is how little money actually goes to the foundation itself.

Ingeniously, Bill Clinton set up his annual foundation conclave, CGI, as a clearinghouse between other foundations, wealthy donors, NGOs, governments and businesses — to meet face-to-face with charities working on the front lines of poverty alleviation, education and healthcare.

At CGI, the Clinton Foundation doesn’t encourage donations to itself (though it easily could have), but instead seeks "commitments" from donors to other charitable organizations to improve global health and wellness, increase economic opportunities for women in less-developed nations, reduce childhood obesity, and spur economic growth in countries that desperately need the help.

After those commitments are made, no money flows into the Clinton Foundation. Donors honor their pledges directly with the charities.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com In Defense of the Clinton Foundation
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!​
 
pbrauer said:
Thanks I should have known you wouldn't answer.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I don't need to. You were positing a logical fallacy because you were unable to answer ole George's own words about why people donate to the foundation.
 
An interesting point:

Geraldo Rivera sees a double standard at work in ABC News’ decision to stand by George Stephanopoulos after the network’s chief anchor apologized for failing to publicly disclose $75,000 in donations to the Clinton Foundation over the last three years. In a Facebook post Friday morning, Rivera claimed he was fired by ABC News in 1985 for making a $200 political donation and wondered why Stephanopoulos isn’t getting the same treatment. Geraldo: ABC Fired Me for $200 Donation, Why Not the Same for Stephanopoulos? | Mediaite
 
Objective Voice said:
Now whose showing unfettered bias? :doh
Click to expand...

The "extra mile" nonsense is especially laughable. Little Georgie didn't even go the first mile.

ABC Faces Credibility Crisis Over Stephanopoulos Donations

NEW YORK (AP) -- George Stephanopoulos apologized to viewers Friday for donating $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation and failing to disclose it earlier, as ABC News now finds its chief anchor in a credibility crisis on the eve of a presidential campaign.
Stephanopoulos said on "Good Morning America" that the donations, made in three increments to the foundation started by his one-time boss, former President Bill Clinton, were a mistake.
"I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict," the "GMA" and "This Week" host said. "I apologize to all of you for failing to do that."
Stephanopoulos rose to the top ranks at ABC over 18 years and worked to establish himself as an independent journalist despite skepticism by some in politics because of his background as a top aide to Clinton's 1992 campaign and later in the White House. The donations brought that issue back to the fore just as Hillary Rodham Clinton is launching her presidential campaign.
ABC News President James Goldston has not addressed whether Stephanopoulos will be disciplined. The network said in a statement Thursday that it stands behind Stephanopoulos and that the anchor made an honest mistake. ABC said Stephanopoulos voluntarily removed himself as a moderator for ABC's planned coverage of a GOP presidential debate next February.
ABC News' rules permit charitable donations, but reporters are required to inform management before covering a story related to the organization. Stephanopoulos did not tell his bosses, or viewers, about the donations before interviewing Peter Schweizer on the Sunday public affairs show "This Week" recently. Schweizer is the author of "Clinton Cash," a book that traces the involvement of organizations that have donated to the Clinton Foundation.
Network leaders must weigh how the issue will affect public perception of its top on-air political journalist, just as NBC News executives are wondering whether suspended anchor Brian Williams will be believable to viewers following revelations that he embellished details of stories he was involved in.
Schweizer said Friday that Stephanopoulos' donations "highlight precisely the lack of transparency and cronyism that I report on.". . . .


 
Ryan5 said:
They still are working for money.
Click to expand...

So you actually do think that war correspondents risk their lives because they're earning huge paychecks. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom