• 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!

Feds Arrest Fox News Commentator

SenorXm/Sirius said:
I addressed this a whole bunch of times here. I've said I was more concerned about his past convictions and past criminal record then I was about him now fooling the Feds and Fox. I don't believe a media outlet should be putting criminals on their shows to spew their opinions. If Fox didn't know about his past, then they should have vetted him better. If they did know about his past criminal record and still put him on the air, then shame on Fox.

Conservative Republicans here, and people who say they aren't Republicans but defend the GOP and the conservative media outlets seem to want to excuse Fox no matter what they do, but then in other threads they are foaming at the mouth mad about how lax and slanted the MSM is. Can't have it both ways. If Fox didn't know about this guy's past then they were lax. If they knew but didn't care because his views were in line with theirs then they are slanted.
Click to expand...



One, neither you nor I have a say in who hires whom, we DO have the option of not watching, not participating.

Frankly, I don't see how Fox even comes into this, the man got too close to too much. That is the only point.

The American left worries far too much about Fox, are about as weirded out on at the Canadian Conservatives are about the CBC; a completely irrational reaction.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Well, then I guess the post after post here of trying to excuse Fox by saying this guy was hardly ever on Fox are wrong. He must have been on enough times for them to feel like they needed to issue an apology.
Click to expand...

Cavuto is not a they he is a he.
 
....Simmons has been interviewed by Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto and has appeared on "Fox & Friends." He has discussed a wide range of issues on the network, including CIA interrogation techniques and, ironically, a former CIA official found guilty on fraud charges. He is a member of the "Citizens Commission on Benghazi," a panel created by the conservative media organization Accuracy in Media that has trafficked in conspiracy theories about the 2012 attack on a U.S. compound in Libya, in which several officials were killed.
Click to expand...

One more nail in the Benghazi panel's coffin. The timing of this news is pretty good....coming out on Friday and Hillary is supposed to testify on Monday.

'Accuracy in the Media.' LOL It does kinda make one wonder how many other FoxNews commentators are frauds, too.
 
Moot said:
One more nail in the Benghazi panel's coffin. The timing of this news is pretty good....coming out on Friday and Hillary is supposed to testify on Monday.

'Accuracy in the Media.' LOL It does kinda make one wonder how many other FoxNews commentators are frauds, too.
Click to expand...

General Keene, Ralph peters, and Oliver north come to mind.
 
I like that conservatives are blaming obama somehow its like the go to excuse, "when all else fails blame the black guy" lol
 
If brain cells were skittles OP wouldnt have enough to fill a fun size bag.
 
I've seen him cited here in a debate about Benghazi. It would be fun to see some of his most outrageous claims.

(I think Hillary made mistakes regarding Benghazi, I mean outrageous claims in general not just that)
 
dimensionallava said:
I like that conservatives are blaming obama somehow its like the go to excuse, "when all else fails blame the black guy" lol
Click to expand...

Yea that joke was never funny even when it was first made nearly 7 years ago.
 
Fearandloathing said:
One, neither you nor I have a say in who hires whom, we DO have the option of not watching, not participating.

Frankly, I don't see how Fox even comes into this,
Click to expand...
the man got too close to too much. That is the only point.

The American left worries far too much about Fox, are about as weirded out on at the Canadian Conservatives are about the CBC; a completely irrational reaction.
Click to expand...



Fox News put this guy who has been indicted for lying to the feds on the air many times to promote Fox's BS because they believed his BS.

That's how Fox comes into this.

:lol:
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised he has not been approached to join the Democrat primaries. He'd fit right in. Bernie thinks socialism works and Hillary.... well, Hillary. He may have taught Hillary and Brian Williams how to dodge sniper fire.
 
American said:
There's nothing minimum about a clearance, you either have it or you don't.
Click to expand...

Not true. There is a whole different color badge in shipyards for those with an interim security clearance. They are not uncommon.
 
fmw said:
I don't think claiming falsely to be a CIA agent is illegal but the other stuff certainly is.
Click to expand...

It is if you are trying to get a security clearance including that information.

Of course him claiming that on something that could obviously be checked makes me question if the guy actually did believe that he had been in the CIA. It is possible that after all this time, he began to believe he actually was a CIA agent. Of course it is also possible that he really was one and this is some huge conspiracy by the government (but highly unlikely).
 
When did he get the interim clearances? How many of those charges/convictions were present at that time? Which ones, if any? Did he claim on the questionnaire that he was CIA or just disclose any convictions he had? Did he disclose those convictions? Going back to the "when did he get it", this is significant because in the past, those clearances could take years to process, so as long as there was nothing glaringly obvious, he wouldn't have been flagged as not being eligible for an interim clearance, particularly as a contractor who was likely not going to be dealing with much secret info in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom