• 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!

ABC’s Stephanopoulos gave $75G to Clinton Foundation without disclosing it...

Why Fox News? Give an example of one of their news team doing what Stephanopoulis did, so we can compare.

Black and white guy eh? I'm not a stephanopoulis fan and I've never watched a single show of his and I don't give single crap about his "reporting" sooo....

I find your faux altruism hilarious.

I was just following up your claim here:

This also begs the question, are there any other prominent "journalists" that donate money to a politically affiliated organization? This guy was going to go ahead and moderate a some debates!

You seem to be the curious one about who else is doing such stuff. Until someone looks at a conservative of course. :lol:
 
You seem to be the curious one about who else is doing such stuff. Until someone looks at a conservative of course. :lol:

I didn't single out any one network, you did. But you can't seem to back it up, just a hysterical FOX NEWS! Misdirection seems to be your true intent.
 
I didn't single out any one network, you did. But you can't seem to back it up, just a hysterical FOX NEWS! Misdirection seems to be your true intent.

You got me. I was initially concerned about Bill O'Reilly's mega donations to the Obama campaign but... alas...

You were so concerned about "journalists" doing it... until it might be a conservative. Then you come riding in like a white in shining armor to their defense.

I think the obviousness of your thread has been pointed out rather well. Enjoy.
 
You got me. I was initially concerned about Bill O'Reilly's mega donations to the Obama campaign but... alas...

You were so concerned about "journalists" doing it... until it might be a conservative. Then you come riding in like a white in shining armor to their defense.

I think the obviousness of your thread has been pointed out rather well. Enjoy.

Again, you've got nothing. What conservative are we talking about here??? I'd like to know who I am defending.
 
Huh??? Until he does? Did you see any part of the interview? He made it crystal clear that he is no where near objective and is still very willing to be the Clinton's defender.

Some commentators, such as Bob Woodward, would disagree. But I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter. I still contend there's nothing to see here, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
 
Some commentators, such as Bob Woodward, would disagree. But I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter. I still contend there's nothing to see here, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

I think that any objective person that watched the interview could clearly see that he is the Clinton's corner as much as he was when he was being paid to work for them.

The other part of this is that ABC News is backing him, which is a disgrace for a so called news organization. They could at least make a generic statement that they are all about being impartial. They couldn't even muster the integrity to do that.

I'd like to see him interview Hillary, and try to nail her down on all these scandals, like any impartial journalist worth their salt would do. He would never do it.
 
I think that any objective person that watched the interview could clearly see that he is the Clinton's corner as much as he was when he was being paid to work for them.

The other part of this is that ABC News is backing him, which is a disgrace for a so called news organization. They could at least make a generic statement that they are all about being impartial. They couldn't even muster the integrity to do that.

I'd like to see him interview Hillary, and try to nail her down on all these scandals, like any impartial journalist worth their salt would do. He would never do it.

After watching the interview for the second time, my position remains the same.

George Stephanopolous asked questions that sought to either clarify Peter Schweizer's position on a few issues/beliefs he had (i.e., is Hillary a viable individual to hold high office due to her "pattern of behavior" in spearheading donations to the Clinton Foundation) or provide evidence to support some of his claims as outlined in his book (i.e., did she approve the sale of Uranium One as Sec of State). IMO, Stephanopolous did what any journalist would and should do - ask the tough questions and fill in the gaps while giving the guest ample opportunity to answer said questions. He wasn't rude or disrespectful. He even provided answers where the Peter Schweizer couldn't respond in the affirm (i.e., there was no policy change in how applications from Foundation donors were handled). He made it clear that the State Dept was 1 of 9 federal agencies that approved the sale of Uranium One. Moreover, when asked, Peter Schweizer provided NO EVIDENCE of any wrong-doing by Hillary herself. The only mistep he could positively point to was the Clinton Foundation not disclosing some donations by donors directly involved with the original purchase and subsequent sale of Uranium One - the only point I found interestingly "convenient". But that would be a problem for the Foundation, not Hillary (unless it could be proven that she instructed Foundation accountants not to list them).

Now, I will say that maybe this Uranium One transaction does call for taking a closer investigative look, but it would be hard to get 9 different federal agencies to sign off on such a deal WITHOUT some serious kick-backs. But as far as George Stephanopolous' interview of Peter Schweizer is concerned, I saw a fair an impartial interview take place. It would have been a different story if Stephanopolous called the man a liar when he showed proof of misconduct AND defended Hillary in the face of such proof, but he didn't.

So, once again, I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
 
Back
Top Bottom