Kevin Koster commented on Why Did Megyn Kelly Wait Until After The Election To Reveal That Trump Threatened Her For Discussing His Alleged Rape Of Ivana Trump?
2016-11-16 07:55:31 -0500
· Flag
I don’t think anyone here has been fooled by Kelly’s attempts to present herself as a model of “being tough but fair to both sides” over the past year. That’s not her record, and Ellen has thankfully provided dozens of examples of Kelly tipping the scales decidedly to the right whenever she’s been able to do so. She knows where she’s working, who’s paying her salary, and who’s watching her show. Which is why I can’t imagine Kelly working as an anchor for any other network – she has no credibility to do so. Can anyone see ABC News wanting her to be their front page when she’s spent the past decade repeatedly and viciously doing the work of the Right Wing?
I do think that Kelly will attempt to act like a more objective host during this Presidency, and that even Fox News will make an attempt there, but we need to understand what that balance will be and why it will be attempted. Much of the GOP is leery of Trump in that he does not have a real value set and they know he was just waving their issues around as red meat to help stir up his and their base. They have concerns about his temperament, discipline and mostly about whether he’ll really come through on all the mean promises he made. They want him to deliver on ALL of them. Mass deportations, erasure of the Obama presidency, far right judges, prosecution of the Clintons, destruction of Medicare, you name it. So when he fails to do any of these things, Megyn Kelly will have one of his surrogates on to chide. And when he goes off message and insults fellow GOP members, or when he does something the GOP finds destabilizing, like insulting China, Megyn Kelly will take a position on how foolhardy that was.
But this “loyal opposition” will not be coming from the center by any means. It will be coming from another faction of the right.
There are multiple members of the Right who are concerned about Trump appointing people like Bannon – not because they find him abhorrent but because Bannon will cost them credibility and votes in the future. Never let these guys get away with the act that they are concerned with principles – this is about power, influence and mostly about money. And right now, the Trump team is not concerned with hiring decent people to be in his White House. They’re interested in settling scores – giving “lollipops” as one appalled GOP strategist put it this week and throwing punches. Someone the Trump people like, and who gave them good press and open support during the campaign? Likely getting a major position and a huge payday at the other end. Someone the Trump people don’t like, or who wasn’t bowing and scraping enough? Likely getting thrown out by security.
I do think that Kelly will attempt to act like a more objective host during this Presidency, and that even Fox News will make an attempt there, but we need to understand what that balance will be and why it will be attempted. Much of the GOP is leery of Trump in that he does not have a real value set and they know he was just waving their issues around as red meat to help stir up his and their base. They have concerns about his temperament, discipline and mostly about whether he’ll really come through on all the mean promises he made. They want him to deliver on ALL of them. Mass deportations, erasure of the Obama presidency, far right judges, prosecution of the Clintons, destruction of Medicare, you name it. So when he fails to do any of these things, Megyn Kelly will have one of his surrogates on to chide. And when he goes off message and insults fellow GOP members, or when he does something the GOP finds destabilizing, like insulting China, Megyn Kelly will take a position on how foolhardy that was.
But this “loyal opposition” will not be coming from the center by any means. It will be coming from another faction of the right.
There are multiple members of the Right who are concerned about Trump appointing people like Bannon – not because they find him abhorrent but because Bannon will cost them credibility and votes in the future. Never let these guys get away with the act that they are concerned with principles – this is about power, influence and mostly about money. And right now, the Trump team is not concerned with hiring decent people to be in his White House. They’re interested in settling scores – giving “lollipops” as one appalled GOP strategist put it this week and throwing punches. Someone the Trump people like, and who gave them good press and open support during the campaign? Likely getting a major position and a huge payday at the other end. Someone the Trump people don’t like, or who wasn’t bowing and scraping enough? Likely getting thrown out by security.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox’s Laura Ingraham Defends ‘Good Friend’ Steve Bannon From Racism Charges
2016-11-17 05:26:52 -0500
· Flag
Let’s be very clear on this. Steve Bannon has no honor to defend. He’s a vicious huckster who has enriched himself by feeding the hatred of those who normally frequent the Breitbart websites. We really can’t forget the history of the Breitbart sites or of Breitbart himself. Andrew Breitbart was in life an extremely angry and nasty piece of work. He delighted in causing misery to others, in generating falsehoods about decent people and then assuming a false moral high ground he didn’t have. He left the world an angrier and poorer place than when he was born. Steve Bannon has carried the Breitbart flag since the man’s death and has now made the world an even angrier and poorer place than before.
Among the bizarre statements being made this past week has been Newt Gingrich happily chuckling about how Bannon’s vicious headlines at Breitbart are really just funny click bait that we’re supposed to think everyone can’t resist reading. I suppose that Gingrich enjoys reading what Bannon regularly inflicted at Breitbart but most other people wouldn’t.
Fox News is acting in an extremely triumphal and vicious fashion at this point – simply because an 8 year ploy of theirs has worked out well for them, for the moment. They’ve gotten away with the long con. They spent 8 years attacking Barack Obama and 20 years attacking the Clintons, and they are now rewarded with a situation where they have an obvious influence over the people taking power in the White House. But in typical fashion for Fox News, that theft is not enough to satisfy them. It’s simply not enough for them to seize the reins and enrich their friends. They need that refreshing moment that all bullies enjoy to top the whole thing off. A typical schoolyard bully, as Fox News has modeled itself upon, doesn’t just take the smaller kid’s lunch and homework. That’s fun for the bully, but it doesn’t really fill the bill. The real achievement for a schoolyard bully is to break the smaller kid’s arm and rub his face in the dirt – just to make sure the smaller kid KNOWS what is being done to him and who is doing it. The behavior we’re seeing from Fox News falls right in line with that approach – and sadly, we’ll be seeing a lot more of it over the next four years.
Among the bizarre statements being made this past week has been Newt Gingrich happily chuckling about how Bannon’s vicious headlines at Breitbart are really just funny click bait that we’re supposed to think everyone can’t resist reading. I suppose that Gingrich enjoys reading what Bannon regularly inflicted at Breitbart but most other people wouldn’t.
Fox News is acting in an extremely triumphal and vicious fashion at this point – simply because an 8 year ploy of theirs has worked out well for them, for the moment. They’ve gotten away with the long con. They spent 8 years attacking Barack Obama and 20 years attacking the Clintons, and they are now rewarded with a situation where they have an obvious influence over the people taking power in the White House. But in typical fashion for Fox News, that theft is not enough to satisfy them. It’s simply not enough for them to seize the reins and enrich their friends. They need that refreshing moment that all bullies enjoy to top the whole thing off. A typical schoolyard bully, as Fox News has modeled itself upon, doesn’t just take the smaller kid’s lunch and homework. That’s fun for the bully, but it doesn’t really fill the bill. The real achievement for a schoolyard bully is to break the smaller kid’s arm and rub his face in the dirt – just to make sure the smaller kid KNOWS what is being done to him and who is doing it. The behavior we’re seeing from Fox News falls right in line with that approach – and sadly, we’ll be seeing a lot more of it over the next four years.
Kevin Koster commented on Harris Faulkner: Anti-Trump Protests ‘Look Like Iran’
2016-11-14 07:37:11 -0500
· Flag
I am forced to agree with Ellen – the Right Wing is now going back to a strategy they were using during the W years – demonize anyone who doesn’t snap into line.
Just as they did with W, they are presenting free speech in protest as anarchy and/or treason.
Ellen is also correct to note that the Right has no moral standing to make such pronouncements after spending years cheerleading “Tea Party” Obama haters and even featuring them as supposedly learned commentators on their airwaves.
The first message being sent is “We won, you lost, shut up or else”. The second message, which was sent a bit more explicitly by Conway yesterday, was creepily similar to the old Ari Fleischer line when she “warned” Harry Reid to “be very careful” about criticizing Trump’s racism and sexism. For those who don’t remember the Fleischer line it was that Americans needed to “watch what they do, watch what they say”. These are becoming extremely chilling times.
If you look at this weekend’s announcement of Trump’s first appointments, it’s clear that Bannon actually has a senior position over that of Priebus – meaning that Breitbart.com will be determining what this White House will prioritize. Meaning that we don’t just have a White House run by Fox News but by even farther right personalities.
EOF is correct that there will be some very harsh consequences for many Americans, and they’re coming up even faster than I had thought. Trump and company clearly want to execute as much of their Obama erasure as quickly as they can.
Fox News had Tom Cotton on yesterday to gloat about how they will essentially rip up the Iran treaty and how the GOP majorities in Congress will be working for two weeks ahead of the 20th to already get things going, including confirming Trump’s first far Right judge to the Supreme Court. (He didn’t mention it, but this also includes rushing through the ACA repeal/defund so that Trump can sign it in a flourish on Inauguration Day, along with the EOs that will wipe out Obama’s EOs.
Here’s one really chipper part of the mess – there were tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of children of undocumented immigrants who came out of the shadows to register for Obama’s Dream Act program. The whole point of that program was to bring people into the light so they could be an active part of our communities and not have to hide. Trump’s approach means that the personal information they provided will now be used against those people. I expect that nearly all of them will be forced to immediately move and cancel their cell phones, etc. If they don’t, they’re literally asking for their families to face significant prosecution.
Just as they did with W, they are presenting free speech in protest as anarchy and/or treason.
Ellen is also correct to note that the Right has no moral standing to make such pronouncements after spending years cheerleading “Tea Party” Obama haters and even featuring them as supposedly learned commentators on their airwaves.
The first message being sent is “We won, you lost, shut up or else”. The second message, which was sent a bit more explicitly by Conway yesterday, was creepily similar to the old Ari Fleischer line when she “warned” Harry Reid to “be very careful” about criticizing Trump’s racism and sexism. For those who don’t remember the Fleischer line it was that Americans needed to “watch what they do, watch what they say”. These are becoming extremely chilling times.
If you look at this weekend’s announcement of Trump’s first appointments, it’s clear that Bannon actually has a senior position over that of Priebus – meaning that Breitbart.com will be determining what this White House will prioritize. Meaning that we don’t just have a White House run by Fox News but by even farther right personalities.
EOF is correct that there will be some very harsh consequences for many Americans, and they’re coming up even faster than I had thought. Trump and company clearly want to execute as much of their Obama erasure as quickly as they can.
Fox News had Tom Cotton on yesterday to gloat about how they will essentially rip up the Iran treaty and how the GOP majorities in Congress will be working for two weeks ahead of the 20th to already get things going, including confirming Trump’s first far Right judge to the Supreme Court. (He didn’t mention it, but this also includes rushing through the ACA repeal/defund so that Trump can sign it in a flourish on Inauguration Day, along with the EOs that will wipe out Obama’s EOs.
Here’s one really chipper part of the mess – there were tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of children of undocumented immigrants who came out of the shadows to register for Obama’s Dream Act program. The whole point of that program was to bring people into the light so they could be an active part of our communities and not have to hide. Trump’s approach means that the personal information they provided will now be used against those people. I expect that nearly all of them will be forced to immediately move and cancel their cell phones, etc. If they don’t, they’re literally asking for their families to face significant prosecution.
Kevin Koster commented on Here Comes The Republican Push To Destroy Medicare
2016-11-13 17:50:02 -0500
· Flag
Eyes, there’s one other factor to the vote that I think we shouldn’t forget.
The blue collar Dems in the Rust Belt have been waiting throughout President Obama’s terms for some kind of relief after they took a major hit in 2008. And the Obama White House tried to do so, but was repeatedly blocked by the intransigence of the GOP in Congress, as they were equally bent on making sure that Obama did NOT succeed in making the conditions better. This turning of the screws has to have been a factor in a portion of Dem voters in the Rust Belt thinking that they had nothing to lose in trying the other side.
I also think we need to remember that Trump did not sweep all the votes in these areas – he came in just enough ahead of Clinton to be able to claim the EC votes. Meaning that not all those Rust Belt workers fell for this. And unless Trump can make something happen for them quickly, I tend to doubt he’ll be able to hang onto them.
The blue collar Dems in the Rust Belt have been waiting throughout President Obama’s terms for some kind of relief after they took a major hit in 2008. And the Obama White House tried to do so, but was repeatedly blocked by the intransigence of the GOP in Congress, as they were equally bent on making sure that Obama did NOT succeed in making the conditions better. This turning of the screws has to have been a factor in a portion of Dem voters in the Rust Belt thinking that they had nothing to lose in trying the other side.
I also think we need to remember that Trump did not sweep all the votes in these areas – he came in just enough ahead of Clinton to be able to claim the EC votes. Meaning that not all those Rust Belt workers fell for this. And unless Trump can make something happen for them quickly, I tend to doubt he’ll be able to hang onto them.
Kevin Koster commented on What’s Behind O’Reilly’s Fearmongering About Civil War In America?
2016-11-11 20:51:17 -0500
· Flag
John, I wouldn’t be too sure about the right wing not finding a way to blame Dems for their problems. Remember that they’ve spent the last 8 years trying to blame the Bush Recession on the Dems who finally got majorities in 2006. Count on Fox News to fan these kinds of flames as hard as they can for the next four to eight years, depending on how Pence does as President.
I’m getting a strong feeling from the various personalities on the Right, including the people who are about to be given tremendous power in Trump’s White House, that they are in the mood for revenge and punishment. You’d think these guys would be happy that they pulled out the squeaker and that their depress-the-vote negative campaign gambit worked. But no, they’re really angry. And the oddest part is that they’re swinging at some of their own people first. Republicans who didn’t get on board Trump’s little ride are now being hung out to dry on Fox News and on AM Radio. Some of them are likely to be primaried from the hard right in 2-4 years.
But if the Far Right is angry at fellow GOP members who didn’t step in line fast enough, they’re positively furious at the Dems and their supporters. They are clearly bent on tearing up every last piece of the Obama presidency and leaving it on the highway. With this attitude, it shouldn’t surprise us that they are warming up to take actions that are likely to cause discomfort for millions of Americans.
I honestly think these guys don’t care if there is collateral damage – they just want it done. They don’t care if their destruction of the ACA results in people losing their coverage – they just want to be able to say that Barack Obama was a failure and that they are the ones who will take care of things now. If their constituents complain, they’ll be told that the ACA was unworkable and was a huge Democrat boondoggle that was costing everyone too much money. They’ll be told that the GOP is working on a replacement program but is dealing with so much Democrat obstruction that they will need to vote more GOP legislators in on the next round in 2 years. This is a typically Rovian move, and we should keep these tricks in mind before they come our way unexpectedly.
The harsh nature of the Right’s fury is what really concerns me here. If you look at O’Reilly’s face in that clip, there’s no mistaking the bald, red-faced anger at hand. He’s going to use this opportunity to rub every liberal’s nose in the mess, and he clearly wants to tell them to like it while he does it. It’s that kind of attitude from O’Reilly and Hannity that is scary to watch on Fox News. But it’s REALLY scary to see that attitude coming from people like Gingrich and Giuliani and Clarke, all of whom will be in positions with an ability to harm a LOT of people. Gingrich has already gone back to his usually nasty mode in his attacks on fellow GOP members. Just wait until he gets on the notion of punishing Dems. Giuliani may be the scariest one here, as he’s playing the card of being genial while saying some incredibly angry things – mainly about finding a way to charge, indict and arrest the Clintons.
There were articles today on CNN about how these guys really won’t be able to repeal the ACA and how they really won’t be able to indict the Clintons, and I actually burst out laughing at the second article. Because the articles assumed these guys would do what makes sense to a CNN op-ed writer. Which is hysterical on its face. These guys are going for the rich satisfaction of revenge, not anything that would actually help anyone. And unless the Dems show some backbone, the Right will get away with it. Again.
The one silver lining I’m finding here is that I believe we’ll see a series of scandals in this White House that will easily dwarf anything we saw in W’s two terms. And that mess would be enough to potentially bring some of these guys down – it’s just that we’ll have to endure at least 4 years of this craziness before we can do much about it.
I’m getting a strong feeling from the various personalities on the Right, including the people who are about to be given tremendous power in Trump’s White House, that they are in the mood for revenge and punishment. You’d think these guys would be happy that they pulled out the squeaker and that their depress-the-vote negative campaign gambit worked. But no, they’re really angry. And the oddest part is that they’re swinging at some of their own people first. Republicans who didn’t get on board Trump’s little ride are now being hung out to dry on Fox News and on AM Radio. Some of them are likely to be primaried from the hard right in 2-4 years.
But if the Far Right is angry at fellow GOP members who didn’t step in line fast enough, they’re positively furious at the Dems and their supporters. They are clearly bent on tearing up every last piece of the Obama presidency and leaving it on the highway. With this attitude, it shouldn’t surprise us that they are warming up to take actions that are likely to cause discomfort for millions of Americans.
I honestly think these guys don’t care if there is collateral damage – they just want it done. They don’t care if their destruction of the ACA results in people losing their coverage – they just want to be able to say that Barack Obama was a failure and that they are the ones who will take care of things now. If their constituents complain, they’ll be told that the ACA was unworkable and was a huge Democrat boondoggle that was costing everyone too much money. They’ll be told that the GOP is working on a replacement program but is dealing with so much Democrat obstruction that they will need to vote more GOP legislators in on the next round in 2 years. This is a typically Rovian move, and we should keep these tricks in mind before they come our way unexpectedly.
The harsh nature of the Right’s fury is what really concerns me here. If you look at O’Reilly’s face in that clip, there’s no mistaking the bald, red-faced anger at hand. He’s going to use this opportunity to rub every liberal’s nose in the mess, and he clearly wants to tell them to like it while he does it. It’s that kind of attitude from O’Reilly and Hannity that is scary to watch on Fox News. But it’s REALLY scary to see that attitude coming from people like Gingrich and Giuliani and Clarke, all of whom will be in positions with an ability to harm a LOT of people. Gingrich has already gone back to his usually nasty mode in his attacks on fellow GOP members. Just wait until he gets on the notion of punishing Dems. Giuliani may be the scariest one here, as he’s playing the card of being genial while saying some incredibly angry things – mainly about finding a way to charge, indict and arrest the Clintons.
There were articles today on CNN about how these guys really won’t be able to repeal the ACA and how they really won’t be able to indict the Clintons, and I actually burst out laughing at the second article. Because the articles assumed these guys would do what makes sense to a CNN op-ed writer. Which is hysterical on its face. These guys are going for the rich satisfaction of revenge, not anything that would actually help anyone. And unless the Dems show some backbone, the Right will get away with it. Again.
The one silver lining I’m finding here is that I believe we’ll see a series of scandals in this White House that will easily dwarf anything we saw in W’s two terms. And that mess would be enough to potentially bring some of these guys down – it’s just that we’ll have to endure at least 4 years of this craziness before we can do much about it.
Kevin Koster commented on Trumpster Rick Scott Can’t Explain How He’d Replace ObamaCare For The 20 Million Whose Health Insurance He Wants To Destroy
2016-11-12 08:37:03 -0500
· Flag
I guess the thought that stays with me is that these guys have the majority to get their actions through the mill, and this is something they’ve tried to do over 50 times. If they can’t get the repeal through now, it would speak to an incredible incompetence on their part. And if they leave the ACA functioning for two years and cite procedures, it would be a slap in the face that Fox News among others would never let them forget. Just thinking tactically, regardless of my thoughts on their lack of ethics, they’d be crazy not to take advantage of this opportunity. I’m not saying that I want them to do this, just that they’ve repeatedly said that they would and it would be a hallmark of Trump’s first 100 days to sign the bill that killed Obamacare.
On the other matter, I agree with Ellen that it could turn into a PR nightmare to mount a criminal case against the Clintons. And such a case would have no real traction in court. But I’m seeing real anger in these guys now. They wouldn’t be making noises about how foolish it would be for Obama to pardon her (as though she even needed a pardon in the first place) if they didn’t have a reason. I hope I’m wrong about it.
And I hope I’m wrong about what will happen with
the ACA. I just think these people are going to press the advantage they got from gaming the system and do as many of these things as they can while they have the momentum. It is always much easier to tear down than to build up and I can’t imagine them waiting the years they will need to generate their own plan before they tear down Obama’s. That would require compromise and these people are not known for that.
On the other matter, I agree with Ellen that it could turn into a PR nightmare to mount a criminal case against the Clintons. And such a case would have no real traction in court. But I’m seeing real anger in these guys now. They wouldn’t be making noises about how foolish it would be for Obama to pardon her (as though she even needed a pardon in the first place) if they didn’t have a reason. I hope I’m wrong about it.
And I hope I’m wrong about what will happen with
the ACA. I just think these people are going to press the advantage they got from gaming the system and do as many of these things as they can while they have the momentum. It is always much easier to tear down than to build up and I can’t imagine them waiting the years they will need to generate their own plan before they tear down Obama’s. That would require compromise and these people are not known for that.
Kevin Koster commented on Election 2016: Can We Find Hope In A Hopeless World?
2016-11-11 00:31:12 -0500
· Flag
Sean Hannity and Rudy Giuliani confirmed what I’ve been thinking within the first five minutes of Hannity’s show tonight. Giuliani confirmed that Trump will immediately repeal what he estimates is 50 Obama EOs when he takes office. Giuliani confirmed that the Iran deal will be null since Congress refused to approve it.
Giuliani confirmed that the ACA will be repealed, but Hannity included the phrase “and replace”, which makes no sense given that they have no plan for replacement. Meaning that it will be repealed and trashed.
Giuliani also essentially confirmed that there will be an aggressive pursuit by his Justice Dept of indictments against the Clintons, their aides and the Clinton Foundation. Which will be useful as political theater if Trump is having issues with Congress in April or May and they need a distraction. It will also give Hannity tape he can use forever.
And that was after Bill O’Reilly smugly and angrily told non-Trump voters “If you don’t like it, Canada and Mexico can take you, or maybe they won’t.”
Expect further attacks from Fox News over the next two months, and then a triumphant shout on January 20.
Giuliani confirmed that the ACA will be repealed, but Hannity included the phrase “and replace”, which makes no sense given that they have no plan for replacement. Meaning that it will be repealed and trashed.
Giuliani also essentially confirmed that there will be an aggressive pursuit by his Justice Dept of indictments against the Clintons, their aides and the Clinton Foundation. Which will be useful as political theater if Trump is having issues with Congress in April or May and they need a distraction. It will also give Hannity tape he can use forever.
And that was after Bill O’Reilly smugly and angrily told non-Trump voters “If you don’t like it, Canada and Mexico can take you, or maybe they won’t.”
Expect further attacks from Fox News over the next two months, and then a triumphant shout on January 20.
Kevin Koster commented on Election Day 2016: GET OUT AND VOTE! - Open Thread
2016-11-09 06:15:27 -0500
· Flag
This was an extremely sad moment for our country. I am both saddened and physically sickened to see that we as a country have chosen to do something like this. There will be some extremely terrible consequences for this choice, and as a country, we apparently deserve them. I can only hope that what Dems remain in Congress will show some backbone as Trump attempts to enact his various promises.
The saddest part of this for me is to know that the haters won the day. The haters on the right wing who will spend the next four years on Fox News and right wing radio gloating about how they were able to get away with obstructing President Obama and ultimately erasing his presidency. The haters on the left wing who will spend the rest of our lives smugly declaring that they wanted Bernie Sanders or nobody.
I am uncertain how to think about celebrating a Thanksgiving in a country that apparently values hatred, racism and misogyny, and proudly states it. Because there were millions of voters who could have shown up to stop this, and they chose not to do so. So this is who we are as a nation. We will have to live with that. I had believed that as a nation we were smarter than this. I was wrong on that count – we will once again need to learn this bitter lesson.
In terms of Fox News and its message of right wing triumphalism, this election sadly proves that Roger Ailes has once again succeeded. They managed to fool enough people enough of the time to once again put someone into a high office who could do a serious amount of damage. Not because he was working to bring the country together, but because he was using the Fox News message of anger and viciousness toward the rest of the country.
The saddest part of this for me is to know that the haters won the day. The haters on the right wing who will spend the next four years on Fox News and right wing radio gloating about how they were able to get away with obstructing President Obama and ultimately erasing his presidency. The haters on the left wing who will spend the rest of our lives smugly declaring that they wanted Bernie Sanders or nobody.
I am uncertain how to think about celebrating a Thanksgiving in a country that apparently values hatred, racism and misogyny, and proudly states it. Because there were millions of voters who could have shown up to stop this, and they chose not to do so. So this is who we are as a nation. We will have to live with that. I had believed that as a nation we were smarter than this. I was wrong on that count – we will once again need to learn this bitter lesson.
In terms of Fox News and its message of right wing triumphalism, this election sadly proves that Roger Ailes has once again succeeded. They managed to fool enough people enough of the time to once again put someone into a high office who could do a serious amount of damage. Not because he was working to bring the country together, but because he was using the Fox News message of anger and viciousness toward the rest of the country.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O’Reilly: I Never Endorse Candidates (I Just Suggest Hillary Clinton’s An Immoral Baby Killer)
2016-11-08 05:00:19 -0500
· Flag
On Monday night, in a discussion with Charles Krauthammer, O’Reilly was both candid and frightening about his real feelings on this election. He made no bones about his absolute disgust for Hillary Clinton. He condemned her up and down, with his greatest anger apparently coming from her not appearing on his show when he wanted her to do so. (She said she would go on the show earlier this year and then called in – he didn’t want that, but it’s all he got and he resents it.) (And she’s submitted to appearing on his show in the past, but he’s forgetting that now.)
He condemned her as a liar, as a corrupt person, as part of a corrupt team with her husband, as someone who is imperious (that part isn’t completely off), as a baby killer and as someone operating a charity that O’Reilly thinks is corrupt, even though he doesn’t really know anything more about the charity than what far right wingers tell him about it. O’Reilly also condemned her based on right wing smears saying that she hadn’t accomplished anything in office as a Senator and other right wing smears saying that she was a bungler as Secretary of State. Given that hostility, it isn’t hard to understand why she has not been jumping up and down to appear on his show. Why would anyone volunteer to sit for an interview with someone who is bent on attacking you? (This is why Hannity is not believable for his feigned shock at the Obamas’ refusal to talk to him – why would or should they after he’s demonstrated so much visceral hatred for them?)
Contrast this with O’Reilly’s reaction to Donald Trump, as shown in Monday’s discussion. For Trump, he just thinks that some people don’t like some of Trump’s “past behavior” as a billionaire. And he thinks Trump’s okay because nobody has criminally prosecuted Trump over the years. He gives Trump a pass on his business record of repeated failures and bankruptcies, on his repeated nastiness towards women and non-Caucasians. O’Reilly even gives Trump a pass on his temperament problems, possibly because they aren’t far off from O’Reilly’s own temperament problems. Both men have a tendency to bully others, and both men respond to criticism by mounting vicious personal attacks on their critics rather than listening to what the other person is saying.
Given that presentation by O’Reilly, his preference is clear for his viewers. He gives Trump a pass and would like to see the man elected. He resents the Clintons and will be prepared to immediately attack a new President Clinton as early as she is named. For someone who is saying he is “above the fray”, this is a position that sounds a lot like he’s down in the muck of it. I’m honestly not sure which approach is nastier – Hannity’s outright open hatred of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (something borne of Hannity’s attempts to out-nasty Rush Limbaugh) or O’Reilly’s feigned intellectual disapproval of them. For all of O’Reilly’s attempts to present himself as a learned “elder statesman”, his condemnations are built from the same straw house of smears that fire Hannity’s vicious insults.
I suppose O’Reilly sees himself as a kind of Brit Hume, a role I strongly believe he will play up in about a year if he retires as expected from full-time broadcasting at the end of his current contract. It is likely that he will retreat from doing a nightly show to making weekly appearances to opine about politics, again playing the role of the “older scholar with wisdom to share”. For Fox News viewers, this approach may work. For everyone else, it’s a bit harder to stomach.
In reality, O’Reilly has evolved from an open bully and loudmouth (as seen in his earlier incarnations on Inside Edition and other shows) to the angry professor persona he has adopted over the past decade or so. Rather than just shouting people off his show every time, he has fought to be perceived as having some moral high ground – an odd position for someone defending vicious right wing smears and the nastiness of people like Donald Trump. Brit Hume was never that much of the gutter fighter (his infamous 90s smackdown by Bill Clinton notwithstanding) that O’Reilly has relished being. Hume tends to feign moral and intellectual imperiousness, albeit without portfolio. O’Reilly on the other hand is the man you’d see expounding over a few beers at the pub and quickly exploding in anger at anyone who challenged him. One has to wonder what comes next in the Fox News declension of talking heads. First they had the biased pseudo-intellectuals. Then they had the bullies pretending to be pseudo-intellectuals. Is the next step to just have older bullies without the intellectual pretension?
He condemned her as a liar, as a corrupt person, as part of a corrupt team with her husband, as someone who is imperious (that part isn’t completely off), as a baby killer and as someone operating a charity that O’Reilly thinks is corrupt, even though he doesn’t really know anything more about the charity than what far right wingers tell him about it. O’Reilly also condemned her based on right wing smears saying that she hadn’t accomplished anything in office as a Senator and other right wing smears saying that she was a bungler as Secretary of State. Given that hostility, it isn’t hard to understand why she has not been jumping up and down to appear on his show. Why would anyone volunteer to sit for an interview with someone who is bent on attacking you? (This is why Hannity is not believable for his feigned shock at the Obamas’ refusal to talk to him – why would or should they after he’s demonstrated so much visceral hatred for them?)
Contrast this with O’Reilly’s reaction to Donald Trump, as shown in Monday’s discussion. For Trump, he just thinks that some people don’t like some of Trump’s “past behavior” as a billionaire. And he thinks Trump’s okay because nobody has criminally prosecuted Trump over the years. He gives Trump a pass on his business record of repeated failures and bankruptcies, on his repeated nastiness towards women and non-Caucasians. O’Reilly even gives Trump a pass on his temperament problems, possibly because they aren’t far off from O’Reilly’s own temperament problems. Both men have a tendency to bully others, and both men respond to criticism by mounting vicious personal attacks on their critics rather than listening to what the other person is saying.
Given that presentation by O’Reilly, his preference is clear for his viewers. He gives Trump a pass and would like to see the man elected. He resents the Clintons and will be prepared to immediately attack a new President Clinton as early as she is named. For someone who is saying he is “above the fray”, this is a position that sounds a lot like he’s down in the muck of it. I’m honestly not sure which approach is nastier – Hannity’s outright open hatred of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (something borne of Hannity’s attempts to out-nasty Rush Limbaugh) or O’Reilly’s feigned intellectual disapproval of them. For all of O’Reilly’s attempts to present himself as a learned “elder statesman”, his condemnations are built from the same straw house of smears that fire Hannity’s vicious insults.
I suppose O’Reilly sees himself as a kind of Brit Hume, a role I strongly believe he will play up in about a year if he retires as expected from full-time broadcasting at the end of his current contract. It is likely that he will retreat from doing a nightly show to making weekly appearances to opine about politics, again playing the role of the “older scholar with wisdom to share”. For Fox News viewers, this approach may work. For everyone else, it’s a bit harder to stomach.
In reality, O’Reilly has evolved from an open bully and loudmouth (as seen in his earlier incarnations on Inside Edition and other shows) to the angry professor persona he has adopted over the past decade or so. Rather than just shouting people off his show every time, he has fought to be perceived as having some moral high ground – an odd position for someone defending vicious right wing smears and the nastiness of people like Donald Trump. Brit Hume was never that much of the gutter fighter (his infamous 90s smackdown by Bill Clinton notwithstanding) that O’Reilly has relished being. Hume tends to feign moral and intellectual imperiousness, albeit without portfolio. O’Reilly on the other hand is the man you’d see expounding over a few beers at the pub and quickly exploding in anger at anyone who challenged him. One has to wonder what comes next in the Fox News declension of talking heads. First they had the biased pseudo-intellectuals. Then they had the bullies pretending to be pseudo-intellectuals. Is the next step to just have older bullies without the intellectual pretension?
Kevin Koster commented on Fox's Neil Cavuto Slobbers Over Donald Trump’s ‘Lion King’ Moment
2016-11-06 16:22:57 -0500
· Flag
doors, Brenda won’t be convinced of that victory, as she’s not here to praise Clinton but to try to bury her. It’s interesting that she is attempting to repeat every smear of Hillary Clinton she can within a single short paragraph. We could go through each of her smears and show how they’ve been thoroughly debunked already – or we could just ask Brenda to do a little studying and see if she learns anything.
Kevin Koster commented on Is Giuliani’s Nose Growing? He Ridiculously Claims His ‘October Surprise’ Was A Trump Ad
2016-11-06 15:22:54 -0500
· Flag
I really hope that after the election we will see a serious investigation into Giuliani and Kallstrom’s conduct here. Some real ethical lines were breached and potentially some legal ones as well. It’s one thing for Giuliani to hate Hillary Clinton and to say hateful things about her. It’s quite another for him to participate in an attempt to influence an election through the FBI, using smears and half-truths as his ammunition. This would not be the first time a prosecutor found himself on the receiving end of an investigation into corruption.
Kevin Koster commented on On Fox & Friends: Billy Graham's Granddaughter Endorses Trump Cuz Jesus And The Supreme Court
2016-11-05 10:55:58 -0400
· Flag
I wonder how she defends the behavior of the right wingers in the US Senate who have refused to even hold hearings for the current nominee for the Supreme Court. Is she okay with the GOP not even giving a hearing to someone who was nominated to the high court 9 months ago? Is she okay with the notion that the President does not have the ability to name people to the Supreme Court? How does she reconcile this conflict?
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News’ Unclean Hands In The FBI Probe Into Hillary Clinton’s Emails: Megyn Kelly Edition
2016-11-06 15:01:02 -0500
· Flag
Eyes, I think we’re in agreement on what we’ve been seeing. The polls indeed show more GOP voters settling on Trump and not just walking away from the election. (Their hate for Hillary Clinton really is pure, isn’t it?)
I believe Tuesday evening will show Clinton prevailing in Nevada as well as Florida, NC and New Hampshire – almost completely due to the early voting efforts. In that event, the election will be over very quickly and the soul searching can begin.
Nate Silver is continuing to be extremely cautious about what his model indicates. It’s unfortunate to see him erupt like that at the Huffington Post, as he’s normally a lot more reserved than that – but it tells us that emotions are running high even among the statisticians. Silver’s model still has Clinton winning 2:1, and shows that the states we discussed are close enough that early voting could easily tip them one way or the other. Silver’s model also keeps him in a careful position where if the election tipped either way, the model would be correct. No matter what happens on Tuesday, he will still be able to stand up for the reliability of his system. The other poll aggregators are being a lot more aggressive, which probably feels better for them on an emotional level but can be extremely risky if things don’t go the way they are thinking. Just look at the prognosticators Fox News was touting a month or two ago who were confidently predicting a Trump sweep based on various custom systems they’d run over previous election situations. Silver is making sure he is never lumped into that group of “overly exuberant” analysts. It may be frustrating for those of us who would like a more definitive statement – but it’s the safe and cautious approach for which he is known.
I believe Tuesday evening will show Clinton prevailing in Nevada as well as Florida, NC and New Hampshire – almost completely due to the early voting efforts. In that event, the election will be over very quickly and the soul searching can begin.
Nate Silver is continuing to be extremely cautious about what his model indicates. It’s unfortunate to see him erupt like that at the Huffington Post, as he’s normally a lot more reserved than that – but it tells us that emotions are running high even among the statisticians. Silver’s model still has Clinton winning 2:1, and shows that the states we discussed are close enough that early voting could easily tip them one way or the other. Silver’s model also keeps him in a careful position where if the election tipped either way, the model would be correct. No matter what happens on Tuesday, he will still be able to stand up for the reliability of his system. The other poll aggregators are being a lot more aggressive, which probably feels better for them on an emotional level but can be extremely risky if things don’t go the way they are thinking. Just look at the prognosticators Fox News was touting a month or two ago who were confidently predicting a Trump sweep based on various custom systems they’d run over previous election situations. Silver is making sure he is never lumped into that group of “overly exuberant” analysts. It may be frustrating for those of us who would like a more definitive statement – but it’s the safe and cautious approach for which he is known.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox’s Gutfeld: Trump Is A Tornado And Clinton The Trailer Park
2016-11-04 01:18:32 -0400
· Flag
This past week has been a surreal experience of watching Fox News and right wing radio becoming increasingly hysterical. It appears to me that they know the numbers are not likely to work for Trump and they are throwing caution to the wind.
The Guardian article on the FBI is revealing – I agree with Eyes about it. It’s clear that there are some very right wing FBI agents who are attempting to influence the course of this election by feeding smears to friendly outlets like Fox News. The fact that Bret Baier fell for this yesterday is yet another nail in the coffin of even Fox’s supposedly reliable news desk.
This morning, we saw the Fox website go with a headline from the right wing Washington Free Beacon about Iran supposedly being set to attack the USA and Europe. This was followed by right wing FBI “sources” insisting that they were “99 percent certain” that five foreign organizations had hacked into Clinton’s private server. (Meaning that they’d like us to forget that we’ve already learned that there’s NO INDICATION AT ALL that anyone ever hacked that server, while there have actually been hacks into government servers…)
Fox News and the rest of the right wing clearly want to have a continuing series of reports on these smears to fill the weekend news cycle before the election. Sadly for them, this will not be the case. Bill O’Reilly openly campaigned for this tonight with his statement about how he thinks Hillary Clinton has reached a “tipping point” of negative stories. O’Reilly failed to mention that not only is this untrue, but it was always the intention of right wing media to make such a situation happen. And it forgets that Donald Trump’s horrible behavior has created its own “tipping point” for his campaign.
I trust the caution of Nate Silver – he’s a numbers man and his averages have been shown to be correct over time. His predictions at this point are clearly showing Clinton favored to win, but noting that if Trump wins every single battleground state and also moves into states Clinton should be easily holding, he could statistically have a chance to win. But remember – Trump would have to win EVERY swing state and then keep going. Which would indicate a massive landslide for Trump that isn’t going to happen. The more likely result is that Clinton handily defeats him – including in Florida.
I agree with Eyes that it’s been very difficult to listen to the hysteria coming out of Fox News and AM radio this week – I’ve actually stopped listening to a lot of it as it’s really unpleasant. I will be very curious to see how they deal with the events of next Tuesday, and how things are handled next Wednesday.
The Guardian article on the FBI is revealing – I agree with Eyes about it. It’s clear that there are some very right wing FBI agents who are attempting to influence the course of this election by feeding smears to friendly outlets like Fox News. The fact that Bret Baier fell for this yesterday is yet another nail in the coffin of even Fox’s supposedly reliable news desk.
This morning, we saw the Fox website go with a headline from the right wing Washington Free Beacon about Iran supposedly being set to attack the USA and Europe. This was followed by right wing FBI “sources” insisting that they were “99 percent certain” that five foreign organizations had hacked into Clinton’s private server. (Meaning that they’d like us to forget that we’ve already learned that there’s NO INDICATION AT ALL that anyone ever hacked that server, while there have actually been hacks into government servers…)
Fox News and the rest of the right wing clearly want to have a continuing series of reports on these smears to fill the weekend news cycle before the election. Sadly for them, this will not be the case. Bill O’Reilly openly campaigned for this tonight with his statement about how he thinks Hillary Clinton has reached a “tipping point” of negative stories. O’Reilly failed to mention that not only is this untrue, but it was always the intention of right wing media to make such a situation happen. And it forgets that Donald Trump’s horrible behavior has created its own “tipping point” for his campaign.
I trust the caution of Nate Silver – he’s a numbers man and his averages have been shown to be correct over time. His predictions at this point are clearly showing Clinton favored to win, but noting that if Trump wins every single battleground state and also moves into states Clinton should be easily holding, he could statistically have a chance to win. But remember – Trump would have to win EVERY swing state and then keep going. Which would indicate a massive landslide for Trump that isn’t going to happen. The more likely result is that Clinton handily defeats him – including in Florida.
I agree with Eyes that it’s been very difficult to listen to the hysteria coming out of Fox News and AM radio this week – I’ve actually stopped listening to a lot of it as it’s really unpleasant. I will be very curious to see how they deal with the events of next Tuesday, and how things are handled next Wednesday.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Showcases Columnist Who Wants Clinton To Withdraw
2016-11-03 00:48:10 -0400
· Flag
Wimes popped up on Fox tonight in a soundbite either on Bret Baier’s presumably non-pundit news or on Brit Hume’s hour. She was positioned to make it look as though Clinton is not getting the African American vote. No mention that she is actually a Sanders supporter who resents Clinton for getting the nomination.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox’s Ainsley Earhardt Hawks Ways For (Clinton) Voters To Change Their Early Votes
2016-11-01 21:30:50 -0400
· Flag
This is a clear indication of where the Fox News mindset is right now. They know that Clinton is ahead in the early voting, and they are frantic to turn that advantage around. They are also frantic to suppress the non-white vote. When this is all over a week from now, I believe they’ll once again be in the position of trying to figure out how they alienated so many people. Behavior like this would be a good place for them to start their self-analysis.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Contributor Insists Donald Trump Will Be Very Thoughtful And Careful With Nukes
2016-11-01 21:27:01 -0400
· Flag
The headline here shouldn’t be read if you are drinking a glass of water. The guaranteed reaction could cause quite a mess.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Uses Her Kids To Suggest Hillary Clinton Is Going To Jail And Unfit To Be President
2016-11-01 21:41:15 -0400
· Flag
Am I the only person confused by Bill’s comment?
Kevin Koster commented on Watch Michael Moore On The Kelly File
2016-10-29 10:59:55 -0400
· Flag
Megyn Kelly is definitely trying to position herself as the new face of Fox News once Bill O’Reilly retires from the nightly broadcasts, potentially as soon as the end of 2017. (I’m anticipating O’Reilly will become the next Brit Hume – highly paid to offer his “elder statesman” opinions maybe once a week on this or that program, but not required to put together a new show five nights a week.) Given that they’ve lost Greta and Hannity is way too divisive and immature, the only successor option Fox News has is Kelly. She clearly knows it – it’s why she’s really pushing them in her current negotiations.
It’s Kelly’s hope that she will be paid what O’Reilly is paid as the star anchor of the network. I don’t know that Murdoch will give her that – I think he’ll go down the middle on the rate, given that O’Reilly didn’t get that much until he’d already been hosting the show for a certain number of years. I think Kelly will take a compromise deal where she gets regular increases that would take her to parity with O’Reilly in another few years, at which point, he’ll be gone anyway. (And I’m betting he’ll demand a high rate just for his Brit Hume status. One also has to wonder what they had to offer Hume to come back to the nightly grind for 3 ½ months…)
Kelly won’t leave Fox News, as much as she’s trying to make it look like she would. And Murdoch doesn’t want to lose her, as much as his surrogates are trying to play a little hardball about the negotiations. Fox News wants and needs a strong female face, particularly now when they are facing major fallout from the behavior of Roger Ailes. Kelly, for her part, will not be hired as an anchor by another network, simply because she’s spent too much time at Fox News parroting their propaganda lines. If ABC tried to put her on the nightly news, they’d be seen as hiring a right wing-leaning anchor who wouldn’t be able to cover the news in an objective manner. The best Kelly could get from another network would be an opinion slot where she could be a Brit Hume somewhere else (as “the right wing voice”) or perhaps an occasional interview show. Neither of those options would provide Kelly with the celebrity status or salary she clearly wants – so she’ll stay at Fox News where she can have both.
The real question to me is what the rest of Fox News’ primetime lineup will resemble over the next year. Assuming O’Reilly steps down in late 2017, he’ll still hold court along with Kelly. Does Hannity stay through 2017, or does he jump to Trump’s new network to be the main star there? Who do they put in Greta’s former spot once Brit Hume goes back to his usual once-a-week opining? I’m guessing they could plug in Perino and Stirewalt, who are at least a more informed duo, and a more appealing option than many of the other Fox News personalities. It’s obvious that Eric Bolling thinks he’ll be the heir to O’Reilly but I strongly doubt it – he’s way too stiff and his nastiness comes across in a particularly risible manner. O’Reilly has always been able to play off his boorishness as being a loudmouthed bar patron and “just one of the folks” – and for many viewers, this is a familiar sight that they’re comfortable watching on TV. Kind of an Archie Bunker of the right. Bolling doesn’t have any of that “one of the folks” feeling to him – he’s just an angry, condescending right wing voice. He’ll always have a slot with his “Cashin’ In” show and he’ll be part of “The Five”, but I really doubt anyone at Fox News will give him the big spotlight any more than they’ll give it to Juan Williams, who’s really there to be a more liberal foil. My instincts say that when Hannity leaves and O’Reilly retires, we’ll see new faces come in from the world of right wing radio – maybe not as rabid as Hannity or as boorish as O’Reilly, but still reliably conservative.
As for Michael Moore, I’ve had some real issues with him over the past decade. Just too much with the grandstanding and the moralizing and the talking down to everyone. This is the same man who predicted a President Romney and a President Trump, and did so from the point of view of “I know how middle America thinks and you don’t.” I empathize with his thoughts about how many of the middle class in this country have really been screwed over. I think he’s right that many farmers and industrial workers are absolutely infuriated about how they don’t make the money they used to make and how everything is more expensive and there doesn’t seem to be any end in sight. But he’s wrong if he thinks all those people are nasty and hateful too. Michael Moore is an effective gadfly, no doubt about it. He gets people to think, which is a good thing. But he is not a moral authority, and he loses credibility every time he tries to present a legitimate point (such as that people really do need to vote) in terms of an absolute panic.
I would argue that Moore’s appearance on Kelly’s show is mutually beneficial. Moore gets to promote himself and his movie and show he isn’t afraid to go on Fox News. Kelly gets to show that she’s willing to interview a liberal voice and not just cut his mike. Both believe it will help their credibility. I don’t know that it does – to me, it’s simply a promotional plus for them.
It’s Kelly’s hope that she will be paid what O’Reilly is paid as the star anchor of the network. I don’t know that Murdoch will give her that – I think he’ll go down the middle on the rate, given that O’Reilly didn’t get that much until he’d already been hosting the show for a certain number of years. I think Kelly will take a compromise deal where she gets regular increases that would take her to parity with O’Reilly in another few years, at which point, he’ll be gone anyway. (And I’m betting he’ll demand a high rate just for his Brit Hume status. One also has to wonder what they had to offer Hume to come back to the nightly grind for 3 ½ months…)
Kelly won’t leave Fox News, as much as she’s trying to make it look like she would. And Murdoch doesn’t want to lose her, as much as his surrogates are trying to play a little hardball about the negotiations. Fox News wants and needs a strong female face, particularly now when they are facing major fallout from the behavior of Roger Ailes. Kelly, for her part, will not be hired as an anchor by another network, simply because she’s spent too much time at Fox News parroting their propaganda lines. If ABC tried to put her on the nightly news, they’d be seen as hiring a right wing-leaning anchor who wouldn’t be able to cover the news in an objective manner. The best Kelly could get from another network would be an opinion slot where she could be a Brit Hume somewhere else (as “the right wing voice”) or perhaps an occasional interview show. Neither of those options would provide Kelly with the celebrity status or salary she clearly wants – so she’ll stay at Fox News where she can have both.
The real question to me is what the rest of Fox News’ primetime lineup will resemble over the next year. Assuming O’Reilly steps down in late 2017, he’ll still hold court along with Kelly. Does Hannity stay through 2017, or does he jump to Trump’s new network to be the main star there? Who do they put in Greta’s former spot once Brit Hume goes back to his usual once-a-week opining? I’m guessing they could plug in Perino and Stirewalt, who are at least a more informed duo, and a more appealing option than many of the other Fox News personalities. It’s obvious that Eric Bolling thinks he’ll be the heir to O’Reilly but I strongly doubt it – he’s way too stiff and his nastiness comes across in a particularly risible manner. O’Reilly has always been able to play off his boorishness as being a loudmouthed bar patron and “just one of the folks” – and for many viewers, this is a familiar sight that they’re comfortable watching on TV. Kind of an Archie Bunker of the right. Bolling doesn’t have any of that “one of the folks” feeling to him – he’s just an angry, condescending right wing voice. He’ll always have a slot with his “Cashin’ In” show and he’ll be part of “The Five”, but I really doubt anyone at Fox News will give him the big spotlight any more than they’ll give it to Juan Williams, who’s really there to be a more liberal foil. My instincts say that when Hannity leaves and O’Reilly retires, we’ll see new faces come in from the world of right wing radio – maybe not as rabid as Hannity or as boorish as O’Reilly, but still reliably conservative.
As for Michael Moore, I’ve had some real issues with him over the past decade. Just too much with the grandstanding and the moralizing and the talking down to everyone. This is the same man who predicted a President Romney and a President Trump, and did so from the point of view of “I know how middle America thinks and you don’t.” I empathize with his thoughts about how many of the middle class in this country have really been screwed over. I think he’s right that many farmers and industrial workers are absolutely infuriated about how they don’t make the money they used to make and how everything is more expensive and there doesn’t seem to be any end in sight. But he’s wrong if he thinks all those people are nasty and hateful too. Michael Moore is an effective gadfly, no doubt about it. He gets people to think, which is a good thing. But he is not a moral authority, and he loses credibility every time he tries to present a legitimate point (such as that people really do need to vote) in terms of an absolute panic.
I would argue that Moore’s appearance on Kelly’s show is mutually beneficial. Moore gets to promote himself and his movie and show he isn’t afraid to go on Fox News. Kelly gets to show that she’s willing to interview a liberal voice and not just cut his mike. Both believe it will help their credibility. I don’t know that it does – to me, it’s simply a promotional plus for them.
Kevin Koster commented on Giuliani Ghoulishly Cackles Anticipating Jail Time For Hillary Clinton Over Latest Emails
2016-10-29 10:27:10 -0400
· Flag
From what I’m seeing here, the issue is simply about whether Huma Abedin was printing classified emails. That’s all. This is nothing that Hillary Clinton would have specifically known was happening. And from everything the FBI inquiries showed, Abedin wasn’t being sent classified information.
The more general understanding is that Hillary Clinton preferred to read hard copies of emails when she could, and she forwarded many to Abedin to print out for her. Again, there is no indication that any of this was classified material – just procedural everyday material. The only reason this is coming up is because the FBI is appropriately looking into Anthony Weiner’s criminal behavior and found emails on a shared laptop that Abedin used for printing.
It’s pretty much impossible that Clinton would have ever sent anything classified over to Abedin to print out. That stuff would have been kept secure and isolated – Clinton really did take that issue quite seriously. So what the FBI is looking at now is just to confirm that the emails on the printing laptop don’t have anything other than the usual memoranda and procedural updates. (These weren’t emails Clinton was writing herself – they were threads she was being copied on)
The only reason Comey has made Congress aware of it is that he was afraid it would leak, and thus make it look like he was covering something up. The problem is that by taking this action, he has broken other FBI rules and may be in serious trouble himself. There are already people now calling for his resignation.
I think after Monday or Tuesday, this situation will not have nearly the impact the Dems are worried about, or that the right wing is desperately hoping it will have.
From this segment, you can see the panic sweat on both Hannity and Giuliani. They have a losing candidate who has repeatedly insulted large swathes of the American voting public, who has put himself into repeated and increasingly bizarre scandals, who has lost three debates in an embarrassing manner, and who clearly has no idea how he would go about being the executive administrator of this country. So their only hope now is a few procedural memos that Huma Abedin printed out? Seriously? That’s their entire campaign now? No wonder these guys are panicking. (By the way, if you want to see REAL panic, look at Jay Sekulow’s frantic attempt to demand a full-on criminal treatment of Clinton in Hannity’s following segment)
Let’s remember what Hannity and Giuliani (and Bill O’Reilly) desperately want people to forget. James Comey did NOT lay out a case to indict Hillary Clinton in his July announcement, and he did NOT say that Hillary Clinton had committed any criminal acts, even when Trey Gowdy desperately tried to “gotcha” him in a Congressional hearing. What he said was that he thought the email handling was careless but not criminal. He in fact said that there was no prosecutor that would ever consider bringing a criminal charge for this situation – even the whole right wing focus on the “intent doesn’t matter” idea doesn’t hold up. Comey specifically addressed that and pointed out that this would only apply if you could show that there was such obvious and outrageous negligence with classified material that the defendant would either have to have intentionally leaked it (like Petraeus) or simply been hugely and catastrophically incompetent (like Alberto Gonzales). So there isn’t a case for a criminal indictment and there never was.
The right wing would like everyone to believe that Clinton is a criminal or at least someone who “can’t be trusted”. They have spent nearly 25 YEARS spreading this narrative, starting with Rush Limbaugh’s repeated lies, continuing with Matt Drudge’s operation, and then echoed ad nauseam across right wing websites and message boards since the internet went big in the 90s. The right wing is delighted at the current turn of events because there is no specificity to them – they can just keep fanning the flames of “Hey, you don’t know that Hillary isn’t about to be indicted, heh heh heh…” even if they have no substance to discuss. Obviously, the Dems want the FBI to specify what they’re talking about, which would help blow this over in a hurry. (Once everyone hears that it’s Abedin’s printer, this will disappear while everyone fusses over Weiner’s situation) And just as obviously, the right wing wants to keep their insinuations percolating for the next week – in the desperate hope that maybe, just maybe, they can chip away a little more at Clinton’s numbers and flip a couple of swing states. I tend to doubt this strategy will work. I think we’re simply too close to Election Day for this kind of silliness to have that much of an impact, and Trump is too repulsive of a candidate for this to suddenly motivate that many of Clinton’s supporters to not show up.
I’m frankly looking forward to November 9th, when at least we’ll be past the election. Between the unfortunate behavior of some Sanders supporters in the first part of this year and the constant hatred of the right wing throughout the process, this has been a truly unpleasant time.
The more general understanding is that Hillary Clinton preferred to read hard copies of emails when she could, and she forwarded many to Abedin to print out for her. Again, there is no indication that any of this was classified material – just procedural everyday material. The only reason this is coming up is because the FBI is appropriately looking into Anthony Weiner’s criminal behavior and found emails on a shared laptop that Abedin used for printing.
It’s pretty much impossible that Clinton would have ever sent anything classified over to Abedin to print out. That stuff would have been kept secure and isolated – Clinton really did take that issue quite seriously. So what the FBI is looking at now is just to confirm that the emails on the printing laptop don’t have anything other than the usual memoranda and procedural updates. (These weren’t emails Clinton was writing herself – they were threads she was being copied on)
The only reason Comey has made Congress aware of it is that he was afraid it would leak, and thus make it look like he was covering something up. The problem is that by taking this action, he has broken other FBI rules and may be in serious trouble himself. There are already people now calling for his resignation.
I think after Monday or Tuesday, this situation will not have nearly the impact the Dems are worried about, or that the right wing is desperately hoping it will have.
From this segment, you can see the panic sweat on both Hannity and Giuliani. They have a losing candidate who has repeatedly insulted large swathes of the American voting public, who has put himself into repeated and increasingly bizarre scandals, who has lost three debates in an embarrassing manner, and who clearly has no idea how he would go about being the executive administrator of this country. So their only hope now is a few procedural memos that Huma Abedin printed out? Seriously? That’s their entire campaign now? No wonder these guys are panicking. (By the way, if you want to see REAL panic, look at Jay Sekulow’s frantic attempt to demand a full-on criminal treatment of Clinton in Hannity’s following segment)
Let’s remember what Hannity and Giuliani (and Bill O’Reilly) desperately want people to forget. James Comey did NOT lay out a case to indict Hillary Clinton in his July announcement, and he did NOT say that Hillary Clinton had committed any criminal acts, even when Trey Gowdy desperately tried to “gotcha” him in a Congressional hearing. What he said was that he thought the email handling was careless but not criminal. He in fact said that there was no prosecutor that would ever consider bringing a criminal charge for this situation – even the whole right wing focus on the “intent doesn’t matter” idea doesn’t hold up. Comey specifically addressed that and pointed out that this would only apply if you could show that there was such obvious and outrageous negligence with classified material that the defendant would either have to have intentionally leaked it (like Petraeus) or simply been hugely and catastrophically incompetent (like Alberto Gonzales). So there isn’t a case for a criminal indictment and there never was.
The right wing would like everyone to believe that Clinton is a criminal or at least someone who “can’t be trusted”. They have spent nearly 25 YEARS spreading this narrative, starting with Rush Limbaugh’s repeated lies, continuing with Matt Drudge’s operation, and then echoed ad nauseam across right wing websites and message boards since the internet went big in the 90s. The right wing is delighted at the current turn of events because there is no specificity to them – they can just keep fanning the flames of “Hey, you don’t know that Hillary isn’t about to be indicted, heh heh heh…” even if they have no substance to discuss. Obviously, the Dems want the FBI to specify what they’re talking about, which would help blow this over in a hurry. (Once everyone hears that it’s Abedin’s printer, this will disappear while everyone fusses over Weiner’s situation) And just as obviously, the right wing wants to keep their insinuations percolating for the next week – in the desperate hope that maybe, just maybe, they can chip away a little more at Clinton’s numbers and flip a couple of swing states. I tend to doubt this strategy will work. I think we’re simply too close to Election Day for this kind of silliness to have that much of an impact, and Trump is too repulsive of a candidate for this to suddenly motivate that many of Clinton’s supporters to not show up.
I’m frankly looking forward to November 9th, when at least we’ll be past the election. Between the unfortunate behavior of some Sanders supporters in the first part of this year and the constant hatred of the right wing throughout the process, this has been a truly unpleasant time.